Germany: In light of Trump, Europe Must Be Self-Reliant

Two opposing trends are taking place in Europe.  On the one hand, as reported by the Washington Post, in recognition of the reality that under Donald Trump, a/k/a Der Trumpenführer, the United States can no longer be deemed a dependable ally, Europe must move toward being self-reliant, both economically and militarily.  Meanwhile, through Brexit, Britain (which is more inclined to follow GOP style trickle down economics) is withdrawing from the European Union and will be isolating itself and in the view of many harming its economy by exacerbating problems that have made it increasingly less prosperous than France and Germany.   The Brits, like far too many Americans, seemingly embraced racism, bigotry and xenophobia and closed their eyes to the fact that they were voting against their own economic interest.  It may feel satisfying to look down on and denigrate "Those People," but as a piece in the New York Times lays out, the cost for that fleeting sense of self-satisfaction will be painful.   Let's hope the push by German and France for more unity and strength are successful.  Many of the British will likely find themselves twisting on the rope they placed around their own necks.  First highlights from the Post piece:

German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Sunday declared a new chapter in U.S.-European relations after contentious meetings with President Trump last week, saying that Europe “really must take our fate into our own hands.”

It was the toughest review yet of Trump’s trip to Europe, which inflamed tensions rather than healed them after the U.S. president sparred with the leaders of Washington’s closest and oldest allies on trade, defense and climate change.

Merkel, Europe’s de facto leader, told a packed beer hall rally in Munich that the days when her continent could rely on others was “over to a certain extent. This is what I have experienced in the last few days.”

The comments came as Europe watches Britain preparing to leave the European Union and faces antagonism from Washington.

Merkel said that Europe’s move toward self-reliance should be carried out “of course in friendship with the United States of America, in friendship with Great Britain and as good neighbors wherever that works.”

Although relations between Washington and Europe have been strained at times since 1945, before Trump there has rarely been such a strong feeling from European leaders that they must turn away from Washington and prepare to face the world alone.  . . . . Although her message was partly aimed at her electorate, it was a measure of how badly relations have deteriorated with Trump’s United States that hitting Washington might win votes, while working with it could be perilous.

The remarks were a clear repudiation of Trump’s troubled few days with European leaders, even as Merkel held back from mentioning the U.S. president by name. 

“The belief in shared values has been shattered by the Trump administration,” said Stephan Bierling, an expert on transatlantic relations at Germany’s University of Regensburg. “After the inauguration, everyone in Europe was hopeful that Trump would become more moderate and take into account the positions of the G-7 and of NATO. But the opposite has happened.

[M]any European leaders emerged from their meetings with Trump filled with fresh worry. Trump was far more solicitous toward the autocratic king of Saudi Arabia earlier in the week, telling him and other leaders of Muslim-majority countries — many of them not democratically elected — that he was not “here to lecture.” Days later in Brussels he offered a scathing assessment of Washington’s closest allies, saying they were being “unfair” to American taxpayers.

[A]s Merkel positions herself ahead of the election, the message could be the signal of a shift away from the United States, perhaps even one that could outlast Trump’s time in office, and that would weaken U.S. global power over the long term. European leaders are developing plans to deepen military cooperation independently of the United States. They are also reaching out to economic partners in Asia that Trump has spurned. All of those shifts will have consequences that extend years, analysts say.

As noted, meanwhile, Britain continues its path to self-inflicted harm.  Here are excerpts from the piece in the New York Times:

An observer of Britain’s “Brexit” debate would be forgiven for thinking that the country’s economy is one of the European Union’s star performers. Brexit’s advocates rarely pass up an opportunity to claim that the European Union economy is the world’s weak link, and that Britain’s reformed, dynamic and flexible economy has little to risk, and much to gain, from leaving it. The reality is rather different. And Brexit threatens to make matters worse.

Britain’s economic performance relative to the other big economies in Western Europe — including France, Germany, Italy and Spain — does not stand out as impressive, at least once the different prices of goods and services across these countries are factored in. . . . . British economic growth between 2000 and 2015 lagged behind Spain and Germany.

Sustainable increases in living standards require economies to combine land, labor, capital and technology in more efficient ways; Britain has made a poor job of this, helping to explain why Britons’ wages have risen by much less than their French and German counterparts over the last 15 years.

If the country’s overall performance looks mediocre, note that it is also highly skewed by London and the southeast of England. . . . . since 2000, poorer regions of Britain have not been catching up with the richer regions of the European Union. Instead, they’ve been falling further behind.

So, why has the country’s performance been so poor? . . . . Britain is generally perceived as a liberalized economy, and by some measures of labor market performance this is no doubt true: Non-wage labor costs, such as employer contributions, are low and it is easy to lay off workers, which reduces the costs of taking them on in the first place. But a successful labor market requires more than easy hiring and firing; it needs skilled workers, access to housing and good quality infrastructure. By these measures Britain has some real weaknesses.

A significantly higher proportion of British 18- to 24-year-olds suffer from weak literacy and numeracy than those in France, Germany, Italy or Spain. . . . . the country has invested less in roads, railways and air travel than other large European Union economies over the last 20 years.

A Britain outside of the European Union will inevitably be less open to trade with member states, which will curb competition and productivity growth. Tax revenues will fall, further squeezing infrastructure investment and education spending. That’s why, far from liberating Britain to conquer world markets as a buccaneering trading nation, Brexit threatens to make its mediocre economic performance even worse.

In many ways British voters who supported Brexit are like Trump voters: an unfounded belief in exceptionalism, opposition to spending on projects for the common good such as infrastructure and education.  Add in the rank racism and bigotry and the parallels are complete. 

Brexit- A Referendum Against the Modern World.

After finishing the previous post, I came across this column in the New Statesman that looks at the pro-Brexit forces and the take away is that the mindset that is rallying low information and poorly educated Americans to Donald Trump is nearly identical to that of those who voted for Britain to leave the European Union.  Taken as a whole, the mindset is one of opposing modernity and the modern world in general.  Yes, it may feel good in some ways (I'm sure Christofascists and white supremacists "feel good" when they hear Donald Trump's rants), but it is not a realistic means of facing the future.  Like it or not, the world and society are changing and one can either adjust to the changes and move forward or stand in opposition and eventually find one's self on the trash heap of history.  Read the entire column and you will see that it applies just as equally to Donald Trump supporters as to those who voted to leave the EU.  Here are highlights:

This morning, I woke up in a country I do not recognise. David Cameron’s big gamble – the future of Britain against his personal political ambitions – has backfired so badly that we’ve blasted clean out of the EU. By the time I’d put the kettle on, the stock markets were in free fall, Scotland was debating a new independence referendum, Sinn Fein was making secession noises, and the prime minister had resigned.

There’s not enough tea in the entire nation to help us Keep Calm and Carry On today. Not on a day when prejudice, propaganda, naked xenophobia and callous fear-mongering have won out over the common sense we British like to pride ourselves on. Not on a day when we’re being congratulated by Donald Trump, Marine Le Pen, and nobody else. Well done, turkeys. Santa’s on his way.

Nigel Farage, the rich, racist cartoon demagogue, boasts that this victory was won “without a single shot being fired”. Tell that to the grieving family of Jo Cox, the campaigning Labour MP gunned down last week. Farage promised that unless something was done to halt immigration, “violence will be the next step”. It looks like we’ve got a two-for-one deal on that one.

This was never a referendum on the EU. It was a referendum on the modern world, and yesterday the frightened, parochial lizard-brain of Britain voted out, out, out, and today we've all woken up still strapped onto this ghost-train as it hurtles off the tracks. Leave voters are finding they care less about immigration now that their pension pots are under threat. Maybe one of the gurning pundits promising them pride and sovereignty should have mentioned that, but they were too busy lying about the NHS. The curtain has been torn away and now we all have to look at the men behind it. They are not good men.

Anyone feel like they’ve got their country back yet? No? That, after all, was the rallying cry of the Leave campaign – the transatlantic echo of "Make America Great Again". There’s a precedent for what happens when svengalis with aggressively terrible haircuts are allowed to appeal to parochialism and fear in the teeth of a global recession, and it isn’t pretty.

It says something about this campaign that I’m no longer at all worried about risking hyperbole or unoriginality when referencing all that Nazi history they made us study in school. I’m just frightened. I’m frightened that those who wanted "their" country back will get their wish, and it will turn out to be a hostile, inhospitable place for immigrants, ethnic minorities, queer people – everyone and anyone who wasn’t included when Farage proclaimed victory for "ordinary, decent people" this morning in front of a posse formed entirely of angry-looking, whey-faced blokes in suits.

But the thing is – I want my country back too. . . . A country where people – all people – can feel at least a little bit safe. I want to rub the sleep of neofascist nightmares from my eyes and find myself in a country where we do not respond to the killing of a politician by voting against everything she stood for. A country where we are polite to our neighbors. A country where we have dealt like adults with the embarrassing fact that we once conquered half the world, instead of yearning for a time when our glory was stolen from enslaved people a convenient ocean away and large parts of the map were the gentle pink of blood in the water. I want to go back to a Britain where hope conquers hate; where crabbed, cowed racism and xenophobia don’t win the day; where people feel they have options and choices in life and are less likely to press the big red button to bring the house down on top of us. I want my country back.

 

This morning it looked like Britain had shot itself in the foot. By lunch time, with two political parties imploding and the stock markets crashing, it appears our aim was higher above the knee. This was not just a vote against Europe, but a vote against Westminster and the entirety of mainstream politics. Every political party campaigned hard for a "Remain" vote – but Britain still chose to Leave, even if we’re regretting it this morning.

In the meantime, the cackling clown-car drivers rolling this catastrophe over the wreckage of civil society are already cheerfully admitting that they lied about their key campaign statements. No, there won’t be £350m more to spend on the NHS, whatever Vote Leave wrote on its battle bus. It turns out that the reason you can’t get a GP appointment isn’t because of immigration, but because the Conservatives have spent six years systematically defunding the health service and cutting public spending to the bone. Brexit will mean more of that, not less.

This was a working-class revolt, but it is not a working-class victory. That’s the tragedy here. The collective howl of rage from depressed, deindustrialised parts of the country bled white and reckless by Thatcher, Blair and Cameron has turned into a triumph for another set of elites. 

All I see is a lot of racist crowing on the internet and campaigners being told to go back where they came from. I’ve already had people telling me it won’t be long before a new Kristallnacht, and people like me had better go back – where? I was born in London. Perhaps the city can secede. That’ll do wonders for house prices.

Britain, like everywhere else, has always had its cringing, fearful side, its cruel delusions, its racist fringe movements, its demagogues preying on the dispossessed. Those things are part of us as much as beef wellington and bad dentistry. But in happier times, those things do not overwhelm us. We do not let bad actors reading bad lines in bad faith walk us across the stage to the scaffold. We are better than this.

This type of post mortem will apply to America if Donald Trump and the Republicans are not resoundingly defeated in November.   When I see neighbors supporting Trump, I cannot help but ask myself, "are they really that stupid and/or bigoted?"

Marriage Equality To Become Law In Britain This Week

Gay marriage will become law this week in Britain, one of America's longest running allies.  It is already the law in France, another of America's first crucial allies which helped the United States win independence from Britain (the French fleet bottled up Cornwallis and allowed him to be defeated at nearby Yorktown, Virginia).   Yet even as its oldest allies embrace modernity and equality, America lags behind and in states like Virginia, LGBT citizens remain less than full citizens.  It's a travesty and yet one on many black marks of America's broken promises that betray the principles of the nation's founding documents.  Here are highlights from the BBC on events in Britain: 

The government legislation is now due to get royal assent, after which it is likely to become law later this week.

The Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat leaderships all backed the bill, after the Lords approved the changes on Monday.  It is expected that the first gay and lesbian wedding ceremonies will take place by summer next year.

Under the terms of the the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill, religious organisations will have to "opt in" to offering weddings, with the Church of England and Church in Wales being banned in law from doing so.

Paul Parker, recording clerk for Quakers in Britain, said: "It's wonderful to see same-sex marriage achieve legal recognition. Quakers see the light of God in everyone so we respect the inherent worth of each individual and each loving relationship."

Mr. Parker's statement is the antithesis of how gays are treated in Virginia.  We still can be fired at will, face the potential of housing discrimination and our relationships receive zero recognition under Virginia law.   The current GOP statewide slate of extremists seeks to make the situation even worse.

New Poll: 59 Percent of Americans Oppose DOMA

As the last post noted, as scientific knowledge advances, it is becoming harder for religiously motivated bigots and extremists  to convince a majority of the American that deference should be given to their discriminatory beliefs.  A case in point seemly is DOMA - the federal Defense of Marriage Act - enacted back in the Clinton era to punish gays and lesbians for failing to conform to Christofascist views on marriage and sexuality.  A new poll indicates that 59% of Americans view DOMA to be discriminatory against LGBT citizens and support its repeal.  The Washington Blade has details on the survey findings which will no doubt cause hysteria among anti-gay hate groups - e.g., NOM, FRC, AFA and the U.S. Catholic Bishops Conference - and the professional Christian class.  Here are some article highlights: 

Fifty-nine percent of the American public say they oppose Section 3 of the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act after being told it prohibits the federal government from offering benefits to legally married same-sex couples.

The poll, commissioned by the Center for American Progress and Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, asked registered voters this question amid other inquiries regarding their beliefs on DOMA. The poll was conducted by Goodwin Simon Strategic Research and Voter Consumer Research.

Additionally, the poll asked respondents in a more abstract way whether they believe it’s discriminatory for the federal government to deny benefits to married same-sex couples. Sixty-two percent of registered voters said they believe withholding such benefits is discrimination..

Notably, the poll finds a greater proportion of the American public opposes DOMA than the bare majority that supports marriage equality. According to the poll, 52 percent of the American public supports same-sex marriage — which is consistent with earlier findings on the issue. That means seven percent oppose DOMA, but don’t support marriage equality.

The poll also breaks down views on the denial of certain rights and benefits. More than a majority support awarding each of these rights and benefits to married same-sex couples.

But the benefit that the smallest proportion of respondents supported for same-sex couples was Social Security benefits in case of the death of the spouse. Even so, 66 percent said the federal government shouldn’t deny these benefits. DOMA prohibits this benefit from flowing to same-sex couples.

Mary Bonauto, GLAD’s civil rights director, said she’s not surprised that a majority of the American public opposes DOMA given the harm the anti-gay law inflicts on same-sex couples.

“With each passing day, more and more Americans are learning how DOMA denies important marital protections and heaps disrespect on married same-sex couples across the country – and they’re saying, ‘Enough is enough,’ Bonauto said. “It’s not surprising that a majority of this country now believes that loving, committed couples in legal marriages should be treated fairly under federal law. It’s time for our laws to catch up with where public opinion is on abolishing DOMA.”

One can only hope that a majority of the justices on the U. S. Supreme Court are paying attention to polls like this one and what is happening in France, Britain, and even in Mexico.

Obama Administration to File Gay Marriage Briefs

The Obama administration has been under pressure to file briefs in both the DOMA appeal to the Supreme Court and in the Proposition 8 appeal as well.  Now, the decision has apparently been made to file the briefs and the speculation has now turned to what position the Obama administration and Justice Department will take on marriage equality.  With France and Britain moving towards full gay marriage (France will likely enact full passage before the U.S. Supreme Court enters its rulings), there is added pressure on Obama to come out for a constitutional right to marriage even though Obama seems to constantly dance around the issue.  A piece in NPR looks at some of the ongoing speculation as to how far Obama will go in arguing for marriage equality.  Here are highlights:

The Obama administration faces tricky political and legal questions on the subject of gay marriage. By the end of this month, the federal government is expected to file not just one but two briefs in a pair of same-sex marriage cases at the U.S. Supreme Court.

But it is the Proposition 8 case from California that poses the thornier questions for the administration — questions so difficult that the president himself is expected to make the final decision on what arguments the Justice Department will make in the Supreme Court.

Prop 8, as it is known, is the California ballot initiative banning same-sex marriage. It was narrowly approved by state voters in 2008. A federal district court struck down the law as unconstitutional discrimination in 2010. A federal appeals court later agreed, but on narrower grounds. Because there was a period of time in which same-sex couples could legally marry in California, the court said, it was unconstitutional for the state, through the ballot initiative, to take away a fundamental right it had previously granted.

The state, under both Republican and Democratic governors, has declined to defend the measure in court. So its ban on gay marriage is being defended by the sponsors of the initiative.

The Obama administration is not required to file any brief in the case because it does not directly involve federal law. But administration sources say the government will file a brief. Still unresolved is what the brief will say. And in this case, much more than most, there are numerous legal routes that the government can take.

The ultimate question — the one perhaps most people want an answer to but may not get — is whether same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. A Supreme Court decision that says yes to that would invalidate laws in some 30 states. But there are many legal avenues short of such a far-reaching argument that would invalidate Proposition 8 in California and leave laws in other states intact.

What makes this even dicier is that President Obama has changed his position, seemingly a lot, over the past eight months.  .   .   .   .

"It is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married. And I continue to believe that this is an issue that is going to be worked out at the local level, because historically this has not been a federal issue," he said.

But eight months later at his inauguration, the president seemed to take a more expansive view. "Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law. For if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well," Obama said.  That language suggests the president believes in a more basic constitutional right to marry, analogous to the right enunciated in a unanimous 1967 Supreme Court ruling that struck down laws barring interracial marriage.

His administration could make a bold, full-throated defense of the right to marry, an argument that Obama seemed to suggest at his inaugural. Or it could argue a number of lesser positions: That California, having extended the right to marry to gay couples for a window of time, could not revoke the right. Or that California, like some other states, has a law extending all rights to same-sex couples, except the right to marry, and that such a distinction amounts to discrimination. Or it could argue that since the state is not defending the law, the case does not belong in court at all — that the sponsors of the initiative have no legal standing in court.

For the gay community, and for those advocating traditional marriage between a man and a woman, the position the government takes in this case is hugely important — if nothing else, as a symbol. Both sides have made formal presentations at the Justice Department urging the administration to take their side. But the deadline has already passed for a brief siding with Proposition 8 supporters, leaving only the question of what a brief on the other side will say.  Same-sex marriage advocates are holding their collective breath for now. . . .

Personally, I hope Obama summons the courage to  argue for a bold, broad ruling that would bring marriage equality nationwide (it's the only way Virginia will see marriage equality any time in the nearer future).  Whether he will summon such courage is the big question.  Those who said his personal support of gay marriage would hurt him in the 2012 election proved wrong.  A broad approach argument would mere place him in alignment with leading modern democracies and traditional US allies.

Britain Threatens to Cut Funds to Anti-gay African Nations

In a move that I hope will see follow through action - and which needs to be emulated by the USA and other western/developed nations, Britain has warned homophobic African nations that their persecution of LGBT individuals will carry a financial price. No doubt we will hear fuming and rants from the corrupt, vile, and often dictatorial African governments about the west meddling into their foul nations, but money talks and I hope Britain follows through with the threat. No one should be underwriting bigotry (or tyranny either) especially when the bigotry stems from a foul and perverted form of Christianity that ignores the Gospel message and focuses instead on hatred and bigotry. The irony, of course, is that it is a conservative British government that is taking these enlightened moves. What a difference between real conservatives in the UK compared to the sectarian extremists who now dictate policy for the GOP. The Daily Mail looks at this development. Here are some excerpts:

Poor African countries which persecute homosexuals will have their aid slashed by the Government in a bid by David Cameron to take his gay rights crusade to the Third World. International Development Secretary Andrew Mitchell has already cut aid to Malawi by £19 million after two gay men were sentenced to 14 years hard labour. And he has warned the country's leaders to scrap plans to introduce draconian new anti-lesbian laws.

Mr Mitchell, one of Mr Cameron's closest allies, is also threatening to impose further aid 'fines' against Uganda and Ghana for hardline anti-gay and lesbian measures. The policy was disclosed after Mr Cameron defended his decision to legalise gay weddings when he addressed last week's Conservative Party conference. Now he wants to persuade those countries where homosexuality is still taboo to follow his lead – and he is ready to reduce aid to some of the world's poorest people to do so.

Three weeks ago, Mr Mitchell protested to Uganda's President Yoweri Museveni, who has claimed 'European homosexuals are recruiting in Africa' and who believes gay relationships are 'against God's will'. Uganda is due to receive £70 million from British taxpayers in 2011.

During a visit to Ghana earlier this year, Stephen O'Brien – Mr Mitchell's deputy – told President John Evans Atta Mills that Britain would cut its aid unless he stopped persecuting gays.

A spokesman for Mr Mitchell said: 'The Government is committed to combating violence and discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in all circumstances, in this country and abroad. We take action where we have concerns. "We now allocate funds every three months, rather than every year, so that we can review a country's performance, . . "

Catholic Church Bitch Slaped for 'Selfish and Hedonistic Wasteland' Statement

Yesterday, in advance of Pope Benedict XVI's state visit to the UK, Edmund Adamus, an adviser to the Catholic Archbishop of Westminster, said that Britain: had become "the geopolitical epicentre of the culture of death," had been "the most permissively anti-life and progressively anti-family and marriage, in essence one of the most anti-Catholic landscapes, culturally speaking, and represented a selfish, hedonistic wasteland objectifies women for sexual gratification". This from a spokesman for a religious institution that has knowingly covered up the worldwide rape of children and youth - not to mention other reprehensible actions. Now, an op-ed in the Independent has fired back and lays out the case as to why Britain is far more moral than the hypocrites and scolds within the Catholic Church hierarchy and Catholic apologists such as William Donohue and the Knights of Columbus. Here are some highlights:
*
I woke up as usual yesterday in the "geopolitical epicentre of the culture of death" – and very pleasant it was. . . . congratulating myself on being a citizen of a country that doesn't stone women to death, hang gay men from cranes or murder people who change their religion. I mean, how great is that? I love living in the "selfish, hedonistic wasteland" that is London – both quotes come from one Edmund Adamus, who is apparently a senior British Catholic and an adviser to the Archbishop of Westminster – and I just wish more nations would follow our example.
*
Frankly, I'm tired of hearing religious bigots running down this country. For all its faults – crap public transport, Nick Clegg popping up everywhere and a national obsession with Simon Cowell – Britain is still one of the most civilised places in the world to live. It's not Iran, where prisoners are subjected to rape and mock executions; it isn't Saudi Arabia either, despite Mr Adamus's downright peculiar belief that we're more anti-Catholic than the Chinese or the Saudis. (Might I suggest he tries walking along a street in Riyadh carrying a crucifix and a Bible?) The Catholic Church has picked up this habit of dissing secular culture from hardline Muslims, who dislike pretty much the same things: gay relationships, equal rights for women and the freedom to mock religion.
*
This latest row has brought into the open what many people suspected in the run-up to a controversial papal visit to Britain; some Vatican officials, it seems, are alarmed by the threat of demonstrations and increasingly regard the UK as a hostile country.
*
The confusion that's been exposed by this latest attack on life-loving secular culture is actually a very old one, namely the pernicious myth that morality resides in sexual behaviour. Sexuality has always been an obsession for Christian churches and the Vatican's teachings on the subject are so severe that millions of Catholics – including Cherie Blair, wife of the former Prime Minister, who wrote in her autobiography about her contraceptive methods – simply ignore them.
*
[T]here are more important issues on which the moral standing of a nation should be judged. Here's one of them: when an earthquake devastated Haiti earlier this year, British donations to disaster relief eventually reached £101m. Now that floods have devastated Pakistan, leaving millions of people homeless, the British public has contributed another £42m to the Disasters Emergency Committee. Does that really sound like the response of a nation which is supposedly the "geopolitical epicentre of the culture of death"?

Pope's Comments Bring British Backlash

Poor Pope Benedict XVI. Between his age (and increasing senility?) and having lived in the hermetically sealed bubble of the Vatican, he really has no clue that the world is changing and that religious based bigotry is increasingly unpopular in most advanced countries (the USA being an unfortunate exception, at least among GOP circles). Moreover, having headed the office once known as the Inquisition before becoming Pope, I suspect that there are few at the Vatican who dare tell him what he doesn't want to hear or accept. A case in point is Benedict's latest foot in mouth gaffe where he slammed the equality laws under consideration in the United Kingdom that would bar discrimination against gays and women. Here are some highlights from the Washington Post on this latest tempest:

*
LONDON -- Pope Benedict XVI's condemnation this week of British equality legislation designed to protect gays and women in the workplace has deepened the battle lines between the Vatican and secularists, who demand that taxpayers not foot the security bill for his newly announced September visit.
*
The Roman Catholic Church's steadfast opposition to allowing gays to become priests or having rights such as adoption puts it at odds with changing attitudes in Britain, where acceptance of homosexuality has increased dramatically in recent decades.
*
The society [National Secular Society] said it would stage a film festival during Benedict's visit, featuring "The Magdalene Sisters," about Catholic nuns' harsh care of teenage mothers in Ireland, and "The Boys of St Vincent," about sexual abuse at a Catholic orphanage in Canada. Other protests are planned.
*
It's not the only conflict between Britons and the pontiff. Benedict recently surprised the Church of England by inviting traditionalist Anglicans who oppose women priests and bishops into the Roman Catholic fold, and riled Muslims four years ago by quoting a medieval description of the Prophet Muhammad's teachings as "evil and inhuman."
*
"What the pope, together with other religious leaders such as the (Church of England) bishops sitting in our own Parliament are actually seeking, is for religious people to be allowed to discriminate against others in employment, services, education and many other areas, unfettered by the laws that everyone else in society must abide by and respect," said Naomi Phillips of the British Humanist Association.
*
[T]here was a protest from Stephen Hughes, a European Parliament member from Brown's governing Labour Party. "As a Catholic, I am appalled by the attitude of the pope. Religious leaders should be trying to eradicate inequality, not perpetuate it," said Hughes, who urged the pope to ensure "that existing EU legislation is properly applied in the Vatican." Increasing numbers of Britons disagree with the Catholic church's view on homosexuality.
*
Someone needs to tell Benedict that we are no longer in the 13th century. If not, over time, I believe the Catholic Church will find itself losing members in modern nations and becoming a religion of the backward regions of the world where uneducated people still fall for Benedict's screeds. A letter to the editor in the Guardian seems to sum up what many British think:
*
I am a "cradle Catholic" who was sent to a monastic boarding school between the ages of nine and 17, and indoctrinated with the depressing fantasies of Catholic dogma. It took 20 years to shake off this miasma of lies; and although I never suffered sexual abuse, there is an abuse of a child's rights inherent in Catholic teaching, which regards all sexual activity as sinful, except when in the cause of procreation. This (apart from being absurd in itself, and revealing of the Vatican's terror of sexually active women) is a ­terrible burden to inflict upon adolescent boys. We were constantly reminded that masturbation was a "mortal sin", punishable by hell.
*
I agree with Richard Dawkins that the sexual crimes perpetrated by Irish priests upon some boys, although horrendous, were probably less damaging overall than the brainwashing of all such children with medieval superstitions. The abusive priests were themselves the hapless products of a system which hated sex and imposed an unnatural celibacy. We should think hard before encouraging any such "faith" schools: to indoctrinate children with narrow, non-rational ideas is itself an abuse of their right to have access to a balanced world-view and to evidence-based thought.
*
And now the pope has attacked British equality legislation on the grounds that it threatens the freedom of religious crackpots to hate and persecute homosexuals and women (Your equality laws are unjust, pope tells UK before his visit, 2 February). I see no reason why we should let this bigoted despot come to Britain; but if we do, I hope there will be massive and noisy demonstrations against him and everything he represents.

The Economist: Same-sex marriage in America

The venerable British journal, The Economist, has a new story on the Proposition 8 trial which is of interest since it provides a European perspective on the legal battle playing out in San Francisco. While not allowing same sex marriages, Britain - like many of the countries of western Europe that do not afford gays full marriage rights - has a domestic partnership law that provides many rights akin to marriage. Thus, in some ways it is probably hard for many European readers to understand the religious extremism that motivates the Prop 8 supporters - although some of those countries are grappling with their own Islamic populations which, like Christianists, want to impose their religious beliefs on all citizens. Here are some highlights from this story:

*
THE venue, gay-friendly San Francisco, may at first glance seem predictable for a legal challenge that may lead to the legalisation of gay marriage in America. But nothing else about the trial of Perry v Schwarzenegger, which began on Monday January 11th, fits stereotypes. Pitting both a male and female gay couple (including Kristin Perry) against the state of California (nominally represented by its governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger), it is a federal review of whether Proposition 8, a Californian voter initiative of 2008 that outlawed gay marriage in the state, is constitutional.
*
Whatever the outcome, the case is likely to go to appeal and come before the Supreme Court. But first the trial will do two things: it will establish, for the first time, a body of evidence, through expert testimony, that appelate courts can use to evaluate the claims by supporters and opponents of gay marriage. And it will blur the existing partisan divide on the issue between conservatives and liberals.
*
Their opponents, largely from the Proposition 8 campaign, also consider themselves conservatives, although they hail from the right's religious and "traditionalist" wings. Fearing that they might appear bigoted, the defence pleaded with the federal Supreme Court to ban plans by the judge, Vaughn Walker, (himself appointed by George Bush senior), to stream the proceedings on YouTube. Doing so might expose witnesses to ridicule or harassment, defence lawyers argued. The Supreme Court banned the video feed, at least temporarily, 20 minutes before the trial opened
*
America's constitution, however, does not allow rights to be stripped from its citizens by majority vote. Specifically, the federal Supreme Court ruled in 1996 that any laws motivated by homophobia (or other bigotry) are unconstitutional. The motivation behind the Proposition 8 campaign thus becomes an issue. Its sponsors are among the witnesses, and their television advertisements and press releases may become evidence. Scholars will testify about homophobic discrimination.

They will also be cross-examined about other claims against gay marriage. One concerns the sanctity of tradition. But, as Mr Olson has argued, the fact that something has been custom in the past does not require it to remain that way--otherwise, America would still ban interracial marriage while maintaining segregated schools and debtors' prisons.

Another question is whether or not marriage specifically serves procreation. America does not bar, say, infertile couples or old women from marrying. What, then, about the issue of whether gays can raise children? The two women plaintiffs happen to be bringing up four children in what appears to be an exemplary environment. What about the alleged harm to heterosexual marriages by homosexual ones? Psychologists or other experts would have to prove that straight couples are threatened by gay ones, which appears tough.
*
Ultimately, Mr Olson is trying to establish that conservatives should welcome, not fear, gay marriage. They revere marriage as a social institution, so the respect of gays for it should be a cause for celebration, not disgust. And there is the 14th amendment of the constitution, which guarantees Americans equal protection under the law. Mr Olson is reminding conservatives that denying homosexuals access to a basic institution of society would appear to violate equality, and thus the constitution.

Britons Seek "De-baptism'" from Christianity

In perhaps yet another sign that the toxic fundamentalist, hate based version of Christianity which seems to dominate the news cycles is driving people away from religion, an entrepreneur in the United Kingdom has found a market in those seeking to severe ties with religion. The "certificates of de-baptism" sell for the equivalent of $4.35. While the news coverage of the certificates focuses on those being marketed in the UK, others individuals in other parts of the world are likewise seeking to erase their ties to organized religion. The trend is also noteworthy since the Christianists always argue that religion is an immutable characteristic when it clearly is not. Here are some highlights from Brietbart.com:

*

More than 100,000 Britons have recently downloaded "certificates of de-baptism" from the Internet to renounce their Christian faith. The initiative launched by a group called the National Secular Society (NSS) follows atheist campaigns here and elsewhere, including a London bus poster which triggered protests by proclaiming "There's probably no God." "We now produce a certificate on parchment and we have sold 1,500 units at three pounds (4.35 dollars, 3.20 euros) a pop," said NSS president Terry Sanderson.

*

De-baptism organisers say the initiative is a response to what they see as increasing stridency from churches -- the latest last week when Pope Benedict XVI stirred global controversy on a trip to AIDS-ravaged Africa by saying condom use could further spread of the disease. "The Catholic Church is so politically active at the moment that I think that is where the hostility is coming from," said Sanderson. "In Catholic countries there is a very strong feeling of wanting to punish the church by leaving it."

*
In Britain, where government figures say nearly 72 percent of the population list themselves as Christian, Sanderson feels this "hostility" is fueling the de-baptism movement.

*

De-baptism movements have already sprung up in other countries. In Spain, the high court ruled in favor of a man from Valencia, Manuel Blat, saying that under data protection laws he could have the record of his baptism erased, according to a report in the International Herald Tribune. Similarly, the Italian Union of Rationalists and Agnostics (UAAR) won a legal battle over the right to file for de-baptism in 2002, according to media reports. The group's website carries a "de-baptism" form to facilitate matters.

*

Elsewhere, an Argentinian secularist movement is running a "Collective Apostasy" campaign, using the slogan "Not in my name" (No en mi nombre).

*

I hope James Dobson, Benedict XVI, Tony Perkins and other hate driven Christianists are pleased with their handiwork of making Christianity an unwanted belief system.

France Seeks UN Decriminalisation of Homosexuality

Given the rampant homophobia in the developing countries and the harsh anti-gay mind set of many Muslim nations, I do not know how far France's proposal will get, but it is heartening to see a country finally trying to bring the issue of anti-gay brutality directly in the open. Being gay is bad enough in most of the USA much less what gays face in some other countries where discovery can mean death. Britain likewise supports the ban on criminalizing gays. The USA? Missing in action as usual. No doubt the Christianists controlling the Republican Party will use this as one more reason to rail against the United Nations. Here are some highlights from Pink News:

*

The French minister of human rights and foreign affairs has confirmed that she will appeal at the United Nations for the universal decriminalisation of homosexuality. Rama Yade also said that the EU wanted to take the lead in stopping violence against women worldwide.

*

Earlier this year it was reported that the French initiative on decrminalisation will take the form of a solemn declaration from UN states, rather than a vote in the UN on the matter. However, Ms Yade said yesterday that France will submit a draft declaration at the UN General Assembly in December. The British government already advocates universal decriminalisation.

*

More than 80 countries outlaw same-sex relations in all circumstances. The maximum punishments range from a few years jail to life imprisonment. In nine countries, or regions of countries, the mandatory punishment for homosexuality is death by execution.

Britain's MI5 Recruiting Gay Spies

In stark contrast to the lunacy in the USA that bars gays from serving in the military - principally in order to pander to deranged Christianists like Elaine Donnelly, Tony Perkins, Daddy Dobson, and similar hate merchants - the United Kingdom is now recruiting gay spies. The UK already allows openly gay individuals to serve in its military and has had none of the problems that cause Ms. Donnelly to have near orgasms. Obviously, having openly gay spies totally eliminates the old fears and myths that gays would be subject to blackmail and, therefore, should not serve in sensitive intelligence positions. Here are some highlights from Yahoo News:

*

LONDON (AFP) - The Security Service is actively recruiting gay spies and wants its staff to be more open about their sexuality, the Financial Times reported Monday. The chief executive of Stonewall, a gay rights lobby group, told the business daily it had been hired by the Security Service -- better known as MI5 -- to help the agency encourage more gay applicants for positions.

*

"This (move by MI5) is recognition that the establishment is changing and slowly becoming more reflective of wider society." The intelligence agencies have in recent years attempted to cast a wider net when it comes to recruiting -- the country's foreign intelligence service MI6 placed its first-ever advertisement for jobs in a newspaper in May 2007, and in recent years, it has launched its own website.

*

365gay.com also has these further highlights that set the wider context for the change:

*

The British military long ago abandoned its ban on gays serving openly and also recently asked Stonewall for help in recruitment. M16, the country’s foreign intelligence service, ended its ban on gay spies a year ago.

*
Homosexuality was decriminalized in the UK in 1967 but gays and lesbians were barred from working in sensitive jobs in the diplomatic or security services until the early 1990s, over concerns that gay spies could be vulnerable to blackmail.