Religion-based Bigotry

I've been following the federal case challenging the constitutionality of Prop 8, but I've not been writing a lot about my impressions.  Mostly because every time I start to, I get very angry and I'm not sure I really want to commit those kind of thoughts to "paper" without more reflection.

However, I do want to share some of what has come out of today's testimony.

From Towleroad (one of my favorite blogsites)

A document from the Church of Latter Day Saints to the Proposition 8 campaign was revealed at the trial today, and contained this instructive:

With respect to Prop. 8 campaign, key talking points will come from campaign, but cautious, strategic, not to take the lead so as to provide plausible deniability or respectable distance so as not to show that church is directly involved.

Julia Rosen, blogging for the Courage Campaign notes: "Get that? The LDS Church intentionally worked to hide behind the scenes to disguise their involvement in the public realm. The LDS Church is well aware that the general public does not have the most favorable opinion of them. Attention on their involvement could have hurt their cause, namely passing Prop 8."

Rosen called the afternoon "explosive" as the attorneys battled over what documents could be revealed as evidence of the coordinated efforts between Prop 8 campaign and Catholic, LDS, and Evangelical churches.

It elicited this statement from Judge Walker: "Not to make light of this, but the reason people want to produce documents is that they are revealing."
Hear, hear.

There is more that came out today.  Mostly about how much the Catholic and Mormon (LDS) Churches were behind Prop 8 every step of they way.  They funded it, they promoted it from their pulpits, they enlisted volunteers from all over the country to change California's state constitution.  All in the name of ensuring gay and lesbian Americans do not enjoy the same rights, privileges and responsibilities as every other American.

And we're talking about a Civil contract here... no one was ever forcing the Churches to perform weddings that didn't conform to their own standards.

Tell me again why we continue to grant tax-exempt status to religious organizations that directly fund and sponsor political activity?

If you want to know more about how the Prop 8 trial is going I recommend this site:

http://prop8trialtracker.com/

Marriage is a Civil Rite

Here is a really nice write-up of the federal courts challenge to California's Prop 8.

http://www.lgbtpov.com/2009/12/federal-challenge-to-prop-8-hearing-today/

This challenge is particularly important because it will have a massive impact at a national level.  If the suit brought by Olsen and Boies is successful, it'll put a stop to this emotionally and financially draining, state-by-state battle we've been fighting for decades.

Prop 8 (and by extension, all the anti-gay marriage laws that have passed over the last few years) is unconstitutional because it

** Violates the Due Process Clause by impinging on fundamental liberties
** Violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
** Singles out gays and lesbians for a disfavored legal status, thereby creating a category of “second-class citizens.”
** Discriminates on the basis of gender.
** Discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation.

How many American's even know what the Fourteenth Amendment says?  Passed by congress in 1868, the pertinent text reads:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws*.

* emphasis mine

Yes, I understand the argument that says marriage is a "religious rite" and has "traditionally" been reserved for opposite-sex couples.  It's also "traditionally" included multiple wives, women as property, arranged marriage between strangers, and child brides, but I don't see religous conservatives fighting to bring back to those traditions.  At least, not most of them.

The fact is, no one is asking for forced participation in a religious rite.  Churches already have the right to refuse their sacraments to anyone they want.  A divorced Catholic can't get married in the church.  A protestant couple can be denied a jewish wedding.  And nothing changes when the (already existing) right of same-sex couples to marry is finally recognized.

Here is another fact.  The state doesn't interfere with other religious sacraments such as baptism, christenings, first communion or bar mitzvahs and bat mitzvahs.  Why?  Because none of those rites come with state funded benefits and protections.  But once married couples began to accept civil benefits based on their marital status, then it ceased to be solely a religious rite; it also became a civil rite... and therefore a civil right.

The way I see it, there are ultimately two options.  Either protect the right of ALL Americans to wed the  consenting adult of their choosing, OR take away all state and federal rights and benefits that accrue from marriage.

Which do you think is the more reasonable alternative?

Separate, but (Un)equal.

This week, we are waiting to see if the New Jersey state senate will pass a marriage equality law in their current lame-duck session.  Hey, it could happen... even The Boss has come out in favor of marriage equality.

What I find really interesting about the New Jersey situation is that they have had gay/lesbian civil unions since January of 2007.  This supposedly "separate but equal" instition is what the religous right, and even some of our liberal friends and "fierce advocates", say we should be satisfied with.  Of course, over the last 15 years, every time we actually TRY to gain civil union rights, the conservative movement does everything they can to shoot those down as well.  In fact, Texans went so far in making sure gays and lesbians have none of the rights and priviledges of marriage, they may have inadvertantly outlawed marriage for everyone.  lol.. "As ye sow," and all that.

Meanwhile, back in January of 2009, the New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission (a state-sponsored body) unanimously decided that segregating same-sex couples into Civil Unions "invites and encourages unequal treatment of same-sex couples and their children."

California and New York.. not as progressive as Iowa?!

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Gaywatch - Meredith Baxter & New York State Senate
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

Here's another reason I love John Stewart.  He's funny, smart, and definitely on the right side of history.

Summer of Love - meh, not so much.

I sympathize with what equality-minded New Yorkers are feeling this week as their spineless state senators voted against equal rights for their second-class citizens (aka - gays and lesbians).  We went through the same thing in California last year with Prop-H8.

I remember waking up after election day, opening my web browser to review the vote counts, and feeling my heart fall completely out of my chest.  All the talking heads on the news were pontificating on how Obama's election meant that finally, FINALLY every child in America could dream of being the President and make it happen.

Yeah, well... not so much if you are gay or lesbian.  Or frankly, a woman, a latino, and asian... or god forbid (literally), an atheist, or muslim, or buddhist, sigh.. the list is pretty long isn't it?

Anyway, this week's NY senate vote reminded me of a wonderful post by my favorite 82 y.o. blogger, Helen Philpot. 

Summer of Love

We often say that if we are patient, we second-class citizens will finally achieve equality when the older generation "goes gently into the night."  Helen is living proof that we should listen more to our elders.  

Check it out, it's worth a re-read.

Family Values

While the NY marriage equality bill failed in the NY state senate this last Wednesday, there are at least a couple good things to take from it.  Not a single Republican senator had the courage to stand up and say why they were voting no.  It might not feel like it, but that really is progress.  Even they realize that bigotry is shameful work.