Who's In Charge Here?

The mess we're in at the moment -- who caused it? I'm not an economist, or a political scientist, but I CAN tell you this: the GOP have been in charge of this country for the last eight years and they have made a COMPLETE mess of our economy and our standing with the rest of the world. Now, as they try to extend their failed reign, the only tools they seem to have left at their disposal are vicious negative attacks, appeals to fear and ignorance, and a willingness to manipulate, dissemble and point a blaming finger at anyone but themselves, instead of accepting responsibility for their role in our current free fall.

Democrats aren't saints. They've been known to stretch the truth a bit, too. But in this campaign, every analysis I have read shows that the biggest lies and the most unwarranted, unjustified attacks are being put to use by the GOP and religious right. But the Democrats are the best we have at the moment, and we must put them back in power.

Glenn Greenwald seems to hit this pretty well in his column in today's issue of Slate.

Money quote: "That the Right believes in the fundamental stupidity of the American voter while simultaneously pretending to revere and speak for them them is reflected in their belief that they can successfully blame the financial crisis and the country's woes generally on Democrats, who -- while hardly covering themselves with glory -- haven't had any meaningful power in this country for as long as one can remember. Ponder how stupid you must think Americans are to believe that you can blame the financial crisis on the 2004 statements of House Democrats about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac when that was a time when the GOP controlled all branches of the Government and nothing could have been more inconsequential than what Barney Frank or Maxine Waters, languishing in the minority in Tom DeLay's tyrannical House, said or did about anything."

The graph above illustrates which party has held power in the executive and the Congress over the past eight years.

Teaching Marriage

An interesting piece on the claims by right-wing supporters of Proposition 8 that, if 8 passes, schools will be required to teach same-sex marriage alongside traditional marriage.

Money quote: "[S]tudents need marriage-ed. They need it because we're being taught to associate marriage not with permanent commitment but with social status, diamond rings, gifts, throwing a big party and, for women, wearing a dress that doesn't necessarily fit through the door. As a result, many teens of all sexual orientations (and many adults too) not only confuse sex with love, they confuse the long-term implications of marriage with the short-term gratification of wedding and honeymoon planning."

A Haiku for Last Night

Dark. No moon looks down.
Instead, here comes the first rain.
No more tomatoes.

Still Alive

Just very busy. Hence, no blog posts.

That's it. Just didn't want my nine readers to worry too much about me!

Disappointing News

According to a new SurveyUSA poll, approximately 49% of Californians oppose Proposition 8, while 44% support it. That is much less that the 17 point gap shown in recent Field and PPIC polls. My guess is that this SurveyUSA poll is probably closer to reality than those other two polls.

Which means...MORE WORK! If you're local, join me on Wednesday night, October 1 for an evening of phone banking to identify undecided California voters. 6:30 to 9:30 at the Spectrum Center, 1000 Sir Francis Drake Boulevard, San Anselmo, #10. Be there!

A Mormon on Separation of Church and State

Rocket Man

This looks like a whole lot of fun. Scary fun, but fun.

Although I have to say it's not quite as impressive as if he'd taken off himself, rather than jumping out of a plane. Next time, maybe.

And Dewey did pretty well, too...

John McCain is so confident he'll perform well in tonight's debate that he is already claiming victory. The Internet ad you see above appeared on the Wall Street Journal's web page this morning. Apparently another ad had a McCain spokesman saying "John McCain won the debate -- hands down."

We cannot afford ANOTHER president who creates his own reality.

Look next to the tainted baby formula.

This is rich. Apparently the Yes on 8 folks contracted their sign printing out to a Chinese supplier, who has missed the deadline, so their big plan to put one million lawn signs up in unison on Monday morning has been thwarted.

And they thought God was on THEIR side!

A little bit of Aaron in the night (well, morning)

A great column from Maureen Dowd, though it's written mostly by Aaron Sorkin. It imagines an encounter between Barack Obama and "The West Wing"'s fictional president, Josiah Bartlett.

Money quote: "Call them liars, because that’s what they are. Sarah Palin didn’t say “thanks but no thanks” to the Bridge to Nowhere. She just said “Thanks.” You were raised by a single mother on food stamps — where does a guy with eight houses who was legacied into Annapolis get off calling you an elitist? And by the way, if you do nothing else, take that word back. Elite is a good word, it means well above average. I’d ask them what their problem is with excellence."

But read the whole thing.

Why we can't be complacent

I wrote in my previous post (just below) about the good news from the Field Poll, but cautioned that we can't get complacent, as the Yes on 8 folks have more money and haven't really yet begun their fight. But Matt Coles of The Huffington Post said it more powerfully and effectively than I.

Money quote: "What the Field Poll and some other polls like it suggest is that we are getting most of those conflicted voters right now. But it doesn't tell us that we've completely convinced them - just that at the moment they are resolving the conflict our way. That may well reflect the fact that almost all of the news coverage so far has been positive, and the other side hasn't even begun to hit yet on television.

But they are going to start hitting soon. We made a great television ad buy early on. But they have now bought a week ahead of us. More ominously, they're now out-fundraising us significantly. They've taken in over $16 million compared to our $11 million (and they only pulled ahead after Labor Day). And the stuff is pouring in, mostly in $1,000, $2,500 and $5,000 chunks, mostly driven by the Mormon church."

Give. Now. Please. If you are a family member reading this, we need your help. If you just happened on the blog, we need your help. We'll take whatever you can afford. Click here to donate. Don't let an opportunity pass to right a wrong.

Good news -- but no complacency please!

The latest Field Poll is out today and support for Proposition 8 is slipping. The poll shows 55% of likely voters oppose the proposition, while only 38% support it.

But remember, polls on this issue are notoriously inaccurate. People just don't like to cop to bigotry. Plus, the Yes on 8 people -- who have outraised us 3 to 2 -- haven't really started their campaign. Monday at 7am, they hope a million people will walk out of their homes and post a "Yes on 8" sign on their lawns. Their tv ads haven't begun. But Brad Pitt just donated $100,000 to the cause, so we can buy a few more 30-second spots.

I'm hopeful, don't get me wrong, but I have no plans to slack off or let up in my work.

UPDATE: Click here to read a story about how polls on same-sex marriage are often inaccurate. Money quote:

"[s]upport for these measures has been under-estimated by an average of seven percentage points. In some cases, polls have under-estimated support for traditional marriage by as much as 21 percentage points."

Stay on target!

McCain Misspoke

When John said "The fundamentals of the economy are sound," he must have meant to say the fundamentals of HIS economy are sound. He and Cindy still have the $100 million and seven houses (not including investment properties), after all.

Right on Target

Take a read of this post. It quotes and comments on yesterday's story about a Roseville couple who are so angry that their wedding license said "Party A" and "Party B" that they altered the form, which was then rejected by the county. So they aren't legally married and the wife can't get health insurance from her husband's company.

But this fellow isn't letting them get away with it. Money quote: "[Y]ou are choosing to stay legally unmarried. That's a choice you don't only want to make for yourself... you want to make it for thousands of same-sex couples as well. Gay people aren't keeping you unmarried. You are. But in almost every state in this country except yours, people like you most certainly are keeping gay people from getting married. They don't enjoy the right to make the choice you are making. You want to risk your health over some ridiculous argument about semantics on a legal document? Go nuts. But don't pretend your right to choose is being infringed upon. It isn't."

If you can have just one appliance...

...now it can be a toaster. Thanks to Toastabags, nifty little sacks that allow you to cook a range of things in your toaster. Eggs, cheese sandwich, pork chops -- drop 'em in the bag, put the bag in the toaster and you're set.

Out of stock at the moment, unfortunately.

Deliberative, Civil Debate -- imagine that!

This looks interesting. It's a story from a web site on Pittsburgh announcing a "deliberative poll" on marriage equality. Here's how they describe it:

"“Current polling and the media don’t allow for thoughtful political issues or debate,” explains Robert Cavalier, a Carnegie Mellon philosophy professor and SPPDD co-director. “It will be a remarkable achievement if we can get citizens across the state to come together and talk about sex, politics and religion in a civilized way.”

On the day of the program, people will come together and meet in smaller groups. “It’s been my experience that when people come together and talk to people they don’t usually talk to, they roll up their sleeves and work on it as opposed to initiating a debate or disagreement.”

Deliberative polling is a concept pioneered by Stanford's James Fishkin as a way for an electorate to make more informed, thoughtful decisions about public life.

Take heart, fight on

I love Anne Lamott. Not just because she is a fellow Marin resident. Certainly not because she wears her hair in blonde dreads that look like butterscotch Twizzlers. I love her mostly because she's funny. But the fact that she is insightful and committed and attempts to live like a true Christian, instead of the hateful, exclusive variety of faith that has been passing as Christianity in this country for too many years, makes her as dear to me as a peanut butter milkshake.

When Anne gets angry, she doesn't lose her sense of humor. If anything, deep heaviness brings out delightfully bearable lightness in her prose. Check out her piece in today's edition of Salon, in which she expresses her disgust at the mendacious, vile, un-American campaign being waged by John McCain and Sarah Palin. Money quote:

"One of the tiny metabolic suggestions I have to offer -- if, like me, you choose not to have her name on your lips, like an oozy cold sore (I say that with love) -- is to check out a Web site called the Sarah Palin Baby Name Generator. There you can find out what she and her husband would have named you if you had been their baby. My name, Anne, for instance, would be Krinkle Bearcat. John, her running mate, would be named Stick Freedom. George would be Crunk Petrol. And so on.

First of all, go find out what your own name would be. Then for one day refuse to use the name of these people who are so damaging to earth and to our very souls -- so, "I don't have to understand anything, it's all fuzzy math. Trust me. I'm the decider." From now on, when working for Obama, talk about Obama, talk about his policies, the issues, the economy, the war in Iraq, poverty, the last eight years, Joe Biden. You don't have to mention Crunk Petrol, or his sidekick, Shaver Razorback."

FYI, Sarah and Todd would have named me Puck Mule.

A Great Loss

The brilliant young (well, younger than I) writer, David Foster Wallace apparently hanged himself yesterday. Wallace was the author of several books, including the much-lauded "Infinite Jest," and one of my favorite collections of essays, "A Supposedly Fun Thing I'll Never Do Again."

A terrible tragedy. Who knows what insight and humor he might have provided us in decades to come.

He MUST Be Defeated

Watch this. Share it with friends.

The lies being spread by the McCain campaign are nothing short of despicable. We CANNOT afford to have this man leading our country.

Well Done!

A well-written letter to the editor, by citizen Michael Kaufmann. It deserves wider distribution, so I will do my tiny part:

"The judiciary, executive, and legislative branches of our government have a long history of rulings and legislation that time tests. The good remain, the bad are overturned.

In 1787 the United States Constitution was ratified. It counted each slave as three-fifths of a person, and gave them no legal protections. In 1863 the Emancipation Proclamation effectively ended slavery.

In 1920 the Eighteenth Amendment was ratified and prohibited the sale, manufacture, and transportation of alcohol. It was repealed in 1933.

In 1924 the Virginia Legislature enacted The Racial Integrity Act. It became a felony for white and non-white persons to marry. The law was overturned by the United States Supreme Court in 1967.

In 1942 more than 120,000 Americans of Japanese ancestry were forcibly moved to "War Relocation Camps." In 1988 Congress apologized for the internment.

In 1964 the Civil Rights Act made discrimination based on race, religion, sex, national origin, and other characteristics illegal.

In 1990 The Americans with Disabilities Act became law. It prohibits discrimination based on disabilities.

In 2008 the California Supreme Court ruled that a law defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman is contrary to the California Constitution's anti-discrimination clause.

Be part of the fourth branch of government; the electorate. In November we have an opportunity to vote on a constitutional amendment that will deny equal civil rights to part of our citizenry. Vote no on Proposition 8, a measure that eliminates the right of same-sex couples to marry."

Hear hear!

Heterohomograph?

In linguistics, a "homograph" refers to words that are spelled the same, but have different meanings, such as "stalk" or "bear."

Since the opponents of marriage equality seem to be hung up on the word "marriage," how about if we just define "marriage" as a homograph? In fact, if it makes them happy, a heterohomograph -- that would be words that are spelled the same but mean opposite things?

My sense is that the ones who are truly hung up on the word "marriage" being theirs alone are just as hung up on fully equivalent civil unions, too.

Where in the world...

...is Andrew Sullivan?

The prolific blogger (the link to his blog can be found to your right), a progressive conservative is suddenly missing in action. Usually posting a dozen or more times a day, Sullivan put up one simple post yesterday and nothing today. When he takes a vacation, he usually leaves other bloggers in charge of his site. One would think he would at least leave an indication of what was going on, or have one of his staffers do so. (Andrew's blog is part of the web site for The Atlantic magazine.)

I hope nothing's wrong -- Andrew plays a vital role in today's political discussion. But it's a mystery.

Sarah, Palin and Tall

Well possums, it's looking more and more like the Sarah Palin pick is an unmitigated disaster. As the hours pass, and more and more unflattering news (the lies on the "bridge to nowhere," Troopergate, the pregnant teenage daughter) comes to light, people are starting to focus on the real problem: not Palin's suitability to be a heartbeat from the presidency, but McCain's foolishness and impulsiveness in choosing a candidate who has not been adequately vetted.

Obama has run a nearly flawless campaign and his VP pick was solid and showed tremendous thoughtfulness and wisdom. McCain's first really big decision as an executive was ill-considered, based on gut instinct, and makes him look like an idiot. As Craig Ferguson says, "remind you of anyone?"

It will be interesting to see the polls next week.

What the Palin Pick Says About McCain

Click here for an interesting analysis of the selection of Sarah Palin as McCain's co-candidate.

Money quote: "McCain’s pick shows he is not pretending. Politicians, even “mavericks” like McCain, play it safe when they think they are winning — or see an easy path to winning. They roll the dice only when they know that the risks of conventionality are greater than the risks of boldness."

Friday Grab Bag

I haven't said much (actually, anything) about the just-completed Democratic National Convention. Didn't see it all, but I will say I thought Hillary was amazing, giving the best speech I have EVER seen her give. If she'd been that clear and powerful in the campaign she might be the nominee today. I was also impressed by Michelle Obama and Bill Clinton.

Barack didn't impress quite as much last night, but I imagine some of that was due to exceptionally high expectations, and perhaps a fear of coming off as "too black" if he really let the rhetoric loose. But I liked that he got into policy issues to a greater degree than I thought he might have.

Now, McCain's VP pick. Really, John? A 44-year old first term governor of a state that is 48th in population? (And it being Alaska, many of those don't live there year-round.) You're 112 and have serious health issues and you expect voters to put this woman a heartbeat away from the presidency? What's the story? Is she easy to push around? Probably easier than Mitt Romney or Tim Pawlenty or Tom Ridge would be. I don't know her, haven't seen her speak (to be honest, didn't even know who she was until this morning), but I can't imagine she brings anything to your campaign. You were already likely to carry Alaska. Now it's probably assured. So put those three electoral votes into your "solid" column.

Finally, don't expect many posts over the next few days -- tomorrow is Mom's 90th birthday celebration and we're off to celebrate with family and friends.

The Great Debate

The Federal Society recently sponsored an online debate on marriage equality, featuring four law professors -- two four, two against. Smart people making good points. Good reading if you click here.

Money quote (from Dale Carpenter):

"Consider just some of the incremental steps to gay marriage over the past half century. Sodomy laws were eradicated; homosexuality was removed from the list of “mental disorders”; gay newspapers, communities, and organizations flourished; civil-rights laws were enacted; and openly gay politicians were elected. Positive knowledge advanced through the systematic study of homosexuality and through daily experience with actual gay people, dispelling many widely accepted, long-standing, and hysterical myths about homosexuals. Study and experience discredited hoary fears that homosexuals ruin everything they touch, that any effort to lift stigma and legal repression would practically end civilization.

This was all necessary for the emergence of gay families, which began to spring up. Gay couples lived together openly. Adoption was available to gays in 49 states. Homosexuality ceased to be an automatic disqualification for custody. Second-parent adoptions provided some legal protection to gay families. Gays began raising children in increasing numbers (now more than a million) and no state was stopping them. A quasi-marriage culture sprouted.

This bottom-up momentum led to formal recognition. It started primarily in the private sector, where companies began offering benefits to “domestic partners.” Then cities and counties followed. Then states recognized gay relationships, at first tentatively, offering only some benefits. Now states are approving civil unions, granting all the benefits of marriage. Two populous states have actual gay marriage. Abroad, the move to gay marriage in countries with legal and political heritages similar to our own has been more dramatic.

Some of this recognition has been pushed judicially, but it is increasingly a legislative phenomenon. There’s been a counter-movement, but almost one-fourth of Americans now live in a state that legally recognizes gay couples.

Are we at the point where gay marriage is in most functional respects already here, so that sanctioning “technical” gay marriage is the next obvious incremental step to correct the lingering incoherence in our treatment of gay families? Given the numerous and enabling shifts we’ve already seen, I think so. There’s room for disagreement, but we’re surely getting closer."

Close mind...

...insert dogma, part three:

"I have historically opposed legislation defining marriage as between a man and a woman, and President Monson's statement at first really disappointed me. This is one case, however, where I have decided to just follow the prophet. I may not fully understand the reasons behind the statement, but I just feel I need to follow the prophet on this for whatever reason."

A Mormon blogger.

Where the Dems Must Go

This is the sort of image that must be burned into the minds of American voters, reinforcing that McCain will mean four more years of the same failed policies.

(And don't they look like the happy couple at a California wedding?)

Battling Superstition

Click here for an interesting article about the challenges facing a Florida high school teacher during the presentation of his evolution unit in biology.

Free Shamu

Here's an idea I can get behind -- PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) wants to buy a SeaWorld park and return Shamu to the wild.

Wry Greetings

Anyone who reads the Feast is probably expecting that my greeting card post would be about Hallmark's introduction of a handful of cards designed for same-sex weddings.

But no, it's about Bald Guy Greetings, a company that creates greeting cards with a very tart, wry sensibility. I've mentioned them before. They're still good.

The Sanctity of Marriage, Part 4

Another Failed War

Click this link for a great story in Newsweek by Patti Davis, Ronald Reagan's daughter. If you still believe the drug war has been anything less than a complete waste of time and money (lots of it), I'd love to hear your reasons why.

Another No on 8 Endorsement

First it was the LA Times.

Yesterday, it was the San Jose Mercury-News. Money quote: "Those who would impose their own intensely personal or religious feelings about marriage ignore the word's equally important secular and legal definitions. Marriage confers a whole range of rights and responsibilities around inheritance, parenthood, medical decision-making, tax benefits and liabilities, and on and on. In American law, all of these are affected by marriage."

Playing Possum?

Although my journeys in the blogosphere seem to make it clear the Christian right (especially the Mormons) are fully mobilizing in their fight to amend the California Constitution to eliminate marriage equality, some are pretending the fight may already be lost.

First, Donald Wildmon of the American Family Association said on July 10: "If we lose California, if they defeat the marriage amendment, I'm afraid that the culture war is over and Christians have lost." Then today, Michael Craven of Christian news and commentary site Crosswalk finished his three-part series on same-sex marriage -- what was ostensibly meant to be a "defense of marriage," with what amounted to a "what do we do after we lose?" commentary. Money quote: "How should the church respond in the wake of such profound moral and social revision? Should we continue to battle with homosexual activists? Will doing so distract us from our true calling and thus undermine the church’s mission and purpose? Should we persist in pressing the point even unto arrest and imprisonment? Is this how we are called to live in a pagan culture? These are the questions we must face."

My question is, is this merely a tactic to further fire up the base, in the same sort of way the American swim team in Beijing posted boastful comments from the rival French team on their team message board?

More Poison

Once again, a member of the religious right takes a moment to extract his head from its normal anal-inserted position to blather misleading nonsense to the gullible masses of believers in the invisible superbeing.

This time it's Mark Creech (who calls himself "reverend," but any halfway intelligent being will reserve reverence for others more deserving), spouting that while sexual orientation (for which there is considerable evidence of its being biologically determined and immutable) is not deserving of status as a "suspect class" in discrimination law, as race and gender are, but that religion (which is clearly a choice -- hence missionary work aimed at conversion) is.

"To contend homosexuality or other sexually alternative practices are as worthy of special protections as religion is like saying feculence is as important to one's person or the culture as food." "Feculence," (I had to look it up) means "of or containing dirt, sediment or waste matter." First, where does he think food comes from? The dirt.

But then he goes on, quoting Michael Novak saying that the founders, "believed that even if it were possible for certain individuals to behave morally without believing in God, on the whole an entire citizenry could not long keep its moral bearings without the guidance of religious faith."

In other words, without a mythical bogeyman holding the sword of eternal punishment, ordinary humans can't be good. They must have been thinking of Mr. Creech himself.

The Need for Separation

Read this piece by Andrew Sullivan. It's short, but makes some interesting points on the intersection of faith and politics.

Instant Musical

Fun.

Close mind...

...insert dogma, part two.

This time it's from a man: "What it all comes down to on our part, as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, is obedience. We may not necessarily understand why we are asked to do certain things and it may be really hard for us to agree, but we must do it. If you have a problem with it, pray to know if it is right. If you are still struggling, just do as you are asked and the Lord will take care of the rest. But if the prophet says it, do it. Yes, these decisions can be hard, but we have a prophet inspired to guide us through these moral questions so that we can worry about the things that are more important. Don’t lose sight of the most important things. Just be obedient."

Yeah, wouldn't want to do any thinking of your own. That could lead to bad places. Like actually working for equal rights for people that you said are "the kindest, open and the most non-judgmental people I have ever met. They are warm, welcome and enthusiastic. They are optimistic. I love them."

And you love them by working to take away a fundamental right?

This from a church that was driven out of three states because they held a different view of marriage. Can you say "ironic?"

Murderous Queers

I think the image is comment enough.

More Mormon Meddling

It continues. This is from another Mormon blog: "If you are a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, find out who is the Prop 8 coordinator in your ward or branch. Each ward in California will have one and they can direct you toward volunteer opportunities."

So each ward has people assigned to push a political agenda. And this political action committee disguised as a church still has its tax-exempt status? Ridiculous.

"Eliminates" It Is

The judge has ruled: Proposition 8 will be listed on the ballot as "Eliminates the right of same-sex couples to marry."

Easily the best news of the week.

LA Times Opposes Proposition 8

In an editorial in today's Los Angeles Times, the paper comes out firmly in opposition to Proposition 8. I'm especially excited to see them using the same logic that I've been trying to get out there -- that even if you believe kids deserve both a mom and a dad, denying marriage equality doesn't further that goal.

Money quote: "In a meeting with The Times' editorial board, supporters argued at length that children are best off when raised by their own biological, married mothers and fathers. Even if that were true -- and there is much room for dispute -- this measure in no way moves society closer to such a traditional picture. Gay and lesbian couples already are raising their own children and will continue to do so, as will single parents and adoptive and blended families. Using the supporters'own reasoning, it would be better for same-sex parents to marry."

Close mind...

...insert dogma.

The link is from a Mormon woman's blog, stating that she "doesn't have a problem with same-sex marriage," and isn't sure why the church is pushing it so hard. But that's OK, what does her opinion matter when they are men around to tell her what to think:

"However, I’ve been blessed in the past for obeying my priesthood leaders. They know things that I don't. This issue must be important for some reason that I don't understand. Since I don't live in California..." Thanks for small favors, at least.

However, it's clearly the result of this sort of thing.

As expected...

...it looks like the court will not be altering the Attorney General's language change on Proposition 8. The ballot, it seems, will still read, "Eliminates the right..."

Mormon Meddling

Right about now I'm feeling that if Temple Square in Salt Lake was swallowed up in a giant sinkhole and all the church leaders with it -- I wouldn't shed a tear. These stuffy old men who believe they have a monopoly on what God wants/thinks have decided that denying civil marriage equality should be Christians' number one priority (screw the poor and homeless). Think the church isn't inserting itself DIRECTLY into the political process? Read this from an LDS family's blog. They were expecting a visit from the stake president (a church bigwig, usually overseeing 3-5 "wards," similar to a parish), and weren't sure what to expect. Turns out (horror, shock, surprise) it was money: "it was actually about making a contribution– a rather sizable contribution. He already had a figure in mind...(He) left a donation form for ProtectMarriage.com which asks you to submit, among other things, your name, and the name of your ward and stake...My wife wanted to know how they came up with the customized figure and stewed over the notion that they probably reviewed our tithing records...(He) said they’d be getting back lists of the donors and how much they paid. I didn’t like the idea of my faithfulness being gauged so. I also didn’t like contributing to a coalition of churches, many of which I suspect are Huckabee fan clubs. Plus, let’s face it, it was a huge chunk o’ change they were asking from us."

I imagine this sort of thing is being repeated thousands of times all across the stake.

Pull their tax exemption. Now. These are civil, political matters they are messing with. If the churches can't keep their fingers out of state matters, I don't see why we should cut them ANY slack in terms of taxation.

Individual church members are also doing their part to ensure that discrimination becomes the law of the land. Earlier I posted about famous Mormon science fiction author Orson Scott Card basically threatening the violent overthrow of the government (treason, anyone?) if Prop 8 isn't passed. Now he continues his science fiction efforts with this post purporting to debunk the scientific consensus that sexuality is biologically-based, as opposed to a conscious choice. (Even the church itself doesn't go that far.)

Card's ridiculousness seems to know no bounds. There is much fallacious thinking and illogic in the piece, as well as plain old cruelty, but I will focus on just a few of his comments:

"If science says that homosexuality is natural, uncontrollable and harmless, why would any decent person -- especially one who knows and likes, or even loves, a number of homosexuals -- wish to deprive them of something they desire so much?

Here's why:

1. Science does not say that gays have no choice whatsoever.

2. Science does not say that homosexuality harms no one, and that homosexual liaisons are as valuable to society as marriage.

3. It is not unfair to give unique preference to monogamous heterosexual relationships, if that preference and those marriages benefit all of society -- including homosexuals or potential homosexuals."

He never goes on to back up any of these positions. He simply hangs them out there as facts and then moves on.

He talks about a psychological study from 1957 - but never mentions that it is more than a half-century old, even though its conclusions were that gay men were as psychologically well-adjusted as straight men. Quite an accomplishment given the climate back then, I'd imagine.

Then he throws this little gem, in reference to twin studies that clearly show a level of genetic heritability of sexual orientation: "The study does not allow for the possibility that the physical appearance of the subjects might have played a role. If seduction, molestation or other sexual trauma contributes to homosexuality, and if those are influenced by the perceived attractiveness of the subject to a molester, seducer or rapist, then the greater physical resemblance between identical twins may account for some of the results."

First, IF "seduction, molestation or other sexual trauma contributes to homosexuality" -- any proof that it does? But second, huh? I'm not sure I get this -- if the twins are both cute, it's more likely they will BOTH be molested? What about less attractive twins? They'd both be equally unattractive, no? The twin study says nothing about attractiveness.

"Countless homosexuals record their "awakening" to homosexuality in the form of rape, molestation or seduction;" Countless? None that I've ever met have said this.

"In my opinion, all homosexuals should be enraged at the notion that of all human beings, only homosexuals cannot control their sexual behavior by conscious choices. This dogma implies that they are less than human. Yet this is precisely what the normalizers claim: "They can't help it."" No more than left-handers can't help being left-handed.

"We can all agree that no one can help desiring what they desire. Desires come unasked for and often from sources we do not understand.

But every other human impulse, natural or dysfunctional, can be recognized and controlled, at least to a degree. We expect alcoholics to be able to refrain from driving when drunk. We expect pedophiles to keep their hands to themselves. We expect aggressive males to curb their need to fight with perceived rivals. We expect people whose mental illnesses are only contained by drugs to take those drugs.

We expect heterosexual males -- males who are expressing the very drive that leads to reproduction of the genes, and which in other primate species is often expressed as rape -- to be able to recognize that "no means no" at every stage of wooing and coition.

In other words, our society right now says that everybody but homosexuals must curb whatever innate desires are perceived, by our society, as harmful or undesirable, regardless of how natural or evolutionarily productive they might be, or how strongly they are felt."

Oy gevalt. Drunk drivers and pedophiles have victims. A rapist (which is what he seems to be referring to with his "no means no" comment) has victims. Even a philandering husband as a victim. People in consensual relationships (like same-sex couples who are married or plan to) do NOT have victims. Like his church, Card expects all gay people to remain celibate. The married man has his wife, the alcoholic may drink as long as he doesn't drive, but we need to keep it in our pants to assuage HIS sense of morality? Give me a break.

Going Well, Keep It Up

According to some just-released information, it seems supporters of marriage equality are leading in the fundraising race. Equality for All.org has pulled in $5.8 million compared to $3.4 million for protectmarriage.com. But we mustn't stop now.

Some of the Equality for All dollars came from me, and some from generous friends and family who have donated at our wedding registry at Equality for All. If you've donated, thank you! If you haven't (and I think I sent e-mails to all my known readers), click on that link and donate. I've committed to raise $5000, and I'm only at $850. Do it now. Please. It's important.

Mortgaging the Future

A great piece from Tom Friedman.

Money quote: "My trip with Denmark’s minister of climate and energy, Connie Hedegaard, to see the effects of climate change on Greenland’s ice sheet leaves me with a very strong opinion: Our kids are going to be so angry with us one day."

The Sanctity of Marriage, Part 3

I only wish they had shown the ring exchange.

Leave Marriage to the Churches

Today's USA Today has an interesting editorial suggesting that the way out of the increasingly rancorous debate on marriage equality, something I've been fine with for some time: requiring all couples to obtain a civil union. Then, those who want to be married can go to whatever church will have them.

The question is, how easy is that to accomplish? What legislation will be required to navigate the many hundreds of laws that currently deal with "marriage" that would now have to recognize civil unions?

Homer Simpson's Alarm Clock

Must. Have. Bacon.

The device above? It's an alarm clock. You put a piece of frozen bacon in the tray and set the alarm. 10 minutes before alarm time, two halogen lamps turn on, cook the bacon, releasing the smell of happy mornings into your bedroom.

And if you're stuffed up, the device has a backup audio alarm.

The Sanctity of Marriage, Part 2

Love him/her tender:

Shipmates

I have felt for some time that the primary tactic in the right's battle to deny marriage equality will be a perceived threat to religious freedom. But read this.

It's a brief from findlaw.com that establishes the case that religious freedom and marriage equality are tied to each other in case law.

Freedom isn't the same for everyone, so you have to make accommodations: "Just as the free exercise of religion is useless to an Orthodox Jew if it only protects his right to observe Sunday as the Sabbath, so too the right to marry is an empty guarantee if it only protects a lesbian’s right to marry a man."

There are going to have to be accommodations on both sides, because we're in this freedom thing together.

Love is not a diamond, it's a fax machine

Part of my efforts in fighting against Proposition 8 is cruising the Internet for news stories and blog entries that discuss the topic, and countering any false information that I find there. Sometimes that takes the form of a letter to the editor (at least two have been published), but more often my comments are among the many that one can find in comments sections of newspapers and blogs.

Recently I have been engaging with a lovely LDS woman in the central valley of California. She's on the opposite side of the issue, obviously, but she's nevertheless been civil and engaging.

When I asked her how allowing marriage equality would affect her marriage, she replied: "It will cheapen it, it will have less meaning…kind of like a rare diamond that loses its worth and rareness."

My reply was simple. Love isn't a diamond. The more diamonds there are, the less valuable each one is. But if fewer loving couples can marry, it doesn't make her marriage any less special to her. In fact, (and this I didn't say to her, because it just came to me) love is more like a fax machine.

The first fax machine that was produced was absolutely useless, because it had nothing to communicate with. The second fax machine gave itself and the first fax machine true value. Every fax machine that was built after that added a bit more to the value of every other fax machine because there were hundreds, then thousands, then millions and tens of millions of the devices. Same thing with e-mail. The more people who have it, the more useful and valuable it becomes.

Love is like that. The more of us who can enjoy it, the more happiness there is in the world. That's good for everyone.

Who to Believe?

According to two different stories that hit the Net just a couple of hours apart, opponents of Proposition 8 raised more money than those backing the measure, and vice versa. According to the Wall Street Journal, backers of Proposition 8, which will amend the California Constitution to remove the right of same-sex couples to marry, raised $3.7 million in the first half of the year, compared to $2.5 million for the opposition (some of which came from me). But the San Jose Mercury-News reports that opponents of Proposition 8 raised $2.6 million to the backers' raising $2.3 million. Both stories report that Prop 8 proponents raised more money out-of-state.

"A tax on stupidity"

An interesting piece by David Brooks in today's New York Times, discussing the growing wealth gap and how current systems reinforce it.

Money (literally) quotes: "The country’s moral guardians are forever looking for decadence out of Hollywood and reality TV. But the most rampant decadence today is financial decadence, the trampling of decent norms about how to use and harness money."

"A household with income under $13,000 spends, on average, $645 a year on lottery tickets, about 9 percent of all income."

You simply must...

click here, if only to read the headline. For some really sobering reading, click on the link that takes you to www.boycottmcdonalds.com, and navigate your way to the comments page. You'll see plenty of ignorance and fear -- plus the reason why Americans are so fat.

Hyperbole on Parade

As I predicted, the Christianists are attacking marriage equality by raising the specter of a country without freedom of religion.

Money quote: ""If you don't care about this campaign, don't want to get involved, you can go to jail and start a wonderful prison ministry," Garlow adds. "But if you want religious freedom, we're going to have to win this thing.""

Reaping what they've sown

The religious right (and the right in general) have been dismissive of the humanity of GLBT people, and once again we see the result of their efforts. The shooter at the church in Tennessee who last night killed two people and injured seven revealed his motive in a letter: he hated liberals and gays and chose a church that was welcoming to gay people to express his hatred.

When gay people are demonized, and when liberals are called "traitors" (as they quite often are), it's not surprising to see that some will act as they have been taught to act when confronted with "demons" and "traitors."

Rodney King had it right -- can't we all just get along?

The Sanctity of Marriage, Part 1

No active link, but if you copy this into your browser -- http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=5457915 -- you can watch a "Good Morning America" piece on a couple that got married at the demolition derby.

Over the course of the next few weeks, I'll post other video of other weddings that don't seem quite as sacred as the right would like us to think is the case.

Quote for the Day

"We're all born naked. Everything after that is drag."

RuPaul

Talkin' About A Revolution

Orson Scott Card, a Mormon science fiction author with wide crossover appeal, has put to paper his thoughts on the same-sex marriage issue. He's agin it. So much so that he thinks it will ultimately result in the overthrow of the US Constitution. Money quote:

"What these dictator-judges do not seem to understand is that their authority extends only as far as people choose to obey them.

How long before married people answer the dictators thus: Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn."

Hitchens was right: religion poisons everything.

Their cup runneth over...with anger and vitriol

Here's a comment posted on OneNewsNow, a Christian "news" service (Hey, if they can put marriage in quotes...) on a story about a therapist in the Bay Area who feels under attack because most of her colleagues oppose Proposition 8.

"The homosexual community is going to cause a civil war in the streets if they continue to keep pushing us around. They better back off becuase (sic) the sleeping giant which is the heterosexual community is awakening and getting sick and tired. Once we begin to push back, the homosexual community isn't going to know what hit them."

Do what you will -- you'll never find our Weapons of Mass Fabulousness!

Super!

Pronounce that "sue-pear," since this is a French language site showing "70 amazing business cards." And they are. Some of my favorites:

The Foes

This is the sort of thinking that is out there (this being a quote from the comments section of the Napa Valley Register, asking for people's opinions on Prop 8):

"John Richards wrote on Jul 19, 2008 7:50 PM:
" Even if we accept that gays are born that way, that does not mean that homosexual activity is normal or acceptable. I believe all of us are born with some sort of handicap or 'thorn in the flesh'. How well we deal with that handicap has great bearing on what happens to us in the next life. Some people are born cripple, yet (unlike gays) they don't insist on running foot races with able-bodied runners."

No Complacency, Please

Promising new poll numbers out yesterday. According to a Field Poll, 51% of likely California voters plan to vote "no" on Proposition 8. 42% plan to vote to write discrimination into the California Constitution and 7% are undecided.

Remember, though, that on Proposition 22, the most recent vote on marriage equality in the state, polls showed the measure barely winning and it ended up taking 61% of the vote. Bigots, it is not surprising, tend to lie about their bigotry to pollsters.

More analysis here. What you'll see in that breakdown of numbers is that every age group opposes Prop 8.

Tell Your Friends

I've just returned from an organizing meeting in the "No on 8" campaign. It was wonderful to be in the presence of like-minded people (including quite a few heterosexuals) ready to stand up for equality.

110 days until the election -- if you believe in equality and don't want discrimination written into the California Constitution, you need to vote no on 8, and ask all your friends and family to do the same.

This won't be the last time I ask you this. This is very important. It's the biggest battle for civil rights since the 60s. You are going to be part of history. The question is, which side of history will you be on?

Counter Arguments Due Today, continued

I read this just now, another article regarding the attempts to remove Proposition 8 from the ballot, primarily because it represents a "revision" to the Constitution, rather than an "amendment." Not an easy read, but a convincing case.

Money quote: "If the Supreme Court permits Proposition 8 to be placed on the ballot, the Court in fact would have harmed the very institution it sought to protect. If Justice Ronald George and the California Supreme Court fail to remove Proposition 8 and we win in November, our marriage rights may, NO RATHER WILL, be put up to a simple initiative vote at every major election cycle. Whoever loses will always return. And with that threat, same gender couples will face the continual threat of invalidity, without any of the permanence the framers envisioned for the California Constitution."

Counter Arguments Due Today

Although it's been mostly under the radar, opponents of Proposition 8 filed a brief on June 20, asking the California Supreme Court to remove the initiative from the November ballot, on the grounds it is not an amendment to the Constitution, but a "revision," which requires a two-thirds vote of the Legislature or a constitutional convention. Will they succeed? It's apparently a long shot, and I have mixed emotions about it. If we thought there was a backlash to the Court after their 4-3 decision creating marriage equality in California, imagine the shrieks from the right if the judges took the decision out of the hands of the people again. I'd like to hope we can defeat Prop 8 on its merits (or lack thereof), but I'd prefer not to have the stress on election night of wondering if my then 11-day old marriage will stand.

Read a bit more here.

Is He Worth It?

If you haven't already heard, big fat idiot Rush Limbaugh signed a multi-year $400 million contract to continue spewing lies and vitriol over the public airwaves. And I will defend to the death (or perhaps to the point of mild discomfort) his right to do so. I'm a pretty big fan of the First Amendment.

But the bigger question is, is he worth it? I suppose if any broadcaster is, Rush is. Why? It's not just because he delivers an average of 20 million listeners a day. It's because of who those listeners are: dittoheads. That's Rush's term for his hard core fans. The ones who say "ditto" to everything that springs from his insubstantial, OxyContin-coated lips. If you were an advertiser, wouldn't you want to reach an audience that refuses to think for itself, preferring instead to defer to the mighty voice on the radio? Wouldn't they be the kind of folks who will blindly follow all the pronouncements coming from the speaker -- including the commercials?

Compassionate Conservatism in Action

Oh the humanity!

Bush Tours America To Survey Damage Caused By His Disastrous Presidency

The Market Works

For all the Democrats' past fuming over the reduction of CAFE standards (the requirements for car manufacturers to meet certain levels of MPG efficiency), it seems the market may be doing a better job than legislators ever could have of encouraging the production of higher mileage vehicles. And American auto makers may have shot themselves in the foot by lobbying for lower standards. GM stock is trading at less than $10 a share, a level it hasn't seen since the Eisenhower administration. (That rumbling sound you hear is my father spinning in his grave.) Meanwhile, Honda -- which happens to deliver a fleet with the best gas mileage and lowest emissions -- is the only car company showing increased sales.

If America had listened, we green-inclined folks were saying the right thing all along. Although it would have been better if we'd started working on better mileage cars and developing solar power years ago, the free market is doing a more powerful job of delivering that message.

"Now poop on them, Oliver"

If you like your humor random and abstract, click play. This is an Indian music video to which someone has added subtitles that are not a translation of the original, but rather an interpretation of what the words sound like in English. Pretty hysterical. And some wild dancing, too.

A Small Setback

It may not seem like much, but the battle for marriage equality took a minor hit when it was announced that the initiative will be number 8 on the November ballot.

If you don't already know, "8" is the luckiest number in Asian culture, because it sounds like the word for "prosper" or "wealth." My guess is that more than one Asian voter will have a hard time pulling the lever to vote "no" on the number eight. After all, Chinese pay thousands of dollars in auctions to have license plates filled with eights, and the Chinese government made sure this summer's Olympic Games would begin on 8/8/08 at 8:00 p.m.

Stop Those Activist Judges!

Well, the Supreme Court has done it. They've overturned the DC handgun ban, which was voted in by a clear majority of the people. Someone has to stop the black-robed tyrants from overruling the will of the people! What has happened to this country when we actually follow the Constitution? First it's equality in California (which the majority doesn't want), now it's handgun control (which the majority wants). Where will it all end?

These People Are Insane

Last week, I posted a video of a Heinz mustard ad. If you watched it, you know it's about an English family getting ready for the day. Mum is packing lunches and handing them out to the kids and to the husband heading off to work. Husband forgets to give Mum a kiss, so he's called back to perform that minor marital duty.

Except Mum is a man. A New York deli man, complete with white apron and hat and Brooklyn accent. For anyone with 11 brain cells in proximity to each other would understand this is a FANTASY. The kids call the deli guy "Mum," so it's obviously a bit of magic -- Mum has been inhabited by the spirit of traditional new york delis because she chooses to use Heinz deli style mustards.

The American Family Association, headed by chief wingnut Donald Wildmon, however, don't get it. They think it's promoting a homosexual agenda.

I've said it before, and I'm afraid I will have to say it again: don't these people have something better to do with their Christianity?

"Grid Parity"

I've been hearing about news like this for several months now, due to my work with Applied Materials, the company partly responsible for the technology revolution due to their production of the machines that make computer chips. Now Applied Materials is concentrating on producing the machines that will make photovoltaic solar arrays.

With increased capacity (and higher oil prices), we are now only a couple of years away from what is called "grid parity" -- the point when the cost to produce a kilowatt of power is the same for solar as it is for fossil fuels.

Money quote: "At the point of grid parity all kinds of things become possible, including the widespread introduction of plug-in hybrids, and a corresponding decrease in global dependence on oil for transportation needs. Sure all such predictions need to be taken with a grain of salt. But 40 percent annual growth -- which is what is occurring right now -- is nothing to sneeze at. We are getting closer."

Go Friedman!

A smart guy talking common sense. No surprise it's not our president. But he IS talking about our president: "Two years ago, President Bush declared that America was “addicted to oil,” and, by gosh, he was going to do something about it. Well, now he has. Now we have the new Bush energy plan: “Get more addicted to oil.”"

Even the Wall Street Journal

Conservatives are starting to speak up and remind people that marriage -- even when it's between two people of the same gender -- is a conservative value. Read this opinion piece in today's Wall Street Journal.

Money quote:

"America needs more marriages, not fewer, and the best way to encourage marriage is to encourage marriage, which is what society does by bringing gay couples inside the tent. A good way to discourage marriage, on the other hand, is to tarnish it as discriminatory in the minds of millions of young Americans. Conservatives who object to redefining marriage risk redefining it themselves, as a civil-rights violation."

Wouldn't that be something? If young people decided not to get married because it meant being a party to discrimination? Or maybe they'll opt out of marriage because "it's so gay."

If Only He Lived in California

We could use a few rational conservatives like this guy.

Money quote:

"Would a married gay couple moving next door create some discomfort for me as I explain it to my children? Darn right it would. I would undoubtedly squirm in that discussion. But life doesn't guarantee my comfort, and whether they keep their yard looking nice is my business, whereas their personal relationship is not.

I've given this a lot of thought, and I think my prior stand against same-sex marriage was based on my personal thoughts about homosexuality rather than individual liberty. Those are two separate issues. My uneasiness may never go away, no matter how many names the enlightened ones call me, but the freedom of same-sex couples does not depend on my endorsement of their lifestyle.

As a conservative, I believe the state should stay out of the business of judging which unrelated adults may and may not make a marriage commitment to each other, that when a same-sex couple chooses to marry, we conservatives should value their liberty far more than any personal or religious disagreement with homosexuality. Conservatives should welcome the contribution of same-sex marriage to the virtues of commitment and family stability we hold so dear."

What's Keeping Me Awake Nights, 2

As I previously posted, I think the greatest weapon in the Christianists' arsenal is the appeal to religious freedom. My sense is that people recoil a bit internally at any infringement of religious freedom, and at first glance many stories, like this one, can come across as an unfair impingement on the right of someone to adhere to the tenets of their faith.

But in a public position, you have to follow the law or accept the consequences.

What if the situation were different in some aspects, but at the core the issues were exactly the same? Say a civil servant in some county in Alabama is in charge of the licenses that must be issued to any gathering of 20 or more with live or amplified music. But this citizen knows those parties almost always include dancing, something she feels the Bible very clearly prohibits. So she never approves one. So there could be no public dances, no dancing in bars, and certainly no dancing in the streets. She thinks it a sin, and can choose not to condone it -- but she can't withhold performing her civic duties, without being willing to accept the consequences that might come with that.

For A Smile...

...click play.

A Blow to the Golf World

Tiger Woods will miss the rest of the season. Apparently, another knee surgery is scheduled and he will miss the rest of 2008, including the Open Championship (aka The British Open) and the PGA Championship.

Religious Freedom vs. Marriage Equality

As I posted here a week or so ago, I'm worried that the religious right may be successful in their attempt to conflate marriage equality with a diminution of religious freedom.

Fortunately, here comes someone both smarter than I, and MUCH more informed about the legal issues surrounding the balance between the freedom to hold certain religious beliefs (and to act on those beliefs) and current laws forbidding discrimination based on sexual orientation. It's a longish post by Dale Carpenter but you can read it here.

Money quote: "While marriage and religious belief are one creature in the minds of many people, they are separate things in the law. Catholicism and Orthodox Judaism, for example, refuse to recognize secular divorce. But few argue that we should refuse to let people divorce for this reason. One can be divorced under the law but married in the eyes of the church. The statuses can be separated without a diminution of religious liberty. And nobody thinks that this de-linking of the two constitutes official oppression or the obliteration of religious freedom. Similarly, in principle, it should be possible to have a regime in which same-sex couples are married under the law but not married in the eyes of a given religion — all without extinguishing religious faith."

More Backstory, Please

Is this -- related to this?

Was CNN punishing Clinton advisor Lanny Davis for accepting a position with arch-rival Fox News?

Aspire to More

A story in today's Marin Independent-Journal put it more positive spin on the day's potential effects, drawing on family experiences to make an excellent point. Half of one of the first couples to marry in Marin County believes there many reasons - both legal and social - why acceptance of marriage equality is important. When she came out to her parents, she said, the reaction was not what she'd hoped for. She said when she came out of the closet to her parents, they were saddened because they didn't think she would get married or have children.

"For a person just coming to terms with who you are, the last thing you need is to have your family upset," said Karpay-Brody, 48. "For young relationships it gives people goals just like with heterosexual relationships - do you aspire to a higher commitment through marriage?"

This is an important aspect of the debate that is being ignored.

It's Here. Will It Last?

Today, just moments after 5:00 p.m., Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin, two women whose relationship has lasted 55 years, took an important step toward full civil equality for all Americans. What was the phrase? "If we are not all free, we are none of us free"?

There is no remaining argument against same-sex marriage except one that assumes the existence of a literal God. And his Word passing through many translations -- without ever losing its literal Truth. And since I have the same amount of verifiable evidence to support MY idea of god as they do to support THEIR idea of God, the Constitution has to treat that evidence equally. Even if they capitalize their god.

Yet they trumpet their lack of rationality by continuing to pump out the same old tropes. "It's better for kids." "It's the way it's always been." "Civil unions they can have, but marriage should be for a man and a woman." Oh...wait, that last one is also John McCain's and Barack Obama's position. (Though wouldn't it be wonderful if they decided to change their minds and make the announcement the same day -- letting everyone know that fighting civil equality will always end in defeat, that legal discrimination on the basis of an inborn trait is wrong [no matter how icky it is to you], and that it's stupid to punish rather than reward behavior [entering into the civil marriage contract] that generally increases social stability? Any chance of that?)

Try as they might, none of them are sticking, logically speaking. I'm afraid, however, logic might not be enough. There is a hard stretch of road ahead.

More Evidence That Sexuality is Not a Choice

Not only does this study out of Sweden add to the growing body of research showing that sexuality is not a chosen behavior, it suggests that gay men's brains are more balanced than those of straight men: "Using MRI scans of gay and straight men and women, the researchers found that people who liked women -- heterosexual men and homosexual women -- had larger right brain hemispheres, while people who liked men -- heterosexual women and homosexual men -- had symmetrical brains."

Wow.

That's all I can say about this photo, taken in Iowa.

Sounds Like Fun to Me

Watching legendary aviation engineer Burt Rutan speaking at the 2006 TED Conference on DVD last night, he mentioned something that sounds like a load of fun.

Because the moon has very little gravity, he believes it would be possible that during space tourism flights around the moon, that the crafts taking those tourists aloft could program elliptical orbits around the moon that would take them safely to within 10 feet of the moon's surface.

Sign me up.

As The World Kerns

Ann Barnett -- the woman who stopped her county from performing ANY marriages rather than performing even one same-sex ceremony -- is in deeper than I think she ever expected to be.

Now
AP has picked up on the story. Others as well, I'd imagine.

Who knows, maybe she planned this as part of a broader strategy to conflate same-sex marriage with the loss of religious freedom. But I doubt it. I just don't think she thought it all the way through. Her only media strategy at the moment is being non-responsive.

This could get complicated.

You can see the video of her smiling denials to comment here.

It gives you a peek at what it looks like when there is no rational reason to deny equality, yet you still do. Maybe someone told you God says it's a sin and you believed them. Or maybe it's just because it feel weird to you and you can't get over the "ick" factor. She is definitely of the school of "God said it, I believe it, that settles it."

Bless her crooked little heart, she thinks she's doing the right thing. She's standing up for a principle. It's just that this principle stands only if you believe that an invisible all-powerful being wants discrimination written into the Constitution.

Sign him up!

A note to any Christianist opponents of same-sex marriage: you can now happily ally yourself with the terrorist Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Money quote: "I consider all American constitution evil, because it permits same-sexual marriage and many other things that are very bad." I'd love to see the Sheikh and Pat Robertson doing ads in favor of the same-sex marriage amendment, like Robertson and Al Sharpton are currently do for a global warming campaign.

It's Not Your Kern Yet

When I first noticed this story about how Kern County has decided to stop performing ALL marriages at the county courthouse, something didn't sound right to me. The reason given was, "lack of staff and space." I can't imagine the county clerk's staff is busy all day every day performing weddings. And don't they charge for that service? If they weren't charging enough to cover costs, why not simply raise the fee?

It just sounded fishy to me, like a cover up. Turns out, I was right. The Kern County Auditor-Controller-County Clerk, Ann Barnett is morally opposed to same-sex marriage and wanted to find a way to not have her office perform them. She tried to resign as county clerk, but remain as auditor and controller, but apparently the county was having none of that.

So, citing space and budget concerns, she ordered all marriages to stop as of Friday, June 13th, the Friday before the Monday when same-sex marriage will be legal in California.

Knowing that this could result in legal action, Barnett fired off an e-mail to the Alliance Defense Fund, an anti-same-sex marriage organization:

"Sent June 4, 2008 at 11:19 a.m.

From: Glenn Spencer (the Assistant Auditor-Controller-County Clerk)

To: Holly Estes

Subject: RE: Will You Provide Legal Assistance?

Holly, I also left a phone message for Brian, but I imagine he may be very busy right now. Our question is, now that the Supreme Court has refused to stay its decision, will Alliance Defense Fund defend the County Clerk if she ceases performing all marriage ceremonies as of 5:00 pm on June 16th? We have the news media calling for her response, and we need to issue a news release today, but she really needs to be assured of your legal assistance before she speaks to them, as we fully expect to be sued and our own counsel is not being of help. Thanks."

However, according to the story, performing weddings seems like it would be a profit center for the county:

"Records obtained from the clerk’s office for April and May of 2008 shed some light on whether wedding ceremonies are a financial drain on the county, as the press release claims. The county clerk’s office charges $30 for every ceremony it performs. In April and May the office performed 299 marriage ceremonies, according to records. That’s income — over two months — of $8,970. At that rate, it appears the county brings in more than $50,000 a year from performing marriages, before costs are figured into the equation.

An analysis of the pay of the county staff who perform the ceremonies puts the revenue into context. The top average hourly pay for an office services specialist — one of the classifications that conducts the weddings — is around $19.20 an hour, based on county salary charts. A marriage ceremony conducted Thursday took seven minutes to perform.

Barnett’s press release also stated that the county does not have the space to deal with increased ceremonies. But her office currently has two separate wedding rooms set aside for the marriage ceremonies."

I don't think this can last long.

An Online Exchange

The voice in quotes is that of Jane Chastain, a political blogger.

The question is simple: how will allowing same-sex unions prevent any heterosexual couple from marrying and therefore providing a more stable environment in which to raise children?

“The answer is simple: It would not prevent heterosexuals couples from marrying but it, in effect, takes away the benefits of marriage.”

No — it would EXTEND the benefits of marriage to a group of people who are currently denied them. In California, domestic partnership is almost identical, but it’s still not equal.

“A married couple is given certain tax breaks and other benefits. If the same tax breaks are given to everyone than — for all practical purposes — the tax break does not exists.”

Yes, it DOES exist. It’s still a tax break for married people. Single people don’t qualify. It supports and rewards the formation of more stable human partnerships, something gay people — and the society we live in — benefit from.

“Also, the state gives certain benefits to its employees, such as health insurance, to spouses. The state has a budget and these benefits must be paid for in the form of higher taxes.”

If I’m getting you right, it’s OK to discriminate — if it’s expensive. Or is that it’s OK to discriminate if it means YOU get more of the pie?

“When you treat same-sex couples the same as heterosexual couples than EVERYONE must be taxed more in order to pay for those benefits. Therefore, you have heterosexual couples with children subsidizing same-sex couples.”

There are gay families with children. More important, there are benefits for couples with children that most gay couples and childless straight couples don't qualify for.

“It is the same thing with a private business that gives the same benefits to domestic partners as married couples. A state or company can pay its workers only so much for a given job. The employer divides this pay into wages and benefits. If the same benefits are given to everyone, the married couple ends up with less, because the pool of money available for benefits is reduced.”

But there is no reason to deny same-sex couples these rights — as long as the couple is willing to take on the responsibilities of marriage, as well.

That’s why the gentleman on O’Reilly was unable to come up with a rational reason — because there is none.

Equality has a cost. But the benefits far outweigh the price.

More Good News

According to a USA Today poll, 63% of Americans think same-sex marriage is strictly a private decision.

Backstory, please.

Watching tonight's coverage of the elections on CNN. One of their live feeds was with a Clinton advisor/confidante, who was at the gymnasium where Hilary gave her non-concession concession speech.

Problem is, the union crew is simultaneously breaking down the room. And not quietly. Nobody lowers his voice, nobody attempts to compensate in any way for the presence of a TV satellite feed in their midst. Admirably, Clinton's guy kept his composure and ignored the banging and the clattering and the rasping and the squeaking and the echoing. At one point, he was physically knocked out of the way by crew members!

It seemed almost deliberate. Was someone sending someone a message? Who? And who? Hilary dissing CNN? Or the labor movement dissing her? Or was it simply a pissing match between a CNN producer and a union foreman?

I want to know.

The Philosophy of Change

Here is an interesting point of view on the politics of same-sex marriage -- with a decidedly philosophical point of view.

Money quote: "The 1960s sexual revolution advanced the frontiers of liberty into the bedroom. Under the guise of privacy rights, contraception and abortion gained constitutional protection. When the California Supreme Court calls same-sex marriage a right because it is "integral to an individual's liberty and personal autonomy," it is only ratifying a deep cultural change that's already taken place."

What's Keeping Me Awake Nights

Given the history of political tactics used by the right, the Rove-inspired attacks that lack reason or rationality, yet appeal to the less thoughtful (but still electorally-empowered) among us, I've been having some fitful nights concerned over how social conservatives will attack marriage equality. As I stated in an earlier post, the main arguments currently appear to be morality, tradition and the welfare of children. These are either not germane (Biblical morality has nothing to do with civil marriage) or are easily refuted (tradition changes all the time and extending civil equality to same-sex couples won't prevent opposite-sex couples from forming stable families).

For me, the major challenge lies in countering the coming attacks that will contend that the approval of same-sex marriage will result in proscriptions on religious freedom. The right wants the electorate to believe that gay couples will want to force churches to marry them.

Here's their logic: because homosexuality has been classified as a "suspect class" (at least under California law), similar to race, religion or national origin, the GLBT community can now expect similar protection against discrimination. A public accommodation, like a bus line or a lunch counter can't prohibit African-Americans or Jews or Pakistanis from using a public accommodation simply because they are black, Jewish or Pakistani. Now the same is true of homosexuality.

Here's how it's playing out. In New Jersey, a Methodist organization is suing the state because it feels pressured to hold same-sex commitment ceremonies in an open-air building that is used both as a church and other purposes, including weddings. The church owns the property, but receives tax benefits because of its non-profit status.

In Philadelphia and in Berkeley, the Boy Scouts have been forced to pay market rents for spaces they use, rather than the subsidized $1/year rents they had previously been charged. Why? Because the Boy Scouts don't allow gay folks as members and both those cities (rightly, the courts ruled) don't want to subsidize discrimination.

In these instances, however, the case seems clear: you can't have it both ways. If you want the tax benefits, you have to accept the laws of the community charging the tax. If you want to be a private organization and discriminate with impunity, fine. Just don't expect the rest of us to underwrite bigotry.

However clear that seems to me, it may be less so to Christianists.

The most challenging case, however, is one out of New Mexico. A lesbian couple planning a commitment ceremony tried to hire a photographer -- that refused to take pictures of the ceremony, citing religious grounds. The couple sued under the state's anti-discrimination law and the photographer was fined $6000.

To be honest, that one seemed a bit extreme to me. What happened to "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"? Then I thought, what if the photographer was Muslim and refused to photograph a Jewish wedding? Would we feel the same?

So, the Christianists are coming. And they are going to be shouting that the queers are trying to strip them of their religious rights. (Never mind that the Catholics have been denying divorced people the right to marry in their churches for decades without incident or lawsuit.)

Just read. And this. Money quote: "Wilson said that California's faith-based organizations will likely be barred from sexual-orientation discrimination in the use of facilities that are offered to the public, and may increasingly find themselves the targets of discrimination-based civil-rights litigation."