Mexico City's In!

Wow, just last week I was writing about Washington, DC's council's new legislation allowing for same-sex marriages, and now Mexico City has done it too, changing the definition of marriage to the rather liberating: the free uniting of two people.

¡felicidades!

And there are parallels:

1) The Roman Catholic Church continues to be the uninformed party-poopers. Armando Martinez, the president of the College of Catholic Attorneys, said:

They have given Mexicans the most bitter Christmas. They are permitting adoption (by gay couples) and in one stroke of the pen have erased the term 'mother' and 'father.'

Amazing powers that same-sex couples have, eliminating the terms "mother" and "father"! Wow. Actually, it will be used together just as often, but complimented by the terms "my mothers" and "my fathers."

2) Just as US lawmakers can allude to our nation's elimination of anti-miscegenation laws in 1967 in Loving v Virginia, Mexico City lawmaker Victor Romo, a member of the mayor's leftist party, said:

For centuries unjust laws banned marriage between blacks and whites or Indians and Europeans. Today all barriers have disappeared.

Ah, human nature. People are gay all over the world, people are prejudiced all over the world and people have reasoning skills all over the world.

Before the backlash inevitably sets in (as it did for the abortion laws Mexico City recently passed), let's enjoy Mexico City's progressivism and leadership in Latin America.

¡felicidades!

DC's In!

On December 15th, the Washington, D.C., City Council voted Tuesday to legalize same-sex marriage. However, it's not quite solid yet - the mayor needs to sign it into law (and promised to do so already) and because DC is a federal district, Congress has 30 working days to veto the law, but it's unlikely they would do that.

Here's a video:


Now DC will soon join Iowa, Vermont, Massachusetts and Connecticut and -- as of Jan 1st, 2010, New Hampshire.

This move is not surprising. DC recently allowed recognition of same-sex couples married in other states - so this is just a continuation of affirming the equality and recogntion of same gender partners.

Not surprisingly, a church group fought the legislation, but this time, were unsuccessful. The Catholic Archdiocese of D.C. sought unsuccessfully to have conscience rights protected in the legislation. In November, Archbishop Donald Wuerl explained in a Washington Post editorial why the bill threatens to force the Church to restrict its charity programs.

"[T]he District requires Catholic Charities to certify its compliance with city laws when applying for contracts and grants. [...] Since Catholic Charities cannot comply with city mandates to recognize and promote same-sex marriages, the city would withhold contracts and licenses," he explained.

Fortunately, the bill did not pander to what these church groups put under the euphemistic banner of "religious freedom" exceptions that would allow churches to express their bigotry (in the public sphere) -somehow in the name of a loving God.

Here's more from the Washington Post.

The New Middle: Gay Rights Okayed by Mormans

In a somewhat surprising move, the Morman church threw its heavy political weight behind an employment and housing anti-discrimination law in Salt Lake City, Utah, as this AP article describes.

Why would they do that? Guilt over their role in Prop 8? The desire to improve their image as not being anti-gay? It appears so. But whatever their motive, they are helping to solidify a growing middle ground for the gay rights movement. Even as states continue to affirm discrimination against gays in marriage, support is growing for equal rights in other areas.





















Apparently, they were able to support this measure because it included exceptions to "allow churches to maintain, without penalty, religious principles and religion-based codes of conduct or rules."

"The church supports these ordinances because they are fair and reasonable and do not do violence to the institution of marriage," Michael Otterson, the director of public affairs for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said. Otterson said the endorsement is not a shift in the church's position on gay rights and stressed it "remains unequivocally committed to defending the bedrock foundation of marriage between a man and a woman."

And in another AP article, Otterson was quoted as saying:

Supporting "basic civil values," Otterson said, does not compromise the church's religious belief that homosexuality is a sin and that same-sex marriage poses a threat to traditional marriage.

There are going to be gay advocates who don't think we've gone nearly far enough, and people very conservative who think we've gone too far," Otterson said. "The vast majority of people are between those polar extremes and we think that's going to resonate with people on the basis of fair-mindedness.

The message, of course, is twisted and inconsistent -- gay "sinners" deserve equal rights and should not be discriminated against... except for in areas where it offends Morman sensibilities and except when it comes to the 1300+ civil state and Federal rights that come with marriage.

But we'll take their support for equal rights in some areas for the progress that it is. Eventually they, and the rest of the public, will see that equal means equal in every area. With hope, that realization will come in latter days ... in the not-so-distant future.

New Ground Zero: New Jersey

Some groups in New Jersey, like Garden State Equality, and this attorney website, are encouraging departing Governor Corzine to sign a same-sex marriage bill (as he said he would) before he leaves office in January. The newly elected Governor Christie would veto such legislation.

New Jersey residents (that is, gay residents) are allowed civil unions, but, as stated so eloquently in the 2008 California Supreme Court ruling, this implies second class citizenship.

As the Attorney.org article states:

When thinking of same-sex marriage, consider this — in the past few decades, seemingly unapproachable issues such as women’s or minority rights have become synonymous with “human rights” — isn’t it time that gay rights is included in that circle?

Indeed it is. I applaud Attorney.org's affirmation of human rights for all citizens.

And Now, Sadly, There are 31

Maine, too, has joined 30 other states where the idea that some of our tax-paying, U.S. citizens should be able to marry is just not acceptable enough to the majority of voters. This is the case comes despite the hope that earlier polls, a legislative (not Court-ruled) vote and fact that the vote took place in Maine -- in the most supportive, equality-minded part of the country.

http://www.bangordailynews.com/detail/128048.html

Sadly, the "winners" report that they have protected the institution of marriage, again characterizing gay couples as attacking or destroying the institution. The reality is, Maine voted to leave some couples without the protection of marriage.

Interestingly, fear-based arguments that traditional marriage will be destroyed by this change are still ruling the day. Among them, from Stand For Marriage Maine:

1) Gay marriage will be pushed on Maine students -- the ad featured on their site. Of course, there is no requirement for this whatsoever, so it's more fear-mongering. This same technique helped drive the nail in the coffin of marriage equality in California with Prop 8.

2) Yes on 1 campaign on its website says, “

Maine’s long-standing statute defines marriage as being the union of one man and one woman joined in traditional monogamous marriage and an institution of inestimable value to society. Current law says that Maine has a compelling interest to nurture and promote the unique institution of traditional monogamous marriage in the support of harmonious families and the physical and mental health of children and that the State has the compelling interest in promoting the moral values inherent in traditional monogamous marriage.”

Of course, there is no logic or evidence to support the argument that adding another group to the conservative institution of marriage will in any way weaken the institution, nor that excluding one group will destroy it. Check earlier postings with links to several professional associations who have done real, scientific research to refute these fear (not fact) based arguments. And a new study by the Williams Institute at UCLA shows that gay and straight couples are quite similar.

http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=news&sc3=&id=98527

If marriage is good for straights, it should be good for gays too. The burden of proof needs to shift to those who make these un-founded claims and insinuate that children will be at risk if raised by two loving parents, regardless of their gender. In time, history will reveal the truth. For now, people are not ready for it.

Unfortunately, it will take a lot of time (and persuasive, truth-based arguments) to unravel the mess that fear has created. And it will take a lot of patience and love...

Experts Say Gay Parents are Equal Parents

When the "Defense of Marriage Act" (DOMA) was passed at the federal level in 1996,
it was argued that a heterosexual parent household was the family structure that was best for children.

But medical, social science and child welfare groups have concluded that same-sex parents are equal as parents. Here are just three examples:

1) American Academy of Pediatrics

2) American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.

3) Here is an excerpt from a study by the American Psychological Association

"Despite the significant presence of at least 163,879 households headed by lesbian or gay parents in U.S. society, three major concerns about lesbian and gay parents are commonly voiced (Falk, 1994; Patterson, Fulcher & Wainright, 2002). These include concerns that lesbians and gay men are mentally ill, that lesbians are less maternal than heterosexual women, and that lesbians' and gay men's relationships with their sexual partners leave little time for their relationships with their children. In general, research has failed to provide a basis for any of these concerns (Patterson, 2000, 2004a; Perrin, 2002; Tasker, 1999; Tasker & Golombok, 1997)."

The religious right have their own studies, but they also have their own agenda. I doubt they would publish anything that did not fit into their narrow religious world view. Take heed in the advice of real experts who understand how to conduct research and don't have a vested stake in the outcomes.

Divorce Destroys Traditional Marriage

Whatever your definition of traditional marriage, it is clear that divorce brings it to a screeching halt.

John Marcotte and company at Rescuemarriage.org have launched a campaign to end this in California: the 2010 California Marriage Protection Act. It takes Prop 8 one step further ... and right over the edge.

Watch the video that made poster Rush Limbaugh write "Get your tongue out of my cheek!"

Wanted: Tax Credit for Gay Couples!

Okay, that's it. I've joked about it before but now I think this idea should get discussed. Gay and lesbian couples who live together really need a tax credit to compensate them for the high and unjust cost of not being able to get married. Why? They pay their fair share of taxes to fund 1,000+ federal marriage rights and over 300+ state marriage rights (in most states still) for heterosexual couples, and then have to pay extra costs associated with not having those rights themselves.

According to the New York Times, the lifetime cost of being gay is between $41,000 and $468,000, depending on an individual couple's circumstances. Key cost factors include the following:

* The number of children
* Health insurance coverage
* Social Security payments
* Estate or inheritance taxes
* Spousal IRA's
* Pension plans
* Tax preparation fees
* The costs of the extra legal paperwork (to replicate marital rights)

Each year, the gay couple could tally up the expenses they had that they would not have had to pay if they were allowed to legally wed. I'm sure the IRS could create a nice form for it, though it would be on the long side.

Does giving a gay couple a tax credit sound complicated? It is! But there is a simple solution: allows committed gay couples to marry. Plain and simple.

CA's Reverse DOMA: Schwarzenegger Signs Out-of-State Marriage Bill

Following California LGBT marriages is a head-spinning experience. What did this law signed today by Republican Governor Schwarzenegger actually do?

In short, it is like a reverse "Defense of Marriage Act" or DOMA. It says that to the extent it can, California will respect the decisions of other states and nations in regards to LGBT marriages. And I love the title of the bill, which reclaims traditional language in the favor of LGBT people: the Marriage Recognition and Family Protection Act. It is a small but significant victory after the major Prop 8 loss in gay and lesbian Californian's right to use the word "marriage" on top of their already-existing equal state domestic partnership rights.

This bill corrects a problem the prevented already-married gay and lesbian couples from remarrying in CA between June and November 2008. This new Act holds that same-sex couples married before the passage of Proposition 8 must be recognized as married spouses in California, regardless of whether they married in California or in another state or nation. In addition, the new statute also confirms that same-sex couples married outside of California after November 5, 2008, must be given all of the rights, protections and responsibilities of married spouses under California law, with the sole exception of the designation of "marriage."

This Act is about respect. Respect for other states and respect for its own LGBT citizens. Way to go California and Governor Schwarzenegger.

As Geoff Kors of Equality California said, "Ultimately, however, restoring the freedom to marry is the only way to ensure that all Californians receive the dignity and respect that comes with marriage." Read more.

Now let's see the Democrats in Congress reverse their DOMA and start respecting state's marital decisions again.

HRC Dinner Oct 10, 2009

At last something positive from President Obama: "You will see a time in which we as a nation finally recognize relationships between two men and two women as just as real and admirable as relationships between a man and a woman." I can see that time too, just hope it's in my lifetime.

Nobel Prize Winner Speaks at HRC Dinner

Tomorrow night, President Obama will speak at the HRC National Dinner. So what will the new Nobel Prize winner have to say to issues dear to our nations gays? My guess is not much.


Candidate Obama claimed to be a fierce advocate for LGBT rights, but as President he appears to have back peddled. Hopefully, the HRC leadership will hold his feet to the fire and not participate in the usual adulatory.

And onto the New Jersey right wingnuts!

Just as gay rights advocates in New Jersey started to believe the state is poised to pass legislation legalizing gay marriage...out come the right wing pushing to take the issue to voters. Let's not forget what happened with Prop 8 in California.

NJ already recognizes civil unions for same-sex couples after a Supreme Court decision in 2006 left it up to the Legislature. So the decision to take it further -- or reverse that law -- is still in the hands of Legislature, where lawmakers have introduced a bill that would allow gay couples to marry (S2898), and a measure (SCR-30) that would (yawn...not again) ask voters to amend the constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and woman.

The National Organization for Marriage has already spent at least $1.5 million on advertising against marriage equality in NJ. Pushing prejudice.

Recently, this is what Gov Jon Corzine had to say when asked whether the question of legalizing same-sex marriage is likely to be on the ballot if he is elected to a second term: "Well, I, uh, you know, it probably will not as long as I am governor because I actually believe, uh, that these are the kinds of decisions based on, uh, the, ummm, acceptance of the Supreme Court’s judgment that, uh, marriage equity, umm, is consistent with our principles and our Constitution and I believe we should, uh, follow the Constitution."

Check out Gov. Jon Corzine's got a lame excuse for ducking gay-marriage issue

It's All About Respecting and Restoring

Finally, I see evidence that gay equality advocates are reclaiming and reframing the marriage equality debate by using powerful and positive words such as respect and restore.

I see this in the PR surrounding the introduction of the Respect for Marriage Act (RMA), which would "repeal the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and restore the rights of all lawfully married couples—including same-sex couples to receive the benefits of marriage under federal law. The bill also provides same-sex couples with certainty that federal benefits and protections would flow from a valid marriage celebrated in a state where such marriages are legal, even if a couple moves or travels to another state."

How many federal rights would then go to legally married gay couples? A Government Accounting Office (GAO) report cites exactly 1,138 instances in federal law in which marital status is cited.

Kudos goes to lead sponsors in the House of Congress include Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Chair of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), and Congressman Jared Polis (D-CO) -- as well as 90 initial co-sponsors!

Would Jesus Discriminate?

The MCC - Metropolitan Community Church, which has congregations in more than 20 countries and is a strong supporter of LGBT rights, has launched a campaign asking would Jesus discriminate against others.

A number of MCC churches in Texas have produced posters quoting biblical verses that they claim indicate Jesus did not disapprove of homosexuality. They really have a point here, Jesus wasn't "mainstream" in his lifetime.

In July, Rev. Candy Holmes of the Metropolitan Community Churches, testified before congress in Support of Domestic Partnership Benefits & Obligations Act of 2009. Rev. Holmes we are proud of you.

"Hubby Hubby!" Three Screams for Ben & Jerry's!

I love it. In celebration of Vermont's new law allowing same-sex couples to marry, Ben and Jerry's renamed its popular ice cream -- also one of my personal favorites -- "Chubby Hubby" to "Hubby Hubby!" It will be this way for the entire month of September, but only in stores in Vermont, unfortunately. This is certainly a sweet gesture, and done with a sense of humor.
















Says Ben Jerry's CEO, Walt Freese: "At the core of Ben & Jerry's values, we believe that social justice can and should be something that every human being is entitled to. From the very beginning of our 30-year history, we have supported equal rights for all people. The legalization of marriage for gay and lesbian couples in Vermont is certainly a step in the right direction and something worth celebrating with peace, love and plenty of ice cream." http://www.benjerry.com/hubbyhubby/

On to New York

Openly gay NY Democrat senator Tom Duane, has said that the Senate could vote on gay marriage in the next few weeks. In May, the bill passed the New York Assembly 89-52, thus the Senate is now it's final hurdle. NY Gov. Paterson has strongly indicated he will sign the bill if it reaches his desk.

It should be noted that in 2007, a similar bill passed the Assembly 85-61 but failed in the Senate. Hopefully, the current momentum towards marriage equality will allow justice to prevail.

Durham (NC) City Council Issues Pro-Marriage Equality Resolution

The resolution states: "The City Council of the City of Durham endorses and supports the rights of same sex couples to share fully and equally in the rights, responsibilities and commitments of civil marriage."

Last night, when the resolution unanimously passed, without discussion, the City Council received a standing ovation from much of the packed audience.

While the resolution does not have any effect on the law, it's symbolic passing will not go without notice within North Carolina's GLBT community.

Quakers are More than Friends, They are Allies; Espiscopals Act Boldly

Quakers, also known as the Society of Friends, have just extended a further act of friendship to more of their members for justice and equality.

Yes, the Quakers in Britain now officially sanction gay marriage and are calling on Parliament to do the same legally. It's not a big surprise since Quakers are progressive in the U.S. as well, but Quakers are Britain’s first mainstream religious group to approve marriages for homosexuals. Most others have approved of civil unions, which the government allows.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6734687.ece?token=null&offset=0&page=1

Perhaps more significant, the US Episcopal Church moved to end their ban of gay bishops -- defying warnings that the Church of England may respond by recognizing a rival Anglican church and Archbishop of Canterbury's admonition that the U.S. church not to act in ways that deepen the splits in the 77-million-member worldwide communion.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/15/episcopal-church-ends-its-ban-on-gay-bishops/

Religions, if they are to remain relevant, must change to recognize truths that are larger than the limited and enshrined "morals" of the men who wrote their holy laws thousands of years ago.

While it's good that religions are moving forward and may influence government officials as they do, we need to remember to keep separating religious from civil marriages. By having religious officials make marriages legal, we inappropriately mix what should remain separated.

Massachusetts Challenges DOMA

Several weeks ago, we heard about the Obama administration's misstep in over-justifying the Defense of Marriage Act in its Department of Justice brief. In doing so, it re-codified in black and white the existing discriminatory animus toward gay and lesbian U.S. citizens that exists in DOMA.

Interestingly, the Massachusetts lawsuit makes the case that the Federal government is sticking its nose where it does not belong -- in other words, leave marriage up to the states, period. Obama has made similar arguments before and has stated his desire for Congress to repeal DOMA.

Hopefully his Dept of Justice will not feel compelled to argue against the Massachusetts lawsuit, when its arguments are so in line with Obama's stance.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090708/ap_on_re_us/us_gay_marriage

Massachusetts AG will release more details at a 2pm conference today.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2009/07/mass_to_challen.html

Can or should Obama actually express support for this? Must the DOJ do anything at all? I advocate this reasoning: If you dont' have anything nice to say, then don't say anything at all.

Obama Disregards Promises, Defends DOMA

I'm still hoping for change I can believe in.

Here we are in the first Obama-declared LGBT Pride month, where Obama called upon
1) "the LGBT community, the Congress, and the American people to work together to promote equal rights for all, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity."
2) ..."the people of the United States to turn back discrimination and prejudice everywhere it exists."

And now he's had his Justice Department go out on a limb to defend the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act! Their brief to discourage the US Supreme Court from hearing a federal challenge to DOMA from a CA couple includes these arguments:

1) Granting married "homosexual couples" federal marriage rights will cost too much money!
2) DOMA doesn't deny gays anything because they're still entitled to all the benefits that heterosexuals get -- if they act heterosexually!
3) Awarding federal marriage benefits to gays would infringe on the rights of taxpayers in the 30 states that specifically prohibit same-sex marriages!
4) A union between a man and a woman is "the traditional, and universally recognized, version of marriage!"

Isn't this the very definition of doublespeak? Or is the Obama administration itself exempt from "turning back discrimination and prejudice everywhere it exists"?

Where o Where is Obama?

The LGBT community is growing impatient with Obama and now this.

The US Supreme Court did not take up a challenge to Don't Ask, Don't Tell -- granting a request from the Obama administration, as this AP article reports.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31168203/

In court papers, the administration said the appeals court ruled correctly in this case when it found that "don't ask, don't tell" is "rationally related to the government's legitimate interest in military discipline and cohesion."

What is going on here? Could it be that the Obama administration does not want the Court to rule as it does not expect a favorable ruling? Or are they appearing to actually support the discriminatory DADT policy they said they would get rid of?

Betty Bowers Explains Traditional Marriage to Everyone Else

This just goes to show that one has to read the Bible with a pound of salt. It's far from the "family values" ascribed to it today, and the alleged "one man and one woman" is not the main or only Biblical definition of marriage. Not exactly a foundation for equality in marriage - of any kind.

Even Cheney Supports Marriage Equality

So you were surprised about Ted Olson, conservative lawyer, jumping on the marrige equality lawsuit? Well, now that torture-tolerant Cheney is free of the Bush administration's chains to the religious "right", he can come out for the for marriage equality -- at least at the state level.

http://www.365gay.com/news/cheney-on-gay-marriage-freedom-for-everyone/

"I think, you know, freedom means freedom for everyone,” Cheney said in a speech at the National Press Club. “I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish, any kind of arrangement they wish.”

At least the value of freedom seems to resonate with Cheney.

Hopefully Cheney has been influenced by his gay daughter. It is so important that people know gay people so that they can overcome the stereotypes and mythologies cast by those who would would dehumanize and demonize LGBT people.

California Fades, Ninth Circuit Ascending

As the dust settles on last week's CA S Court ruling upholding both 18,000 same sex marriages and Prop 8, the legal LGBT community and allies are uncertain about and feel the Boies/Olson federal lawsuit is premature.

I consulted a former political science professor of mine at UC Santa Barbara, Dr. Gayle Binion. She said that if the strategy is to go to the S Court, she doubts the justices will support gay marriage as a 14th Amendment right unless Sotomayor and two others are confirmed during Obama's time. Otherwise, it will become a precedent that needs to be overturned.

A unified statement of several LGBT organizations also expresses caution about such risky actions:

They say: "Pushing the federal government with multiple lawsuits before we
have a critical mass of states recognizing same-sex relationships or suing in states where the courts aren’t ready is likely to lead to bad rulings. Bad rulings will make it much more difficult for us to win marriage, and will certainly make it take much longer."

In response to this question, 4. Shouldn’t we try to bring a federal case and get it to the U.S. Supreme Court as soon as possible to settle the issue once and for all?, this group is clear.

"No. The history is pretty clear: the U.S. Supreme Court typically does not get too far ahead of either public opinion or the law in the majority of states. For example, few states still had laws
requiring racial segregation or outlawing interracial marriage by the time the Court struck those laws down. Most states had already struck down or repealed their own laws against same-sex intimacy when the Supreme Court finally invalidated Texas's law."

Dr. Binion added: "The Boies/Olson strategy could be to get a sympathetic judgment from the 9th Circuit, indeed possible if they draw the right judges, then worry about what will happen (i.e. the S. Ct. would then likely take the case.) If the 9th Circuit holds that Prop 8 violates the US Constitution (perhaps both on Equal Protection and substantive Due Process grounds, then it would be the law for all of the 9th Cir. states unless/until the S.Ct. reverses or "stays" the ruling, while it decides whether to grant cert."

I'm not happy that these two presumably straight white men did not seem to collaborate with the leading voices in the movement in taking their actions. It makes me wonder if they are seeking to be the heros themselves or seek the best path to victory with those who have been walking it for a long time.

CA S. Court's Deference to Voters

Many agree that it's easy for voters to amend the California constitution.

I used to think that a lack of clarity in the legislative process on what was a revision and what was an amendment was the problem, but now I think it's the CA S. Court's own fault.

This LA Times article outlines how the Court defines it, saying that

UC Davis law professor Vikram Amar agreed, saying the court defined an illegal revision as a measure that changes the structure of government, not one that takes away individual rights.

In her separate concurring opinion, Associate Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar said that the ruling's definition of revision was too inflexible.

And get this, from Bruce Cain at UC Berkeley

While there is in principle an important legal distinction between a revision and an amendment with respect to the quantity and quality of proposed changes, the reality is that the California courts have not been very concerned about enforcing the line between them.

Cain also pointed out that even Prop 140, which imposed term limits on the state legislature, was not considered a major change.

In the May 27, 2009 ruling upholding Prop 8, Chief Justice wrote:

"If the process for amending the constitution is to be restricted, this is an effort that the people themselves may undertake."

This seems ludicrous. Will the voters really vote to give themselves less power?

Conclusion: While the Court acted boldly in May's decision allowing same-sex marriages, let's not expect much more from them in terms of protections of minority rights; they will defer to the voters every time. And as such, they are not an adequate check or balance against the tyranny of the majority.

Here Comes the Federal Lawsuit!

Well, we all knew it would come to this... the Supreme Court will eventually have to weigh in on this issue.

As of Wednesday, May 27th, two legal eagles from the brand new Equal Rights Foundation are making a federal challenge of today's CA S Court ruling, targeted initially at the U.S. District Court with the hopes of making it up to the S Court.

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS19423+27-May-2009+PRN20090527

The Foundation's founders are two famous attorneys who battled each other in the Gore vs. Bush case in 2000. Thus far, refreshingly, the Foundation is not billed as liberal or conservative but simply "equal rights."

Should be interesting to see how this one develops...since it's not coming from "homosexual activists..." or "activist judges". Yet another stereotype in the growing coalition for equality -- including judges in Iowa and legislators in Vermont - are shattered.

Lack of Moral Leadership

Today we saw two examples of a lack of moral leadership, first on the part of the California Supreme Court, which backtracked on its bold and affirming equal rights ruling in May 2008, and then by Obama, who was noticeably quiet about this issue when he promised to fight for equal rights on the campaign trail.

1) In May, the CA Supreme Court said that discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation falls is subject to "strict scrutiny," where

...to demonstrate the constitutional validity of a challenged statutory
classification the state must establish (1) that the state interest intended to be served by the differential treatment not only is a constitutionally legitimate interest, but is a compelling state interest, and (2) that the differential treatment not only is reasonably related to but is necessary to serve that compelling state interest.

Prop 8 reversed the word "marriage" for gays, who get the same domestic partnership rights in CA, but did not remove the Court's job to apply the equal protection of the law to all its citizens. And it violated the Court's fundamental job -- to provide all citizens with equal protection. Was the Court afraid of a political backlash? Would they support all amendments that were similarly targeted at taking away a minority group's rights? Would it be okay if Californians voted to raise the taxes on Mormans in the state? Or deny driver's licenses to left-handed red-heads?

2) Obama had no press release prepared on this decision, which was anticipated today and which was expected to be ruled exactly as it was. Note that the timing of the announcement about Sotomayor was scheduled around the same time as Prop 8 came out. Coincidence?

Watch these two videos -- one of a lack of statement and the other of his promises on the campaign trail to fight hard for LGBT equality.

http://www.examiner.com/x-1916-Sex--Relationships-Examiner~y2009m5d26-Obama-reaction-to-California-Supreme-Court-ruling-on-Prop-8-Nada
I'd like to see Obama repay his debt for the LGBT Americans, including myself, who worked for his campaign and stand with a Constitution and American flags behind him (as he did last week when he made his unpopular case about Guantanamo Bay) and make all the arguments that we need to put our prejudices aside and support the equal treatment of all Americans.

But I'm just dreaming.... with fanciful ideas of hope and change I can believe in...

Gotta love this one!

Not Buying Steele's Fiscal Argument against Marriage Equality

It's fascinating to watch how opponents of marriage equality are changing their arguments to find new, “politically acceptable” arguments to justify discrimination. Michael Steele, the new GOP chairman, is now asserting that allowing gay couples to marry would cost too much for small businesses which offer spousal benefits.

Consider this. People probably waste more money opposing marriage equality than would be required to fund all businesses' spousal benefits for their gay partners!

Steele's argument only draws attention to the fact that gay employees of such small businesses have been paying taxes to support the 1,100 Federal and 400 state spousal benefits of their straight colleagues. These are all benefits that gay partners are denied at the Federal level and in most states. At their own expense, gay employees have been saving their businesses money, while straight employees incur the lion’s share of costs.

Steele’s cost argument is as ludicrous as another new argument, that allowing same-sex marriage would “victimize” religious people who choose to serve the public and lose their right to discriminate. See the parody videos of the National Organization for Marriage's commercial in an earlier blog below.

Watch the silly arguments rise and fall as more Americans see same-sex marriage for what it is: a non-threat and simple issue of justice and equality.

The Storm is Breaking

The National Organization for Marriage is working hard to paint a scary picture that gays marrying will victimize those very people who seek to marginalize and discrimate against gays. Fortunately, smart, witty people who make sense are fighting back on YouTube with responses and parodies. Here are a few of my favorites:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDbTPBIYiig&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mQVT2SC3M0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0pPEAdDn64&NR=1

And here is a gathering place of top ten videos:
http://www.queerty.com/the-best-responses-to-the-gathering-storm-ad-20090420/

Lastly, what better way to fight fear-mongering and lies than with actual truths. The examples cited in the ad about why the public should be afraid (of religious groups not being able to discriminate against gay people in the public sphere) are debunked by the Human Rights Campaign, on this page:
http://www.hrc.org/12470.htm

Looks like the fear-mongering is backfiring. The real storm that is to be feared is from those making the NOM video, who seek to pull the wool over our eyes with lies.

Stereotypes Shattered in Rising Tide for Marriage Equality

Not only has Iowa - a central, non-coastal state, had its Supreme Court unanimously rule in favor of marriage equality, but the Vermont legislature has overriden a veto by the Governor to allow for all tax-paying citizens to marry.

That does not fit the stereotype of the "activist" group that right-wing evangelicals seek to portray those who support the right for gays to marry -- a group they would like to depict as a deranged, out-of-touch minority who seeks to subvert majority views and forever ruin religious marriage that has allegedly been the same since the beginning of time, or at least Christianity. Apparently, majorities can and will be obtained to throw out fear-based religious fictions.

Iowa's decision, written by Republican Mark Cady, pointed out the "straight-talking" obvious: same-sex civil marriage will not effect religious marriage. Let me add one more point to this: civil marriage has changed many, many times in the history of the United States, typically to expand rights or increase the rights of women. For starters, look at this list on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_civil_marriage_in_the_U.S.

The Biblical definitions still stand... but just take a peak at them to see if this is what the "religious right" is seeking to uphold.
http://www.godweb.org/biblemarriage.htm

The fact is, all institutions must change in order to preserve themselves as human society itself evolves in its understanding of itself and what is truly right. In due time, majorities across the nation will come to see through irrational, bigoted lies for what they are and recognize that marriage equality should not be feared.

Legislature Leads for First Time on Marriage Equality in Vermont

Well, I'm impressed. I really thought that the courts were the institution best suited and likely to protect the rights of an often poorly-understood group of American citizens: gays and lesbians. But Vermont proved me wrong, and I'm tickled. Not only did the Vermont legislature pass legislation to allow same-sex couples to wed, but they overrode the Governor's veto.

Here is more:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090407/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage_vermont;_ylt=AhknLuWPMPv0.FivXDkw3pB34T0D

And let's not let Vermont overshadow Iowa, whose Supreme Court voted unanimously that preventing gays and lesbians from marrying was unconstitutional. IOWA! This is not some "liberal" New England state here. This is the heartland of the US. Another first!

Not a bad week for the rights of millions of Americans. Let's hope the momentum continues. This will allow us to build fact-based evidence here in the US to disprove fear-based beliefs about what allowing gays to marry will do for the institution of marriage and this country. Look to New England for more victories, as there is a concerted effort there to extend marriage rights in all six of its states by 2012. More here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/05/us/05marriage.html?ref=global-home

To progress and a more complete promise of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to all Americans! Cheers to that!

We Need Constitutions to Protect us from the Tyranny of the Majority

Legal arguments start March 5th in the California Supreme Court about Prop 8, where the majority of Californians voted to overturn the S. Court's own ruling that prohibiting gays from the institution of marriage was unconstitutional.

Attorneys who say to "uphold the decision" are making democratic arguments like "the people have spoken." But the U.S. system is not set up to allow the tyranny of the majority to overrule and squash the rights of minorities. We have a constitutional democracy, not a pure democracy. Minorities may be misunderstood and where they cannot win popularity contests, they can win when the playing field is not public preferences but solid principles of justice and equality.

As UC Irvine Law Professor Erwin Chemerinsky points out, "The whole point of a constitution is to limit what the majority can do."

Interestingly, the CA Supreme Court also had to overrule a vote, in a campaign led by Ronald Reagan, that allowed people to discriminate on the basis of race in rental and housing sales decisions, as the Sacramento Bee reports.

Fortunately, the California Legislature gets that voters alone did not have the right to adopt the gay-marriage ban, arguing it needs to originate in the Legislature, gain two-thirds approval in that body and then win approval by voters.

It should be interesting to follow the arguments and see what the Court does -- vote for its own power in our system of checks and balances, or defer to the will of the people.

Another Type of Activist Judge

How come we don't hear about the judges who legislate people's private lives from the benches based on their personal prejudices?

A Georgia court order told a Dad that he can't "expose" his kids to his gay male friends. And a trial judge in Tennessee just ruled in last May 2008 that a Mom could not have her partner of nine years spend the night when the children were present -- under a "paramour" restriction.

According to the KnoxNews.com, "The trial court imposed the restriction on the couple even though the psychologist who performed the custodial evaluation in the case found the partner to be positive influence in the children's lives."

What legal basis or compelling state interest does this serve? The hardship this family is forced to endure because a trial judge thought he was supposed to do this under state law is ludicrous. They deserve to be compensated for this cruel and unusual punishment.

Catholic "Courage Apostolate" is a Silly Same-Sex Celibacy

The poorly-named “Courage Apostolate” wants members to overcome the “thorny affliction of their same-sex attractions” through celibacy, as the Raleigh News and Observer reported February 16th. But both the perceived problem and solution are flawed.

Same-sex attraction is a morally-neutral and harmless biological variation. Those who think otherwise are often both the victims and afflicters of thorny religious doctrines written before science illuminated our understanding of human sexuality.

Even if there were anything unnatural about a consistent variation in sexuality found across the world, the solution is ridiculous.

Completely suppressing a natural part of biology just drives it underground. Could the relatively high prevalence of child molestation by Catholic priests be related to celibacy? Many think so. Likewise, research suggests that ministries aimed to “cure” gays and lesbians just does not work.

True courage comes in efforts to enlighten religious leaders on the unnecessary pain these so-called “ministries” create. I suggest the movie “For the Bible Tells me So” and the book “Crisis.”

Only when we see the problem as religious-based bigotry can productive solutions be found to reform the church, not its people.

Prop 8 Gaycist of the Week - Ken Starr

Looks like Ken Starr is trying to have a greater impact on destroying the institution of marriage than any couples could ever do. This breaks my heart...watch the video.

"Fidelity": Don't Divorce... from Courage Campaign on Vimeo.

Now this is the kind of footage I wish were more prevalent in the No on Prop 8 campaign!

Visit www.couragecampaign.org to tell the Supreme Court to invalidate Prop 8.

To read about the proposition of challenging the very constitutionality of this challenging Proposition from the other side, read this LA Times article about the March 5th hearing of the California Supreme Court.

Obama's Not Quite Ready for Equality

Although Barack Obama has not been President more than a few weeks, I see a pattern emerging. He is not willing to take a strong leadership role to take a stand for LGBT Americans.

Here is the latest: No openly-gay Americans were appointed to Cabinet-level positions, though openly anti-gay person with only a horrible LGBT voting record was selected, Senator Judd Gregg.
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-11082.html

By ignoring Gregg's horrible record on gay civil rights, he's in part excusing it and condoning it. And that's not the kind of change we need.

Update: Gregg has since rejected Obama's invitation, citing differences with his economic policies. Let's hope Obama puts forward a better choice.

Iceland Melts My Heart with First Open Lesbian Prime Minister

As we in the U.S. herald the election of our first African-American president as a civil rights victory, we remain in the relative Ice Age compared to countries like Iceland on open LGBT leadership and the affirmation of LGBT rights. Just yesterday, the world's first first openly-lesbian leader was appointed Prime Minister in Iceland.

As with Obama, the country is pinning its hopes on the popular 30-year political veteran Johanna Sigurdardottir to restore the troubled economy. However, unlike with Obama's historic election, Iceland is not making any big deal out of Sigurdardottir's identity. For more, including other countries' gay leaders, see this by the Huffington Post.

The U.S. also lags in human rights. Back in December of last year, albeit under the Bush administration, the U.S. could not even muster the moral courage that 66 other countries found to support a basic U.N. statement that

affirms the principle of universality: that all human beings, irrespective of their sexual orientation or gender identity, are entitled to equal dignity and respect.

To read the Bush administration's lame excuse under the guise of "state rights," read this NY Times article:

For a list of the 66 countries, go to Pink News.

Let's hope under Obama, and with Hillary managing our international affairs, that we catch up with at least some of the more progressive countries of the world.

Hypocrite Haggard Still Wants to Pray Away the Gay!

Despite Oprah pressing Haggard with delightfully real and challenging questions on 1/28/09 (video clip below), Haggard remains perplexing and inconsistent. He seems relieved and grateful that Mike Jones outed him in 2006 to "be free and tell the truth," but he still won't get out of the closet. He wants to keep the light on inside the closet (and admit these "feelings"), but no one is hom(o)! He said he "tried to deal with it in spiritual circles, but it didn't work out." Now he admits to attractions to males since childhood that continue today, but still holds onto the futile wish that if he seeks God, God will heal him and improve his life... allowing him to live up to his "heterosexual monogomous ideal." He says he's "heterosexual with issues." He got the issues part right. Unfortunately, his public actions only serve to reinforce religious-based misunderstandings about homosexuality and imply that it's unnatural or bad. Watch this:



More questions remain:
1) What role did his wife Gayle plan in denying who Haggard is, and encouraging him to suppress this part of himself? Is she his hero or his foe?
2) Are the Haggards just suppressing the truth further to uphold the Bible?
3) Why did the New Life church he founded lift all their restrictions on him? Was there a condition that he spin his homosexuality as a dark, sinful thing that he will still try to battle, but this time openly?
4) Is he using the sexual abuse he got as a child as an excuse for "compulsive" indulgences in sexual immorality?
5) Can someone please educate this man? Oprah tried, saying "Denying part of your self is wrong."

It seems this story will go on for years until Haggard can come to peace with who he is and reconcile this with his faith.

More On Haggard's Latest Sex Scandal

See the exclusive interview with the latest "victim" of Haggard's advances:

Wow, the complex, ironic and hypocritical saga of Haggard is even deeper than I thought. A young man, Grant, struggles to accept his homosexuality and seeks out a church where he can heal and be himself -- even nurture a dream of becoming a pastor himself. He finds a closeted gay pastor who is just about the worst gay role model he can meet. Not only is Haggard trying to hide his homosexuality from his family and the huge church that he leads, but he speaks out publicly against gay marriage. And Haggard abuses his authority and gets involved with this young man.

Now I'm sure there is a lot more than this clip suggests, but this is shaping up to be one big tragedy. I wish both Haggard and Grant can find peace in accepting who they are without the spider web of unnecessary religious guilt that unfortunately catches so many LGBT people. Only the Truth can set them free.

Hypocritical Haggard: Still Haunted by the Truth?

Now that the dust has settled on a surpringly conciliatory and inclusive invocation last Tuesday by evangelical preacher Rick Warren, more dust is being stirred up by a fallen evangelical preacher. Remember Ted Haggard? He was the the former President of the National Association of Evangelicals (an umbrella group representing more than 45,000 churches with 30 million members) who also backed Amendment 43 to ban gay marriage in Colorado and was so sweetly exposed by his gay male prostitute in 2006 ? What I remember about that story is that the male prostitute, Michael Jones, thought it was so hypocritical for Haggard to speak out against gay rights while engaging in repeated acts of sex with him. Hypocritical indeed.

But it's getting better now... Yet another young man is coming forward to speak out against Haggard to expose him for being involved sexually with him. The Denver Post reported January 25th that this man, a former church volunteer, had what their church called "inappropriate, consensual sexual relationship"with Haggard for a long time. This man is now taking this news outside the 10,000-member New Life Church in Colorado Springs to a Colorado Springs TV station. He originally came forward in 2006 after the Jones expose', but he and the church reached a quiet settlement in 2007.

Now he's "going public" with it, according to Brady Boyd, Haggard's successor, because Haggard is now peddling his "story" in a new documentary by HBO about his "time in exile." "The Trials of Ted Haggard" airs this Thursday, January 29th as the a documentary by Alexandra Pelosi (House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's daughter). Ted was also in Pelosi's earlier documentary, "Friends of God..." For this documentary, Ted's story is on "The Oprah Winfrey Show" Wednesday and on Thursday on Larry King Live.

"I think what caused this young man to be a bit aggravated was Ted being seen as a victim, when he himself had experienced a great deal of hurt," Boyd said. It seems Ted just keeps getting chased by the Truth... that pesky, inconvenient Truth... Or, is Ted behind this, to stir up a new controversy from 2006 before his "therapy sessions" to get straight, to help promote the documentary? How does this former lover even know about the nature of how Ted portrays events in this documentary?

I've seen the video on the the HBO site and it seems part of the documentary is a "poor me" story, showing Ted and his family moving from hotel to hotel as he tries to make a living in sales.
Has Ted really been "de-gayed" during his "time in exile," or he still really gay and perpetuating his lies to himself, his family and the country in this documentary? And does he profit from the film?

I will leave you with this quote from the Denver Post to ponder: "In an AP interview...Haggard described his sexuality as complex and something that can't be put into stereotypical boxes." Complex indeed. Sounds like an out of control spiral of lies to me...

"Blessed with Anger"

In Robinson's invocation yesterday, which I only read on blogs since it was not carried by the HBO broadcast, he said:

Bless us with anger – at discrimination, at home and abroad, against
refugees and immigrants, women, people of color, gay, lesbian,bisexual and
transgender people.

Boy, am I ever blessed. I just heard Robinson interviewed on NPR's Talk of the Nation, where Robinson reported that he only learned yesterday morning that his invocation was scheduled for 2:25pm and not the 2:30pm time when it would be televised on HBO.

Robinson guessed that HBO felt that its audience would not be as interested in a prayer as all the entertainers, but the Huffington Post has reported that

"a spokesperson for HBO stated that decisions regarding the timing and presentation of Robinson's remarks were made by the Presidential Inaugural Committee, and that Robinson was "not a part of our show from the start."

and

"A spokeperson offered AfterElton.com much the same response: "The producer of the concert has said that the Presidential Inaugural Committee made the decision to keep the invocation as part of the pre-show."

So ultimately, the responsibility for this "surprise" when America expected Robinson to open this concert is at the feet of the Obama inauguration team. When Robinson's selection was apparently to counter-balance the Warren mistake, this is yet another slap in the face. How easy does Obama think we are to placate?

I call on LGBT and allied leaders to be as blessed with anger as I am. I call on Obama to make up for this mistake by giving Robinson a real microphone during a real TV program during the inauguration ceremonies. Ironically, Robinson was shut out of the program "We are One."

How will Obama explain this one?

Was Gene Robinson's Prayer Really Censored by HBO?

I was ready to hear Bishop Gene Robinson's prayer today (transcript below), but now I am praying that HBO really did not truly censor Gene out because he's gay and his selection was controversial. I thought I had missed it between switching channels but now I've learned that HBO simply did not include it. No one saw it on HBO.

Some bloggers are calling it censoring, but I'm reserving judgment until we hear HBO's response. Now I understand there was a 10 minute break between Robinson and when HBO started their programming, so maybe it was logistical and not intentional. But it seems suspicious.

If HBO really did censor Robinson, then we are clearly NOT the America that was represented on screen for the rest of the concert celebration. The program theme was "We are One" and Obama's overall theme for inauguration events is "Renewing America's Promise." What we saw on stage was a lot of diverity of many kinds -- racial, musical, gender, age, even multinational (e.g., Bono from Ireland, Shakira from Columbia), and we also saw the Washington DC Gay Men's Chorus. If I had to capture the music and short speeches in words, I'd say it was all about the strength of our diversity and our ideals of equality -- that anyone can be what they want to be in this great nation. How fitting that this celebration will affirm and recognize another man, like Obama, who broke another power barrier by become the first openly gay Bishop. Robinson's own beautiful references to the virtues of anger against discrimination and related injustices, freedom from mere tolerance, and realizing Martin Luther King's dream for ALL people completely fit into the entire spirit of the event. And I'm glad he asked Obama to "remember his own oppression as a minority, drawing on that experience of discrimination, that he might seek to change the lives of those who are still its victims." These were words of moral courage, calling us all to a higher purpose.

If HBO censored this, then we need to question if they stand for the American ideals of diversity and equality that was paraded on the stage today. Did the overall theme of the event escape the executives at HBO? I look forward to hearing their justification. If their censorship is confirmed, we will be justified in our outrage in this decidedly un-American act of censorship. I can only pray that the American people will denounce any censorship if it occured and see the irony of censoring a person who is so emblematic of real change and progress in America --another truly courageous, admirable American. And I pray that the ensuing outrage will allow TV stations everywhere to broadcast the entire prayer for even more Americans to hear, again and again, in not only their living rooms, but in their hearts. And now... for Gene...

Gene Robinson's Invocation at "We are One: The Obama Inaugural Celebration at the Lincoln Memorial"
January 18, 2009

"Welcome to Washington! The fun is about to begin, but first, please join me in
pausing for a moment, to ask God’s blessing upon our nation and our next
president.

O God of our many understandings, we pray that you will…

Bless us with tears – for a world in which over a billion people exist
on less than a dollar a day, where young women from many lands are beaten and
raped for wanting an education, and thousands die daily from malnutrition,
malaria, and AIDS.

Bless us with anger – at discrimination, at home and
abroad, against refugees and immigrants, women, people of color, gay, lesbian,
bisexual and transgender people.

Bless us with discomfort – at the easy,
simplistic “answers” we’ve preferred to hear from our politicians, instead of
the truth, about ourselves and the world, which we need to face if we are going
to rise to the challenges of the future.

Bless us with patience – and
the knowledge that none of what ails us will be “fixed” anytime soon, and the
understanding that our new president is a human being, not a messiah.

Bless us with humility – open to understanding that our own needs must
always be balanced with those of the world.

Bless us with freedom from
mere tolerance – replacing it with a genuine respect and warm embrace of our
differences, and an understanding that in our diversity, we are stronger.

Bless us with compassion and generosity – remembering that every
religion’s God judges us by the way we care for the most vulnerable in the human
community, whether across town or across the world.

And God, we give you
thanks for your child Barack, as he assumes the office of President of the
United States.

Give him wisdom beyond his years, and inspire him with
Lincoln’s reconciling leadership style, President Kennedy’s ability to enlist
our best efforts, and Dr. King’s dream of a nation for ALL the people.

Give him a quiet heart, for our Ship of State needs a steady, calm
captain in these times.

Give him stirring words, for we will need to be
inspired and motivated to make the personal and common sacrifices necessary to
facing the challenges ahead.

Make him color-blind, reminding him of his
own words that under his leadership, there will be neither red nor blue states,
but the United States.

Help him remember his own oppression as a
minority, drawing on that experience of discrimination, that he might seek to
change the lives of those who are still its victims.

Give him the
strength to find family time and privacy, and help him remember that even though
he is president, a father only gets one shot at his daughters’ childhoods.

And please, God, keep him safe. We know we ask too much of our
presidents, and we’re asking FAR too much of this one. We know the risk he and
his wife are taking for all of us, and we implore you, O good and great God, to
keep him safe. Hold him in the palm of your hand – that he might do the work we
have called him to do, that he might find joy in this impossible calling, and
that in the end, he might lead us as a nation to a place of integrity,
prosperity and peace.

AMEN."

Introduction Followed by Open Letter to Rev. Rick Warren

As a gay rights advocate, I was as disheartened as many gay leaders such as those in HRC were upon hearing the news that Obama was giving Rick Warren, one of our nation's religious leaders who was a supporter of Prop 8 in California, the limelight at his inauguration on Tuesday, January 20th. Read HRC's open letter to Obama. To be fair to Obama, I was also pleased to hear about how only gay Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson is now being given a similar role at a pre-inauguration concert on Sunday, January 18th - two days before.

In short, I believe that Obama's selection of Warren lacked moral leadership -- the kind of leadership that speaks truth to power and does not cave in to the political popularity of discriminating against a poorly-understood minority group. He partly redeemed himself by choosing Robinson as a counter-balance and hopefully in response to the understandable sense of betrayal that many in the LGBT community felt when Obama picked Warren.

However, Warren himself has not been redeemed for his part in contributing to a Biblically-based misunderstanding of who we gay people are and whether our homosexual behavior is moral/immoral or simply a natural variation found consistently across countries among less than 10% of the world's populations of homo sapiens.

Here is my own Open Letter to Rick Warren, my inaugural blog entry:

Who Is the Fool?

Rev. Warren:

I appreciate the work you do for the poor and sick around the world, including those with AIDS. I also appreciate your enthusiasm for civil discourse, in which people can "disagree without being disagreeable" as both you and Obama have said. It is with this civil spirit that I want to let you know that I do not appreciate your contribution to what is a massive and Biblically-based societal misunderstanding of gay people.

In your belief.net interview, you made your most controversial statement, which was caught on video:

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

Do you think those are equivalent to gays getting married?

Oh , I do. For 5,000 years, marriage has been defined by every single culture and every single religion – this is not a Christian issue. Buddhist, Muslims, Jews – historically, marriage is a man and a woman."

Just to be sure you were really saying that incest, pedophilia, and polygamy were equivalent to gay marriage, I decided to hear what you had to say about this quote on your own website at Saddleback Church, where I went directly to Pastor Rick's News and Views to your 20-minute video clarifying your position on this issue on December 22, 2008. You were visibly upset that that the media misrepresented and misunderstood you on this point, even though a video clearly shows you making the points you made above. You said, "The media never gets it 100% correct. Why? Because we are humans. If you believe everything you hear or read or see, there is a word for that. Foolish." You went on to explain that the media is motivated by conflict because it's the essence of a good story. Okay, so you misspoke. You are human. I can forgive you for that.

However, I have trouble forgiving you for blindly spreading outdated Biblical misunderstandings about same-sex relations and for not turning your powers of critical thought toward the humans who wrote the Bible. They too had their human motivations. And it was humans who decided whether or not to include the Book of Thomas in the Bible. A simple review of what happened at the first or second Council of Nicaea shows how humans make decisions about religion and what to include or exclude from the Bible, based on their human motivations for power and influence.

Since you know what it is like to be misunderstood and misinterpreted, you can now identify with what it is like to be gay in the U.S. today in a world of Biblically-misinformed people.

I choose not to play the fool to either the media or any book written by men thousands of years ago. I have the following seven critical questions for you:

1) If God is all powerful and all-knowing, why did he or she rely on fallible human beings to write his or her preferences for human behavior? And why are so many Biblical accounts of what Jesus said viewed as inconsistent by Biblical scholars? Why not provide updated versions rather than cease communications during Biblical times? Perhaps people are too cynical today, as they should be, to blindly accept claims of people speaking for God?
2) Who wrote the clauses on homosexuality and why did they write them? Were Biblical writers particularly interested in spreading the new religion through procreation? Were same-sex relationships a threat to that politico-religious interest?
3) If Leviticus is used as part of the Biblical justification, at least from the Old Testament, then why do we ignore so many other parts of it, such as about the "abomination" against eating shellfish and pork and the first seven chapters' devotion to animal sacrifice, and the death penalty for cursing your parents, have sex with a menstruating woman or violating the Sabbath?
4) Was the word "abomination" really meant to refer to a "ritual wrong" rather than a "moral wrong," as described in the excellent documentary film by former Methodist minister Jimmy Creech about the damage of religious-based bigotry, "For the Bible Tells Me So."
5) Could it be that the writers of the Bible misunderstood same-sex relations just as they misunderstood the strength of women, the role of slavery in society, and so many other social issues that have since rendered the Bible's position on them outdated and irrelevant?
6) If homosexuality were the sin that many conservative evangelical leaders would have us believe, why did it not even make the Ten Commandments or even the Seven Deadly Sins devised later and popularized by Pope Gregory in 590 AD/ACE? You say that the media's cultivation of conflict creates a more polarized nation, but what are the effects of religious leaders such as yourselves in elevating the "sin" of same-sex relations beyond other top lists? You said in your belief.net interview that we as humans "prefer to focus more on other's sins than our own." Isn't the whole religious debate about homosexuality among less than 10% of the population a big distraction from the real "sins" of the majority?
7) If the Bible defines marriage as between a man and a woman, why does it also permit polygamy? Where in the New Testament does Jesus denounce polygamy -- or is this one of the many changes and evolved understandings of Christianity designed to make us think the Bible is a greater authority on human relations than it really is? And on a personal note, why do you ignore how the Bible condones polygamy when you made the statement that that the marriage has been defined as between a man and a woman for 5,000 years? Is this yet another inconvenient Biblical "truth"?

However you choose to exercise your ministerial powers from a religious perspective and however you choose to selectively interpret the Bible to support your belief system, that is your business and the business of the church. If you don't like gay marriage, don't preside over one. However, once you step into the political sphere, giving your support for Prop 8, hosting the forum in August with Obama and McCain and now accepting the invocation role at Obama's inauguration next week, the Bible is simply not the relevant document of reference. Why even talk about the Bible in the context of people's civil rights? We should only be talking about the Constitution and how civil marriage has evolved from an institution reserved for only whites (1691) to some black (1724), to prohibiting polygamy (1899), to the more modern versions where women can own property within marriage (1981) and more. See blog post visual from 1/5 below.

We need to focus on what sentences like these mean in the context of the civil right to marry:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Thankfully, our founding fathers saw the wisdom in separating religion from government. Fortunately, you say that you do support equal rights for gay and lesbian couples. However, if you read the very well-written California Supreme Court decision legalizing same sex marriage in Spring 2008, you will see that people in some institutions understand that calling the rights of one group of people "domestic partnerships" and the rights of others "marriage" relegates same-sex partnerships to a second-class status that is justified by no constitutionally legitimate or compelling state interest. And we know from U.S. history that separate is just not equal.

I draw your attention to two notable Supreme Court marriage rulings that will pave the way to what will ultimately become the law of the land once the issue goes before the Supreme Court, whose role is to protect minorities against the political whims and prejudices of the majority:
1) 1987, Turner v. Safley. which states that marriage is a fundamental right, even for incarcerated prisoners. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said, "Prison walls do not form a barrier separating the inmate from the protections of the Constitution."
2) 1967, Loving v Virginia, where the Supreme Court struck down bans on interracial marriage, which you should know that the Bible was also used to support. Then Chief Justice -- ironically another Warren (Earl), said that "the Virginia statute violated the 14th Amendment’s guarantees of equal protection and due process" and that "the freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”

Note that the late Mildred Loving from this case made a historic stand in 2007 against religious-based bigotry that people use today to justify denying gay and lesbian individuals their right to marry the person they love. To see more, read the NY Times article, The Color of Love, or read the blog by Faith in America called, "Helping Rick Warren Understand what Mildred Loving Knew."

In conclusion, to spread Biblically-based misunderstandings of gay and lesbian people in the public sphere is morally and civilly irresponsible. It is fundamentally disrespectful to millions of your gay and lesbian fellow citizens, who are the true authorities on their own motivations and experiences -- not a rather old and inconsistent book written by men thousands of years ago. No book can trump the truth of millions of people. I challenge you to stop mistaking the Bible for the Truth.

Today medical and psychological authorities no longer view being gay as a social disease but a simple preference like left-handedness; it's time for religious authorities such as yourself to update your thinking as well.

To take the Bible at face value without understanding the human motivations of the writers and understanding its political and social context at the time it was written is simply foolish. I challenge you to offer public arguments for the common good not on Biblical but on Constitutional. Only then can we have a truly civil discourse on marriage equality.

What is Traditional Marriage?