A matter of fact
Sunday's edition of Face the Nation featured a very telling same-sex marriage debate between Family Research Council President Tony Perkins and David Boies, the co-lead attorney of the plaintiffs who successfully argued in federal court that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. Throughout the exchange, Boies laid bare the inaccuracy and illogic of Perkins's arguments. Have a look:
One part that jumped out at me in particular was Boies's refutation of Perkins's extremely vague mention of social science data allegedly supporting the arguments against same-sex marriage. Boies responded (beginning at the 2:57 mark):
What we saw at trial is that it's very easy for the people who want to deprive gays and lesbian citizens of the right to vote [sic] to make all sorts of statements and campaign literature or in debates where they can't be cross-examined. But when they come into court, they have to support those opinions and they have to defend those opinions under oath and cross-examination, those opinions just melt away.
And that's what happened here. There simply wasn't any evidence, there weren't any of those studies. There weren't any empirical studies. That's just made up. That's junk science. And it's easy to say that on television, but a witness stand is a lonely place to lie, and when you come into court you can't do that. That's what we proved. We put fear and prejudice on trial, and fear and prejudice lost.
Perkins shot back...by changing the subject. With his main argument dismantled, he started talking about evidence that no-fault divorce harms children. I'm not sure what a study about heterosexual divorce has to do with an argument about gay marriage, but I guess Perkins had to say something. Regardless, the entire segment was yet another demonstration that the religious right's arguments against legal recognition of same-sex marriage aren't grounded in empirical evidence. Media Matters has more documentation of Perkins's disregard for the medical consensus that children of same-sex couples fare as well as children of heterosexual couples.
Proposition 8 and religious liberty
One of the reasons conservative faith groups often give for their opposition to same-sex marriage is the fear that they will be forced to recognize or perform such unions in spite of their beliefs about the sinfulness of homosexuality. However, according to the language of Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling overturning Proposition 8, such worries are unwarranted (h/t Cathy Lynn Grossman):
Interfaith Alliance President Rev. Welton Gaddy, a Baptist minister, further explains the significance of the ruling's respect for religious liberty:Marriage in the United States has always been a civil matter. Civil authorities may permit religious leaders to solemnize marriages but not to determine who may enter or leave a civil marriage. Religious leaders may determine independently whether to recognize a civil marriage or divorce but that recognition or lack thereof has no effect on the relationship under state law.
...Proposition 8 does not affect the First Amendment rights of those opposed to marriage for same-sex couples. Prior to Proposition 8, no religious group was required to recognize marriage for same-sex couples.
We are pleased to see that Judge Vaughn Walker was sensitive to the concerns of people of faith who oppose same-gender marriage on religious grounds but that he recognized, as do we, that their religious freedom will not be impacted by the legalization of same-gender marriage. America's diverse religious landscape leaves room for a variety of theological perspectives on same-gender marriage; indeed, some faiths enthusiastically support it and others vehemently oppose it. Under this ruling, as with any constitutionally-based marriage equality law, no religion would ever be required to condone same-gender marriage, and no member of the clergy would ever be required to perform a wedding ceremony not in accordance with his or her religious beliefs. But in a country that guarantees both religious freedom and "justice for all," the laws of our land must be based on what is fair and equal, not simply on the religious views of any faith community. Today's ruling leaves religious marriage untouched while allowing same-gender couples access to an important right currently enjoyed only by heterosexual couples - the right to civil marriage recognized under law.
Religious leaders react to Prop 8 ruling
Although the federal court ruling overturning California's Proposition 8 yesterday was only the first step toward a likely Supreme Court hearing of the case, it's still a landmark moment for the LGBT rights movement, and religious leaders and denominations have issued a range of reactions - including many lauding the ruling.
The Los Angeles Diocese of the Episcopal Church quickly issued a statement declaring that "Justice is advancing thanks to today's ruling affirming Californians' constitutional right to marriage in faithful, same-gender relationships." Episcopal News Service reported that Episcopalian joined public celebrations of the ruling across the state.
Rev. Peter Morales, President of the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations praised the ruling as well, but noted the progress yet to be made:
The ruling today by Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker declaring California's Proposition 8 to be unconstitutional is a victory for same-sex couples, their families, and all Americans who believe in equal rights. Over the past several years marriage equality has become a reality in Spain, South Africa, the Netherlands, Portugal, and Argentina. It should be a cause of national shame that the United States is not yet among those nations.
For many years now Unitarian Universalists (UUs) in California have been at the forefront of the struggle for marriage equality in that state. I applaud their continuing efforts, and I reaffirm the commitment of Unitarian Universalists nationwide to stand on the side of love until marriage equality is the law of the land.
The Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism also issued a statement of approval that noted the Reform Movement's commitment to the LGBT equality movement:
We will continue to stand with the LGBT community in California, and all who cherish justice, as this case makes it way through the Court system. We are proud of the leadership roles played by so many Reform Movement rabbis and activists, and we stand ready to work with them as we move forward.
When Proposition 8 passed as a ballot initiative in 2008, the role the LDS Church, the Catholic Church, and Rick Warren's Saddleback Church played in supporting it greatly overshadowed coverage of religious groups that opposed it. I mean that as an observation rather than a criticism - Mormons' extensive financing of the campaign to pass the amendment, for example, had a significant impact on the debate and deserved extensive media coverage. But now, as the issue winds its way through the judicial system, a new opportunity to report the faith community's wide range of beliefs about marriage equality has arrived. The portrayal of the issue as a conflict between religious opponents and secular supporters of same-sex marriage never reflected the complexity and diversity of views in the faith community. This time around, here's hoping the whole story gets told.
Clergy continue to stand up for justice in Uganda
Via Religion News Service's blog, I saw a media advisory released Tuesday announcing that Episcopal and Anglican clergy were scheduled to meet with White House officials regarding the bill under consideration in Uganda's parliament that would subject gay Ugandans to harsh punishments including life imprisonment or even the death penalty. From the advisory:
[Retired Anglican] Bishop Christopher Senyojo--a courageous spokesperson for the equality of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender persons in his native Uganda--is scheduled to visit the White House this evening. He will be accompanied by the Rt. Rev. Gene Robinson, the [Episcopal] Bishop of New Hampshire, and others. They will meet with Denis McDonough, Samantha Powers [sic], and other foreign policy officials of President Obama's administration. Bishop Senyonjo is expected to share his grave concerns about the "kill the gays bill" currently being considered by the Ugandan Parliament.
The bill stalled in Uganda's parliament last month, but it hasn't been killed altogether, and such unjust and draconian legislation needs to be monitored closely until total defeat. Diverse faith leaders have condemned this abhorrent bill and mobilized to defeat it ever since it was introduced, and I don't doubt they'll keep doing so until it's rejected once and for all.
Hatching falsehood
Via Andrew Sullivan, I saw today that Sen. Orrin Hatch recently told a crowd at Dixie State College in St. George, Utah, "Gays and lesbians don't pay tithing, their religion is politics."
That's just false. According to a 2009 survey by the Barna Group, 60% of gay adults say faith is "very important" in their lives. The study also found that gay and lesbian Americans are less likely to be registered to vote than heterosexuals.
I suppose one can't fault Sen. Hatch for not having Barna's data at his fingertips, but if he cared to understand the role faith plays in the lives of LGBT Americans instead of just spouting false stereotypes, he'd find gay and lesbian people of faith in diverse congregations across the country. He wouldn't have to go very far, either. Sen. Hatch's office is 3 ½ miles from my church, which has numerous LGBT members. I don't snoop around in the collection plate to see who tithes and who doesn't, but I know that my neighbors in the pews worship God, not politics. Sen. Hatch doesn't have the standing to dismiss their faith or anyone else's.
The right-wing freak-out
We've been following the ridiculous arguments right-wing organizations have been making about "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" for a while now. So it comes as no surprise to us that this week's news of a DADT repeal has them upset. But even I wasn't anticipating the depths to which they'd sink this time.
The right has gone into full freak-out mode, portraying LGBT soldiers as dangerous rapists whose "disease-tainted gay blood threatens our troops." If polemical religious right arguments are to be believed, without DADT, LGBT Americans will join the military en masse (because they aren't serving already), sexually assault their straight counterparts, and intimidate their superiors into covering it up under threat of political correctness?
The basis for these revolting claims? An "analysis" produced by FRC Senior Fellow for Policy Studies Peter Sprigg who claims his review of a Department of Defense report on sexual assaults reveals that homosexuals are "three times more likely to commit sexual assault than heterosexuals."
Sprigg's theory doesn't really deserve a response, but Joshua Tucker at the Monkey Cage provides a statistical dismantling anyway:
1. First and most significantly, the study provides no evidence of the proportion of same-sex assaults that are committed by homosexuals. This is crucial to the study, because the authors want to leverage the information in the study to argue that homosexuals should not be allowed to serve in the military. But their data measure assaults by men against men or women against women, not the number of assaults by homosexuals. Thus without any understanding of the proportion of same sex assaults that are committed by homosexuals, the inference that homosexuals are more likely to commit sexual assault is invalid.
2. Second, we don't know if the proportion of homosexuals in the military matches the proportion in the general population. The authors of the study assume that the proportions are similar, but if homosexuals are overrepresented in the military relative to the general population, then the inference is invalid. Moreover, it is not even clear that the general population is the right reference group; the military is overwhelmingly made up of young men. So even if we think the demographic composition of the military reflects the general population - which it may very well not - we'd still want to know something like the prevalence of homosexuality among 18-30 year old males, not among the population as a whole.
3. Moreover, even if we assume that the proportion of homosexuals in the military mirrors the proportion in the general population, the conclusions of the study are dependent on a low estimate of homosexuals in the general population (<8.15/3, or <2.7%). Other studies have found higher estimates.
While it's disheartening to see attacks are coming from groups claiming to espouse Christian values, maybe the extreme nature of their arguments will convince Congressional leaders who have sided with them in the past and are threatening to block the bill to re-think their alliances. The House is expected to vote on repeal tonight and many in the faith community hope they'll stand up against attacks like these in favor of dignity and equality.
Repealing Injustice
Today's announcement that President Obama reached a deal with Congressional leaders and the Pentagon to repeal the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy was welcome news for the overwhelming majority of Americans who support this change (including a broad coalition of religious groups). As they know, our country will be safer for having a military that doesn't waste time and money discharging good soldiers and that can actively recruit the best and brightest citizens who want to serve.
Combined with passage of the hate crimes bill last year and the new hospital visitation policy announced earlier this year, this repeal is another important step towards full equality for our LGBT brothers and sisters.
Encouraging more policy changes like these, a Gallup poll released today showed support for gay relations in general at an all-time high. Included within the poll report was the following table showing cross-tabs by religion.
As you can see, the stereotype that people of faith are opponents of gay rights doesn't hold up. Particularly in the last four years, support among Christians has increased significantly with a solid majority of now in favor and Protestants coming close to 50% support.
These numbers reinforce what we've been saying for awhile now--people of faith support overturning a policy that doesn't serve our nation's best interests or its values, and religious leaders who use DADT to unfairly malign our troops and LGBT Americans are becoming further and further out of touch.
Encouraging news from Uganda
The New York Times reported this weekend that the Ugandan Parliament's bill making homosexuality punishable by life imprisonment or even death has stalled:
A special committee organized by the president of Uganda has recommended that a harsh antihomosexuality bill that has drawn the ire of Western governments be withdrawn from Parliament, a senior government official said Saturday.
...
Uganda's president, Yoweri Museveni, has publicly shown concern about the legislation and formed the review committee in February in response to international scrutiny. Though the panel's ruling is not the final word, analysts saw it as a strong sign that the bill would eventually be dropped.
This is great news for the people of Uganda, and also for people worldwide who stood up to the extreme injustice the bill would have perpetrated. When the legislation was announced late last year, a broad array of American faith leaders denounced it unequivocally and mobilized to defeat it. Among the condemnations of the anti-gay bill was a statement from more than 70 ideologically, racially and theologically diverse Christian leaders, stating in part:
Our Christian faith recognizes violence, harassment and unjust treatment of any human being as a betrayal of Jesus' commandment to love our neighbors as ourselves. As followers of the teachings of Christ, we must express profound dismay at a bill currently before the Parliament in Uganda. The "Anti-Homosexuality Act of 2009" would enforce lifetime prison sentences and in some cases the death penalty for homosexual behavior, as well as punish citizens for not reporting their gay and lesbian neighbors to the authorities.
As Americans, some may wonder why we are raising our voices to oppose a measure proposed in a nation so far away from home. We do so to bear witness to our Christian values, and to express our condemnation of an injustice in which groups and leaders within the American Christian community are being implicated. We appeal to all Christian leaders in our own country to speak out against this unjust legislation.
This effort helped not only to raise awareness of Uganda's anti-gay bill in the faith community, but also to encourage previously reluctant leaders such as Rick Warren - who wields great influence in Uganda -- to speak out against it.
Right's Wrong on Kagan and DADT
Leaders on the religious right responded to Elena Kagan's nomination to the Supreme Court today by alleging that she has "disdain for the military" and falsely claiming that as Dean of Harvard Law School she "kick[ed] the military off campus during the height of the Iraq War." These inflammatory and misleading claims stem from Kagan's restriction of military recruitment on campus due to the military's discriminatory Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. (Side note: a large majority of Americans agree that DADT should be repealed.) Media Matters has a thorough takedown laying out numerous facts that debunk these attacks against her. Among the key points:
REALITY: Kagan consistently followed the law, and Harvard students had access to military recruiters during her entire tenure as dean. Throughout Kagan's tenure as dean, Harvard law students had access to military recruiters -- either through Harvard's Office of Career Services or through the Harvard Law School Veterans Association. Moreover, Kagan consistently followed existing law regarding access to military recruiters. Kagan briefly restricted (but did not eliminate) access to recruiters only after the U.S Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit ruled that law schools could do so.
...
FACT: Military veterans at Harvard Law dispelled notion that Kagan was "anti-military." Military veterans at Harvard Law School strongly dispute the idea that Kagan was anti-military and stated that she had a "strong record of welcoming and honoring veterans on campus." In response to the Washington Times op-ed, three military veterans who were Harvard law students at the time wrote a letter to the Judiciary Committee that said, in part: "As Iraq War veterans who currently attend Harvard Law School, we wanted to inform the Committee of Dean Kagan's strong record of welcoming and honoring veterans on campus." The veterans also wrote a letter to The Washington Timesthat [sic] stated, in part, that while they opposed the restrictions on military recruiters, "During [Kagan's] time as dean, she has created an environment that is highly supportive of students who have served in the military."
The fact-check includes an exhaustive refutation of misleading claims that Kagan barred military recruiters. Read the whole thing.
Don't Ask (about our logic)
I've wondered for a while what role military chaplains would play in the debate about repealing "Don't Ask/Don't Tell," so last week when the Family Research Council and Alliance Defense Fund introduced a letter from 41 retired chaplains advocating preservation of the policy, I took notice. The letter, announced with great fanfare at the National Press Club, which made headlines with religious and secular press, was treated with skepticism in Stars and Stripes (an official military news publication):
Conservative groups predict tight restrictions on chaplains' religious speech if the military's "don't ask, don't tell" law is overturned, with some evangelical Christian groups contemplating pulling their ministers out of the ranks.
"The approved gospel will be a politically correct gospel," said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a Christian lobbying group that deals with marriage and family issues. "If chaplains are limited in the moral teachings they can present [because of a repeal], you will see orthodox Christian chaplains leaving the military."
Religious leaders in and outside the military doubted those predictions.
Air Force Chief of Chaplains Maj. Gen. Cecil Richardson said he thinks a repeal will be a "difficult transition," but "I don't know a single chaplain who wants to get out because of that issue."
In addition to this refutation from the Air Force Chief of Chaplains, the letter pushed out by FRC and ADF was laced with dubious reasoning, as Mark Silk points out:
The letter sent to President Obama and Secretary of Defense Gates by a group retired chaplains begging for retention of Don't Ask/Don't Tell is not exactly a testament to intellectual honesty. The chaplains--evangelicals and other conservative Protestants--are exercised that if the military "normalizes homosexual behavior" it will impinge upon their own religious liberty. But as they are well aware, clergy don't enjoy the same degree of religious liberty when they're employed by the military as they do as civilians. There are rules limiting proselytizing, for example, and although these have always stuck in the craw of evangelical chaplains anxious to exercise the Great Commission, they have had to abide by them. If they can't, then they can always pursue their calling outside the confines of military service.
Deep into the letter, the signatories do admit that military chaplains only have their jobs by virtue of the need to enable other service personnel to exercise their own right of religious free exercise. The letter goes on to claim that limiting chaplains' religious freedom will limit the free exercise rights of "the men and women in uniform who share their faith and rely on their instruction." Why? Because it says so.
The truth is that by not forbidding it American society "normalizes" what a lot of religious folks consider sinful behavior: divorce, extramarital sex, alcohol consumption, dancing, gambling, abortion. It's simply necessary for Americans to recognize that the norms of civil society are not necessarily the same as the norms of their particular faith. And that goes for the military portion of civil society as well.
"A hand to hold, a shoulder on which to lean"
Yesterday, President Obama issued a presidential memorandum to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, instructing her to "ensure that patients can receive compassionate care and equal treatment during their hospital stays," by giving patients the right to designate visitors. This directive addresses the current flaws in our hospital status quo, which can lead to gay and lesbian patients being separated from their families in the toughest of times (like Janice Langbehn, who was barred from entering the hospital room of her partner of 18 years, Lisa Pond, after Lisa suffered an aneurysm and was dying). But this memorandum isn't just about the LGBT community; it also allows widows, widowers, nuns, priests, unmarried couples, and others to designate their loved ones as visitors, even when not legally connected.
The directive speaks poignantly of the need for compassion and companionship at life's darkest moments:
There are few moments in our lives that call for greater compassion and companionship than when a loved one is admitted to the hospital. In these hours of need and moments of pain and anxiety, all of us would hope to have a hand to hold, a shoulder on which to lean -- a loved one to be there for us, as we would be there for them.
The faith community is speaking out in support of these new guidelines and the way in which they further our society's recognition of the humanity and dignity of every person. For a list of statements from religious groups and partners, check out the press release here. I thought this statement from Richard Cizik at the New Evangelical Partnership for the Common Good was particularly powerful:
"It is not only a policy that reflects the compassion of the American people, but it is an across-the-board guarantee to people of all faiths and traditions to have access to their loved ones in times of grave emergency and distress. To have access to loved ones in all conditions of life is something Evangelicals see as compassionate and just."
Sadly, what should be cause for celebration has been marred by a few fringe organizations attacking the directive as a stepping-stone in a quest to "redefine marriage."
Today, in a live discussion at the Washington Post, Peter Sprigg from the Family Research Council reiterated his organization's opposition to the President's directive, saying:
"Granting patient's autonomy and self-determination in deciding who can visit them or make medical decisions in an emergency is a good thing, and with advance directives it does not have to be based on a family or marital relationship--or even a sexual one. Unfortunately, this issue has been inflated in support of redefining marriage."
While we can and should have a civil and respectful conversation about same-sex marriage, it seems abundantly clear from reading the President's memo that this conversation is entirely separate from the directive on hospital visitation. It seems cruel to deny the reality that many individuals (gay, straight, young, old, nuns, widows, mothers) have suffered through a serious medical trauma alone. This announcement is a welcome opportunity for common ground. Regardless of how we feel about gay marriage or any other issue, can't we agree that no one should die alone? No one should be separated from a loving partner or a steadfast friend in time of deep pain and distress.
Standing up to bigotry in Uganda
At the National Prayer Breakfast today, Secretary of State Clinton and President Obama denounced the anti-gay legislation currently under consideration in Uganda, which would make homosexuality punishable by life imprisonment or even death. From the President's remarks:
We may disagree about gay marriage, but surely we can agree that it is unconscionable to target gays and lesbians for who they are--whether it's here in the United States or, as Hillary mentioned, more extremely in odious laws that are being proposed most recently in Uganda.
This condemnation follows months of extensive opposition to the bill by ideologically diverse leaders of the US faith community. These religious voices helped put the issue on the national stage -- a vital contribution to the effort to leverage international pressure against this horrific legislation.
Don't Ask for the facts
Joints Chiefs of Staff chairman Navy Adm. Mike Mullen testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee yesterday, saying that repealing the military's Don't Ask Don't Tell (DADT) policy "would be the right thing to do." Characteristically, religious right groups reacted with much chagrin and very little accurate information. (For example, Tony Perkins implied that ending DADT would lead to more sexual assault in the military. Seriously.)
For a more honest take, recall the statement released late last year by retired military chaplains in favor of ending discrimination against gay and lesbian members of the armed forces. Drawing on the chaplains' own analysis, in addition to consultation with "fellow Chaplains as well as veterans representing all the Services in all ranks and ratings from E-1 through O-8," the statement refuted pro-DADT arguments ranging from unit cohesion and combat effectiveness to order and discipline to sexual relations among service members.
The difference between these two different faith voices could hardly be more stark. One group reflects on their own experiences serving military personnel's spiritual needs; the other demonizes the LGBT community, even as they risk their lives to protect this country. Since DADT was enacted in 1993, approximately 13,500 members of the military have been dismissed because of their sexual identity. Thousands more still live in fear of the same fate. For their sake, and for our sake as a nation that claims to uphold equality and dignity, it's a good thing military leadership think more like the chaplains than the likes of Tony Perkins.
Same-Sex Marriage: Not Destroying Straight Marriage
If Nate Silver's analysis is correct, it might even be helping.
Silver compiled marriage statistics from several states and found some interesting trends in divorce rates in states that have banned gay marriage and those that have legalized it:
Overall, the states which had enacted a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage as of 1/1/08 saw their divorce rates rise by 0.9 percent over the five-year interval. States which had not adopted a constitutional ban, on the other hand, experienced an 8.0 percent decline, on average, in their divorce rates.
Now of course, we can't leap from correlation to causation and claim that this proves legalizing same-sex marriage is helping all marriages last longer. And, the health of the institution of marriage can't be measured in divorce rates alone.
However, Silver's analysis does seem to show that the doomsday predictions of some same-sex marriage opponents are definitely not coming true.
Christian Leaders Speak Out Against Injustice in Uganda
Last week, David Gibson asked "if Uganda executes gays, will American Christians be complicit?" It's the right question to ask-- living out our faith requires examining potential complicity in the face of injustice, whether such complicity be from our actions, or from our willingness to stand idly by. As Dan pointed out, "part of standing up for what's right is standing up to what's wrong and calling out those who perpetrate injustice." In an effort to do just that, American Christian leaders came together today to stand up and call out against the injustices of a proposed piece of legislation in Uganda, the "Anti-Homosexuality Act of 2009."
The statement grew out of a shared feeling among American Christian leaders that given the long history of US Christian involvement in Uganda and the fact that the influence of US Christianity is being implicated, they needed to make their voices heard. These leaders are speaking out against what they see as an affront to Christian values:
As followers of the teachings of Christ, we must express profound dismay at a bill currently before the Parliament in Uganda. The "Anti-Homosexuality Act of 2009" would enforce lifetime prison sentences and in some cases the death penalty for homosexual behavior, as well as punish citizens for not reporting their gay and lesbian neighbors to the authorities....In our efforts to imitate the Good Samaritan, we stand in solidarity with those Ugandans beaten...and left abandoned by the side of the road because of hatred, bigotry and fear. Especially during this holy season of Advent, when the global Christian community prepares in hope for the light of Christ to break through the darkness, we pray that they are comforted by God's love.
Click here to see the full statement and list of signatories.
UPDATED: Speak for justice in Uganda
In a move that has been widely condemned, when asked about new legislation pending in Uganda that would make homosexuality punishable by imprisonment or death Rick Warren suggested that his status as a pastor means he ought to avoid taking a public stance on controversial issues, including this one. Lisa Miller of Newsweek, who posed the question to Warren, reports:
...Warren won't go so far as to condemn the legislation itself. A request for a broader reaction to the proposed Ugandan antihomosexual laws generated this response: "The fundamental dignity of every person, our right to be free, and the freedom to make moral choices are gifts endowed by God, our creator. However, it is not my personal calling as a pastor in America to comment or interfere in the political process of other nations." On Meet the Press this morning, he reiterated this neutral stance in a different context: "As a pastor, my job is to encourage, to support. I never take sides."
Such a plainly immoral law requires full-throated condemnation, especially from Warren, who is a figure of great prominence in Uganda. His voice there matters. Part of standing up for what's right is standing up to what's wrong and calling out those who perpetrate injustice - whether you're a pastor, a parishioner, a lay leader or none of the above.
Prop. 8 and Religious Liberty
Today, California upheld Prop. 8, taking away same-sex marriage rights in the state but leaving as valid the marriages of couples who wed under California's same-sex marriage law before election day.
With the ruling comes the resurfacing of serious misinformation opponents of same-sex marriage have been spreading in the Prop. 8 fight and in campaigns across the country.
For instance, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) celebrated the ruling as a victory for "civil rights."
One of NOM's leading arguments (see their "Gathering Storm" ad that got a lot of play in the media) has been that same-sex marriage is a threat to religious liberty. While there certainly have been clashes between particular religious groups and proponents of GLBT rights, NOM's claim that marriage poses a particular threat to religious groups is overblown, at best.
Take the examples from their very own "Gathering Storm" Background Facts site. While each of these cases does appear to present a conflict between religious groups and gay rights, a closer look reveals it's not so cut and dried.
While NOM claims to focus only on marriage, not other legal benefits and rights for same-sex couples (scroll down to talking point 6 under FAQs) one of their examples takes place in a state where same-sex marriage isn't even legal. As HRC points out, the New Jersey and California examples "are really about state laws against sexual orientation discrimination, rather than specifically about marriage."
NOM's third example, the "Massachusetts parent helplessly watching public schools teach... that gay marriage is OK," doesn't seem to take a very high view of a parent's ability to shape his/her child's values.
After all, the government's willingness to re-marry divorced persons does not render a conservative Catholic parent "helpless" in teaching her child that divorce (without an annulment) and remarriage are wrong according to their values.
The Catholic example is actually pretty fitting when it comes down to arguments about same-sex marriage and religious liberty. As Andrew Sullivan has noted:
...Catholic doctrine is that marriage is for life. Divorce is not the end of that marriage in the eyes of God. And yet Catholics can tolerate fellow citizens who are not Catholic calling their non-marriages marriages - because Catholics have already accepted a civil-religious distinction. They can wear both hats in the public square.
Catholics and other people of faith would be able to continue to wear both of these hats should same-sex marriage continue to be legalized across the country. In fact, we already see the results of robust legal protection for religious groups, particularly for clergy, who are allowed to practice the teachings of their religion even when it conflicts with state employment laws. Churches will not be forced to ordain gay clergy (as Catholics are not forced by the government to ordain women) or marry gay couples--clergy have always been able to decide who they would marry (for example, many rabbis won't officiate interfaith marriage ceremonies).
As HRC says:
Granting marriage rights to same-sex couples would not require leaders of Christian, Jewish, Islamic or any other religious leaders to perform these marriages. It would not require religious institutions to permit these ceremonies to be held on their grounds. It would not even require that religious communities discuss the issue. People of faith would remain free to make their own judgments about what makes a marriage in the eyes of God -- just as they are today.
A reconciliation on gay marriage?
Strange bedfellows Jonathan Rauch and David Blankenhorn mapped out an interesting federal policy proposal on same-sex marriage in yesterday's New York Times:
It would work like this: Congress would bestow the status of federal civil unions on same-sex marriages and civil unions granted at the state level, thereby conferring upon them most or all of the federal benefits and rights of marriage. But there would be a condition: Washington would recognize only those unions licensed in states with robust religious-conscience exceptions, which provide that religious organizations need not recognize same-sex unions against their will. The federal government would also enact religious-conscience protections of its own. All of these changes would be enacted in the same bill...
At the same time, federal law links many important perquisites to marital status, including Social Security survivor benefits, tax-free inheritance, spousal immigration rights and protections against mutual incrimination. All of these benefits are currently denied to same-sex couples, even those living in states that permit same-sex marriage or civil unions. But these same benefits could be conferred by federally recognized civil unions.
This was the first airing of this policy I've seen. My quick search for blog reactions today didn't turn up too many hits, but here're a few. (Note, please click through -- my excerpts don't encapsulate their entire arguments.)
Mark Silk: Well meaning as it is, the proposal...seems to me a half-way house that will have trouble standing. But the cry of distress from Rod Dreher about the "fast erosion of religious liberty in America" paints with far too broad a brush.
Update: Andrew Sullivan: My worry is the federalist one: I don't see why the federal government should refuse to recognize what various states decide to call a civil marriage. As for strong religious liberty exception clauses, I have absolutely no objection... I don't believe that allowing gay couples to marry will violate religious freedom any more than, say, legal civil divorce hurts the Catholic Church.Street Prophets diarist I T: Yes, I am very uncomfortable with giving basic civil rights a religious exemption. And, what happens to gay people who live in viciously anti-gay states...BUT, if the idea is to find a compromise, a starting place, and if it can bring together such disparate views as the authors', I think it has merit, at least for discussion.
More below the fold...
The people have spoken...
Having grown up in the oh-so-old-fashioned commonwealth of Virginia, I've never seen a ballot initiative up close and personal. I've never signed a petition to get one on the ballot. Never voted for or against it. Never attended a rally protesting the results (as one of my friends in California did last night). My political junkie-ness has generally been confined to candidate races.
Needless to say, I find ballot initiatives oddly fascinating. There were a lot this election cycle-- 153, in fact.
These initiatives ran the gamut—from “death with dignity”/right to die in Washington (which passed) to more humane treatment of farm animals in California (which appears to have passed).
The outcomes of these initiatives are interesting, especially in light of the “culture war” rhetoric Sarah Palin infused into the campaign. While McCain calls himself a federalist and believes marital law should be left to the states, Palin spoke out in favor of a federal amendment to ban gay marriage. (She also supported a 1998 ballot in Alaska to ban same-sex marriage.)
Bans of this type were on the ballot this week in three states: Florida, California, and Arizona. All passed.
On the other hand, three states had initiatives about reproductive rights, all of which went the more liberal direction. South Dakota defeated a stringent near-ban on abortion, California defeated a parental notification requirement, and a "personhood" amendment in Colorado was soundly turned down.
Pro gay rights Republicans support. . .
The 30-second ad, airing in Iowa and on Fox News for the next 10 days, portrays the former Massachusetts governor as changing his positions on abortion, gun rights, even his opinion of former President Ronald Reagan. Paid for by the Log Cabin Republicans, a homosexual rights organization, the ad uses Mr. Romney's own words from a 1994 debate.
Dispatches from evangeland
Beyond the recent debate over the third party threats of the religious right, there exist some subtle and long-term changes affecting evangelical Christianity. Here are two examples on poverty/urban sprawl as well as homosexuality.
Justice in the "Burbs. . .? And Zack, of Revolution in Jesusland, recently attended an evangelical conference. It appears more and more religious leaders might be waking up to the fact that constructive engagement with homosexuals is a moral value -- and a church growth value too.. . .one thing really stood out, and subtly became the main focus of the evening forum. Apparently, all the anti-gay marriage ballot initiatives and other anti-gay campaigning have really been ravaging the perception of Christianity among the general public, and even among young Christians. He [Dave, of the Barna research group] showed one graph that showed favorability ratings over the past several decades for gays shooting up from low single digits to 33% today. (That might have been just among young people, I can’t remember.) Meanwhile, right along with that, the favorability rating for “evangelicals” among the same group plummeted from high numbers to 3%! David didn’t argue for a direct correlation between those two numbers. But he talked about how today most young people know openly gay people, and they are having a hard time reconciling what their church says and their valued relationships.Pastor Dan has more, as usual. . .
Restraint Trumps Protest in Episcopal Church
By the Rev. Anne Howard, executive director of The Beatitudes Society
My church is in the headlines again today. The headline is not “Episcopal Church Opposes War” or “Episcopal Church Supports SCHIP” or “Episcopal Church Works to Fight Poverty” or “Episcopal Church Lobbies for Katrina Aid.” No, my church doesn’t have time for such pressing social justice issues.Today’s headline is “Episcopal Bishops Promise Restraint”, or in a slightly more active choice of verbs: “Episcopal Leaders Act to Avert a Schism” or even more active yet “Episcopal Bishops Reject Anglican Church’s Order”.
Forgive me, but I’m just so tired of it all. Don’t get me wrong, the issue is critical: the full inclusion of gays and lesbians in the church is indeed a social justice issue. But I’m not sure that’s the issue at hand. I’m afraid the competing issue is something called “unity”.
VIDEO: Day of Silence (4/18) vs. Day of Truth
The Day of Silence is an annual event held to bring attention to anti-LGBT bullying, harassment and discrimination in schools. Students and teachers nationwide will observe the day in silence to echo the silence that LGBT and ally students face everyday. In it's 11th year, the Day of Silence is one of the largest student-led actions in the country.
Interestingly, a conservative group has proclaimed a "Day of Truth" on April 19 in which students are encouraged to respond to the homosexual agenda "boldly, but with love." According to Pat Robertson's CBN, "The Day of Truth, sponsored by the Alliance Defense Fund, gives students a platform on which to stand against the promotion of homosexuality."
Blogger, I am a Christian Too writes:"Heaven help us. The Day of Silence is a protest against harassment and bias against gays. Regardless of the stated intent, the effect of the Day of Truth will be to justify and excuse continued harassment and bias against gays in our schools."
An Afternoon Sermon
The Common Good, Gay Rights, and Faith
Faith in Public LIVE: XPatriated Texan on Spending Time Wisely and Developing an Ideological Core (Part 7)