Was Brett Kavanaugh’s Involved in Bush-Era Anti-Gay Marriage Agenda?

Having read U.S. Supreme Court decisions now for over 45 years, I have concern about justices who lack any apparent ability to show a shred of empathy for others and who feel that only their views and beliefs are correct and should, therefore, be imposed on the entire nation and its citizenry.  The late Antonin Scalia was such a justice.  Now, the nation is faced with privileged, white, straight male  nominee to the Court who sees Scalia as an icon and who just as frighteningly sees the occupant of the White House as basically above the law while in office.  That he was Trump's pick is no coincidence, in my view, especially due to his views on presidential exemption from prosecution and meaningful oversight.  Brett Kavanaugh also seems likely to favor the evangelical goal of rolling back LGBT rights and granting special privileges to those I call Christofascists.  Given the growing likelihood of Trump's criminality - and possible treason - being more fully exposed, Senate action on Kavanaugh's nomination needs to be delayed.  In addition, a more full review of his past actions, including the anti-gay marriage agenda launched by George W. Bush's administration, needs to be allowed.  At present, Republicans are opposing a full examination and suggesting there is something to hide from public review.  A column in Huffington Post argues why we need to know about Kavanaugh's past actions:

GOP leaders recently decided they wouldn’t request records that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh authored, generated or contributed during his time as White House staff secretary under President George W. Bush. And they’re not budging from this position.

Their change in course came after a July 24 meeting between Trump White House counsel Don McGahn and Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee, the substance of which isn’t known. 

Last Friday, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) criticized his GOP colleagues for the curious and troubling about-face and took them to task in a letter to McGahn. He asked if McGahn had spoken with Kavanaugh about the records, as well as Bush’s personal attorney, Bill Burck, who is advising the former president on the release of his administration’s documents.

Democrats have rightly charged that it’s an appalling conflict to have Burck, who worked with Kavanaugh in the Bush administration, overseeing the release of the records. It’s also enormously problematic that Burck is McGahn’s personal attorney as well and is representing him ― in addition to former Trump advisers Reince Priebus and Steve Bannon ― in special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe of the Trump campaign’s possible ties to Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election.

But the issues don’t end there. As Rachel Maddow noted on Twitter, Leahy also asked if McGahn had “reason to believe any of the records relate” to several pertinent issues, including “a proposed constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.”

Leahy’s letter calls into question the roles Kavanaugh and Burck played during the Bush administration and, more specifically, what involvement they had in the constitutional ban on same-sex marriage vigorously promoted by Bush-era Republicans ― a ban the Bush White House came to support in its first term.

Marriage equality and the broader fight for LGBTQ rights are continually put before the Supreme Court today, so it’s crucial for the public to know about Kavanaugh’s past  ― and appropriate for senators to ask questions about it. After all, there’s no way Kavanaugh and Burck, two key figures in the Bush White House, weren’t at the center of discussions about this controversial amendment. 

Kavanaugh, as White House staff secretary during that time, was certainly in the thick of these interactions and discussions. After Bush was re-elected, the president continued to give speeches in support of “a ban on same-sex marriage.” And controversy exploded in 2005 over revelations that the administration had paid right-wing columnists to promote its positions on marriage and the family.

By Trumpian standards, this scandal may seem like nothing, but the national uproar lasted for days. Bush was forced to address the issue, publicly urging his Cabinet secretaries to stop paying what amounted to thousands of dollars to radio host and columnist Armstrong Williams and syndicated columnist Mike McManus.

Also on the payroll: Syndicated columnist Maggie Gallagher, who received an additional $20,000 in a federal contract to write a report titled “Can Government Strengthen Marriage?” for a private group. She even testified before Congress promoting Bush’s policies. (In 2007, Gallagher would go on to co-found and lead the National Organization for Marriage, the driving force behind the movement against marriage equality that helped pass California’s Proposition 8 and other statewide gay marriage bans.)

Marriage equality is the law of the land today. But it continues to be challenged, not only by those who want to treat gay couples differently, like anti-LGBTQ bakers and other business owners, but by those who want to send the issue back to the states to decide.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, Trump’s first appointee to the Supreme Court, has invited state challenges to the Obergefell marriage equality ruling in a recent dissenting opinion. As I’ve noted, Gorsuch revered the late Justice Antonia Scalia, who, like Gorsuch, was an originalist . . . . Kavanaugh, who gave a speech in 2016 calling Scalia a “role model” and “hero.”

In that speech, Kavanaugh also pointed to Scalia’s dissent in Obergefell (Scalia called the ruling a “threat to American democracy”) as an example of what he liked about Scalia’s judicial philosophy. Scalia, he said, viewed the court as having “no legitimate role ... in creating new rights not spelled out in the Constitution.”

So what, exactly, are Republicans afraid the public will see in the Kavanaugh records from the Bush years, when the White House supported and promoted a federal marriage amendment? 

[T]he public should also know which issues Kavanaugh worked on in the Bush White House, how they may relate to cases coming before him, and if he would recuse himself from those cases.

The fact that there are likely hundreds of thousands more pages of records to review with regard to Kavanaugh, which will take more time, is no excuse. This is a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. The American public has the right to see how Kavanaugh interacted with, and perhaps weighed in on, one of the most important civil rights issues of our time. 

If one has nothing to hide, one doesn't seek to hide information.  You can only assume there is information in those records from the Bush years that Kavanaugh and his backers do not want the public to know about.  Given the incessant lies and hiding of information under the Trump/Pence regime, we need a full airing of all information, good and bad, on Mr. Kavanaugh.   

Civil Servants' Illegal Defiance on Same-Sex Marriage

With "godly Christian" county clerk's across the South in particular refusing to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples based on their "deeply held religious beliefs" we see (i) a total perversion of the concept of religious freedom as envisioned by the Founding Fathers, and (ii) the demand of Christofascists for special rights writ large.  The Founding Fathers NEVER envisioned civil servants being able to refuse to perform their duties based on claimed religious belief because their concept of religious freedom never extended beyond (a) the freedom to worship in a church of one's choosing, (ii) not being required to support a church that one did not belong to, and (iii)  not being barred from civil office based on one's religious affiliation.  The New York Times has an on point main editorial that slams the modern day Pharisee "godly folk."  Here are excerpts:

The Supreme Court could not have been clearer when it ruled late last month that states may not refuse to marry same-sex couples.

“The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the court in Obergefell v. Hodges. “Under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty.”

Most of the country has quickly accepted these words as the law of the land. But in several states where the resistance to marriage equality has been most entrenched, government officials whose job it is to license or perform marriages continue to misunderstand, stall or flatly defy the court. However they justify these tactics, their conduct is illegal and they must stop.

In Hood County, Tex., County Clerk Katie Lang ordered her staff shortly after the ruling not to issue any same-sex marriage licenses because, she said, “I am instilling my religious liberty in this office.”

She later backtracked to say that while she would personally refrain, her staff members were “available and ready” to issue the licenses. But that wasn’t true for Jim Cato and Joe Stapleton, a couple of 27 years who were repeatedly turned away by Ms. Lang because, she told them, the office did not have the updated license forms in hand.

It took a federal lawsuit, which Mr. Cato and Mr. Stapleton filed on Monday, to convince Ms. Lang at last to follow the law and issue the license a few hours later.

[S]ome county clerks in Kentucky and an Alabama probate judge have removed themselves from the marriage business entirely rather than help same-sex couples marry.

These public employees seem to forget that taxpayers pay them to do their job. If doing that job violates their religious beliefs, the best solution is to find another job, as several have done in the days since the Obergefell ruling.

Some same-sex marriage opponents argue that under state religious-freedom laws, a government employee’s beliefs should be accommodated so long as another official is available to carry out the task. But government employees do not have a constitutionally protected right to pick and choose which members of the public they will serve, no matter their religious beliefs.

Not so long ago, of course, government officials invoked religious beliefs to justify all manner of racial segregation and discrimination, including laws banning interracial marriage. The Supreme Court struck down that marriage ban in 1967 in Loving v. Virginia.

It is impossible to imagine any county clerk or judge now claiming a right not to marry an interracial couple based on religious beliefs. And yet, that would be analogous to what these public employees are doing in refusing to serve same-sex couples. The Constitution’s protection of religious freedom simply does not include the right to discriminate against others in the public sphere.

The answer to such behavior is simple.  These clerks need to either do their jobs, or (i) resign, or (ii) go to jail for contempt of court.  Can you imagine anyone other than Christofascists who would think they can simply ignore the law?   Oh, I did I mention that when these people take their oaths of office, they swear to uphold the state and federal constitutions?  Slavish obedience to cherry picked passages in the Bible is nowhere in their oaths of office. 

 

Gay Rights and The Increasingly Embatteld Catholic Church

Pope Francis has made statements that wishful thinking Catholics want to believe have signaled a change in the Church's approach towards gays and gay rights.  As reviewed in prior posts, the reality is that to date under Pope Francis NOTHING has changed in terms of dogma.  However, that is not to say that growing forces of opposition are not coming to bear on the Church's mistreatment of and discrimination against LGBT individuals.  These forces ranges from Catholic high school students in Washington State who are in open revolt following the firing of a gay vice-principal after he married his husband to the former president of the Republic of Ireland who recently slammed the Church's anti-gay policies.  Sooner or later, Pope Francis must embrace real substantive change or stand by and witness the death spiral of the Church.  In the context of young Catholics, Andrew Sullivan summed up the situation unfolding in Washington State:

Something quite contagious is happening at Eastside Catholic School in Sammamish, Washington. A well-liked vice-principal was fired recently (Dish coverage here) not because he was gay but because he married his partner. In a spectacular and revealing twist, the vice-principal, Mark Zmuda, claims that in his discussions with the school’s president, he was told he could be re-hired if he divorced his husband.

What does it say about the twisted, absurd view of homosexual persons that the Catholic Church should demand that they divorce their spouses as a condition of working for a Catholic organization? It tells you so much. What the church is saying by this is that homosexuals should be punished for constructing stable, committed relationships of mutual care and support. If they stay single or have some kind of down-low commitment ceremony, all will be ignored.

Patheos Blog went even deeper to the heart of this stand off:

But even if the Church and school change nothing, the students give you a glimpse into the Church’s future. It’s making itself obsolete by pushing away young people who are concerned with social justice and civil rights and who know the Catholic Church can’t be counted on to stand for what’s right. 

Are these kids going to remain in the Church once they’re out of their parents’ houses? Are they going to raise their kids in the Church? Are they going to attend Church when they’re older? Are they going to have any respect for Church authority?

The obvious answer is than many will leave Catholicism and perhaps even Christianity.  Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, former Irish President Mary McAleese laid into the Church for its treatment of gays.  That's right the former president of Ireland, a nation that once was a bastion of Catholicism.  The Scotland Herald looks at her statements.  Here are excerpts:

The call came from former Irish President Mary McAleese, who said the Catholic Church had been in denial over homosexuality for decades and that it was "not so much the elephant in the room but a herd of elephants".

Speaking during a lecture at the Royal Society of Edinburgh, Mrs McAleese said: "I would have thought Cardinal Keith O'Brien, in telling the story of his life - if he was willing to do that - could have been of great assistance to gay people, not just in the Church but elsewhere, who felt over many, many years constrained to pretend to be heterosexual while at the same time acting a different life."

Mrs McAleese said that, like so many closet homosexuals, Keith O'Brien hoped to divert attention from himself by raising his voice "in the most homophobic way".

However this, she said, was a reflection of the Vatican's attitude to gay people in general.
She said: "Things written by Benedict, for example, were completely contradictory to modern science and to modern understanding, and to the understanding of most Catholics nowadays in relation to homosexuality.

Mrs McAleese drew a ­comparison with the Church's attitude to Jews. It took almost two millennia formally to revise the "Christ-killer" slander which had been repeated down the decades. 

Mrs McAleese studied suicide among young Irish males, many of them gay Catholics who grew up being told their sexuality was "intrinsically disordered" and "evil".

When she took this research to the new papal nuncio in Dublin she was surprised by his response. 

She said she was asked: "What do you want me to do? Do you want us to turn our back on tradition?" Her answer was: "Yes, if it's wrong."

Only time will tell whether or not Pope Francis will have the courage - and common decency - to begin a sea change in the Church.  One thing is clear: if he doesn't the Church will continue to wither and die in the Western World.

Did Supreme Court Conservatives Grant the Prop 8 Case?

Given some of the comments by Justice Anthony Kennedy during the oral arguments on the Proposition 8 case that suggested that the Court might find a lack of standing and dismiss the case, the question arises as to which justices made the decision to hear the case in the first place.  A piece in the New York Times suggests it was homophobe extraordinaire and bigot-in-chief Antonin Scalia and his cabal of ultra-conservatives:  Thomas, Alito and perhaps Roberts.  While they may have had the votes to accept the appeal, one can only hope that they find themselves unable to stop the tide of gay marriage.  If indeed the conservatives got the case on the Court docket, I hope it back fires and somehow Justice Kennedy can be brought to back an expansive national ruling for gay marriage.  The irony that Scalia shot his cause down would be delicious were that to occur.  Here are excerpts from the Times article:

If nothing else, this week’s arguments provided a telling glimpse into the process through which the court selects its docket, one that is usually shrouded in exceptional secrecy. The arguments also cleared up most of the mystery of whose idea it had been to hear the case, a challenge to Proposition 8, California’s ban on same-sex marriage. 

As it turns out, it would seem that the conservative members of the court, making a calculation that their chances of winning would not improve with time, were behind the decision to take up the volatile subject. 

The aha moment came on Tuesday.  After Justice Anthony M. Kennedy suggested that the court should dismiss the case, Justice Antonin Scalia tipped his hand.  “It’s too late for that now, isn’t it?” he said, a note of glee in his voice. “We have crossed that river,” he said.

Justice Scalia, almost certainly joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr., apparently made a twofold calculation: that their odds of winning would not improve as same-sex marriage grows more popular and more commonplace, and that Justice Kennedy, who is likely to write the decision in the case concerning the 1996 law, would lock himself into rhetoric and logic that would compel him to vote for a constitutional right to same-sex marriage in a later case.

 

It is not that the conservatives felt certain they would win. It is that their chances would not improve in the years ahead. 

That leaves the question of the fourth vote. The most likely answer is that it was that of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., though he did not sound at all pleased on Tuesday to have the case before him.  There is also a chance that the fourth vote came from Justice Kennedy himself, and his very questioning provides support for that theory. “I just wonder,” he said, sounding a little plaintive and a little angry, “if the case was properly granted.”

“If they DIG [dismiss as “improvidently granted”] it now, after all of the fanfare and all of the attention and all of the amicus briefs,” he said, “it will look like they didn’t know what they were doing at the outset.”  Still, said H. W. Perry Jr., a law professor at the University of Texas, “it is a case that allows a lot of exit points.” The one that seemed most attractive to a majority of the justices on Tuesday was that supporters of Proposition 8 did not have standing to appeal from a decision entered against state officials. 

A dismissal on standing grounds could lead to some messy follow-on litigation in California but will probably effectively allow same-sex marriages there.  So why did the court agree to hear the case? 

The ultimate answer to that question is years away and will only come when private papers of the justices become available decades from now.   Meanwhile, many of us will be sweating bullets waiting to see what ruling is handed down in June.

Chick Fil-A President: We Love Biblical Families

After paying all kinds of apparent games trying to save Chick Fil-A from suffering denials of needed approvals for proposed new locations, particularly, in Chicago, Chick Fil-A president Dan Cathy has now confirmed that he and his company "love biblical families."  The rest of us?  In Cathy's theocratic world, we can pretty much go do something rude and crude to ourselves since we are damned to Hell according to the Christofascists like Mr. Cathy.  Cathy admitted the company's real agenda when being interviewed by Atlanta's NBC affiliate last weekend.  11Alive.com  provides coverage.  Here are excerpts:

In one of his first interviews since the controversy that surrounded his chain of restaurants, Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy did not say much -- but did mention his support for "Biblical families."

Cathy spoke with 11Alive's Matt Pearl this past Saturday at an event at the Cathy family's ranch, The Rock Ranch, in The Rock, Ga. While offering an interview about the ranch and its various fall events, the Chick-fil-A president did agree to answer a few questions about the major topic of conversation: his earlier statements this summer about gay marriage.

This past weekend, Cathy sidestepped questions about the controversy but did reiterate the company's devotion to families.

"Families are very important to our country," Cathy said. "And they're very important to those of us who are concerned about being able to hang on to our heritage.  "We support Biblical families, and they've always been a part of that."

At least now Cathy seems to be honest about his contempt for those who do not conform to his religious beliefs.  The irony - and one might say hypocrisy - of Cathy's statement is that if one looks at the true biblical model for marriage, polygamy, then Cathy is supporting a false form of marriage.  At least if one supports true biblical marriage as opposed to the artificial construct now trumpeted by the Christofascists.

Feel the Christian Love - The Southwest Tea Party and Gays

A number of surveys have shown that there is something like an 85% overlap between members of the Tea Party crowd and the Christian Right.  This correlation appears borne out by the twitter messages issued by the Southwest Tea Party in support of the gay haters at Chick fil-A.  The animus towards gays is palpable.  It's little wonder that the millennial generation are fleeing from the Christian brand in record numbers.  As note many times before, nowadays conservative Christians are best known for their hate and intolerance towards others.  That's not exactly the message Christ's gospel message sought to engender.

Will Opposition to Gay Marriage Drive Young Christians from Church?

A piece on CNN that I bookmarked thew other day asks the question of whether the Christianist battle against gay marriage could end up driving young Christians away from church.  Based on the rate at which the so-called millenial generation is leaving organized religion, I would argue that we are already seeing the answer to the question.  And, as the CNN piece suggests, the situation may worsen - at least if one is an anti-gay advocate - as more young evangelicals become increasingly receptive to same sex marriage like their peers.  The irony in all of this is that the Christofascists blame gays for the decline of religion, yet it's really their own foul behavior and hatred and bigoty that is killing the Christian brand.  Based on my own children and their friends, they want nothing to do with denominations that spew constant anti-gay vitriol.  Here are some excerpts from the CNN piece:

As the battle over gay marriage heats up in this election year, one evangelical Christian writer is calling for a truce, fearing that the outspoken opposition to gay marriage among some church leaders could alienate an entire generation of religious youth.

“Evangelicals have been so submitted to these culture wars for so long, so that’s hard to give up,” evangelical writer and speaker Rachel Held Evans, 31, told msnbc.com. But “the majority of young Christians really, really, really want to stop with the political emphasis.”

A 2011 survey by the Public Religion Research Institute shows the generation gap between young Christians and their elders is large, with 44 percent of white evangelicals aged 18-29 in support of marriage equality compared to only 12 percent of those 65 and older.

According to the same survey, nearly 70 percent of young Christians also agree that religious groups are alienating young people by being too judgmental about gay and lesbian issues.  “For young Christians, having gay and lesbian friends is just a part of our life,” Held Evans said. “It’s just really hard for us to see them as mere issues to debate, because we’re talking about our friends here.”

To Held Evans, American churches’ attitude toward gay rights will play an important role in the retention of young Christians. In an article she wrote following North Carolina’s recent vote to ban gay marriage, Held Evans points to data mentioned in David Kinnaman’s book You Lost Me, which shows that 59 percent of teens who were raised Christian abandon the church when they become adults. One of the main reasons, the article says, is the church’s attitude toward gay rights.

While young Christians may be divided on whether gay relationships should be celebrated in the church, Held Evans said, they’re increasingly unified on their stance against legislative action, such as North Carolina’s gay marriage ban and others that will be up for votes this fall.

"Even young Christians who think that gay relationships are not God’s design, a lot of them will still say ‘but I think it should be legal for gay people to get married, because this is America,’” Held Evans said.

“I think the main problem we have is that a lot of the folks voting about homosexuality, voting about gay marriage, don’t know any gay people,” she said. “And I’m certain that if they did, it would change their attitude.”

I guess the cynic in me almost hopes that the Roman catholic Church hierarchy and the Southern Baptist Convention  continue their anti-gay jihad.  It may be the key to killing their foul version of Christianity - something that would be a net gain for the world.

Misplaced Catholic Church Priorities

Several news stories today serve to underscore the severely misplaced priorities and sensibilities of the Roman Catholic Church. The first is a story from the Belfast Telegraph that reports on the outrage from the victims of clerical sexual abuse in Ireland in response to the Vatican's do nothing approach to bishops and high clergy who knowingly covered up the sexual abuse of children and youth - literally for many decades. While the Vatican's supposedly "unprecedented" meeting with all 24 bishops from Ireland caused many to have high expectations that at long last corrective action might occur, the reality has been more crocodile tears from Pope Benedict XVI and no meaningful punitive action toward guilty bishops. Here are some highlights:

*

Victims of clerical sex abuse last night accused the Pope of “washing his hands” of the scandals that have rocked the Catholic Church in Ireland. Abuse survivors condemned the Pope Benedict XVI for not acknowledging that senior clergy covered up decades of sickening abuse.

*

They said the Pontiff's unprecedented two-day summit with the 24 Irish bishops in the Vatican in Rome was “a charade” that had achieved nothing. . . . in a Vatican statement, the Pope specifically failed to acknowledge the cover-up or formally apologise for the abuse — leading to widespread condemnation from victims last night.

*

The Pope also failed to sack under-fire Bishop of Galway Martin Drennan — or even formally accept the resignations of other bishops, who were criticised in the Murphy Report for their mishandling of cases of sexual abuse. The Pontiff also ignored the failure of the Papal Nuncio to co-operate with the Murphy Commission's investigation into abuse in Dublin.

*

Maeve Lewis, of support group One in Four, hit back and said the Pope's response was inadequate. “It is deeply insulting to survivors to suggest they were abused due to failures of faith, rather than because sex offending priests were moved from parish to parish, and those in authority looked away while further children were sexually abused,” she said.

*

Even as the Vatican found itself unable/unwilling to take justified punitive action against clerics guilty of criminal offenses or at a minimum acting as accessories to crimes, elsewhere the Catholic Church continued its anti-gay jihad and in the case of the Archdiocese of Washington, D.C., threw children under the bus rather than comply with the District's soon to be effective gay marriage laws. At the Vatican, Cardinal Carlo Caffarra of Bologna made the statement that public officials who recognize the separation of Church and state and openly support same-sex marriage cannot consider themselves to be Catholic. Indeed, the good cardinal said that such officials needed to be excommunicated. Here are highlights from the Boston Pilot, a leading Catholic newspaper:

*

It's impossible for the Catholic faith and support for putting homosexual unions on equal footing with marriage to coexist in one's conscience -- the two contradict each other," said the note. Even more serious would be the case of a Catholic lawmaker who introduces a measure or votes in favor of a law that supports gay marriage, he said. "This is a publicly and gravely immoral act," he wrote.

*

Cardinal Caffarra, who holds a number of positions in the Roman Curia including as a member of the Pontifical Council for the Family, the Pontifical Academy for Life and the Vatican's highest tribunal, known as the Supreme Court of the Apostolic Signature, wrote that the consequences of same-sex marriage would be "devastating."

*

I guess the dear Cardinal doesn't believe being sexually abused wasn't devastating to abuse victims. Thus, the Church's position seems to be that covering up the sexual abuse of thousands of children and youth merits a slap on the wrist, but supporting gay marriage - something supported by legitimate medical and mental health experts - is grounds for excommunication. Something is seriously f*cked up in this analysis. As if anything else was needed to further confirm that the Catholic Church cares literally nothing for the welfare of children, the Archdiocese of Washington, D.C., announced that it has ended its 80-year-old foster-care program in the District rather than license same-sex couples to care for children needing a stable and loving home. Here are some highlights from the Washington Post:
*
The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington has ended its 80-year-old foster-care program in the District rather than license same-sex couples, the first fallout from a bitter debate over the city's move to legalize same-sex marriage.
*
The church and some experts said the city's measure has narrower exemptions for religious groups than other same-sex marriage laws across the country, particularly when it comes to requiring benefits for the same-sex partners of employees. City officials knew of no other faith-based groups that said their city contracts were in jeopardy.
*
The Catholic Church seems Hell bent on marginalizing itself in the developed world and becoming a third world religion where ignorance and lack of education continue to leave members of the laity unable to see the failings and moral bankruptcy of the Church. Meanwhile, I hope the media will continue to shine the spotlight of day on the dark moral sickness of the Church leadership, including Benedict XVI.

50 U.S. Catholic Dioceses Contributed To Maine Marriage Battle

Anyone who doesn't believe that the Roman Catholic Church has become a leader in anti-gay discrimination and supporter of intertwining religion and the civil laws need only read this article at the National Catholic Reporter that looks at Catholic contributions for the effort to deprive Maine residents of marriage equality. I believe that it is increasingly import for those of us raised in Catholic families to engage in conversations with family members urging them to stop donating money to the Catholic Church. If some of the elderly like my own mother want to attend mass, that's fine - just do NOT put money in the collection basket. Better yet, as mentioned on a past post on PHB, instead of money, put a note in the collection envelop explaining why no money is enclosed in light of the Church's jihad against LGBT family members. More than anything else, the Catholic Church worships money. We need to hit them where it really counts. Here are some highlights from the NCR story (the full list of contributions can be viewed here):

*
After Portland, Maine, the largest diocesan contributors were the Philadelphia archdiocese and Phoenix diocese, each giving $50,000. The sees of Newark, N.J., St. Louis, Mo., and Youngstown, Ohio, each contributed $10,000. The Diocesan Assistance Fund of Providence, R.I., gave $10,000.00. Contributing $5,000 were the dioceses of Arlington, Va., Rockford, Ill., Crookston, Minn., and Pittsburgh, Pa. The Roman Catholic Foundation in the Archdiocese of Baltimore, Inc. donated $2,500. Contributing $2,000 were the diocese of Portland, Ore., Jefferson City, Mo., Savannah, Ga., and the archdiocese of New Orleans. The Columbus, Ohio, diocese gave $1,500. Contributing $1,000 were the archdioceses of Cincinnati, Ohio, Hartford, Hartford, Conn., and Atlanta, Ga., and the dioceses of Fort Worth, Texas, Green Bay, Wis., Ft. Wayne-South Bend, Ind., Baton Rouge, La., Colorado Springs, Colo., Gary, Ind., Parma, Ohio, Erie, Pa., Joliet, Ill., Grand Island, Nebr., and the Diocesan Center for Family Life, Jacksonville, Fla.
*
The financial report says the bishop of Fall River, Mass., donated $5,000; the archbishop of Mobile, Ala., gave $2,000, and the bishops of Wheeling-Charleston, W.Va., Louisville, Ky., and Springfield, Mass., each donated $1,000. Individual bishops were named in the financial report. Giving $1,000 were Richard Lennon of Cleveland, Ohio, and William Lori of Bridgeport, Conn. Giving $500 were Herbert Brevard of St. Thomas, Virgin Islands, and John D'Arcy of Fort Wayne, Ind. Giving $250 were Jose Gomez of San Antonio, Texas, and John LeVoir of New Ulm, Minn. Joseph Kurtz of Louisville, Ky., gave $200.

The anti-family Knights of Columbus - which has never demanded accountability from the Church hierarchy in respect to the cover ups of sexual abuse of minors - donated $50,000.00.

The Marriage-Go-Round

Andrew Cherlin has a new book out entitled "The Marriage-Go-Round" that looks at the state of marriage and the family in America today and in the process explodes the myths put out by the Christianists and anti-gay marriage crowd. What is particularly humorous is that many of the European countries so frequently derided by the far right in fact have much more stability than in the USA. Likewise, the turbulence in straight marriages has NOTHING to do with same-sex marriage. Common sense would tell us many of these things, but it is nice to have yet another researched effort that further delineate the lies of those who spread the myth that the United States was founded as a "Christian nation." On marriage, like so much else, our foes are lying and disseminating false information. Here are some high lights of an interview with Cherlin:

*

I had the sense that American marriage and family life differed fundamentally from the other Western countries—Western Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand . . . . We have more marriages and remarriages, more divorces, and more short-term cohabiting (living together) relationships than the other countries. Put them together and you have more turnover, more movement in and out of relationships than anywhere else. As a result, Americans have more spouses and live-in partners over the course of their lives than do people in any other Western country. We step on and off the carousel of marriages and partnerships faster than anywhere else.

*

One statistic that stunned me: take two children, one growing up with married parents in the United States, and one growing up with unmarried parents in Sweden—which child has the higher likelihood of seeing his parents’ relationship break up? Answer: the American kid, because children living with married parents in the United States have a higher probability of experiencing a break-up than do children living with unmarried parents in Sweden. That’s how high our break-up rates are.

*

American children face much more movement of parents and parent-figures in and out of their households than do children anywhere else. Take children who see three different fathers, stepfathers, and/or mother’s boyfriends in their homes by the time they are fifteen. The percentage of American children who live with that many partners is 8 percent, which is three times as high as the next highest country (Sweden at 2.6 percent). In Canada and many European countries, less than 1 percent of children experience that much family turnover.

*

[C]hildren living with remarried parents do not have a higher level of well-being than do children in single-parent families, despite the presence of a second adult.

*

Same-sex marriage has been more of a battleground in the United States than in most other countries because marriage is more important to Americans than to people in other countries. . . . . In some European countries, gay and lesbian activists are asking instead: why, at this late date, should we buy into the oppressive, archaic institution of marriage?

*

And as I have pointed out a number of times in the past, who pray tell has the highest divorce rate in the USA? You guessed it: the evangelical Christians who so vehemently oppose legal rights for LGBT couples. It seems Maggie Gallagher needs to be focusing her efforts somewhere other than on gay marriage if she truly cares about "preserving" marriage.

A Dishonest Definition of Marriage

Rick Warren and other gay-hating professional Christians constantly run their mouths about marriage being defined as a union of one man and one woman throughout the last 5,000 years of human history. This, of course is a lie, but the main stream media NEVER calls these windbags on the issue (or any of the other often told lies that is the Christianists' stock in trade). As a fellow commenter on Pam's House Blend points out, the one man -one woman form of marriage is of relatively recent origin and in fact is not the norm in large parts of the world even today. Here is a summary of some of the real structure of marriage from the Bible and from history:

*

It seems that there are so many people in the gay community who are aware of the dishonesty of this claim of universal, historical, monogamous, different gender marriage in all places and times. We all know it's simply not true. Why doesn't the wider community know this? It's time we attacked that lie head on. We need to come up with a short list of examples to expose this lie. Something that can be a soundbite, and carry the message wherever we hear the lie. I would suggest the following inclusions:

*

Jesus was single.

*

Mary and Joseph didn't have the traditional marriage either, since Mary was a virgin mother and Joseph wasn't Jesus father.

*

Abraham had many wives.

*

Joseph Smith had dozens of wives.

*

David had six hundred wives and three hundred concubines.

*

St. Paul said it's better to be celibate than married.

*

Cultures that accepted gay marriages included the Greeks, Romans, Chinese, Japanese, Native American, etc.

*

As usual, the Christianists have lied. The truth is the opposite of their claim. In almost all places and times, until very recently, gay marriages were accepted. It wasn't until Christianity took hold of governments and cultures, that their own particular brand of homophobia became the norm.

*

A recent case out of Saudia Arabia where multiple wives is often the norm - and where women are treated as chattel - underscores the truth of these statements and that "marriage" is often not as the Christianists define it. As CNN reports, a Saudi judge recently refused to annul a marriage between an 8-year-old girl and a 47-year-old man. Here are more highlights on this sick situation about which the Christianists say nothing:

*

According to the lawyer, the girl's father arranged the marriage in order to settle his debts with the man, who is "a close friend" of his. The judge did ask for a pledge from the husband, who was in court, not to consummate the marriage until the girl reaches puberty, according to al-Jutaili.

*
The judge ruled that when the girl reaches puberty, she will have the right to request a divorce by filing a petition with the court, the lawyer said. Christoph Wilcke, a Saudi Arabia researcher for Human Rights Watch, said his organization has heard many other cases of child marriages. "We've been hearing about these types of cases once every four or five months because the Saudi public is now able to express this kind of anger, especially so when girls are traded off to older men," Wilcke said.

Marriage Christianist Style

The anti-gay Christianist forces constantly cite the Bible as authority for the rule that marriage is of one man and one woman. However, as the recent Newsweek story made clear, the Bible in actuality provides for very different marriage combinations and rules. The Daily Kos has a great example of what various marriage rules might indeed look like if the Bible was faithfully and literally applied. It's not a pretty picture. It does, however, show the dishonesty of Christianists who argue against gay marriage based on literal applications of the Bible. Here are highlights from Daily Kos:

*
A. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5)

*
B. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)

*
C. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)

*
D. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)

*
E. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)

*
F. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)

*
G. In lieu of marriage, if there are no acceptable men in your town, it is required that you get your dad drunk and have sex with him (even if he had previously offered you up as a sex toy to men young and old), tag-teaming with any sisters you may have. Of course, this rule applies only if you are female. (Gen 19:31-36)

Wow!! Electoral Victory

It has been a very emotional and tumultuous day having worked inside a majority black precinct in Norfolk for "Protect the Vote" for the Obama campaign, then watching the returns, McCain's concession speech at the home of friends (accompanied with champagne toasts), and just moments ago Obama's victory speech. I feel emotionally wrung out, but in a wonderful way. For the Democrats in Virginia, it was a great day: Obama carries Virgina, Mark Warner annihilates Jim Gilmore in the U.S. Senate race, and Glenn Nye appears to have defeated GOP Congresswoman Thelma Drake in the 2nd Congressional district.

*

I will post tomorrow more on my reflections on the day and what I observed, but I cannot omit mentioning the high emotions in the precinct where I worked (it went nearly 4 to 1 for Obama) seeing many first time black voters of all ages. Many truly did not believe that they would ever see the day that someone with African American heritage would win the White House. Some were in near tears and I will admit I teared up myself.

*

The last things I will worry about as I try to get some need sleep is what happens with the Proposition 8 vote. Sadly, it looks like the anti-gay initiatives will pass in both Florida and Arizona (clear examples of discrimination based on religious belief, I would add). I pray to God that California does not follow suit. Needless to say, it's ironic that on the day a black man is elected as president of the United States, hate and discrimination are still alive and well against gays. Thankfully, John McCain will not be the one making nominations to the U. S. Supreme Court which is perhaps the last stop for LGBT Americans to find equal treatment and rights under the law. My happiness over the Obama win is greatly dampened and I cannot help but wonder if perhaps the USA is not the country in which I want to continue living.