Eric Yordy - An Analysis of Same-Sex Marriage Through the Lens of the Establishment Clause

I have argued for most of the last decade or more that all laws banning same-sex marriage, or reducing same-sex marriage to the level of civil unions, is a violation of the Establishment Clause in the U.S. Constitution (the separation of church and state). These laws are founded in and argued from a distinctly Christian framework, which is in essence establishing a state religion (any encoding of religious beliefs in law by the government can be seen as a violation of the Establishment Clause).

I have never seen a legal expert make this argument, so I thought I would share this article from Eric Yordy, Associate Dean and Assistant Professor, The W.A. Franke College of Business, Northern Arizona University (Yordy has a J.D. from Cornell Law School).

Caught in the Clause: An Analysis of Same-Sex Marriage Through the Lens of the Establishment Clause

Eric D. Yordy 

The W. A. Franke College of Business 

February 5, 2013

22 Tul. J.L. & Sexuality 55, 2013

Abstract: 
This article addresses the conflict between marriage as a religious concept and marriage as a legal concept. It analyzes the "establishment" of religion when government defines marriage.

Full Citation:
Yordy, Eric D., Caught in the Clause: An Analysis of Same-Sex Marriage Through the Lens of the Establishment Clause (February 5, 2013). 22 Tul. J.L. & Sexuality 55, 2013. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2278641

LEXISNEXIS SUMMARY:

... At the federal level, the Defense of Marriage Act was passed into law in 1996, giving states the ability to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states and defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman for all federal purposes. ... Because the religion clauses do focus on the term "religion" rather than "moral belief" or simply "belief," Professor Choper uses the after-life consequences as the sole factor to separate religious beliefs from other beliefs. ... Goodsell, early Christian churches sanctioned and accepted existing nonchurch marriages. ... And like the MCC churches, the UUA seems to be a legitimate religion under the Brimmer test. ... Justice Thomas concurred in the opinion but argued that the Establishment Clause should not even be a consideration for two reasons: (1) the Establishment Clause was never meant to apply to the states but only to the federal government, and (2) even if the clause applies to the states, there is nothing about this display that coerces a person to view the display. ... Applying this idea to the marriage definition question, the precise argument of many religious leaders is that a civil definition of marriage that includes same-sex couples will lead to coercion to perform those marriages or lose government benefits (such as tax exempt status). ... Applying a two-prong Lemon test, where excessive entanglement and effect are analyzed together, we see that civil marriage definitions still fail the test - in large part due to the tremendous effect of advancing traditional religion over legitimate, nontraditional, religion or nonreligion. ... Conclusion: Given that marriage is primarily a religious concept, or at least is a primary and defining concept in many religions, it is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution for the government to be involved in defining religion.

Douglas LaBier - How the Common Good Is Transforming Our World

Douglas LaBier offers a follow-up post to his recent article about a rising social psychosis that's visible in three areas of our society - this one is more hopeful.

How the Common Good Is Transforming Our World

Douglas LaBier, Business psychologist and psychotherapist

Posted: October 17, 2010

In my previous post I wrote about a rising social psychosis that's visible in three areas of our society. It's likely to prevail for some time, but I think it's like a wave that's crested and will crash to the shore. The reason is that the social psychosis is a backlash against a steadily growing consciousness and behavior that refocuses personal lives and public policies towards promoting the common good.

By the "common good" I'm referring to a broad evolution beyond values and actions that serve narrow self-interest, and towards those guided by inclusiveness -- supporting well-being, economic success, security, human rights and stewardship of resources for the benefit of all, rather than just for some.

It's like a stealth operation, because it hasn't become highly visible yet. But polls, surveys and research data reveal several strands of change that are coalescing in this overall direction. I describe each of them below. They may appear to be unrelated, but I think they're driven by an underlying perspective that we're all like organs of the same body, and the body doesn't thrive if any of the organs is neglected or diseased.

It's an awareness of interconnection of all lives on this planet, and a pull towards acting upon that reality in a range of ways. They include rethinking personal relationships, the responsibility of business to society, and the role of government in an interdependent world.

A 21st-Century Mindset

The rise of the common good reflects a sense of global citizenship and an obligation to be a good ancestor to future generations who inhabit this planet. In fact, it embodies behavior and policies that fit the needs for effective functioning -- both personal and political -- in our post-9/11, post-economic meltdown world.

That is, in previous posts I've argued that this new era of unpredictable change in a non-equilibrium world requires new criteria for psychological health and resiliency, beyond just effective stress management and coping. Others have emphasized the new mindset that's needed for effective business and leadership strategies in this interconnected era.

For example, Matt Bai has described in the New York Times that "[n]ow we live in an integrated world where American jobs rely on the economic policies of governments in Asia or Latin America, while our security is subject to the whims of a cleric living in a cave," and, "[w]ith global interdependence comes a certain lack of control, a vulnerability to disparate influence."

Similarly, CUNY professor and blogger Jeff Jarvis refers to a "great restructuring of the economy and society, starting with a fundamental change in our relationships -- how we are linked and intertwined and how we act."

And Umair Haque writes in his Harvard Business School blog about the new principles of a new economy "built around stewardship, trusteeship, guardianship, leadership, partnership," adding that "[a]s interaction explodes, the costs of evil are starting to outweigh the benefits." In effect, transparency will become the antidote to evil.

Let's look at some of the seemingly disparate themes of the massive shift underway that has spawned the current social psychosis.

The New Norm of Racial-Ethnic Diversity

As you read these words, the country is becoming more diverse. Some demographers believe that 2010 could be the first year that most children born in the country will be non-white. Already, five states have a majority non-white population. New York Times columnist Charles Blow captured a slice of this at the time of the passage of health care legislation, writing that "[a] woman [Nancy Pelosi] pushed the health care bill through the House. The bill's most visible and vocal proponents included a gay man [Barney Frank] and a Jew [Anthony Weiner]. And the black man in the White House signed the bill into law. It's enough to make a good old boy go crazy."

Nearly 20 percent of counties in the U.S. have, or are close to, a nonwhite majority. This shift is steadily changing the social landscape. The trend is towards movement in the direction of tolerance, acceptance and valuing -- rather than fearing or hating -- the increasingly diverse composition of American society. And that includes the rising numbers of those with multi-racial/ethnic backgrounds. Moreover, research finds that the latter group tends to be open-minded and more oriented to inclusiveness and openness.

Volunteer Service

Data show that the number of volunteers is steadily growing among all age groups. During 2009, about 64 million Americans did volunteer work (defined as unpaid volunteer activities through an organization.) That's nearly 27 percent of the populations and reflects a steady year-by-year increase, according to a Bureau of Labor Statistics report. And a rapid rise of volunteerism has occurred in the last decade among men and women in their 30s and 40s. Today, people describe volunteerism as part of their sense of responsibility to help others in need, not something for padding their resume.

Donations of Organs by Living Donors to Strangers

That number is steadily rising. For example, kidney donations from living donors have outnumbered those from deceased donors since 2003. Some states, such as Wisconsin, offer tax deductions for expenses related to living organ donations.

Hands-On Philanthropy

This trend is towards wanting contributions to have visible, direct impact upon people's lives. More are turning away from writing checks to well-heeled organizations like universities or cultural centers. This trend is visible among venture capitalists who bring a high-impact perspective to venture philanthropy as well as among average citizens, who increasingly contribute to international organizations that help people become more self-sufficient in daily life -- for example, through micro finance (providing small loans to individuals starting businesses in impoverished countries), or purchasing a goat for a family that relies on small farming for their livelihood, or paying the salary of a schoolteacher in an impoverished part of the world.

Responsibility for a Healthy Planet

Despite the continued denial of the reality of climate change and the human contributions to it by the GOP, a denial unmatched among major political parties around the globe, pressure continues to build, both politically and on a grassroots level, for actions that reverse or halt climate change and promote sustainable living. Among the latter are groups like 350.org, the Alliance for Climate Protection and community alliances of citizens, businesses and government such as Bethesda Green, in Bethesda, Md. This trend is underscored by the steadily rising financial contributions to environmental organizations.

Support For Human Rights

Data show a steady increase of both financial contributions to and membership in such organizations as Human Rights Watch, Save the Children, Amnesty International, Mercy Corps International and others. Even in the absence of effective action, consciousness continues to build around the perspective that violations of rights to safety, dignity and personal freedom for another -- anywhere in the world -- affect oneself, as well. In addition, the view of security and human rights is expanding to include not only freedom from violence and terrorism, but also the rights to health care, support of older citizens, rights to adequate housing, food, fair wages and other conditions. A recent U.N. report examines these issues with respect to responsibilities and actions of member nations.

Personal Success

I've written previously that men and women increasingly want a "4.0 career": one that provides more than personal recognition, power and financial reward. They want meaningful work, opportunities for continued learning and growth, a positive management culture and a team-oriented, ethical environment. They want to have impact on something larger than just their own personal success. These themes are especially pronounced among younger workers.

The Social Impact of Business

Business leaders have already bought into the need for sustainability, and many are contributing to the rise of a new business model, one that addresses social problems and serves the common good as well as achieving financial success. The "green business" movement reflects this shift, along with the concept of the "triple bottom line." Related trends include sustainable investing, social entrepreneurialism, corporate social responsibility, building a psychologically healthy management culture, and transparency via open access to information and corporate disclosure policies.

Acceptance of Gay Relationships and Gay Marriage

Acceptance of gay relationships has steadily increased, while opposition to gay marriage has steadily decreased, when tracked over the last several years, according to data from the Pew Research Center. Between one-quarter and one-third of gay and lesbian couples are raising children, a steadily rising number. And the most current surveys indicate that about half of all Americans support gay marriage.

Families And Relationships Are Transforming
A majority of Americans now say their definition of family includes same-sex couples with children, as well as married gay and lesbian couples. Regarding intimate relationships, surveys by the Gallup organization and other groups find that the quality of the relationship is more important to people today than simple allegiance to the institution of marriage. Census statistics and other data confirm this, showing, for example, a steady decline in the marriage rate over the last several decades, while cohabitation has steadily risen in each of those same decades. About half of all households today are headed by people who are single. And unmarried couples are as likely as married couples to be raising children: it's currently approaching 50 percent.

Some surveys report that at least 30 percent of those polled admit to having had an affair. Whether that's accurate or not, the upshot is that affairs are no longer viewed as immoral in today's culture. Moreover, attitudes towards prostitution are also shifting towards greater acceptance and focus on the rights of sex workers.

So, these are just some of the pervasive shifts underway. My read is that they link around an underlying theme that our culture is evolving in both consciousness and action, and that evolution will grow and strengthen over time. That's why the current social psychosis will fade. That's not only hopeful but important: The rise of the common good is both a necessary path for survival and security on an interdependent planet and the path towards personal psychological health, success and well being in this new world era.

Douglas LaBier, Ph.D., a business psychologist and psychotherapist, is Director of the Center for Progressive Development, in Washington, D.C. You may contact him at dlabier@CenterProgressive.org.

Follow Douglas LaBier on Twitter: www.twitter.com/douglaslabier

Tags: Douglas LaBier, How the Common Good Is Transforming Our World, Huffington Post, culture, values, society, interconnected, diversity, volunteering, organ donors, philanthropy, environment, human rights, success, gay rights, families

Big Think - If You Oppose Equal Marriage, You Are a Bigot

Yep, that's one way of looking at it - but it lacks compassion (please note: I am generally guilty of this, too, so don't take my comments as condescension so much as exploring my own mistakes).

A lot of the people who oppose equal marriage and GLBT rights do so because their worldview tells them that is how they should believe. When we are embedded in a worldview, we often are unable to examine our beliefs as objects of awareness - they own us in a sense.

It's easy to hate people who hold beliefs we reject, but it becomes much harder to do that when we recognize how the process works.

If You Oppose Equal Marriage, You Are a Bigot

When you cover a beat, you get to know the good guys and the bad guys. If you don't have strong opinions about who's who, you're probably not doing your job.

Dave Weigel covers birthers, Birchers, teabaggers, and other movement conservatives for the Washington Post. Nobody knows this beat better than Weigel, who covered the right for the liberal Washington Independent before he got his big break at the Post earlier this year. Bloggers at the Post occupy an intermediate niche between regular reporters and op/ed columnists. They cover a beat, but expressing opinions is also part of their job description.

On Saturday Weigel caused a stir when he tweeted "I can empathize with everyone I cover except for the anti-gay marriage bigots. In 20 years, no one will admit they were a part of that."

Absolutely! Opposing gay marriage is the moral equivalent of supporting anti-miscegenation laws.

By definition, bigots are people with unshakable baseless prejudices. There is absolutely no reason, besides blind prejudice, to deny same sex couples the right to civil marriage.

You can use religious language to express your belief that gays and lesbians are disgusting second class citizens unworthy of rights that heterosexuals take for granted, but it doesn't make your position any less bigoted. Logically, there is no reason to put same-sex relationships on a lesser legal footing than opposite sex unions, unless you think there's something wrong with them.

You can insist you don't wish gay people any harm. Perhaps not. But there were lots of pro-segregationists who didn't wish ill upon black people, but still didn't want to drink out of the same fountains. They too were bigots.

You can point out that discrimination against gays and lesbians is a longstanding tradition, but that doesn't excuse your bigotry. If anything, it makes it worse. It was one thing to fear what the expansion of gay rights might do when gays and lesbians had no rights. Today we're decades into gay liberation and none of the dire predictions have come true. For example, children raised by same-sex parents are at least as healthy and well-adjusted as those raised by opposite sex parents--and no more likely to identify self identify as gay.

So, if you're still clinging to those irrational fears in the face of evidence, guess what? That's bigoted. If, like the voters of California, you voted to break up families in the name of preserving family values, that makes you a hypocrite and a bigot.

It's possible to have a bigoted opinion or cast a bigoted vote without being a thoroughgoing bigot. Weigel later clarified that he wasn't talking about everyone who opposes gay marriage, just hardcore activists who think that breaking up other people's families is a good use of their time.

Matt Lewis's reaction to Weigel's tweet at Politics Daily epitomizes everything that's wrong with journalism today:

Perhaps Weigel will turn out two decades from now to have been prescient, but "bigot" is awfully strong language for a person who is making the case for tolerance – and this comment simply reinforced a longstanding view among social conservatives that The Washington Post and most of the rest of the mainstream media are not only implacably opposed to their policy agenda, but personally hostile to them as well.

Lewis stops short of saying that Weigel is wrong on the substance. So, falls back on two acceptable strategies for mainstream commentators: Refereeing language and playing strategist.

The idea that the word "bigot" should be off-limits to proponents of tolerance is absurd. That would mean that any attribution of bigotry is logically self-defeating. Surely, even Lewis would acknowledge that there are some people out there who deserve the label. Is it unacceptably intolerant to describe the KKK as a bigoted organization? Maybe the language of corporate journalism is so debased that it's only acceptable to say that "some civil rights groups allege that the KKK is bigoted."

Calling someone a bigot isn't a failure of tolerance. Nobody is challenging the right of the anti-equal marriage brigade to speak its mind. Nobody is trying to take rights away from them or relegate them to second-class citizenship. They have the Constitutional right to make up whatever crazy rules they want for marriage within their own religions. If only they were willing to extend the same tolerance to gays and lesbians.

Maybe it is bad political strategy to call anti-gay marriage crowd bigots. Maybe it only deepens their self-pity and reinforces their ill-founded sense of persecution. That's hardly Weigel's problem. He's not a Democratic Party consultant, he's a journalist. His job is to call it like he sees it.

So, I'm sorry to see Weigel ultimately apologized for tweeting the truth.

Photo credit: flickr user andy.birky, distributed under Creative Commons.

Tags: Big Think, If You Oppose Equal Marriage, You Are a Bigot, gay rights, gay marriage, worldviews, psychology, Psychology, Spiral Dynamics, gay rights, culture, beliefs, Dave Weigel, Politics Daily, Matt Lewis

William Irwin Thompson - Thinking Otherwise: On Gay Marriage

William Irwin Thompson, writing at Wild River Review, takes a big picture view of the cultural reality of homosexuality - and concludes that the state has no business regulating marriage rites.

Thinking Otherwise: On Gay Marriage

Filed under: WRR@LARGE — Tags: Gay Marriage, Wild River Review, William Irwin Thompson, WRR@Large — joystocke @ 7:33 am

by William Irwin Thompson

“We Irish think otherwise” Bishop Berkeley

Sappho and Erinna, Simeon Solomon, Tate Gallery

It was the Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Eliot Trudeau who first fought off the hordes of the self-righteous who rose to the attack of homosexuality by insisting that “The State had no business in the bedrooms of the nation.” In the evolution of culture since the sixties—and because of the sixties, I might add—we have made some progress and people have come to accept homosexuality as a cultural reality and not simply as an “abomination in the eyes of the Lord.” Or, at least, those sensible people who prefer to live in a culture and not a cult have come to be more tolerant and pluralistic in their acceptance of tempora et mores.

So let us take a step back to look at the issue of Gay marriage from an evolutionary point of view, both cultural and biological—although these two are never really separated in human reality. If, in the terms of Natural Selection, homosexuals do not reproduce, what possible selective pressure can there be that enables homosexuals to survive over the millennia? They should have died out long ago as a kinky approach to orgasm that arose when we all had to huddle together in caves in the Ice Age and no one really knew late at night what was going on under all those furs. By the time of the sunlit nuclear families of the Neolithic, when houses shifted from round to square and had an extra room for individual food storage and private property, people began to domesticate animals and notice which black goat sired more black goats, and paternity reared its—well, you get the idea.

Homosexuality should have disappeared, but in fact most of those Abrahamic cultures of the Middle East and Central Asia have strong traditions of boy love, and those love poems of Hafez that celebrate the beauty of the “slim Turk,” are not talking about women. Across the vast continent of Eurasia to the Greeks and Romans, and up to the birth of Latin poetry with Catullus, poetry is celebrating homosexuality and bisexuality. And if we go back even further to the Gilgamesh Epic, we find a celebration of the love of men for men. When Gilgamesh couples with women, it is merely the relief of a biological drive, but his intense love for Enkidu is a sublime love of a higher order. Homosexuality has been with us for a long time and probably antedates the institution and so-called “sanctity of marriage.”

So we have to ask ourselves, what selective pressure exists for the continuation of homosexuality when it is obviously not an agency of reproduction? The answer is, of course, that there is a process of Baldwinian Evolution going on, and that the selective pressure is cultural. The homosexual is the magical “wounded healer,” the man with the vulva that heals itself. From the dawn of culture, vulvas were inscribed on rocks and cave walls, and the figurines of the Great Mother, like the Venus of Laussel, were daubed with red ochre to signify the menstrual blood. The vulva was the wound that healed itself in rhythm with the lunar cycle. The man with the vulva was the shaman, the wounded healer who had knowledge of animals and stars, healing and weather. When Christ shows the labial-shaped wound in his side to the doubting Thomas, he is showing that he is the vulva-man, the wounded healer who has healed death itself in his resurrection.

Androgynous men were often selected in early adolescence and marked out in their femininity for training as future shamans. So it is cultural selection and not simply natural selection that produces the selective pressure that insures the continuation of the homosexual. Unconsciously this is why Roman Catholic priests wear soutanes, Bishops and Cardinals dress in colorful and outrageously draggish clothes, and have a fondness for altar boys. It is naïve to think that child abuse is merely a case of a few bad apples; it is basic to the institution of priesthood. It is the boy love culture of Eurasia surviving into our day under wraps.

But as society evolves through the cultural vehicle of the city, from Athens to Rome to London to New York, the shaman also evolves from the sacerdotal figure to the artist. The small town or village still was religious and ignorant, so the Gay man, a Walt Whitman or a Hart Crane, had to move to the Big City. And what was true of Gay men was also true of Lesbian women, from Sappho to Yourcenar. In a more secular society, the shaman becomes the artist.

So if we are going to invoke tradition as the foundational justification of the family, then we had better be sure we know what our traditions really are.

But really–as Trudeau said–the State has no business in any of this. The State may need to issue certificates for birth and death, but certainly not for baptism or extreme unction. And so it is for marriage or confirmation and Bar Mitzvah. The State should issue certificates for civil unions that have to do with property rights and medical visitation rights, and that is all. After one receives a birth certificate from the State, one’s parents can choose to take one to church to be baptized. And so it should be for marriage: after you have been to City Hall, then you can go to whatever religious institution you choose that is willing to bless your union. If you are, for example, a Catholic or Evangelical, and your Church won’t accept your union, then that is grounds for divorce—from either your partner or your religion.

Choir Boys

Not the organ answering Job out of the whirlwind,
nor the tiny pointed notes of the harpsichord–
metallic and discrete as knights in armories
unfurled and elevated above the clubbed blood
of churlish battle or bones struck on mammoth skulls,
nor the sun’s arteries drained in stained glass truncheons;
bound in cassocks to their claustral occulted place
where priestly functions anoint the choir boys’ throats
in rituals thousands of years before the Mass,
cherub buttocks lean on the misericord’s hard love
tangled in wings of the dove and coils of the snake
that soon break sunset’s shaft on the rising full moon;
but now the pianoforte in thundering halls
breaks gods’ hold in revolution’s noisy applause.

Cultural philosopher and poet, William Irwin Thompson, is founder of the Lindisfarne Fellowship. He became nationally known as a writer for his best-selling book on contemporary affairs, At the Edge of History, which was a finalist for the National Book Award. He received the Oslo International Poetry Festival Award for his science fiction fantasy novel Islands Out of Time and has published four books of poetry. As a cultural historian, he is most widely known for his books, The Time Falling Bodies Take to Light: Mythology, Sexuality, and the Origins of Culture and Coming into Being: Artifacts and Texts in the Evolution of Consciousness. His collection of poems, Still Travels, will be published by Wild River Books, an imprint of Wild River Review, this summer.

Tags: gay rights, marriage, homosexuality, culture, William Irwin Thompson, Thinking Otherwise, On Gay Marriage, Wild River Review, wounded healer

Prop 8 and Pre-rational Worldviews

Many of us were sad that the California Supreme Court upheld Prop 8. But not everyone. This woman named Judy Jones posted this comment on Facebook, which she links to her FriendFeed account:

Saying of silent prayer of thanks to Heavenly Father for the Prop 8 decision.

She has taken some serious heat for this statement, which is heartening - but then I already knew that the crowd there tends to be more open minded. Part of the heat was for announcing her "silent" prayer on two (or more) social media sites. Be that as it may. Here are a few of her responses:

If you don't like the way it ended, you need to go back and try again which I'm sure you will. I prayed a silent prayer, not a "secret" prayer.

I disagree and that's all I can say.

I do not hate anyone, Lokei. I do care about Heavenly Father's laws (as I see them). One of them is that homosexual acts are a sin. Do gays have a right to have law to protect them? YES. Do they have the right to serve in the miltary? YES. Do they have the right to see their loved ones in the hospital? YES. Do they have the right to have laws to protect them from people who harrass them? Yes. Where I draw the line is that they have sex with one another which is a sin. If you don't like what I'm saying, I can't help that. That is my faith and belief.

She offers no defense for her "beliefs" other than that they are her "Heavenly Father's laws" (as she sees them), which by extension is how she thinks the rest of us should see them.

It's probably not very compassionate of me to single her out, but she stands as an example of the worldview that we face in trying to get equal rights for ALL human beings. People who think as she does are largely pre-rational in their beliefs, which can't be defeated with reason - she (and people like her) will hold tighter and tighter to her faith the more she is challenged.

This is an object lesson for those of us trying to defeat these infantile worldviews - a rational argument will change their beliefs. However, people like her will be increasing ostracized and isolated in the coming years, as it should be.

People aged 18-34 support gay marriage by a margin of 60-40%. That is the future that awaits us - and it can't get here too soon for me.

Tags: gay rights, marriage, culture, law, Prop 8, Pre-rational, Worldviews, Facebook, Friendfeed, California, gay marriage

Colbert Report - Meghan McCain

Meghan McCain's version of the GOP is the best chance they have to ever regain power - certainly a hell of a lot more likable than Limbaugh and Cheney's version/vision of the GOP.

First time I have ever seen Colbert break character - admitting that John McCain probably doesn't watch his show.

Pro sex, pro life, and pro gay marriage. Good start to renewing the GOP.

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Meghan McCain
colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Gay Marriage

Tags: Politics, humor, gay rights, Pro sex, pro life, pro gay marriage, Colbert Report, Meghan McCain

Time - A Gay-Marriage Solution: End Marriage?

I've long argued for the abolition of marriage as a legal status, preferring civil unions with the state setting its own laws, provided they do not violate the 14th Amendment.

Then there is the real issue -- the government has no business regulating marriage, and marriage should have no standing under the law. Why? Marriage is a religious institution, not a legal institution. It's the separation clause this country was founded upon.

The government can and should regulate civil unions which, under the 14th Amendment, cannot be denied to any citizens - black, white, gay, or straight.

A couple of months ago, In These Times made essentially the same argument.

Today, Time Magazine posted an article making the same argument, though not from one of their staff writers, but rather following up on an article by two law professors from Pepperdine University, who issued a call to re-examine the role the government plays in marriage in a paper published March 2 in the San Francisco Chronicle.

A Gay-Marriage Solution: End Marriage?

By Michael A. Lindenberger Monday, Mar. 16, 2009

A gay couple is married at Arlington Street Church in Boston.

Rick Friedman / Corbis

When a Jewish boy turns 13, he heads to a temple for a deeply meaningful rite of passage, his bar mitzvah. When a Catholic girl reaches about the same age, she stands in front of the local bishop, who touches her forehead with holy oil as she is confirmed into a 2,000-year-old faith tradition. But missing altogether in each of those cases — and in countless others of equal religious importance — is any role at all for government. There is no baptism certificate issued by the local courthouse, and no federal tax benefits attached to the confessional booth, the into-the-water-and-out born-again ceremony or any of the other sacraments that believers hold sacred.

Only marriage gets that treatment, and it's a tradition that some legal scholars have been arguing should be abandoned. Two law professors from Pepperdine University issued a call to re-examine the role the government plays in marriage in a paper published March 2 in the San Francisco Chronicle. The authors — one of who voted for and one against Prop 8, which successfully ended gay marriage in California — say the best way out of the intractable legal wars over gay marriage is to take marriage out of the hands of the government altogether. (See pictures of the busiest wedding day in history.)

Instead, give gay and straight couples alike the same license — a certificate confirming them as a family, and call it a "civil union" — anything, really, other than "marriage." For those for whom the word marriage is important, the next stop after the courthouse could be the church, where they could bless their union with all the religious ceremony they could want. The Church itself would lose nothing of its role in sanctioning the kinds of unions that it finds in keeping with its tenets. And for non-believers or those for whom the word marriage is less important, the civil union license issued by the state would be all they needed to unlock the benefits reserved in most states, and in federal law, for "married" couples.

"While new terminology for all may at first seem awkward — mostly in greeting-card shops — [it] dovetails with the court's important responsibility to reaffirm the unfettered freedom of all faiths to extend the nomenclature of marriage as their traditions allow," wrote professors Douglas W. Kmiec and Shelley Ross Saxer. Kmiec voted for Prop 8 because of the teachings of his Catholic Church and his notion of religious liberty, but has since said he believes the Court should not allow one group of Californians to marry while denying the privilege to others.

Their idea got a big boost three days later, during the March 5 oral arguments before the California Supreme Court, which is expected to issue a ruling soon in the case brought by gay couples and others who argue the constitutional amendment passed by voters last fall is invalid. Justice Ming Chin asked attorneys for each side whether the idea would solve the legal issues connected to gay marriage — issues that at their core revolve around the question of whether some couples could marry but not others violates constitutional guarantees of equal protection under the law. (Check out a story about the state of marriage — and divorce — in America.)

Both sets of lawyers agreed that the idea would resolve the equal protection issue. Take the state out of the marriage business, and then both kinds of couples — straight and gay — would be treated the same. Even Ken Starr, the Pepperdine law dean and former Whitewater independent counsel who argued in favor of Prop 8, agreed that the idea would solve the legal issues, though he said it was a solution that lies outside the legal authority of the court. An attorney for the other side, Michael Maroko, didn't expressly endorse the idea, but he told Chin, "If you're in the marriage business, do it equally. And if you're not going to do it equally, get out of the business."

The two Pepperdine professors are arguing that the Court use that line of thinking in crafting its decision in the case before it, short-circuiting the need for a new referendum. Their proposal is aimed at helping speed a resolution on the issue in other states — where gay marriage is heating up in Iowa, Connecticut, Vermont and elsewhere — and on the federal level. All sides on the debate expect the issues bubbling up out of the state courts and legislatures to eventually gain traction in federal courts, too, ultimately leading to a case before the Supreme Court or efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution, or both.

But as Solomonic as the compromise seems, giving up the word "marriage" may be impossible. For many couples who have already joined in matrimony, the idea of the state no longer calling them "married" may seem as if something important has been taken away — even if it's hard to define just what it is that's been lost. And for many others — the folks who feel most strongly about marriage, and who most passionately supported the expensive campaign to defeat gay marriage — the issue of nomenclature is only the beginning. They aren't just against gay marriage, they are against gay couples — and especially against government sanctioning those relationships, no matter what they are called.

And as Justice Chin considers whether he can craft a compromise with his fellow justices that would both uphold Prop 8 — and therefore the right of the people to amend the state constitution — and assert the right of gay people to be treated equally, he may find that the folks who cling hardest to the word "marriage" are the gay couples themselves. After all, what was the most sweeping part of the May 2008 decision Ming and his colleagues issued granting gays the right to marry? It was the idea that the word "marriage" itself is so strong that denying it to gay couples violates the most sacred rights enshrined in the state constitution, the right for all people to be treated with dignity and fairness. Just 10 months later, gay couples — whether they are among the 18,000 who married in the state before Prop 8 stopped the ceremonies or not — are loath to lose a word for which so many fought so hard and so long to have apply to themselves.

But the Pepperdine idea does put into a play a new way of thinking — and whether it's part of the court's decision in the Prop 8 case, or whether it makes it way into a new referendum, the idea of getting governments out of the marriage business offers a creative way to thinking about a problem that is otherwise likely to be around for a long, long time.

This is the ONLY solution. It's that simple.

Tags: gay rights, marriage, culture, society, Time, A Gay-Marriage Solution, End Marriage, civil unions, religion, government

In These Times - Forget Marriage—Civil Unions For All

[image source]

I personally believe that marriage is a religious engagement, and as such, the government has no business being involved in who can or cannot be married. On the other hand, civil unions are legal agreements, and this is an area where each state can set their own standards, with the caveat that they cannot discriminate in any way (as provided for in the Constitution of the United States).

I've made this argument before, but now someone else is making it, and in a national magazine. BUT, I am not down with the full range that Allen is arguing for (incest type relationships should be forbidden, as well as underage unions - the abuse risks are too great to allow these types of unions).

Forget Marriage—Civil Unions For All

By Terry J. Allen

I believe fervently in the sanctity of marriage, and if you do, too, head immediately to your closest church, mosque, synagogue or flying spaghetti monster chapel, and sign up to procreate, cohabitate and copulate with a sex partner blessed by that holy institution.

But pass city hall and do not collect $200 in tax breaks. In fact, given the intrinsic rewards of sanctity, it’s pretty greedy to demand any secular perks from the state. Eternal life at the feet of the old white guy and his hench-angels should be prize enough.

Making your marriage sacred should be between you and your goddy thing.

Making your union legal, on the other hand, should be between you and state-guaranteed legal and human rights. And it should be available to any two people, gay or straight, in whatever configuration: Mother and son, grandparent and grandkid, mother and daughter, and best friends should all be able to form legal couples that enjoy the rights, privileges, financial benefits and responsibilities now assigned to marriage. (Calm down Rev. Rick: Only two people, no pets allowed.)

America’s current marriage system, even when it includes same-sex couples, inherently discriminates against millions of people who are not in a sexual relationship. (That many legal marriages are platonic only adds irony to injustice.) Ensuring equal rights for all requires relegating or elevating (however you look at it) marriage to the realm of religion. Kind of like christenings, bar mitzvahs and chicken sacrifice.

The state’s job, then, would be to assign benefits, if any, to couples, but not to define who can enter into coupledom. There is no rational, as opposed to religious, reason why any two people shouldn’t be able to form a civil union that carries the same rights as marriage: to pass on and inherit property, make decisions for the sick, visit inmates and get discounts on Carnival cruises.

Without the religious framework, joining civil, secular rights to heterosexual or even gay coupledom becomes bizarre. Think about it: To enjoy the tax and other benefits of marriage (or its gay stepchild, current civil unions), a couple is assumed to have consummated the deal with sex—with each other.

But why shouldn’t any practical or loving couple be able to form a unit and consummate it with anything they choose? A night at the opera, a day at the races, a signature on a will?

Irrational fear and religion (but I repeat myself) underlie the state’s stance that it can assign secular rights to a sacred institution designed for sexual partners—and can exclude platonic couples. But really, would the legal right to shared Social Security benefits so excite two heterosexual women that they would turn lesbian? Would allowing two brothers to share medical benefits inspire them to acts of incest?

Or would, God forbid, too many people get health benefits and share incomes and resources?

Tradition is another bulwark against change. But even traditions that appear carved in stone or mandated by God evolve over time like Darwin’s finches. “Traditional” marriage used to be a business contract between families. It legitimized procreative sex and formalized property and inheritance. It was often polygamous and included child spouses. Men’s conjugal rights included rape and the rule of thumb—the right to beat a wife with a stick no thicker than his thumb.

Gradually, many societies embraced an ideal of romantic love that undermined arranged marriages, while women’s increasing legal, sexual and financial independence undercut marriage as society’s mechanism of choice for promoting the lawful and peaceful transition of property.

Today, people—including women—can leave their property to whomever they wish, and they can rely on DNA tests rather than the friable sanctity of marriage if they wish to base their decisions on bloodlines. But they still cannot define the most legally significant relationships of their lives.

Rather than simply fighting the Religious Right’s campaign to stop gay marriage and weaken the church-state divide, progressives could take a more radical approach. Gay and straight, they could demand an unbridgeable chasm between state and mate.

If you want a sanctified marriage, exchange vows at a religious institution that accepts you. Heaven and sanctified sex await.

But if you want that bond to be legal, wait in line at city hall with the farmer and his son, the grandmother and orphaned grandchild, the elderly widows, all of whom deserve better healthcare, joint property, fuss-free inheritance and the right to form a secular, civilized union.

Tags: marriage, gay rights, culture, society, In These Times, Forget Marriage, Civil Unions, For All, Terry J. Allen, religion, government

Rick Warren Slams Media, Bloggers

I'm inclined to tell Pastor Rick to suck it up - if you want to hold and perpetuate archaic beliefs that deny rights to specific citizens, then you're going to get blasted. Deal with it.

Oh yeah, he flat out lies in the video. How very un-Christian of him. [See below.]

By Alex Koppelman

Tuesday, Dec. 23, 2008 16:15 EST

Warren slams media, bloggers

In a video message addressed to his congregants at Saddleback Church, Rick Warren has responded to the controversy surrounding the decision to have him deliver the invocation at President-elect Barack Obama's inauguration next month.

Warren uses the video, which can be viewed below (hat-tip to Wonkette) to talk about his stance regarding homosexuality and gay marriage, and to attack the media and especially bloggers because of the controversy.

"The media never gets it 100 percent correct. I've never seen an in-print article that gets everything right," Warren says, adding, "The media lives for conflict. If there's no conflict, then somebody's going to create it."

True enough, though in this case no one created the conflict -- it arose naturally because of the opposition to Warren's views. The pastor focused especially on bloggers, who've been leading the opposition, discussing "bloggers who really need to get a life" and saying, "A lot of people think that because they can sit in the quietness of their own home and hide behind the screen, they can hurl all kinds of bombs at people and get away with it. Well, no, they're just being rude."

― Alex Koppelman

Here are some of Warren's comments about gay marriage, where he equates gay marriage to incest, pedophilia, and polygamy, contrary to what he said in the video. My comments in red, some emphasis added.

The issue to me, I'm not opposed to that as much as I'm opposed to redefinition of a 5,000 year definition of marriage. I'm opposed to having a brother and sister being together and calling that marriage (incest). I'm opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that marriage (pedophilia). I'm opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage (polygamy).

BELIEFNET: Do you think those are equivalent to gays getting married?

Oh , I do.

OK, so how is this not equating gay marriage with incest, pedophilia, and polygamy? The interviewer used the word "equivalent" and you said yes. What's up with that Pastor Rick.

I don't care what you believe in your backward little brain, but when you try to make those beliefs into a law that impacts other people - and LIE about what you have said - THEN I have a problem with you.

Tags: Rick Warren, Slams Media, Bloggers, Religion, Politics, gay rights, culture, fundamentalism, Beliefnet, incest, pedophilia, polygamy, gay marriage

"Prop 8 - The Musical" starring Jack Black, John C. Reilly, and many more...

Hilarious - thanks to Danny Fisher for pointing this out.

Credits: Conceived and Written (six weeks later than he shoulda) by-Marc Shaiman. Directed and Staged by: Adam Shankman. Produced by Adam Shankman, Marc Shaiman and Mike Farah. Edited by Bradly Schulz and Drew Antzis.

Cast (in order of appearance) California Gays and The People That Love Them: Jordan Ballard, Margaret Cho, Barrett Foa, J.B. Ghuman, John Hill, Andy Richter, Maya Rudolph, Rashad Naylor, Nicole Parker.

Proposition 8'ers and The People That Follow Them: Prop 8 Leader- John C. Reilly; Prop 8 Leader's #1 Wife- Allison Janney; Prop 8 Leader's #2 Wife- Kathy Najimy; Riffing Prop 8'er-Jenifer Lewis; A Preacher- Craig Robinson; Scary Catholic School Girls From Hell-Rashida Jones, Lake Bell, Sarah Chalke; The Frightened Villagers: Katharine "Kooks" Leonard, Seth Morris, Denise "Esi!" Piane, Lucian Piane, Richard Read, Seth Redford, Quinton Strack, Tate Taylor.

Jesus Christ: Jack Black; A Very Smart Fellow: Neil Patrick Harris; Piano Player: Marc "Marc" Shaiman.

Co-Choreographer: Anne "Mama" Fletcher Recorded and Mixed by Frank Wolfe & Greg Hayes Director of Photography: Michael Barrett Camera Operators: Jake Szymanski, Bradly Schulz and Drew Antzis Production designer: Nelson Coates Costume designer: Shanna Knecht Costume assistants: Leslie Schilling, Annalisa Adams, Elizabeth Abate Hair: Laura Sanchez Make-up: Shauna O'Toole, Atticuss Sharp Production sound: Bradford Craig Music editor: Lisa Jaime Music assistant: Brian Naguit Snacky: "Snacky" Special Thanks to Adam McKay for the nudge.

Tags: Prop 8 - The Musical, Jack Black, John C. Reilly, humor, gay rights, culture, satire, Marc Shaiman, Margaret Cho, Allison Janney, Neil Patrick Harris

Salon - Why Churches Fear Gay Marriage

I liked this article/interview from Salon. There seems to be even more being written about same-sex marriage since the defeat of prop. 8 than there was leading up to the vote.

Gay marriage is an issue that will not go away. And despite the protestations of Jonah Goldberg (how the hell did this guy become a leading voice of conservatism?), it will take some heavy-handed efforts to force the religious right to step back and stop condemning a large percentage of Americans into second-class citizenship.

Why churches fear gay marriage

The crusade for Proposition 8 was fueled by the broken American family, explains gay Catholic author Richard Rodriguez.

By Jeanne Carstensen

Richard Rodriguez photo by Christine Alicino

Nov. 25, 2008 | For author Richard Rodriguez, no one is talking about the real issues behind Proposition 8.

While conservative churches are busy trying to whip up another round of culture wars over same-sex marriage, Rodriguez says the real reason for their panic lies elsewhere: the breakdown of the traditional heterosexual family and the shifting role of women in society and the church itself. As the American family fractures and the majority of women choose to live without men, churches are losing their grip on power and scapegoating gays and lesbians for their failures.

Rodriguez, who is Mexican-American, gay and a practicing Catholic, refuses to let any single part of himself define the whole. Born in San Francisco in 1944 and raised by his Spanish-speaking Mexican immigrant parents to embrace mainstream American culture and the English language, he went on to study literature and religion at Stanford and Columbia. His first book, "The Hunger of Memory: The Education of Richard Rodriguez," explores his journey from working-class immigrant to a fully assimilated intellectual -- angering many Latinos with his view that English fluency is essential. "Days of Obligation: An Argument With My Mexican Father," which was a Pulitzer Prize finalist in 1993, continued his investigation into how family, culture, religion, race, sexuality and other strands of his life all contribute to the whole, a complex "brownness" of contradictions and ironies. "Brown: The Last Discovery of America" completes the trilogy -- but not his insatiable intellectual curiosity, which he is now shining on monotheism.

Rodriguez' stinging critiques of religious hypocrisy are all the richer for his passionate love of Catholicism and the Most Holy Redeemer parish in San Francisco, where he and his partner of 28 years are devoted members. Today, Rodriguez is at work on a new book about the monotheistic "desert religions" -- Christianity, Judaism and Islam. Ever since Sept. 11, "when havoc descended in the name of the desert God," Rodriguez said in one of his Peabody Award-winning radio commentaries for PBS's News Hour, he has been trying to understand the strands of darkness that run through these religions.

Salon spoke to Richard Rodriguez by phone at his home in San Francisco.

What was your reaction to California voters' going heavily for Obama and also passing Proposition 8, banning gay marriage?

I was like a lot of other Americans at the moment when the West Coast tipped the balance in favor of Obama. I didn't so much think it represented the end of racism but the possibility of change. At the same time, I also knew that large numbers of Californians in religious communities were voting against gay marriage and that Latinos and blacks were continuing to take part in this terribly tragedy. We persecute each other. The very communities that get discriminated against discriminate against other Americans.

The Spanish language newspaper La Opinión called the results an "embarrassment," saying "California still has two faces." Do you agree?

La Opinión represents the opinion of a lot of Latinos who are more educated and -- what should I say? -- more cosmopolitan. But Latinos in both my family and the Catholic Church belong to a more traditional America. This is a troubling aspect of the way our country is formed right now. It is a time of great change but also a time when people are afraid of change.

You said recently the real issue behind the anti-gay marriage movement is the crisis in the family. What do you mean?

American families are under a great deal of stress. The divorce rate isn't declining, it's increasing. And the majority of American women are now living alone. We are raising children in America without fathers. I think of Michael Phelps at the Olympics with his mother in the stands. His father was completely absent. He was negligible; no one refers to him, no one noticed his absence.

The possibility that a whole new generation of American males is being raised by women without men is very challenging for the churches. I think they want to reassert some sort of male authority over the order of things. I think the pro-Proposition 8 movement was really galvanized by an insecurity that churches are feeling now with the rise of women.

Monotheistic religions feel threatened by the rise of feminism and the insistence, in many communities, that women take a bigger role in the church. At the same time that women are claiming more responsibility for their religious life, they are also moving out of traditional roles as wife and mother. This is why abortion is so threatening to many religious people -- it represents some rejection of the traditional role of mother.

In such a world, we need to identify the relationship between feminism and homosexuality. These movements began, in some sense, to achieve visibility alongside one another. I know a lot of black churches take offense when gay activists say that the gay movement is somehow analogous to the black civil rights movement. And while there is some relationship between the persecution of gays and the anti-miscegenation laws in the United States, I think the true analogy is to the women's movement. What we represent as gays in America is an alternative to the traditional male-structured society. The possibility that we can form ourselves sexually -- even form our sense of what a sex is -- sets us apart from the traditional roles we were given by our fathers.

I think Proposition 8 was also galvanized by insecurity around gay families.

I agree. But the real challenge to the family right now is male irresponsibility and misbehavior toward women. If the Hispanic Catholic and evangelical churches really wanted to protect the family, they should address the issue of wife beating in Hispanic families and the misbehaviors of the father against the mother. But no, they go after gay marriage. It doesn't take any brilliance to notice that this is hypocrisy of such magnitude that you blame the gay couple living next door for the fact that you've just beaten your wife.

The pro-8 campaign calls itself the Protect Family Movement, even though the issue of family was the very reason gays needed to have marriage. There are partners in gay unions now who have children, and those children need to be protected. If my partner and I had children, either through a previous marriage or because we adopted them, I would need to be able to take them to the emergency room. I would need to be able to protect them with the parental rights that marriage would give me. It was for the benefit of the family that marriage was extended to homosexuals.

Religions have the capacity for being noble and ennobling but they are also the expression of some of the darkest impulses in us -- to go after the "other." For Christians, if the other isn't the Muslim, it's the homosexual. That is the most discouraging part.

Speaking of hypocrisy, churches have plenty of sexual skeletons in their closet.

Right. The Mormon Church has this incredible notoriety in America for polygamy and has been persecuted because of it. The very church that became notorious because of polygamy is now insisting that marriage is one man and one woman. That is, at least, an irony of history. But as a number of Mormon women friends of mine say, the same church that espouses the centrality of family in their lives is also the church that urges them to reject their gay children.

Read the rest of the interview.

Tags: marriage, gay rights, culture, Religion, Salon, Richard Rodriguez, Jeanne Carstensen, Why churches fear gay marriage, Proposition 8, Mormons, same-sex marriage, American family

Prop 8: What Really Matters - Chap. Mikel Ryuho Monnett, BCC

A great post from Buddhist Chaplain, Mikel Ryuho Monnett, BCC. Here he gets to the real compassionate truth of this issue (it's about HUMAN RIGHTS), with a moving personal example.

Prop 8: What really matters

by Chap. Mikel Ryuho Monnett, BCC, The Buddhist Channel, Nov 30, 2008

Austin, Texas (USA) -- She was in her late 30s and she was dying. Her partner, herself confined to a wheelchair by her own illnesses, would sit with her every day and hold her hand and read to her.

Sometimes I would come in and find her crying softly, wondering what she was going to do without her soulmate of more than a decade. We would talk for a little while about their relationship and she would share some of the happier memories and tell me about her comatose partner, a young woman who had been cut down by a devastating disease that in its final stages had left her in a coma.

And then all hell broke loose.

As dictated by law, the hospital had notified the patient’s next of kin, who, in the legal sense (gays not being allowed to marry at the time), were the patient’s family. They had not seen the patient in more than 15 years due to the fact they were all fundamentalist Christians who disapproved of her “depraved and sickening” lifestyle (their words to me). Now they descended upon the hospital like a wave of Christian stormtroopers with one mission: to “rescue” the patient before her death.

Since legally they were in charge of who could and couldn’t have access to the patient, they immediately barred her partner from being allowed to see her. At least one member of the family was in the patient’s room or the waiting room at all times to ensure that their edict was carried out, despite appeals from we chaplains and the medical staff.

They would hold loud rituals in the patient’s room in an attempt to “exorcise the demon of homosexuality” from the comatose woman, until we made them stop because they were disturbing the other patients as well as the staff. And they were always trying to convert other people in the hospital to their brand of Christianity, which, they assured everyone, was the only “true” version of Christ’s doctrine (don’t ask what they thought of the others, especially “Papists”).

Appeals to Christ’s mercy or even common human decency having failed to sway the family, her partner had no recourse but to petition the courts. And a sympathetic judge, having found that the patient’s family had cut all ties on their own volition long ago, agreed to appoint her the patient’s guardian. The partner had no problem with the family seeing the patient---after all, they were her flesh and blood---but she would be allowed to see the patient as well. This was anathema to the family, who promptly disappeared as swiftly as they had come. And when the patient finally died a week later, her partner, the nurse, and I were the only ones at her bedside.

If patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels, then morality has to be the last refuge of the bigot. When the Mormon Church attacks the California Supreme Court for "failing to uphold the sanctity of marriage", they conveniently overlook the fact that it is for precisely this purpose---to review laws and edicts in the context of reason and intellectual integrity, far from the heated rhetoric of politicians or the inflammatory emotions of the mob---for which our courts were designed. And that the courts were meant to stand as the last refuge of the oppressed against their oppressors (evidently irony is lost on Mormons).

The issue of civil marriage between individuals of the same sex in the U.S. comes down ultimately to a simple legal premise: does the state have a compelling reason to deny to one set of persons the same rights and obligations that it allows to other persons? The emphasis here is on compelling, because otherwise the Constitution provides for the same rights for all under the equal protection clause. If it is going to treat one set of persons different from another set, the state must prove through a preponderance of evidence that there is a justifiable need to do so.

We see this tenet in practice in everyday life. Children below a certain age are not allowed to marry no matter how much they may 'love' each other because most states recognize that adolescent passions are often fleeting and more the results of hormones than true love. People not in full possession of their faculties are similiarly not equipped to make informed decisions about such matters and the courts have ruled that the state has a right to protect them from their own actions. In both cases, the state has presented compelling reasons for the creation of laws governing such actions which have been held by the courts to be reasonable and that withstood the harsh light of the law's scrutiny.

But in the case of gay marriage, the Massachusetts, Connecticut, and California courts found that that was not the case. Given that our culture has an overwhelming interest in the promulgation of persons in committed relationships for the stability of the society as a whole, the state had to prove that they had a reason for singling out a minority within the society for special treatment. And that the state could not do---like the laws against interracial marriage that were still on the books in some states until the late 1960s, the court found that the laws against gay marriage did not hold up under the harsh light of reason. Indeed, such laws, which singled out a group of people solely on the basis of bigotry, were found to lack a just cause. From a legal viewpoint, such laws are immoral because they lead to a corruption of the basic tenet that our country was founded on: that “all men are created equal."

As for the religious viewpoint, our Constitution provides that each creed is free to decide the issue for themselves and that the government may not interfere. Those who find their interpretations of the message of their founders (Moses, Christ, Mohammed, Buddha or whomever) prohibits these unions are free to bar them from taking place within their houses of worship: those who interpret their traditions otherwise are free to have them in theirs. And while people are free to try and persuade others that their view is the righteous one, so too are others free to persuade them otherwise. They just are not allowed to use the coercive power of the state to impose that belief upon others without compelling and just reasons.

Like the partner of the comatose woman said, “It isn’t a question of gay rights; it’s a question of human rights.”

-------------
Chap. Mikel Ryuho Monnett, BCC, is a member of the Peacemaker Community and the Karma Kagyu school of Tibetan Buddhism. The incident referred to in the article took place at one of his previous places of employment. He currently lives in Austin, TX. The views reflected are his own.

Tags: Prop 8, What Really Matters, Chap. Mikel Ryuho Monnett, BCC, Buddhism, compassion, gay rights, marriage, Buddhist Channel, California, human rights

Consequences of Gay Marriage

Very true (from Graph Jam):

Tags: Consequences of Gay Marriage, gay rights, marriage, culture, Graph Jam

Signs of Change in Seattle

This video of the Prop 8 protests in Seattle was sent to me by Thomas Arthur.

March for marriage equality - November 15, 2008; Seattle, WA


Signs of Change from Woven Essence on Vimeo.

Tags: Signs of Change in Seattle, March for marriage equality, gay rights, marriage, culture

Ellen Degeneres Schools John McCain on Gay Rights

One of the most uncomfortable interviews I have ever seen. You have to give McCain credit for the appearance -- he knew he was going to get that question and he agreed to it.

Watch it here.

On the other hand, McCain said he supports legal partnerships, yet he supported an amendment here in Arizona to ban ANY kind of legal partnerships, including those for straight people. Flip flop much?

From Crooks & Liars:

The problem is that McCain himself not only supported an amendment to the Arizona Constitution in 2006 that would have banned any “legal agreements” including “insurance” for domestic partners, but he cut advertisements for the measure (which failed). He also told prominent campaign supporter the late Jerry Falwell–who blamed 9/11 on gays and lesbians, among others–that if state constitutional measures such as this one were struck down by the courts, he would then support a federal gay-marriage ban.

So, where does he really stand? Was he lying to Ellen's mostly pro-gay rights audience, or has he changed his position? Or does he just say, vaguely, what his audience wants to hear?

Tags: John McCain, Ellen Degeneres, gay rights, gay marriage, politics, media, flip flop, domestic partnership