The Single Most Important Word In the Marriage Equality Opinion

Justice Anthony Kennedy who authored yesterday's historic ruling

Tucked into yesterday's historic marriage ruling is a single word that may in time auger the ultimate total legal defeat of the Christofascists' war on LGBT Americans.  The word?   Immutable.  Why is this so single word so important?  Because it is the basis for non-discrimination protections based on other immutable characteristics such as race, gender, age, and national origin (unfortunately, religion is included in such statutory protections even though religion is totally voluntary and a choice).  If sexual orientation or gender identity is immutable, it sets the stage for the expansion of non-discrimination laws and the Christofascist claims that sexual orientation is a "choice" or strictly voluntary "conduct."   Think Progress looks at how this single word may have huge impact in the years to come.  Here are excerpts:

[W]hile Friday’s decision is not a perfect victory for gay rights, it is still a massive one. And it likely clears the path for a follow up decision establishing that the rights of gay men, lesbians and bisexuals extend far beyond the marital context.

The single most important word in Justice Anthony Kennedy’s opinion for the Court is “immutable.” He uses this word twice, once in an off-hand statement that sexual orientation is an “immutable nature,” and again in a more pointed statement that “psychiatrists and others recognized that sexual orientation is both a normal expression of human sexuality and immutable.”

Kennedy’s declaration that sexual orientation is immutable has obvious political significance. It puts to bed, at least for legal purposes, what remains of the debate over whether people can choose not to be gay. But this word also carries particular significance in a case such as this one, where a discrete group of Americans allege that they are victims of discrimination. Though the Court’s cases have, at times, been murky on this point, they often refer to immutably as one of several factors that, when combined, can trigger heightened scrutiny. Kennedy’s decision to use this loaded word is a sign that he — and a majority of the Supreme Court — is willing to hold that all anti-gay discrimination by government should be treated skeptically.

Obergefell drops other hints that such a holding is coming. The primary factor in determining whether discrimination against a particular group should be subject to heightened scrutiny is whether that group has historically faced discrimination that bears “no relation to ability to perform or contribute to society.” Kennedy leaves little doubt that gay people meet this standard.

A close runner-up in the competition for the single most important word in Kennedy’s opinion is “fundamental.” Obergefell holds that marriage is a fundamental right, and that this right extends to same sex couples.

This holding is significant for two reasons. For one, it normalizes the Supreme Court’s gay rights jurisprudence. . . . . When a right is recognized as fundamental, any law that abridges it must be treated as preemptively unconstitutional.

Another noteworthy aspect of the ruling is recognized:

Justice Anthony Kennedy is a conservative Republican. The irony of Obergefell v. Hodges is that it is also a socially conservative opinion. The men and women behind this lawsuit, Kennedy writes, seek admission into one of the most profound and most conservative institutions in our society. According to Kennedy’s opinion, “marriage is a keystone of our social order.” It is “the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.” It gives “character to our whole civil polity.” And it “remains a building block of our national community.”

And when Kennedy looks at men and women such as DeKoe, Kostura, Obergefell, Arthur, DeBoer and Rowse, and he does not see people trying to disrupt the social order. He sees people who served their country, who take in children that others cast aside. He sees the life he has enjoyed with his own wife, and he understands how soul-crushing it would be if the state treated his wife as if she were a stranger to him.

Yesterday was a huge victory for LGBT Americans.  It may prove to be an even bigger defeat for the Christofascists and the hate dispensing "family values" groups who as a further aside may have just lost one of their biggest fundraising schemes. 

Far Right: "Satan Is 'Convincing People They Were Born Gay"

In follow up to a post earlier today, the "godly Christian folk" continue to make it painfully clear that they reserve a special kind of animus for members of the gay community and those in the medical and mental health fields who admit the obvious that one is born gay.  For the Christofascist this amounts to heresy because it means that the supposedly infallible God that the Christofascist pretend to worship made some of us gay by His/Her design.  All of which results in the Christofascist playing God themselves and claiming that gays can become heterosexual with a little religion and "therapy.  A rant by D.L. Foster of Voice of the Voiceless and Ex-Gay Pride/Awareness Month underscore the lunacy that is treated as mainstream thought among the Kool-Aid drinking Christofascist set.  Here are highlights from Right Wing Watch:

“So many people who get out get sucked back into it,” he laments. Foster asserts that Satan is “convincing people that they were born gay and should cease struggling and accept it.”

If homosexuality isn’t the biggest/greatest sin, then why are so many people bound in it and cant [sic] get out? Why is the devil convincing people that they were born gay and should cease struggling and accept it? Why do so many people who get out, get sucked back into it?

If homosexuality is just an average sin on par with the others, then why is the whole world (literally) being seduced into accepting it as normal? Why has the most powerful man in the world (POTUS) made it his personal mission to advocate for it worldwide? Why does it strike such fear in the hearts of Christian preachers with thousands of followers, rendering them silent?

Foster is also upset about the response of gay rights advocates to Russia’s ban on homosexual “propaganda,” asserting that “the homosexual community as a whole are [sic] like a mob of angry 4 year olds” and are too mean in their protests against Vladimir Putin.
“Their President, patron saint, CinCity and frequent White House private gay party host Barak [sic] Obama has taken the panic defense to new levels of desperation,” Foster continues, “Obama has bravely dedicated his life to the success of the gay comrades.”
- See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/dl-foster-satan-convincing-people-they-were-born-gay-and-has-sucked-ex-gays-back#sthash.UZ5XwvER.dpuf

“So many people who get out get sucked back into it,” he laments. Foster asserts that Satan is “convincing people that they were born gay and should cease struggling and accept it.”

If homosexuality isn’t the biggest/greatest sin, then why are so many people bound in it and cant [sic] get out? Why is the devil convincing people that they were born gay and should cease struggling and accept it? Why do so many people who get out, get sucked back into it?

If homosexuality is just an average sin on par with the others, then why is the whole world (literally) being seduced into accepting it as normal? Why has the most powerful man in the world (POTUS) made it his personal mission to advocate for it worldwide? Why does it strike such fear in the hearts of Christian preachers with thousands of followers, rendering them silent?

Foster is also upset about the response of gay rights advocates to Russia’s ban on homosexual “propaganda,” asserting that “the homosexual community as a whole are [sic] like a mob of angry 4 year olds” and are too mean in their protests against Vladimir Putin..

“Their President, patron saint, CinCity and frequent White House private gay party host Barak [sic] Obama has taken the panic defense to new levels of desperation,” Foster continues, “Obama has bravely dedicated his life to the success of the gay comrades.”

Despite a dismal economy, off the radar, black on black gun violence in his “home city” Chicago and one of the most dysfunctional governments in modern history, Obama has bravely dedicated his life to the success of the gay comrades.

Yes, it all sounds like the ravings of a lunatic, yet this is what passes for thoughtful, reasoned discourse amongst the Christofascists and much of the GOP base.   It's not gays who need therapy.  Rater it is people like Mr. Foster who ought to be biding his time in a mental ward somewhere.

D.L. Foster of Voice of the Voiceless and Ex-Gay Pride/Awareness Month - See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/dl-foster-satan-convincing-people-they-were-born-gay-and-has-sucked-ex-gays-back#sthash.UZ5XwvER.dpuf

Franklin Graham: Christianist Bigot Claims Religion is Genetic Except for Christians

I never cease to be amazed by the idiocy and bigotry of self-righteous and self-congratulatory Christians. Case in point: Franklin Graham, the son of Billy Graham who but for his famous father would more than likely be a complete nobody and unknown to anyone (perhaps not a bad thing). This fool and bigot - no other words seems quite appropriate - has shot off his mouth claiming that Barack Obama is a Muslim since with Islam "the seed of Islam is passed through the father like the seed of Judaism is passed through the mother." The exception to this genetic passage of religion is, according to Graham Christians who must "accept Jesus." Yep, that's what evangelical Christianity is coming to. One apparently needs to first have a lobotomy before one can be a Graham style Christian.
*
There's no way to state it nicely - Graham is a buffoon and a bigot. In the reality of the objective world - as opposed to Graham's bigoted fantasy land - religion is something CHOSEN and changeable at any time in one's life. It is NOT genetic in any way. And it is NOT an immutable characteristic. No one is born Catholic, Jewish, Muslim or any other denomination or faith. Instead one is either raised by parents in a particular faith tradition (or no faith tradition in some cases) or selects a faith tradition for themselves. Indeed, one can change their religious belief/affiliation at will and countless Americans do so every year according to various Barna Group studies. Indeed, 60 MILLION Americans have changed their religious tradition according to the most recent studies.
*
The other thing noteworthy about Graham's verbal diarrhea is that he says that Christian belief is being immutable. This flies squarely in the face of the positions of the majority of anti-gay professional Christians. One of the standard lines of the professional anti-gay crowd is the allegation that being gay is "a choice" and therefore, not an immutable characteristic worthy of constitutional anti-discrimination protections. This specific argument was made in Lawrence v. Texas and the Prop 8 supporters attempted to make the same argument in Perry v. Schwarzenegger more recently. Under Graham's bizarre world, since being Christian is clearly a choice, then by taking the Christianists' own logic to its logical conclusion, born again Christians should net receive any anti-discrimination protections since their religion is a choice and, therefore, clearly not immutable.
*
Frankly, Graham's position is pure idiocy. Obama was no more born Muslim than the man in the moon. But if Graham intends to stand by his allegations (which he has said he does), then I say fine. Let's start a ballot initiative to amend California's constitution to strip all born again Christians in that state of anti-discrimination protections. Let them be fired from their jobs, refused housing and subject to all kinds of discrimination. If being a born again Christian isn't an immutable characteristic, then lets use the same logic the Christianist use against LGBT Americans. Here are highlights from ABC News on Franklin Graham's utter batshitery:
*
"I think the president's problem is that he was born a Muslim, his father was a Muslim. The seed of Islam is passed through the father like the seed of Judaism is passed through the mother. He was born a Muslim, his father gave him an Islamic name," Graham told CNN's John King in a televised interview that aired Thursday night.
*
"Now it's obvious that the president has renounced the prophet Mohammed, and he has renounced Islam, and he has accepted Jesus Christ. That's what he says he has done. I cannot say that he hasn't. So I just have to believe that the president is what he has said," Graham continued, adding that "the Islamic world sees the president as one of theirs."
*
As for why Obama and his family rarely go to local church services, the article continues as follows:
*
Obama has favored a more private faith since he took office in January 2009, attending formal church services just a handful of times, including Easter of this year.
*
Like his predecessor George W. Bush, Obama has said he prefers worshiping at the chapel at Camp David. But the president rarely goes to the presidential retreat, and instead spends Sundays at the White House. Weekend activities often include basketball or golf.
*
While the president and his family initially planned to join a church in Washington, they put the search on hold after finding the trappings of the modern presidency too cumbersome for congregation life. Before the president attends a service, the building must be swept for threats and every churchgoer screened for weapons.
*
An Obama family visit to the 19th Street Baptist Church, a historic African-American congregation in Washington, turned into a circus atmosphere that dismayed the family, according to aides, particularly after learning that longtime church members were turned away from the service.
*
This explanation has real merit. When my sister died, one of my former law partners who was at the time Attorney General of Virginia attended the funeral. Accompanying him were state troopers and a number of plainclothes body guards. I can only imagine the circus involved with an appearance by a U. S. President.

Might Christian Legal Society v. Martinez Doom Prop 8?

As several bloggers have picked up here and here, Theodore Boutrous, plaintiffs' counsel in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, has written a letter to Judge Walker advising him of the Supreme Court's decision in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez handed down earlier this week and encouraged Judge Walker to consider it in his decision whether to find Proposition 8 to be in violation of the US Constitution. A portion of the letter is set out in the image above. The complete letter can be found here. The pertinent parts of the letter are as follows:
*
In Christian Legal Society, the Supreme Court definitively held that sexual orientation is not merely behavioral, but rather, that gay and lesbian individuals are an identifiable class.
*
This confirms that a majority of the Court now adheres to Justice O’Connor’s view in Lawrence, where she concluded that “the conduct targeted by [the Texas anti-sodomy] law is conduct that is closely correlated with being homosexual” and that, “[u]nder such circumstances, [the] law is targeted at more than conduct” and “is instead directed toward gay persons as a class,” id. at 583 (O’Connor, J., concurring in judgment)
*
The Court’s holding arose in response to Christian Legal Society’s argument that it was not discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, but rather because gay and lesbian individuals refused to acknowledge that their conduct was morally wrong. The Court rejected that argument, holding that there is no distinction between gay and lesbian individuals and their conduct.
*
Obviously, if Boutrous' analysis is correct and is accepted by Judge Walker, the prospect that Proposition 8 - and other anti-gay statutes and constitutional amendments - will survive and not be struck down would seem greatly reduced. Should Proposition 8 be struck down in reliance in part of Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, the irony is that the Christianist will have helped set the stage for their own defeat.

Americans Switch Faiths Early and Often

One of the false arguments that the Christianists and professional Christian crowd use to justify discrimination against LGBT is that they say that sexual orientation is a choice and not an immutable attribute of an individual compared to say race. If that argument justifies leaving gays with no anti-discrimination protections, then it increasingly looks as if religion should cease to be a protected class since religion is clearly NOT an immutable characteristic and is something that can be freely changed based on several new surveys that underscore this fact. Specifically, a new report issued by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life makes it clear that Homo haters James Dobson, Tony Perkins, et al , best be careful in terms of what pretenses they use to justify their opposition to hate crimes laws and other laws that would give LGBT Americans full equality under the laws. The survey also has some less than good news for the Roman Catholic Church as well. Here are some highlights from the Sacramento Bee that describe the ease and frequency with which Americans change religious affiliation:

*

The U.S. is a nation of religious drifters, with about half of adults restlessly switching faith affiliation at least once during their lives, a new survey has found. And the reasons behind all the swapping depend greatly on whether one grows up kneeling at Roman Catholic Mass, praying in a Protestant pew or occupied with nonreligious pursuits, according to a report issued Monday by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.

*
While Catholics are more likely to leave the church because they stopped believing its teachings, many Protestants are driven to trade one Protestant denomination or affiliation for another because of changed life circumstances, the survey found. The ranks of those unaffiliated with any religion, meanwhile, are growing not so much because of a lack of religious belief but because of disenchantment with religious leaders and institutions.

*

The report estimates that between 47 percent and 59 percent of U.S. adults have changed affiliation at least once. Most described just gradually drifting away from their childhood faith. "This shows a sort of religion a la carte and how pervasive it is," said D. Michael Lindsay, a Rice University sociologist of religion. "In some ways, it's an indictment of organized Christianity. It suggests there's a big open door for newcomers, but a wide back door where people are leaving."

*

The survey found that Catholicism has suffered the greatest net loss in all the religion switching. Nearly six in ten former Catholics who are now unaffiliated say they left Catholicism due to dissatisfaction with Catholic teachings on abortion and homosexuality. About half cited concerns about Catholic teachings on birth control and roughly four in ten named unhappiness with Catholicism's treatment of women. Converts to evangelicalism were more likely to cite their belief that Catholicism didn't take the Bible literally enough, while mainline Protestants focused more on the treatment of women.