People Can Change

Newark Mayor Cory Booker is indicative of what has been happening in this country over the last decade or so. People all over this country are moving away from homophobic views and toward a common sense belief in equal rights for everyone. That's why a clear majority of Americans now support marriage rights for same-sex couples, when 10 years ago the clear majority opposed same-sex marriage. My point is that people can and do change. We live in a freer and more equal nation than ever before. But the fight is not over. We must continue to fight for the guarantees of the Constitution to be extended to all American citizens. But we can take hope in the fact that people can change.

Last 11 Year's Growth In Support For Same-Sex Marriage Has Been Huge

The charts below are from The Business Insider. They are from a study done by the Pew Research Center (released at the end of April this year). It shows that the growth in support for legalizing same-sex marriage has been tremendous in just the last 11 years. And the growth has not just been in the population in general. When different groups are looked at, every group has shown significant growth in support (and explosive growth in some) -- with the exception of only two groups, evangelical christians and Republicans. And polls taken since April show that growth is still taking place -- and currently is shared by more than 50% of the population. It looks like most Americans finally believe that equal rights are for all Americans.

The March Toward Equality

All of the citizens of this nation have never been truly equal (in terms of either rights or opportunities) since the nation was founded. But we have a constitution that decrees all citizens should have equal rights under the law, and with each passing generation, we move closer to that constitutional dream. One of the latest fights for equality has been the fight to give the LGBT community the same rights that most other citizens have, and one of the most public faces of this fight for equality is the right of same-sex couples to marry.

The chart above is from the folks who do the Gallup Poll. It shows the progress that has been made in a very short period of time. As recently as 1996, 68% of the population was against same-sex marriage, while only 27% thought it should be legal. That has changed radically in just the last 16 years. The latest Gallup Poll shows that a majority of Americans now support same-sex marriage, by a 53% to 46% margin.

And this rapidly changing attitude was clearly demonstrated in the last election -- where four states (Maine, Maryland, Washington, Oregon) approved same-sex marriage, and another state (Minnesota) defeated a constitutional amendment that would have prevented it. In addition, Wisconsin elected the first openly homosexual person to the United States Senate (Tammy Baldwin).

Also interesting is the reasons people gave for either supporting or opposing same sex marriage. The two top reasons for supporting it were a belief in equal rights and a belief that love/happiness trumps sexual orientation. Each of those reasons garnered 32%. Personally, I believe the constitutional guarantee of equal rights is more important than anything else, although I understand all of the reasons given for supporting same-sex marriage.

And it comes as no surprise that the reason given most often for opposing same-sex marriage is religion. It far surpasses all of the other reasons given. It seems to makes people feel better when they can wrap their bigoted ideas in their favorite religion. But bigotry is still bigotry, even if it comes with a holy book and a prayer.

Here are the reasons people gave for supporting or opposing same-sex marriage in the Gallup Poll:

Will Equality Win In The Coming Election ?

One of the most important documents in this country's history, the Declaration of Independence, stated that all men were created equal. This thought was expanded in the Constitution, especially in the Fourteenth Amendment, to mean that all citizens should have equal rights, and that no state shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".

Unfortunately, that has never been the real situation in the United States. In fact, our entire history has been a fight to live up to the noble words of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Much progress has been made, but much more needs to be done. One of the major battles being waged right now is over extending equal rights to the LGBT community, particularly in the area of marriage rights. Too many right-wing fundamentalists in the U.S. still want to ignore the Constitution and deny marriage rights to gays and lesbians -- and they try to justify that bigotry by hiding behind religion.

Since 2004, six states (Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, New York, Vermont, and New Hampshire) and the District of Columbia have legalized same-sex marriages. In the upcoming November election, four states (Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington) will vote on whether to legalize same-sex marriage -- giving gays/lesbians the same right as all other citizens of those states. If one or more of these states approves same-sex marriage, it will mark the first time that it has been approved by a vote of the people of a state (since other state legalizations were done either by a court or the legislature).

And it looks like there is a good chance of at least one, if not more, of those states voting for the marriage equality of all citizens. Equality is leading in the polls of three of those states, and is in a virtual tie in the fourth. Here are the latest poll numbers:

MAINE
Public Policy Polling
For equality...............53%
Against equality...............44%

MARYLAND
Hart Research Associates Poll
For equality...............54%
Against equality...............40%

WASHINGTON
Survey USA Poll
For equality...............56%
Against equality...............38%

MINNESOTA
Public Policy Polling
For equality...............48%
Against equality...............47%

It's starting to look like the only thing that could prevent victory for equality in at least three of those states is a homophobic version of the "Bradley effect" (where voters tell a poll one thing and then vote the opposite way in the privacy of a voting booth). Hopefully, that is not what is happening. But we won't know for sure until election day.

Even if all four of these states vote for equality, the fight won't be over. There will still be 40 states denying equality to some of its citizens regarding marriage rights. But at the very least, it would be a few more steps down the road toward fully realizing the promise of the Constitution -- and as we know, most wars are won by a series of small victories.

------------------------------

Meanwhile, more people are speaking out for true equality every day. NFL kicker Chris Kluwe (Minnesota Vikings) is one of those people. He wrote an article for the Pioneer Press in Minnesota. Here are some of his memorable words:

All the hopes, all the dreams, all the wonderful potentialities life has in store are as dust before the scouring winds of intolerance (whether it be racist, sexist, or religious). Every time you propagate the message that being gay is to be less than human, that same sex marriage cannot be as filled with love and laughter and tears as heterosexual marriage, that gays don’t deserve to pass a legacy on to their family, you quicken that howling storm and sweep away a tiny bit more humanity from the world, drive one more child to contemplating the cold razor’s bite, or the yawning abyss of the overdose because they simply cannot deal with the unceasing assault upon their psyche.

Well I, for one, will not stand for it. I will not stand for a world that demeans those it finds ‘different’ or ‘gross’. I will not stand for an ideology that promotes slavish adherence to a single arbitrary standard, that sacrifices children on the altar of oppression and control. I will not stand for one more RED TINGED MUSHROOM CLOUD second of people thinking that they have the right to live someone else’s life for them, for the complete lack of empathy so often shown in our society.

I stand for gay marriage. I stand for the end of segregation. I stand for a woman’s right to vote. I stand for equality under the law, for treating others how I want to be treated, for the fundamental human right to live a happy life free of tyranny.

I stand for my children.

NFL Players Answer GOP Homophobe

There's an old saying that you can let people think you're a fool, or open your mouth and remove any doubt. That seems to be the case with Emmett C. Burns, who represents (rather poorly in my opinion) the 10th Legislative District in the Maryland House of Delegates. Burns is one of those bigots who believes gays/lesbians shouldn't have the same rights as all other Americans, and when he learned that a linebacker on the NFL's Baltimore Ravens, Brendon Ayanbadejo, had publicly spoken out on behalf of marriage equality, Burns just lost it.

He fired off a letter (pictured above) to the owner of the Baltimore Ravens, wanting him to muzzle the players and deny them their constitutionally-guaranteed right of free speech. In case you're having trouble reading the letter, here is what Burns wrote:

As a delegate of the Maryland General Assembly and a Baltimore Ravens Football fan, I find it inconceivable that one of your players, Mr. Brendon Ayanbadejo, would publicly endorse Same-Sex marriage, specifically, as a Raven Football player. Many of my constituents and your football supporters are appalled and aghast that a member of the Ravens Football Team would step into this controversial divide and try to sway public opinion one way or the other.Many of your fans are opposed to such a view and feel it has no place in a sport that is strictly for pride, entertainment and excitement. I believe Mr. Ayanbadejo should concentrate on football and steer clear of dividing the fan base.

I am requesting that you take the necessary action, as a National Football Franchise Owner, to inhibit such expressions from your employee and that he be ordered to cease and desist such injurious actions. I know of no other NFL player who has done what Mr. Ayanbadejo is doing.

Please give me your immediate response.

Well, he got his response -- from Brendon Ayanbadejo, who tweeted:

Football is just my job it's not who I am. I am an American before anything. And just like every American I have the right to speak!!!

And he also got another response from an NFL player. That player is Minnesota Vikings punter Chris Kluwe, who fired off a letter of his own defending his fellow NFL player -- and Mr. Kluwe pulled no punches. Here is what he wrote:

Dear Emmett C. Burns Jr., 

I find it inconceivable that you are an elected official of Maryland's state government. Your vitriolic hatred and bigotry make me ashamed and disgusted to think that you are in any way responsible for shaping policy at any level. The views you espouse neglect to consider several fundamental key points, which I will outline in great detail (you may want to hire an intern to help you with the longer words): 

1. As I suspect you have not read the Constitution, I would like to remind you that the very first, the VERY FIRST Amendment in this founding document deals with the freedom of speech, particularly the abridgment of said freedom. By using your position as an elected official (when referring to your constituents so as to implicitly threaten the Ravens organization) to state that the Ravens should "inhibit such expressions from your employees," more specifically Brendon Ayanbadejo, not only are you clearly violating the First Amendment, you also come across as a narcissistic fromunda stain. What on earth would possess you to be so mind-boggingly stupid? It baffles me that a man such as yourself, a man who relies on that same First Amendment to pursue your own religious studies without fear of persecution from the state, could somehow justify stifling another person's right to speech. To call that hypocritical would be to do a disservice to the word. Mindfucking obscenely hypocritical starts to approach it a little bit. 

2. "Many of your fans are opposed to such a view and feel it has no place in a sport that is strictly for pride, entertainment, and excitement." Holy fucking shitballs. Did you seriously just say that, as someone who's "deeply involved in government task forces on the legacy of slavery in Maryland"? Have you not heard of Kenny Washington? Jackie Robinson? As recently as 1962 the NFL still had segregation, which was only done away with by brave athletes and coaches daring to speak their mind and do the right thing, and you're going to say that political views have "no place in a sport"? I can't even begin to fathom the cognitive dissonance that must be coursing through your rapidly addled mind right now; the mental gymnastics your brain has to tortuously contort itself through to make such a preposterous statement are surely worthy of an Olympic gold medal (the Russian judge gives you a 10 for "beautiful oppressionism"). 

3. This is more a personal quibble of mine, but why do you hate freedom? Why do you hate the fact that other people want a chance to live their lives and be happy, even though they may believe in something different than you, or act different than you? How does gay marriage, in any way shape or form, affect your life? If gay marriage becomes legal, are you worried that all of a sudden you'll start thinking about penis? "Oh shit. Gay marriage just passed. Gotta get me some of that hot dong action!" Will all of your friends suddenly turn gay and refuse to come to your Sunday Ticket grill-outs? (Unlikely, since gay people enjoy watching football too.) 

I can assure you that gay people getting married will have zero effect on your life. They won't come into your house and steal your children. They won't magically turn you into a lustful cockmonster. They won't even overthrow the government in an orgy of hedonistic debauchery because all of a sudden they have the same legal rights as the other 90 percent of our population—rights like Social Security benefits, child care tax credits, Family and Medical Leave to take care of loved ones, and COBRA healthcare for spouses and children. You know what having these rights will make gays? Full-fledged American citizens just like everyone else, with the freedom to pursue happiness and all that entails. Do the civil-rights struggles of the past 200 years mean absolutely nothing to you? 

In closing, I would like to say that I hope this letter, in some small way, causes you to reflect upon the magnitude of the colossal foot in mouth clusterfuck you so brazenly unleashed on a man whose only crime was speaking out for something he believed in. Best of luck in the next election; I'm fairly certain you might need it. 

Sincerely, Chris Kluwe

Wow! That is exactly the response Burns deserved -- and I agree with every word of it. I am getting pretty sick of Republican idiots who think some Americans should have more rights than others, and that free speech is only for those who agree with right-wing fundamentalists.

Bigotry

I don't know where this picture was taken or who the bright young people in it are. I found it at the blog of The Omnipotent Poobah. But I agree with the sentiment expressed. Quoting the Bible does not make bigotry any less bigoted. This was true when it was used to justify slavery, segregation, and discrimination against women -- and it's just as true when it's used to justify denying equal rights to gays/lesbians. In spite of what the fundamentalists want, this is a secular country and our laws are based on the Constitution -- not the Bible (or any other religious book).

While the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion (which includes freedom from religion), it also guarantees that all citizens will have the same (and equal) rights -- including granting same-sex couples the same rights and legal protections as opposite-sex couples. There is no reason why these two rights (freedom of religion and equal rights) cannot co-exist. Anyone who thinks otherwise is simply trying to use religion as a cover for their own bigotry.

Now don't get me wrong. The Constitution also guarantees free speech. As odious as it is, citizens of the United States have the right to be bigots, and to speak out on behalf of their bigotry. What they do not have the right to do is use their bigotry, cloaked in religion, to deny equal rights to any of their fellow citizens.

Democratic Platform To Include Equal Marriage Rights Plank

In past years the Democratic Party has been afraid to include a plank in their platform calling for equal rights in marriage (allowing gays and lesbians to legally marry). There was some doubt as to where the country stood on the matter, and blue dogs were able to convince the party that such a plank could hurt them in certain conservative areas. While they didn't oppose equal marriage rights (like the Republicans do), they couldn't sum up the courage to do the right thing. As someone who believes our politicians should be leaders instead of poll watchers and followers, I always hated their reticence on this issue (considering that our Constitution is clear that rights should be equally distributed to all citizens).

Fortunately our country is changing. Now more people support equal marriage rights than oppose it. As the chart above (from the Pew Research Center) shows, each generation has been more supportive of equal rights than the preceding generation, with the last two generations showing majority support for this issue. And the Democratic Party is also changing. Back in 2004, only about 40% of Democrats supported equal marriage rights. In 2008, that figure had climbed to about 50%. But this year about 65% (or nearly two-thirds) of Democrats are on board with equal marriage rights (83% of progressives and 54% of blue dogs).

And with a majority of Independents also supporting equal marriage rights, it looks like the Democratic Party has finally found the political courage to start leading on this important issue. Back in early May, President Obama threw down the gauntlet by publicly stating his support for equal marriage rights. Just a month later, the Democratic Party in the very red state of Texas took up the challenge and put an equal marriage rights plank in their state party platform. Now it looks like the national party is going to do the same.

According to Rep. Barney Frank, a member of the national party's platform committee, the 15 member committee writing the party's platform (which will need to be approved by delegates to the convention) has included an equal marriage rights plank in that platform -- and the vote to include that plank in the platform was by unanimous vote. And there is no reason to believe this won't be ratified by the delegates.

The Republican Party may still be opposed to giving equal rights to all Americans, but the Democratic Party is not. With this action, they have declared they support the Constitution and its guarantee of equal rights for ALL Americans.

Marriage Equality

This graphic from the Center for American Progress clearly shows just how much America has changed in a very few years. It looks like a majority of Americans have finally realized that equality is meaningless unless it applies to everyone (because if it can be denied to anyone, it can be denied to everyone else). Those who would still deny marriage equality (claiming religion as their reason) are now in the minority -- and they're fighting a losing battle.

Appeals Court Strikes A Blow For Equality

Several federal district courts have ruled the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) to be unconstitutional because it denies gays and lesbians the same rights that heterosexual couples have when they get married. But a federal appeals court had never ruled on DOMA. Now the United States 1st Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston has ruled the heart of DOMA to be unconstitutional.

DOMA was passed to prevent the states from making same-sex marriage legal (as several have now done). The Republicans, who claim to be for states' rights, tried to deny states the right to make this decision for themselves. Massachusetts was the state challenging DOMA, in a case called Massachusetts vs. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services. Massachusetts is one of the states that has legalized same-sex marriage. In their decision, the court said:

If we are right in thinking that disparate impact on minority interests and federalism concerns both require somewhat more in this case than almost automatic deference to Congress' will, this statute fails that test.


Many Americans believe that marriage is the union of a man and a woman, and most Americans live in states where that is the law today/ One virtue of federalism is that it permits this diversity of governance based on local choice, but this applies as well to the states that have chosen to legalize same-sex marriage. Under current Supreme Court authority, Congress' denial of federal benefits to same-sex couples lawfully married in Massachusetts has not been adequately supported by any permissible federal interest.

The best part is that two of the three justices that ruled against DOMA were appointed by Republican presidents. The three judge panel was made up of Michael Boudin (appointed by Bush I), Juan Torruella (appointed by Reagan), and Sandra Lynch (appointed by Clinton).

Earlier this month, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled that California's proposition 8 (which denied the right of same-sex marriage in that state) was unconstitutional because it violated the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by causing "meaningful harm to gays and lesbians". It is likely that both court decisions will be appealed to the United States Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court has been putting off making any decision regarding same-sex marriage, but in light of these two decisions they will probably now have to take up the issue. They could combine the two suits and make a broad decision on same-sex marriage rights, but it is more likely they will just decide each separately and give the states the right to make their own decision (since heterosexual marraige rights are granted by each state, rather than the federal government). Either way, it will be interesting to see what happens.

African-Americans Support Equal Rights For Gays/Lesbians

They right-wing fundamentalists have been making a big deal out of fighting to preserve their right to discriminate lately -- and a big part of this fight is to deny the right of same-sex couples to marry (a right already enjoyed by heterosexual couples). They claim that allowing same-sex couples to marry would somehow damage the institution of marriage, although none of them has been able to explain just how this "damage" would occur.

One of the communities that has been slow to accept the equality of same-sex marriages has been the African-American community (example -- a majority of African-Americans voted for Proposition 8 in California). And the right-wing has been trying to use same-sex marriage as a wedge to separate African-Americans from other progressives in this country. Thankfully, it looks like that effort is failing.

A couple of weeks ago, President Obama demonstrated some political courage in admitting to Americans that he believed same-sex couples should have the same right as other couples to marry, and to enjoy the rights and privileges that come with marriage. Then last week, for the first time, the NAACP came out publicly in favor of allowing same-sex couples to marry. Together, these two watershed events have caused a lot of people to re-examine their thoughts about same-sex marriage equality.

A Public Policy Polling survey now shows that 55% of African-Americans would now join the 57% of all people in Maryland to vote to keep their new law allowing same-sex marriages. And a new ABC News/Washington Post Poll (released last Wednesday) shows that 59% of African-Americans nationwide now support the right of same-sex couples to marry. That's an even bigger majority than in the general public (where 53% support same-sex marriage).

This is wonderful news, and I'm very happy to see it. I say that because I strongly believe that if one group (any group) in this country can be denied equal rights, then any other group could also have their rights curtailed. Either everyone has equal rights are no one has those rights guaranteed.

There's still a long way to go before equal rights are established for everyone in America (in spite of constitutional guarantees), but with each passing month and year more progress toward that goal is made. To borrow a phrase from the African-American community, we just have to "keep our eyes on the prize".  

Religion Doesn't Require Belief In Inequality

One of the biggest debates in our society these days is whether to grant all citizens equal rights, or whether to deny equal rights to certain groups -- such as homosexuals having the same right to marry the one they love just like heterosexuals (with all the legal rights and privileges that come with marriage). Many fundamentalists claim that although they believe in the Constitution, their Bible (and their god) requires them to deny equal rights to the LGBT community.

But is that really true? Does their religion really demand they believe in inequality? Or are they just using that religion to mask their own bigotry? Or maybe they've stopped thinking for themselves and just accepted the barely-hidden bigotry of a preacher or priest. I believe they are wrong. I don't believe the Bible demands a belief in inequality.

I am an atheist, and I've never tried to hide that. But I grew up in a fundamentalist church, got my degree from a religious university, and have read the Bible. I know that Jesus only laid down two rules -- to love god, and to love your neighbor as yourself. I also know that choosing to hate (i.e., deny another person equal rights) is a violation of one of those rules.

One of the best discussions of religion and whether it demands a belief in inequality is found on the excellent blog Unreasonable Faith. Here is a part of that discussion:

. . religions are variegated things that allow the individual more control than most folks acknowledge. We’re fond of treating religion as something you’re born into and stuck with barring deconversion. We don’t often talk about the streams of tradition within the religion that an individual must accept or reject.


Look around you: in our culture the chances are you’re going to see someone who is a Christian but holds to different interpretations of what Christianity means. Every sect has a tradition that explains how they’ve come to understand their religion the way they do. Every permutation has an argument as to why their tradition is legitimate. And this is fractal: every community has within it different streams of tradition that emphasis and interpret the components differently.


Perhaps you’re an evangelical who places high importance on the words of the Bible. But why do you take this passage at face value, while interpreting that passage in its historical context? Why is this verse intended only for that time and place while thatverse is immortal and internal? Why do you interpret this passage in light of thatpassage instead of the other way around?


More ink has been spilled writing biblical commentaries than writing Bibles. Many of these interpretations are reasonable and the arguments sensible. How do you decide which is the “right” interpretation? Different members of your community have honestly looked and yet come to differing conclusions.


Kohen offers one way out of this mess: certain principles are non-negotiable. With Kohen, one of these principles is that all humans are equal. If you’re thinking leads you to the conclusion that some people have rights that others do not have, then it’s time to think again.


This is an old, old method. Rabbi Hillel is supposed to have said that the golden rule is the core of the law, and that all the rest is commentary. If your interpretation of the law leads you towards treating someone in a way that you would find hateful if the situation were reversed, then your interpretation is wrong. Supposedly his followers expanded this to say that the love of one’s neighbor is the core of the law, and any interpretation that leads you away from that love is flawed.


This should be natural for Christians, since Jesus spelled out the two most important commandments in Matthew 22:36-41, one of which was to love your neighbor as yourself. If your interpretation of the Bible leads you towards treating your neighbor as if their love, vows and relationships are less real than your own, then – as we say on the interwebs – “ur doin’ it wrong.”


And, as Kohen concluded, if your only guiding principle seems to be that gays are icky and less than equal with heterosexuals, then we have to conclude that your principles are bigoted. No matter how prayerfully and deeply you hold to a bigoted principle, it does not stop being bigoted, nor do you.

The Big Lie About Marriage

Last week the majority of voters in the state of North Carolina added an amendment to their state constitution. That amendment assured that the government in that state would continue to discriminate by refusing to allow same-sex marriages (or even civil unions) -- putting their constitution in conflict with the United States Constitution, which guarantees equal rights for all citizens. The excuse used was for the protection of marriage (in spite of the fact that no one yet has been able to explain just how legalizing same-sex marriage would hurt heterosexual marriage in any way).

The fundamentalists want people to believe that the institution of marriage has been unchanged for thousands of years, and has always been between one male and one female consensually. That is nothing less than an outrageous lie. As the chart above shows, the same Bible used by these fundamentalist "christians" contains many examples of (evidently god-approved) marriages that do not follow the template of one man and one woman in a consensual union.

Some may want to point out that all of the examples in the chart above (click on it to get a larger version) are in the Old Testament, and that the "christian" tradition is different. That is also an outrageous lie. The truth is that the christian church has even consecrated same-sex marriage many times in the past -- a well-documented fact that was not uncommon in the early church. Here is a bit of church history for your edification:

Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has constantly evolved as a concept and ritual.

Prof. John Boswell, the late Chairman of Yale University’s history department, discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the "Office of Same-Sex Union" (10th and 11th century), and the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century).

These church rites had all the symbols of a heterosexual marriage: the whole community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar was conducted with their right hands joined, holy vows were exchanged, a priest officiatied in the taking of the Eucharist and a wedding feast for the guests was celebrated afterwards. These elements all appear in contemporary illustrations of the holy union of the Byzantine Warrior-Emperor, Basil the First (867-886 CE) and his companion John.

Such same gender Christian sanctified unions also took place in Ireland in the late 12thand/ early 13th century, as the chronicler Gerald of Wales (‘Geraldus Cambrensis’) recorded.

Same-sex unions in pre-modern Europe list in great detail some same gender ceremonies found in ancient church liturgical documents. One Greek 13th century rite, "Order for Solemn Same-Sex Union", invoked St. Serge and St. Bacchus, and called on God to "vouchsafe unto these, Thy servants [N and N], the grace to love one another and to abide without hate and not be the cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God, and all Thy saints". The ceremony concludes: "And they shall kiss the Holy Gospel and each other, and it shall be concluded".

Another 14th century Serbian Slavonic "Office of the Same Sex Union", uniting two men or two women, had the couple lay their right hands on the Gospel while having a crucifix placed in their left hands. After kissing the Gospel, the couple were then required to kiss each other, after which the priest, having raised up the Eucharist, would give them both communion.

Records of Christian same sex unions have been discovered in such diverse archives as those in the Vatican, in St. Petersburg, in Paris, in Istanbul and in the Sinai, covering a thousand-years from the 8th to the 18th century.

The Dominican missionary and Prior, Jacques Goar (1601-1653), includes such ceremonies in a printed collection of Greek Orthodox prayer books, “Euchologion Sive Rituale Graecorum Complectens Ritus Et Ordines Divinae Liturgiae” (Paris, 1667).

While homosexuality was technically illegal from late Roman times, homophobic writings didn’t appear in Western Europe until the late 14th century. Even then, church-consecrated same sex unions continued to take place.

At St. John Lateran in Rome (traditionally the Pope's parish church) in 1578, as many as thirteen same-gender couples were joined during a high Mass and with the cooperation of the Vatican clergy, "taking communion together, using the same nuptial Scripture, after which they slept and ate together" according to a contemporary report. Another woman to woman union is recorded in Dalmatia in the 18th century.

Prof. Boswell's academic study is so well researched and documented that it poses fundamental questions for both modern church leaders and heterosexual Christians about their own modern attitudes towards homosexuality.

For the Church to ignore the evidence in its own archives would be cowardly and deceptive. The evidence convincingly shows that what the modern church claims has always been its unchanging attitude towards homosexuality is, in fact, nothing of the sort.

The idea that marriage has always been between one man and one woman (who were both consenting) is simply not true. It is also not true that the christian church has always banned same-sex marriages. Right-wing fundamentalists spread the lies simply to try and justify their own bigotry. It is time for this to stop. It is time to honor the Constitution, and to actually extend equal rights to ALL Americans. Not doing so is not only unconstitutional, it is un-American.

Fake Diamonds ?

Once again, The Atheist Pig is right on target.

Will His Political Courage Hurt President Obama In November ?

The other day President Obama took a very politically-courageous stand. He said he believed in the right of same-sex couples to marry. While I am very proud of the president for taking this stand, I have to admit that it almost immediately brought to mind a disturbing thought -- Will this hurt his chances for re-election in November? After all, the folks in North Carolina showed us this week that there are still a lot of religious bigots around.

Evidently the folks at the Gallup Poll had the same question, because they immediately went out and conducted a survey. Here are the results of the survey (conducted on May 10th with a random sample of 1,013 adults -- and a margin of error of 4 points):

LESS LIKELY TO VOTE FOR OBAMA NOW
General public...............26%
Democrats...............10%
Independents..............23%
Republicans...............52%

MORE LIKELY TO VOTE FOR OBAMA NOW
General public...............13%
Democrats...............24%
Independents...............11%
Republicans...............2%

WON'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE
General public...............60%
Democrats...............65%
Independents...............63%
Republicans...............46%

DO YOU APPROVE/DISAPPROVE OF OBAMA'S POSITION?

General public
approve...............51%
disapprove...............45%

Democrats
approve...............71%
disapprove...............25%

Independents
approve...............53%
disapprove...............44%

Republicans
approve...............23%
disapprove...............74%

Frankly, those numbers don't look so bad to me. I think we can discount the Democratic and Republican numbers, since most of those voters will vote for their party nominee. That leaves the Independents. And a majority of them (53%) agree with the president's position -- and an even bigger majority (63%) say it won't have any effect on how they vote. Even among those who say it might affect their vote, the difference between the positive and the negative is small.

But there is something else that this poll couldn't measure -- the effect on progressives and liberals (who have been disappointed with the president's moderate views and actions). The president's courageous political stand may have gone a long way to bringing those voters back into the fold (it did with me, and I was one of those disaffected progressives). And that's something that needed to happen.

In addition, I don't think this really helps Willard Mitt Romney (aka Wall Street Willie). A minority of the population agrees with him, and this just diverts attention away from his economic argument (which is feeble, but still his best chance to win).

In the final analysis, I don't think the president's courageous stand will hurt him in the coming election -- and it may actually have helped.

This Is Political Courage

I have not always agreed with President Obama, but I was very proud that I voted for him when he came out in favor of equality for all Americans a couple of days ago. It took real political courage to take a stand in favor of same-sex marriage -- an issue that continues to divide this country (where too many people want to use religion to justify their hatred for their fellow Americans and their disdain for our Constitution).

Here is the e-mail the president sent out to his supporters:

Today, I was asked a direct question and gave a direct answer:


I believe that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.


I've always believed that gay and lesbian Americans should be treated fairly and equally. I was reluctant to use the term marriage because of the very powerful traditions it evokes. And I thought civil union laws that conferred legal rights upon gay and lesbian couples were a solution.


But over the course of several years I've talked to friends and family about this. I've thought about members of my staff in long-term, committed, same-sex relationships who are raising kids together. Through our efforts to end the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, I've gotten to know some of the gay and lesbian troops who are serving our country with honor and distinction.


What I've come to realize is that for loving, same-sex couples, the denial of marriage equality means that, in their eyes and the eyes of their children, they are still considered less than full citizens.


Even at my own dinner table, when I look at Sasha and Malia, who have friends whose parents are same-sex couples, I know it wouldn't dawn on them that their friends' parents should be treated differently.


So I decided it was time to affirm my personal belief that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.


I respect the beliefs of others, and the right of religious institutions to act in accordance with their own doctrines. But I believe that in the eyes of the law, all Americans should be treated equally. And where states enact same-sex marriage, no federal act should invalidate them.


Thank you,

Barack

Political courage is a quality that is far too rare these days -- in politicians of both political parties. This display of it by President Obama has removed any doubts I may have had about supporting him in the coming election. He may not be as liberal as I would like, but he has my support and my vote.

North Carolina Votes For Hate

(Picture is from the website of the remarkable Juanita Jean.)

The people of North Carolina had a choice yesterday. They could vote for equality for everyone and to support the United States Constitution, or they could vote to institutionalize hate and inequality in their state. A clear majority of them voted for hate. They voted to approve an amendment to their state constitution that would not only deny same-sex couples the right to marry, but also to form civil unions (so they could have the same rights and privilieges offered to heterosexual married couples).

The United States Constitution, through the Fourteenth Amendment, guarantees all citizens of this country equal rights. The North Carolina constitution now guarantees that equal rights will be denied to at least one class of citizens in that state. The craziest thing about this is that if you ask them they will say they voted to protect marriage. Yet not a single one of them can tell us how giving equal rights to same-sex couples will harm marriage.

The simple truth is that giving equal marriage rights to same-sex couples will not harm the institution of marriage, and it will not harm any existing or future marriages of heterosexual couples. They voted for amendment one because someone (probably their preacher) told them that their god and their religion commands them to hate -- and that is the truth no matter how vigorously they try to deny it. With 94% of the vote counted, about 1,244,833 (61%) people had vote to promote hate in their state.

But not everyone in North Carolina believes in hate. 795,628 (39%) voters opted to vote for equality and to uphold the American Dream (and the U.S. Constitution). I commend those voters for the stand they took.

But the North Carolina majority is out of step with the nation as a whole. A new Gallup Poll showed that for the second year in a row at least 50% of Americans support the right of same-sex couples to marry. The times are changing. Maybe not fast enough, but they are changing -- and in a few years this vote in North Carolina will mean nothing.

Politics Get Interesting In Maine

Our northernmost New England state, the beautiful state of Maine, is not normally a place that grabs the political attention of the rest of the United States very often. But that may change this election year. Things are starting to get very interesting there.

First is the vote Maine will be having on whether to legalize same-sex marriage in the state. Proponents got enough signatures to put the measure on the November ballot. The measure failed in a quickly held vote a couple of years ago, but things are looking up this year. A recent Public Policy Polling survey shows that 54% of the states residents think same-sex marriage should be legal, while only 41% want it to stay illegal.

The percentages among Republicans has stayed about the same as it was a couple of years ago, but approval of same-sex marriage has gone up among Democrats and has gone up even more among Independents. It looks like the chances are very good that the people of Maine will legalize equality in that state.

The other interesting issue is the replacement of Republican Senator Olympia Snowe, who is not running for re-election this year. It was originally thought that the odds of her replacement being a Democrat were very good, and most observers were putting their money on either Chellie Pingree or Mike Michaud. But then a wild card entered the race.

Ex-governor Angus King, an Independent, has tossed his hat into the ring. King is very popular in the state, and the same PPP survey shows him with an approval rating of 62% (with only 24% disapproval). When King entered the race, Pingree decided not to run (they are friends). Michaud will probably now be the Democratic nominee, and he is also very popular with an approval rating of 53% (and a disapproval of only 27%).

This means there will probably be a three-way race between Independent King, Democrat Michaud, and most likely, a teabagger Republican. Can King or Michaud win? Will they split the vote and let a Republican slip through to win? At this point, it's anybody's guess. It'll be a race worth watching though.

There are two excellent progressive blogs in Maine, and I'll be counting on them to keep us abreast of what's going on in both the senate race and the same-sex marriage vote. They are Greed.Oppression.Piety and A Sane Break From The Insanity.

Another State Legalizes Equality

(The above graphic was found at the website Little Candles: Education and Touch.)

Equality under the law is something that is guaranteed by the United States Constitution. But it is also something that has never fully been realized in this country. Even though decent Americans have been trying to achieve the dream of equality for many decades now, there is still a segment of the population that feels they are superior to other groups in the country.

These bigots commonly use religion as a shield to hide their bigotry and maintain their superiority over their fellow citizens. They claim their "religious freedom" allows them to deny equal rights to others. They used this ludicrous argument to defend slavery and racial separation, and they used it to deny women (and minorities) the right to vote. Now they use the same weak argument to deny basic equal rights to gays and lesbians.

But bit by little bit, this country still marches forward toward true equality -- in spite of the racists and bigots. Soon, another state will join the growing list of places that allow gays and lesbians the right to marry the person they love, and to enjoy the privileges and legal ramifications that marriage offers. Currently eight places guarantee this right to homosexuals -- New York, Iowa, Washington, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, and the District of Columbia. Maryland will soon be the ninth.

A couple of days ago the Maryland Senate passed a bill giving gays and lesbians the right to marry. The bill, which has already been approved in the House of Delegates, now goes to Governor Martin O'Malley. O'Malley has already said he would sign it into law. The law is set to take effect next January.

Religious bigots in Maryland have already said they will try to prevent that by gathering enough signatures to put a referendum on the next electoral ballot. Now we must hope that the decent people in Maryland outnumber the religious bigots -- if that referendum gets on the ballot.

I harbor that same hope for the state of Maine -- that on election day the decent people will be able to out-vote the religious bigots. In Maine, those hoping to legalize marriage rights for homosexuals have gotten the required number of signatures to get a referendum on the November ballot.

State lawmakers could just go ahead and approve same-sex marriage in the state, but it is far more likely they will just put it on theNovember ballot and let the people decide. This same kind of referendum was on the ballot in 2009 and lost by 53% to 47%. Hopefully, it will pass this time, and Maine will become the tenth place in America to legalize equality.

A Step Forward And A Step Back

The road to true equality for all citizens in the United States has been a long and rocky one -- and it is far from finished. Minorities, women, persons with non-christian (or no) religious beliefs, immigrants, and persons with a same-sex sexual preference all still have a long way to go before getting rights equal to those given to white American-born males. But progress is slowly being made. This last week saw a step forward for equality -- and a step back.

The step forward was taken by the Obama administration. The administration announced that it will not defend any laws that prevent same-sex married couples from receiving the same military benefits that are offered to heterosexual married couples. Attorney General Eric Holder said:

“[t]he legislative record of these provisions contains no rationale for providing veterans’ benefits to opposite-sex couples of veterans but not to legally married same-sex spouses of veterans … Neither the Department of Defense nor the Department of Veterans Affairs identified any justifications for that distinction that would warrant treating these provisions differently from Section 3 of DOMA.”

The legislation being referred to is the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (which the Obama administration has also refused to defend in court). Some of the benefits that following DOMA would dent to same-sex married military couples are medical and dental benefits, basic housing allowances, travel & transportation allowances, family separation benefits, military ID cards, visitation rights in military hospitals, survivor benefit plans, and the right to be buried together in military cemeteries.

The idiotic "don't ask, don't tell" law is history now, and gays/lesbians can serve openly and proudly in all branches of the American military. Considering the sacrifices that the military demands of its soldiers and sailors (which could even mean the loss of life), it simply doesn't make sense to give benefits to some in the military and deny those same benefits to others. The spouses of gay's/lesbian's in the military deserve the same consideration given to those
of heterosexuals. Since the same sacrifices are demanded of all members of the military, the benefits should also be the same.

Of course, the right-wing Republicans in the House of Representatives will try to fight for DOMA and its restrictions. They have replaced the Obama administration in trying to defend it in court. This is because they put their own archaic religious beliefs over freedom, equality, or the United States Constitution (even though they have sworn to do otherwise). It is of interest that the military cannot do this -- they are required to uphold the Constitution, regardless of their religious beliefs.

The step back was taken by the governor of New Jersey -- Chris Christie. After both houses of the New Jersey legislature passed a bill giving same-sex couples the right to marry, the governor vetoed the bill. The governor admitted the civil union laws of New Jersey have been a failure, and same-sex couples joined in civil unions are not being given the same rights that married couples enjoy. He says he's going to appoint an ombudsman to make that system work better.

The governor's position has the same nasty stench of "separate but equal" that the South tried to use to defend segregation over a half-century ago. They tried to convince the Supreme Court that they were not discriminating against African-Americans by keeping them out of white schools because they provided them with equal school facilities. It was a lie. The facilities were never equal. But the Supreme Court saw through their specious argument.

In a landmark decision (Brown vs. Board of Education), the Supreme Court said that even if the separate school systems had been funded the same, that did not mean they were equal. They declared unanimously that "Separate is inherently unequal" -- meaning that the very act of providing separate facilities proved discrimination, regardless of how they were funded.

Separate = unequal. That was true in 1954, and it is true today. The very act of separating any group for different treatment, regardless of what group is being separated, is tantamount to discriminating against that group (denying them equal rights). Even if the governor was able to provide civil union benefits that were the same as marriage benefits (which is doubtful), it would still amount to an unconstitutional unequal treatment.

Washington To Consider Legalizing Equality

I am one of those people who believe the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees equal rights for ALL American citizens. And it is obvious to me that the right to marry the person you love should be one of those rights. I have never understood why the religious fundamentalists on the right think this is a right they should be able to deny to same sex couples. You can be sure they would scream loudly that their own constitutional rights had been violated if the state or federal government told them they couldn't marry the person they loved.

I know that they fall back on their religion as an excuse to deny gays and lesbians this basic human right -- just as they do to reduce women to a second-class citizenship and just as the did a century ago to justify slavery. But we do not live in a theocracy. Our forefathers gave us a secular government, and whatever any religion might think, the federal government and the individual state governments should not deny any citizen any right given to other Americans -- regardless of color, ethnicity, race, age, sex, religion, or sexual preference. To put it simply, equality should mean equality for everyone.

Currently there are seven places in the United States where same-sex marriages are legal and recognized -- New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, Iowa, New Hampshire, and the District of Columbia. In these jurisdictions all citizens are legally equal (even though work still needs to be done to help minorities, women, and homosexuals achieve social equality). Now there may soon be an eighth.

Washington Governor Chris Gregoire has announced that she will be introducing a bill that will legalize same-sex marriages in that state. The bill would not force any religious entity to perform same-sex marriages (and therefore would not interfere with any religious rights), but it would give those marriages the same legal rights as any other marriages. Gregoire said:

"Today, I'm announcing my support for a law that gives same-sex couples in our state the right to receive a marriage license in Washington - the same right given our heterosexual couples, It is time, it is the right thing to do, and I will introduce the bill to make it happen. I have been on my own journey. I will admit that. It has been a battle for me with my religion, I have always been uncomfortable with the position that I have taken publicly. And then I came to realize the religions can decide what they want to do, but it is not OK for the state to discriminate."

I don't know how good a chance the bill has of passing the Washington legislature. I know both houses are controlled by Democrats (27-22 in the Senate and 56-42 in the House), but I don't know how many of those Democrats are progressives who believe in equality and how many are "posers" (blue dogs) who vote Republican.

We'll just have to cross our fingers and hope the Washington legislators do the right thing -- and the right thing is to vote to make equality a reality for all of the state's citizens.