DESPITE THE GLOBAL recession, the U.S. is promoting and aggressively selling a costly product overseas: homophobia. Uganda, one of America’s closest partners in Africa, is currently home to vicious and violent attacks on its citizens based solely on their sexual orientation and gender identity. The high cost in terms of individual privacy and freedom of expression is mounting daily. Regrettably, much of the inspiration and call for these attacks is coming directly from these shores.
In March 2009, three American extremists flew to Uganda’s capital city of Kampala to be featured speakers at a three-day training seminar focused on the “homosexual machinery wreaking havoc on individuals, families and society.” Attendees, including Ugandan teachers, pastors and parents, were bombarded with provocative lectures, slide shows and glossy materials that offered advice on how to fight the “gay agenda” and “cure” gay people from their sexual orientation....
U.S. extremists are purposefully stoking the flames of homophobia in Uganda and inciting human rights abuses. In contrast, the U.S. government should stand up for justice and let Uganda know that any law that curtails basic human rights is wrong, that arresting people because of whom they are perceived to love is a crime, and that inducing violence and hatred is never a solution for resolving social conflict.
[For the full article, see here.]
No wonder I know increasing numbers of decent clergy who are avoiding the term "Christian" with which to identify themselves, due to the hateful rhetoric that emanates from the mouths of all too many professing "Christian" clergy, and their blind followers, who have so perverted the Gospel of grace, and Christianity itself, that it is a profound embarrassment to be considered to be associated with them and their ilk.
Those who preach hate, and even export that hate, are often pathological people with hate as their agenda, and they use Gay people as their vehicle and whipping boy to externalize that pathology. Christians are not haters! Followers of Jesus do not preach hate or in any way demean or discriminate against other people!
"Christianity" is synonymous with "love," and every Sunday School or Sabbath School child knows this fact!
Many people with emotional and/or sexual pathology may well feel the need to teach and preach that hate (often in the name of "love") to externalize those demons. It doesn't work, of course, and that's why some feel the need to unceasingly reiterate their ignorant and/or hateful rhetoric, even from pulpits, and even expand the markets for that hate, even if it means going to other countries to do it.
Even exporting that hate, although often salutary to them in the short-run, usually does not ease their psyches in the long-run. That is why so many of them have to keep vilifying the targets that they view as "safe" to persecute until either those emotional and/or sexual demons are healthfully controlled, or another minority group is found that they feel is "safe" to persecute should their target group no longer be one that is viewed as a socially acceptable one to persecute.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Friday, May 29, 2009
OBAMA IS NO FRIEND TO GAY PEOPLE!
The Huffington Post has this inspiring video of Lt. Dan Choi, discharged from the military for having the integrity for saying he was a gay man, speaking at a protest rally outside a fundraiser for the Democratic National Committee:
And Obama had the gall to state the following, after the gut wrenching decision of the California State Supreme Court regarding the status of Prop. 8, during the protests at which Lt. Choi spoke that occurred outside of that fundraiser:
A gaggle of sign-waving protestors milled around outside The Beverly Hilton, the sprawling hotel on Wilshire Boulevard. They must have caught the president’s eye when he arrived at the hotel from an earlier stop in Las Vegas because he relayed one of their messages to the crowd.
“One of them said, “Obama keep your promise,’ ” the president said. “I thought that’s fair. I don’t know which promise he was talking about.”
The people in the audience – who paid $30,400 per couple to attend – laughed as they ate a dinner of roasted tenderloin, grilled organic chicken and sun choke rosemary mashed potatoes.
[For the full article. see here]
At this point, does anyone think that Obama really cares one whit about equal rights for Gay people? Does anyone see Obama as anything but a smart, charismatic, charming shell whose chameleon-like principles are akin to those of Bill Clinton whom we have to thank for DADT and DOMA?
Obama could get rid of DADT at the drop of a hat! Moreover, by stating a few words, he could set the tone to get the ball rolling on the repeal of DOMA.
Yet he cruelly makes a cheap joke at the expense of millions of Gay Americans, many of whom he wooed to get their votes, and now it seems he couldn't care less about them. After all, he got what he wanted from them and, besides, he probably thinks, "Who else are they going to vote for?"
And Obama had the gall to state the following, after the gut wrenching decision of the California State Supreme Court regarding the status of Prop. 8, during the protests at which Lt. Choi spoke that occurred outside of that fundraiser:
A gaggle of sign-waving protestors milled around outside The Beverly Hilton, the sprawling hotel on Wilshire Boulevard. They must have caught the president’s eye when he arrived at the hotel from an earlier stop in Las Vegas because he relayed one of their messages to the crowd.
“One of them said, “Obama keep your promise,’ ” the president said. “I thought that’s fair. I don’t know which promise he was talking about.”
The people in the audience – who paid $30,400 per couple to attend – laughed as they ate a dinner of roasted tenderloin, grilled organic chicken and sun choke rosemary mashed potatoes.
[For the full article. see here]
At this point, does anyone think that Obama really cares one whit about equal rights for Gay people? Does anyone see Obama as anything but a smart, charismatic, charming shell whose chameleon-like principles are akin to those of Bill Clinton whom we have to thank for DADT and DOMA?
Obama could get rid of DADT at the drop of a hat! Moreover, by stating a few words, he could set the tone to get the ball rolling on the repeal of DOMA.
Yet he cruelly makes a cheap joke at the expense of millions of Gay Americans, many of whom he wooed to get their votes, and now it seems he couldn't care less about them. After all, he got what he wanted from them and, besides, he probably thinks, "Who else are they going to vote for?"
Thursday, May 28, 2009
SAME-SEX MARRIAGE LIKELY IN NEW YORK
Assemblywoman Janet L. Duprey said a lesbian couple who live on her street helped change her mind.
“They are asking only for equal protection under the law,” said Ms. Duprey, a Republican whose district along the Canadian border in the North Country overlaps with the Senate district of Elizabeth Little, another Republican who gay rights supporters believe is within reach.
“They deserve no less than to have the same rights and ability to share their love,” Ms. Duprey added.
[For the full article, see here.]
Putting a human face on both Gay people and on the unconstitutionality of maintaining inequality, as well as increasing numbers of decent people seeing the sin of reactionary religious people who ignorantly and/or hatefully seek to maintain what they erroneously call "traditional marriage," will enable same-sex marriage (and all other civil rights that heterosexuals enjoy) to become a reality in every state of the U.S. and become recognized by the federal government.
Regarding the Prop. 8 debacle in California, I'm convinced that within a couple of years there will be same-sex marriage in California. The California State Supreme Court's unfortunate ruling, opening up a Pandora's Box where the civil rights of any minority group is left up to the will and whims of the majority, Wayne Besen wrote an excellent article, part of which reads as follows:
There are now calls from gay and lesbian leaders to place the marriage question back on the ballot in California. The competitive side of me says, "bring it on, let's win." But, another side believes that the gay and lesbian community should simply boycott all votes relating to rights - and take our outrage to the streets and the halls of Congress. After all, why are we the only minority in the history of this nation that has had to explicitly win public approval for our most basic needs?
Hell, if African-Americans had been forced to win equality through referendum they'd still be drinking out of separate water fountains in the South. Yet, we are routinely forced to degrade our humanity and grovel to voters, who smugly sit on the throne, judging whether we are worthy to visit our ailing spouses (scratch that, we are now partners, again) in their hospital beds.
[For the full article, see here.]
I think that most every decent person given to even a little bit of reflection will quickly see the fundamental injustice in denying any minority group of citizens the same civil rights that they enjoy!
“They are asking only for equal protection under the law,” said Ms. Duprey, a Republican whose district along the Canadian border in the North Country overlaps with the Senate district of Elizabeth Little, another Republican who gay rights supporters believe is within reach.
“They deserve no less than to have the same rights and ability to share their love,” Ms. Duprey added.
[For the full article, see here.]
Putting a human face on both Gay people and on the unconstitutionality of maintaining inequality, as well as increasing numbers of decent people seeing the sin of reactionary religious people who ignorantly and/or hatefully seek to maintain what they erroneously call "traditional marriage," will enable same-sex marriage (and all other civil rights that heterosexuals enjoy) to become a reality in every state of the U.S. and become recognized by the federal government.
Regarding the Prop. 8 debacle in California, I'm convinced that within a couple of years there will be same-sex marriage in California. The California State Supreme Court's unfortunate ruling, opening up a Pandora's Box where the civil rights of any minority group is left up to the will and whims of the majority, Wayne Besen wrote an excellent article, part of which reads as follows:
There are now calls from gay and lesbian leaders to place the marriage question back on the ballot in California. The competitive side of me says, "bring it on, let's win." But, another side believes that the gay and lesbian community should simply boycott all votes relating to rights - and take our outrage to the streets and the halls of Congress. After all, why are we the only minority in the history of this nation that has had to explicitly win public approval for our most basic needs?
Hell, if African-Americans had been forced to win equality through referendum they'd still be drinking out of separate water fountains in the South. Yet, we are routinely forced to degrade our humanity and grovel to voters, who smugly sit on the throne, judging whether we are worthy to visit our ailing spouses (scratch that, we are now partners, again) in their hospital beds.
[For the full article, see here.]
I think that most every decent person given to even a little bit of reflection will quickly see the fundamental injustice in denying any minority group of citizens the same civil rights that they enjoy!
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
THE COURT'S AFFIRMATION OF PROP. 8: A CAUSE FOR ANGER AND A CALL FOR MEANINGFUL GRASSROOTS ACTION
In the aftermath of the court's decision, conservative groups gathered 1.1 million signatures to place the traditional-marriage constitutional amendment on the ballot.
The measure passed by a margin of 52 percent to 48 percent, shocking many analysts who had predicted the initiative would fail in a year that favored Democratic and liberal candidates, led by Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.
Analysts later found that the surge in minority voters, inspired by Mr. Obama's presence on the ticket, helped push Proposition 8 over the top. Exit polls showed that most black and Hispanic voters who checked the box for Mr. Obama also backed Proposition 8.
The vote touched off an outcry among gay-rights groups and activists, who launched days of protests across the state. Protesters boycotted businesses whose owners supported Proposition 8, and contributors to the Proposition 8 campaign reported being threatened and abused by angry gay-marriage supporters.
[For the full article, see here.]
Clearly, save for Justice Moreno, the California State Supreme Court, narrowly construing their role in this issue, voted to affirm Prop. 8, but did decide to allow the 18,000 same-sex marriages to stand after its May 2008 decision stating that denial of same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.
Justice Moreno's dissenting opinion reads, in part:
“I conclude that requiring discrimination against a minority group on the basis of a suspect classification strikes at the core of the promise of equality that underlies our California…The rule the majority crafts today not only allows same-sex couples to be stripped of the right to marry that this court recognized in the Marriage Cases, it places at risk the state constitutional rights of all disfavored minorities. It weakens the status of our state Constitution as a bulwark of fundamental rights for minorities protected from the will of the majority. I therefore dissent.”
“Proposition 8 represents an unprecedented instance of a majority of voters altering the meaning of the equal protection clause by modifying the California Constitution to require deprivation of a fundamental right on the basis of a suspect classification. The majority’s holding is not just a defeat for same-sex couples, but for any minority group that seeks the protection of the equal protection clause of the California Constitution...”
“This could not have been the intent of those who devised and enacted the initiative process. In my view, the aim of Proposition 8 and all similar initiative measures that seek to alter the California Constitution to deny a fundamental right to a group that has historically been subject to discrimination on the basis of a suspect classification, violates the essence of the equal protection clause of the California Constitution and fundamentally alters its scope and meaning. Such a change cannot be accomplished through the initiative process by a simple amendment to our Constitution enacted by a bare majority of the voters; it must be accomplished, if at all, by a constitutional revision to modify the equal protection clause to protect some, rather than all, similarly situated persons. I would therefore hold that Proposition 8 is not a lawful amendment of the California Constitution.”
[Thanks to Daily Kos.]
He realizes that "separate is not equal," and he was the only person on that Court to see that this rule of law must trump any interpretation of the California Constitution that would for a tyranny of the majority when it comes to the denial of civil rights to any minority group. So, given the Court's decision, we have suffered a temporary set-back.
This state of affairs must be a wake-up call to those who have hitherto been politically indolent; those who have not been aggressive enough in fighting for equal rights for all citizens; those who didn't have a critical mass of anger at being treated as second-class citizens; those professing Christians who allowed themselves to be influenced by hateful, homophobic rhetoric from fallible and often reactionary clergy preaching messages diametrically opposed to the Gospel; those in minority groups in California who now see that their own civil rights are up for grabs if more than 50% of the electorate decide to remove one or more of those civil rights.
A Pandora's Box has now been opened, and it is hoped that the reality of the recent California State Supreme Court's decision hits home and shows how every single minority group's civil rights in California are now at the mercy of a tyranny of the majority; should economic, social, political, and religious climates converge into fomenting reactionary rhetoric, many, if not most, of the electorate could well abridge or remove what civil rights now exist from one or more minority groups that have hitherto taken for granted their hard-won civil rights that can now be removed from the ballot boxes in California.
If any reality should spur all decent people to action, whether they be in minority groups or not, and commit themselves to the goal of achieving full and equal civil rights for LGBT people, this gut-wrenching reality should and must be that catalyst!
The measure passed by a margin of 52 percent to 48 percent, shocking many analysts who had predicted the initiative would fail in a year that favored Democratic and liberal candidates, led by Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.
Analysts later found that the surge in minority voters, inspired by Mr. Obama's presence on the ticket, helped push Proposition 8 over the top. Exit polls showed that most black and Hispanic voters who checked the box for Mr. Obama also backed Proposition 8.
The vote touched off an outcry among gay-rights groups and activists, who launched days of protests across the state. Protesters boycotted businesses whose owners supported Proposition 8, and contributors to the Proposition 8 campaign reported being threatened and abused by angry gay-marriage supporters.
[For the full article, see here.]
Clearly, save for Justice Moreno, the California State Supreme Court, narrowly construing their role in this issue, voted to affirm Prop. 8, but did decide to allow the 18,000 same-sex marriages to stand after its May 2008 decision stating that denial of same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.
Justice Moreno's dissenting opinion reads, in part:
“I conclude that requiring discrimination against a minority group on the basis of a suspect classification strikes at the core of the promise of equality that underlies our California…The rule the majority crafts today not only allows same-sex couples to be stripped of the right to marry that this court recognized in the Marriage Cases, it places at risk the state constitutional rights of all disfavored minorities. It weakens the status of our state Constitution as a bulwark of fundamental rights for minorities protected from the will of the majority. I therefore dissent.”
“Proposition 8 represents an unprecedented instance of a majority of voters altering the meaning of the equal protection clause by modifying the California Constitution to require deprivation of a fundamental right on the basis of a suspect classification. The majority’s holding is not just a defeat for same-sex couples, but for any minority group that seeks the protection of the equal protection clause of the California Constitution...”
“This could not have been the intent of those who devised and enacted the initiative process. In my view, the aim of Proposition 8 and all similar initiative measures that seek to alter the California Constitution to deny a fundamental right to a group that has historically been subject to discrimination on the basis of a suspect classification, violates the essence of the equal protection clause of the California Constitution and fundamentally alters its scope and meaning. Such a change cannot be accomplished through the initiative process by a simple amendment to our Constitution enacted by a bare majority of the voters; it must be accomplished, if at all, by a constitutional revision to modify the equal protection clause to protect some, rather than all, similarly situated persons. I would therefore hold that Proposition 8 is not a lawful amendment of the California Constitution.”
[Thanks to Daily Kos.]
He realizes that "separate is not equal," and he was the only person on that Court to see that this rule of law must trump any interpretation of the California Constitution that would for a tyranny of the majority when it comes to the denial of civil rights to any minority group. So, given the Court's decision, we have suffered a temporary set-back.
This state of affairs must be a wake-up call to those who have hitherto been politically indolent; those who have not been aggressive enough in fighting for equal rights for all citizens; those who didn't have a critical mass of anger at being treated as second-class citizens; those professing Christians who allowed themselves to be influenced by hateful, homophobic rhetoric from fallible and often reactionary clergy preaching messages diametrically opposed to the Gospel; those in minority groups in California who now see that their own civil rights are up for grabs if more than 50% of the electorate decide to remove one or more of those civil rights.
A Pandora's Box has now been opened, and it is hoped that the reality of the recent California State Supreme Court's decision hits home and shows how every single minority group's civil rights in California are now at the mercy of a tyranny of the majority; should economic, social, political, and religious climates converge into fomenting reactionary rhetoric, many, if not most, of the electorate could well abridge or remove what civil rights now exist from one or more minority groups that have hitherto taken for granted their hard-won civil rights that can now be removed from the ballot boxes in California.
If any reality should spur all decent people to action, whether they be in minority groups or not, and commit themselves to the goal of achieving full and equal civil rights for LGBT people, this gut-wrenching reality should and must be that catalyst!
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
PROPOSITION 8 PROTESTS THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES
The California Supreme Court has upheld a voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage, but it also decided that the estimated 18,000 gay couples who tied the knot before the law took effect will stay wed.
[For the full article, see here.]
Please Click On This Link to see the time and place of rallies in your city, to protest the California State Supreme Court's vote today consigning same-sex couples to discrimination that that same Supreme Court decided was unconstitutional last May!
"No civil rights movement has EVER lost. Never. It is not a matter of if our community will win full equal rights, including marriage. It is only a matter of when. But as in all civil rights movements, we will have to fight like hell for it." (Robin Tyler, petitioner-case to overturn prop 8.)
Please see this brief video entitled, We Won't Back Down:
This article is a good summary of where we now stand regarding Prop. 8.
[For the full article, see here.]
Please Click On This Link to see the time and place of rallies in your city, to protest the California State Supreme Court's vote today consigning same-sex couples to discrimination that that same Supreme Court decided was unconstitutional last May!
"No civil rights movement has EVER lost. Never. It is not a matter of if our community will win full equal rights, including marriage. It is only a matter of when. But as in all civil rights movements, we will have to fight like hell for it." (Robin Tyler, petitioner-case to overturn prop 8.)
Please see this brief video entitled, We Won't Back Down:
This article is a good summary of where we now stand regarding Prop. 8.
MIKE ROGERS INTERVIEW ON "THE VIEW"
This is an excellent interview with Mike Rogers on "The View." Mike Rogers is a major reporter who outs hypocrites, those politicians who vote against Gay rights on the one hand and who are engaging in same-sex relationships on the other.
A new film just came out entitled, "Outrage" that largely focuses on his reporting.
The following is a video clip of his interview on "The View," that I think you'll enjoy.
A new film just came out entitled, "Outrage" that largely focuses on his reporting.
The following is a video clip of his interview on "The View," that I think you'll enjoy.
Monday, May 25, 2009
DAY OF DECISION
TOMORROW, TUESDAY, IS The Day of Decision when the California State Supreme Court hands down its decision regarding the fate of Prop. 8 in California.
Regardless of the decision of the Court, Please Click On This Link to see the time and place of rallies in your city, to either protest or to celebrate.
Regardless of the decision of the Court, Please Click On This Link to see the time and place of rallies in your city, to either protest or to celebrate.
Sunday, May 24, 2009
THE DALLAS PRINCIPLES
As far as I'm concerned, to this date Pres. Obama has shown himself to be no different from any other two-faced politician who couldn't care less about equal rights for Gay people! He has the ability to do away with DADT and has not taken advantage of it, losing very valuable military personnel in the process. Moreover, there is little hope that DOMA will be rescinded under his administration.
Enough is enough! And now there is a grassroots movement afoot to call him to task about his indolence in dealing with this fundamental issue of equal rights for all American citizens, and stating what must be done to achieve the goal of equal civil rights for LGBT people.
Obama ran on a platform of "change," and many of us see "business as usual" under his administration; his mantra of "change" that we so often heard during his campaign seems to have been empty rhetoric designed to have liberals and progressives, as well as LGBT people, drink the Kool Aid of his duplicity.
So, it's refreshing to know that a grassroots movement is initiating The Dallas Principles which can be seen below.
Barack Obama leveraged the Internet to capture the White House -- and now outside groups are doing to same to pressure his presidency.
A gay rights movement that began in the streets has increasingly moved online. And last weekend, a diverse group of gay activists, bloggers, Democratic Party organizers and fundraisers from across the country came together in Dallas to discuss how to more aggressively advance their agenda.
They believe the Obama White House and the Democratic-controlled Congress are not moving fast enough to address gay rights issues, such as setting a timetable to repeal the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy and passing a federal hate crimes bill that covers sexual orientation and gender identity. After the outpouring of spontaneous grassroots support for same-sex marriage in the wake of the passage of Proposition 8 in California, "the timing is right," blogger and activist Lane Hudson said, "to push for full civil rights for LGBT people."
[For the full article, see here
The Dallas Principles are Listed Here Along With Their Rationale.
The Homepage For The Dallas Principles is Located Here.
The following is a very brief video embedded on their site that urges people to get involved with this movement:
TO SUPPORT THE DALLAS PRINCIPLES, PLEASE CLICK ON THIS LINK.
Enough is enough! And now there is a grassroots movement afoot to call him to task about his indolence in dealing with this fundamental issue of equal rights for all American citizens, and stating what must be done to achieve the goal of equal civil rights for LGBT people.
Obama ran on a platform of "change," and many of us see "business as usual" under his administration; his mantra of "change" that we so often heard during his campaign seems to have been empty rhetoric designed to have liberals and progressives, as well as LGBT people, drink the Kool Aid of his duplicity.
So, it's refreshing to know that a grassroots movement is initiating The Dallas Principles which can be seen below.
Barack Obama leveraged the Internet to capture the White House -- and now outside groups are doing to same to pressure his presidency.
A gay rights movement that began in the streets has increasingly moved online. And last weekend, a diverse group of gay activists, bloggers, Democratic Party organizers and fundraisers from across the country came together in Dallas to discuss how to more aggressively advance their agenda.
They believe the Obama White House and the Democratic-controlled Congress are not moving fast enough to address gay rights issues, such as setting a timetable to repeal the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy and passing a federal hate crimes bill that covers sexual orientation and gender identity. After the outpouring of spontaneous grassroots support for same-sex marriage in the wake of the passage of Proposition 8 in California, "the timing is right," blogger and activist Lane Hudson said, "to push for full civil rights for LGBT people."
[For the full article, see here
The Dallas Principles are Listed Here Along With Their Rationale.
The Homepage For The Dallas Principles is Located Here.
The following is a very brief video embedded on their site that urges people to get involved with this movement:
TO SUPPORT THE DALLAS PRINCIPLES, PLEASE CLICK ON THIS LINK.
Friday, May 22, 2009
NO SURPRISE: EVEN "LIBERALS" WITHIN THE INSTITUTIONAL CHURCH ARE NOT FULLY SUPPORTIVE OF GAY RIGHTS
If anyone still has the slightest doubt that the institutional Church will ever be supportive of full and equal civil and sacramental rights for Gay people, these findings should remove that doubt.
This study was done on Mainline clergy who are viewed as being part of the "liberal" wing of the institutional Church. These clergy are viewed as being more "progressive" than are the so-called "evangelical Christians," most all of whom are very "conservative," if not reactionary, in their political, social, and religious views.
A plurality of Mainline clergy constitute an Uncertain Middle, while close to one-third are strongly supportive of or opposed to LGBT rights and inclusion in the church.
· Supportive Base (29%), clergy who strongly support gay and lesbian rights and generally do not see homosexuality as a choice nor as a sin;
· Opposing Base (30%), clergy who strongly oppose gay and lesbian rights and generally see homosexuality as a choice and as a sin; and
· The Uncertain Middle (41%), clergy who support some gay and lesbian rights but are ambivalent on others.
[For the study's findings, see here.]
Notice that only 29% of the Mainline clergy in this study were wholeheartedly supportive of full and equal rights for Gay people. The rest were either opposed to such rights or ambivalent about some rights.
Therefore, 71% of those clergy were, to one degree or another, against full and equal rights for Gay people! And these are the "liberals" in the institutional Church!
This is a tragically expected finding that shows how irrelevant the institutional Church is regarding equal rights! For those who claim to represent the Prince of Peace, and then advocate discrimination by rhetoric and/or actions and/or by silence and/or by ambivalence which translates into lethargy regarding the dignity and rights of others, is a direct affront, an assault, on the teachings of Jesus!
We have seen the institutional Church play the role of caboose in regard to the civil rights struggle for African Americans! Now, we see that it hasn't learned from that embarrassing and horrific antipathy toward full equality, and most of its clergy and followers are expressing the same stance (along with the same unctuous and sanctimonious "justifications" for that stance), again appealing to the Bible which they have presumably selectively read, in aligning themselves with others who would deny full and equal civil rights to Gay people.
Followers of Jesus would be on the front lines demanding full and equal civil and sacramental rights for all of God's children! No follower of Jesus can or would sit idly by and allow others to be oppressed, and then add insult to injury by seeking to justify that oppression in the name of God!
If one aligns oneself with haters, with those who discriminate against others, with those who seek to impugn the dignity of others, with those who seek political and/or monetary capital at the expense of a minority group that is viewed as being "safe" to persecute, with those who use a minority group as a target against which to vent their emotional/sexual frustrations, that person is not a Christian!
And if such a person dares call him/herself a Christian, he/she is fooling him/herself and, perhaps, fooling some others. But he/she is certainly not fooling God!
He hath shown thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God? (Micah 6:8)
This study was done on Mainline clergy who are viewed as being part of the "liberal" wing of the institutional Church. These clergy are viewed as being more "progressive" than are the so-called "evangelical Christians," most all of whom are very "conservative," if not reactionary, in their political, social, and religious views.
A plurality of Mainline clergy constitute an Uncertain Middle, while close to one-third are strongly supportive of or opposed to LGBT rights and inclusion in the church.
· Supportive Base (29%), clergy who strongly support gay and lesbian rights and generally do not see homosexuality as a choice nor as a sin;
· Opposing Base (30%), clergy who strongly oppose gay and lesbian rights and generally see homosexuality as a choice and as a sin; and
· The Uncertain Middle (41%), clergy who support some gay and lesbian rights but are ambivalent on others.
[For the study's findings, see here.]
Notice that only 29% of the Mainline clergy in this study were wholeheartedly supportive of full and equal rights for Gay people. The rest were either opposed to such rights or ambivalent about some rights.
Therefore, 71% of those clergy were, to one degree or another, against full and equal rights for Gay people! And these are the "liberals" in the institutional Church!
This is a tragically expected finding that shows how irrelevant the institutional Church is regarding equal rights! For those who claim to represent the Prince of Peace, and then advocate discrimination by rhetoric and/or actions and/or by silence and/or by ambivalence which translates into lethargy regarding the dignity and rights of others, is a direct affront, an assault, on the teachings of Jesus!
We have seen the institutional Church play the role of caboose in regard to the civil rights struggle for African Americans! Now, we see that it hasn't learned from that embarrassing and horrific antipathy toward full equality, and most of its clergy and followers are expressing the same stance (along with the same unctuous and sanctimonious "justifications" for that stance), again appealing to the Bible which they have presumably selectively read, in aligning themselves with others who would deny full and equal civil rights to Gay people.
Followers of Jesus would be on the front lines demanding full and equal civil and sacramental rights for all of God's children! No follower of Jesus can or would sit idly by and allow others to be oppressed, and then add insult to injury by seeking to justify that oppression in the name of God!
If one aligns oneself with haters, with those who discriminate against others, with those who seek to impugn the dignity of others, with those who seek political and/or monetary capital at the expense of a minority group that is viewed as being "safe" to persecute, with those who use a minority group as a target against which to vent their emotional/sexual frustrations, that person is not a Christian!
And if such a person dares call him/herself a Christian, he/she is fooling him/herself and, perhaps, fooling some others. But he/she is certainly not fooling God!
He hath shown thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God? (Micah 6:8)
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
WHERE IS PRESIDENT OBAMA REGARDING HIS PROMISE TO RESCIND DADT?
This video interview of Lt. Col. Fehrenbach by Rachel Maddow says far more than I can regarding the egregious treatment of Gay people in our military!
Not only are many millions of dollars wasted in removing just one Gay person from the military, but look at the hardship and the cost in human lives and their careers caused by an indolent President who promised to rescind DADT and who now, it seems, couldn't care less.
Lt.Fehrenbach is a hero, has served our country for 18 years of exemplary service, and now, two years before he is due to retire, he is being kicked out of the military because he's Gay.
Even when Gay people can serve openly in the military in Argentina, the United States continues to show its discriminatory dark side; its underbelly of hatred at the cost of human lives; at the cost of our national security; at the cost of our claim to civility.
This is the interview that I'd like you to hear in its entirety:
[Thanks to The Huffington Post for this video.]
Not only are many millions of dollars wasted in removing just one Gay person from the military, but look at the hardship and the cost in human lives and their careers caused by an indolent President who promised to rescind DADT and who now, it seems, couldn't care less.
Lt.Fehrenbach is a hero, has served our country for 18 years of exemplary service, and now, two years before he is due to retire, he is being kicked out of the military because he's Gay.
Even when Gay people can serve openly in the military in Argentina, the United States continues to show its discriminatory dark side; its underbelly of hatred at the cost of human lives; at the cost of our national security; at the cost of our claim to civility.
This is the interview that I'd like you to hear in its entirety:
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
[Thanks to The Huffington Post for this video.]
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
DADT: DOES ANYONE REALLY THINK OBAMA FAVORS EQUAL RIGHTS?
On January 14, 2009, the following was reported:
President-elect Barack Obama will allow gays to serve openly in the military by overturning the controversial "don't ask, don't tell" policy that marred President Clinton's first days in office, according to incoming White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs.
The startling pronouncement, which could re-open a dormant battle in the culture wars and distract from other elements of Obama's agenda, came during a Gibbs exchange with members of the public who sent in questions that were answered on YouTube.
"Thadeus of Lansing, Mich., asks, 'Is the new administration going to get rid of the "don't ask, don't tell policy?'" said Gibbs, looking into the camera. "Thadeus, you don't hear a politician give a one-word answer much. But it's, 'Yes.'"
[For the full article, see here.]
Now, fast forward to the present and notice how Robert Gibbs responds to a question concerning the repeal of DADT. See how he is dancing as fast as he can, hemming and hawing his way toward trying to answer a very straightforward question regarding DADT.
Also notice how Gibbs, representing the Obama Administration, is now talking about "changing" DADT and is not using the word "repeal" in reference to DADT; uses as justification for "changing" the policy our "national interests" rather than equal rights for all military personnel.
We are to make no mistake! Obama could obliterate DADT with the snap of his fingers!
My guess is that Obama doesn't see any political mileage he can derive by removing DADT, particularly since LGBT people make up a relatively small percentage of the electorate; Obama seeks compromise with as many factions in Congress as is possible in order to ruffle as few feathers as possible; he figures that LGBT people will not vote for a McCain-type for President in any case; he feels that most Gay people will likely settle for some crumb of "change" in that policy (and crumbs of incrementalism in any LGBT-related policy) when he gets around to it; he cares far less for the lives and careers of dedicated military personnel and for our national security than he does about not alienating potential voters in his Presidential run in 2012, and in his future ability to pass legislation that is far more important to him than is the repeal of DADT.
President-elect Barack Obama will allow gays to serve openly in the military by overturning the controversial "don't ask, don't tell" policy that marred President Clinton's first days in office, according to incoming White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs.
The startling pronouncement, which could re-open a dormant battle in the culture wars and distract from other elements of Obama's agenda, came during a Gibbs exchange with members of the public who sent in questions that were answered on YouTube.
"Thadeus of Lansing, Mich., asks, 'Is the new administration going to get rid of the "don't ask, don't tell policy?'" said Gibbs, looking into the camera. "Thadeus, you don't hear a politician give a one-word answer much. But it's, 'Yes.'"
[For the full article, see here.]
Now, fast forward to the present and notice how Robert Gibbs responds to a question concerning the repeal of DADT. See how he is dancing as fast as he can, hemming and hawing his way toward trying to answer a very straightforward question regarding DADT.
Also notice how Gibbs, representing the Obama Administration, is now talking about "changing" DADT and is not using the word "repeal" in reference to DADT; uses as justification for "changing" the policy our "national interests" rather than equal rights for all military personnel.
We are to make no mistake! Obama could obliterate DADT with the snap of his fingers!
My guess is that Obama doesn't see any political mileage he can derive by removing DADT, particularly since LGBT people make up a relatively small percentage of the electorate; Obama seeks compromise with as many factions in Congress as is possible in order to ruffle as few feathers as possible; he figures that LGBT people will not vote for a McCain-type for President in any case; he feels that most Gay people will likely settle for some crumb of "change" in that policy (and crumbs of incrementalism in any LGBT-related policy) when he gets around to it; he cares far less for the lives and careers of dedicated military personnel and for our national security than he does about not alienating potential voters in his Presidential run in 2012, and in his future ability to pass legislation that is far more important to him than is the repeal of DADT.
Monday, May 18, 2009
WITH REACTIONARIES, THERE ARE DIFFERENT RULES FOR DIFFERENT FOLKS
Although I regrettably voted for Obama instead of a third party candidate, and clearly see Obama as being no different than any other two-faced politician who speaks out of both sides of his mouth and who always has his/her eye on the next election, it's still remarkable that some Roman Catholic clergy and others are angry that he was invited to give the Commencement speech at Notre Dame University yesterday [The Transcript can be seen here.] ostensibly due to his stance on abortion rights.
Notre Dame's decision to confer an honorary degree on Obama and invite him to be the keynote speaker for the commencement sparked petitions and several days of protests. Some students vowed to boycott the commencement.
But the speech itself drew mostly cheers, applause and standing ovations.
Critics who said Obama's support for abortion rights violated Catholic Church doctrine had sought to have the invitation rescinded but the university refused....
Norma McCorvey, the Jane Roe of the landmark Roe vs. Wade case that legalized abortion, was among the first protesters arrested at Notre Dame. A Catholic convert, McCorvey is now active in the anti-abortion.
Tony Ughetti, of Spring, Texas, said he watched as McCorvey asked the officers, "How do I get arrested?"
Ughetti said that in response to the Notre Dame decision to invite Obama, he got rid of books, T-shirts and other Notre Dame memorabilia in his home.
"We disposed of over 40 Notre Dame items from our house...I wanted to burn them but my wife took them to Goodwill (charity). Our house is now Notre Dame-free," he said.
[For the full article, see here.]
Where was all this "outrage" when Pres. Bush gave the Commencement Speech at Notre Dame in May 2001 after he had the dubious record of having more executions in the state of Texas when he was its Governor than any other Governor in our history? It should be noted that the Pope had come out against capital punishment! Yet I don't remember there being any expressed outrage, especially outrage akin to this most recent speech given by Pres. Obama.
In 1999, John Paul told 104,000 people gathered at a mass during his 30-hour stop in St. Louis--following a four-day visit to Mexico City--that the respect for life that undergirds the Catholic Church's opposition to abortion, doctor-assisted suicide and euthanasia applies "even in the case of one who has done great evil." The 78-year-old pontiff called on Americans to reject the death penalty because "modern society has the means to protect itself without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform." Yet the solid American support for the death penalty includes large numbers of Catholics, according to death-penalty researchers.
[For the full article, see here.]
Yet the Pope's clear teaching on the matter of the death penalty did not cause the reactionaries in the audience and elsewhere to protest Bush's Commencement speech at Notre Dame! Since virtually all of them, as virtually all reactionaries everywhere, were undoubtedly in favor of capital punishment, the Pope's teachings on this subject seemed to be meaningless and irrelevant to them. However, when it came to abortion, a hot button issue that involves sex, a subject sure to get the "religious" reactionaries' juices flowing, many acted high and mighty regarding their defense of this part of Papal teaching.
The following is a brief video of the boorishness of a couple of middle-aged (or older) presumed reactionaries while Obama was giving his speech:
As we have long seen when it comes to the reactionary mind-set, the rules are different for different people. It seems institutionally acceptable to reactionaries (and some others) within the Roman Catholic Church (until they are caught) to cover for epehebophile priests, pay off the complainants, and allow the offending priests to prey on young people in other parishes once the offending priests are exposed (both literally and metaphorically), but many of these same reactionaries take offense when someone feels abortions should remain legal and/or when civil rights for Gay people are at stake.
It is also many of these same reactionaries who are offended by same-sex attraction and behavior, and seek to deny Gay people civil and sacramental rights when it is estimated that about 25% to 50% of RC clergy are Gay. One would think that a venerable institution like the RC Church, when it undoubtedly has a sizable number of Gay clergy in its membership, would be more enlightened and loving in dealing with Gay people.
However, like many of the rest of us, reactionaries commit the sin that Jesus calls attention to when He says: "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye." (Matthew 7:3-7)
However, professing Christian reactionaries seem to care less for what Jesus says (and it is to be noted that Jesus NEVER spoke against homosexuality, nor did he ever condemn anyone, save for the religious legalists of His time who sought to place yokes of bondage onto others) than for their own preconceived prejudices that they then have the temerity to impose not only onto others, but onto Jesus Himself when, in fact, Jesus tells us to show love to other people and in no way condemn them.
There is no reasoning or meaningful dialogue to be had with people who have different rules for different people, especially when the reactionaries seek to inculcate shame, loathing, and the deprivation of full and equal civil and sacramental rights onto others when they, themselves, all too often contravene the mores and sanctimonious rhetoric to which they demand others adhere and take seriously.
The selective approval of Papal teaching on the subject of Capital Punishment vis a vis Abortion, as respectively seen in the reactionary responses to Bush's and Obama's invitations to Notre Dame University, is but merely another indicator of the fallacious belief that "sweet reason" can get "the lion and the lamb" to be together in one accord!
Notre Dame's decision to confer an honorary degree on Obama and invite him to be the keynote speaker for the commencement sparked petitions and several days of protests. Some students vowed to boycott the commencement.
But the speech itself drew mostly cheers, applause and standing ovations.
Critics who said Obama's support for abortion rights violated Catholic Church doctrine had sought to have the invitation rescinded but the university refused....
Norma McCorvey, the Jane Roe of the landmark Roe vs. Wade case that legalized abortion, was among the first protesters arrested at Notre Dame. A Catholic convert, McCorvey is now active in the anti-abortion.
Tony Ughetti, of Spring, Texas, said he watched as McCorvey asked the officers, "How do I get arrested?"
Ughetti said that in response to the Notre Dame decision to invite Obama, he got rid of books, T-shirts and other Notre Dame memorabilia in his home.
"We disposed of over 40 Notre Dame items from our house...I wanted to burn them but my wife took them to Goodwill (charity). Our house is now Notre Dame-free," he said.
[For the full article, see here.]
Where was all this "outrage" when Pres. Bush gave the Commencement Speech at Notre Dame in May 2001 after he had the dubious record of having more executions in the state of Texas when he was its Governor than any other Governor in our history? It should be noted that the Pope had come out against capital punishment! Yet I don't remember there being any expressed outrage, especially outrage akin to this most recent speech given by Pres. Obama.
In 1999, John Paul told 104,000 people gathered at a mass during his 30-hour stop in St. Louis--following a four-day visit to Mexico City--that the respect for life that undergirds the Catholic Church's opposition to abortion, doctor-assisted suicide and euthanasia applies "even in the case of one who has done great evil." The 78-year-old pontiff called on Americans to reject the death penalty because "modern society has the means to protect itself without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform." Yet the solid American support for the death penalty includes large numbers of Catholics, according to death-penalty researchers.
[For the full article, see here.]
Yet the Pope's clear teaching on the matter of the death penalty did not cause the reactionaries in the audience and elsewhere to protest Bush's Commencement speech at Notre Dame! Since virtually all of them, as virtually all reactionaries everywhere, were undoubtedly in favor of capital punishment, the Pope's teachings on this subject seemed to be meaningless and irrelevant to them. However, when it came to abortion, a hot button issue that involves sex, a subject sure to get the "religious" reactionaries' juices flowing, many acted high and mighty regarding their defense of this part of Papal teaching.
The following is a brief video of the boorishness of a couple of middle-aged (or older) presumed reactionaries while Obama was giving his speech:
As we have long seen when it comes to the reactionary mind-set, the rules are different for different people. It seems institutionally acceptable to reactionaries (and some others) within the Roman Catholic Church (until they are caught) to cover for epehebophile priests, pay off the complainants, and allow the offending priests to prey on young people in other parishes once the offending priests are exposed (both literally and metaphorically), but many of these same reactionaries take offense when someone feels abortions should remain legal and/or when civil rights for Gay people are at stake.
It is also many of these same reactionaries who are offended by same-sex attraction and behavior, and seek to deny Gay people civil and sacramental rights when it is estimated that about 25% to 50% of RC clergy are Gay. One would think that a venerable institution like the RC Church, when it undoubtedly has a sizable number of Gay clergy in its membership, would be more enlightened and loving in dealing with Gay people.
However, like many of the rest of us, reactionaries commit the sin that Jesus calls attention to when He says: "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye." (Matthew 7:3-7)
However, professing Christian reactionaries seem to care less for what Jesus says (and it is to be noted that Jesus NEVER spoke against homosexuality, nor did he ever condemn anyone, save for the religious legalists of His time who sought to place yokes of bondage onto others) than for their own preconceived prejudices that they then have the temerity to impose not only onto others, but onto Jesus Himself when, in fact, Jesus tells us to show love to other people and in no way condemn them.
There is no reasoning or meaningful dialogue to be had with people who have different rules for different people, especially when the reactionaries seek to inculcate shame, loathing, and the deprivation of full and equal civil and sacramental rights onto others when they, themselves, all too often contravene the mores and sanctimonious rhetoric to which they demand others adhere and take seriously.
The selective approval of Papal teaching on the subject of Capital Punishment vis a vis Abortion, as respectively seen in the reactionary responses to Bush's and Obama's invitations to Notre Dame University, is but merely another indicator of the fallacious belief that "sweet reason" can get "the lion and the lamb" to be together in one accord!
Thursday, May 14, 2009
HATE AND DISCRIMINATION ARE NOT USUALLY RESTRICTED TO ONE MINORITY GROUP
Fred Phelps and his group of haters are toothless tigers who aren't worth mentioning, so I'm not even going to mention them, save to use them as but one example of the well known Social Psychological finding that when anyone discriminates against a given minority group, he/she usually discriminates against one or more other minority groups as well.
After years of focusing on gays and lesbians with its protests, the Westboro Baptist Church has a new target — the Jewish community.
The Topeka, Kan.-based church, which features the slogan “God Hates Fags,” protested at three Jewish sites here last Friday afternoon. The protests are part of a series of upcoming rallies that will bring members of the church to Jewish community institutions in Omaha, St. Louis, South Florida and Providence in the next few weeks, according to the church’s Web site and fliers the group is distributing that list scheduled protests and proclaim “Jews Killed the Lord Jesus.”
[For the full article, see here.]
So, most people who discriminate against Gay people are also likely to discriminate against one or more other minority groups, such as Jews, African Americans, immigrants, etc.
Therefore, it is not only hypocritical but self-defeating for any person in a minority group to discriminate against any other minority group, for to do so aligns him/herself with those who at the drop of a hat can, and likely will, turn around and discriminate against him/her! So, it's pathetic when an African American minister, Gregory Daniels, states: "If the KKK opposes gay marriage, I would ride with them." [See here.]
One wonders Daniels' mind-set regarding this bigotry when, after this infamous statement of his, "he did get a provocative letter, he concedes, from a black woman. 'What do you think they gonna do to you,' she asked, 'after the ride?'" [See here.] She understood the dynamics behind bigotry, particularly bigotry that entails aligning oneself with one's own enemies!
Make no mistake: those at the forefront of homophobia are no different than were and are the White Supremacists in the U.S.! They are also likely to have contempt for one or more other minority groups, and one plays the fool if he/she is a member of any minority group who discriminates against, or advocates discrimination against, Gay people, or any other minority group for that matter!
Anyone who discriminates against LGBT people just has to wait a little while before his/her advocacy of such discrimination comes back to bite him/her in the rear end in the form of former "allies" becoming his/her arch enemies in order to express the hatred that lies in their hearts!
Unfortunately, minority group members who advocate discrimination against Gay people, such as fighting against same-sex marriage, are chumps who are aligning themselves with those who are merely using them for their own hateful purposes, and once they perceive that they can no longer gain traction or mileage out of discriminating against Gay people, will likely turn around and express their venom against their former allies, and/or another minority group whom they feel it is safe to persecute.
As it says in the above cited article, "..even hard-line anti-gay groups are embarrassed by Phelps’ church." And rightly so, because Phelps and his "church" verbally and physically express the same hateful animus that resides in the hearts of many of the oppressors of LGBT people.
That's why many "hard-line anti-gay groups" are embarrassed by Phelps! He honestly expresses the venom, the hatefulness, t the ugly side of what resides in the hearts of most strident homophobes who couch their hatred in the form of sanctimony, of unctuous rhetoric, and of religious trappings for the purposes of lending seeming legitimacy to rhetoric and actions that run directly counter to both rationality as well as to Jesus' life and teachings.
The homophobes are not embarrassed by their own hatred and its tragic and destructive consequences! They are embarrassed because Phelps expresses that hatred in its naked form for the whole world to see!
The homophobes are not embarrassed because they spew hateful rhetoric and encourage deprivation of civil rights regarding Gay people that is diametrically opposed to Jesus' Commandment to us to love and not judge others!
They are embarrassed because Phelps puts the same hateful animus that they possess up front for the whole world to see and, thereby, shows forth the lie that seeks to feebly show that these homophobes mean well but are merely trying to "preserve traditional marriage," as well as also putting the lie to any number of other specious justifications for the expression of their homophobic (and likely other) hatred in the name of God.
So, particularly if you are a member of a minority group who seeks to deprive Gay people of any civil right, just recognize that you are aligning yourself with those who at a moment's notice can and will likely turn on you, and who would almost certainly not want you associating with their family.
And, by so aligning yourself, you are a chump!
I hope W.C. Fields was wrong when he said, "You can't smarten up a chump!"
But I'm not sure he was wrong in his assessment when we apply it to so many chumps who seek to deprive others of full and equal civil rights that they, themselves, enjoy, particularly when they and their ancestors were (and, to some degree, still are) victimized and oppressed by the very same kind of people, with the very same mind-set, with whom they are now aligning themselves to oppress others.
After years of focusing on gays and lesbians with its protests, the Westboro Baptist Church has a new target — the Jewish community.
The Topeka, Kan.-based church, which features the slogan “God Hates Fags,” protested at three Jewish sites here last Friday afternoon. The protests are part of a series of upcoming rallies that will bring members of the church to Jewish community institutions in Omaha, St. Louis, South Florida and Providence in the next few weeks, according to the church’s Web site and fliers the group is distributing that list scheduled protests and proclaim “Jews Killed the Lord Jesus.”
[For the full article, see here.]
So, most people who discriminate against Gay people are also likely to discriminate against one or more other minority groups, such as Jews, African Americans, immigrants, etc.
Therefore, it is not only hypocritical but self-defeating for any person in a minority group to discriminate against any other minority group, for to do so aligns him/herself with those who at the drop of a hat can, and likely will, turn around and discriminate against him/her! So, it's pathetic when an African American minister, Gregory Daniels, states: "If the KKK opposes gay marriage, I would ride with them." [See here.]
One wonders Daniels' mind-set regarding this bigotry when, after this infamous statement of his, "he did get a provocative letter, he concedes, from a black woman. 'What do you think they gonna do to you,' she asked, 'after the ride?'" [See here.] She understood the dynamics behind bigotry, particularly bigotry that entails aligning oneself with one's own enemies!
Make no mistake: those at the forefront of homophobia are no different than were and are the White Supremacists in the U.S.! They are also likely to have contempt for one or more other minority groups, and one plays the fool if he/she is a member of any minority group who discriminates against, or advocates discrimination against, Gay people, or any other minority group for that matter!
Anyone who discriminates against LGBT people just has to wait a little while before his/her advocacy of such discrimination comes back to bite him/her in the rear end in the form of former "allies" becoming his/her arch enemies in order to express the hatred that lies in their hearts!
Unfortunately, minority group members who advocate discrimination against Gay people, such as fighting against same-sex marriage, are chumps who are aligning themselves with those who are merely using them for their own hateful purposes, and once they perceive that they can no longer gain traction or mileage out of discriminating against Gay people, will likely turn around and express their venom against their former allies, and/or another minority group whom they feel it is safe to persecute.
As it says in the above cited article, "..even hard-line anti-gay groups are embarrassed by Phelps’ church." And rightly so, because Phelps and his "church" verbally and physically express the same hateful animus that resides in the hearts of many of the oppressors of LGBT people.
That's why many "hard-line anti-gay groups" are embarrassed by Phelps! He honestly expresses the venom, the hatefulness, t the ugly side of what resides in the hearts of most strident homophobes who couch their hatred in the form of sanctimony, of unctuous rhetoric, and of religious trappings for the purposes of lending seeming legitimacy to rhetoric and actions that run directly counter to both rationality as well as to Jesus' life and teachings.
The homophobes are not embarrassed by their own hatred and its tragic and destructive consequences! They are embarrassed because Phelps expresses that hatred in its naked form for the whole world to see!
The homophobes are not embarrassed because they spew hateful rhetoric and encourage deprivation of civil rights regarding Gay people that is diametrically opposed to Jesus' Commandment to us to love and not judge others!
They are embarrassed because Phelps puts the same hateful animus that they possess up front for the whole world to see and, thereby, shows forth the lie that seeks to feebly show that these homophobes mean well but are merely trying to "preserve traditional marriage," as well as also putting the lie to any number of other specious justifications for the expression of their homophobic (and likely other) hatred in the name of God.
So, particularly if you are a member of a minority group who seeks to deprive Gay people of any civil right, just recognize that you are aligning yourself with those who at a moment's notice can and will likely turn on you, and who would almost certainly not want you associating with their family.
And, by so aligning yourself, you are a chump!
I hope W.C. Fields was wrong when he said, "You can't smarten up a chump!"
But I'm not sure he was wrong in his assessment when we apply it to so many chumps who seek to deprive others of full and equal civil rights that they, themselves, enjoy, particularly when they and their ancestors were (and, to some degree, still are) victimized and oppressed by the very same kind of people, with the very same mind-set, with whom they are now aligning themselves to oppress others.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
OUTRAGE AT HYPOCRISY AND SOME CONSEQUENCES OF THE CLOSET
This article entitled, "Extend the Outrage," is absolutely superb!
A small part of it reads as follows:
The experience of straight spouses, first hidden in their partners’ closets and then overlooked in the excitement of their husbands’ or wives’ breaking out, affords us a personal window onto a rising conflict in our society that needs to be faced head on. Their trauma can be traced back to the prevailing mind-set about traditional marriage and antigay attitudes and stereotypes still found in many parts of our country. That is where we need to direct our outrage and take action to change the status quo.
Some politicians have beards or seemingly clueless spouses so as to hide their sexuality and deny who they really are as full and authentic human beings from the public. By so doing, they are in fact living a lie and stating that being Gay is something to be ashamed of; something that is deserving of "deviant" status; something that is inferior to being Straight.
Moreover, many closeted politicians vote against, or support those who vote against, equal rights for LGBT people and the film Outrage takes on this task.
Indeed, by being authentic it can cost one his/her career! However, it's by the very fact of many Gay people being inauthentic and living a lie, expressing internalized and/or externalized homophobia, that authenticity leading up to career damage becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
To the degree that Gay people view being Gay as shameful, it's to that degree that Straight people will view being Gay as shameful!
The trailer to the film Outrage can be seen below:
The impact of outing on their spouses and children who had no idea is often devastating, and little research has been done regarding the consequences to these victims of inauthenticity, and frequent hypocrisy, of their spouses who were closeted and who often expressed homophobia in the political and public arenas.
Michelangelo Signorile and Mike Rogers have hitherto been at the forefront of outing hypocrites. Now, the film Outrage also takes on this task.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
UPDATE ON LAST POST PARTICULARLY REGARDING BARACK OBAMA
John Aravosis of AmericaBlog, in part, has this to say regarding Obama's indolence regarding Gay rights:
From Obama's embrace of anti-gay activist Donny McClurkin, to his choice of anti-gay bigot Rick Warren to give the inauguration invocation, to the bizarre disappearance of most of the gay civil rights promises to the White House Web site, to the continual backtracking on the President's commitment to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell, to the upcoming firing of more gay service members, to the fact that the White House Web site still has not restored the President's public commitment to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, to the White House's obvious reticence to choose an openly gay person for Obama's cabinet, the list goes on and on. And gay Americans continue to go from hopeful to skeptical to bitter. The goodwill, along with Elvis, long ago left the building. What could have been a disagreement with a friend is quickly heading towards a major, damaging showdown.
Please read his whole post entitled, "Donald Trump, Miss California, and Barack Obama," He hits the nail on the head!
From Obama's embrace of anti-gay activist Donny McClurkin, to his choice of anti-gay bigot Rick Warren to give the inauguration invocation, to the bizarre disappearance of most of the gay civil rights promises to the White House Web site, to the continual backtracking on the President's commitment to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell, to the upcoming firing of more gay service members, to the fact that the White House Web site still has not restored the President's public commitment to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, to the White House's obvious reticence to choose an openly gay person for Obama's cabinet, the list goes on and on. And gay Americans continue to go from hopeful to skeptical to bitter. The goodwill, along with Elvis, long ago left the building. What could have been a disagreement with a friend is quickly heading towards a major, damaging showdown.
Please read his whole post entitled, "Donald Trump, Miss California, and Barack Obama," He hits the nail on the head!
OBAMA COULD RESCIND DADT IF HE WANTED TO DO SO
Obama could rescind DADT if he really wanted to do so. This article lays it all out, and it's entitled, "NEW STUDY: OBAMA CAN HALT GAY DISCHARGES WITH EXECUTIVE ORDER."
Please read the article in its entirety, but part of the article reads as follows:
Many have argued that only Congress can lift the ban on service by openly gay troops. But according to the study, Congressional approval is not needed. Dr. Aaron Belkin, Director of the Palm Center and a study co-author, said “The administration does not want to move forward on this issue because of conservative opposition from both parties in Congress, and Congress does not want to move forward without a signal from the White House. This study provides a recipe for breaking through the political deadlock, as well as a roadmap for military leaders once the civilians give the green light.”
Please read the article in its entirety, but part of the article reads as follows:
Many have argued that only Congress can lift the ban on service by openly gay troops. But according to the study, Congressional approval is not needed. Dr. Aaron Belkin, Director of the Palm Center and a study co-author, said “The administration does not want to move forward on this issue because of conservative opposition from both parties in Congress, and Congress does not want to move forward without a signal from the White House. This study provides a recipe for breaking through the political deadlock, as well as a roadmap for military leaders once the civilians give the green light.”
AN EXCELLENT ARTICLE REGARDING OBAMA'S INDOLENCE REGARDING GAY RIGHTS IN THE U.S. AND IN IRAQ
Even a self-described "right wing extremist," John T. Simpson, slams Obama on his indolence regarding Gay rights, particularly the tortures and murders of Gay people in Iraq. Indeed, he shows how Ronald Reagan's views and actions regarding Gay rights were far more progressive than Pres. Obama's views and actions up to this point.
His excellent article entitled, "Why Reagan Was a Better Friend to Gays Than Obama," deserves to be read in its entirety, and here is an excerpt from it:
...let us move on to candidate Barack Obama and his wishy-washy stand on Prop 8, the gay California ballot referendum of his time:
“I’ve stated my opposition to this. I think [Prop 8 is] unnecessary. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage. But when you start playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that’s not what America’s about. Usually, our constitutions expand liberties, they don’t contract them.”
The main point that seemed to escape candidate Obama at this time was that they WERE playing around with the California Constitution. I believe candidate Obama missed an opportunity here to take a bold stand on gay issues like Reagan did, and speak out against Prop 8 from the liberal Democrat POV. He was, and is, a very charming and charismatic candidate and President. No denying that. He could have used that charisma and charm to sway many minds over, and with a very simple statement that could have swung the Prop 8 vote the 3 points it needed to pass.
Example:
“Though I myself oppose gay marriage, I cannot let this Constitutional ban go unchallenged. Amendments that restrict rights instead of expanding them are un-American. Therefore, I oppose the passage of Proposition 8, and I hope you will, too. I will further state that I only support this measure as civil procedure.
“Churches and individuals that are morally opposed to gay marriage should not be compelled under legal threat or duress to participate. That is their right under freedom of religion. I would no more want gays invading the rights of churches, than I would want churches invading the rights of gays.”
But, no. What we got was candidate Obama wetting his finger and sticking it in the air. Just like Bill Clinton with his poll-driven morality, trying to have it both ways. Not much Hope For Change there with regard to Democratic presidents, it would seem. Even in office, the Obama Administration has been wishy-washy on pushing gay issues like Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. But I don’t really care about that. Obama and gay advocates can hammer out DADT, among many other issues.
But even as a straight man, I am VERY concerned about the officially-sanctioned extermination of LGBTs in Iraq on our dime, what I now call the Gay Holocaust in Iraq. What else do you call a specifically targeted pogrom, with the express goal of exterminating a segment of the population? If this were merely a death squad issue, that would be matter for the Iraqi government.
Unfortunately, the Iraqi government is neck-deep in the gay butchery themselves. Interior Ministry police hunt down gays in Baghdad, raid parties, hunt them online by using fake foreign IP addresses (as Iran does), then tortures and exterminates them in the worst possible ways. Just as Iraqi Spiritual Leader Ali al-Sistani declared they should be, in his 2006 fatwa of death against Iraqi LGBTs. Though removed from his website after controversy, the fatwa is still in full effect.
Allow me at this point to question the spirituality of a religious leader favoring any pogrom, or stating that ANYONE should die in the ‘worst possible ways’.
Here is one former Mahdi Army member who now makes a career of being a gay death squad ’surgeon,’ cutting out the cancer of homosexuality the Americans brought with them to Iraq. His words, not mine. Also, one particularly subhuman technique of killing gays, now quite popular with Iraq’s most pious Shiite extremists, is to super-glue a gay man’s anus shut, pump him full of a diarrhea-inducing compound, and have a few laughs as the victim suffers unbelievable agony before dying. The Iraqi tribes also now have carte blanche to exterminate any Iraqi LGBTs they find.
Unfortunately, this Gay Holocaust of Iraqi LGBTs, which has already claimed nearly 500 innocent lives in the most gruesome of ways since the 2003 invasion, and is now ramping up in violence and horror by the day, enjoys wide public support in Islamic Iraq. Just take a look at this recent report, also from Common Ills:
"This morning AFP is reporting that signs are going up around the Sadr City neighborhood of Baghdad threatening to kill a list of people alleged to be gay. The posters are put out by the Brigades of the Righteous and AFP translates the posters as stating, “We will punish you, perverts” and “We will get you, puppies” has been scrawled on some posters — “puppies” being slang for gay males in Iraq. The Australian carries the AFP report here. These posters are going up around Sadr City. Where is the United Nations condemnation? Where is the White House, where is the US State Dept?"
[For the full article, see here.]
His excellent article entitled, "Why Reagan Was a Better Friend to Gays Than Obama," deserves to be read in its entirety, and here is an excerpt from it:
...let us move on to candidate Barack Obama and his wishy-washy stand on Prop 8, the gay California ballot referendum of his time:
“I’ve stated my opposition to this. I think [Prop 8 is] unnecessary. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage. But when you start playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that’s not what America’s about. Usually, our constitutions expand liberties, they don’t contract them.”
The main point that seemed to escape candidate Obama at this time was that they WERE playing around with the California Constitution. I believe candidate Obama missed an opportunity here to take a bold stand on gay issues like Reagan did, and speak out against Prop 8 from the liberal Democrat POV. He was, and is, a very charming and charismatic candidate and President. No denying that. He could have used that charisma and charm to sway many minds over, and with a very simple statement that could have swung the Prop 8 vote the 3 points it needed to pass.
Example:
“Though I myself oppose gay marriage, I cannot let this Constitutional ban go unchallenged. Amendments that restrict rights instead of expanding them are un-American. Therefore, I oppose the passage of Proposition 8, and I hope you will, too. I will further state that I only support this measure as civil procedure.
“Churches and individuals that are morally opposed to gay marriage should not be compelled under legal threat or duress to participate. That is their right under freedom of religion. I would no more want gays invading the rights of churches, than I would want churches invading the rights of gays.”
But, no. What we got was candidate Obama wetting his finger and sticking it in the air. Just like Bill Clinton with his poll-driven morality, trying to have it both ways. Not much Hope For Change there with regard to Democratic presidents, it would seem. Even in office, the Obama Administration has been wishy-washy on pushing gay issues like Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. But I don’t really care about that. Obama and gay advocates can hammer out DADT, among many other issues.
But even as a straight man, I am VERY concerned about the officially-sanctioned extermination of LGBTs in Iraq on our dime, what I now call the Gay Holocaust in Iraq. What else do you call a specifically targeted pogrom, with the express goal of exterminating a segment of the population? If this were merely a death squad issue, that would be matter for the Iraqi government.
Unfortunately, the Iraqi government is neck-deep in the gay butchery themselves. Interior Ministry police hunt down gays in Baghdad, raid parties, hunt them online by using fake foreign IP addresses (as Iran does), then tortures and exterminates them in the worst possible ways. Just as Iraqi Spiritual Leader Ali al-Sistani declared they should be, in his 2006 fatwa of death against Iraqi LGBTs. Though removed from his website after controversy, the fatwa is still in full effect.
Allow me at this point to question the spirituality of a religious leader favoring any pogrom, or stating that ANYONE should die in the ‘worst possible ways’.
Here is one former Mahdi Army member who now makes a career of being a gay death squad ’surgeon,’ cutting out the cancer of homosexuality the Americans brought with them to Iraq. His words, not mine. Also, one particularly subhuman technique of killing gays, now quite popular with Iraq’s most pious Shiite extremists, is to super-glue a gay man’s anus shut, pump him full of a diarrhea-inducing compound, and have a few laughs as the victim suffers unbelievable agony before dying. The Iraqi tribes also now have carte blanche to exterminate any Iraqi LGBTs they find.
Unfortunately, this Gay Holocaust of Iraqi LGBTs, which has already claimed nearly 500 innocent lives in the most gruesome of ways since the 2003 invasion, and is now ramping up in violence and horror by the day, enjoys wide public support in Islamic Iraq. Just take a look at this recent report, also from Common Ills:
"This morning AFP is reporting that signs are going up around the Sadr City neighborhood of Baghdad threatening to kill a list of people alleged to be gay. The posters are put out by the Brigades of the Righteous and AFP translates the posters as stating, “We will punish you, perverts” and “We will get you, puppies” has been scrawled on some posters — “puppies” being slang for gay males in Iraq. The Australian carries the AFP report here. These posters are going up around Sadr City. Where is the United Nations condemnation? Where is the White House, where is the US State Dept?"
[For the full article, see here.]
Monday, May 11, 2009
SEEKING TO PREVENT SAME-SEX MARRIAGE RIGHTS IN NEW HAMPSHIRE
The National Organization For Marriage has put out a brief video urging voters to urge Gov. Jim Lynch of New Hampshire to veto the "Gay marriage" bill.
This is the video:
Reactionary groups, many clothed in "traditional" and "religious" trappings, are seeking to prevent same-sex marriage rights, and have spent, and are spending, untold amounts of money in preventing equal rights for Gay people.
It's very important that all decent people who believe in equal rights vote for candidates who believe in full equality; urge their Legislators and other political officials to affirm same=sex marriage rights, because we can be absolutely sure that the opposition is doing just that!
This is the video:
Reactionary groups, many clothed in "traditional" and "religious" trappings, are seeking to prevent same-sex marriage rights, and have spent, and are spending, untold amounts of money in preventing equal rights for Gay people.
It's very important that all decent people who believe in equal rights vote for candidates who believe in full equality; urge their Legislators and other political officials to affirm same=sex marriage rights, because we can be absolutely sure that the opposition is doing just that!
Saturday, May 9, 2009
UPDATE ON YESTERDAY'S POST
I don't think that John Aravosis of AmericaBlog is being paranoid. I urge you to read the full article on his site entitled, Obama again talks of "changing," not "repealing," Don't Ask Don't Tell
I'm a lawyer. He's a lawyer. Words have meaning to lawyers. Especially when the lawyers are President of the United States. They don't write things without knowing exactly what they are writing. With that in mind, President Obama wrote a handwritten note to a US service member recently discharged for being gay. In the note, Obama said that he remains "committed to changing our current policy." Sounds nice. Putting aside the fact that letters are nice, but actions are better, notice that Obama didn't say he remains committed to "repealing" the Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy - a word he always used before. Now he's for "changing" it.
This is a significant distinction that escaped me, and further suggests that Pres. Obama is, at the very least, lukewarm about repealing DADT and the granting of equal rights to Gay people.
If this is the case, we might have been better off with John McCain as President, as many liberals wouldn't be torturing logic to make excuses for him regarding the acquisition of full and equal civil rights for Gay people, as well as his many other decisions that also seem likely to weaken if not destroy the United States.
I'm a lawyer. He's a lawyer. Words have meaning to lawyers. Especially when the lawyers are President of the United States. They don't write things without knowing exactly what they are writing. With that in mind, President Obama wrote a handwritten note to a US service member recently discharged for being gay. In the note, Obama said that he remains "committed to changing our current policy." Sounds nice. Putting aside the fact that letters are nice, but actions are better, notice that Obama didn't say he remains committed to "repealing" the Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy - a word he always used before. Now he's for "changing" it.
This is a significant distinction that escaped me, and further suggests that Pres. Obama is, at the very least, lukewarm about repealing DADT and the granting of equal rights to Gay people.
If this is the case, we might have been better off with John McCain as President, as many liberals wouldn't be torturing logic to make excuses for him regarding the acquisition of full and equal civil rights for Gay people, as well as his many other decisions that also seem likely to weaken if not destroy the United States.
Friday, May 8, 2009
PRES. OBAMA'S LETHARGY REGARDING EQUAL RIGHTS FOR GAY CITIZENS
During the civil rights struggle for African Americans, we often heard pleas for "patience" and that "these things take time" by those who were at the very least luke warm about doing away with segregation. The fact is that "patience" and "time" are the last things that are needed to have full and equal civil rights granted to any minority group! It's the very pleas for "patience" and "time" that retards the acquisition of civil rights, be it for African Americans or for Gay people!
Moreover, both Democrats and Republicans are seeking to give Pres. Obama a pass on his virtual silence regarding such crucial issues as DOMA and DADT, the latter costing us crucial military personnel such as Lt. Dan Choi, and so many others, that is both causing them to forfeit their careers as well as seriously harming our national security. So, national security issues and equal rights are put on the back burner in favor of discharging Gay military personnel who have the courage and integrity to demand that they live authentic lives, with all the rights and privileges that accrue to all other military personnel.
Pres. Obama could at the very least set a tone whereby he forthrightly comes out and says: "I believe that DOMA must be repealed and that DADT is unfair and is harming our national security." Yet, he hasn't done so as of this date.
Apparently, political expediency and/or political cowardice has prevented him from speaking out in favor of equal rights, having his spokespeople use as an excuse the paltry explanation that he has so much on his plate.
Regardless of the other crucial issues facing the President, it wouldn't take much time to draft a speech decrying discrimination against Gay people within the military; asking that Congress repeal DOMA, as it is patently unfair to countless Gay couples who wish and deserve to have the same rights and privileges extended to themselves and to their children as heterosexuals enjoy.
To give Pres. Obama a pass by excusing his lethargy regarding equal rights for Gay people is absolutely no different than the patience advocated by those who really didn't want equal rights for African Americans!
Civil rights are not to be up for grabs; not to be granted or denied by the will of the people; not to be granted incrementally! As I've written before, having civil rights is like being pregnant: you either have them or you don't!
The President helps set the tone of our society, and by merely forthrightly coming out and affirming the right of Gay people to enjoy equal rights, and demanding that Congress repeal DOMA, and by demanding that DADT be rescinded in the military (He is the Commander-in-Chief, after all!) as Pres. Truman did in regard to African Americans, will go a long way to the realization of those rights in the near future.
However, as of this time, Pres. Obama hasn't shown the will and/or the courage to affirm those rights, and no amount of excuses or rationalizations change the fact that he seems to view equal rights for all citizens to lack priority in his political and moral agenda.
The following video highlights how both Democratic and Republican spokespeople give Pres. Obama a pass, counseling more "patience" and "time" in any move to grant equal rights to Gay people. Frankly, as you can imagine, I find such pandering to Pres. Obama, and rationalizing the inequalities inherent in the status quo, very disturbing.
Moreover, both Democrats and Republicans are seeking to give Pres. Obama a pass on his virtual silence regarding such crucial issues as DOMA and DADT, the latter costing us crucial military personnel such as Lt. Dan Choi, and so many others, that is both causing them to forfeit their careers as well as seriously harming our national security. So, national security issues and equal rights are put on the back burner in favor of discharging Gay military personnel who have the courage and integrity to demand that they live authentic lives, with all the rights and privileges that accrue to all other military personnel.
Pres. Obama could at the very least set a tone whereby he forthrightly comes out and says: "I believe that DOMA must be repealed and that DADT is unfair and is harming our national security." Yet, he hasn't done so as of this date.
Apparently, political expediency and/or political cowardice has prevented him from speaking out in favor of equal rights, having his spokespeople use as an excuse the paltry explanation that he has so much on his plate.
Regardless of the other crucial issues facing the President, it wouldn't take much time to draft a speech decrying discrimination against Gay people within the military; asking that Congress repeal DOMA, as it is patently unfair to countless Gay couples who wish and deserve to have the same rights and privileges extended to themselves and to their children as heterosexuals enjoy.
To give Pres. Obama a pass by excusing his lethargy regarding equal rights for Gay people is absolutely no different than the patience advocated by those who really didn't want equal rights for African Americans!
Civil rights are not to be up for grabs; not to be granted or denied by the will of the people; not to be granted incrementally! As I've written before, having civil rights is like being pregnant: you either have them or you don't!
The President helps set the tone of our society, and by merely forthrightly coming out and affirming the right of Gay people to enjoy equal rights, and demanding that Congress repeal DOMA, and by demanding that DADT be rescinded in the military (He is the Commander-in-Chief, after all!) as Pres. Truman did in regard to African Americans, will go a long way to the realization of those rights in the near future.
However, as of this time, Pres. Obama hasn't shown the will and/or the courage to affirm those rights, and no amount of excuses or rationalizations change the fact that he seems to view equal rights for all citizens to lack priority in his political and moral agenda.
The following video highlights how both Democratic and Republican spokespeople give Pres. Obama a pass, counseling more "patience" and "time" in any move to grant equal rights to Gay people. Frankly, as you can imagine, I find such pandering to Pres. Obama, and rationalizing the inequalities inherent in the status quo, very disturbing.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
WATCH DAN CHOI ON RACHEL MADDOW'S SHOW TONIGHT
It's courageous people like Lt. Dan Choi whom we need in our military, and in our society! God bless him for his courage in speaking out when he knew that by so doing he would forfeit the career that he eminently deserved and that he so desperately wished to continue.
He will be interviewed on Rachel Maddow's show tonight, an interview he is giving after being kicked out of the military for having the courage to value his integrity over and above the malicious DADT policy that Pres. Obama doesn't seem eager to see repealed.
SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IS LEGAL IN MAINE AND LIKELY IN NEW HAMPSHIRE
This is great news, and might well positively affect the legality of same-sex marriage in many other states in the near future. Moreover, legalizing same-sex marriage in these and the other states that have already legalized it may well positively affect the California Supreme Court's decision regarding the fate of the vote on Proposition 8.
New England states signaled an increasing willingness to sanction gay marriage on Wednesday as Maine legalized the practice and the New Hampshire Legislature voted to do the same.
If New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch signs the bill or lets it become law without his signature, his state would become the sixth overall to allow gay marriage and the fifth in New England. Rhode Island would be the only state in the region without such a law.
Maine Gov. John Baldacci, a Democrat who hadn't indicated how he would handle his state's bill, signed it shortly after the legislation passed the Senate on a vote of 21-13 - a margin not large enough to override a veto.
"In the past, I opposed gay marriage while supporting the idea of civil unions," Baldacci said in a statement read in his office. "I have come to believe that this is a question of fairness and of equal protection under the law, and that a civil union is not equal to civil marriage."
[For the full article, see here.]
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IN D.C. MAY SOON BE DEBATED BY CONGRESS
Having been overwhelmingly approved by the Washington D.C. Council and most likely to be approved by D.C's Mayor, Arian Fenty, the issue of same-sex marriage for Washington D.C. may well, by likely extension, have implications for the rest of the country in the foreseeable future, as it will be debated by Congress.
It will be difficult to reconcile Congress' approval of same-sex marriage for Washington, D.C. and not have it recommend its approval for other states in the union. I might be overly optimistic, but it will be interesting to see how this all plays out in Congress, and what influence Congress' debate and ultimate decision have on the courts.
Part of the story reads as follows:
An overwhelming majority on the D.C. Council voted today to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, sending the District deeper into the national debate and galvanizing supporters on both sides of the issue.
The measure, approved by a vote 12 to 1, now goes to Mayor Arian M. Fenty (D), a supporter of gay marriage.
If Fenty signs it, the District will put the same-sex marriage issue directly before the Congress. Under Home Rule, the District's laws are subject to a 30-day congressional review period.
[For the full article, see here.]
It will be difficult to reconcile Congress' approval of same-sex marriage for Washington, D.C. and not have it recommend its approval for other states in the union. I might be overly optimistic, but it will be interesting to see how this all plays out in Congress, and what influence Congress' debate and ultimate decision have on the courts.
Part of the story reads as follows:
An overwhelming majority on the D.C. Council voted today to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, sending the District deeper into the national debate and galvanizing supporters on both sides of the issue.
The measure, approved by a vote 12 to 1, now goes to Mayor Arian M. Fenty (D), a supporter of gay marriage.
If Fenty signs it, the District will put the same-sex marriage issue directly before the Congress. Under Home Rule, the District's laws are subject to a 30-day congressional review period.
[For the full article, see here.]
Saturday, May 2, 2009
HOMOPHOBIA IS THE RESULT OF EMOTIONAL DEFICIENCIES
In his book, In Our Time, Eric Hoffer [Pictured], who was an excellent philosopher, was self-educated, blind for the first fifteen years of his life, and became a migrant worker and then a longshoreman, wrote the following:
In the alchemy of man’s soul almost all noble attributes—courage, honor, love, hope, faith, duty, loyalty—can be transmuted into ruthlessness. Compassion alone stands apart from the continuous traffic between good and evil within us. Compassion is the antitoxin of the soul: Where there is com-passion even the most poisonous impulses remain relatively harmless. Thus the survival of the species may well depend on the ability to foster a boundless capacity for compassion.
So many in the United States (and elsewhere) lack that essential emotion, "compassion," that will help ensure the survival of the species! Indeed, the hostility visited upon LGBT people is a very strong indicator in our time of that deficiency!
All sorts of rationalizations have been trotted out by the ignorant and/or hatefully homophobic to try and justify discrimination against LGBT people, ranging from "maintaining traditional family values" to linking Gay people with pedophiles to causing all sorts of societal calamities. The very irrationality of their arguments in favor of deprivation of civil rights to LGBT people both bespeaks lack of compassion as it bespeaks gullibility and/or lack of compassion of those who take their rhetoric seriously.
In his book, The Passionate State of Mind And Other Aphorisms, Hoffer states:
Passions usually have their roots in that which is blemished, crippled, incomplete and insecure within us. The passionate attitude is less a response to stimuli from without than an emanation of an inner dissatisfaction.
A poignant dissatisfaction, whatever be its cause, is at bottom a dissatisfaction with ourselves. It is surprising how much hardship and humiliation a man will endure without bitterness when he has not the least doubt about his worth or when he is so integrated with others that he is not aware of a separate self.
And it is to this phenomenon every person who possesses both a critical intellect and the necessary emotion of "compassion" must turn to help understand why there are some homophobes who make their homophobia something like a career. So many spend an inordinate amount of time condemning God's LGBT children, and one must understand that their animus ultimately resides, not in the object of their hatred, but in their own psyches that betrays their blemishes, crippled natures, incompleteness, and insecurities.
After all, if someone is emotionally and sexually intact, why would there be a need for their obsessive condemnation of other consenting adults' emotional/sexual orientations?
How is same-sex marriage, for example, going to adversely affect anyone's heterosexual marriage? Is there anyone who can give a reasonable answer to that question?
Clearly, there can be no rational answer to that rhetorical question! If anything, same-sex marriage will enhance the institution of marriage!
Indeed, increasing legitimacy will accrue to the institution of marriage the more people partake of its rights, privileges, and responsibilities. So, people who are genuinely concerned with the future of the institution of marriage should be working to minimize divorce and encourage same-sex couples who wish to make a lifetime commitment to each other to marry!
Yet, we have many religious (and secular) people who try and prevent same-sex couples from partaking of the very institution from which they benefit, thereby encouraging fornication as one of their prejudices' byproducts, and they even have the temerity to claim the right to discriminate in the name of God. So, would they have us believe that God would prefer fornication over marriage among Gay people?
Can they be that clueless that they could reasonably expect that Gay people can, should, and must lead celibate lives while only heterosexuals can and should fulfill one of human beings' most primal urges?
The irrationality of homophobic rhetoric shows a clear deficiency on the part of homophobes regarding their level of "compassion," as it does their clear dissatisfaction with their own lot in life! Why else spend such an inordinate amount of time thinking about and condemning the emotional/sexual lives of others?
Emotionally and sexually intact people aren't particularly concerned with the emotional and sexual lives of other adults! They are likely to have a "live and let live" approach to such matters!
However, when someone has an inordinate fascination with condemning others, that condemnation betrays an emotional deficiency that makes compassion very difficult, if not impossible, to have or sustain.
And if a Christian (or any other decent person) can be characterized by any one characteristic, that characteristic is "compassion!"
Christians are to be agents of God's grace in this world; we are to preach and live out the Gospel of grace, faith, love, peace, reconciliation, and inclusiveness! And those who condemn others, those who seek to deprive others of civil rights, those who help create a climate of fear and hatred of others, have shown by their words and/or deeds that they are neither Christians nor even decent people!
We are to make no mistake: homophobes are absolutely no different in their mind-set and in their emotional deficiencies than were and are White Supremacists! Both groups partake of the need to discriminate and hate in order for the awareness of their own emotional deficiencies to be overridden by their condemnation of others!
"Condemnation" acts as an imperfect and temporary band-aid to help heal the haters' own emotional woundedness, a woundedness that they don't have the courage to bring themselves to face, confront, and overcome! So, they take the coward's way out and, rather than deal with "the beam in their own eye," they feel the need to manufacture a beam in a minority group whom they perceive it is safe to persecute.
And when that particular minority group is no longer considered safe to persecute, they will search for another minority group upon which to vent their anger, an anger borne of their own emotional deficiencies that they cloak in religious trappings, so that they can try and stake a claim on "godliness," "virtue" and "morality" when, in fact, their own rhetoric and actions show them to manifest the greatest form of ungodliness, lack of virtue, and immorality: the sin of pride in their oppression of others!
Jesus never condemned Gay people, but He sure spent quite a bit of time condemning the proud, the haughty, the legalists who condemned and discriminated against others and put yokes of bondage onto others, all the while claiming to impose those yokes in the name of God.
If haters didn't have an object to hate, they would be forced to confront their own emotional blemishes, crippled natures, incompleteness, insecurities, deficiencies and frailties. And that is the last thing a moral coward feels he/she can afford to do!
In the alchemy of man’s soul almost all noble attributes—courage, honor, love, hope, faith, duty, loyalty—can be transmuted into ruthlessness. Compassion alone stands apart from the continuous traffic between good and evil within us. Compassion is the antitoxin of the soul: Where there is com-passion even the most poisonous impulses remain relatively harmless. Thus the survival of the species may well depend on the ability to foster a boundless capacity for compassion.
So many in the United States (and elsewhere) lack that essential emotion, "compassion," that will help ensure the survival of the species! Indeed, the hostility visited upon LGBT people is a very strong indicator in our time of that deficiency!
All sorts of rationalizations have been trotted out by the ignorant and/or hatefully homophobic to try and justify discrimination against LGBT people, ranging from "maintaining traditional family values" to linking Gay people with pedophiles to causing all sorts of societal calamities. The very irrationality of their arguments in favor of deprivation of civil rights to LGBT people both bespeaks lack of compassion as it bespeaks gullibility and/or lack of compassion of those who take their rhetoric seriously.
In his book, The Passionate State of Mind And Other Aphorisms, Hoffer states:
Passions usually have their roots in that which is blemished, crippled, incomplete and insecure within us. The passionate attitude is less a response to stimuli from without than an emanation of an inner dissatisfaction.
A poignant dissatisfaction, whatever be its cause, is at bottom a dissatisfaction with ourselves. It is surprising how much hardship and humiliation a man will endure without bitterness when he has not the least doubt about his worth or when he is so integrated with others that he is not aware of a separate self.
And it is to this phenomenon every person who possesses both a critical intellect and the necessary emotion of "compassion" must turn to help understand why there are some homophobes who make their homophobia something like a career. So many spend an inordinate amount of time condemning God's LGBT children, and one must understand that their animus ultimately resides, not in the object of their hatred, but in their own psyches that betrays their blemishes, crippled natures, incompleteness, and insecurities.
After all, if someone is emotionally and sexually intact, why would there be a need for their obsessive condemnation of other consenting adults' emotional/sexual orientations?
How is same-sex marriage, for example, going to adversely affect anyone's heterosexual marriage? Is there anyone who can give a reasonable answer to that question?
Clearly, there can be no rational answer to that rhetorical question! If anything, same-sex marriage will enhance the institution of marriage!
Indeed, increasing legitimacy will accrue to the institution of marriage the more people partake of its rights, privileges, and responsibilities. So, people who are genuinely concerned with the future of the institution of marriage should be working to minimize divorce and encourage same-sex couples who wish to make a lifetime commitment to each other to marry!
Yet, we have many religious (and secular) people who try and prevent same-sex couples from partaking of the very institution from which they benefit, thereby encouraging fornication as one of their prejudices' byproducts, and they even have the temerity to claim the right to discriminate in the name of God. So, would they have us believe that God would prefer fornication over marriage among Gay people?
Can they be that clueless that they could reasonably expect that Gay people can, should, and must lead celibate lives while only heterosexuals can and should fulfill one of human beings' most primal urges?
The irrationality of homophobic rhetoric shows a clear deficiency on the part of homophobes regarding their level of "compassion," as it does their clear dissatisfaction with their own lot in life! Why else spend such an inordinate amount of time thinking about and condemning the emotional/sexual lives of others?
Emotionally and sexually intact people aren't particularly concerned with the emotional and sexual lives of other adults! They are likely to have a "live and let live" approach to such matters!
However, when someone has an inordinate fascination with condemning others, that condemnation betrays an emotional deficiency that makes compassion very difficult, if not impossible, to have or sustain.
And if a Christian (or any other decent person) can be characterized by any one characteristic, that characteristic is "compassion!"
Christians are to be agents of God's grace in this world; we are to preach and live out the Gospel of grace, faith, love, peace, reconciliation, and inclusiveness! And those who condemn others, those who seek to deprive others of civil rights, those who help create a climate of fear and hatred of others, have shown by their words and/or deeds that they are neither Christians nor even decent people!
We are to make no mistake: homophobes are absolutely no different in their mind-set and in their emotional deficiencies than were and are White Supremacists! Both groups partake of the need to discriminate and hate in order for the awareness of their own emotional deficiencies to be overridden by their condemnation of others!
"Condemnation" acts as an imperfect and temporary band-aid to help heal the haters' own emotional woundedness, a woundedness that they don't have the courage to bring themselves to face, confront, and overcome! So, they take the coward's way out and, rather than deal with "the beam in their own eye," they feel the need to manufacture a beam in a minority group whom they perceive it is safe to persecute.
And when that particular minority group is no longer considered safe to persecute, they will search for another minority group upon which to vent their anger, an anger borne of their own emotional deficiencies that they cloak in religious trappings, so that they can try and stake a claim on "godliness," "virtue" and "morality" when, in fact, their own rhetoric and actions show them to manifest the greatest form of ungodliness, lack of virtue, and immorality: the sin of pride in their oppression of others!
Jesus never condemned Gay people, but He sure spent quite a bit of time condemning the proud, the haughty, the legalists who condemned and discriminated against others and put yokes of bondage onto others, all the while claiming to impose those yokes in the name of God.
If haters didn't have an object to hate, they would be forced to confront their own emotional blemishes, crippled natures, incompleteness, insecurities, deficiencies and frailties. And that is the last thing a moral coward feels he/she can afford to do!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)