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."