12 Crosses - On the Christian response to the massacre at Aurora Colorado

Greg Zanis drove 16 hours from Aurora Illinois to Aurora Colorado in order to set up 12 crosses in tribute to the 12 victims of James Holmes.

Denver Colorado resident Arthur Blessitt also arrived soon after the attacks at the Century 16 theater, carrying the same 12-foot tall cross that he has already carried to every nation in the world, over 40 thousand miles in the last 44 years.

These Christians, and others, haven't asked to which religions, if any, the victims belonged.

Zanis has said that the crosses he built are for the families of the deceased, and has said that they are welcome to take the crosses. He doesn't know, or seem to care, that to some people this might be presumptuous, and perhaps insulting.

There are atheists who are making hay out of this - and I won't be joining them.

These are people who are dealing with tragedy, and who will do so in their own way. Whether it is by carrying a big cross, or by bringing little crosses to lay at a memorial. I think there is little difference between this, and the laying of flowers, or a teddy bear, or photos or a candle at the scene of a tragedy.

Yes, there are those few religious people who have taken a moment to use this tragedy to build themselves up. The always odious Bryan Fischer has used the Aurora shooting as an opportunity to attack the LGBT community and lay blame on those who have "turned away from God", including the ACLU and the Supreme Court.

Are Blessitt and Zanis riding this tragedy for personal fame?  I don't know, and I haven't cared to find out.

But I think the majority of Christians are just trying to deal with this tragedy - in whatever way makes sense to them.  

Ultimately this tragedy is senseless.  As an atheist, I know there are people who are not able to feel empathy for others, people to whom sympathy is a foreign emotion.  These people are exactly the types of outliers we would see if we charted the bell curve of evolved human compassion.  They lie outside of the norm.  What makes sense to people like Holmes wouldn't make any sense at all to most of us.

You use the tools you have for the job at hand.  If all you have is a hammer, the whole world looks like a nail.  If your tool is religion, you'll deal with tragedy using religion.  If your tool is rational thought, empathy, sympathy for others, then you will deal with tragedy in that manner.  

Speaking just from my experience, neither religion, nor rational thought is equal to real grief.  Only time lessens tragedy.

Silencing Christians

Pam's House Blend reported on the launching of the new AFA website called, "Silencing Christians". Apparently it's run by Don Wildmon's son Tim, who's following in his father's footsteps.

From Pam's website:

The premise is that Christians are under assault by homosexualists, enabled by state and local governments and schools, to force them to accept LGBTs as -- gasp -- human beings deserving of civil rights! They are careful to mention "former homosexuals" and those struggling with "unwanted same-sex attraction" in order to soothe and absolve the target audience of "Christians" that their motivations are rooted in compassion, not bigotry.

Don Wildmon got this thing rolling back in February 2008 when he announced a 13 week half-hour television series called "Speechless... Silencing Christians" on the Inspiration cable network INSP. (Not available from any cable provider in my area.) After its run, he made it available as a streaming video online.

When he first announced this project, Wildmon had this to say:

For years, I have had a dream that AFA would find a way to produce and distribute TV programs addressing major moral issues, programs that explain how great the anti-Christian bias is in our society and that give viewers ways to respond.

On the "Silencing Christians" website, there is a survey. The survey asks thirteen questions, and gives "Yes, No, Maybe" multiple choice answers. However it would be better to answer these questions essay style.

For a site that is supposed to expose bias, these questions reveal a surprising amount of bias! I'll answer these questions here:

1. Do you believe the Bible condemns homosexuality as sin?


• Yes. Both in the New Testament and Old Testament. Jesus also condemns all women who divorce their husbands (for any offense) as adulterers. And Paul says Christians shouldn't sue each other in front of a secular judge. Perhaps we shouldn't be getting moral advice from a bunch of stories about amateur philosophers who lived a couple of thousand years ago?
  


2. Can homosexuals change their sexual orientation?


• No one really knows for sure, but in many cases the answer seems to be "no".


3. Should homosexuals be allowed to adopt children?


• Yes.
  


4. Should homosexuals be given the same special rights extended to African-Americans and other minorities?


• What "special rights" have been given to blacks? The right to not be treated as chattel? The right to be treated equally? The right to an interracial marriage? The right to the same rights as other American citizens? The language you use here exposes more than a little racism.


5. Should hate crimes legislation be passed that would call for more severe penalties for crimes against homosexuals?


• No. Hate crime legislation should be passed that gives equally severe penalties for a hate crime. In some states the penalty for a hate crime against a gay person is less than for a similar crime against an ethnic or religious minority. How is that fair?


6. Do you believe that churches and religious organizations should be forced to hire homosexuals?


• No. They are private organizations. Just like the Boy Scouts. They should be allowed to ban anyone they want from their clubs. However, if they do so they should be denied government funding of any sort so that the State may remain neutral toward religion. If the State gives money to a group who bans some of the State's citizens, then endorsement of this practice is implied. How could citizens be equal in these conditions?


7. Would you support a boycott of a major U.S. corporation that contributes money to support homosexual activist organizations?


• No. And judging from your results, neither should you. That boycott against Disney really brought them to their knees didn't it?


8. Should judges be appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court who support extending special rights to homosexuals?


• No. Judges should be appointed who support equal rights to all citizens, and who uphold the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Special rights - such as the special right that some non-profit organizations must pay taxes while others don't, should be closely examined for fairness.


9. Should employers be forced to extend special consideration in the hiring of homosexuals?


• No. Employers should be forced to treat employees and potential employees equally in compliance with basic human rights and the rights that any American citizen has. In other words, no glass ceilings, no quid pro quo, no hiring minorities just because you need a "token", no firing employees because they refuse to believe in E-meters and Thetans, and no shuffling resumes to the bottom of the pile just because someone seems effeminate or butch.


10. Is the secular media demonstrating a bias in favor of the homosexual agenda?


• I don't know. Which secular media do you mean? Fox News? Is the secular media less biased about the "homosexual agenda" than the religious media? I don't think so.


11. Do you support amending the U.S. Constitution to limit marriage to a union between one man and one woman?


• No.


12. Should children in public schools be taught homosexuality is normal, acceptable, and equal to the traditional marriage of a man and a woman?


• It depends on the age of the children. Should we teach drivers education to kindergarteners? Or maybe have woodshop for first graders? Sex education is important, and some subjects are important enough to be taught before puberty, while other subjects can wait for later. By the time puberty happens, some kids are going to realize they are not like their friends. They shouldn't have to feel like outcasts because of this - so it would be immoral to allow kids to think that it is right to treat homosexuals differently, unequally.


13. Do you agree that Christians should be arrested for speaking against homosexuality in public places?


• No. I will gladly, vehemently defend a Christian's right to say whatever he feels is appropriate in a public place, as long as he or she doesn't break any law in doing so. (No yelling "Fire" in the theater.) However, I've noticed that preaching hate only gets a certain class of people to join your congregation. Is that who you really want as your membership?

Proposition 8 passed, same sex marriage is unlawful. Now what?

I've said before that I think same-sex marriage in the United States is inevitable.

It's going to happen. Get used to the idea now.

It will happen because the children of today are more accepting of the LGBT community than my generation, or of my father's generation. The older generations are fading away, and today's youth are taking over.


On March 7th of 2000, California Proposition 22 modified California's civil code to limit marriage to a man and a woman. That proposition passed 61.4% to 38.6%. That 61.4% was touted by Christian conservatives over and over again in the following years as a "Clear indication of the will of all Californians."

Proposition 8 today looks like it will pass 52% to 48%. That "clear indication" has dropped 10 points in 8 years. I believe this trend will continue.

And while it is much harder to overturn a constitutional amendment in California than it is to enact one - I do believe that there will come a time when this blot of hate will be removed from the state constitution.


It has been brought to my attention that the passage of Proposition 8 may be the best thing to happen to same-sex marriage. If Proposition 8 had failed, religious conservatives would have recreated it again and again for each election cycle. It would have been remade with more subtle wording - designed to worm it's way into law while remaining beneath our notice.

If we must legislate hate, if we must remove rights, it is better that we do it openly. It is better that we recognize that this is done out of purely religious motivation and that it is based upon an inflexible "moral" code that equates homosexuality with murder, deceit and malice. Let us all see that the Christian religion calls homosexuals, "senseless, faithless, heartless," and "ruthless" who are "wicked, evil, greedy," and "depraved".

It is this same religious morality that says in no uncertain terms that homosexuals, and those who support them, are worthy of nothing more than death itself. (Romans 1:18-32)


It is good to bring this hate out in the open so we can examine it under bright lights with high magnification. We have states in conflict - a marriage certificate in one state is worthless in another. This violates the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution and it must be addressed at a Federal level.


And I believe that in time, and with effort, equality will prevail. I believe that because last night I watched equality prevail in an historic election. I believe that equality will prevail because members of the LGBT community have come "out of the closet", so that more and more Americans recognize that they know, or are related to someone who is gay. I believe that equality will prevail because while it is easy to hate a faceless, nameless "evil", it is much harder to hate a kind aunt, or a loving son, or a friendly neighbor. I believe that equality will eventually prevail because even now, even under Proposition 8, same-sex couples are allowed to have and to raise children in a loving home - and those children will influence other children, and they will all grow up and vote their conscious out of love and knowledge.

The one thing that the Protectmarriage.com people have said that they fear the most - that same-sex marriage will be taught to children in class - has already come to pass. Your children ARE being taught to be more accepting - they are being taught by their classmates and peers.

My grandparent's generation has faded away. Soon my parent's generation will follow, and then my generation - the last of the Baby Boomers - will also fade. The future of LGBT equality lies inevitably with the generations that follow me.

In honor of the passing of Proposition 8

In honor of the passing of California Proposition 8, I’ve asked former Vice President, Alexander H. Stephens to give a speech of congratulations for the failure of same-sex marriage in California. Here is some of what Mr. Stephens had to say:

Our new laws are founded upon exactly the opposite idea; their foundations are laid, their cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that homosexuals are not equal to heterosexuals; that inequality – subordination to our superior morals – is the natural and normal condition for gay people. And now, for the first time in California’s history, laws are based upon this great physical, philosophical and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics.

All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind—from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the pro-homosexual fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that gay people are equal, and hence conclude that they are entitled to equal privileges and rights with heterosexual people. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just—but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails.

I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of California would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of homosexuality, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining that homosexuality is a sin, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.

Mormons attack same sex marriage in California

Hekebolos, of Firedoglake wrote this wonderful "Vote NO on Prop 8" ad. I'd love to see it on television - but I doubt that will happen.

Still, you can watch it here.

Will oppressed Christian leaders be jailed for their words if Prop 8 fails?

Proposition 8 will amend the California Constitution. The entire text of Prop 8 is:

Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California

Supporters of Proposition 8 have said many times that failure to pass Prop 8 will result in the ability to charge preachers with a hate crime, merely for teaching the bible in the pulpit. Passing this proposition will prevent that.

This is some pretty obvious bullshit.

First, let's take a look at the text that the religious right is so afraid will get them jailed if they talk about it from the pulpit. (Oh boy, Atheist bible study!)

There are two bits of Biblical text that deal with homosexuality and seem to be causing concern. The first bit is Old Testament - Leviticus 20:13: (New English Translation)

If a man has sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman, 10 the two of them have committed an abomination. They must be put to death; their blood guilt is on themselves.

The next part is in the New Testament - Romans 1:18-32 (New English Translation)

1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth by their unrighteousness, 1:19 because what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 1:20 For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made. So people are without excuse. 1:21 For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God or give him thanks, but they became futile in their thoughts and their senseless hearts were darkened. 1:22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 1:23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for an image resembling mortal human beings or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles.

1:24 Therefore God gave them over in the desires of their hearts to impurity, to dishonor their bodies among themselves. 1:25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creation rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

1:26 For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged the natural sexual relations for unnatural ones, 1:27 and likewise the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed in their passions for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

1:28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what should not be done. 1:29 they are filled with every kind of unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, malice. They are rife with envy, murder, strife, deceit, hostility. They are gossips, 1:30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, contrivers of all sorts of evil, disobedient to parents, 1:31 senseless, covenant-breakers, heartless, ruthless. 1:32 although they fully know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but also approve of those who practice them.

Before I go further, I've got a couple of things to say about this.

First, let's talk about Leviticus. When I bring it up some of my Christian friends just shrug and say, "That's Old Testament stuff - much of it doesn't apply any longer." This particular bit in Leviticus is part of the prohibitions laid down from God to Moses, and might only apply to the Israelites. But even if it applied more generally, the coming of Jesus supposedly overturned most of these prohibitions, (and their associated punishments, which were usually death!)

It doesn't matter if Leviticus is overturned by Jesus, because Romans certainly was not!

“Romans” was Paul's letter to the Romans Which he used to tell the Romans that he was traveling there to plant churches. He also told them what to expect from him, and he took them to task for their ways. For example, there were Jewish Christians in Rome who believed in Jesus but followed Jewish traditions, such as animal sacrifice. Paul was going to change that.

Paul was not one of Jesus' disciples. He was originally named "Saul", and as Saul he worked to persecute the Church of Jerusalem. Although he never met Jesus in life, Jesus supposedly came to Saul in a vision while he was on the road to Damascus, and temporarily struck him blind. After the scales fell from his eyes he took up the name "Paul" and became a new man.

Paul's writings were the most influential in Christian history - perhaps more influential than the core gospel books. They certainly influenced Martin Luther's 95 Thesis and the start of the Protestant movement, and they heavily influenced the formation of the Methodist religion.

Romans 1:26 is the only clear condemnation of lesbians in the entire bible. Lesbian sex is not mentioned anywhere else.


But what does this have to do with sending preachers to jail?

Proposition 8 proponents have said in commercials that failure to pass Prop 8 will allow preachers to be thrown in jail merely for speaking the words of the Bible. Their speech would supposedly become "hate speech" under California law, and would therefore be actionable.

But this isn't true. Scroll back up to the top and re-read the words to Prop. 8. You'll notice that nothing in there gives any sort of protection for speech.

Here is what the California penal code says about hate crimes and hate speech - from the California Penal Code section 422.6:

422.6. (a) No person, whether or not acting under color of law,
shall by force or threat of force, willfully injure, intimidate,
interfere with, oppress, or threaten any other person in the free
exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him or her
by the Constitution or laws of this state or by the Constitution or
laws of the United States in whole or in part because of one or more
of the actual or perceived characteristics of the victim listed in
subdivision (a) of Section 422.55.

(b) No person, whether or not acting under color of law, shall
knowingly deface, damage, or destroy the real or personal property of
any other person for the purpose of intimidating or interfering with
the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to
the other person by the Constitution or laws of this state or by the
Constitution or laws of the United States, in whole or in part
because of one or more of the actual or perceived characteristics of
the victim listed in subdivision (a) of Section 422.55.

(c) Any person convicted of violating subdivision (a) or (b) shall
be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year,
or by a fine not to exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000), or by
both the above imprisonment and fine, and the court shall order the
defendant to perform a minimum of community service, not to exceed
400 hours, to be performed over a period not to exceed 350 days,
during a time other than his or her hours of employment or school
attendance. However, no person may be convicted of violating
subdivision (a) based upon speech alone, except upon a showing that
the speech itself threatened violence against a specific person or
group of persons and that the defendant had the apparent ability to
carry out the threat.

(d) Conduct that violates this and any other provision of law,
including, but not limited to, an offense described in Article 4.5
(commencing with Section 11410) of Chapter 3 of Title 1 of Part 4,
may be charged under all applicable provisions. However, an act or
omission punishable in different ways by this section and other
provisions of law shall not be punished under more than one
provision, and the penalty to be imposed shall be determined as set
forth in Section 654.

There are plenty of hateful groups in California that say mean things about different classes of people. White Supremacy groups come to mind. A supremacy group that teaches Hitler's ideals and says that Jews are sub-human or that homosexuals are worthy of death are merely practicing free speech.

However, if someone were to use Hitler's words to encourage an audience to go out and beat up Jewish people in downtown Fresno next Saturday night - that would be unlawful.

It would be just as unlawful for a minister to encourage his congregation that they should bring rocks to the next Fresno Gay Pride parade.


This is how the "Yes on 8" campaign is lying. It doesn't matter if Proposition 8 passes or fails, inciting violence will remain unlawful, and hateful speech that doesn't incite will remain lawful.

The moral here is, if you want to stay out of jail, don't use your religious position to encourage violence against others.

Christians in the closet over Proposition 8

I've written about the Protectmarriage.com people before. I've been seeing a lot of them these days. I can't glance at the television without seeing a "Support Proposition 8" commercial. The last time I went to Wal-Mart I was approached by someone who tried to give me a flier in support of Prop 8. (There were a few fliers under car wipers here and there, but not many. Maybe Wal-Mart told them to stop?)

Heh. When the gentleman at Wal-Mart asked how I was voting on Prop 8, I said, "I'm voting 'No' of course. It's the only ethical thing to do!" Then I got in my car and drove away. He was busy saying something religious, but I wasn't interested.

And why would I be interested in yet another religious argument? Give me a secular, rational answer!

Seriously, what possible secular ethical argument could Proposition 8 supporters invoke that actually makes sense? As far as I know, there are no rational, non-religious arguments that make a good case for outlawing same-sex marriage. Maybe this is why I've yet to meet or read about any Atheist supporters of Proposition 8. (If you are an Atheist who supports Prop. 8, let me know!)

I've been haunting the ProtectMarriage.com website in hopes of spotting a non-religious argument in favor of Prop. 8, but all I've found are half-truths and lies. And these half-truths and lies are being used to support a religious position.

From the blog "Classically Liberal" (Who also had a problem with parking lot Prop. 8 people):

We know the Proposition 8 campaign is dominated by Catholics, Mormons and fundamentalists. That’s where the money comes from. And when they talk in their churches they invoke God and the Bible (well, the Mormons invoke the Book of Mormon and their God). When they come into the light they change tunes. Suddenly they are protecting parental choice, even if no parents rights are being violated.

For all their talk about morality they are not above deception. Why don’t their commercials tell the public the real reason they want to pass Prop 8? Why don’t the commercials say: “Vote Prop 8, put God’s law into practice.” They don’t say it because they know the public won’t buy it.

I’m open about why I support marriage equality. I don’t believe the state has the right to discriminate. And forbidding gay marriage is state discrimination since the state regulates marriage. Get the state out of marriage and it is not an issue to me. The Prop 8 people don’t want the state out -- not at all. They want state protection and the monopolization of marriage because they want their religion to have the force of government behind it.

The Prop 8 people are deceitful on numerous levels. They won’t tell the public why they wrote the amendment and what they are trying to accomplish. Since they won’t tell the truth about their real motivations they are forced to come up with alternative explanations. And to do that they resort to inventing lies, distorting the truth and scaring people.

Proposition 8 supporters are stuck hiding inside the "Christian Closet", and are afraid to come out and admit their reasoning to support Prop. 8 because it makes them look like religious jerks.

The Bible very clearly condemns "the unrighteous", including homosexuals, and labels them "worthy of death". This is why Christians support Proposition 8. Not because they care about a class of children who were forced by the state to attend a same-sex wedding. (Which didn't happen that way.) Classically Liberal documents the facts on the wedding that Prop. 8 supporters keep talking about.

Voting "Yes" on Proposition 8 is an irrational response to a hateful doctrine that traditionally puts human rights in a distant second place to religious law. But if you believe it is the Christian thing to do, then go ahead and vote "Yes". Your church will be pleased.

------
Update 29 Oct

Commenter Prop8discussion linked to an argument on his website. In answer to that link, I offer the following refutation:



Hat tip to The Friendly Atheist

A Halloween story about those Scary Gay People

Whenever I hear about "The Gay Agenda" from some religious conservative (always capitalized) I always pull up this image of sharp dressed people (with colorful power ties) around an antique table in some tastefully decorated boardroom.

Well, back in 1987, Michael Swift wrote about this supposed agenda. Very flowery phrases too. He says things like:

We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses, in your truck stops, in your all male clubs, in your houses of Congress, wherever men are with men together. Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us.

...

All laws banning homosexual activity will be revoked. Instead, legislation shall be passed which engenders love between men.

All homosexuals must stand together as brothers; we must be united artistically, philosophically, socially, politically and financially. We will triumph only when we present a common face to the vicious heterosexual enemy.

There's a lot more to this, first published in Boston's "Gay Community News" in Feb. of 1987. And if you think it is satire, you'd be right.  I think that Michael might have been borrowing from his namesake, Jonathan Swift when he wrote this.  As published, it starts with one line that shows it to be satire:

This essay is an outré, madness, a tragic, cruel fantasy, an eruption of inner rage, on how the oppressed desperately dream of being the oppressor.

So it was supposed to be funny.  But what is sadly not funny, is that the religious right has taken this essay and used it as their own template of the "Gay Agenda".  Groups like the American Family Association and American's for Truth use this essay to frighten their followers with those Scary Gay People.

Oooga booga boo!  They're gonna get you too!

The marriage of John and Lisa

Let me tell you a story...

When Lisa and John got married, it turned out that John was infertile. He couldn't father a baby. So, out of love the couple looked for another option. Through artificial insemination the happy couple was able to conceive a child - Isabella.

But the marriage - like so many - didn't last. Lisa wasn't happy with John, and by the time Isabella was 17 months old Lisa took Isabella and walked out. She moved from Vermont to Virginia, legally ended the marriage, and filed for child support from John.

But Vermont ruled that in addition to child support, John was also granted visitation rights for Isabella.

This really didn't sit well with Lisa - she didn't want John to have visitation rights. But she didn't have the means to fight it either. So she did something unusual. Lisa joined a religious cult, and asked them to protect her. In exchange for legal representation, Lisa would give the cult the right to exploit her however they saw fit.

This religious group worked very hard to keep John away from Isabella, and was successful for almost 5 years. But the law has finally caught up with Lisa - and she's facing possible federal charges over the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act. If convicted, John could gain sole custody of Isabella, of the daughter that isn't biologically his, but is his by love. The daughter that this evil cult worked so hard to keep separate from John.

If I ended the story right there - and you knew nothing more - how would you feel about it? Would your sympathies lie with John, or with his ex-wife Lisa?

After all, it's not as if Isabella is John's biological daughter. He doesn't have any right to her, does he? Or maybe you think that because John and Lisa were married that John should automatically have rights as a father?


But that's not the real story - it didn't happen quite that way.

There never was a "John". The father's name is Janet. Janet Jenkins is Isabella's second mother, and Janet and Lisa were joined by a legal civil union in the state of Vermont.

Most of the rest of the story is true. When Lisa couldn't get child support while denying visitation to Janet, she turned to a particularly nasty form of religion for help. In exchange for legal representation from Liberty Counsel, Lisa has been acting as a poster-child for the Christian Ex-Gay movement. She tells people that Christianity cured her of being homosexual.

It is an arrangement of convenience, a type of prostitution.

I hope Isabella is healthy and thriving. I wish her nothing but the best. And some day I hope she gets at least regular visits with her second mother.

The swiftboating of same-sex marriage

I've been seeing quite a few "Yes on 8" campaign signs in the lawns around my neighborhood. The signs are pretty slick, and feature the protectmarriage.com logo.

It's a simple logo that represents a married family.

It also represents millions of dollars donated from people and groups outside of California. Homophobic religious groups from across the nation see California as a battleground for biblical values. They want to condemn same-sex marriage as being unholy, but if they do, they'll be seen as bigots and discounted. They'll lose if they state their position clearly.

The list of endorsers looks like a "who's who" of uptight puritanical "I know what's best for you" Christian organizations. (Interesting - many of them are Mormon.)

The logo also represents the lies and misleading half-truths that are being told in the "Yes on 8" commercials. The commercial says that if Proposition 8 fails:


1. Gay marriage will be taught in school.

What does that mean? It means that religious schools that are accredited by the state must teach to state mandated guidelines. So, if same-sex marriage is legal, then it will probably come up in a discussion of marriage law in a student's government classes.

What will also come up in those same classroom discussions is that the anti-miscegenation laws and segregation laws were overturned by the Supreme Court. If the people who support Protectmarriage.com were active in 1953, they'd be just as "concerned" that your child might be forced to be taught in the same classroom with some "colored folk".

I would suggest that if your child is going to a school that doesn't teach the reality of what is happening in the world, then perhaps your child will be unprepared to deal with reality.


2. People can be sued for their personal beliefs.

People can sue people for anything. But I question whether it is worth the trouble. A suit over "belief" will get thrown out. It is how you act on your belief that matters. A guy might believe that it is okay to somehow oppress his neighbor, but unless he acts upon that belief, he isn't guilty and any suit against him would be frivolous.

If you believe that homosexuals "deserve to die" (Rom 1:26-32), well - it's evil, but it is your opinion. But if you use your beliefs to incite murder then you should be sued. (You should be jailed!)

So what you believe is your privilege. How you act is society's concern.


3. Churches will could lose tax-exempt status.

I'll tell you now that if you are politicking from the pulpit, then you are breaking the law. Some preachers don't see the problem with threatening their congregation with damnation for not voting as directed. This is wrong, and it is illegal. If you don't like it you have two choices. Either stop with the politics, or work to change the law.

But here's some good news for you. If you want to preach that same sex marriage is wrong, that it is against the word of God in the Bible - you are welcome to do so! If you want to forbid your congregation from going to a same sex marriage, or withhold communion from people who attended a same sex marriage that is your right to do so.

And any church that refuses to marry a same-sex couple gets a free pass! If your church doesn't want to participate in a LGBT marriage, then no one can force you to do so.

And that's fine too. There are plenty of other churches that WILL marry same sex couples. Maybe your sister church is willing to perform a LGBT marriage. Maybe you're IN a church that is accepting. Maybe this is what is really bugging you. Maybe it is time for you to change to a different congregation. I hear that Stormfront is anti-LGBT and is looking for new members.

Here is the "Vote No on Prop 8" commercial that counters these lies.

Proposition 8 - I'm sorry, what was the reason again?

I'm getting more breathless email from the protectmarriage.com campaign again. 

From their email I've learned that their campaign now has over ten million dollars of funding for their "Vote Yes on 8" advertising.  From what I can tell, a significant amount of that funding is coming from out of state.  James Dobson subsidiaries have given at least 1.5 million, and I suspect possibly double that.

I've learned that they held a conference call with over a thousand pastors on the line.

But what I haven't learned, what protectmarriage.com has failed to inform me in every single communication, is just why marriage must be defined as between a man and a woman.

I'm pretty sure that there is a hidden message here, I can see the evidence of that hidden message through Dobson's involvement.  In a nutshell, the hidden message seems to be, "God doesn't like homosexual lifestyles."  But protectmarriage.com is staying away from that message.  I assume they are doing so because it would make them look fanatical.

The message they seem to be delivering is that traditional marriage is good for children, while same sex marriage is bad for children.  But they do not say why!

The protectmarriage.com blog quotes an LA Time op-ed by "liberal Democrat" David Blankenhorn as a good explanation of why traditional marriage matters.  I read through that article and found quote-mining (always a bad sign!) and poor reasoning.  The comments to that piece destroy it entirely.

From the op-ed:

Marriage as a human institution is constantly evolving, and many of its features vary across groups and cultures. But there is one constant. In all societies, marriage shapes the rights and obligations of parenthood. Among us humans, the scholars report, marriage is not primarily a license to have sex. Nor is it primarily a license to receive benefits or social recognition. It is primarily a license to have children.

In this sense, marriage is a gift that society bestows on its next generation. Marriage (and only marriage) unites the three core dimensions of parenthood -- biological, social and legal -- into one pro-child form: the married couple. Marriage says to a child: The man and the woman whose sexual union made you will also be there to love and raise you. Marriage says to society as a whole: For every child born, there is a recognized mother and a father, accountable to the child and to each other.
...

Every child being raised by gay or lesbian couples will be denied his birthright to both parents who made him. Every single one. Moreover, losing that right will not be a consequence of something that at least most of us view as tragic, such as a marriage that didn't last, or an unexpected pregnancy where the father-to-be has no intention of sticking around. On the contrary, in the case of same-sex marriage and the children of those unions, it will be explained to everyone, including the children, that something wonderful has happened!

That's an explanation?

Same-sex marriage means that a child in such a marriage is denied his birthright!  But what about orphans without parents, perhaps they would prefer to be adopted by same sex couples instead of waiting until they turn 18 in foster care or an orphanage?

I don't have kids.  My wife's condition made it impossible.  By Blankenhorn's logic, childless marriage is worthless.  Childless partners might as well just became "domestic partners".

But domestic partnership does not in all cases bestow the same rights on a couple as marriage.  Hospitals at a whim can deny visitation to a domestic partner, can even deny the partner's wishes in how to care for the sick partner.  And no matter how much you strengthen domestic partnership to give it the same rights as marriage, domestic partners will still bump into ignorant people in positions of power.

By the time you run home to get your power of attourney, by the time you call your lawyer and the cops to enforce your rights, a hospital can act against your wishes.  And suing them over this is difficult for someone who is "merely" a domestic partner. 

Blankenhorn says, "Marriage says to a child: The man and the woman whose sexual union made you will also be there to love and raise you." Brittney Spears was married when she had her children.  Andrea Yates was married.  How many people on the sex-offender websites around the nation were put there by their own sons and daughters, from "traditional" marriages?  Obviously merely being married doesn't ensure the welfare of children in a marriage. 

Lawmakers could very well enforce "traditional marriage", they could even make divorce unlawful again.  They could pass a law requiring that mom and dad give junior a kiss, a glass of water, and a tuck into bed every night.  But it still won't guarantee the rights of the child.

The reason why Proposition 8 fails is because you can't legislate the love of a parent toward a child.  Some people are just flawed parents, perhaps they never should have been parents.  The reason why same-sex marriage can be good for children is because some people in a same-sex relationship are great parents who often have a great deal of love that they want to give a child.  And there will be children in such a relationship because in so many cases one member of a same-sex union is the parent of the child in question.


On another note, protectmarriage.com keeps a blog.  But they never allow comments on their blog - comments are always closed.  I find that very interesting.

Forced toleration of others

I'm on a lot of different lists for religious and conservative groups. I sign up for their newsletters, announcements, and other various publications.

I get a lot of religious conservative bilge in my email box, which my email software files away in various folders until I get a chance to poke through the muck with a long stick.

I've been getting a lot of anxious email about the upcoming Proposition 8.

California has a long history in law of recognizing marriage as being between a man and a woman. This culminated with Proposition 22, when 61.4% of Californians voted to change the law, in the California Family Code sections 300 & 308.5, to define marriage as only between a man and a woman.

On May 15th, 2008, the California Supreme Court overturned the law under state constitutional grounds. Article 1, section 7 of the California State Constitution talks about treating Californian citizens equally under the law and that one class of citizens cannot be granted legal privileges that are denied to others.

Proposition 8 attempts to counter this by modifying the State Constitution, thereby granting a legal right to one class of Californian citizens while denying it to others.

When any State starts denying rights to some of its citizens, it's a sign of sickness. It's a sign that the State is on a slippery slope. It might be difficult to recover from this slope.

I've been placed on the mailing list for protectmarriage.com - probably because I'm on the Focus on the Family and California Family Council mailing lists.

The website, protectmarriage.com, says it is a project of "California Renewal", which as of July is not legally able to conduct business in California due to failure to file necessary paperwork. This seems a bit odd, because I have "Yes on 8" email from protectmarriage.com from July, August, and September.

California Renewal seems to have been created by, and ties to California Family Council, which was in turn created by Focus on the Family. CFC seems to control California Renewal, and by proxy the protectmarriage.com effort. 1.5 million dollars, at least, has been dropped into this effort from out of state. Protectmarriage.com admits to "Major Funding" by Focus on the Family, but won't tell how much or what sort of control that Focus on the Family has over them. (PDF link) No one except CFC and Focus on the Family seems to know the exact amount of money in use. And they aren't talking. (link)

There seems to be multiple levels of dubious, perhaps even illegal acts going on here, along with some creative accounting. Well, I guess I shouldn't be surprised, what I've read about James Dobson is that he doesn't let a little thing like ethics or morality stand in the way of his goals.

Even more telling is the language used in the protectmarrige.com website. From the "about" section:

It protects our children from being taught in public schools that “same-sex marriage” is the same as traditional marriage, and prevents other consequences to Californians who will be forced to not just be tolerant of gay lifestyles, but face mandatory compliance regardless of their personal beliefs.

"forced to ... be tolerant of gay lifestyles", regardless of your "personal belief". Oh, the horror! Why next, you'll be forced to tolerate people of a different color, regardless of your deep personal belief that (black / brown / yellow / red) people are sub-human!

The inherent INtolerance built into this language is a dead giveaway to the built-in arrogance of Dominionist Christians who believe in a "seperate but equal" definition of Christian "love". Something that I've called, "Seperate, and not quite as privileged".


I've been trying to discover just why protectmarriage.com thinks it is a Bad Thing to allow gay marriage. According to their FAQ, they are not trying to make a gay lifestyle or even full domestic partnerships illegal. Here is why they think that gay marriage is bad: (PDF link)

If Proposition 8 is defeated, the sanctity of marriage will be destroyed and its powerful influence on the betterment of society will be lost. The defeat of Prop. 8 would result in the very meaning of marriage being transformed into nothing more than a contractual relationship between adults. No longer will the interests of children and families even be a consideration. We will no longer celebrate marriage as a union of husband and wife, but rather a relationship between ‘Party A’ and ‘Party B.’ The marriage of a man and a woman has been at the heart of society since the beginning of time. It promotes the ideal opportunity for children to be raised by a mother and father in a family held together by the legal, communal and spiritual bonds of marriage. And while divorce and death too frequently disrupt the ideal, as a society we should put the best interests of children first, and that is traditional marriage. Voting No on Proposition 8 would destroy marriage as we know it and cause profound harm to society.

It's a very flowery defense... but what does it mean?

"The sanctity of marriage will be destroyed". Marriage is "sacred" and "holy". If that is the case, then the State has no right to interfere in the regulation of marriage due to church / state issues. "Marriage" should be left completely to the churches, and any partnership given privileges by the State should be a purely secular contract between the parties involved and sanctioned by the State.

I'm actually all for this interpretation. Abolish the word "marriage" from State law, and replace it with "partnership" or some equivalent wording everywhere. Let every partnership have equal benefits under the state, and let the churches decide who can be married, and how. Being married in a church would bestow purely religious rights, and entering a partnership contract with the state would bestow purely secular rights.

And since I am also recognized by California as an ordained minister, I have just as much right as any other religion to decide what constitutes a "marriage".

"Powerful influence on the betterment of society" - I agree. Marriage is a positive influence. The denial of marriage to committed couples is a negative influence to society.

"Marriage would be transformed into a merely contractual relationship" - In the state's eyes, that is all marriage is NOW. In any state in the union, marriage is just a contract. States that recognize God or gods or religion as part of this contract are doing so to the detriment of secular people who also engage in a marriage contract. Everyone should be treated equally under the law, even those of us who have no religion. Therefore, this is not a valid objection.

"The interests of children or families would not be a consideration" - Consideration of what? What does this mean, exactly? Would children or families not be protected? This is nonsense.

Gay people have children. Gay people are parents. Like any parents, some are good and some are bad, and laws will not change that. A marriage law will better ensure that a gay couple will be able to provide for and protect their children. Their family will be protected against death, illness, and guardianship of their kids in the same way that heterosexual families are currently protected.

Protectmarriage.com does not say in what way that children or families will not be protected, or 'considered', because there is no detriment. None.

"Marriage between a man and a woman has been around since the beginning of Time" - Says who? The Greeks and Romans had same-sex marriage, and the State didn't have much to say about any sort of marriage contract. It wasn't until the Christian Emperor Constantius II took over the Roman Empire that same sex marriage was made illegal on religious grounds. Just to make his point, the very Christian Emperor would punish offenders by burning them at the stake.

Biblically, "marriage between a man and a woman" has NOT been the norm. Usually the Old Testament men married all the wives that they could afford. There was no restriction. In some cases, the men married only one woman, but then were allowed concubines. (Abraham and Hagar is one example, King Solomon and lots of exotic foreign women is another).

"The ideal is for children to be raised by a mother and a father in a family" - Okay, I'll buy that is the ideal. Also, the "ideal" is for me to be able to go fishing or on exotic vacations whenever I want. But reality insists that I must instead work for a living and put off my vacation cruse to the Virgin Islands.

In reality, there are children with only one parent, or with none. There are children in foster care, or in orphanages. Given the choice between a lifetime in foster care or orphanage, or a lifetime as the beloved adopted child in a same-sex marriage, I would wager that a majority of these lost children would gladly accept being part of this family. Even if there are two dads and no moms.

By letting this romantic "ideal" override the practical, opponents to same-sex marriage are actually hurting those children who might otherwise find a loving home. THIS is putting "the best interests of the children first".

Lastly, the only thing I need to say about traditional marriage is "Britney Spears".


The whole issue about same sex marriage boils down to one thing. Religious conservatives don't want to be forced to tolerate those people who are different from them. Many Christians are able to rise above this sort of prejudice.

For me, this religious reaction to enforced tolerance is no different from the religious reaction to the forced tolerance required by Anti-miscegenation laws or the Civil Rights act of 1964.

This guy is just having a bad day

Wow. Just wow.

• He's having sex
• With someone other than his wife
• He's caught by his wife, while having sex, at his home, and kicked out by his wife.
  
• He's having sex with his aid - who happens to be a guy
• He's the prominent Alabama Republican Attorney General
• As AG he has been trying to outlaw homosexuality and sex toys
• The AG's office is officially denying everything.

In the words of Emo Phillips, "Some days it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps."

I'll be interested to see how this plays out.

Americans for Truthiness

I'd like to take just a brief moment to give a special welcome to those whom I've observed visiting my blog from the (as I've said before) ironically named "Americans for Truth about Homosexuality" website.

As a public service for this fine group, I'd like to point out the connection between homophobia and homosexual arousal. (Link 1, Link 2)

To quote Dr. Richard Feynman,
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself -- and you are the easiest person to fool".

Lack of empathy, Increase of suffering – These are the cornerstones of morality for Americans for Truth

I just got an email from that ironically named group, Americans for Truth, wherein the writer Laurie Higgins asserts that J.K. Rowling is part of the Great Gay Conspiracy because of her identifying the Headmaster of Hogwarts in the Harry Potter book series as gay.

But before I get into that, I’d like to take a moment to point out something that I find a little weird. On the Americans for Truth website, Laurie Higgins is described in this manner, “Laurie Higgins works full-time in a suburban public high school writing center in the Chicago area”. I found that an odd way of describing Laurie’s job – what is this job? Principle? Head Janitor and Bottle-Washer? A little Googling shows that Laurie Higgins is a full-time teacher’s aid at the Deerfield High School’s Writing English Resource Center. Teacher’s aid is a good and honorable job, so why is AFT so circumspect in their description?


As for the message, Higgins believes that J,K. Rowling’s outing of Dumbledore confirms the strategy of “The gay manifesto,” which Higgins believes is detailed in the book “After the Ball” written by Kirk and Madsen. (Amazon) This book talks about using advertising methods to manipulate public opinion for the benefit of the LGBT community, and would be a serious accusation against the Gay community if anyone had actually read it. The Amazon sales rank of #764,153 shows that almost no one has actually heard of this book, and weakens Higgins argument that the LGBT community is deliberately promoting “deviant” or “subversive sexuality”.

This is a common part of the philosophy of the more rabid of the fundamentally religious organizations – that Gays “know” that what they do is morally wrong or “deviant”. People with this sort of philosophy believe that the LGBT community deliberately tempt young people into “perversion”, and if Gays would just get back into the closet where they belong then all our young boys and girls would grow up to be heterosexual.

Best estimates of population indicate that between 3 & 6 percent of the adult male population is homosexual. This doesn’t seem to be affected by any other factor – such as a Christian household vs. a house with same sex parents. The only difference seems to be that as people become more accepting, young gay people feel more comfortable in coming out. It would seem to me that growing up in an accepting environment as opposed to a hostile, or suppressive environment is better for a person's mental health - but hey, I'm not a psychologist.

The comment that I found most telling in the Americans for Truth email is the one that AFT highlighted. I’ll quote the whole paragraph as written:

Another problematic way by which cultural values are being transformed is through the exposure to the stories of suffering shared by homosexuals and those who experience the psychological disorder of transgenderism. It is not uncommon in public high schools for LGBT (lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) students to share their stories of suffering with their peers. The result is that children, teens, and even adults who, of course, do not want to increase the suffering of others, retreat from making moral judgments. In so doing, they fail to make the critical distinction between suffering that results from harassment or abuse, and discomfort that results from an encounter with reasonable judgments about morality.

Ah, so it is “suffering” if it comes from harassment or abuse, but it is merely “discomfort” if a preacher exclaims that an LGBT youth will burn in Hell forever for acting out their sin of being attracted to the same sex? It is merely “discomfort” for religious communities to force LGBT people back into the closet, or when they assert that homosexuals are “morally wrong”, “deviant” or “perverted”?

There are two problems with this sort of argument. First, the fundamentally religious are not interested in being accepting, except under their definition of acceptance. This leads the religious to promulgate the idea that homosexuals should have fewer rights than heterosexuals. I’m not talking about the right to marry here, I’m talking about the right to hold political office, or the denial of some jobs to homosexuals (such as Teacher) or the restriction of homosexual freedom of speech. The religious are only interested in converting homosexuals into heterosexuals, or in shutting them up. And Higgins calls this, “discomfort”.

Secondly, fundamentally religious people base their morality on a book of rules, some of which are contradictory, that was written over two thousand years ago – during a time when it was considered a good idea to stone those people whose ideas differed from the mainstream. Some of these rules are good ideas, and others are merely arbitrary, but the religious wish them to be enforced equally - except where they conflict with a churchgoer’s lifestyle. These rules are not interested in understanding, sympathy, or empathy for others. They are not in any way concerned with the reduction of human suffering. The old adage that “suffering is good for the soul” is often embraced – especially if it is someone ELSE’s suffering!

I’ll make a moral judgment now. People like Laurie Higgins, and organizations like Americans for Truth, are morally bankrupt. Placing the question of ethics outside of the realm of empathy and suffering is a morally hypocritical position.

This is why I care so much about LGBT issues

Congrats to my (brat kid) sister Tanya and her partner on their upcoming 5 year anniversary. Also congrats on Oregon passing their Domestic Partnership law.

Becca, does this mean I get to call you “sister and law” after the first of the year? Eh. Who cares if that's the correct term – that's how I think of you.


And while I'm on the subject of gay and lesbian issues today, I would like to point out how one young woman has taken a hateful act, and turned it into something good. Please meet Erin Davis who had her brand new VW Bug sprayed with hateful graffiti, for the “sin” of sporting a rainbow bumper sticker.

Davies was on her way to work on Wednesday morning when she was stopped dead in her tracks. Spray painted on the hood and driver side window of her car were certain derogatory words.

Davies said, "I was shocked to see that. First thing I thought, is this a personal thing against me? But, then a couple of seconds after getting out of my shock, I realized I have that rainbow sticker on my car."

Davies is gay and a supporter of lesbian and gay rights. She said she could never imagine that vandalism like this still happens. She got so much feedback from passersby that it sparked her decision to keep driving the spray painted car and keep the sticker on.

Davies said, "You have to promote tolerance, or else it will be acceptable in the world we live in, so I'm definitely going to keep the sticker on."

Instead of cleaning and repainting the car, she's instead taking it on a cross-country drive to raise awareness about hate crimes against the LGBT community.

You can read more about Erin and her car, at Fagbug.

The hypocrisy of Tony Perkins, General Pace, and the FRC Blog

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Is Michael Savage a closeted, self-hating homosexual?

That savage radio “entertainer” kook who was born Michael Alan Weiner has once again viciously attacked the LGBT community with his ravings, claiming that the “Liberal Elite” are brainwashing the country.

Look out! Black Helicopters!

Is it wrong to feel schadenfreude when Dr. Savage screws up as royally as he just did? The other day he was ranting about gay parenting and Melissa Etheridge's acceptance speech at the Academy Awards:

I don't like a woman married to a woman. It makes me want to puke. How's that? I want to vomit when I hear it. I think it's child abuse.
…

I want to puke when I hear about a woman married to a woman raising children because, frankly, I think that it's child abuse to do that to children without their permission. What does a child know? Ask them when they're 16 whether they want to be raised by two lesbians or two men. What are the two men doing behind the other wall? You think the children don't hear it?

Well, the day after that rant, Hollywood's Creative Artists Agency signed Savage on as one of their clients. Oddly enough Melissa Etheridge is another current CAA client. Two days after signing Savage, the CAA dropped him faster than a homophobe would drop a plastic dildo. The talent and literary agency is arguably the most powerful such agency in all of show business, their two commandments are to be a team player and return phone calls promptly.

I get the feeling that Weiner isn’t considered a team player. I’ll bet his calls aren’t being returned by the CAA. Too frelling bad.


Weiner has a doctorate in “nutritional ethnomedicine” from U. C. Berkeley. His 1978 dissertation documents his conviction that herbal healers in South Pacific island nations have traditional herbal medicine that can treat modern ailments. His research on the sedative kava kava became the basis for his doctorial research.

Unfortunately the good Doctor’s research took a quick turn into kookiness when he started advocating the use of Homeopathic remedies to go with his plant research.

Weiner’s homophobic rants about the gay community can be seen in a much different light after you read the 1996 study by Researchers at the University of Georgia that showed cases of sexual arousal by homophobes who viewed gay porn. Perhaps this study isn’t any indication that Savage is really a self-loathing homosexual, but I think his advocacy of coffee enemas raises more than a few questions, as does his semi-autobiographical 1983 book “Vital Signs” which is about a New York Jewish man who fights his homosexual inclinations.

I’m just waiting for the good doctor to emulate Ted Haggard’s homosexual escapade. Could happen any day now.

I could so make crude puns about Weiner’s family name at this point, but that would be like nuking fish in a barrel.

What if married couples were required by law to have children?

In July of last year two court cases about gay marriage that took place in separate counties of the state of Washington were decided together by the Washington State Supreme Court.

Andersen v. King County was filed in King County in August of 2004, and Castle v. State of Washington was filed in September of 2004; both cases were appealed, and made it to the Washington Supreme Court where they were decided jointly.

The Washington Supreme Court denied same sex marriage - but it was a very close thing. Out of 6 justices presiding there was a 3-3 split of opinion, with the lead justice breaking the tie.

But the reasoning given for the denial was absurd!

In the lead opinion the reason for denial of same sex marriage is discussed as:

We conclude that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers the State’s interests in procreation and encouraging families with a mother and father and children biologically related to both.

And their conclusion is stated as:

The question we resolve today is whether the legislature may limit the definition of marriage to include only heterosexual unions. The case law that controls our inquiry compels our conclusions.

The issue of same-sex marriage has been the subject of intense debate throughout the nation. Although times are changing, the plaintiffs have not established that as of today sexual orientation is a suspect classification or that a person has a fundamental right to a same-sex marriage. Thus, the State is required to demonstrate only a rational basis to justify the legislation. Under this highly deferential standard, any conceivable state of facts providing a rational basis for the classification may be considered. The legislature was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers the State’s legitimate interests in procreation and the well-being of children.

(Link to court rulings)

So the justices are saying that it is in the State’s best interest to deny same sex marriage because it is best that only opposite sex couples procreate and raise children that are “biologically related” to both parents.

This is an ill-thought out ruling that leaves holes large enough to lead an elephant through.


In an attempt to show just how stupid this ruling is, the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance (WA-DOMA), a pro same-sex advocacy group, formed late last year. Their goal is to show the errors in the Washington Supreme Court ruling by attempting to pass laws based on that ruling. The first of these laws is to force new marriages to produce children within 3 years or face annulment.

WA-DOMA fully expects these laws to be overturned as unconstitutional, and by doing so they hope to show via an almost Socratic method the full stupidity of the initial ruling.

The organizer of WA-DOMA is Gary Gadow, who in an online statement gives their group’s strategy as:

Over the next few years, we will propose three initiatives to the people, each focusing on a different aspect of Andersen. The first initiative will make procreation a requirement for legal marriage. The second would prohibit divorce or separation when a married couple has children together. The third would make having a child together the equivalent of marriage.

Each of the initiatives we get passed will, no doubt, be struck down as unconstitutional by the state Supreme Court. Good; that is our ultimate goal. Each ruling against these initiatives will also be a ruling against the basis for keeping the state’s Defense of Marriage Act.

The first of these initiatives is Initiative 957. This initiative was filed in January and accepted by the Washington Secretary of State as part of the filing process. Supporters of this initiative must gather 224,000 signatures by July 6 in order to put it on the November ballot. According to the text of this initiative, if it is passed it will:

• add the phrase, “who are capable of having children with one another” to the legal definition of marriage;
• require that couples married in Washington file proof of procreation within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage automatically annulled;
• require that couples married out of state file proof of procreation within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage classed as “unrecognized;”
• establish a process for filing proof of procreation; and
• make it a criminal act for people in an unrecognized marriage to receive marriage benefits.

I think the WA-DOMA group may be overly optimistic in what they can do here, although I applaud their efforts. At the very least, their initiative has generated discussion about same-sex marriage. However I can’t help but see the obstacles that they must overcome to achieve their goals. First, they have to collect enough signatures to get this on the ballot – I think they will be able to do so, but it might be a bit iffy – they don’t have much time in which to work.

Next, they need to have this voted into law by the Washington voting public. I don’t think that will happen. There will be a Christian “Swift Boat” campaign against WA-DOMA and Gary Gadow. Religious conservatives will all point out that this is designed as a ‘slippery slope’ campaign in order to “destroy Traditional Marriage”. I have no doubt that Christians will be quick to equate this initiative with the destruction of marriage – I also have no doubt that they will lie about its content.

Let’s face it, when it comes to the advertising campaign leading up to the November election, the religious conservatives will use their deep pockets to create a campaign blitz against this. This initiative won’t become law, it won’t be overturned by the courts as ‘unconstitutional’, and therefore it won’t become a legal stepping-stone toward same sex marriage.

But it is still valuable in generating discussion, and therefore I think it still worth-while that WA-DOMA try it anyway; sometimes it is noble to tilt at windmills.


This whole argument interested me enough to examine my own state laws on marriage. I found some interesting statements in the California Family code. For example:

Family Code Section 420 ( c ) No contract of marriage, if otherwise duly made, shall be invalidated for want of conformity to the requirements of any religious sect.

Which means that California really doesn’t care what your church says, if the state thinks a couple is married, they are married – be it in a church or by a Judge. Since I am myself ordained as a minister through the Universal Life Church, I could preform marriages myself – as long as the couple has their required marriage licenses, the marriage is preformed in front of witnesses, and I fill out and turn in the required paperwork afterwards. (And if anyone is interested in getting married by me, send me an email and we’ll work it out. If you’re local to me, I’ll only charge for the costs required by the state of California, if any.)

Another interesting California law:

Family Code Section 352. No marriage license shall be granted if either of the applicants lacks the capacity to enter into a valid marriage or is, at the time of making the application for the license, under the influence of an intoxicating liquor or narcotic drug.

“Lacks the capacity” seems to mean ‘mental capacity’, but it is worded so that it could be more broadly applied, especially when you use the words ‘valid marriage’. What is a valid marriage, exactly?

Family Code Section 308. A marriage contracted outside this state that would be valid by the laws of the jurisdiction in which the marriage was contracted is valid in this state.
308.5 Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

This seems pretty clear – the only valid or recognized marriages in the state of California are between a man and a woman, regardless of the laws of the state that you were married in.

There is another qualifier too, only certain people are allowed to receive a valid marriage license:

Family Code Section 301. An unmarried male of the age of 18 years or older, and an unmarried female of the age of 18 years or older, and not otherwise disqualified, are capable of consenting to and consummating marriage.

302. (a) An unmarried male or female under the age of 18 years is capable of consenting to and consummating marriage upon obtaining a court order granting permission to the underage person or persons to marry.
(b) The court order and written consent of the parents of each underage person, or of one of the parents or the guardian of each underage person shall be filed with the clerk of the court, and a certified copy of the order shall be presented to the county clerk at the time the marriage license is issued.

So to be legally married in the state of California you must be capable of consummating your marriage. I find it interesting that a provision has been made to allow for underage marriages – I have never heard a peep from California conservatives trying to stop this practice, so I guess it is Christian to allow your 15 year old daughter to wed her 40 year old boyfriend; as long as her parents consent. I wonder how this works with the laws about statutory rape?

Still, the “capable of consummating” clause seems interesting. What if you are incapable? Does extreme erectile dysfunction disqualify you from ever getting married? What if you’ve suffered an unfortunate accident?

What if you were born in such a way that you are never able to consummate your marriage? There are hundreds of thousands of Americans who are born in such a way that they will never be able to consummate their marriages, they may live as a man or a woman – and even have such stated on their birth certificates – but they are more complex than that. These people still fall in love, and live in committed relationships. Some of them adopt children, a lucky few are able to have their own children through the use of technology and a surrogate parent – but there is no way that many of these people can “consummate” their marriages in any way that would be deemed as ‘natural’ by religious conservatives.


I still don’t buy the garbage that conservatives, religious or otherwise, are trying to push about marriage. I have yet to read any peer-reviewed, scientifically accepted reasoning why same-sex marriage should not be allowed, or why it is harmful to standard marriage. I’ve yet to find any convincing argument against granting same-sex marriages the same rights and benefits as heterosexual marriages.

Someone tell me please, why is a loving, dedicated same-sex relationship of 10 years more damaging to marriage than the antics of Brittney Spears or Ted Haggard?