Box Turtle Bulletin

Perry v. Schwarzenegger: closing arguments

For today’s summary, I relied on liveblogging by FiredogLake, Equality California, and the San Jose Mercury News.

Today Judge Walker Vaughn heard closing testimony, a very active process in which the judge asked a great many questions. From an information perspective this was basically a recap of the case, with each side seeking to present their evidence in the best light. But it was the opportunity for the judge to get each side to clarify and flesh out exactly what legal theory they were using for their argument.

First up: Ted Olson, the conservative icon who surprised anti-gay activists by declaring equality to be a conservative principle and by leading the case to reverse Proposition 8.

Olson talked about the various perspectives of those who are involved in the fight. He pointed out that the supporters of Prop 8 had one story during the campaign (protect the children) and an entirely other one during the case (deinstitutionalization of marriage). But for the plaintiffs, this is the most important choice they can make as an adult: who to marry.

Olson talked about how other relationships were not the same as marriage and had not been considered the same in American history. Slaves could enter informal relationships, but when freed and able to marry they found that the “marriage covenant is the foundation of all our rights.” When Loving v Virginia overturned racial restrictions, it removed a stigma.

He discussed how marriage equality makes gay families and their kids “okay”. How it reduces the burden on gay families, but also make America more American (according to the defense’s witness, David Blankenhorn).

Olson told the judge that his decision to allow a full trial on the merits of the proposition has provided evidence and been an education. He compared it to Brown v. Board of Education (the 1954 case which tossed out the “separate but equal” racially discriminatory education system). He lays out the long string of cases in which the SCOTUS has moved towards greater equality, at times overturning previous decisions.

And he laid out the case’s strongest argument: this is government imposed stigma placed in the state constitution. Further, the California Supreme Court did not “create a window” of rights. The right to marry the person of one’s choice had always existed, the CA Court simply recognized that right. The SCOTUS has found the right to marriage to be a fundamental right, and in Lawrence they found that homosexual behavior was a constitutional intimacy right. Applying each case atop the other, Olson said:

It can’t be constitutional to take away a constitutional right because a person engaged in a constitutionally protected behavior.

Olson argued for strict scrutiny, but said the case fails on any scrutiny. There is no state interest and “Because I say so” is not a reason for continued discrimination.

The voters passed Proposition 8 so as to say that same-sex marriage is not okay, to say that gay people are not okay. That is malice. It is not a constitutionally valid reason for denying rights to a class of people. Proposition cannot be found to be supportable in this case by any good valid reason, because no good valid reason was presented to support it.

And that concluded Olson’s closing statements.

Therese Stewart, on behalf of the City of San Francisco, spoke about the costs to the city: institutionalized discrimination increases mental health cost, the policing costs associated with increased hate crimes, costs for addressing bullying, the cost of lost tourism. But it would also cost the city its ability to treat all of its citizens equally.

The Governor and the Attorney General formally waived their right to defend Proposition 8 with closing arguments.

The judge then made an interesting observation. It seems that in most counties when you apply for a marriage license, there is no requirement on the form itself that you be opposite-sex. That really, from an administrative perspective, the decision to issue a license is up to the county clerk. The same is true for the issuance of domestic partnerships to heterosexual couples under the age of 62.

I’m not sure where the judge was going with that. But then they broke for lunch.

After lunch, Charles Cooper presented his closing arguments in defense of Proposition 8.

He argued that restricting marriage to the opposite sex was fundamental to the existence and survival of the human race. The purpose of marriage is for procreation. And without state-defined marriage, society would come to an end.

The judge pointed out that because the state has no requirement that married couples procreate – or even have the capacity or intention of doing so – that there must be some other purpose for marriage. Cooper rhetorically pondered the ways a state might go about insisting on procreation, suggesting that they were ludicrous, but the judge agreed that for his argument to be logical that these would be reasonable steps. None of them are required.

Cooper revised the purpose of marriage to be a that of increasing the likelihood that natural procreation be within the confines of marriage. Walker countered that marriage obligations extend far beyond the control of sexual behaviors.

What happened next was the defense’s worst nightmare. The judge asked Cooper for the evidence to support his premise. Cooper tried to quote various sources but the judge pointed out that none of these sources testified, that defense had only brought one witness “and I think it’s safe to say his testimony was equivocal.”

Cooper was left replying that there was no need for a witness, that there was no need for evidence, that it was obvious. The judge was not much impressed with the “I ain’t need no evidence” defense.

Cooper argued that up until 30 years ago no one considered same-sex marriage. Therefore it just must automatically be tied to procreation. But now gay people want to marry.

The judge then asked if these changes in the past 30 years might not, as was the case with Loving, be at a tipping point at which the purpose for marriage has changed in the public conscience. Cooper struggled to explain how racist restrictions differ because they had no basis in historical definitions [he may want to read more history], that miscegenation laws created illegitimate children [he may not actually have been listening to the words he was saying].

Cooper argued that the sole distinction – the sole criteria for legitimate marriage – was the ability to procreate “normally”. The judge failed to see how assisted fertility could not also be applied.

So Cooper shifted gears again and declared that the state had a right to “strengthen social norms”. He discussed children born out of wedlock and that restricting marriage to heterosexual couples was a way to protect against this increasing trend.

[So Cooper has within this testimony declared the purpose of marriage to be encouraging procreation so as to further the survival of the species; he then changed his definition to be channeling possible procreation into marriage; and then changed it again into discouraging irresponsible procreation, almost the opposite of his original contention]

Cooper next argued that this case should be subjected only to a rational basis standard. And because of this, he need not prove that the voters had any particular intention to discourage irresponsible procreation (or whatever his current purpose for marriage might be) but only that it is conceivable that they could have used this logic had they so wished. Not that they did, but that a rational person could.

This vein of questioning ended and Cooper clarified his request to have the 18,000 marriage invalidated. He’s said that if this caused irreconcilable differences, it would be better to toss out 18,000 marriages than to disregard the will of the voters. But otherwise, the defendants are fine with them continuing to be recognized as grandfathered-in.

The judge asked Cooper about whether gender (as opposed to incarceration, responsibility or ability to procreate) was the sole exception to marriage being a fundamental right. Cooper said that gender is the definitional feature of marriage.

The judge then asks if because Cooper claims that sexual orientation is only a social construct, then how it differs from gender. And the argument began it’s descent down the ex-gay path.

Cooper claimed that sexual orientation was not immutable and was not an “accident of birth”, i.e. no one is born gay. [I’ve long believed that the immutability of sexual orientation is the basis in which our eventual civil equality will be found.] They discussed how that while religion is not immutable, its rights are found in the First Amendment, not through heightened scrutiny.

Cooper insisted as “plainly right” that sexual orientation is not an immutable trait. He declared that 2/3rds of women change their orientation [a gross misstatement of the facts].

He further insisted that gays are not politically powerless. When the judge quoted a litany of discrimination, Cooper agreed that gays have been victims of discrimination, but insisted that history of discrimination is not by itself sufficient to warrant heightened judicial scrutiny.

The arguments took a veering to discuss whether Blankenhorn is a qualified witness. To support this, Cooper had nothing additional to add.

(to be continued… check back later)

When ADF speaks of children, who do they mean?

The Christian Post has an article up today quoting supporters of Proposition 8. (I guess the millions of Christians who opposed Prop 8 were all unavailable today, but I digress):

“More than 7 million Californians decided that marriage should be preserved, not fundamentally changed,” said Brian Raum, senior counsel at Alliance Defense Fund. “If a handful of activists is allowed to void a constitutional amendment protecting marriage, we have gutted the core of the American democratic system and will deny more children the mom and the dad they deserve.”

This certainly isn’t the first time the “deny the children” argument has be thrown around. Actually, we hear it quit regularly. But today I got to pondering just how extremely stupid (and contrary to orthodox Christianity) this who notion is.

Who, exactly, are these children that are being denied a mom and a dad?

Is there some great kid factory out there that is sending kids off to gay couples instead of the “mom and dad they deserve?” Does Brian Raum think that if only there were no gay couples then the stork would deliver their kids to straight couples?

OK, so some children of gay parents are adopted. But doesn’t he know that without deliberate effort on the part of these same-sex couples to conceive that many of these kids would not only be “denied” a mom and a dad but they would be denied existence altogether.

Or perhaps ADF is either appealing for Mormon support by fully buying in to Mormon theology. Perhaps he believes that it is spirit children who pre-existed in Heaven that are being denied heterosexual parents.

Or, most likely, he is just repeating a really stupid catch phrase which only appeals to those who don’t have the capacity to think outside of what anti-gay activists tell them.

Hutch presided over Rush’s wedding

I thought it peculiar that Rush Limbaugh would hire Elton John to perform at his wedding. But it now seems the wedding participants were even more unexpected.

The Palm Beach Post is reporting that the officiant was none other than obsessively anti-gay preacher Ken Hutcherson.

The preacher who signed Limbaugh’s and wife Kathryn Rogers’ marriage license, Washington State-based mega-church boss Ken Hutcherson, is an internationally known critic of the gay rights who believes that many of the world’s ills stem from homosexuality.

It would appear that Hutch has reinterpreted “God’s definition of marriage” from “one man, one woman” to be “one man, four women, sequentially.”

I have no problem with Hucherson officiating. In my opinion, Limbaugh can have whoever he likes at his weddings, be it this one or his next, or the one after that. I’m just surprised that they were able to squeeze that much ego into one room.

Prop 8 Supporters Ask Court to Forcibly Divorce 18,000 Married Couples

During the Prop 8 campaign, the supporters of the California innitiative to strip LGBT couples of their then-existing right to marry promised California voters that they would not try to nullify the marriages of those who had already married. But it didn’t take long for that to turn out to be a bold-faced lie. That particular effort failed, but they’re back at it again:

As the trial over California’s prohibition on same-sex marriage enters its final stage today, the ban’s sponsors are urging the judge to go a step further and revoke state recognition of the marriages of 18,000 gay and lesbian couples who wed before voters passed Proposition 8.

Such an order would honor “the expressed will of the people,” backers of the November 2008 ballot measure said Tuesday in their final written filing before Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker.

Andrew Pugno, an attorney for Prop. 8’s backers, said in an interview that the sponsors aren’t asking Walker to nullify the 18,000 marriages, but only to rule that government agencies, courts and businesses no longer have to recognize the couples as married.

This is just more proof that no matter what our opponents say, they will never be satisfied with any of their gains until LGBT people are legislated back to the closet and into the prison system. Can anyone believe that if they were able to roll back enough LGBT protections that they’ll decide that they’ve reached a point where they’ve done enough? If so, where do you think that point will be? If you want to talk about slippery slopes, there’s your slippery slope, and many of them are willing to take it one small step at a time.

Update: When I posted this, I didn’t intend for this tread to become an open invitation for the tin-hat crowd to make themselves at home. I was alluding to the fact that many of our opponents would like to see the return of our criminalization. But come on, now. Concentration camps? Gas chambers? Civil war? Really? I know there are a few nutjobs that would welcome these developments, and this web site exists precisely becaue they do. But I think we can give at least, say, 85% of our fellow Americans more credit than that.

Perry v. Schwarzenegger closing arguments

Today is the last day of Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the legal challenge to Proposition 8. By the end of the day, the case will be in the hands of Judge Vaughn Walker. Karen Ocamb has a guide to of the final day’s expected events.

The legal team of Ted Olson and David Boies have crafted a compelling argument for why this proposition should be found to be in violation of the US Constitution. And much of it was supported by the defense’s own witnesses.

There is no question that Prop 8 harms gay individuals and families. There is no question as to whether it discriminates against gay people. The only questions are whether it was motivated by malice and whether there are state interests sufficient to justify the discrimination.

And in answering Judge Walker’s questions, Olson and Boies were eloquent.

The extensive evidence that Prop. 8 was in fact motivated by moral disapproval of gay men and lesbians underscores its unconstitutionality. Indeed, where, as here, a law is subject to heightened judicial scrutiny, the “justification[s] must be genuine, not hypothesized or invented post hoc in response to litigation.” United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515, 533 (1996). Accordingly, the messages presented to voters during the Prop. 8 campaign and the voters’ motivations for supporting Prop. 8 are relevant to whether Prop. 8 was enacted to further a sufficiently important interest to survive constitutional scrutiny. Proponents’ laundry list of purported state interests, invented after Prop. 8 was enacted and for the purposes of this litigation, cannot be considered under heightened scrutiny if Prop. 8 was not in fact enacted to further those interests. See id.; Doc # 605 at 12-15. And, if Prop. 8 was motivated simply by moral disapproval of gay men and lesbians, then it cannot survive any standard of constitutional scrutiny. See Romer, 517 U.S. at 634.

In other words, all the crap they came up with during the case is irrelevant. It’s not the pseudo-scientific sounding justification for Prop 8 that was presented in court that tells us the intent of the voters; it’s the campaign commercials. The intent and motivation of the proposition is reflected in the vile, nasty, campaign of hate and bigotry that waged on the airways in 2008.

We will have to wait and see when the Judge will announce his determination. But we have reasons to be hopeful that this very careful judge will weigh the evidence and come to the only possible conclusion: that marriage discrimination against gay people serves no legitimate state interest, is based in animus, and is contrary to the protections enacted in the Constitution of the United States.

About those seven million, Maggie…

Tomorrow is closing arguments in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the case over whether Proposition 8 was in violation to the US Constitution. Here’s what National Organization for Marriage’s Maggie Gallagher has to say about it:

This is an outrage that never should have happened: 7 million Californians exercised their core civil rights to speak, to donate, to organize and to vote for marriage. Around the country millions of other have invested their time and their treasure. And Ted Olson today will be asking the courts to nullify our right to vote for marriage.

Well 7,001,084 does sound like a lot of folks. But let’s just for a moment put it in perspective.

• In 2008, the population of California was 36,756,666. So about 19.0% of Californians voted for Prop 8.
• In 2008, there were 23,208,710 people eligible to vote in California. About 30.2% of eligible Californians voted to take away marriage rights.
• At the time of the election, there were 17,304,091 people registered to vote in the state. Of registered voters, about 40.5% showed up at the polls to “vote for marriage” restricted to heterosexuals.
• A total of 13,743,177 voters turned up to vote. Of them 50.9% voted for proposition 8.
• There were 13,402,566 votes cast on Proposition 8. Of them, 7,001,084 (or 52.2%) voted for the proposition and 6,401,482 (or 47.8%) voted against it.

Yes, Proposition 8 won. But let’s not pretend that Californians as a whole were so fired up about marriage that they all couldn’t wait for the chance to vote against equality. Less than a third of eligible voters supported this bill enough to show up and vote for it.

Did God Smite Jesus Statue In Blatant Act of Ex-Gay Discrimination?

That might be one explanation for last night’s Act of God, who destroyed a statue of His Only Begotten Son at Solid Rock Church in Monroe, Ohio. Church members were already trying to discern what it was that God was trying to tell them. Our own commenters have been helping out in that thread. BTB’s Timothy Kincaid and I wonder if maybe this might be a clue:

Then, in 1998 I founded Pro-Family Network, which is a Christian Family Advocacy organization…Also during this time I started, with the help of my pastor’s wife, a ministry at Solid Rock Church in Monroe, Ohio. Living Free Ministries helps those who want to leave the homosexual lifestyle deal with the issues that brought them to gender identity confusion. We have helped scores of people to follow the Manufacturer’s guidelines for successful living. [Emphasis added]

“I” in the above quote is Greg Quinlan, speaking before an Ohio committee considering a marriage discrimination bill. Quinlan knows a little bit about discrimination rhetoric, even if he doesn’t understand what discrimination really looks like. He is now head of PFOX, where he regularly tries to claim that “ex-gays” — otherwise known as straight people, if you believe their propaganda — are being discriminated against by the LGBT community and society. That’s a claim that is too bizarre even for Exodus International vice president Randy Thomas. But it may not be too bizarre for God. Apparently.

Also, it looks like God has also smote Solid Rock Church’s web site.

McDonald’s touts it’s “diversity”… with a very noticable exception

McDonald’s is very proud of its diversity…

They are proud of their “Culture of Inclusion and Diversity“, their minority suppliers, their formal presentations, workshops, seminars teaching how to work with others who are different. Kids can even explore the World of McDonald’s from a number of ethnic perspectives.

But it doesn’t take too long to notice who is missing from this great diversity.

Oh, there is one mention of a “Gays, Lesbians and Ally Network” and they have a solid 85% from HRC’s corporate index. But when McDonald’s says “diversity”, they aren’t thinking about you.

NGLCC severs contact with McDonald’s after deteriorating relationship

It seems that our observations about McDonald’s and the company’s less-than-supportive “core values” are not without confirmation. After the 2008 AFA boycott, McDonald’s relationship with the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce has deteriorated.

Considering a string of broken promises and dismissiveness on the part of the company, the NGLCC sees the French ad as a cynical attempt by McDonald’s to capitalize on a gay-friendly market in Europe while simultaneously pandering to anti-gay attitudes in the United States. They’ve issued a letter severing contact with the burger chain and expressing their frustration:

After numerous conversations and frustratingly unfulfilled promises by Patricia Harris, Vice President and Global Diversity Officer, and Gus Viano, Director of Inclusion & Diversity, to produce and share McDonald’s plan to engage the LGBT segment, we have still seen no plan. As such, we have come to the conclusion that these individuals represent the real position that McDonald’s is not interested in doing business with the LGBT segment or engaging in any substantive dialog.
…
We strongly believe that McDonald’s plan to distance itself from LGBT and other diverse business segments, coupled with the release of the French TV ad, is ill advised and counter to the spirit of good business and sound ethics. We sincerely hope that McDonald’s will reconsider its position and that the company will again show its support for LGBT people, our families and our businesses — not just where it is politically expedient, but around the globe.

McDonald’s won’t market to gay customers

Don Wildmon, the American Family Association’s director, will periodically declare war on some company or other (usually for undecipherable reasons), get some coverage at WorldNetDaily, send out some fund letters, declare success! (again for undecipherable reasons) and move on to his next target. Back in 2008 the target was McDonald’s. It seems that McDonald’s contributed to the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce which meant, somehow, that the company was “endorsing the homosexual agenda”.

When the company’s employee who was on the board of NGLCC moved out of the country, AFA declared victory.

A corporate executive for McDonald’s restaurants who had been on board of directors of the National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce has stepped down following a boycott of the chain organized by the pro-family American Family Association.

McDonald’s officials confirmed today to WND that Richard Ellis, who had been named to the “gay” chamber board after McDonald’s contributed $20,000 to the organization, “made a personal decision to step down” after he accepted a new position with McDonald’s Restaurants of Canada.

At the time, I wrote this off as coincidental. But perhaps the AFA had more of an impact on McDonald’s than I thought. Or, as new information suggests, perhaps AFA’s message found a sympathetic ear at McDonald’s.

Now a new issue has arisen to get anti-gays into a dither, and McDonald’s response is disturbing. It involves a McDonald’s advertisement which ran on French television.

This charming ad – part of a larger campaign welcoming everyone to come as they are – is not offensive. It is not sexual or provocative or inappropriate. But to those who oppose the existence of gay people, the idea of welcoming gay youth “as they are” is an indication of an insidious homosexual agenda.

And McDonald’s has made it very clear that such a message will not be part of their US marketing.

Lisa Howards, McDonalds’s director of corporate media relations, told Media Matters that the “Come as You Are” campaign was made exclusively for France.

“The ad you’re referencing is one of a series of ads called “Come as You Are,” which recognized he diversity of McDonald’s customers in France. This particular commercial was produced by McDonald’s France and is running only in France,” Howards said in the statement. “Each of our 117 markets around the world determines their own advertising and marketing.”

Companies like McDonald’s have complicated multi-year advertising strategies that include corporate image, message, and theme and I certainly have no expectation that McDonald’s target-market specifically to the gay community. But there is a difference between less narrow marketing and a strategy that specifically excludes gay customers.

And now Don Thompson, McDonald’s new President and Chief Operating Officer, has made it very clear in an interview with the Chicago Tribune that this ad was a “mistake” and that McDonald’s will not market to gay customers. His religion doesn’t approve of gay people.

Tribune: A French TV ad featuring a gay teen and his father has stirred some controversy — not there, but here. Can you talk about that?

Thompson: It is an example that markets, cultures are very different around the world. (For instance), I’ve never shied away from the fact that I’m a Christian. I have my own personal beliefs and I don’t impose those on anybody else. I’ve been in countries where the majority of the people in the country don’t believe in a deity or they may be atheist. Or the majority of the country is Muslim. Or it may be the majority is much younger skewed. So when you look at all these differences, it’s not that I’m to be the judge or the jury relative to right or wrong. Having said that, at McDonald’s, there are core values we stand for and the world is getting much closer. So we have a lot of conversations. We’re going to make some mistakes at times. (We talk) about things that may have an implication in one part of the world and may be the cultural norm in another part of the world. And those are things that, yes, we’re going to learn from. But, you’re right, that commercial won’t show in the United States.

Tribune: How has it done in France?

Thompson: Interestingly enough, there have been no negatives coming out of France. The brand is a local brand and different things will occur in different parts of the world. We just have to make sure that we understand the impact one action may make on another part of the world.

So I guess McDonald’s “core values” do not include marketing to gay youth. Others should come as they are, but there won’t be any marketing to gay people in the United States. In fact, he seems to be saying that there will not be any more marketing to gay people anywhere from now on. It might “have an implication.”

When AFA came calling, Don Thompson was President of McDonald’s USA and there were “things he learned”. I fear that what he learned was that he now has an excuse for implementing his own bigotries and biases. He’s not “imposing on anyone,” he’s just upholding “core values.”

But perhaps McDonald’s has more to learn. Perhaps they need to discover that America’s youth do not share “core values” with the AFA or with Don Thompson.

And McDonald’s certainly doesn’t share “core values” with me.

GOProud to Break Manchester Boycott

The conservative gay Republican group GOProud has announced that they will hold a fundraiser at the Manchester Grand Hyatt in San Deigo. This development comes despite an active boycott by local LGBT advocates over a $125,000 donation by owner Doug Manchester to California’s Proposition 8 campaign which stripped LGBT people of their right to marry.

According to a donations page set up by GOProud:

GOProud’s “Don’t Tread on Us” reception will feature Fox News Channel political analyst and national radio talk show personality Tammy Bruce as the program’s MC. The event will benefit GOProud, the nation’s only political organization for gay conservatives and their allies. (Program speakers will be announced as they are confirmed.)

GOProud defends their choice:

We understand that Mr. Manchester has apologized for his support of Prop 8 and has made a substantial monetary commitment to the LGBT community,” GOProud Executive Director Jimmy LaSalvia told The Advocate. “We believe strongly that the gay community should be in the business of winning new friends not making enemies.”

In fact, Manchester hasn’t apoligized for his support for Prop 8, although he did try to buy off local LGBT groups with a $125,000 donations and hotel vouchers in exchange for an end to the boycott. But without the apology, local groups declined the offer.

It looks like GOProud’s “don’t tread on us” warning doesn’t extend to Manchester himself. He can tread on us all he wants. GOProud won’t mind.

Zimbabwe LGBT Advocates’ Trial Dates Set

Three weeks ago, we reported that two Zimbabwe LGBT advocates were arrested and tortured by police following a raid on the offices of Gays and Lesbians of Zimbabwe (GALZ). Police claim to have found “pornographic material” in the offices along with a letter from former San Francisco mayor Willy Brown praising GALZ and denouncing President Mugabe for his opposition to LGBT rights. That led to new charges of “undermining the authority of the President.” Ellen Chademana and Ignatius Muhambi were finally released nearly a week later, but were prohibited from travelling more than 40 kilometers outside of Harare.

Today, we received this message from GALZ director Chester Samba:

The two GALZ employees appeared in court on 10 June 2010 and had their trial dates set for 30^thJune 2010 (Ignatius Mhambi) and 1 July 2010 (Ellen Chademana).

The state appears to have separated the two’s appearance based on the premise that Ignatius will be charged for possession of a pornographic DVD and Ellen for “pornographic material”.

We would like to believe that since the state has set their trial date, they have concluded investigations on the case; however we remain cautious in our interpretation of today’s outcome in light of continued harassment of Human rights defenders in general.

We continue to monitor the situation around the case as well as for the other staff members.

We thank you for your continued support during this period.

Chester’s home was raided on May 26. Police reportedly confiscated his birth certificate, passport, magazines and business cards. Chester was not at home at the time of the raid.

Jesus Torched In Act of God

There was a huge, rather startling statue on I-75 between Cincinnati and Dayton just north of the Monroe interchange on the grounds of Solid Rock Church that locals have dubbed “Touchdown Jesus.” The statue, a part of a music theater complex, was built in 2004 and depicted Jesus swooping up from out of a pond by the side of a busy freeway. I love American kitsch, and I have to tell you that the first time I drove by the massive 8-ton, 62-foot steel, styrofoam, wood and resin monstrosity bathed in massive floodlights, I did a full-on gay-gasp. It’s the last thing you would expect to see on a suburban interstate, and for me it was the perfect nightcap to a day spent at the Creation Museum outside of Cincinnati. Too bad traffic was so heavy or I would have stopped to take a picture. These two photos give you some idea of the effect the statue has in the daytime. Multiply the drama by a factor of ten to get an idea of what it looked like at night.

Last  night, the “King of Kings” statue was struck down by lightning. Witnesses traveling on I-75 first reported seeing the Right Hand of God on fire, and then the rest of the statue was quickly engulfed in flames. Firefighters say that the styrofoam/wood/resin combination was extremely flammable, and that the fire was too hot for firefighters to approach. It was, church members agree, an act of God. One church member said, “It’s a sign from God that we need to learn something as Christians as whole that we’re not doing something right.” Another agreed: “It scares me, like, it really does. I just think about what that symbolizes and to me that’s a sign, and not a good one.”

I’m the last person to read current events as signs from God, but I would like to point out that the giant Hustler Hollywood adult bookstore sign across the freeway is still standing tall.

Update: I guess it will be a while before travelers can pull over to have their picture taken:

These Ohio State fans are also undoubtedly in mourning:

State Dept. Issues New Guidelines for Gender Identity on Passports

According to the Washington Post:

The State Department has revised its policy on changing passports for transgender people, announcing Wednesday night that a doctor’s note will now suffice in such cases. Previously, the State Department had required that a person undergo sexual reassignment surgery before it would change the passport. The policy had outraged transgender advocates, who called for an updated approach.

Under the new policy, which takes effect Thursday, a doctor must attest that the person is undergoing clinical treatment for gender transition, State said. Limited-validity passports will also be available to applicants in the process of gender transition, the department added.

The new policy is based on standards set by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health. Unlike the hysterical assertions from some anti-LGBT activists, this new policy doesn’t cover casual “cross-dressers,” but is intended to benefit those who live and present themselves according to their self-identified gender.

Hawaii civil unions battle illustrates real motivation of gay foes

Republican Governor Linda Lingle will decide within the next week whether to veto the civil unions bill passed by the Hawaii legislature. As part of her process, she has met with both supporters and opponents of the bill and an AP article gives a little insight into what they said.

Lingle is Jewish and, as such, is probably not much swayed by appeals to Christian orthodoxy. But the activism and approach by the two rabbis most influential with the Governor does reflect on what is behind most anti-gay activism.

Krasnjansky, who heads the Orthodox community group Chabad of Hawaii, said the Torah teaches that homosexuality, and by extension same-sex marriage, “is not something that should be condoned or should be legalized,” he said.

But Schaktman, who leads the Reform Temple Emanu-El, insists Judaism teaches that all people regardless of sexual orientation are and should be treated as “children of God,” and thus should not face discrimination.

“Civil unions are a legal arrangement,” he said. “Therefore, anyone who uses religion to oppose civil unions is purely using religion to further homophobia.”

Lingle is Jewish, but has rarely — if ever — publicly discussed her faith in considering an issue. Lingle’s office did not respond to phone or e-mail questions about her religious affiliation.

The debate between Krasnjansky and Schaktman mirrors that of Hawaii’s Christians. Catholic, evangelical and conservative pastors have waged a months-long effort to prod the Legislature and now Lingle to block the measure, HB 444. Mainline Protestant and more liberal preachers have worked to get the bill signed.

But I think the matter is bigger than just discrimination towards the gay and lesbian children of God. It’s a battle over the establishment of religion.

There is a concerted attempt on the part of State Churchists (of various faiths) to legislate their doctrine and thus claim the mantle of “real Christians” and “real Jews”. And, sadly, I don’t think that the more liberal religious adherents have yet realized what is at risk.