The Christofascists Continue to See Themselves Above the Law

A column in the New York Times by Ross Douthat - a conservative writer who never seems to quite fully grasp that the civil laws should not be intertwined with religious belief or be able to let go of his own Catholic and Pentecostal brainwashing - lays out some of the scenarios that may play out once marriage equality eventually becomes the law of the land.  Though less shrill than the professional Christian class which depends upon the dissemination of anti-gay animus to keep the money coffers full (and themselves living a comfortable lifestyle), Douthat nonetheless cannot see that conservative Christians - the Christofascists, if you will are not the victims of the advancement of gay rights.  They have merely lost much of their power to victimize others without suffering consequences.  It is a very distorted mindset.  Here are excerpts:

IT now seems certain that before too many years elapse, the Supreme Court will be forced to acknowledge the logic of its own jurisprudence on same-sex marriage and redefine marriage to include gay couples in all 50 states.

Once this happens, the national debate essentially will be finished, but the country will remain divided, with a substantial minority of Americans, most of them religious, still committed to the older view of marriage.

So what then? One possibility is that this division will recede into the cultural background, with marriage joining the long list of topics on which Americans disagree without making a political issue out of it. 

In this scenario, religious conservatives would essentially be left to promote their view of wedlock within their own institutions, as a kind of dissenting subculture emphasizing gender differences and procreation, while the wider culture declares that love and commitment are enough to make a marriage. 

But there’s another possibility, in which the oft-invoked analogy between opposition to gay marriage and support for segregation in the 1960s South is pushed to its logical public-policy conclusion. In this scenario, the unwilling photographer or caterer would be treated like the proprietor of a segregated lunch counter, and face fines or lose his business — which is the intent of recent legal actions against a wedding photographer in New Mexico, a florist in Washington State, and a baker in Colorado.

Meanwhile, pressure would be brought to bear wherever the religious subculture brushed up against state power. Religious-affiliated adoption agencies would be closed if they declined to place children with same-sex couples. (This has happened in Massachusetts and Illinois.) Organizations and businesses that promoted the older definition of marriage would face constant procedural harassment, along the lines suggested by the mayors who battled with Chick-fil-A. And, eventually, religious schools and colleges would receive the same treatment as racist holdouts like Bob Jones University, losing access to public funds and seeing their tax-exempt status revoked. 

In the past, this constant-pressure scenario has seemed the less-likely one, since Americans are better at agreeing to disagree than the culture war would suggest. But it feels a little bit more likely after last week’s “debate” in Arizona, over a bill that was designed to clarify whether existing religious freedom protections can be invoked by defendants like the florist or the photographer.

Allegedly sensible centrists compared the bill’s supporters to segregationist politicians, liberals invoked the Bob Jones precedent to dismiss religious-liberty concerns, and Republican politicians behaved as though the law had been written by David Duke.

What makes this response particularly instructive is that such bills have been seen, in the past, as a way for religious conservatives to negotiate surrender — to accept same-sex marriage’s inevitability while carving out protections for dissent. But now, apparently, the official line is that you bigots don’t get to negotiate anymore.

Already, my fellow Christians are divided over these issues, and we’ll be more divided the more pressure we face. The conjugal, male-female view of marriage is too theologically rooted to disappear, but its remaining adherents can be marginalized, set against one other, and encouraged to conform.

I am being descriptive here, rather than self-pitying. Christians had plenty of opportunities — thousands of years’ worth — to treat gay people with real charity, and far too often chose intolerance. (And still do, in many instances and places.) So being marginalized, being sued, losing tax-exempt status — this will be uncomfortable, but we should keep perspective and remember our sins, and nobody should call it persecution.

At least Douthat doesn't claim Christians are being persecuted the way far too many of the Christofascists are currently claiming.   And he does admit that the" godly folk" may have brought this state of affairs on themselves through their past sins.  Yet, he remains too sympathetic to those who have mistreated others for centuries.  Oh, and as for the adoption agencies that Douthat cites, they closed voluntarily rather than deal with gays and lesbians.  The state of Massachusetts did not close them.  Ditto in Illinois and also in Washington, DC.  They preferred to close rather than treat all citizens equally.  That is hardly what I would call as persecution or state pressure.  

Newt Gingrich Continues Catholic hurch Myth of Persecution

Newt Gingrich- perhaps to keep himself in the news and to hear himself speak - was on Meet the Press today promoting the Catholic Church hierarchy's lie that the Church is being persecuted and its rights being trampled upon by the recognition of gay rights and gay equality.  As is typical for both Gingrich and the Church hierarchy, the claims do not match objective reality because no one is preventing the Catholic Church from being involved in adoption/foster care services.  Rather, it is the Church which is trampling on the rights of other citizens and pushing to impose its beliefs on all.  And, like a school yard bully, once the Church can't have its own way, it grabs up its toys and stalks off feigning that it, rather than those it has persecuted for centuries, is the victim of persecution and/or censoring.  Towleroad looks at Gingrich's diarrhea of the mouth.  Here is the money quote:

On a segment on gay rights on Meet the Press today, Newt Gingrich complained about Catholic adoption agencies being "outlawed" in some states where marriage equality laws take effect. MSNBC contributor Joy-Ann Reid pointed out that it was the Church's decision to withdraw its services.

GINGRICH: "What I'm struck with is the one-sidedness of the desire for rights. There are no rights for Catholics to have adoption services in Massachusetts. They're outlawed. There are no rights in DC for Catholics to have adoption service. They're outlawed. This passing reference to religion, we sort of respect religion, sure, as long as you don't practice it. I mean I think it would be good to have a debate over, you know, beyond this question of, 'Are you able to be gay in America?' what does it mean? Does it mean that you have to actually affirmatively eliminate any institution which does not automatically accept that, and therefore, you're now going to have a secular state say to a wide range of religious groups, Catholics, Protestants, orthodox Jews, Mormons, frankly, Muslims, 'You cannot practice your religion the way you believe it, and we will outlaw your institutions.' ... Let's just start with adoption services. It's impossible for the Catholic Church to have an adoption service in Massachusetts that follows Catholic doctrine.

JOY-ANN REID: But didn't the Catholic Church, particularly Catholic Charities in Boston, they affirmatively decided to withdraw adoption services. No one said they are not allowed to provide adoption services.

GINGRICH: No, they withdrew them because they were told, "You could not follow Catholic doctrine," which is for marriage between a man and a woman.

REID: I think the point is, is that you don't have the state attempting to tell religions what to believe. People, if they oppose the idea of gay marriage within their religion, have the absolute right to do so. The question is whether or not religious institutions can make public policy, whether they can enter the public policy--

That's right, NO ONE OUTLAWED Catholic adoption services.  The Church shut the programs down.  The other fact that Gingrich conveniently ignores is the fact that in many states - Virginia is certainly one such state - foster care agencies such as Catholic Charities function as an arm of the state and receive significant amounts of state funding.  As a result, these agencies are standing in the position of the state first and for the Church secondarily.  Therefore, it is only appropriate that as recipients of state funds the agencies not be given a free hand to discriminate against taxpayers.  

Anti-Gay "Conservatives" Want Marriage Vote Delay in UK

With France well on its way to adopting full same sex marriage, the reactionary Christofascist elements in the Tory Party in the United Kingdom are pitching a fit over Prime Minister David Cameron's planned vote on marriage equality this week in Parliament.  Cameron seems undeterred by the 25 or so knuckle draggers who are demanding the delay and the UK's Secretary of State for Education, Michael Gove, has authored an op-ed that argues that gay marriage strengthens the institution contrary to the wailing and whining of the religious bigots opposing the legislation.  Given the fine mess that straights have made of the institution of marriage, the argument that civil marriage for same sex couples somehow undermines the institution are ludicrous.  Stripped of all the manufactured smoke screens, opposition to marriage equality boils down to one thing: anti-gay animus and a long standing desire to keep gays stigmatized and second class citizens under the civil law.  First some highlights from Reuters on the efforts of the Christofascists to delay the marriage vote:

Cameron has pledged his personal support for a gay marriage bill but many in his party and among his legislators oppose it on moral grounds and say the government has no mandate to push it through parliament.

As the bill is supported by Britain's two other main parties, opposition Labor and Conservative coalition partners the Liberal Democrats, it is in no danger of being defeated.

But a letter signed by 25 past and present chairmen of local Conservative associations was handed in to Cameron's Downing Street residence on Sunday afternoon by six of the signatories.

"We feel very strongly that the decision to bring this bill before parliament has been made without adequate debate or consultation with either the membership of the Conservative Party or with the country at large," the letter said.  It added: "Resignations from the party are beginning to multiply and we fear that, if enacted, this bill will lead to significant damage to the Conservative Party in the run-up to the 2015 election."

The issue has sparked heated debate in Britain, particularly among faith groups, but 55 percent of British people support same-sex marriage, according to a YouGov poll in December.

 Meanwhile, the Daily Mail carried the pro-marriage op-ed.  Here are column excerpts:

It’s wrong to say to gay men and women that their love is less legitimate. It’s wrong to say that because of how you love and who you love, you are not entitled to the same rights as others. It’s wrong because inequality is wrong. Some people might think it curious that a Tory politician should be making these arguments. But I want to change the law on marriage because of my Conservative convictions.

I believe that marriage should be defended, supported and promoted in every way. A society which believes in commitment and which seeks to encourage us to think beyond the short term, which encourages people to put the enduring above the convenient, and which asks people to put stability in personal relationships ahead of self-interest, is a healthier society.

As Education Secretary I am responsible for child protection policy and every day I see the consequences of family breakdown. When parents run away from their responsibilities, children suffer. That is why I am so determined to change things so that more children are rescued from abusive homes and adopted by loving families. In all of this work I am constantly reminded of how important it is to support those who make a public commitment to each other – and the best way of doing that is through supporting marriage. Marriage is not undermined by extending it to gay people – it is reinforced by including everyone equally.

The real threat to marriage comes from social forces that encourage selfishness and short-termism. More people making a lifelong commitment to each other helps us turn that tide.

There’s another reason why I support change. I’m a Conservative because I believe in making opportunity more equal. The Conservatives had the first Jewish and female leaders, Conservatives led the fight to abolish slavery, and massively extended property ownership and access to higher education.

Parliament has an opportunity next week to strengthen the institution of marriage, uphold the principle of equality before the law, affirm our belief in commitment, demonstrate that we value all citizens equally and declare our belief in the transformative power of human love. I hope we can vote for those values in decisive terms.

The other irony not addressed is that reality that in America, organizations like Family Research Council and NOM whine incessantly about "children needing a mother and father" yet they don't spend a dime on expanding adoption services to reduce the number of children languishing in foster care some of whom will never know a permanent home.  Instead they pay themselves obscene salaries - e.g., Brian Brown at NOM reportedly pocketed $500,000 in 2012 - focus their efforts on disseminating anti-gay animus and creating racial division.  I suspect if Christ were living today, he would be calling out the Christofascists for the modern day Pharisees that they are and joining the pro-gay marriage effort.

Impending Lawsuit Against Catholic Church for Kidnapping, Fraud and Coerced Adoptions

Just when you think that it is hardly possible for more foul and disgusting claims against the Catholic Church to spring up, a new Dan Rather Reports piece exposes the lies, possible drugging and other less than Christ like actions that forced or duped unwed mothers to give up their children for adoption. Candidly, at this point virtually nothing would surprise me when it comes to the depravity of the Church hierarchy and their jihad to punish those deemed to be sexual sinners. Not surprisingly, unwed mothers - and gays, of course - perfectly fit the bill as sexual sinners. Indeed, as Yahoo News is reporting, two weeks ago, a prominent Canadian law firm announced that it would file a class-action lawsuit against Quebec's Catholic Church accusing the Church of kidnapping, fraud and coercion to force unwed mothers to give up their children for adoption. Here are more story highlights:

[G]enerations of young, unwed women describe their experience of giving birth to a child as a nightmare – and decades later their suffering has yet to end.

From Australia to Spain, Ireland to America, and as recent as 1987, young mothers say they were “coerced”, “manipulated”, and “duped” into handing over their babies for adoption. These women say sometimes their parents forged consent documents, but more often they say these forced adoptions were coordinated by the people their families trusted most...priests, nuns, social workers, nurses or doctors.

Last month, a Dan Rather Reports producer and crew were in Canberra, Australia as Parliament released the findings of an 18-month-long investigation revealing illegal and unethical tactics used to convince young, unmarried mothers to surrender their babies to adoptive homes from the late 1940s to the 1980s.

There was a lot of testimony from people that were associated with Catholic institutions. And Catholic Health Services here issued an apology and I understand they're gonna be putting in place some grievance procedures.”

In some cases, mothers in Australia were drugged and forced to sign papers relinquishing custody. In others, women were told their children had died. Single mothers also did not have access to the financial support given to widows or abandoned wives, and many were told by doctors, nurses, and social workers that they were unfit to raise a child. Siewert says, “We heard practices that were either illegal or unethical and downright cruel.”

Two weeks ago, a prominent Canadian law firm announced that it would file a class-action lawsuit against Quebec's Catholic Church accusing the Church of kidnapping, fraud and coercion to force unwed mothers to give up their children for adoption. . . . "The beliefs the Catholic Church (in Quebec) had about premarital sex and the judgmental approach the church had, made it particularly aggressive in pressuring women into putting their children up for adoption."

Can someone explain to me why anyone remotely moral and with a shred of concern for others as equal human beings remain affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church? The Church's sick obsession with all things sexual and desire to punish alleged sexual sinners has caused horrific grief over the decades and centuries - not to mention the damaged lives of children and youths who were knowingly left in the clutches of sexual predators and child rapists.

Virginia "Personhood" Bill Dies in Virginia Senate

In what is likely another example that national condemnation and nightly TV primetime parody carry more weight with the Virginia GOP than common sense and logic (which would have prevented the introduction of the extreme bills this session), the Virginia Senate has voted to send Del. Bob Marshall's Christofascist backed "personhood" bill back to committee and thereby kill the measure for this year. Personally, I'd love to know what strings Taliban Bob McDonnell pulled behind the scenes in order to make sure he did not have to make a decision of whether to sign or veto the bill if it got to his desk. One can only assume that Victoria Cobb is acting like she's got a severe case of constipation on this news and will be on the warpath. For rational and thinking women (some of whom are pictured in the photo above), I hope that they remember the GOP's war on women in November and vote a straight Democrat ballot. The Virginia GOP will certainly deserve such retribution.

Meanwhile, with the watering down of the "ultrasound" bill at McDonnell's demand, the only remaining "must pass" Christianist bill likely to land on McDonnell's desk is the anti-gay adoption bill which will allow agencies funded with state funds to discriminate against gay adoptive parents. Would that Saturday Night Live and the Daily Show would go after McDonnell with a vengeance on that issue. Here are highlights from Virginian Pilot on the happy death of the "personhood" bill:

The full Virginia Senate tabled a bill declaring that life begins at conception this afternoon, just hours after it was approved by a committee on an 8-7 vote. Senators Thomas Norment, R-James City County, and Richard Saslaw, D-Fairfax County, both proposed that the so-called "personhood" bill, HB1, be sent back to the Senate Education and Health Committee and be passed by for the year. Their proposal passed 24-14. The vote means the legislation can’t be resurrected this year.

The measure has drawn the ire of abortion rights advocates and some doctors and advocates for infertile couples, who insist that it could criminalize in-vitro fertilization as well as most forms of birth control.

Emotions were similarly intense over an effort to require women to undergo an ultrasound before they have an abortion. In its original form, Del. Kathy Byron’s bill, HB462, was written in such a way that it could have required women to have an ultrasound that involved the insertion of a probe into the vagina.

As public outcry and national backlash to the ultrasound legislation mounted, McDonnell on Wednesday told lawmakers he did not support a mandate to make have that kind of invasive ultrasound. The governor’s decision drew rebuke from some social conservatives; he previously expressed support for ultrasound legislation.

Katherine Greenier of the ACLU of Virginia called the tabling of the bill a “victory for women’s rights and health,” though she cautioned that other bills to restrict abortion are still pending. She expressed disappointment that the personhood bill was only passed by for the year, but praised legislators who “truly took in the concerns raised to not place politics over women’s health.”

Roanoke Times Slams Adoption Discrimination

I noted previously that the Virginian Pilot had slammed the Christianist bigots and their puppets in the Virginia GOP who scuttled the proposed Department of Social Services regulations that would have allowed same sex couples to adopt or serve as foster parents. Now the Roanoke Times joins the band wagon of those criticizing the special rights given to anti-gay religious affiliated adoption agencies that out of one side of their mouths claim to be "private" organizations, even as they have their hands out receiving taxpayer derived funds. As I have stated before, once an organization receives the first dollar of taxpayer funds, their "private" status needs to disappear since they are acting as an arm of the state - something that makes them subject to all of the restrictions and requirements of the U. S. Constitution. You know, inconvenient things like the banning of religious based discrimination - the root of all anti-gay bigotry - and the requirement of equal protection under the law. Here are highlights from the Roanoke Times editorial on Christ-fascist bigotry:
*
On Wednesday, the Virginia Board of Social Services, at the urging of Gov. Bob McDonnell, chose not to grant equality to unmarried couples and gay Virginians in the adoption process. Private adoption agencies may continue to discriminate against them. Loving homes will remain largely unavailable for kids in search of a family.
*
The debate leading up to the decision framed things primarily as a gay rights issue, but there was much more to it. The proposed regulations also would have made gender, age, religion, political beliefs, disability and family status non-issues in adoption. The opposition primarily came from religious-based adoption agencies whose faith tells them gays are unfit parents.
*
An adoption agency's faith tradition might also dictate that people of another religion are unfit parents. Maybe Democrats, too, or Republicans. People who vote for pro-choice candidates. People in wheelchairs. All remain viable, albeit distasteful, reasons an adoption agency might cite to reject parents. Yet because those groups' interests were caught up in a broader gay-rights fight, they too will continue to be potential objects of discrimination.
*
When it comes to finding good families for children, sexual orientation, faith, politics and all the rest have no place in the discussion. The surprising thing was not that the governor chose not to extend equal rights to gay people, but that he did not get behind the rest of the changes.

Florida Ban on Gay Adoptions Unconstitutional

As a number of media outlets are reporting, including the Miami Herald, in a well written opinion and with plenty of expert testimony to support the decision, a Miami-Dade circuit judge Tuesday declared Florida's 30-year-old ban on gay adoption unconstitutional, allowing a North Miami man to adopt two foster kids he has raised since 2004. In opposing the suit by the foster parents, the State of Florida incredibly relied on the "expert" testimony of two psychologists who were less than objective. One, Dr. George Rekers, is an ordained Baptist minister, was paid an advance retainer of $60,900 by the state, and has authored anti-gay article. The other, Dr. Walter Schumm, likewise could not separate his religious fanaticism from legitimate research and had written an article in which it was stated in part that: we prefer to accept the authority of the Bible as the best guide for sexual decision making, . . . Not surprisingly, the judge based her ruling on the testimony of the numerous other non-Christianist experts. Here are some highlights from the Miami Herald story:

*

In a 53-page order that sets the stage for what could become a constitutional showdown, Circuit Judge Cindy Lederman permitted 47-year-old Frank Gill to adopt the 4- and 8-year-old boys he and his partner have raised since just before Christmas four years ago. A child abuse investigator had asked Gill to care for the boys temporarily; they were never able to return to their birth parents.

*

Moments after Lederman released the ruling, attorneys for Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum announced they would appeal the decision to the Third District Court of Appeal in Miami.

*

In her ruling, Lederman said children taken into state care have a ''fundamental'' right to be raised in a permanent adoptive home if they cannot be reunited with birth parents. Children whose foster parents are gay, she said, can be deprived of that right under the current law. ''The challenged statute, in precluding otherwise qualified homosexuals from adopting available children, does not promote the interests of children and, in effect, causes harm to the children it is meant to protect,'' Lederman wrote.

*

In a ruling that, at times, reads more like a social science research paper, Lederman dissected 30 years worth of psychological and sociological research, concluding that studies overwhelmingly have shown that gay people can parent every bit as effectively as straight people and do no harm to their children.

*
''Based on the evidence presented from experts from all over this country and abroad,'' Lederman wrote, ``it is clear that sexual orientation is not a predictor of a person's ability to parent. Sexual orientation no more leads to psychiatric disorders, alcohol and substance abuse, relationship instability, a lower life expectancy or sexual disorders than race, gender, socioeconomic class or any other demographic characteristic.

Virginia leads Nation in Children Aging Out of Foster Care

Today's Virginia Pilot reports that Virgina has the dubious distinction of having the highest "aged out" problem for children in foster care in the USA. Meanwhile Virginia rigorously prohibits LBGT couples from adopting children. Could there just maybe be some correlation between these two issues? One cannot help but wonder since often LGBT's are the ones who adopt children no one else wants. Here's a portion of the story.

The report tagged Virginia as having the highest percentage of such children in 2004. The study, funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts and the Jim Casey Youth Opportunities Initiative, found that 21 percent of Virginia's foster children "aged out" of the system in 2004, compared to a national rate of 8 percent. The good news for Virginia, though, is the state is among 12 where the rates declined between 2000 and 2004, the latest year tracked.

The report, entitled "Time for Reform: Aging Out and On their Own," found that the number of children nationally who age out of foster care has grown by 41 percent since 1998. The report found that children who age out of the system have spent an average of five years in foster care, compared to 2.5 years for all foster children.

Other studies have shown these young adults are at higher risk of homelessness, trouble with the law, and poverty. Virginia social services officials said states often differ in how they collect data, which could account for Virginia's high percentage of children who age out of the state's care.

It is sad that Virginia's legislators and the Christianists at The Family Foundation prefer that children never have a permanent home rather than let them live in stable, loving LGBT homes. Once again, it sure does not seem like what Jesus would condone.