The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force just released a study showing, they say, that black voters in California did not disproportionately support the anti-gay initiative, Prop 8, as compared to other ethnic groups in the state (exit polls showed 70% of blacks supporting Prop 8 versus 50% or so of other major ethnic groups, including Latinos). Timothy Kincaid at Box Turtle Bulletin, a site that deals with gay issues, but also focuses a lot on race, disagrees with the NGLTF study.
You can wade through both analyses yourself, but one point struck me. Reasonable observers have long acknowledged that there is a problem of homophobia in the black community. Barack Obama himself acknowledged this, and (much to Obama's credit) went so far as to speak out against it at Martin Luther King's church on MLK day a year ago. Obama said at the time:
For most of this country's history, we in the African-American community have been at the receiving end of man's inhumanity to man. And all of us understand intimately the insidious role that race still sometimes plays - on the job, in the schools, in our health care system, and in our criminal justice system.
And yet, if we are honest with ourselves, we must admit that none of our hands are entirely clean. If we're honest with ourselves, we'll acknowledge that our own community has not always been true to King's vision of a beloved community.
We have scorned our gay brothers and sisters instead of embracing them. The scourge of anti-Semitism has, at times, revealed itself in our community. For too long, some of us have seen immigrants as competitors for jobs instead of companions in the fight for opportunity.
Was Obama wrong? We know, for example, that the Jewish community tends to be very supportive, as a whole, of the civil rights of gays and lesbians. We know that Evangelicals, as a community, are not. Different communities have different religions, different cultures, and different experiences that affect their views on every issue, including gay civil rights. Why is it so anathema to discuss homophobia in the black community? Especially after Obama himself has acknowledged it?
The Black community of Atlanta has long been known for being imbued with a strong in belief in equal rights and religious values.
Atlanta was ground zero in the fight for civil rights in the 60’s and is home to the Ebenezer Baptist Church, the church where King and his father Martin Luther King, Sr. were pastors.
Atlanta has also become something of Mecca for black gays and a 2005 NPR podcast noted that Atlanta has the largest population of black gay couples in the United States.
Each year to commemorate the national holiday honoring King, Ebenezer Baptist Church hosts a church service that has in the past attracted politicians and civil rights leaders from around the nation. Last year, the then-Democratic hopeful and now President-Elect Barack Obama spoke before the church the day the national holiday, delivering a call to responsibility that included a challenge to black churches to renounce homophobia.
Obama said in that address… “Our own community has not always been true to King’s vision of a beloved community,” in part because “we have scorned our gay brothers and sisters instead of embracing them.”
What is it about the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religious tradition that leads so many of its most prominent spokespersons to make hateful, bigoted, life-diminishing and personal security-endangering statements when it comes to human sexuality? Perhaps there was something inherent in the environment and culture of the Fertile Crescent, and of the Middle East in general, that predisposed the religions it brought forth to declare anathema anything other than abstinence and heterosexual behaviour (the latter only in a setting of monogamy or polygyny, not polyandry, of course). Even so, one would have hoped that the civilising influence of Greek and Hellenistic culture would have filtered most of the sexual bigotry out of the European religious mainstream, and out of its offshoots in the former European colonies.
Apparently not. The current Pope, Benedict XVI is right at home in the abhorrent main-stream Christian tradition of sexual intolerance. In his address ‘Christmas greetings to the members of the Roman Curia and Prelature (December 22, 2008)’ (available thus far only in German and Italian from the Vatican website), the Pope makes a number of extremist, bigoted and intolerant statements about homosexuality and transsexuality.
People are responsible for those results of their words and actions that can reasonably be foreseen. Those uttering the statements or carrying out these acts may not have intended these consequences. They may even deplore them. If, however, these consequences could be foreseen even by a bear of very little brain, let alone by a pontiff with, by all accounts, a mass of grey matter between the ears, then the person using these words or engaging in these actions is responsible even for these unintended consequences. This statement by the Pope will lead to more harassment of homosexuals and transgendered persons and to more discrimination against them in a range of activities, including participation in religious worship. It will probably lead to more acts of violence against homosexuals and transsexuals.
In his address, Pope Benedict argues that saving humanity from homosexual or transsexual behaviour is as important as saving the rain forest from destruction. He also urged humanity to listen to the “language of creation” to understand the intended roles of man and woman. Finally, he argued that behaviour beyond traditional heterosexual relations between a man and woman (married - preferably to each other) was a “destruction of God’s work”.
How a man reputed to be as educated and intelligent as Benedict XVI can confuse the accumulated prejudice of centuries of dysfunctional organised religion with the message of the founder of Christianity is a mystery to me. Christ, as far as we know from the gospels, never said a word about homosexuality - let along about transgender sexuality. We don’t know whether He was single, married or divorced, monogamous or polygamous, straight, gay, or interested in transgender sexuality. We know nothing of Him between His early teens and His early thirties. When He starts His ministry He travels around with 12 male disciples and associates with a number of female camp followers. We know He liked wine - His first miracle was to change water into wine - but know nothing of His other interest, hobbies and vices.
Christ taught us to love God and to love our neighbour as ourself - the two Great Commandments from both the Old and the New Testaments. If my neighbour is gay, lesbian, transgendered or transsexual, God’s glory is revealed in his or her sexuality as much as it is in the sexuality of my heterosexual neighbour or in the voluntary abstinence of the Pope. If my neighbour is an adult and wishes to express his sexuality with another consenting adult, that sexual sharing is blessed by God regardless of whether is it homosexual, transgender or heterosexual, whenever it enhances the humanity of the other. Did God make a mistake when She allowed homosexuality to evolve in the human species, as it has in countless other animals? Or was She only joking?
Surely, whether something qualifies as right or wrong, moral or immoral, righteous or sinful depends on whether the act, the deed or the behaviour is both motivated by and expresses respect and love for all others affected by it? Homosexuality and homosexual behaviour, transgender sexualty and sexual behaviour and any form of sexuality and sexuality that does not hurt or diminish others but confirms and affirms them, cannot possibly contradict the teachings of Christ. His church, unfortunately, is another matter. When the teachings of an institutional expression of Christianity like the Roman Catholic Church are so radically at variance with the fundamental teachings of the founder of the religion, voluntary receivership and liquidation, with the proceeds distributed amongst the wretched of the earth, may be the best solution.
I consider the Pope’s views on sexuality, as expressed in his 22 December statement, to be a violation of everything Christ taught us and stood for. It is deeply un-Christian and must be rejected and fought wherever similar hateful prejudice and bigotry rear their ugly heads.
About Willem Buiter Professor of European Political Economy, London School of Economics and Political Science; former chief economist of the EBRD, former external member of the MPC; adviser to international organisations, governments, central banks and private financial institutions.
A new book from John J. McNeill: Sex as God Intended. McNeill will be signing books Jan. 11 at Sunshine Cathedral in Fort Lauderdale. Here's the news release:
Lethe Press is proud to release the latest work from the acclaimed Biblical scholar John J. McNeill.
"Sex as God Intended It will make you think. It will make you question everything you've heard in the media or in church about homosexuals and God. It will make you question the rightness or wrongness of gay marriage. It will make you take a closer look at your faith and your beliefs. It is a book that encourages spiritual and intellectual growth, and a book that all Christians should read, even if your pastor or minister or priest tells you it is evil." -- Jack Gardner, Edge Boston
Noted biblical scholar, moral theologian, and psychotherapist John J. McNeill (The Church and the Homosexual) offers further insight into the portrayal of sex in the Bible and discusses how the original sex positive viewpoints have been twisted by the Church and society over the years. Citing the generally overlooked Biblical book The Songs of Songs, McNeill argues that human sexual activity represents a form of "play" that provides a source of pleasure, joy and love. From the beginning, he says, this is what God intended sex to be, not a cause of judgment, oppression, and resentment.
New York-based psychotherapist and retreat director Ken Page contributed the foreword. This volume also offers a Festschrift celebrating the life and work of John J. McNeill. In a collection of thirteen essays, voices of acclaimed religion scholars, theologians, ministers and teachers such as Mark Jordan, Robert E. Goss, Jim Mitulski, Mary Hunt, Mel White, Daniel Helminiak, and Troy Perry are raised to cite the influence McNeill's studies-and the example of his personal life-have had on their professional research and lives.
This book appears in coordination with the upcoming release of a video documentary about John McNeill, "Uncommon Jesuit," produced by Festschrift contributor Brendan Fay.
You can order at Queerbooks.com or at TLABooks or through Amazon or ask your local bookseller to carry John's latest book.
About John J. McNeill
McNeill is a former Jesuit priest who clashed with Church officials over his compassionate and sex-positive teachings about homosexuality. And this current book continues in that tradition with a chapter on the very timely topic of Gay Marriage. McNeill makes the case that gay people gaining the right to marriage equality promises to improve society's ideas about traditional heterosexual marriage; same sex marriage would be good for everybody, if only because it offers of a model of relationship as equal partnership. Sex as God Intended concisely presents wisdom about sexuality and homosexuality that McNeill has gained over his 83 year life.
McNeill was co-founder of the New York City chapter of Dignity, a group for Catholic gays and lesbians. For over thirty-five years, he has been active in a ministry to gay Christians through retreats, workshops, lectures, publications, etc. In 2007, he was the recipient of the Human Rights Campaign Lifetime Achievement Award.
McNeill is available for interviews and limited speaking engagements. He can be reached at jjmcneill@aol.com.
It's been said that "Politics Makes Strange Bedfellows", but when you mix in Bigotry, Homophobia and Religious Fundamentalism, the resulting brew is anything but Saintly.
By: Aurora Grajeda SFCA 100608
In simple terms:
The Mormon Church and affiliates are against same-sex marriages, they poured millions to pass Proposition H8 in California, the LGBT Community and Allies responded with nationwide protests and a call to Boycott the Mormon Church and their business interests, the Church and it's supporters are calling 'foul', claiming the LGBT Community is engaging in Hate-Speech and suppressing 'Freedom of Expression'
Their latest salvo is a full page advertisement in The New York Times, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty published a full page advertisement that makes inaccurate and unsubstantiated claims about supposed "violence and intimidation" against religious groups by "mobs" since the passage of Proposition 8. You can see the ad here: http://www.nomobveto.org
It is unacceptable to publish these kinds of dishonest claims. The New York Times needs to hear from you. Contact them TODAY and demand that they discontinue allowing inaccurate claims in their advertising: letters@nytimes.com.
They are advocating for Religious Liberty? This truly tops the cake, please pray tell Becket Fund, in what way do we curtail your Religious Liberty? Interesting to note the way they list religions in their AD 'Jewish, Christian, Hindu, whatever', hmmmm... I wonder what the 'whatever stands for', let's see, how many mayor religions are there? last time I check, the consensus was that there were 4, Could it be that the fourth one stands for the "M" Religion and these, allegedly, defenders of Freedom of Religion couldn't even bring themselves to list it? It'd be interested if they fee that the Muslim Faith also has a right to exist, HEY BECKET FUND AND ALLIES, CAN YOU ANSWER THAT QUESTION IN WRITING?
The Mormon Church came into another state with millions or dollars to impose their religious belief on other people by taking away their Constitutional rights, the question before us is: doesn't everybody has the right to spend their money as they choose? What's wrong in choosing how and where we spend our money? They interpret the Church's spending millions to take away rights as 'Freedom of Expression' and they label our boycott as 'Hate-Speech' and 'Violence'; talk about speaking from both sides of the mouth.
In their AD, they claim that 'some of the violence is being stoked by public statements denouncing the LDS for merely participating in the debate at all--as if that were somehow illegal', first of all, we are not saying that their meddling in other people's lives is illegal, (unless they are violating their 'Religious tax-exempt status'), second, they didn't just merely participated in the debate, they acted to perpetrate an act which clearly goes against the principles of equality accepted in this country and, third, what about the separation of Church and State? Didn't they participated to effectively impose their religious beliefs on others by amending a Constitution?
Check out what they have to say about the Demonstrations, far too many, however, seem never to have been demonstrations in the first place, but more nearly mobs, seeking not to persuade but to intimidate, another claim they have yet to substantiate is the claim that thugs send white powder to terrorize any place of worship, and this jewel of hypocrisy "Religious ware are wrong; they are also dangerous", really, isn't that what the Mormon Church and others are doing?.
There are 13 signatures listed in their AD, let's look at who some of them are, I'll start with Armando Valladares -- Depending on which side's claims you look at, he was either a Cuban Prisoner of Conscience imprisoned for 22 years and lauded by President Reagan who appointed Valladares to serve as the US ambassador to the "United Nations Human Rights Commission" and would later confer on him the nation’s highest civil honor, the "Presidential Citizens Medal" or, he was a former member of the secret police of Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista -- a cop from the Batista’s dictatorship, detained "that is the press of the time" for placing in public places bombs packed in cigarette boxes; a member of a terrorist cell in which Carlos Alberto Montaner also participated. They were convicted and for that reason Armando Valladares went to prison in Cuba
That was a little background info on him, but who is he today and what is he doing?
"He is currently the President of the Valladares Project, an international non-profit organization which advocates children’s rights. Valladares is Chairman of the International Council of the New York-based Human Rights Foundation".
"The Human Rights Foundation (HRF) is a non-profit organization that works on "defending human rights and promoting liberal democracy in the Americas." The Human Rights Foundation was founded in 2005 by film producer Thor Halvorssen. Its offices are in New York City.
"According to a 2005 article by a conservative news website, the foundation ideologically emphasizes property rights and free markets as the basis for human freedom and criticizes traditional human rights groups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch for undermining capitalism"
And this is Armando Valladares latest incarnation as "Defender of Human Rights" And making common cause with people and entities taking away rights from an entire community.
Now let's look at another signator to the Becket Group's AD: William A. Donohue: He has been the president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights in the United States since 1993.
William A. Donohue began his teaching career in the 1970s working at St. Lucy's School in Spanish Harlem. In 1977, he took a position as a college professor teaching at La Roche College in McCandless, Pennsylvania. In 1980 he received a doctorate in Sociology from New York University (NYU).[1]
His first book was "The Politics of the American Civil Liberties" Union and he became associated with the conservative Heritage Foundation where he is an adjunct scholar. His books on the ACLU made him one of the group's most prominent critics and firebrands.
While Donohue was in college in New York, Virgil C. Blum, a Jesuit at Marquette University in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, founded the Catholic League to counter Anti-Catholicism in American culture. Blum died in 1990; in 1993, Dr. Donohue became the director of the organization. Under his direction, the organization has become far more prominent and vocal.
Donohue publishes The Catalyst, the Catholic League journal. He serves on the board of directors of the National Association of Scholars. He serves on the board of advisers of the Washington Legal Foundation, the Howard Center for Family, Religion & Society, Society of Catholic Social Scientists, Catholics United for the Faith, Ave Maria Institute, the Christian Film & Television Commission and Catholic War Veterans. He has received several awards from the Catholic community and was voted one of the top 100 Catholics of the 20th century in a survey of Catholics conducted by the internet site, Daily Catholic. He received the 2005 St. Thomas More Award for Catholic Citizenship from Catholic Citizens of Illinois.
The Catholic League is registered as a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization. In 2006, according to its Form 990, its revenue was $16,590,333, and Donohue's salary and benefits amounted to $343,420
Weeeell, the second signator to the "Freedom of Religion AD" Is a "Defender Of Civil Liberties" lending his signature to the highly misleading Ad.
Next, let's look at Chuck Colson - currently, he is working with his non-profit organization devoted to prison ministry called Prison Fellowship, has a radio show and is a lecturer and author.
In 1968, Colson served as counsel to presidential candidate Nixon's Key Issues Committee.
On November 6, 1969, Colson was appointed as Special Counsel to President Nixon.
Colson was responsible for inviting influential private special interest groups into the White House policy-making process and winning their support on specific issues. His office served as the President's political communications liaison with organized labor, veterans, farmers, conservationists, industrial organizations, citizen groups, and almost any organized lobbying group whose objectives were compatible with the Administration's. Colson's staff broadened the White House lines of communication with organized constituencies by arranging Presidential meetings and sending White House news releases of interest to the groups.
In addition to his liaison and political duties, Colson's responsibilities included: performing special assignments for the President, such as drafting legal briefs on particular issues, reviewing Presidential appointments, and suggesting names for White House guest lists. His work also included major lobbying efforts on such issues as construction of an antiballistic missile system, the President's Vietnamization program, and the Administration's revenue-sharing proposal.
Colson was known as President Nixon's hatchet man. Slate magazine writer David Plotz described Colson as "Richard Nixon's hard man, the 'evil genius' of an evil administration." Colson has written that he was "valuable to the President ... because I was willing ... to be ruthless in getting things done". This is perhaps complimentary when read in comparison to the descriptions of Colson which pepper the work of Rolling Stone National Affairs' Political Correspondent, Hunter S. Thompson during the period. Colson authored the 1971 memo listing Nixon's major political opponents, later known as Nixon's Enemies List. A quip that "Colson would walk over his own grandmother if necessary" mutated into claims in news stories that Colson had boasted that he would run over his own grandmother to re-elect Nixon. Plotz reports that Colson sought to hire Teamsters thugs to beat up anti-war demonstrators. John Dean maintains that Colson proposed firebombing the Brookings Institution and stealing politically damaging documents while firefighters put the fire out.
Colson's voice, archives from April 1969, was heard in the 2004 movie Going Upriver deprecating the anti-war efforts of John Kerry. Colson's orders were to "Destroy the young demagogue before he becomes another Ralph Nader." In a phone conversation with President Nixon on April 28, 1971, Colson said, "This fellow Kerry that they had on last week...He turns out to be really quite a phony."
Watergate and Ellsberg scandals
Colson also became involved in the Committee to Re-elect the President (CRP or CREEP). At a CRP meeting on March 21, 1971, it was agreed to spend US$250,000 on "intelligence gathering" on the Democratic Party. Colson and John Ehrlichman appointed E. Howard Hunt to the White House Special Operations Unit (the so-called "Plumbers") which had been organized to stop leaks in the Nixon administration. Hunt headed up the Plumbers' burglary of Pentagon Papers-leaker Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office in September 1971. The Pentagon Papers were military documents about the Vietnam War which helped increase opposition to the war. Colson hoped that revelations about Ellsberg could be used to discredit the anti-Vietnam War left. Colson admitted to leaking information from Ellsberg's confidential FBI file to the press, but denied organizing Hunt's burglary of Ellsberg's office. He expressed regret for attempting to cover up this incident in his 2005 book, The Good Life
-- Chris Seiple is a Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy Research Institute and President of the Institute for Global Engagement (IGE). Before coming to IGE, Seiple was an Earhart Fellow at the Fletcher School of Law & Diplomacy at Tufts University , where he received his Ph.D. in 2007.
Seiple serves on the board of Wycliffe Bible Translators, USA. He is a member at the Council on Foreign Relations (New York), the International Institute for Strategic Studies (London), and is Founder of IGE’s Council on Faith & International Affairs. He is the author of The U.S. Military/NGO Relationship in Humanitarian Interventions.
Chris Seiple "Stewarding American Power: Recommendations for the Next President"
Event on January 8, Under written by: The Richard & Helen DeVos Foundation Chris Seiple, President of the Institute for Global Engagement in Washington DC which promotes sustainable environments for religious freedom worldwide. As a faith-based organization, IGE believes firmly in universal human dignity and is committed to the protection of all faiths through the rule of law. Dr. Seiple combines expertise with experience in fashioning some practical suggestions about how we, through the president we elect, might steward American might - spiritual, cultural, economic, and military - in a globalizing and hurting world."
Gee, a "Defender of Universal Human Dignity" also making common cause with people taking it away from a Community.
Next we will look up Dr. Alveda C. King, this signator is listed in the Becker Fund's Ad as "Civil Rights Activist", but it doesn't clarify if she is for protecting them or for taking them away, judging from her political views, the latter seems to be the correct answer. (From: Wikipedia)
Dr. Alveda C. King is an American politician, author, and activist. She is a niece of the civil rights activist Martin Luther King, Jr.. She is currently a Senior Fellow at the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution, a conservative "think-tank" in Washington, D.C. She is a former member of the Georgia House of Representatives and the founder of King for America.
Education
King has an M.A. in business management from Central Michigan University. She received her doctorate from Saint Anselm College.
Political views
King is a pro-life speaker and often speaks on college campuses about pro-life issues.
She endorsed Senator Sam Brownback for the 2008 Republican nomination.
Family
The mother of six, and a grandmother, she is the niece of civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr..
One year after her famous uncle was assassinated, her father, A.D. King, died unexpectedly. Some believe he may have been murdered, though the details surrounding his death are not well known.
Another signature reads Marvin Olasky - Let's take a brief look at him, his travels and his deeds, or misdeeds depending on where one stands -- From: Wikipedia
Born in Boston, Massachusetts into a Russian-Jewish family, Olasky became an atheist at 14, shortly after his Bar Mitzvah. In college, he discovered Marxism and joined the Communist Party USA in 1972, after graduating from Yale University in 1971 with a B.A. degree in American Studies. In 1976, however, Olasky became a Christian after reading the New Testament in Russian, studying Puritan sermons, and reading Walker Percy, Whittaker Chambers, and C.S. Lewis. Also in 1976, Olasky graduated with a Ph.D. in American Culture from the University of Michigan.
Career and works
Olasky began working as a speech writer and public affairs coordinator for DuPont in 1978, and in 1983 began teaching journalism at the University of Texas, becoming a full professor in 1993. His initial writings gave him to opportunity to win funding from the Bradley Foundation in 1989, allowing Olasky to begin his most famous work, The Tragedy of American Compassion, which was first published in 1992. Largely ignored at first, this book in 1994 and 1995 gained the endorsement of William Bennett and Newt Gingrich, who gave a copy to every incoming Republican freshman representative in the 1994 Congress. Critics blasted the book for its criticism of government programs and said the book was short on research; supporters said it was well-researched and used it in the 1995-1996 welfare reform debate.
The Tragedy of American Compassion argues that private individuals and organizations, particularly the Christian church, have a responsibility to care for the poor, and contends that challenging, personal, and spiritual help, common until the 1930s, was more effective than the government welfare programs of recent decades. Olasky states that government programs are ineffective because they are disconnected from the poor, while private charity has the power to change lives because it allows for a personal connection between the giver and the recipient. He demonstrates his points by a chapter by chapter overview of poverty-fighting in America from colonial times to the 1990s. The book, with its sequels, became a key work defining "compassionate conservatism" (a term coined by Doug Wead)[citation needed] as it relates to welfare and social policy.
In 1995, Olasky became an occasional advisor to then Texas gubernatorial candidate George W. Bush, who put some of Olasky's policy suggestions into action during his term as governor by encouraging the use of religious charities to solve social problems. Christian ministries were called in by the state government to help in a variety of ways, most notably with the rehabilitation of drug and alcohol abusers and the counseling of prisoners. Their disputable success[citation needed] led Bush to make faith-based programs a major component of his 2000 presidential campaign, and in 2001, Olasky saw the national implementation of his ideas when President Bush created the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. During Bush's campaign, Olasky attained brief mass-media notoriety when he was understood by many to have claimed that the 2000 John McCain candidacy was equivalent to a pagan religion of Zeus. Olasky was actually playing off Tom Wolfe's novel A Man in Full, where a main character converts to the "religion of Zeus." Olasky was observing that McCain emphasized in campaigning the classical virtues, such as courage, while "compassionate conservative" Bush emphasized biblical virtues such as mercy -- and Olasky learned that wry comments during a heated campaign are verboten.[1]
Next in line for scrutiny is one with a 'funny' (he, he, he) last name and with a gargantuan dose of hypocrisy to go along, Douglas Laycock
From THE PEW FORUM ON RELIGIOUS AND PUBLIC LIFETranscripts page: Event Transcript
Under God? Pledge of Allegiance Constitutionality
Friday, March 19, 2004 10:00 - 11:30 a.m. National Press Club Washington, D.C.
Speakers: Doug Laycock, Counsel of Record for 32 Christian and Jewish clergy, urging the Court to affirm the 9th Circuit's ruling Jay Alan Sekulow, Chief Counsel, American Center for Law and Justice; Counsel of Record for United States Senators and Congressmen and the Committee to Protect the Pledge, urging the Court to reverse the 9th Circuit's ruling
"I come to these cases with a fairly simple theory, which is that people of every religion, including the majority and the minority, and people of no religion at all, are entitled to believe their own beliefs, speak their own beliefs, and act on their own beliefs as long as they're not hurting anybody else, and to be left alone by government and have government not take sides. And a corollary of that is that none of these groups can use the government to try to force the other side to join in or participate in their own religious observances." -- Douglas Laycock
This guy's balls are made are out of bronze or foam rubber, fearless at having them broken by simple intellectual honesty, also making common cause with religious people imposing their beliefs on others via the Government.
Now is Kevin J. Hasson, Esq.'s turn, the big cojuna of the Becket Fund, the claim is that "Hasson enjoys broad credibility in the national media" From: The Becket Fund's Website Hasson is also highly praised by the "Federalist Society", which has a membership of ultra right wingers feverishly working on taking away rights from everybody else.
Kevin J. Hasson, Esq. Chairman and President The Becket Fund
Kevin J. "Seamus" Hasson is Founder, Chairman of the Board, and President of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a bipartisan, interfaith public-interest law firm that protects the free expression of all religious traditions. Since 1994, Hasson and the Becket Fund have successfully represented clients from nearly every faith tradition including Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Sikhs, Hindus, Native Americans, Unitarians and Zoroastrians. Along the way, the Becket Fund has won kudos from thinkers from Pope John Paul II to Elie Wiesel.
Hasson enjoys broad credibility in the national media. He has been widely quoted, appearing for example, in Newsweek, US News and World Report, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, The Christian Science Monitor and USA Today, as well as in regional media from The L.A. Times to The Chicago Tribune to The Philadelphia Enquirer. He has appeared on broadcast news programs including The Today Show, Dateline NBC, McLaughlin One on One, NPR’s Talk of the Nation, and CNN Talkback Live. He’s also appeared twice on Al-Jazeera, debating Saudi clerics.
Hasson lectures and debates frequently, in venues ranging from Oxford to the Vatican, from Harvard to BYU. He is the author of "The Right to be Wrong: Ending the Culture War over Religion in America."
I mentioned that The Federalist Society praised Hasson and in case you didn't know who they are, here is a tidbit about them:
S P E C I A L R E P O R T
H I J A C K I N G J U S T I C E The Federalist Society, a Right-wing network of lawyers, judges and supporters, is undoing civil rights and other gains made through the courts
By George E. Curry & Trevor W. Coleman Emerge, October 1999
Another signator is: Nathan J. Diament, The public policy director for the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations, let's take a quick look at him and on who are some of the players attacking the LGBT Rights, from the Boston.Com: Episcopal diocese sets same-sex wedding ban
By Michael Paulson, Globe Staff | May 13, 2004
Although rabbis have almost total authority within Jewish congregations, for Orthodox Jews "there is no conceivable basis under Orthodoxy's understanding of halakha [Jewish law] which would sanction a same-sex marriage," according to Nathan J. Diament, public policy director for the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations. Similarly, in Conservative Judaism "The Rabbinical Assemblies' Law Committee has deemed it inappropriate for a Conservative rabbi to perform such marriage," said Aaron Kischel, executive director of the New England region of the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism.
And "Last but not Least" of this strange brew of signators to The New York Times dishonest Becket Fund's AD, a more strange Evangelist, Richard Cizik, by his being an Evangelist, speaks volumes about him, but there are aspects which makes you take a second look at him, as in this interview in Salon.ComLost faith in the GOPEvangelical leader Richard Cizik explains how Iraq, corruption and other failures are transforming the political piety of America's religious voters.
But my being a gullible, trusting-kind-of-person without the scintilla of skepticism, I'd like to ask him about other precepts in the Bible/Leviticus, does he follows all of them? Or, as many Evangelical Christians do, Picks and Chooses in a sort of as in a Evangelical Biblical Cafeteria?
I will give him some points on this piece, written on Earth's Day 2007.
I will celebrate "Earth Day" and encourage Christians of all denominations and traditions to do so. Why? We believe that God created the earth, entrusting its care to man, and that He will one day recreate it in "the new heaven and new earth." We are called to "witness" to our faith as believers.
Participation in this event is an opportunity to express love for God and care for what He has created. We evangelicals call this "creation care." Care for the entire creation -- the environment and "all creatures great and small" -- is a biblical obligation (Gen. 2:15). We should walk in God's ways (Deut. 10:12) and try to inspire people by offering broader vistas of thought and service.
Can we hear the voice of the biblical prophet Ezekiel: "Is it not enough for you to drink the water? Must you also muddy the rest with your feet?" Here's a modern-day question: Is it enough for you to enjoy a pleasant climate? Must you destroy it? Is it not enough for you to enjoy the myriad of creatures? Must you extinguish them? Major segments of the earth are dying and we are responsible. Earth's resources are not infinite.
A new moral awakening is sweeping our land. It's a re-awakening to the heart of the Gospel ethic: to steward the natural world in order to preserve for ourselves and future generations a beautiful, rich, and healthy environment. It is "revision-ing" our lives. Taking part in "Earth Day" is a response to this new calling.
Thus, our family will worship together at National Cathedral in Washington with other environmental, scientific, and faith leaders and then enjoy the outdoors together. It's all part of a faith commitment we've made to do everything in our power to preserve this precious gift the Creator has given us.
Richard Cizik is vice president for governmental affairs of the National Association of Evangelicals. His primary responsibilities include editing publications such as NAE Washington Insight, directing NAE's Washington Insight Briefing and Christian Student Leadership Conferences, setting its policy direction on issues before Congress, the White House, and Supreme Court, and serving as a national spokesman on issues of concern to evangelicals. Posted by Richard Cizik on April 22, 2007 11:06 AM
I say this 'tongue-in-cheek' but I have to admit there are serious and profound questions, if Prop H8 was intended to protect / save 'marriage', wouldn't the logical next step would be to ban divorce? After all, divorce 'destroys' 50% of marriages...
If the Prop 8 supporters believe what they say that 'marriage is a mandate from God to procreate', doesn't stand to reason to ask if marriages who do not procreate are invalid before God and the Law?
I just can't believe that people that, until now, I considered my friends and admired, voted for Prop H8 (Pronounced 'Hate')
Anyway, I wanted to share this exchange with a dear friend of mine and also comments from the Protect Marriage, Protect Children, Prohibit Divorce petition site, here is mine:
# 4886: Dec 3, 2008, Aurora Grajeda, California I can't argue with the logic, divorce destroys 50% of Marriages and I have to hear concrete cases about where or how same-sex marriage harms opposite sex marriages. On a side note, is there a Heavenly Court on this Earth to hear how in religious marriage, in front of God, there are vows to stay together until death, as far as I know, divorce is granted on civil courts; shouldn't divorce be granted on a religious court? Then the formerly married, but now 'single' individuals, marry again in a religious ceremony, sometimes in the same church. Therefore, the question to ask is, for all of the above, are divorces Godly legal? Ooooh, the hypocritical ironies, if they weren't so harmful, they would be delectable.
The goal is to get 10,000 signatures.
I did get some big laughs out of those "ban divorce" comments. Still, the issue is the definition of marraige. Ignoramuses want it to be legally defined as "between a man and a woman" - sane people might be missjudging their opponents depth of hatred and tenacity. Check out this article - the stats reinforce my caution in wanting to laugh the thing off. I won't be crying either. I'll be articulating - seriously. No, seriously - hey, oh - thanks for the laughs. Lisa
Anything can be turned into comedy. But when I read the comments of people who viewed Prop 8 the musical I can't laugh. There exists many people who believe that homosexuals do not deserve equal rights. I would easily make the leap that those same people would not be alarmed when gays are physically ridiculed, attacked, or murdered. Therefore I wonder if the slim victory in favor of Prop 8 was due to bias and not confusion. The prop 8 musical certainly feeds the gay stereotype that many ignorant people use to cultivate their hatred. I love a campy musical, but the Prop 8 phenomena has got me wondering if we are devolving - and should we take this issue more seriously?
-- Vote No on Prop 8: Margaret Cho Can you still not figure out what California's Prop 8 actually means? That a "no" actually means you're for gay marriage? Let Ma... more >
Hi sister,
I agree with you that there is a serious issue with Prop H8 proponents, but these people are actually comical in their intellectual contortions and the spiritual masturbation they engage in order to have reality fit their religious or bigoted beliefs, not to do so would further turn their screwed up view of the world into cognitive dissonance mayhem.
Yes, it is a serious issue, and the people supporting Prop 8 are dangerous.
But I can't help myself from laughing at their pitifulness, maybe is as Marcos Gutierrez loves to say, 'rio para no llorar', (I laugh so I don't cry)
I'm sending comments from some of the people who signed the petition to ban divorce, I'm laughing at this also because I really don't believe that divorce should be outlawed, can you imagine children living in the hell that some marriages turn into? I signed the petition hoping that many more people sign it in order to have more pro-Prop h8 people see their folly / hypocrisy.
10:49 pm PST, Dec 3,Name not displayed, Illinois Really, it's absurd to stop at divorce. I think we should amend the constitution of the entire country to say that all marriage ceremonies should exclude the words, "till death do us part," and that people should be forced to live with the rotting remains of their loved ones until they themselves die, and then the two can be sealed in lucite and sent into space to be beacons of what it means to be a truly civilized planet. It'll be a sign that says to anyone who passes by, "These people are serious about commitment, and serious about children."
# 4,971:
10:43 pm PST, Dec 3,Name not displayed, California After all, if we're going to return society to the rules of the Bible, this is only the start. Petitions against the consumption of shellfish and the blasphemous wearing of mixed fiber clothing next!
# 4,970:
10:41 pm PST, Dec 3,Monique Savala, California this sounds reasonable to me
# 4,970:
10:41 pm PST, Dec 3,Monique Savala, California this sounds reasonable to me
# 4,969:
10:41 pm PST, Dec 3,Matthew Gates, California If we are really going to protect marriage and children from the threat of the decay of traditional families, then we also need to prohibit divorce.
# 4,968:
10:34 pm PST, Dec 3,Anthony Mack, Alabama After we protect marriage and children through nullifying divorce, we should continue this righteous and God-ordained crusade through further mandates. Perhaps we should work toward a mandatory marriage age for couples? Perhaps mandatory pregnancies? If, through some poor slight (or, more likely, a curse from God), the couple is unable to conceive, mandatory adoption could be implemented. These and many more spiritually-sound tactics are what's needed to truly ensure that our children and the sanctity of marriage are secured and blessed! * * * * * * Truly, the outcome of Prop 8 is a travesty. I had hoped that we were living in an age enlightened to the point where people of all persuasions would be allowed basic human rights. Obviously, I was mistaken.
# 4,962:
10:26 pm PST, Dec 3,Jae Manion, Texas Hey! If we are going to take away rights, let's be fair about it. Let's take away everyone's rights equally. Protect children by forcing people to stay in loveless marriages.
# 4,961:
10:25 pm PST, Dec 3,Peter Gratiot, Arizona I thought marriage lasts until you or your spouse departs from this plane of existent. The mormon church teaches its members that divorce is an evil sin that shouldn't be acted upon. I was born and raised in a mormon household. I am not mormon anymore because of the fact that I am gay. I have been out to my parents and family since 1997. Of course, they think homosexuality is very wrong. They don't approve of me being myself. My mom at the very beginning told me to never send her any positive materials on the GLBT community. Today, she hasn't budged a single inch on her position with me. She also voted for Prop 102 in Arizona. My mom decided to divorce my dad when she wasn't happy with their marriage. She did divorce him and then married another man. She was willing to go against her own religion and commit an evil sin by divorcing my dad, BUT, she wasn't willing to go against THAT same religion and accept/support her own son who happened to be gay? That is not right!!! To me, she put her own selfish need to be happy above her own son's happiness. It is like she isn't willing to risk losing her religion but she is very much willing to risk losing her son. This has shown me how hypocritical the mormon church and its members are.
# 4,951:
10:07 pm PST, Dec 3,Ben Kullerd, Texas Let's get rid of marriage, so gay, lesbian, bisexual and trans Americans who cannot marry will be equally unhappy as those heterosexual couples who remain in married relationships, no matter how strong their relationship.
# 4,950:
10:06 pm PST, Dec 3,Name not displayed, California If marriage is to be sacred, divorce should be banned. Let all us hetero couples choose a "legal union" if we're too scared to pledge a vow for life.
# 4,948:
10:05 pm PST, Dec 3,Name not displayed, Ohio I think we should add that all marriages must be sanctified by a certified priest or pastor who has gone to seminary and believes in the Christian faith. All those false doctrine marriages should be remade with Christian ceremonies. After we protect marriage by eliminating divorce, the next step must be to make sure only Christian marriages are recognized. No one is forcing you to be Christian (or straight), we are just recognizing what has always been (we only have a working history of 6,000 years, so give us a break!). If god sanctifies the union, and god is Christian (and Republican), then I don't think Jewish, Muslim, Unitarian. Mormon (come on, really?), or any other marriage meets that standard.
# 4,947:
10:05 pm PST, Dec 3,Jomeka Betty, Tennessee put that in your pipe and smoke it! reverse prop 8!!
# 4,946:
10:03 pm PST, Dec 3,Ashley Sloane, Oklahoma As a God-fearing southern woman, I am signing this petition to stand against Proposition 8. The God I know loves all His children unconditonaly. How do we as a nation have the right to deny anyone the most basic right of choosing their own partner?
# 4,941: 9:55 pm PST, Dec 3, Scott McPhail, California So simple, yet so profound. Thank you to the architects of "Yes on 8". The ideas and words about protecting marriage have become a beacon of light to guide us all through the darkness of spiteful and divisive marketing campaigns whose sole focus was to create fear and uncertainty among cities and communities. Humanity will prevail. # 4,940: 9:52 pm PST, Dec 3, Jessie M Potter, Washington Let's make this country right once and for all! # 4,939: 9:52 pm PST, Dec 3, Tim Sullivan, California I am all for the sanctity of marriage and believe that divorce is against my religion and therefore should be amended to the Consitution of the State of California # 4,938: 9:51 pm PST, Dec 3, Ben Henschel, Pennsylvania With all of the violence in the world to be fighting against love is just wrong. Your bible is not my bible, your idea of traditional marriage is not my idea, so people need to stop thinking they have all this authority because they read a book. Everyone deserves the benefits of marriage...period.
# 4,935: 9:49 pm PST, Dec 3, Richard Caton, California Preventing divorce is a great first step; however, it needs to also be stipulated that those who have already been divorced must be reunited with their previous spouse, and they must live together. How can we allow those who have already violated the "sanctity of marriage" to continue doing so? What to do about the ones who have had 4 or 5 spouses could become a little complicated since the churches are so concerned about polygamy though - but hey, I'm sure those who supported Prop 8 can resolve it since they have all of the answers on how to protect marriage. # 4,934: 9:46 pm PST, Dec 3, Matthew Baxter, California Be careful what you wish for... # 4,933: 9:43 pm PST, Dec 3, Simon Wickstrom, California Divorce is the biggest threat to marriage that exists in our society. It is time we stamped it out. Ban divorce. # 4,932: 9:42 pm PST, Dec 3, Heidi Neilson, California This is the only true way to protect marriage. # 4,931: 9:41 pm PST, Dec 3, Name not displayed, California Wow...I would love to vote on someone else's rights for a change! # 4,930: 9:39 pm PST, Dec 3, Shawn Wagner, California # 4,929: 9:37 pm PST, Dec 3, Trey Richards, Texas # 4,928: 9:36 pm PST, Dec 3, Name withheld, Illinois If, by Constitutional law, I am entitled to partial rights; then, I will pay partial taxes. Oh and, should I ever be called for duty to protect "my" country, sorry but I have rights to fight for instead.
# 4,921: 9:22 pm PST, Dec 3, Robert Buechler, California HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! I LOVE IT!! Sanctity of marriage?! Are you f'in kidding me? The divorce rate is now OVER 50 percent...there is nothing harmonious about that! This fight isn't over!
# 4,919: 9:21 pm PST, Dec 3, Lisette Garcia, California my husband and I believe that we are all equal. I'm tired of hearing the ignorant people fighting for this prop 8 . people come on It doesnt matter if gays get married I think that we all should have the same right. I know that this is one thing I shall fight for. Fight for the equal rights that gays and lesbians deserve.
# 4,916: 9:20 pm PST, Dec 3, Name not displayed, California Keith Olbermann said it best. "Sanctity of marriage...how many marriages like that have their bit?" # 4,915: 9:20 pm PST, Dec 3, Gary Ducharme, California Prop 8 had nothing to do with protecting marriage, and everything to do with homophobic discrimination. I am heterosexual and I don't believe in the bible, I do not believe that someone else's religious views should dictate what other people can do peacfully with one-another. Hate is hate is hate. Keep hate out of our constitution. # 4,914: 9:18 pm PST, Dec 3, Gary Llero, California Signature number 4,902: "Let's not stop there. Let's protect marriage even further. Children are the primary interest of marriage. It's about procreation. So, after we get rid of divorce, we should penalize those who enter marriage and do not have children. 9 months is all it takes (we'll even throw in a few months for good measure). If a married couple does not have at least one child by 1 year after marriage, their marriage is immediately annulled and they will be fined the equivalent of child support for the next 18 years. Those proceeds will go to support the age-old institution of marriage. Oh, and if it is discovered that you entered marriage knowing you couldn't have or didn't want children, you will be subject to jail time and a fine for fraud." This man is on crack. Sounds like something out of the novel "1984". Sir, please put down your pipe. You're from Florida, this doesn't affect you. FU*K Prop Hate!
# 4,911: 9:13 pm PST, Dec 3, Marshall Gurley, California In order truly to protect marriage and family rights, not only should divorce be outlawed, but if a woman becomes pregnant, she and the father should, by law, become married. Also, single women should not be able to become pregnant by artificial insemination. Children should have both a father and a mother.
# 4,903: 8:59 pm PST, Dec 3, Aisia Davenport, California I don't want my children taught that coming from a divorced home is ok. I don't want them to learn that there may be (too digusted to say but SINGLE Parents) raising children because "something didn't work out" Please California protect our children from the Divorce word. Keep protecting Marriage. # 4,902: 8:59 pm PST, Dec 3, Name not displayed, Florida Let's not stop there. Let's protect marriage even further. Children are the primary interest of marriage. It's about procreation. So, after we get rid of divorce, we should penalize those who enter marriage and do not have children. 9 months is all it takes (we'll even throw in a few months for good measure). If a married couple does not have at least one child by 1 year after marriage, their marriage is immediately annulled and they will be fined the equivalent of child support for the next 18 years. Those proceeds will go to support the age-old institution of marriage. Oh, and if it is discovered that you entered marriage knowing you couldn't have or didn't want children, you will be subject to jail time and a fine for fraud. # 4,901: 8:59 pm PST, Dec 3, Noah Levin, New York From the state that has some of the most divorces, adultery, and the biggest mockery of marriage - celebrity marriages, protecting marriage from loving gays is the most backwards thing this progressive state has done in a while.
4900: Dec 3, 2008, Anonymous, Florida It's about love and dignity, understanding human relationships, and stamping out discrimination. Get to know a gay person -- it can change your mind.
# 4899: Dec 3, 2008, Albert Clay, Washington Marriage is truly threatened by the 40+% of heterosexual marriages that dissolve in divorce. This must stop.
# 4897: Dec 3, 2008, Katie Ashdown, Tennessee Change we can belive in... huh? Way to go CA.
# 4896: Dec 3, 2008, Kial Sankaran, Washington I just simply hate hypocrisy, and that is why I am signing.
# 4889: Dec 3, 2008, Anonymous, California I thought this from the beginning... If the sanctity of marriage is the goal, divorce should be illegal. Time to vote again.
# 4886: Dec 3, 2008, Aurora Grajeda, California I can't argue with the logic, divorce destroys 50% of Marriages and I have to hear concrete cases about where or how same-sex marriage harms opposite sex marriages. On a side note, is there a Heavenly Court on this Earth to hear how in religious marriage, in front of God, there are vows to stay together until death, as far as I know, divorce is granted on civil courts; shouldn't divorce be granted on a religious court? Then the formerly married, but now 'single' individuals, marry again in a religious ceremony, sometimes in the same church. Therefore, the question to ask is, for all of the above, are divorces Godly legal? Ooooh, the hypocritical ironies, if they weren't so harmful, they would be delectable.
# 4884: Dec 3, 2008, Kristopher Arcand, Massachusetts After all, this is what they're asking for. You can't have one and not the other. Equal. Rights.
# 4883: Dec 3, 2008, Mark Ruhl, Arizona If the argument for Prop 8 is to protect marriage and childern, then this proposed proposition is essential to provide the same protection
# 4882: Dec 3, 2008, Ryan Finn, California I'm signing not just because I'm disappointed in my home state, but because of the discrimination I've experienced while attending med school in Pennsylvania.
# 4881: Dec 3, 2008, Michael Halloran, Vermont Wake up, people who voted for Prop 8. In the years to come, you are going to be viewed alongside those who opposed racially mixed marriages, school integration, and voting rights for women and blacks. None of you is worried about the "sanctity of marriage," you just hate gay people. But you will ultimately lose this battle. Our love is stronger than your hate.
# 4880: Dec 3, 2008, Monica John, Korea, Democratic People's Republic Of Marriage is not a joke. This is true that everyone should have a right to choose their own way but when it comes to making laws, state has to worker for the greater good. Same sex marrige has no reality and in the same way divorce distroys families and children. how can parents do this to their own children. Only selfish people can do this. State has to make laws for everyone not just one group. Moreover, only children coming from an emotionally healthy family can build a healthy society. THIS ALSO MEANS KIDS RAISED BY MOTHER AND FATHER NOT TWO MOTHERS AR TWO FATHERS............... SO YOUR SOCIETY FROM MENTALLY SICK CRIMINALS.............
# 4875: Dec 3, 2008, Javier Galito-Cava, California Isn't sanctity of marriage what people are so concerned about? Or was it just another hypocritical act of bigotry?
# 4866: Dec 3, 2008, Paul Jenson, California Make divorce illegal. I find it horrendous that people would treat others as second class citizens in this day and age.
# 4865: Dec 3, 2008, Sheena Ramirez, Louisiana Even as a heterosexual woman, this is the one political agenda that I full heartedly support. No one should ever be denied rights because of something out of their control...
# 4864: Dec 3, 2008, Donald Gray, Florida Really protect marriage...ban divorce!
# 4863: Dec 3, 2008, Ann Heitland, Arizona Married: 8/9/2008 after a 24 year engagement. We'll never divorce.
# 4860: Dec 3, 2008, Samantha Beck, Illinois Hahaha this is amazing.
# 4859: Dec 3, 2008, Oscar Salgado, Illinois Protect marriage and ban divorce for couples married in any church and at a city hall.
# 4858: Dec 3, 2008, Mike Lauro, Arkansas Keep up the fight. Join your local grassroots organizing groups and work for change. My husband and I married in California on 08/08/08. We always introduce ourselves as each others husband to everyone we meet. Educate people by telling your story.
# 4857: Dec 3, 2008, Gary Willis, Kentucky I refuse to be treated as a second-class citizen!
# 4856: Dec 3, 2008, Rachel Williams, Oklahoma Divorce killed the dinosaurs.
# 4854: Dec 3, 2008, Gina Piazza, California I want to protect the the very meaning of "sanctity" and "marriage" and "protect children" from the evils of divorce and protect heteros from themselves! Save the meaning!!!
# 4853: Dec 3, 2008, TRACEY THOMAS, Texas i'm signing to ensure that those who passed prop. 8 are serious about protecting marriage and will therefore outlaw divorce. otherwise they'll simply prove that the only real motivation behind prop. 8 was the discrimination of homosexuals, lesbians, and bisexual citizens from their legal right to enter into marriage with the legal/consenting adult of their choosing...
The Black community of Atlanta has long been known for being imbued with a strong in belief in equal rights and religious values.
