Conundrum

Every morning since Tuesday (I know, that's only three mornings, but I'm an impatient person) my first thought has been of the body blow the gay community took on election day. I'd like to move past the loss, accept it, and get on with the next step, whatever that is.

Herein lies the problem. What is the next step? Andrew Sullivan believes the best path is to forget the courts and do the hard work of convincing Americans that extending marriage equality is the right thing to do and to therefore achieve equality at the ballot box or in state legislatures. Bringing suits, he believes, will only result in backlash and bad feelings.

He has a point. I'd imagine a not-insignificant portion of Californians voted "yes" on 8 not because they didn't believe in marriage equality, but simply to teach the California Supreme Court a lesson about overturning the will of the people. If the suits that were filed the day after the election end up making their way to the US Supreme Court and the cause of equality prevails there (as it ought to, given the 14th Amendment) will we have won a legal battle but lost a larger, more important war? Americans may grudgingly accept same-sex marriage as a matter of law, but will equality always be stained by the fact that it was imposed upon the country by appointed judges and not elected officials or the American people themselves?

But what if African-Americans had waited until a majority of people felt they deserved equal access to education or the right to marry outside their race? How many more years would it have taken? Would they still be waiting for full equality? Although some extensions of civil rights (women's suffrage is the most important that comes to mind) have come through legislatures, many more had to be decreed and "forced" on the American people.

Of course, no court, no legislature -- not even a majority vote of the people -- can create acceptance. Loving v. Virginia gave interracial couples the right to marry, but I'm certain many still feel a twinge when they see a black man with a white woman. The law can be changed in a moment, but only time (and knowledge) will alter hearts and minds.

For me, the main problem with Sullivan's suggestion that we pursue electoral action is that people are very slow to change their minds. In the struggle to convince people that marriage equality is the right thing to do, we come too often to the impenetrable barrier of religious faith. Many millions of people believe there is an invisible superbeing that watches over us all and expects us to strictly follow rules established by books of mysterious provenance, filled with stories that would, if found on other pages, be considered "magic." No matter how rational or logical an argument you present to the more dogmatic among them, no matter how much evidence you provide, they can always fall back on "God says so" and that will -- for them -- settle any argument.

If Yes on 8 supporters had to back up their points with convincing evidence -- as they would in a court of law -- they'd have a very hard time prevailing. That's why Proposition 22 was declared unconstitutional -- because there is no rational reason to treat gay people differently under the law, even when it comes to civil marriage.

Unfortunately, voters don't have to be given rational reasons. They can say to themselves, "God wants it this way" and nothing can be done to sway them from that position. In California, if you can get a majority of people to agree with you, you can do almost anything -- at least until it runs up against the US Constitution. It happened with Proposition 2 in Colorado and could happen with Proposition 8 -- the SCOTUS could overturn it.

I'd rather have voters or the legislature extend equality, but to be honest, I'll take it any way I can get it.

Retribution Coming?

Another one from the Volokh Conspiracy:

"To the 70% of black California voters (75% of black women voters) who supported Proposition 8, here's something to consider: it doesn't matter who's in the White House or who's in Congress, when you're applying for a job, what matters is who's reading your resume and what s/he does with it.

If your name is Lakesha, Darnell or anything similar, those of us who work in HR presume you're black. Because of the discrimination, exclusion and hate you chose to embrace and uphold, those of us who are gay and work in HR may now pause to consider whether we should contact you for an interview or simply place your resume at the bottom of the pile."

Can't say I'd do the same. But I understand the emotion behind it. Doesn't make it less wrong, though.

Concise, party of one?

It's an argument I have made on several occasions -- but never with more brevity than this:

"A frequently overheard slippery slope is:

Gay marriage = Less procreation = Human extinction.

But this slippery slope only works if we all become gay.

What process originating in gay marriage will make me divorce my wife and marry a man?

What process originating in gay marriage will make any appreciable number of straight people turn gay?"

From a commenter on the blog, Volokh Conspiracy.

Oh, The Irony!

Although some say the voting on Proposition 8 is still too close to call, with two million late absentee ballots still to be counted, I don't see a path that leads to the defeat of discrimination. I think, for now, we must accept that most Californians believe that our relationships are less deserving than theirs.

While that is a very bitter pill to swallow, I believe that one day we will drink from the cup of true equality. One day people will see the light and realize that love is love and that no one's commitment to care for another person has more value (in a legal sense) than anyone else's.

If Proposition 8 does indeed pass, I lay the blame on two groups: the LDS church and African-Americans. The Mormons donated massive amounts of cash (up to 70% of the bankroll for the Yes on 8 campaign)and African-Americans were the only demographic that voted for discrimination. Unfortunately, I think that neither of these two groups are sufficiently cognizant of the deep irony of their opposition to marriage equality.

The LDS church still suffers from an image of being a church that supported polygamy, a highly alternative view of traditional "one man, one woman" marriage. They were driven from more than one state, their leaders slain, in part because they held a non-traditional view of marriage. Yet today they marshal their not-inconsiderable resources to crush another form of non-traditional marriage.

But at least I can understand where their opposition comes from. And the discrimination against them ended, for all intents and purposes, over a century ago. What I cannot understand is how African-Americans, who still suffer from discrimination, can extend bigoted thinking to any other group of people. Though the spectre of racism still hangs above the heads of African-Americans, their battle for civil rights effectively ended with the election of one of their brothers to the highest office in the land. Yet, after throwing off their chains, instead of melting them down, they wrapped them around us. That I will never understand.

A Little Empathy, Please

After all the debate, all the arguing, all the back and forth on the issue of marriage equality, today I want you to think about just one thing. I want you to imagine how it would feel if other people were allowed to vote on the validity of your relationship. How would you feel if millions of people were stepping into voting booths right now to decide whether YOUR marriage would be “valid or recognized”?

Another Reason to Love Andrew Sullivan

Once again, he hits it dead center.

Money quote: "In so many ways, real conservatives should be rejoicing. How did such a marginalized group come to seek such a traditional way forward? And yet so many "conservatives", rather than hailing this socially positive development, demonized those of us who stood up for it, cast us out of respectable conservative discourse, and tried to do all they can to destroy and uproot our families.

It's an emblem of what went so horribly wrong with conservatism. Fixing it will be a critical element of putting it right. Until the Republican party finds a way to talk to gay and lesbian people and our families, they will fail to become a modern political movement."

Equal -- on so many levels

Please click on this link. It's a simple, straightforward -- but very powerful -- affirmation of how ordinary our families are. How similar our lives are to heterosexual couples.

Money quote: "How much of your waking time is spent thinking about how you raise your children and the sort of people you want them to be? Do your children complain about going to religious services on the weekend, like mine do? Do they say, "Are you kidding me?," like it's a surprise, rather than your weekly routine? Do you have parents that you are also looking out for? Are you sometimes divided between the kids and your folks?"

Children Will Listen, 2

Here is more evidence that the concerns of people that children will learn about same-sex marriage if Proposition 8 fails to pass are unfounded. Why? Because Prop 8 supporters gave the issue FAR more visibility by putting the issue on November's ballot.

Money quote: "The irony is that gay marriage has become the No. 1 topic of discussion on school playgrounds and sports practice fields precisely because of Proposition 8. The political battle has done far and away more to raise awareness of same-sex marriage among schoolchildren than the state Supreme Court's ruling in May ever would have. This last month has been a giant teachable moment on gay marriage -- which is probably not what Proposition 8's backers intended."

Children Will Listen

From Andrew Sullivan's blog:

"A reader writes:

My 7 year old just learned about gay marriage. Not form his school or teacher, but by the Yes on Prop 8 ad on radio while carpooling to school. He asked me about it and I gave an age appropriate answer. I have no doubt that many other kids will learn about the gay marriage thanks to prop 8 ads. I hope the theocrats realize the irony ...

Irony isn't their strong point."

It's a point I've been making lately with friends -- you can't keep sexuality in the closet for ever. As Jeff Goldblum said in "Jurassic Park": "Life finds a way."

We've Made It To The Big Time!

You know you're doing well when people get so scared they compare you to Hitler and the Nazis.

Look to the Law

Read this story in today's Desert Sun, discussing an opinion released by 50 respected professors of law from around the state regarding the true impact of Proposition 8.

Money quote:

"These scholars concluded that Proposition 8:
• discriminates against gays and lesbians
• would have no effect on a church’s tax exemption
• would not effect education or parental rights

“We recognize that people of integrity can differ in their views of the meaning of marriage,” a news release said the scholars wrote.

“But people who want to take the right to marry away from same-sex couples should not rely on misleading claims about the current state of the law or about what Proposition 8 would do.”"

The Call Has Gone Out

The right are calling upon their invisible superbeing to save California from the menace my husband and I represent. Though their invisible superbeing can't vote, THEY can. So can you. Overwhelm suspicion. Defeat superstition. Don't let some people's mythologies to interfere with the rational process of governing ourselves as a community. Vote No on 8 -- and remind all your friends and family to do the same.

Eight Mile Laundry

In certain 'hoods, there's a tradition of battling with put-down rhymes in the manner of Eminem's movie, "Eight Mile." In the above, my favorite new commercial, a new white rap god arises.

The Real Ticket

The "Straight Talk Express" finally made it to the lawn signs.

Wasilla in Action

This may be the funniest thing you watch all week. Maybe all month. It is a one-man performed reading of the full transcript from a Wasilla City Council meeting from 1996, when Sarah Palin was either on the city council or mayor. (I'm not sure which, as 1996 is the year she was elected mayor.)

I don't know which is funnier/more tragic -- that the meeting was five minutes long, or that virtually all the five minutes was taken up with a discussion of refreshments. Either way, it's hysterical.

A Maestro Speaks

Violinist Itzhak Perlman reminding us the Proposition 8 is about nothing more than equal treatment under the law.

Blackmail?

The race just gets crazier and crazier. In addition to all the sign stealing (on both sides), now comes this. Apparently, the Yes on 8 campaign in San Diego sent as many as 30 letters to area businesses that had donated to No on 8, threatening that if they didn't make an equivalent donation to Yes on 8, they would publicize the companies' support of same-sex marriage rights. The Yes on 8 campaign admits sending the letters.

Not sure what they thought they were going to get, but I don't think publicity is what they were after.

It's Already Happened

So let's decide HOW it's going to happen.

What has happened is that the concept of same-sex marriage has been heard by young children in the classroom. The proponents of prop 8 are trumpeting the field trip as evidence that marriage equality means children will be taught that "same-sex marriage is the same as traditional marriage." Not to burst anyone's bubble, but on a civil level, it is.

Kids need to know the truth. Kindergartners don't need to be taught a unit on the struggle for gay equality. In fact, sexuality and marriage don't need to enter the curriculum until junior high, at least. But what if one of the kids in a kindergarten class is being raised by two women? Or one kid casually mentions to another that his uncle got married to another guy -- and the classmate reacts strangely or even cruelly?

When the subject is raised -- for whatever reason -- when kids have questions, what should teachers do? Tell the kids to ask their parents? Possibly. But that could reinforce the perception of same-sex marriage as something to be ashamed of. (I know, lots of the Yes on 8 people secretly -- or not -- want homosexuality back in the closet, but since it's not going to be, they're going to have to get over it at some point.)

Or should teachers try to avoid the subject until they talk to parents? Or do you spend a few minutes of one class day talking in terms five-year olds can understand: "Though almost all boys one day find themselves really liking girls, some boys get a little older and find out they are attracted to other boys. Some girls discover they like other girls. That's how it is for Mitchell's two moms. It's sort of like being left-handed. We don't know why some people are, but it's wrong to treat anyone differently because of it." Something like that?

The point is, we shouldn't be arguing with the prop 8 proponents about whether discussions of same-sex marriage will happen in public schools. They will. They've been happening for years. Just like discussions of religion. So we need to talk about what we OUGHT to be teaching our children about the subject of civil rights and the "legal and financial aspects of marriage and parenting." That's why we have local schools -- so people can be involved in their children's education.

The field trip, for instance. (You know the one -- the other teachers arranged for a field trip to a fellow teacher's wedding for her young students. It's been a big dust-up in the blogs.) But where's the problem? Parents must always approve their child's attendance on ANY field trip. So if a same-sex wedding ceremony wasn't something you wanted your child to witness, you simply don't sign the permission form. As far as a wedding being an appropriate school activity for kids of that age, I bet it's happened before. I'm betting some kids were allowed to go see a teacher married in a civil ceremony. At some point, it's happened. Same-sex or traditional, a wedding can be a "teachable moment."

The Yes on 8 folks are cleaning our clocks on this issue. We're letting them control the debate. We need to shift the emphasis. Exactly how, I'm not sure yet. But we can't let the debate be about whether or not same-sex marriage will be discussed at all, but about when and how it ought to be in the curriculum so that parents' need for control over certain subjects can be balanced against children's need to understand the truth of how our society works.

Because the truth is, Proposition 8 has NOTHING to do with what kids are taught in schools. Kids are going to learn about same-sex relationships -- in school and everywhere else -- no matter how the vote goes on November 4.

It's Official

I was married on Monday. In a small, private ceremony, my beloved and I stood with a few family members, looked into each other’s eyes and promised to love each other, to look out for each other’s best interests, and to care for and support each other for the rest of our days, no matter what obstacles life puts in our path.

We want this marriage to last a lifetime. But we are afraid if too many Californians listen to lies and fear-mongering and vote “yes” on Proposition 8, our marriage might last only 23 days.

What can I say to convince you to defeat this perhaps well-intentioned but profoundly misguided effort to eliminate the right of couples such as my partner and I to marry? I know that for many people, there is nothing I can say. But I will try anyway.

Do you worry your church will be forced to marry same-sex couples?

It won’t. The Supreme Court decision that began this era of marriage equality said exactly the opposite: “no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs."

Are you concerned about what children may be taught in school about sexuality?

The only thing mandated by the state is that children be taught “the legal and financial aspects and responsibilities of marriage and parenthood.” For parenthood, you will have to discuss sex at some point. But the legal and financial aspects of civil marriage? No need at all to discuss sex or sexuality to teach those lessons.

Worried about changing the definition of the word “marriage”?

I’m sorry, but we need to use that word, too. Domestic partnerships are important, but you know as well as we there’s something profound about the relationship to which we give the name “marriage.” It’s special to us, too. If you can allow Britney Spears’ 55-hour Vegas vindaloo to be called a “marriage,” surely you can allow my rather mundane (however extraordinary it is to me) example of mutual affection and caring to be called one as well.

Are you worried about children? How they “deserve to be raised by both a mother and a father?”

What if, hypothetically, I conceded that was the case? How does denying marriage equality do anything to further that goal? Does anyone seriously believe if Proposition 8 passes that gay people are suddenly going to look for opposite sex partners and start having children?

Of course not. How, then, does my marriage (to a delightful, loving man who is as interested in my well-being and happiness as I am in his) somehow translate into harm for more traditional families?

Gay people aren't going away, even if one of our rights might be.

We didn’t stop being gay when we were teased or abused on the playground because of who we are. We didn’t stop being gay when our parents disowned us because of who we are. Or when we were fired from our jobs or evicted from our homes because of it. When we could be arrested and jailed because of it.

Or beaten, tied to a fence and left to die.

If we didn't give up being queer after enduring all we have -- do people imagine we will forsake our identities because too many Californians refuse to recognize that our civil, legal arrangements with each other – our paperwork – deserve to be equal to yours?

The Yes on 8 campaign has almost $10 million more than those fighting for my rights have. The LDS church alone has raised 40% of the other side’s war chest, already has a very large and effective army in place, and is recruiting more volunteers from out-of-state to fight against equality. The campaign is allying themselves with other well-organized churches. They fill the airwaves with lies and appeals to base and groundless fears. To be honest, I tremble at the thought of them.

But I stand my ground. Because I stand on truth. I stand on the Constitution. All are to receive equal treatment under the law.

Unfortunately, many voters disagree with me. Proposition 8 may pass, and our marriage (at least the paperwork) could ultimately be “valid or recognized” for a mere three weeks and two days.

We must – all fair-minded Californians must, no matter how we feel about same-sex marriage – not vote to eliminate anyone else’s fundamental rights. If we miss this opportunity to guarantee equality, we may not have another chance for a generation or more.

Those of us who are closer to the end of our lives than the beginning may not, as Dr. King said, get to the mountaintop ourselves. But we can all take a giant step toward the promised land of equality for all by voting “No” on Proposition 8.


We can also help forward the cause of marriage by making a donation to Equality for All, the organization leading the fight against Proposition 8. There are approximately one million gay people in California -- but only 30,000 people have made donations to the No on 8 effort. (Hard to believe Bob and I are responsible for 1/1000 of those donors!) And lots of those were straight people. If all the gay folks got together and gave even $10 each, we'd be in great shape for these last two weeks of the campaign. Click here to make a donation. $10, $100, $1000 -- whatever you can do. It's important.

Favorite New Blog

I've only read a handful of posts, but so far I'm in love with The Liberal Mormon That Could. It's written by a young LDS wife and mother trying to make sense of the intolerance her church is spreading. It's beautifully done. Give her a read.

Still Some Open LDS Minds

Click here for an interesting point of view from a 28-year old software engineer from Provo, Utah. He discusses the recent broadcast by LDS church leaders on Proposition 8, pointing out the many examples of mendacity and fear-mongering engaged in by high level leaders of the church.

Money quote: "The circular logic surrounding modern-day prophets is mind-numbing. When one looks at racist statements by past leaders like Brigham Young or fallacious teachings of Bruce R. McConkie, people are quick to point out that prophets are imperfect. But then people readily immediately accept every word from present leaders of the church. Apparently, prophets only become fallible once they've passed on, how convenient. If prophets really are fallible (as has been shown, numerous times) then members of the church would be wise to not blindly accept, but really think things through thoroughly. Unfortunately, people are quick to follow the advice of N. Eldon Tanner, "When the prophet speaks, the debate is over." People's ability to accept leaders' fallibility at the same moment as denying their fallibility is stunning."

Oh. My. God.

The above is the latest screed from the Republicans in their attempt to remind voters that Barack Obama is, well...black. If his skin color wasn't a dead giveaway, they reinforce the point with a bucket of fried chicken, a slice of watermelon and his face on a fake "food stamp."

And this happened in California, not Louisiana or Alabama. Do we really live in 2008?

Show us the money, Ellen!

Ellen de Generes has finally gotten involved in the battle over Proposition 8. She's made a 30-second spot that is accessible from her show website. Yet, despite the millions she has earned from her tv shows and concert dates, so far no donation to the campaign. Her mother, Betty, however, has given $700. I'm certain I have far less than Betty de Generes, and I've given more than that already and have plans to give more.

So Ellen -- love you, love almost everything about you, thinking about being you for Halloween...but WHERE'S THE MONEY?! We have the ads in place that will counter the lies the other side is spreading, but we need cash to get them on the air. Come on, write a check. If Brad Pitt can drop $100K, you can do a million, can't you? Please, please write the check. Today.

Connecticut Too!

A few moments ago, the Connecticut Supreme Court reached the same decision the California Supreme Court did, ruling that the state's civil union law wasn't equal enough and opening the door for marriage equality in the state.

I'm not sure what to make of this decision in terms of the California battle over Proposition 8. Will it convince undecided voters that marriage equality truly is the future? Or will it harden the hearts of those who fret over the specter of "activist" judges? Maybe a little of both.

Update: This link is a more complete story than the link above.

Well Done!

My team did a good job. It makes a good point -- no matter how you feel about same-sex marriage, do you really want to take away some people's fundamental rights?

It won't do anything for the true fundies, but I think it's the right "one thing" you can tell undecideds in 30 seconds.

Fox: See No Obama Supporters, Hear No Obama Supporters...

Count the hands. But hey, if denial works for them, who am I to argue?

Know Fear

These people vote.

The Greatest of These is...

...love.

Share it.

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.