Uncivil Unions: May 2008: Archives
In a move that is sure to keep same-sex marriage in the media spotlight, New York Governor David Paterson has issued a directive requiring the state of New York to recognize same-sex marriages from those states and countries where they have been allowed. The governor argues that the move is consistent with long standing New York law...law that has always required recognition of marriages from other jurisdictions.
From The New York Times:
ALBANY -- Gov. David A. Paterson has directed all state agencies to begin to revise their policies and regulations to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions, like Massachusetts, California and Canada.
The revisions are most likely to involve as many as 1,300 statutes and regulations in New York governing everything from joint filing of income tax returns to transferring fishing licenses between spouses.
The directive cited a Feb. 1 ruling by a State Appellate Court in Rochester that Patricia Martinez, who works at Monroe Community College and who married her partner in Canada, could not be denied health benefits by the college because of New York's longstanding policy of recognizing marriages performed elsewhere, even if they are not explicitly allowed under New York law. The appeals court said that New York must recognize marriages performed in other states that allow the practice and in countries that permit it, like Canada and Spain.
Monroe County filed an appeal with the state's highest court, the Court of Appeals, but it was rejected on technical grounds. The county has not decided whether to file another appeal, a county spokesman said on Wednesday. The Court of Appeals has previously ruled that the state's Constitution did not compel the recognition of same-sex marriages and that it was up to the Legislature to decide whether do so.
In the larger picture, the move may be part and parcel of a tipping point in the battle over same-sex marriage. At the very least, this action coupled with the ruling of the California Supreme Court, may lead opponents of same-sex marriage to reconsider their opposition to the granting of any of the same rights that are currently afforded to heterosexual marriages.
Until now, opponents of same-sex marriage have been able to ignore the granting of reasonable rights to same-sex couples by placing their focus on same-sex marriage as a threat to the institution and the family. The latest polling in California seems to suggest that more and more citizens are shifting their views on same-sex unions. That shift, assisted by the Supreme Court ruling, may indicate that the issue of equality is beginning to eclipse the fomenting of fear that has been the cornerstone of the religious right's efforts to deny any recognitions that might legitimize homosexuality.
I've long argued that a majority of Americans are ultimately fair minded...though they are frequently slow to shed fears that can prevent them from making objective conclusions. In the case of homosexuality, the religious right has sought to cloak their hatred and bigotry as a simple adherence to morality. Unfortunately, more and more citizens are able to recognize the true agenda of those opposed to same-sex marriage...which is actually an effort to prevent the codifying of any gay rights.
The fact that gays have sought the full array of rights has, to a degree, allowed the religious right the leeway to disguise their agenda as well as distort the agenda of the gay community. That dynamic has served to heighten fears and relegate a rational discussion of basic rights to the back burner.
While I'm concerned that the California ruling has the potential to initiate a backsliding or a backlash against gays, the ruling of the court, coupled with Governor Paterson's clearly articulated justification for granting basic rights and recognitions to same-sex couples, may be the point at which fair Americans realize that they can't allow their reservations about homosexuality to be the impetus to deny rights to their fellow citizens.
The following video is today's announcement by the Governor detailing the directive and the rationale by which it has been issued.
Tagged as: California, Civil Unions, Equality, Gay Marriage, Governor Paterson, LGBT, Massachusetts, New York, Same-Sex Marriage
Daniel DiRito | May 29, 2008 | 10:49 AM |
link
| Comments (3)
In the following video segment, Stephen discusses the Bible and the recent ruling of the California Supreme Court on gay marriage with Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council. Perkins and his organization are rabidly anti-gay and it's obvious that he's uncomfortable throughout his conversation with Colbert (unfortunately many of these right wingers have no sense of humor).
I always enjoy watching the holier than thou squirm when confronted with some of the inconsistencies found in their dogma...and Colbert is one of the best at exposing them. I'm sure Perkins couldn't wait for the segment to end.
Tagged as: Bible, Colbert Report, Faith, Family Research Council, Gay marriage, LGBT, Religion, Same-Sex Marriage, Stephen Colbert, Tony Perkins
Daniel DiRito | May 28, 2008 | 9:04 AM |
link
| Comments (1)
Sometimes the best way to point out the absurdity of an opinion is to offer one that is even more absurd. The following video does just that.
In taking on the issue of banning homosexuality and offering seven reasons in favor of doing so, the video succeeds in making a credible argument in support of granting gays equal status.
No doubt many of the arguments against granting gays the same rights as their heterosexual counterparts lack rationality. This video helps to highlight the irrationality that is so often a part of prejudice.
Tagged as: Equal Rights, Equality, Gay, Gay Marriage, LGBT, Same-Sex Marriage, Satire
Daniel DiRito | May 25, 2008 | 11:51 AM |
link
| Comments (0)
Most of us are familiar with the expression, "Be careful what you wish for", though I suspect it rarely keeps us from spending our time hoping to achieve or attain the things we seek. The fact that the California Supreme Court is set to rule tomorrow on whether the state can deny gays the right to marry will likely be a defining moment in our understanding of the concept of the double edged sword.
On the one hand, those who have waited years to have their relationships recognized may see a favorable ruling as the culmination of a dream come true. On the other hand, a favorable ruling will undoubtedly be seen as a nightmare to those who have expended untold energy seeking to prohibit any recognition of same-sex relationships. Hence, how the two sides absorb the outcome will likely have more meaning than the actual ruling.
The California Supreme Court will rule Thursday on the legality of the state's ban on gay marriage.
The justices today posted a notation on the court's Web site that the ruling in the civil rights challenge to the same-sex marriage ban will be posted at 10 a.m. Thursday. The Supreme Court heard arguments in five consolidated legal challenges in March, and had until early June to rule on the issue.
The long-awaited ruling is a crucial test of the simmering public, social and legal debate over gay marriage, triggered in 2004 when San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom allowed thousands of gay and lesbian couples to wed before the courts put a halt to the marriage licenses.
A ruling in favor of gay marriage could stoke a political firestorm in the fall if a proposed constitutional amendment to outlaw gay marriage in California makes it onto the ballot. A decision on whether the initiative qualifies for the ballot is expected in June.
As such, tomorrow will bring both the culmination of hopeful expectations and the delivery of disappointment. Needless to say, that means the ruling is apt to inspire one side while inciting the other. How those perceptions are played out in terms of focus found or fear infused will likely have more to do with deciding the future of gay marriage.
So where will that leave us? Frankly, it leaves us where we've always been...needing to find the means to communicate with those we don't understand in order to remove the misconceptions that serve to maintain what has to be viewed as an untenable status quo.
In the end, without real change, today, tomorrow, and the day after are one and the same so long as the issue of gay marriage remains a zero sum equation in the minds of the combatants. Tomorrow will have a winner...but we'd all be wise to realize that it may not be a victory.
Tagged as: Amendment, California, DOMA, Gay, Gay Marriage, Religion, Same-Sex Marriage, Supreme Court
Daniel DiRito | May 14, 2008 | 1:43 PM |
link
| Comments (0)
The following video asks an interesting question - Is religion battered woman's syndrome? While provocative on its surface, the creator of the video makes a number of thoughtful observations.
More than an effort to connect religion with battered woman's syndrome, it is an attempt to force people to consider the pretext upon which they adopt their religious beliefs and to what extent that may be a flawed construct.
In my opinion, all too often people accept the religious beliefs of their parents without ever taking the time to fully understand exactly the meaning of the concepts they're assimilating into their own understanding of the world in which they live.
No doubt beliefs can serve a valuable purpose in a person's life...but they can also preclude the individual from exploring other possibilities...particularly if one has adopted their beliefs as a result of blind acceptance or forcible infliction. Hence, the similarity to the process by which a woman is able to adjust her thinking to accept the abuse of her abuser and forego her rightful ability to make determinations on her own and in her best interest.
I am always amazed at the seeming lack of suspicion with regards to religious ideology. Time and again I witness people refusing to take much of anything they encounter on face value...yet those same individuals are somehow able to compartmentalize their faith such that it is beyond reconsideration or reproach.
I've always felt that the fear of death, and the unknown quality it holds, is an immensely powerful tool in the arsenal of religious institutions. Regardless, it's as if people abdicate large swaths of their lives in order to avoid the fear of losing them. In the end, isn't that little more than a subservient march towards the very death they fear?
Come to think of it, perhaps the comparison is insufficient. After all, many women find the strength to break free of their overlords. The same isn't always true of those who acquiesce to other iterations of divine beings.
Tagged as: Battered Women, Critical Thinking, Death, Domestic Abuse, Faith, Fear, God, Religion
Daniel DiRito | May 14, 2008 | 10:53 AM |
link
| Comments (3)
While John McCain has chosen to avoid a repudiation of Pastor Hagee's endorsement of the presumed GOP nominee, it appears that the damage control has commenced. Today, Hagee issued a written apology to Catholics and the apology was accepted by Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League. Ahh, yes...a marriage made in heaven...isn't that wonderful?
Like many evangelical pastors, John Hagee is no stranger to controversial statements. With his endorsement of the Arizona Senator, many of the remarks attributed to Hagee have resurfaced...and they are every bit as incendiary as the words that were spoken by Barack Obama's pastor, Jeremiah Wright...though they haven't garnered near the attention. In the following video clip, Hagee is seen calling the Catholic Church "The Great Whore".
Not to fear. Politics makes for strange bedfellows and none may be stranger than Hagee and Donohue. Take a look at today's exchange of pleasantries.
"Out of a desire to advance greater unity among Catholics and Evangelicals in promoting the common good, I want to express my deep regret for any comments that Catholics have found hurtful," Hagee wrote, according to an advanced copy of the letter reviewed by Washington Wire. "After engaging in constructive dialogue with Catholic friends and leaders, I now have an improved understanding of the Catholic Church, its relation to the Jewish faith, and the history of anti-Catholicism."
In the letter, addressed to Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League and one of Hagee's biggest critics, Hagee pledges "a greater level of compassion and respect for my Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ."
Hagee's letter explains some of the harsh words he has used when describing the Catholic Church. "I better understand that reference to the Roman Catholic Church as the 'apostate church' and the 'great whore' described in the book of Revelation" -- both terms Hagee has employed -- "is a rhetorical device long employed in anti-Catholic literature and commentary," he wrote.
Donohue, in a response to Hagee's letter, accepted his apology. "The tone of Hagee's letter is sincere. He wants reconciliation and he has achieved it. Indeed, the Catholic League welcomes his apology. What Hagee has done takes courage and quite frankly I never expected him to demonstrate such sensitivity to our concerns. But he has done just that. Now Catholics, along with Jews, can work with Pastor Hagee in making interfaith relations stronger than ever. Whatever problems we had before are now history. This case is closed," Donohue wrote.
Hagee is also known for his derogatory remarks directed towards gays...particularly his assertion that Katrina was simply a matter of God punishing the people of New Orleans. Hagee argued that the upcoming gay pride parade led to the devastating hurricane. His statement in that regard follows.
All hurricanes are acts of God, because God controls the heavens. I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God, and they were recipients of the judgment of God for that.
The newspaper carried the story in our local area, that was not carried nationally, that there was to be a homosexual parade there on the Monday that the Katrina came. And the promise of that parade was that it would was going to reach a level of sexuality never demonstrated before in any of the other gay pride parades.
So I believe that the judgment of God is a very real thing. I know there are people who demur from that, but I believe that the Bible teaches that when you violate the law of God, that God brings punishment sometimes before the Day of Judgment, and I believe that the Hurricane Katrina was, in fact, the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans.
Hagee, subsequent to endorsing McCain, sought to step back from his comments by issuing the following statement.
"As a believing Christian, I see the hand of God in everything that happens here on earth, both the blessings and the curses. But ultimately neither I nor any other person can know the mind of God concerning Hurricane Katrina. I should not have suggested otherwise. No matter what the cause of the storm, my heart goes out to all who suffered in this terrible tragedy. There but for the grace of God go any one of us."
Unfortunately, according to the Dallas Morning News, the seeming retraction apparently left a bad taste in the pastor's mouth and that led him to offer the following response to a caller, who asked during a radio appearance, why the pastor had backed away from his comments in the face of criticism.
Hagee said he hadn't. As for the Katrina, he said, God controls hurricanes and "God always punishes unconfessed sin."
Now there seems to have been some confusion at the time. While Hagee was attributing Katrina to the gay pride parade, one of his fellow evangelists, Pat Robertson, was speculating that God was angry because Ellen Degeneres, a lesbian originally from New Orleans, had been chosen to host the upcoming Emmy Awards.
As it turned out, despite all of these revelations and proclamations, the French Quarter, the epicenter of gay life in New Orleans, weathered the storm with minimal damage. Since we know that God controls all natural disasters, I guess we're left to conclude that the good Lord had an off day and simply misfired, leaving the gays unpunished and free to plan the next years parade.
Unfortunately, I had my phone turned off so I missed my own call from the Almighty - otherwise I might have been able to report my own communications and clear up any of the confusion that remains.
So where does this leave us? Well, I can't help but see politics as a numbers game. As such, it's far more important to make nice with the Catholics than with the LGBT community, since the Catholics comprise a larger voting block and they are certainly more closely aligned with the positions of the GOP than the gays and the Democrats. Besides, demonizing gays has always been an effective weapon in the arsenal of people of faith.
That brings me to the protection of marriage...one of the quintessential issues for Christians. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that today's events demonstrate that even a marriage of convenience trumps a same-sex marriage. Therefore, it is far easier for evangelicals and Catholics to kiss and make up, under the umbrella of the GOP, than it would be for any of them to alter their stance on portraying gays and gay marriage as the source of all that ails society.
The funny thing is...I've always thought that Christians frowned upon acts of prostitution...and engaging in a menage a trois. Little did I know that God would rather bless the union of three trick-turners than the loving relationships of two homos. It just goes to show that politics and prostitution have a lot in common...and if you think about it...they have maintained a long standing and fruitful connection. After all, isn't staying together through thick and thin...while procreating more of the same...what marriage is supposed to be about?
With this newfound awareness, I know you'll understand my need to excuse myself...I've got to go confess my sins...I just can't bear to be the one with the sullied soul who causes the next calamity.
Tagged as: 2008 Election, Barack Obama, Bill Donahue, Catholic League, Catholicism, Confession, Evangelicals, Gay Marriage, Gays, God, Jeremiah Wright, John Hagee, John McCain, Katrina, LGBT, New Orleans, Pat Robertson, Prostitution, Religion, Same-Sex Marriage
Daniel DiRito | May 13, 2008 | 11:35 AM |
link
| Comments (0)
The gall of the religious right never ceases to amaze. Time and again, they demonstrate that hypocrisy is an essential element of their ideology. While many of these zealots frequently demonstrate their willingness to preach one thing and do another, their latest endeavor seems determined to take it to a whole new level.
The Alliance Defense Fund, a legal advocate for the right wing, is calling on churches to voice their positions on political candidates en masse on September 28th in order to create the grounds to challenge the constitutionality of the current tax code. As it now stands, the IRS guidelines prohibit churches from directly endorsing or rejecting political candidates in order to maintain their tax exempt status. The ADF wants to overturn the provision on the grounds that it circumvents their First Amendment rights and is therefore unconstitutional.
From The Washington Post:
The Alliance Defense Fund, based in Scottsdale, Ariz., will ask the clergy to deliver a sermon about specific candidates Sept. 28. If the action triggers an IRS investigation, the legal group will sue to overturn the federal rules, which were enacted in 1954.
Under the IRS code, churches can distribute voter guides, run voter registration drives, hold forums on public policy and invite politicians to speak at their congregations.
However, they cannot endorse a candidate, and their political activity cannot be biased for or against a candidate, directly or indirectly.
The Alliance Defense Fund said Friday that the regulations amount to an unconstitutional limit on free speech and government intrusion into religion.
From WorldNetDaily:
"Churches have for too long feared the loss of tax exempt status arising from speech in the pulpit addressing candidates for office," the ADF's white paper on the campaign confirmed. "Rather than risk confrontation, pastors have self-censored their speech, ignoring blatant immorality in government and foregoing the opportunities to praise moral government leaders.
"ADF believes that IRS restrictions on religious expression from the pulpit, whenever the IRS characterizes it as 'political,' is unconstitutional. After 50 years of threats and intimidation, churches should confront the IRS directly and reclaim the expressive rights guaranteed to them in the United States Constitution," the group said.
"The intimidation of churches by leftist groups using the IRS has grown to a point that ADF has no choice but to respond," said Erik Stanley, senior counsel for the ADF. "The number of threats being reported to ADF is growing because of the aggressive campaign to unlawfully silence the church.
Where to begin. First, I doubt the courts would rule in favor of the ADF since churches have always had the option to forego their tax exempt status. The bottom line - they elect their tax status knowing the conditions. I personally believe they shouldn't be tax exempt and it wouldn't surprise me if this misguided effort opens the door to discussing that possibility.
Beyond that, the dividing line between church and state is a complex matter that has been addressed numerous times by the courts. I suspect that the ADF believes that the shift to the right in the Supreme Court under the Bush administration may be to their benefit. Regardless, there is ample precedent that would need to be ignored in order for ADF to prevail.
Setting aside the legal argument, I want to focus on some of the inconsistent positions that emanate from the religious right...positions that lead me and many others to decry their penchant for hypocrisy. Two issues jump off the page.
The first is federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. President Bush and his supporters have argued that the government shouldn't provide funding for such research. The rationale for their objections is predicated upon ethical concerns that have their origin in religious doctrine. At the same time, he and those who support the ban on federal funding loudly note that they aren't preventing state and private funding for this research.
Hence the inconsistency is revealed. On the one hand, the religious right believes that it is appropriate for the president to deny funding for research that could assist numerous Americans that have no religious objections to the use of embryonic stem cells. They argue that those in favor of doing so can still conduct the research...just without the endorsement (funding) of the federal government. In other words, no one's rights are being denied so long as the research is allowed to proceed. If you favor it, fund it privately...but your federal government isn't going to use your money to do so.
On the other hand, those who endorse the logic in the above argument believe the federal government shouldn't be allowed to prohibit churches from engaging in partisan politicking in exchange for granting them an exemption from taxation. Where does that leave us? Well, it says that these individuals want the government to forego funding research that conflicts with their religious beliefs while also allowing them to use the pulpits of the churches they support to influence the outcome of elections...without those churches ever being required to pay taxation. If that isn't wanting to have it both ways, what is?
Contrast that with the secular citizen who pays taxes and wants the government to fund research that might save lives and one begins to see the absurdity of the system these religious demagogues favor. Truth be told, many of these religious organizations have already established "arms length" political entities that circumvent the IRS codes. Anyone who doubts their aspirations for the establishment of a theocracy ought to think again. The ADF directive is simply the next step in a well-crafted agenda.
The second item that illuminates the inconsistency in the rationale of the religious right is gay marriage. Proponents of measures to ban same-sex marriages contend that same-sex couples can achieve many of the same benefits that are afforded to married couples by utilizing the appropriate legal documentation. Of course they fail to mention that the lion's share of benefits cannot be achieved through any means...especially those that relate to taxation.
At the same time, they argue that the preservation of the institution of marriage and it's religious connotations is reasonable so long as the government isn't preventing gays from forming the relationships they choose. In other words, it's reasonable to restrict marriage to one man and one woman so long as the government allows gays to form the relationships they choose. The bottom line message to gays - you elect your tax status knowing the conditions.
When gays assert that this is an unfair system, the religious right is the first to cite those objections as evidence of the militant homosexual agenda and the desire of gays to force society to accept and embrace their alternative lifestyle.
Again, we begin to see the inconsistency. On the one hand, the religious right argues that the government has no obligation to recognize same-sex unions...and those who enter into them do so knowing the precedent conditions. You want a gay spouse, you don't benefit from the advantageous tax status afforded to recognized marriages. On the other hand, they want the government to recognize religious doctrine when determining whose marriages will receive beneficial treatment while also wanting their churches to receive preferential tax status absent conditions...conditions that are simply intended to uphold the separation of church and state.
Similar arguments can be made with regards to the religious right's positions on a number of issues. This includes a woman's right to have an abortion and the rights of an individual or their family members to make end of life decisions. Time and again, the religious right seeks to insert and impose their beliefs on those who do not share them while simultaneously asking the government to adopt a laissez-faire mentality with regards to monitoring the separation of church and state.
I find it amusing that those who routinely point out that the spiritual realm supersedes all else spend so much of their time in the pursuit of all things political and material. Then again, the newly emerging prosperity theology suggests that the attainment of success (wealth and worldly measures) is undoubtedly evidence that one is appropriately aligned with the Lord.
Silly me...why on earth would I conclude that any of the above positions are hypocritical. I just pray that God will help me abandon rational and reasoned thought in favor of the fabrications that come with faith. I need to accept that the teachings of Jesus Christ have nothing to do with today's Christianity. Come to think of it, maybe that's the reason the religious right insists that everyone has to be born again.
Image courtesy of TBogg
Tagged as: Abortion, Alliance Defense Fund, Amendment, Christ, Christianity, Church & State, Constitution, Embryonic Stem Cell, Gay, George W. Bush, IRS, Jesus, LGBT, Marriage, Religion, Religious Right, Same_Sex Marriage, Secularism, Supreme Court, Tax Exemption
Daniel DiRito | May 11, 2008 | 9:45 AM |
link
| Comments (0)
OK, forgive my disdain for the content of the video below, but how does the story of a 41 year old woman whose pregnant with her eighteenth child merit being a Mother's Day story on The Today Show? When did we reduce motherhood to a quantitative measurement? I'm sorry, but I just don't equate the number of children one births with the determination that a woman is a super mom. In fact, on virtually every imaginable metric, I find the choice to have eighteen children to be an example of short-sighted and self-centered aggrandizement.
The fact that this family believes that God is deciding how many children they will have only makes recognizing them on Mother's Day all the more misguided. Yes, they're entitled to their faith and to have all the children they want, but presenting that election as evidence of selfless devotion seems to ignore the obvious. Perhaps being the poster family for Christian values is a noble pursuit, but I fail to see how it is in the best interest of the mother's health, the children's well-being, or the world's already limited resources.
Having eighteen children also strikes me as a demonstration of faith that Jesus would have viewed with skepticism. In my estimation, he would have chosen the obscure single mother...who is raising a disabled child and struggling each day to make ends meet...as representative of maternal sincerity and sacrifice.
I never understood Jesus to be interested in those who sought the center stage to announce the fact that they were engaged in empathic endeavors. In fact, I think Jesus instructed that acts of sacrifice would, by their nature, provide all the reward one would ever need. Further, I believe Jesus thought that those who imagine the rewards before commencing to act weren't actually making a sacrifice and didn't deserve any of the recognition.
Look, the Duggar's may well be wonderful people, but in the end, I suspect this family's choice isn't properly motivated nor is it representative of the sacrifice that we should associate with motherhood. In our me first, top of the heap, number one or nothing chain letter society, this looks to be another example of the thinking that underlies our pyramid scheme psychosis...a pathetic pathology that values victory and despises defeat while routinely diminishing and discarding our humanity. It is the one characteristic we should cherish...the one thing we all share equally...and the first thing we set aside in our race to capture and claim the perceived pinnacle.
I don't know how many children the Duggar's will end up with...but I'm willing to concede that they win the award for churning out more children than most would ever consider. I'll also stipulate that their God is aware of their willingness to bear as many children as Mrs. Duggar's body can endure.
Beyond that, I'm not willing to conclude that having eighteen children makes Mr. & Mrs. Duggar exemplary parents, conscientious Christians, or honorable humans. The skeptic in me says their actions betray their intentions. If I'm right, they may have won the battle but lost the war. At least they have enough children to build their own perfect pyramid.
Tagged as: Chain Letter Society, Children, God, Jesus, Mother's Day, Motherhood, Parenting, Religion, Sacrifice, The Today Show
Daniel DiRito | May 9, 2008 | 2:49 PM |
link
| Comments (0)
