https://buy-zithromax.online buy kamagra usa https://antibiotics.top buy stromectol online https://deutschland-doxycycline.com https://ivermectin-apotheke.com kaufen cialis https://2-pharmaceuticals.com buy antibiotics online Online Pharmacy vermectin apotheke buy stromectol europe buy zithromax online https://kaufen-cialis.com levitra usa https://stromectol-apotheke.com buy doxycycline online https://buy-ivermectin.online https://stromectol-europe.com stromectol apotheke https://buyamoxil24x7.online deutschland doxycycline https://buy-stromectol.online https://doxycycline365.online https://levitra-usa.com buy ivermectin online buy amoxil online https://buykamagrausa.net

Category: Marriage Equality

Unblogged Bits for Wednesday, 15 April 2009

Links that caught my eye, but did not warrant full-blown blog entries …

Unblogged Bits for Tuesday, 14 April 2009

Links that caught my eye, but did not warrant full-blown blog entries …

Unblogged Bits for Thursday, 09 April 2009

Links that caught my eye, but did not warrant full-blown blog entries …

Dealing with private beliefs and public services

The Human Rights Campaign addresses a new advert from the National Organization for Marriage in which various very sad people decry the storm that is coming to sweep away their deeply held religious beliefs because of (gasp) GAY MARRIAGE.

 

There’s a storm gathering. The clouds are dark and the winds are strong. And I am afraid. Some who advocate for same-sex marriage have taken the issue far beyond same-sex couples.  They want to bring the issue into my life. My freedom will be taken away.

I’m a California doctor who must choose between my faith and my job.

I’m part of a New Jersey church group punished by the government because we can’t support same-sex marriage.

I am a Massachusetts parent helplessly watching public schools teach my son that gay marriage is okay.

But some who advocate for same-sex marriage have not been content with same-sex couples living as they wish.  Those advocates want to change the way I live.

I will have no choice.

The storm is coming.

But we have hope. A rainbow coalition of people of every creed and color are coming together in love to protect marriage.  Visit NationforMarriage.org. Join Us.

Ah … freedom as a zero-sum game. For you to be free takes away from my freedom, right?

Now, it’s no surprise that the people in the ad are not actually the real people affected by this, but it’s more surprising that, as HRC notes, the complaints are based on real cases:

The examples they cite in the ad are:

(1)  A California doctor who must choose between her faith and her job

(2)  A member of New Jersey church group which is punished by the state because they can’t support same-sex marriage

(3)  A Massachusetts parent who stands by helpless while the state teaches her son that gay marriage is okay

The facts indicate that (1) refers to the Benitez decision in California, determining that a doctor cannot violate California anti-discrimination law by refusing to treat a lesbian based on religious belief, (2) refers to the Ocean Grove, New Jersey Methodist pavilion that was open to the general public for events but refused access for civil union ceremonies (and was fined by the state for doing so) and (3) refers to the Parker decision in Massachusetts, where parents unsuccessfully sought to end public school discussions of family diversity, including of same-sex couples.

HRC note that it’s a clash between privately held beliefs and people offering or dealing with services in the public sphere. None of them really have to do with same-sex marriage per se, just with laws against discrimination against homosexuality. Indeed, the ad doesn’t rather coyly treat same-sex marriage as the least of the ills being described (“But some who advocate for same-sex marriage have not been content with same-sex couples living as they wish.  Those advocates want to change the way I live.”) before circling back around to attack same-sex marriage. This is like saying that “Some people who believe in equal rights for African Americans also mug people. That scares me! So help us defend against equal rights for African Americans.”

Be that as it may, the individual cases don’t actually hold up, aside from fearmongering TEH GAYZ ARE GONNA MAKE ME MISERABLE sort of stuff.

The first case, as HRC describes it:

The California doctor entered a profession that promises to “first, do no harm” and the law requires her to treat a patient in need – gay or straight, Christian or Muslim – regardless of her religious beliefs. The law does not, and cannot, dictate her faith – it can only insist that she follow her oath as a medical professional.

Or, put another way, would HOM say it’s acceptable for a Christian doctor who believes that Jews are Christ-killers to decline to treat one? Would they argue that their faith is being threatened? What about treating a black woman who’s suffering from pregnancy complications and has a white husband, if the doctor believes that God forbids mixing of the races? Nobody would (publicly) question that state and federal anti-discrimination laws based on race and religion should trump such religious beliefs, no matter how heartfelt. 

The case here is the same. The basic principle is that a public profession cannot discriminate based on protected classes. It doesn’t make any difference whether you agree or disagree on whether the class should be protected, or whether your disagreement is based on politics, religion, philosophy, or this morning’s horoscope.

The second case is similar to the first.

The New Jersey church group runs, and profits from, a beachside pavilion that it rents out to the general public for all manner of occasions –concerts, debates and even Civil War reenactments— but balks at permitting couples to hold civil union ceremonies there. The law does not challenge the church organization’s beliefs about homosexuality – it merely requires that a pavilion that had been open to all for years comply with laws protecting everyone from discrimination, including gays and lesbians.

Again, it’s a public service. If the pavilion was run by the Klan, that wouldn’t give them the right to only choose white patrons. Nor because it’s run by a Christian church can they only hire it out to only Christian groups. Discrimination based on race and religion, even if religiously motivated, is not allowed. The same is true when the state includes sexual orientation in their protected classes. 

HRC observes on the third case:

The Massachusetts parent disagrees with an aspect of her son’s public education, a discussion of the many different kinds of families he will likely encounter in life, including gay and lesbian couples. The law does not stop her from disagreeing, from teaching him consistently with her differing beliefs at home, or even educating her child in a setting that is more in line with her faith traditions. But it does not allow any one parent to dictate the curriculum for all students based on her family’s religious traditions. 

That seems very straightforward to me. The educational curriculum is set by the state and the school district.  The parent has any number of options in how to counter it, just as they do with the teaching of evil-ution and anything else they object to.  But declaring that the classroom can’t teach anything in the curriculum that disagrees with a parent’s beliefs holds no more water than claiming that the local TV station can’t show anything on TV that disagrees with a parent’s beliefs, either. 

And, again, none of this has to do with gay marriage, just with general WE WANT TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST TEH GAYZ BECAUSE OUR RELIGION SAYS IT’S NAUGHTY.

“A storm is coming” is just how folks who didn’t agree with civil rights for minority racial and ethnic groups in the 50s and 60s reacted to changing laws. Some of those folks claimed deep-seated religious basis for their biases, too. But having a religious belief doesn’t provide license as to how we interact with the law or the public, or at least it shouldn’t. A religious belief against war doesn’t let you skip out on paying taxes. A religious belief in beating your kids doesn’t ward off Child Protective Services. 

People who believe that homosexuality a moral wrong have a lot of ways — protected ways — they can express that in their words and lives. Asking for a pass against discrimination laws just because their religion thinks they should discriminate isn’t one of them.

And it still doesn’t have anything to do with gay marriage.

Tweets on 2009-04-07

  • Could have been worse. Could have actually -taken- my shower before realizing I got up an hour too early. #
  • I don’t understand how people apparently sleep on the light rail and don’t miss their stop. I have problems -reading- too deeply. #
  • Message to all our hard-working Denver light rail train drivers: SWALLOW THE DAMNED MIC! Please. #
  • RT @peoplefor BREAKING! Vermont House overrides Gov. Douglas’s veto of same-sex marriage bill, 100-49! #
  • Sorry I wore a jacket this morning, because it was a gloriously clement, shirt-sleeve-weather day. #
  • RT @peoplefor: BREAKING! D.C. City Council Votes to Recognize Other States’ Gay Marriages http://bit.ly/yE22 #

Powered by Twitter Tools.

This about says it all about the Iowa decision

Iowa Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal (D) was approached by Senate Minority Leader Paul McKinley (R) about sponsoring a bill to kick off the process to amend the Iowa state constitution to overturn that nasssssty state supreme court decision (which found that banning gay marriage violated, duh, the state’s equal protection under the law clause).  

Gronstal’s response: 

One of my daughters was in the workplace one day, and her particular workplace at that moment in time, there were a whole bunch of conservative, older men. And those guys were talking about gay marriage. They were talking about discussions going on across the country.

And my daughter Kate, after listening for about 20 minutes, said to them: “You guys don’t understand. You’ve already lost. My generation doesn’t care.”

I think I learned something from my daughter that day, when she said that. And I’ve talked with other people about it and that’s what I see, Senator McKinley. I see a bunch of people that merely want to profess their love for each other, and want state law to recognize that.

Is that so wrong? I dont think that’s so wrong. As a matter of fact, last Friday night, I hugged my wife. You know I’ve been married for 37 years. I hugged my wife. I felt like our love was just a little more meaningful last Friday night because thousands of other Iowa citizens could hug each other and have the state recognize their love for each other.

No, Senator McKinley, I will not co-sponsor a leadership bill with you.  

Amen, Sen. Gronstal. And thank you. 

(via Pam) 

Unblogged Bits for Sunday, 05 April 2009

Links that caught my eye, but did not warrant full-blown blog entries …

Go, Iowa, go!

Whodathunk a solidly Midwestern state would be the next one whose High Court would rule banning gay marriage is unconstitutional? But Iowa’s done it.

The Iowa Supreme Court says the state’s same-sex marriage ban violates the constitutional rights of gay and lesbian couples, making it the third state where gay marriage is legal.

In a unanimous ruling issued Friday, the court upheld a 2007 Polk County District Court judge’s ruling that the law violated the state constitution.

That was a unanimous ruling, folks.

I haven’t found a breakdown of the makeup of the Supreme Court of Iowa, but I can’t imagine it’s a hotbed of liberality and libertinism. And they basically saw the matter as a straightforward violation of the state’s “equal protection under the law” constitutional provision: 

[C]ivil marriage must be judged under our constitutional standards of equal protection and not under religious doctrines or the religious views of individuals. This approach does not disrespect or denigrate the religious views of many Iowans who may strongly believe in marriage as a dual-gender union, but considers, as we must, only the constitutional rights of all people, as expressed by the promise of equal protection for all. We are not permitted to do less and would damage our constitution immeasurably by trying to do more.

I find it interesting, as well, that the key argument before them was that the lower court judge’s ruling was incorrect, but that it for the legislature to make such a decision, not a judge. The Supremes noted that it was, in fact, their job to determine whether

… a law enacted by the legislative branch and enforced by the executive branch violates the Iowa Constitution. The court reaffirmed that a statute inconsistent with the Iowa Constitution must be declared void, even though it may be supported by strong and deep-seated traditional beliefs and popular opinion.

Yup.

The opinion is actually a very good summary of the arguments against gay marriage, and their polite but clear demolition by the court. It’s worth reading.

Of course, that doesn’t mean the Iowa legislature (which in 1998 passed the law explicitly defining marriage as one-man-one-woman) will let the ruling stand. Though it seems unlikely they’re going to get a new constitutional amendment passed any time soon.

The timing of the decision could be awkward for state lawmakers who are on track to end the legislative session in coming weeks.

Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal (D-Council Bluffs), told reporters that it’s “exceedingly unlikely” the Legislature would deal with the gay marriage issue this year, regardless of the court’s ruling. “This is the final step in a lengthy legal proceedings,” said Gronstal. “We’re going to wait and see that decision and review it before we take any action.”

Which could set up a California-like situation, where gay couples wed before the legislature (or popular initiative) can act to stop them.

Stay tuned.

(via Doyce and Ginny)

Marriage Equality in Sweden — neither fire nor brimstone sighted

Nor earthquakes, pillars of fire, hails of frogs, nor any of the other dire warnings of what happens when God’s Will is Thwarted.

The change in the law, which currently allows gay couples to register unions but not formal marriage, comes into force on May 1 this year under the timetable set out in the bill. […] Sweden gave same-sex couples the right to form a union via registered partnerships in the mid-nineties and made it legal for them to adopt in 2002.

The passage of the bill was widely expected and the final tally was 261 votes in favor of the bill and 22 opposed.

“The decision means that gender no longer has an impact on the ability to marry and that the law on registered partnership is repealed,” the government said on its website.

Wow. Civil unions until the 90s, and gay adoption since 2002 — and no plagues of locusts (nor plagues of polar bears, perhaps more appropriately). What is God waiting for?

Could it be that God isn’t automatically smiting down those who’d dare let such a thing happen? I’m sure the Religious Right must be aghast.

The new legislation eliminates legal distinctions between heterosexual and homosexual spouses, but does not force dissenting clergy to wed gay couples.

Which is fine. It’s setting civil rights, not religious rights. That’s up to each denomination and cleric within same.

The Swedish Lutheran church, which split from the state in 2000, has said it was open to celebrating and registering same-sex unions, although it wanted to reserve the term matrimony for heterosexual marriages.

Again, fine. That’s their prerogative.

Why is it the Swedes seem so relatively calm and rational and happy about this sort of thing, while it ties our society, churches, and politicians into laughable knots?

(via Les)

Breaking fellowship with the Church of Nigeria

One of the aspects of the Anglican Communion that is potentially so uplifting and powerful is the opportunity it provides for folks, bound together by a common tradition, even if separated by particular beliefs, to come together to the table to worship together. One of the more annoying acts by the hard conservatives in the Communion has been their pointed refusal in the past few years to do this with the Godless Heathen American Episcopalian (et al.) crowd — declining to take communion with Bp Katharine Jefferts Schori (presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church), as well in some cases with others who voted to accept the election of Bp Gene Robinson (let alone, of course, letting Bp Robinson get anywhere near them, no doubt in fear of getting gay cooties).

So I take fellowship very seriously. I hold to the example set by Jesus, who didn’t hang out with just people who agreed with him, or who were “orthodox.” He didn’t just break bread with the accepted crowd, even at (especially at) the Last Supper. If he could reach out and engage and simply be with those who were sinners, those who would betray him, etc., how can someone who claims to follow him do any less?

But it’s hard, very hard, to consider myself in fellowship with Abp Peter Akinola, head of the (Anglican) Church of Nigeria. Last year, the Nigerian legislature was considering a bill that would imprison Nigerian gays, and even imprison those who support gay rights. Word on the street was that Abp Akinola was strongly in favor of, and actively supporting the bill, but all sorts of feeble denials were issued that, no, that simply wasn’t true.

But it’s another year, and another bill, and evidently now Abp Akinola, speaking for the Church of Nigeria, actively supports proposed legislation to criminalizes gay marriage (which is already not legal in Nigeria), as witnessed in this position paper put forward in public hearings on the bill (to which hearings the Church actually bussed supporters).

Among other things, Akinola calls for those engaging in same-sex marriage (again, already illegal in Nigeria) to be thrown in prison for five years (higher than the bill currently calls for); those who witness such a marriage (or “aid and abet” it) should be imprisoned for three years; organizations involved should not be simply fined, but members thrown in jail for a year.

(Note that the “aid and abet” language doesn’t just mean renting out a hall for the reception; arguably, it’s a back door hunting license for action against anyone in the country who speaks out in favor of gay marriage.)

Akinola’s letter concludes:

Same sex marriage apart from being ungodly is also unscriptural, unnatural, unprofitable, unhealthy, uncultural, un-African and un-Nigerian. It is a perversion, a deviation and an aberration that is capable of engendering moral and social holocaust in this country. It is also capable of existincting [sic] mankind and as such should never be allowed to take root in Nigeria. Outlawing it is to ensure the continued existence of this nation. The need for doing this is urgent, compelling and imperative. The time is now.

For all of Abp Akinola’s fulminations about how the Episcopal Church is betraying Christianity, it strikes me that the malice, politicking, condemnation and prejudice that he displays is far less Christ-like than any questions the Episcopal Church is raising re orthodox teaching on homosexuality. 

It’s difficult for me to consider myself out of fellowship with a fellow Anglican, given all my posturing at the top of this post. But maybe I finally understand the conservatives’ stand, if not agreeing with what’s brought them to it: it’s difficult to maintain a dialog, or come to table, with someone whose views and actions are so abhorrent to you, and who shows no sign of even wanting to discuss it.

The Nigerian legislation is horrible. Akinola’s hitching of the Church of Nigeria to the cause is even worse.

More info:

Thinking Anglicans: Church of Nigeria statement on legislation
The Lead – A dumb, depressing document from Peter Akinola and his Church
Anglican leader calls gay marriage “a holocaust,” says the “crime” should be punishable by five years in prison
Akinola: Anglican Fundamentalist, Fascist, and Theocrat – Lionel Deimel’s Web Log
PRELUDIUM: Who agrees with Akinola and the Church of Nigeria? 

Today’s lesson on the meaning of the word “dictionary”

A proper dictionary is descriptive, not prescriptive. In other words, it reflects usage, not some editor’s idea of what is right, proper, virtuous, or politically correct. If people start using “less” when they should be using “fewer,” for example, then over time that meaning of “less” will start showing up labeled as slang or improper usage, but will eventually simply show up as an alternate definition. It’s not a moral or aesthetic judgment — it’s just what is.

Which is why the huge kerfuffle over uncovering of this entry in the Merriam-Webster dictionary is so annoyingly / entertainingly off-target:

Main Entry:
mar·riage
Pronunciation:
\‘mer-ij, ‘ma-rij\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
Date:
14th century
1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b: the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected ; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3: an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>

Oh my God! Kenny! You just redefined marriage! You —

“I was shocked to see that Merriam-Webster changed their definition of the word ‘marriage,’ a word which has referred exclusively to a contract between a man and a woman for centuries. It has now added same sex,” YouTube user Eric B. noted to WND.

“The 1992 Webster’s Dictionary does not mention same sex at all,” he wrote.

Well, yes, and there’s a reason for that. Well, two reasons, probably, but the first is that the first country in the world to legalize same-sex marriage was the Netherlands in 2001. As a formally recognized modern institution, it was arguably not around (de jure) in 1992 and certainly not in common linguistic usage.

Today, it is, despite the frequent use of “scare quotes” around “gay” “marriage” in the conservative press.

Which is basically the argument that Webster associate editor Kory Stamper uses.

“We often hear from people who believe that we are promoting – or perhaps failing to promote – a particular social or political agenda when we make choices about what words to include in the dictionary and how those words should be defined,” associate editor Kory Stamper wrote in response.

“We hear such criticism from all parts of the political spectrum. We’re genuinely sorry when an entry in – or an omission from – one of our dictionaries is found to be offensive or upsetting, but we can’t allow such considerations to deflect us from our primary job as lexicographers.”

Stamper justified the redefinition, too. “In recent years, this new sense of ‘marriage’ has appeared frequently and consistently throughout a broad spectrum of carefully edited publications, and is often used in phrases such as ‘same-sex marriage’ and ‘gay marriage’ by proponents and opponents alike. Its inclusion was a simple matter of providing our readers with accurate information about all of the word’s current uses,” Stamper wrote.

Now, what this means is — it means nothing. A dictionary is a mirror. It is no more an argument for same-sex marriage than it is an argument against, save that it reflects how the term is commonly being used. Efforts to quash Webster from reflecting this would be, in fact, a politically motivated redefinition of the language for a particular partisan goal.

Should I note that the definition also allows for polygamy? No, better not …

The fundies can sleep well, knowing that, should the concept of gay marriage be defeated in society such that the term is never heard any more, Webster will eventually drop the definition into the “obsolete” label.

Amusingly enough, the definition was changed back in 2003. It just took some people that long to read up to the “M”s. And, at that, Webster’s isn’t breaking new ground here.

Merriam-Webster spokesman Arthur Bicknell added that the company was surprised the revision was creating a stir only now. “What we are finding odd is that this is neither news nor unusual,” Bicknell said. “In fact, we were kind of late to the party. We were one of the last ones among the major dictionary publishers to do this.”

Boston-based Houghton-Mifflin, publisher of the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, last modified its definition of marriage in 2000. The fourth example it gives, after “1a. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife. b. The state of being married; wedlock. and c. A common-law marriage,” is “A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.”

Just this month, an even more inclusive definition of marriage was added in draft form to the voluminous Oxford English Dictionary, which publisher Oxford University Press describes as “the definitive record of the English language.”

Recognizing that “the term is now sometimes used with reference to long-term relationships between partners of the same sex,” the dictionary’s editors have proposed updating the primary sense of the word to mean “the condition of being a husband or wife; the relation between persons married to each other; matrimony.”

Despite this, at least one commenter at the above-cited story (who clearly didn’t read past the headline) blames the whole thing on Obama. Yeesh.

(via Pam)

Potpourri for $25, Alex

Sundry articles of diverse origin which I’ve insufficient time to chat about individually.

SERIOUS STUFF

  1. The Velvet Reformation – The Atlantic (March 2009) – The Archbishop of Canterbury, the gay rights debate, and the future of the Anglican Church. A fascinating read.
  2. Pam’s House Blend:: Hawaii Civil Unions Bill Senate JGO Hearing – my personal aftermath – A disgusting example of how far some ostensible followers of Jesus are from “And they will know we are Christians by our love.” Hideous.
  3. Heath Ledger Fans Call for Joker’s Retirement From Film | The Underwire from Wired.com – I don’t care how fine a job Heather Ledger did — this is just silly, but in a very sad way.
  4. Personal Health – Babies Know – A Little Dirt Is Good for You – NYTimes.com – From bumping up the immune system to getting worms, a bit of non-sterility is good for a body.
  5. Think Progress » Bailed-out bank eliminated 450 jobs and then spent millions on lavish parties in LA. – These guys really, really, really don’t realize how close-by the angry mobs with torches and pitchforks are lurking. They seem obliviously tied to an internal culture of entitlement.
  6. Family planning stops more than 800,000 abortions :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: Nation – But, of course, it’s evil because it encourages promiscuity. Or some lame argument like that.
  7. Evolution of Security: 3 oz or 3.4 oz? What gives??? – It’s all those crazy “metric-mania” Europeans who have weakened our country by a precious 0.4 oz./bottle! Evil! Eeeeevil!

FUN STUFF

  1. 140 Characters » How Twitter Was Born – Far less intentional, far more interesting than you’d think.
  2. Petzal: The Rules of Gunfighting | Field & Stream – Words to, um, live by.
  3. Joss Whedon’s Theory On Why DC Comic Book Movies Usually Suck | /Film – Maybe so … but DCU cartoons kick Marvel cartoons’ butts all around the playground.
  4. Don’t Fear Atheists; We’re the New Lutherans | Friendly Atheist by Hemant Mehta – In many ways, that’s true, in terms of provoking Christians/theists into examining and revitalizing their own belief systems. Though I’m hoping they’ll be more like the Lake Wobegone Lutherans, and less like the anti-semitic Martin Luther kind of Lutherans.
  5. Rands In Repose: A Disclosure – A great introduction to changing from being a worker to a manager. I remember going thorough a lot of these stages, though my management promotion changed the IT area I was working in.
  6. Blambot Comic Fonts and Lettering – How comic book word balloons work. Spiffy!
  7. IESB.net – Sam Jackson Will Be Nick Fury…Nine Times! – Woot!

And, via Kate, the excellent How to Get Boys to Like You: 

 

Why gays need marriage — to protect them from bigots like this

Opponents of gay marriage — and even gay “civil union” — argue that it’s all unnecessary because, well, if they really want to have all those protections and rights that straight married couples get automatically and by force of law, then they can go to a lawyer and get nearly everything all handled that way. Never mind that such documentation can cost thousands of dollars, that’s just a “minor inconvenience” vs. the Inutterable Horror that Would Be Unleashed upon Society if Gays Got to Be Married.

Except all that paperwork? Well, it doesn’t appear to actually mean anything to some folks.

As her partner of 17 years slipped into a coma, Janice Langbehn pleaded with doctors and anyone who would listen to let her into the woman’s hospital room.

Eight anguishing hours passed before Langbehn would be allowed into Jackson Memorial Hospital’s Ryder Trauma Center. By then, she could only say her final farewell as a priest performed the last rites on 39-year-old Lisa Marie Pond.

Jackson staffers advised Langbehn that she could not see Pond earlier because the hospital’s visitation policy in cases of emergency was limited to immediate family and spouses — not partners. In Florida, same-sex marriages or partnerships are not recognized.

[…] At Friday’s hearing, Langbehn’s lawyers argued the case should be tried because Langbehn had the proper documentation to make medical decisions on behalf of her partner, and was not consulted about Pond’s condition for hours despite seeking answers every 20 minutes.

[…] Though Langbehn had documents declaring her Pond’s legal guardian and giving her the medical ”power of attorney,” Jackson officials refused to recognize her or the kids as family.

She had the paper work. She had all the docs she was “supposed” to have to allow this. But the hospital decided to ignore it.

Jackson attorneys filed a motion to dismiss the case on grounds that the hospital has no obligation to allow patients’ visitors.

Right. Never mind that straight couple are given such access, and consulted in such decisions all the time. Mere coincidence.

I hope suit she’s filed goes forward, and she gets a million zillion dollars from it. And I hope every yahoo out there who pretends that all that (expensive) legal paperwork has the same legal force as two teenagers filling out a form in front of a justice of the peace will remember the case of Janice Langbehn and Lisa Marie Pond.

(via Les and Ed Brayton)

Send in the Lions!

Christians are indeed persecuted — in a lot of countries that aren’t the US. China, for example. And pretty much any Islamic country in the Middle East. I mean, we’re…

Christians are indeed persecuted — in a lot of countries that aren’t the US. China, for example. And pretty much any Islamic country in the Middle East. I mean, we’re talking here about real jail-time-and-stoning sorts of persecution, compared to which the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission’s list of “Top Ten Instances of Christian Bashing in America, 2008” is like a four-year-old’s tantrum about not getting all the candy in the bowl.

The Christian Anti-Defamation Commission (CADC) has prepared a Top Ten list of the most egregious acts of Christian Bashing in American in 2008. Every day in America serious Christians face increasing hostility at work, school, and in the culture because they stand for their faith and values.

No, they are facing increasing (but still minimal, in a country that is still vastly majority Christian) hostility, not because they “stand for their faith and values” but because they insist on imposing that faith and values on others — and, in fact, being hostile toward non-Christians, ridiculing and/or demonizing their beliefs, and questioning whether they can be decent Americans.

As card-carrying Christian (though see below), I do encounter some folks who are rude to faith — but that’s largely because they lump me in with the sort of “serious” Christians who would be just as happy seeing them in the auto-de-fe as tolerating them in a pluralistic society. When Dobson or Robertson or Hagee or their ilk speak as Christians, it’s not just non-Christians who are hurt and oppressed, but Christians who think Dobson and Robertson and Hagree are idjits but who get tarred with the same brush as them. I am “bashed” far more by these Christianists than by the majority of non-Christians I encounter.

“It is time for the Christian bashing to stop and for Christians to no longer be treated like second-class citizens,” said Dr. Gary Cass, Chairman and CEO of CADC.

How many non-Christians are there in Congress? A few Jews, maybe a few Buddhists, one Muslim (who can tell you something about treated as a second-class citizen when all those “serious” Christians had a cow over his taking the oath of office on the Koran), one Atheist I believe. The rest are, I believe, avowed Christians. 

How many non-Christian presidents have there been? Right, none. (Though, see below.)

Hardly “second-class citizenship.”

“Anti-Christian bigotry is real and growing. Those who engage in it should be exposed and called to account.”

 

I think bigotry of all sorts — including that by Christians — should be exposed and called to account.

The article’s Top Ten is really pretty lame. Satire by Jack Black. An insult toward the Pope by Bill Maher. A sportscaster taking the Lord’s name in vain (for which he was suspended, I note). PZ Meyers’ tasteless desecration of the Host. Bill Maher (again) and his movie Religulous. The Virginia police chaplains who were fired because they insisted on praying “in Jesus name” in their official capacity at public gatherings. The goofy “Colorado SB200 Criminalizes the Bible” meme (funny, nobody’s swung by my house to gather up my Bibles). Attacks on Sarah Palin as a Christian. 

So for the most part what we have is folks making fun of “serious” Christians (who are far too Holy to be Mocked), some continuing debates over the separation of Church and State, and some folks being rude. Wow. Hold me, Mommy! I mean, this is all pretty weak beer compared to your classic Christian Martyrdom — being broken on the wheel, being thrown to the lions, being crucified upside down. Of course, once in power, Christians felt free to do the same to their opponents (internal and external) — but maybe that’s “bashing” to mention it. Similarly, it’s trivial compared to societies where Christians are actually persecuted, thrown in jail for expressing their faith aloud or trying to share it with others (or converting to the Christian faith from a different one). 

The two most amusing (or maddening, if you can’t bring yourself to laugh) “bashings” of 2008 are:

INSTANCE #3: Barack Obama Defames Christianity  

According to research into President Elect Obama’s own statements about faith, and an examination of Obama’s position on moral issues, CADC has determined that by any biblical and historic Christian standard, Barack Obama is not a Christian, although he claims he is a “devout Christian.”

 

Yes, that’s right — Barack Obama is “bashing” Christianity, “defaming” it … by claiming to be a Christian! Diabolical! He’s clearly seeking second-class status for himself (as President!) so as to impose second-class status on all Christians, right? It all makes perfect, evil, twisted sense!

By the way, this resolves the question as to why, as a Christian, I don’t feel like I’m being bashed. The CADC wouldn’t consider me a Christian, either (for most of the reasons it rejects Obama). 

But, really, what a deal! Isn’t it great when you get to publicly declare who’s a Real True Follower of Christ and who isn’t? I mean, what a rush! Do they have a special Jesus-meter that they use for that?  Or is there some magical mark that is only visible to True Christians(TM) that designates the sheep from the goats?

And …

INSTANCE #1: Radical Homosexuals Assault Prop 8 Marriage Supporters in California  

During and after the November campaign stories flooded in of pro-Prop 8 signs being taken, people verbally and physically assaulted, church property and private automobiles vandalized, and person’s jobs and pastor’s lives threatened simply for exercising their right to campaign and vote in support of traditional marriage.

 

Yes! How dare all those gays whose marriages and lives were “bashed” by Prop 8 in turn “bash” good, honest, gay-bashing Christians? How dare those people who the True Christians(TM) have declared to be second-class citizens treat the True Christians(TM) as second-class citizens, too! The nerve!

Of course, True Christians(TM) ought to be actually welcoming persecution, rather than petulantly bitching about it.

11 Blessed are ye when they shall revile you, and persecute you, and speak all that is evil against you, untruly, for my sake: 12 Be glad and rejoice for your reward is very great in heaven. For so they persecuted the prophets that were before you.
— Matthew 5:11-12 

See? Bill Maher is actually doing you a favor. Rather than calling for a stop to “hostility,” these True Christians(TM) ought to be trying to increase it, by doing everything they can to be obnoxiously righteous and dismissive of the morality and humanity of those they don’t count among their number.

Oh, wait. They already are.

(via Pharyngula)

Modern Donatism

Not many people know these days about the Donatist Heresy, but the battle over it (i.e., what got it eventually officially labeled a “heresy”) was a key development in Christianity….

Not many people know these days about the Donatist Heresy, but the battle over it (i.e., what got it eventually officially labeled a “heresy”) was a key development in Christianity.

Long story short, the Donatists argued that the sacraments were only valid if administered by an orthodox, theologically pure and right-thinking officiant (more specifically, by someone who had not renounced their faith during the persecutions of the Emperor Diocletian). If it turned out that Father Fred was not a right-thinking priest, then all those marriages and baptisms and confessions and so forth that Father Fred performed were invalid.

The anti-Donatists argued that the sacraments were a gift from God, and were not invalidated by a less-than-saintly cleric administering them. God’s the one doing the forgiving, the baptizing, the witnessing of the marriage, and the priest, worthy or un-, is simply a mortal instrumentality, the sacrament not at all invalidated by whether the person was worth to be a priest. The messenger is not the message, and the words spoken need to be considered apart from the speaker.

The anti-Donatist group eventually won (St Augustine was big in that effort), which is why Donatism is considered a “heresy.” The issue continues to crop up now and again, though. In the ongoing kerfuffles within the Episcopal Church, the unwillingness of some conservative / orthodox Anglicans to accept communion from some of those wicked, evil, apostate Episcopal bishops has been seen as an example of latter-day Donatism.

Which brings me to Rev. Rick Warren, a rather affable gent whose Hawaiian shirts and winsome smiles belie his conservative evangelical stance on numerous social issues, including strong opposition to gay marriage and abortion. Warren, by being less overtly strident and insulting than his ideological brethren (Dobson, Falwell, Robertson, etc.) has taken on a role as a Christian “moderate” — though the moderation is mostly in how he expresses himself, not in his theology.

So there’s a huge brouhaha over Obama choosing (in conjunction with the committee handling the particulars) Warren to do the invocation at Obama’s inauguration. While some folks see this as a clever (or honestly engaging) reach across the theological aisle to the conservative Christian Right (Obama’s disagreement with Warren, et al., has been made multiple times, and was clear during the Saddleback “debate” that Warren held with Obama and McCain), others see it as a huge betrayal, a welcoming to the table of someone who holds obnoxiously intolerant beliefs, and who acts on same (in an affable, Hawaiian-shirted fashion).

To me, though, the question is more what Warren has to say at the invocation, less than who he is or represents. Sure, he represents a religious strain that I don’t particularly care for (we did the 40 Days of Purpose program at our church, and Warren’s theology more than occasionally rankled me and many the Episcopalians in the program), but he also represents (whether he gets to speak at the event or not) a lot of people in this country, which makes it a politically savvy move on Obama’s part (what, you expected him to invite Bp. Spong?).

But, more important, the question is what Warren will actually say at the invocation. If he turns it into a forum for anti-abortion, anti-gay sentiment, then he deserves to be booed off the stage. But I don’t see Obama as giving him that sort of latitude (nor do I think Warren tone-deaf enough to do so, either). Instead, I think the message / prayer / invocation that Warren will give will both support Obama (all good there) and point out or focus on some of the common ground that folks on the religious (or irreligious) Left and Right can agree upon.

Which, if that’s what happens, is probably just the tone that Obama wants to set. And I’m okay with that. Considering what Warren has to say as intrinsically evil just because of his (to me, regressive and ultra-conservative and negative) beliefs is to confuse the messenger with the message. It’s the Donatist Heresy all over again, saying that in invocation can only be “valid” if the person doing it is ideologically pure and correct, and that only the “proper” folks can be considered for involvement in the inauguration (we’ll leave aside the substantial number of people who consider a prayerful invocation to be improper or goofy in the first place).

To be sure, I’m not particularly thrilled about Rick Warren having the role he’s been given — but I don’t consider it to be the Ultimate Betraying Evil that some folks seem to be taking it as.  I’m more interested in what Warren actually ends up saying — and in what the Obama Administration ends up doing — than in criticizing Obama for including Warren as part of the whole inaugural process.   

“Save My Marriage from Irrelevance”

I’ve long argued that recognizing that gays have the right to marry does nothing to harm my own marriage, or why I feel my own marriage is special, or blessed,…

I’ve long argued that recognizing that gays have the right to marry does nothing to harm my own marriage, or why I feel my own marriage is special, or blessed, or witnessed before God — any more than the state recognizing a marriage that I am sure will be a horrible mistake, or one celebrated in a faith I do not share (or no faith at all). Gay marriage doesn’t destroy marriage, it enhances it, spreads it outward, shares the wealth — and so, like sharing anything good, increases it accordingly.

Conversely, according to this article by David Quigg, restricting marriage may be counter-productive, may make marriage more of a “niche” phenomenon than it already is. 

Face it:  marriage, as an institution, is in some trouble. Not only is divorce rampant, but more people are choosing to marry much later, or even never marry at all — or marry not because it changes how they feel about each other (as if marriage for “love” were a Biblical tradition) but because it guarantees certain legal rights. Restricting a group that wants to (and, by rights, ought to be able to) marry from doing so doesn’t make marriage any more viable of an institution in that sort of environment. It makes it even less relevant.

Denied the right to marry, our friends nonetheless give each other all the care, love, honesty, loyalty, support, shelter, and shared laughter that marriage is all about for me. You can’t spend much time around couples who accomplish all that in their daily unmarried lives without realizing that you don’t need a marriage to love each other well. My marriage begins to seem about as essential as my appendix. Vestigial.

[…] If the word “marriage” is so fragile that it needs to be protected from the loving couples I’m privileged to call my friends, go lock the word up in a pretty box. Keep the locked box in your church. Share the blessing inside the box only with those you deem worthy. Let only those worthy ones be called “married.” Refuse to recognize the legitimacy of gay weddings or secular straight weddings or devout straight weddings held within the walls of churches that interpret God’s words differently than you do. Expect those churches to look with the same disdain on the so-called “marriages” of your faithful.

Pick a new name for the civil contract I have with my wife. Give it a clunky name if that will help you stomach laws that grant gay civil unions and straight civil unions the same set of rights now enjoyed only by married heterosexuals. Give it a name like an IRS form. I simply don’t care. No name can change what my wife and I have with each other.

We don’t need your blessing.

Stay out of our lives.

The Religious Right has harmed Christianity, as a whole, by making it seem judgmental, theocratic, intolerant, and obnoxious — “Your choices are to either believe as we do and vote as we do and live as we do say you should — or keep your mouths shut and ‘think of England.'” The result has been a discouragement of those who feel their Christianity has been hi-jacked by bullies, and an active resentment and anger from those who aren’t Christian.

Ironically, they run the risk of making “Holy Matrimony” much the same, by trying to keep it pure, unsullied, unchanging, restricted only to the Right Kind of People, i.e., Our Kind of People. It’s like the French Academy, striving to keep the language pure, to kick out or ban any “riff-raff” language borrowings from other lifestyles languages that would pollute the pure precious bodily fluids language that is Francaise. We laugh at the French, even while the Religious Right tries to do the same through their “ownership” of “marriage.”

The inevitable result, in this era of ever-diminishing church-going and denominational membership, will be more people saying, “Hell, we don’t need to kow-tow to some Christianist ceremony to bind our lives together in love. We’ll buy some rings, throw a party with friends, and call it done.” And, eventually, the law will accommodate that, through common law or civil marriage, or even civil unions fleshed out to be just like Marriage but without using that oh-so-precious “M” word for something of which The Righteous Do Not Approve.

Which would be a shame, really. But the shame will not be on those trying to “redefine marriage,” but those who treat it as something too precious to share and invest in, and so, like the bad servant in the Parable of the Talents, will lose what little they were given, kicked out into the darkness to “weep and gnash their teeth.” If marriage is threatened, it’s not by those who seek to expand its reach, but those who try to keep it an unchanging little club of their own devising, “NO GAYZ ALLOWED.”

Staying ideologically pure

A few days back, I noted: Based on the about 10 minutes I heard of this Fresh Air interview, with Richard Cizik, I so wish that Rev. Cizik spoke for…

A few days back, I noted:

Based on the about 10 minutes I heard of this Fresh Air interview, with Richard Cizik, I so wish that Rev. Cizik spoke for more of the Religious Right. Ironically, he does speak for them, as “vice president for governmental affairs of the National Association of Evangelicals” (i.e., he’s a high-level lobbyist), but he comes off as remarkably thoughtful and moderate — willing to support contraception and education to help lower the abortion rate, softening on gay marriage, a proponent of “creation care” who was appalled by the anti-environmentalism of Sarah Palin, and someone who finds himself relating more to the broader palate of issues pursued by younger evangelicals than the “no abortion, no gays, no way” blinders of the Religious Right leadership.

 

So, of course, he’s been canned.

Leith Anderson, President of the National Association of Evangelicals, explained in a letter to the members of the board of directors of NAE that “in a December 2, 2008 broadcast interview on National Public Radio, Richard responded to questions and made statements that did not appropriately represent the values and convictions of NAE and our constituents. Although he has subsequently expressed regret, apologized and affirmed our values there is a loss of trust in his credibility as a spokesperson among leaders and constituents.”

 

Certainly it is right and proper for any organization to only keep as a spokesperson someone who can actually speak for their values and beliefs — especially if you are an organization defined by values and beliefs. That said, it’s a shame that the NAE’s values and beliefs are not closer to those of Rev. Cizik. That’s their loss.

 

Traditional marriage

From Newsweek’s article this week on gay marriage: Let’s try for a minute to take the religious conservatives at their word and define marriage as the Bible does. Shall we…

From Newsweek‘s article this week on gay marriage:

Let’s try for a minute to take the religious conservatives at their word and define marriage as the Bible does. Shall we look to Abraham, the great patriarch, who slept with his servant when he discovered his beloved wife Sarah was infertile? Or to Jacob, who fathered children with four different women (two sisters and their servants)? Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon and the kings of Judah and Israel—all these fathers and heroes were polygamists.

The New Testament model of marriage is hardly better. Jesus himself was single and preached an indifference to earthly attachments—especially family. The apostle Paul (also single) regarded marriage as an act of last resort for those unable to contain their animal lust. “It is better to marry than to burn with passion,” says the apostle, in one of the most lukewarm endorsements of a treasured institution ever uttered. Would any contemporary heterosexual married couple—who likely woke up on their wedding day harboring some optimistic and newfangled ideas about gender equality and romantic love—turn to the Bible as a how-to script?

Of course not, yet the religious opponents of gay marriage would have it be so.

Or, broken down another way, this list of how the law should read if we really wanted to have Traditional Biblical Marriages:

A. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5)

B. Marriage shall not impede a man’s right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)

C. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a  virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)

D. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden.  (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)

E. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)

F. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother’s widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)

G. In lieu of marriage, if there are no acceptable men in your town, it is required that you get your dad drunk and have sex with him (even if he had previously offered you up as a sex toy to men young and old), tag-teaming with any sisters you may have. Of course, this rule applies only if you are female. (Gen 19:31-36)

Ah, traditional, Biblical, Scriptural marriage. Ain’t it grand?

Not, of course, that the social conservatives who argue that gay marriage would be wrong because it’s not “traditional’ or “Biblical” probably don’t mean any of these things. Well, probably not. But it does raise the issue of why, then, they feel free to pick and choose what makes a “traditional, Biblical, Scriptural” marriage and what can now be safely ignored.

If your personal belief says that gays shouldn’t marry, that’s your prerogative. Feel free to not marry someone of the same gender as you are. But don’t wrap yourself up in Scripture and call yours the only truly Christian position; Scriptural description of what sort of relationships were not only blessed but prosperous in the Old Testament is nothing like the Ozzie & Harriet world that the Christian Right would have us believe we should be living in.

 

 

 

Casting the first stone

The Vatican is dead wrong on this. Unfortunately, that will mean some other deaths, too. Gay rights groups and newspaper editorials on Tuesday condemned the Vatican for its decision to…

The Vatican is dead wrong on this. Unfortunately, that will mean some other deaths, too.

Gay rights groups and newspaper editorials on Tuesday condemned the Vatican for its decision to oppose a proposed U.N. resolution calling on governments worldwide to de-criminalise homosexuality. The row erupted after the Vatican’s permanent observer to the United Nations told a French Catholic news agency the Holy See would oppose the resolution, which France is due to propose later this month on behalf of the 27-member European Union.

Archbishop Celestino Migliore said the Vatican opposed the resolution because it would “add new categories of those protected from discrimination” and could lead to reverse discrimination against traditional heterosexual marriage.

“If adopted, they would create new and implacable discriminations,” Migliore said. “For example, states which do not recognise same-sex unions as ‘matrimony’ will be pilloried and made an object of pressure,” Migliore said.

Now, I make no bones about my support for gay marriage. But I would hope that most civilized and moral people aren’t so paranoid about the prospect that they’d rather see gay people executed.

Franco Grillini, founder and honorary president of Arcigay, Italy’s leading gay rights group, said the Vatican’s reasoning smacked of “total idiocy and madness”.

“The French resolution, which is supported by all 27 members of the European Union, has nothing to do with gay marriage. It is about stopping jail and the death penalty for homosexuals,” Grillini told Reuters.

The resolution is to be presented by Rama Yade, France’s state secretary for human rights.

Human rights groups say homosexuality is still punishable by law in more than 85 countries and by death in a number of them, including Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Yemen.

Well, surely there must be some complex and nuanced thinking behind the Vatican’s stand, right?

Vatican spokesman Rev Federico Lombardi said “no-one wants the death penalty or jail or fines for homosexuals” …

Nobody but those countries that have laws that call for such punishments, that is.

… but defended Migliore’s comments, adding that the Vatican was in the majority on the issue.

“It’s not for nothing that fewer than 50 member states of the United Nations have adhered to the proposal in question while more than 150 have not adhered. The Holy See is not alone,” Lombardi said.

Ah, I see. Morality is decided by a majority vote. That’s … interesting theology there, Fr. Lombardi. I’m sure the Christian Martyrs would be in full agreement. Not to mention Someone Else who was put to death by a majority vote of the mob.

But regardless, arguing that countries should not be criticized or pressured to stop imprisoning or executing homosexuals for fear that uppity gays will then demand marriage right is, frankly, like arguing that countries should not be criticized for encouraging rape and child brides because otherwise women might think they deserve the vote. 

If the Vatican is so terrified of “gay marriage” that they are unwilling to do anything that even hints of legal protection for gays, then they are, frankly, dead wrong.

It’s just that it’s the executed gays who will have to pay the price for the Vatican’s error.

A reasonable voice

Based on the about 10 minutes I heard of this Fresh Air interview, with Richard Cizik, I so wish that Rev. Cizik spoke for more of the Religious Right. Ironically,…

Based on the about 10 minutes I heard of this Fresh Air interview, with Richard Cizik, I so wish that Rev. Cizik spoke for more of the Religious Right. Ironically, he does speak for them, as “vice president for governmental affairs of the National Association of Evangelicals” (i.e., he’s a high-level lobbyist), but he comes off as remarkably thoughtful and moderate — willing to support contraception and education to help lower the abortion rate, softening on gay marriage, a proponent of “creation care” who was appalled by the anti-environmentalism of Sarah Palin, and someone who finds himself relating more to the broader palate of issues pursued by younger evangelicals than the “no abortion, no gays, no way” blinders of the Religious Right leadership.

Is he just blowing smoke? I have no idea. But if more Evangelicals (and other Christians) talked this way, I think a lot of resentment against them would (justifiably) soften.

He and I certainly don’t see eye to eye on everything, religious or political. But he seems like a person I could sit at table with and discuss problems rationally, rather than some of the more strident Right-siders.