Box Turtle Bulletin

Possible Movement On Uganda from US Episcopalians

The Episcopal News Service in the United States reports:

A teleconference meeting of the Episcopal Church’s Executive Council will take place on Dec. 7 to discuss a possible statement on Ugandan legislation that would imprison for life or execute people who violate that country’s anti-homosexuality laws.

This would be a welcome addition to the Anglican Church of Canada’s statement. But so far, no signs of life are emanating from the Anglican Communion itself

HIV/AIDS Envoy: Uganda’s Chairing Of Commonwealth Meeting “A Mockery of Commonwealth Principles”

The Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) takes place every two years to bring together the heads of states of some fifty-three countries, most of them former members of the British Commonwealth. CHOGM was last held in Kampala, Uganda in 2007. This year, the CHOGM will take place in Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago on November 27-29, with Uganda President Yoweri Museveni serving as the meeting’s chair.

Prior to the CHOGM, there is another important series of meetings known as the Commonwealth People’s Forum. This Forum is conducted by the Commonwealth Foundation, which is officially sponsored by the Commonwealth. This year’s Forum is taking place in Port of Spain November 22-24, and it brings together hundreds of civil and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to discuss several important issues on wide ranging topics of human development around the world.

Today, Stephen Lewis, Co-Director of AIDS-Free World, is speaking before the Forum to address the Anti-Homosexuality Act which has been tabled before the Uganda Parliament. Lewis also serves as the United Nations Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for HIV/AIDS in Africa. According to prepared remarks (PDF: 143KB/7 pages), Lewis said that the proposed Act is an “inflamatory redesign” of Uganda’s already draconian anti-sodomy law into “a veritable charter of malice.” He also warns that the proposed Act and Museveni’s chairing the CHOGM “puts the Commonwealth\’s legitimacy and integrity to the test”:

One must remember that the last meeting of CHOGM was held in Uganda in 2007, and issued what is called the “Munyonyo Statement of Respect and Understanding”. It asserted that the Commonwealth “is a body well-placed to affirm the fundamental truth that diversity is one of humanity\’s greatest strengths”. It went on to say that “accepting diversity, respecting the dignity of all human beings, and understanding the richness of our multiple identities have always been fundamental to the Commonwealth\’s principles and approach …”. President Museveni signed the document. How in the world does he reconcile the affirmation then with the defamation now?

Lewis recalls some of the most heinsous aspects of the proposed legislation — the death penalty for LGBT citizens with HIV/AIDS, the criminal sanctions against those who fail to report LGBT people to police within 24 hours, the extraterritorial clause which “extend(s) the arm of the state into the bedrooms of the world,” and the provisions which explicitly suspend international law — and he declares that the legislation has a “powerful Orwellian flavor”:

If it weren\’t so extreme, so menacing, so lunatic, it would be the stuff of theatrical parody. Parents, teachers, doctors, entrepreneurs, preachers, landlords, community health workers, members of the media, civil society activists, anyone who can identify a homosexual, gay or lesbian, or has reason to believe that homosexuality is lurking, must report to the authorities or face a fine, or jail term of three to ten years, or both. Can you imagine a father or a mother turning in a son or daughter? Can you imagine a teacher ratting on a student? Can you imagine a physician who\’s taken a Hippocratic oath to tend to the sick betraying that trust because of a patient\’s sexual orientation? But that\’s exactly what this law requires.

I\’ve truly never seen its like before. Please forgive the harsh language, but this intended antihomosexual statute has the taste of fascism.

And yet, that\’s only the half of it. What is put at terrible risk here — beyond the threat of the death penalty for HIV-positive homosexuals — is the entire apparatus of AIDS treatment, prevention and care.

Citing the significant amounts of HIV/AIDS funding now being funneled to Uganda from the United States (through PEPFAR, the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief) and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Marlaria, Lewis warns that “there’s a very real crisis of conscience in the offing.” As written, this bill, which also bans any activities which can be seen as “support” for LGBT people, would place ordinary NGO employees and volunteers at risk for criminal penalties. Lewis continues:

I know that the views I am expressing on behalf of the organization I represent, AIDS-Free World, will seem tough and harsh to some. But let me tell you what we feel.

We don\’t think that this piece of legislation deserves a careful parsing of its clauses, invoking all of the international human rights instruments that Uganda has endorsed, from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, attempting to show where the Bill is in conflict with human rights principles. That just gives far too much credibility to the proposed legislation. On its face, without more than a simple glance at the substance, the Bill is revealed as an unbridled attack on the human rights of sexual minorities. There is no overall clause worthy of retention. There are phrases here or there (like the prohibition of sex with a minor) that any sentient human being can agree with. But the Bill cannot possibly be salvaged. It must be expunged in total from the parliamentary record. And for those who believe in conspiracy theories, let me say that the fundamentalist hand of the religious right in the United  States is not difficult to discern.

Nor do we think that we need treat this issue with respect. We don\’t believe that we have to ‘respectfully submit\’ our arguments to anyone, or seek to ‘respectfully influence\’ the powers-that-be. There are some moments in life where defining issues are indelibly joined. I remember sitting behind my then Canadian Prime Minister, Brian Mulroney, at the Commonwealth meeting in Vancouver in 1987. The issue was apartheid. The contest was between Margaret Thatcher and Mulroney, and Mulroney let her have it. There was no respectful pretense. He didn\’t parse the pass laws, he didn\’t invoke the clauses of international covenants, he just lacerated Prime Minister Thatcher for defending apartheid, and he decried it for what it was: a totalitarian regime rooted in racism and the savage decimation of human rights. It\’s worth noting that he was joined by Sir Shridath Ramphal, then the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, who was slightly more restrained but unmistakable of tone and purpose. That was a time when the Commonwealth stood for something.

Lewis skillfully defends the apartheid analogy be pointing out that he didn’t invent the analogy. The comparison between racial apartheid and anti-LGBT legislation was made by the Constitutional Court of South Africa itself in 1998 when it struck down that country’s anti-sodomy law.

Describing the proposed Anti-Homosexuality Act as “positively criminal,” Lewis demands that the CHOGM takes up this issue and places it on the agenda. He also demands that the Commonwealth collectively commits to suspending Uganda from the Commonwealth should the proposed law pass. This step is typically reserved for when a member state undergoes a military coup or suspension of its constitution. Zimbabwe is the most recent suspension. However, South Africa was suspended in 1961 over apartheid, and it wasn’t re-admitted until 1994 after its racial policies were dismantled.

But that was a relatively easy call: no other member nation had state-sanctioned racial segregation policies. Forty of the fifty-three member nations currently have anti-sodomy laws, although none of them as severe as Uganda’s existing law which already provides for lifetime imprisonment. With the vast majority of the Commonwealth already on record as  fully prepared to imprison its LGBT population, and Museveni acting as chair of the Commonwealth summit, a statement addressing the proposed legislation is a severe long shot. But as Lewis concludes:

“The credibility of the Commonwealth is hanging by a spider\’s thread. …If the once-upon-a-time civilized values of the post-colonial Commonwealth are to be restored, then the monstrous war on homosexuality is the place to start the restoration. Uganda makes a perfect beginning.

Click here to see BTB\’s complete coverage of recent anti-gay developments in Uganda.

Jenkins gets full custody

In 2000, Lisa Miller and Janet Jenkins entered a civil union in Vermont. In 2002, Isabella Ruth Miller-Jenkins was born and the family shortly thereafter moved to Vermont to raise little Elizabeth Isabella in an environment that would be supportive of her family.

In the fall of 2003 the couple broke up. They agreed to end the civil union and the court approved the settlement. Janet agreed to pay child support and to visit Isabella regularly.

However, Lisa, who had taken Isabella and moved back to Virginia, fell into an anti-gay religious crowd. She decided that she was no longer a lesbian and that homosexuality was sin and developed hostility to both Janet and “the homosexual lifestyle”.

Then Exodus International stepped in. They got her in contact with Liberty Counsel who immediately made little Isabella’s life a centerpiece for their anti-gay activism.

Since 2004, Miller and Jenkins have been fighting in court over whether Jenkins could have any sort of relationship with her daughter. So far, every decision has ended with the confirmation that Janet Jenkins was entitled to visitation and that Virginia is not going to ignore the terms that the Vermont courts had put in place as a part of the termination of their civil union.

But, at the advice of Liberty Counsel, Miller has sought to thwart the will of the various courts. She simply refused to live up to the visitation terms. Further, she sought to deliberately instill the child with religion-based animus towards Jenkins and even went so far as to accuse her of molestation (social services called the claim “unfounded”).

In August, the Virginia courts opted not to jail Lisa Miller for contempt, but did levy fines of $100 per day for missed visitation. This did not seem to make an impression on Miller. (nvdaily)

“I’m going to continue to take a stand for the Lord, no matter what the cost, because that’s what a Christian is supposed to do,” she said.

But now one judge has had enough. Although Janet Jenkins did not originally request full custody, it appears that this is the only solution that will allow both parents to see the child. (Rutland Herald)

After finding Miller in contempt of court earlier this year for denying Jenkins access to Isabella, Cohen said he decided the only way to ensure the child equal access to both parents was to switch custody.

“The court concludes that it is in the best interest of (Isabella) that Ms. Jenkins exercise parental rights and responsibilities,” the judge said. “This court stated that continued interference by Ms. Miller with the relationship between (Isabella) and Ms. Jenkins could lead to a change of circumstances and outweigh the disruption that would occur if a change of custody were ordered.”

Judge William Cohen determined that this would be in the best interest of Isabella.

The switch in custody is to take place New Years Day. Jenkins has vowed to provide visitation to Miller, even allowing her to take Isabella to church events.

But only a fool would assume that this story is over. With advice from the likes of Liberty Counsel, and a sense of religious entitlement, I would be surprised if Miller complied with the order. And even if she does, Liberty Counsel will only have more fodder for their gimme money letters to supporters so the legal appeals are not likely to end before this poor kid is a teenager.

The Timeline

Gay MA Lt. Gov. Candidate

Massachusetts residents are going to have the opportunity to vote for an openly gay Lieutenant Governor. Or, at least if they are Republican, they will be. (Boston.com)

Gubernatorial candidate Charles Baker followed a Massachusetts Republican tradition on Monday by selecting a veteran state legislator to be his running mate in next year’s election.

Baker, the former Harvard Pilgrim Health Care president, tapped Sen. Richard Tisei as his ally for a primary against fellow Republican Christy Mihos. The winner faces the Democratic incumbent, Gov. Deval Patrick, and state Treasurer Timothy Cahill, who is running as an independent, in the November 2010 general election.

Tisei is the minority leader in the Senate. And while it was long an “open secret” that he’s gay, last week he made his orientation public, saying “It is not exactly a news flash. I don\’t think people really care these days.\'”

Tisei, who owns a real estate company in Lynnfield, is the most veteran Republican in the Senate, have first won election in 1984 at the age of 22. Now 47, he served six years in the House before winning the first of ten consecutive two-year terms in the Senate.

While describing himself as a fiscal conservative, Tisei is considered a social liberal. He revealed last week that he is gay, and he has supported efforts to legalize gay marriage in Massachusetts. Baker recently revealed his brother is gay, and he has been a longtime supporter of gay marriage.

Baker has the support of the Republican party structure in Massachusetts and the endorsement of the four prior Republican governors (yes, including Mitt Romney).

Federal Challenge to Prop. 8, Explained

I have a feature in The American Prospect‘s December issue on the federal challenge to Prop. 8 — and what’s at stake.

Perry v. Schwarzenegger indeed asks the “ultimate question” of whether gays have a federal right to marry, but because the case is alleging that Prop. 8 violated the equal-protection clause of the U.S. Constitution, the federal court decision will have implications for gay Americans in nearly every arena of public life, from housing to parenting to military service. The court is set to consider questions as wide-ranging as what it means to be gay and whether it affects one’s contribution to society. It’s not just marriage rights on trial; it’s homosexuality itself.

As you can tell, the scope of the trial is pretty big, which is why the established LGBT community was so hesitant to bring the case in the first place. Part of why the case is so important is that it is alleging that Prop. 8 violates Equal Protection. The law here is a bit strange, and interesting: you essentially have to show that gay people are a distinct and well-defined group before they can be treated just like everyone else.

The Baptist Standard calls out Texas Baptists on their hypocrisy

Baptists, once known for their delight in self-autonomy and individual determination of God’s direction, have become a highly exclusionary club.

As Broadway Baptist Church learned, it isn’t enough to follow the rules about gay members, you also have to demonstrate deep loathing for all things homosexual. So the Southern Baptist Convention sent them packing.

And while Broadway avoided a similar fate at the Baptist General Convention of Texas by sending visitors and not messengers (voting members), it was pretty clear that any whiff of tolerance, love, or grace would give rise to calls for expulsion.

This seems to have proved to be too much for Marv Knox, editor of the Baptist Standard. In an editorial he wonder if gays in the pews is a cause for expulsion, what other sins might qualify.

Let\’s be clear: Texas Baptists have called homosexual activity sin, and that has been affirmed on this page before. But is homosexuality the only sin or the unpardonable sin?

If Texas Baptists are to be consistent, either we must offer some grace to congregations with which the majority of our convention does not agree (remembering the congregations themselves are not of one mind on this issue), or we must start removing congregations that are home to known sinners.

If we take that route, let\’s begin with churches whose pastors blog about Texas Baptists—gossiping and sowing discord. They harm the BGCT far worse than has Broadway. Then, maybe we should remove churches with adulterous deacons, followed by churches with fornicating teens. And if we have any congregations left, why don\’t we turn the dinner tables and deal with gluttony? Maybe gossip and gluttony don\’t seem as heinous as homosexual sex, but will we blink at heterosexual sex outside of marriage?

My goodness! Mr. Knox is beginning to sound like a, well, a Baptist.

Canada’s Anglicans oppose Uganda’s ‘Kill Gays’ bill

From the Episcopal News Service:

The Anglican Church of Canada’s Council of General Synod has expressed its dismay and concern over the draft proposed Anti-Homosexuality Bill currently before the Ugandan Parliament.
…
“The proposed bill would severely impede the human rights of Ugandan citizens both at home and abroad by infringing freedom of speech, peaceful assembly, freedom of organization, and legitimate advocacy of civil rights,” the Council of General Synod said Nov. 15. “It would impose excessive and cruel penalties on persons who experience same-sex attraction as well as those who counsel, support, and advise them, including family members and clergy.”
…
Canada’s Council of General Synod called upon the Church of Uganda to oppose the bill. It also called “upon our own Government of Canada, through the minister of external affairs, to convey to the Government of Uganda a deep sense of alarm about this fundamental violation of human rights and, through diplomatic channels, to press for its withdrawal…”

Meanwhile Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury has remained too busy to oppose the proposed execution of gays in Uganda. He was in Rome today meeting with the Pope to discuss Rome’s poaching of anti-women and anti-gay Anglicans.

Click here to see BTB\’s complete coverage of recent anti-gay developments in Uganda.

Gillibrand, a willing ally

When Kirsten Gillibrand was selected to fill Hillary Clinton’s remaining term as US Senator from New York, some questioned the depth of her commitment to equality. A blue-dog upstate Democrat, she had previously spoken more favorably of civil unions.

But it appears that her commitment was not just of the ‘promises in public’ variety. Gillibrand is proving to be the kind of ally that doesn’t magically discover higher priorities or some mystical need for unanimity before acting on our behalf. (Daily News)

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, who has put LGBT issues on the top of her “to-do” list as she works to shore up her liberal credentials, has placed personal phone calls to on-the-fence Democratic state senators in hopes of getting them to vote “yes” on gay marriage.

Gillibrand’s office confirmed calls had been made, but refused to say who the recipients had been or if anyone had specifically asked the junior senator to weigh in.

“She made calls, yes; and they were private conversations,” Gillibrand spokesman Matt Canter said. “She did it because it’s an issue she cares deeply about.”

A review of the Manhattan Declaration

A group of conservative Christians released today their manifesto of their agreement across lines of faith and tradition. Entitled Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience, this document lays out areas in which the signatories declare commonality of purpose.

Who they are

First, let us say what this document is not. It is not, as the NY Times described it, a situation in which “Christian Leaders Unite on Political Issues“. Indeed, this is but a segment of Christian thought, claiming the mantle of Christian history and tradition but excluding broad segments of the faith.

One need only glance at the signatories to know the nature of the alliance. Present are some who are well known names in the political culture wars who have long striven to impose their religious views by force of law on the unbelievers: Dr. James Dobson, Chuck Colson, Gary Bauer, and Tony Perkins. Some are religious leaders who have been recently shifting their realm of influence away from faith towards secular domination: Ravi Zacharias, Dr. Albert Mohler, and Jonathan Falwell.

But this is not just broadly social conservatives. There is, instead, a concentration of those who focus on “opposing the homosexual agenda”. There are a few religious activists who seem dedicated and committed (obsessed, one might think) to fighting equality for gay people: Ken Hutcherson, Bishop Harry Jackson, and Jim Garlow. And then, inexplicably, some who are not religious leaders at all but social activists whose primary occupation is in seeking the political institutionalizing of inequality to gay people: Maggie Gallagher, Frank Schubert, and William Donohue.

Perhaps the most difficult to explain, and by far the most troubling name present, is The Most Rev. Peter J. Akinola, Primate, Anglican Church of Nigeria.

There is no explanation provided as to what relevance Akinola has on what is a uniquely American collection. But his participation is not accidental. And, as I will discuss momentarily, his is perhaps the key that explains the true nature of this manifesto.

This could be seen as nothing more that “the usual suspects”, a rehashing of the Moral Majority or the Christian Coalition or any other of the loose groupings of religious authoritarians, were it not for one import inclusion. There are nine Catholic Archbishops who signed on to this document.

Ideologically as dissimilar as possible, these two Christian extremes – one whose doctrine is based in tradition, liturgy, and hierarchy, the other whose doctrine is based in reform, spirit-led worship, and direct divine revelation – have set aside ancient hostilities and theological beliefs that doubt the other’s right to be considered “Christian” and have now joined in a common purpose: denying your rights.

But as important as who is present, is who is absent.

Among the signatories I was unable to find any members of the United Church of Christ, Episcopal Church, Presbyterian Church (USA), Friends (Quaker), Disciples of Christ, Unitarian Universalists or American Baptists. There was one United Methodist minister.

In short, a whole branch of Christianity, Mainline Christianity, was missing, including many who no doubt would agree with the goals of banning abortion and forbidding same-sex marriage. This exclusion is, I believe, integral to understanding the true purpose of this manifesto.

The agreed upon issues

While this alliance is one that does not reflect the face of Christianity, it also is not a declaration of a new-found position of agreement based on shared Christian teaching and ideology. There is no mention of shared faith in creeds or teachings, no virgin birth, no resurrection, no divine redemption.

Rather, this is a statement of political purpose by an alliance of socially conservative activist who oppose abortion and marriage equality. Indeed, although the document speaks in lofty terms of Christian tradition and religious freedom, the only commitments it makes are to oppose legal abortion (some day down the road) and the immediate attack on the ability of gay people to avail themselves of civil equality.

This is, in short a political alliance. It is a pact and a threat.

What it means

While on the face of it, this manifesto purports to be a rededication to fight two specific political issues, I think that this is but surface dressing for a deeper meaning.

This is not a war over civil marriage definition – nor, indeed, has that ever been the real motivation behind anti-gay marriage drives. Rather, this is a war over religious domination, a fight over who is “really a Christian” and an effort on the part of a long-suffering religious subset to spite those who have long had what they coveted.

Political power in the United States had long been in the hands of what is now called Mainline Christianity. Our presidents have included over a dozen Episcopalians (as is the National Cathedral), about ten Presbyterians, with most of the rest being Methodists, Unitarians, Disciples of Christ, and Quakers.

There has been exactly one Catholic. There have been four Baptists, of whom the two Southern Baptists were Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. There have been no Pentecostals and no members of mega-Churches. In fact, though some Republican presidents have been religious and conservative, there has never been a President of the United States that was both denominationally and ideologically within the fold represented by the signatories of this Manhattan Declaration.

And now they want theirs. And, not content at the rise of their own political power, they will not be happy unless they can diminish those denominations whom they seek to replace.

Note the presence of the second signatory, Peter Akinola? He is the Nigerian Anglican who has been missionizing the United States in an effort to hurt the Episcopal Church. His inclusion is a very clear message sent to the EC that they are a target for the Catholic Church and the evangelical churches who will use whatever political power they may wield in the future to thwart her position in the nation.

This manifesto is, I believe, less a declaration of war on gay people and those with unplanned pregnancies than it is a declaration of war on other Christian faiths.

One absence that seems to confirm this alliance is a denomination that one might have expected to be quick to affirm its commitment to the right to life and protection of the family. But there are no representatives from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (the Mormons). The exclusion of this church, considered by most conservatives to be “NOT Christian”, suggest that this manifesto has less to do with social goals and more to do with Christian definition.

This manifesto says, in effect, “We are the Christians. We are the ‘heirs of a 2,000-year tradition of proclaiming God’s word’, and we alone will speak for the faith.”

What the manifesto reveals

In addition to highlighting the division in the Christian body, there are also some clues as to future items on the agenda of this newly affirmed political alliance. Here is how I translate some of their declarations.

we note with sadness that pro-abortion ideology prevails today in our government … truly Christian answer to problem pregnancies is for all of us to love and care for mother and child alike

Only lip service will be paid to the shared objection to abortion. Little time, money, or political capital will be spent on this already lost goal. However, should opportunity ever swing in their direction, they will stop at nothing short of a full ban on all abortions without any consideration of rape, quality of life, or the life of the mother.

But absent the abortion issue, these allies have but one other shared issue: attacking you and your life.

Around the globe … take steps necessary to halt the spread of preventable diseases like AIDS

The situations in Nigeria and Uganda are not accidental nor unrelated to the efforts of conservative Americans. Although virtually all of the spread of AIDS in Africa is related to heterosexuality, this will be an excuse to pass draconian laws seeking to repress, incarcerate, or execute gay men and women.

In addition to being a slam against the Episcopal Church, the inclusion of Akinola announces that pogroms against gay Africans will have the endorsement of both the Catholic Church and conservative evangelical churches.

We should not expect the calls for criminal prosecution of gay people to be limited to foreign soil. Should such a fervor be fostered internationally, it is unquestionable that this will lend support to efforts to reinstate or bolster oppression here.

It is no longer a matter of curiosity that the Catholic Church has not spoken out against the Kill Gays bill in Uganda. Nor had Dr. Mohler or Dr. Dobson. Nor, indeed, has any signatory of this document.

The impulse to redefine marriage in order to recognize same-sex and multiple partner relationships … there are those who are disposed towards homosexual and polyamorous conduct and relationships … Some who enter into same-sex and polyamorous relationships no doubt regard their unions as truly marital … the assumption that the legal status of one set of marriage relationships affects no other would not only argue for same sex partnerships; it could be asserted with equal validity for polyamorous partnerships, polygamous households, even adult brothers, sisters, or brothers and sisters living in incestuous relationships

The Manhattan document does not in any place refer to same-sex relationships without simultaneously mentioning multiple-party relationships. This will no doubt translate to a new commitment on the part of the signatories to try and tie the two together in their political campaigns.

Frankly, I wish them godspeed in that decision. Americans have, I believe, moved beyond the point in which gay couples are viewed as identical to polygamists.

as Christ was willing, out of love, to give Himself up for the church in a complete sacrifice, we are willing, lovingly, to make whatever sacrifices are required of us for the sake of the inestimable treasure that is marriage.

This probably tells us nothing but the extent to which these people are self-righteous and truly deeply smarmy. They are willing, lovingly, to sacrifice your life and freedom and equality, not their own. Oh how loving. Oh how Christ-like.

Because we honor justice and the common good, we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family.

There are, as we all know, no requirements for any churches or ministers to act contrary to their faith. We have long since debunked their claims of oppression and shown them to be nothing more than a retraction of special privilege when the religious groups in question wanted to use taxpayer dollars to discriminate against gay taxpayers. There are no instances in their recitation in which religious groups were forced to compromise in any areas of faith in the administration of their own funds or time.

That is of no consequence. Liars lie. We expect the morally bankrupt to behave without integrity.

But what I think we can anticipate, based on their conclusion, is a concerted effort at political stuntery. A dedication to dishonesty. And an ongoing campaign of lies.

As a Christian, it distresses me to see the name of my faith and the mantle of its history usurped by those who have no respect for its greater principles but instead gleefully glom onto its darker bloody history. Rather than exalt in the liberties that have evolved from Christian thought, they seek to equate the faith with its most prejudicial, superstitious, exclusionary and dictatorial moments.

But perhaps something good may come of this.

It is possible that out of this declaration of war, the moderate and liberal branches of the faith may find common cause, if nothing else in defense of their own good name. Perhaps they will decide that they have a purpose and meaning in modern America and will let go of residual guilt and angst and take up the mantle of protector of the oppressed and champion of justice and mercy.

Let us hope and pray that they do.

NJ Democrats Wiggle and Waffle

You know that marriage equality bill that the Democrats in New Jersey promised over the lame duck session? Well it now looks like that was just the usual sleight of hand we’ve been getting from the Democratic Party as of late. (nj.com)

[Upcoming] Senate Majority Leader Stephen Sweeney said today it would be irresponsible for Democrats to bring a bill to a vote if they are not sure it will pass.

So it might be killed in committee.

As legislators try to finagle votes for one side or another, Sen. Paul Sarlo (D-Bergen) said he would not bring the bill up for a vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee — even though enough people in the committee supported it to pass — unless the Democrats could prove they had the votes to pass it outright.

You know, the same ol’ BS. Yeah we ‘don’t have the votes’ and we won’t tell you who is opposed to equality or unwilling to take a stand but gosh golly we are going to need your dollars, your time, and your help in our campaigns. And if you knew exactly who didn’t give a rat’s ass about you, well ya just might not work as hard for us.

I’ll tell you who I think doesn’t give a rat’s ass.

I’ll start with Stephen Sweeney. And I’ll follow with every person who does not stand up and make a proactive effort to get this passed. “Oh, I just followed the leadership” means exactly the same as, “I don’t give a rat’s ass any more than the leadership does” and should be rewarded with the same.

There is a narrow window. And the people of the state are behind marriage equality. But some of these New Jersey politicians are living up to the stereotype of New Jersey politicians.

There are some wonderful people in Jersey. Some of them are gay, and many many more are friends, family, co-workers, and acquaintances who value their gay loved ones more than they value their elected official’s career.

Maybe it’s time that we got the list of Sweeney’s donors and found those with gay friends and family. Maybe a personal appeal from those loved ones might encourage them that a better use for the political donations could be found.

Who knows, maybe we could make enough of a change that Sweeney might suddenly find that he gives a rat’s ass.

NOM’s biblical Illiteracy

Brian Brown, the Executive Director of anti-gay activist group, National Organization for Marriage, recently sent out an email entitled Beating Down the Beatitudes in DC? in which he calls on recipients from around the nation to call and email District of Columbia officials and insist that gay people not be treated with equality and dignity in that city.

The email starts like this:

All Christians are called to follow the Beatitudes. Since our nation\’s founding, America in particular has benefited from the fact that churches have united together to feed the poor, clothe the naked, care for the fatherless and motherless, and comfort the sorrowful.

He rambles on with the lies that the Catholic Church in the District has put out about how treating gay people like people will stop them from giving hot soup to the homeless. But it wasn’t these prevarications that caught my eye, I’m used to NOM’s hyperbole.

What I noticed was something else entirely. Brian Brown seems to have no clue what the Beatitudes actually say. Presented as part of the Sermon on the Mount, the Beatitudes are not a call from Christians to help the poor. Rather, they are consolation and a promise of a better future: (Matthew 5:1-12)

Now when he saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples came to him, and he began to teach them saying:

“Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are those who mourn,
for they will be comforted.
Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be filled.
Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called sons of God.
Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

“Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

Now there are several places in Scripture where the followers of Christ are admonished to attend the physical needs of those around them. And it is true that Christians have often taken those commands to heart. But the Beatitudes are not among them.

I might be more convinced that Brown and Gallagher were motivated by a deep spiritual conviction rather than base animus if they didn’t evidence such biblical illiteracy. And I wonder if any of their followers even noticed… or cared.

Texas kid beaten with metal pole, entirely preventable

Few hate crimes are specifically preventable. It is not often that the intended violence is known in advance and reported to authorities. Which makes the case of Jayron Martin so frustrating and infuriating.

A fellow student warned Jayron that a group of students planned on beating him because he’s gay. So Jayron reported the threat to two assistant principals, who did nothing to protect him.

When Jayron got on the bus to go home (as the school opted not to call his mother) so did the group of attackers. Jayron then told the bus driver and begged for help. He didn’t get any.

So he ran. As fast as he could. Which wasn’t fast enough.

Unable to make it home, he ran into a neighbor’s house; but this didn’t deter his attackers. They followed and one beat Jayron with a metal pole while eight others watched.

It wasn’t until the owner came downstairs with a shotgun, and cocked it, that they ran off leaving Jayron with a concussion, bruised and bleeding.

Those who oppose gay-straight alliances or other support systems for gay students like to pretend that gay students face no greater threats than any other students. And when situations occur, they comfort their biases with the thought that the student must have provoked the situation or didn’t take the expected steps to protect himself.

I wonder what excuse they will give this time. But, then again, I also often wonder how they sleep at night.

Austria gets civil partnerships

The battle over marriage equality is, in many ways, a battle over minutia, the details of which differ by location.

In the United States, in some states any concession of even the least controversial of rights is a great contention, while in others, the line in the sand appears to be protecting the “sanctity” of the label.

As an American, I don’t always fully understand European perspectives and may not get the full nuance. But as best I can tell, in Europe there seems to be a separate contention, one that is not given much importance in the United State: whether a ceremony can be performed and what building can be used. (And Europeans see adoption as part of the marriage question, while Americans see the issues as separate and state laws tend to treat them separately).

So, for example, in the UK the biggest distinction between marriage and civil unions (other than nomenclature) is that a gay couple cannot use a space that has been designated for religious use and cannot have a ceremony as part of their legal process.

To Americans it seems odd that a government would disallow a church the right to conduct a wedding. And the idea of banning people from conducting their union with the ceremony of their choice seems impending on liberty. In the United States, not only do the states that recognize marriage have no such restrictions, neither do any of the states that recognize domestic partnerships or civil unions. Americans care about “recognition” and what will be “taught in schools” and the “right” for religious folks to be obnoxious jerks and other such red herrings.

Indeed, among the first to rejoice with gay couples are always Unitarian and often many other religious leaders who delight in making their religious space available for the consecration of such unions. With as much ceremony as the couple desires.

But that is not the European way.

So it is not with much surprise that the new bill in Austria to legalize civil unions is one that emphasizes ceremony and participants. (AFP)

Austria’s government agreed a new law Tuesday allowing civil partnerships for homosexual couples, although ceremonies at the civil registry’s office will still be banned.

The compromise, achieved after weeks of wrangling between the ruling Social Democrats and their conservative coalition partner in government, will give gay couples equal rights to heterosexuals with regards to pensions and alimony.
…
The proposal came up against strong opposition from the conservative People’s Party, which fought any attempts to allow civil partnership ceremonies at the civil registry’s office, where gay couples can marry.

Instead, civil partnerships will be registered at the municipal office or the magistrate’s office — the local authority of which the registry’s office is only a part.

The change will be effective January 1 after final approval by parliament.

This is an important step for gay Austrians (not many of whom are like Bruno).

Prior to this legislation, laws applying to de facto couples, called unregistered cohabitation, also applied to same-sex couples as the result of a 2003 decision of the European Court of Human Rights. However such rights inherent in that status were limited and the protections and recognition of same-sex couples are greatly enhanced by this bill.

And perhaps some day soon Austrians will cease to care whether their gay brothers and sisters can also solemnize their unions with a ceremony and in what building they do so.

New Jersey wants marriage equality

A new poll in New Jersey shows more support than opposition for marriage equality.

More New Jerseyans support legalizing gay marriage than oppose it, according to a Rutgers-Eagleton poll released this morning.

The poll, conducted between Nov. 6 and 10, found 46 percent of adult residents want to extend the right to gay couples while 42 percent oppose it. Still undecided were 12 percent of respondents.

There has long been talk of instituting marriage equality during the lame duck session that begins next week. However, recent comments from the Democratic leadership of some committees suggests that they are looking for excuses to avoid a vote.

There is a very narrow window in which to pass a marriage bill. Otherwise we are on hold in New Jersey for another four years or until Christie is replaced.

Court OKs NY out-of-state marriage recognition

When the executive branch of the State of New York determined that same-sex marriages conducted legally outside of the state would be recognized, anti-gay activists sued. Today the Court of Appeals backed the State. (A/P)

New York’s top court on Thursday rejected a Christian legal group’s challenge to some government benefits provided to gay couples legally married elsewhere and now living in New York.

The court rejected an argument that same-sex marriage was akin to incest and polygamy but avoided declaring that gay couples are entitled to all the rights of other married couples.

In a 4-3 decision on the narrow question of benefits, the Court of Appeals did not address whether the state must recognize same-sex marriage but encouraged the Legislature to settle the issue. The case was pushed by the Alliance Defense Fund of Scottsdale, Ariz.