Religious Liberty, Bigotry and Gays

Here in Virginia, GOP homophobic extremist Del. Bob Marshall has introduced a bill that would give broad license to discriminate against gays based on claims of "religious freedom."  The bill is so extreme that discrimination is licensed if gays and/or same sex relationships “violate the religious or moral conviction of such person with respect to same-sex ‘marriage’ or homosexual behavior.”  Marshall's bill is no doubt backed by the hate merchants at The Family Foundation, Virginia's leading hate group. But Marshall's efforts are part of the Republican play book across the country where Republican legislators - yes, it is ALWAYS Republicans - are introducing "turn away the gays" bills under the smoke screen of "protecting religious liberty."  A column in the New York Times takes on these crude, bigoted efforts.  Here are excerpts:

I’VE been called many unpleasant things in my life, and I’ve deserved no small number of them. But I chafe at this latest label: A threat to your religious liberty.

I don’t mean me alone. I mean me and my evidently menacing kind: men who have romantic relationships with other men and maybe want to marry them, and women in analogous situations. According to many of the Americans who still cast judgment on us, our “I do” somehow tramples you, not merely running counter to your creed but running roughshod over it.

That’s absurd. And the deference that many politicians show to such thinking is an example not of religion getting the protection it must but of religious people getting a pass that isn’t warranted. It’s an illustration of religion’s favored status in a country that’s still working out this separation-of-church-and-state business and hasn’t yet gotten it quite right.

Equality is increasingly being enshrined into law, and one response from those opposed to it is that the law shouldn’t apply to them.  Why? Because it contradicts their religious beliefs, which they use as a fig leaf for intolerance.

[L]ast year, more than 10 states considered legislation that, to varying degree, blessed discrimination based on sexual orientation by people claiming that it was a right, a matter of religious liberty. . . . .  A Virginia lawmaker introduced this sort of legislation just a few weeks ago.

But this is only the beginning, especially with the contest for the Republican presidential nomination gathering steam.    Several likely candidates — Ted Cruz, Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee — get a special gleam in their eyes when they’re denigrating gays

Another probable contender, Jeb Bush . . . . said that America needed to take care to “safeguard religious liberty,” and there are several problems with that formulation.

For starters, it perpetuates confusion, some of which is cynically engineered, about the consequences of marriage-equality laws. They do not pertain to religious services or what happens in a church, temple or mosque; no clergy member will be compelled to preside over gay nuptials. Civil weddings are covered. That’s it.

But also, “religious liberty” sounds disturbingly like a dog whistle to the crowd that wants specified, codified exemption from anti-discrimination laws . . . . As these lamentations about religious liberty get tossed around, it’s worth remembering that racists have used the same argument to try to perpetuate segregation. 

Christian fundamentalists in this country are practiced at claiming marginalization and oppression. “They’re always saying they’re kept out of the public square, and that’s baloney,” said Marci Hamilton, a constitutional law expert and the author of “God vs. the Gavel.” “They’re all over the public square.”  They and their churches inject themselves into political debates while enjoying tax-exempt status. They get public support in questionable circumstances.

 

Would we be content to let a Muslim store owner who believes that a woman should always cover her hair refuse service to women who do not? Or a Mormon hairdresser who spurns coffee to turn away clients who saunter in with frappuccinos?  I doubt it. So why should a merchant whose version of Christianity condemns homosexuality get to exile gays and lesbians?

I respect people of faith.  . . . . And I support the right of people to believe what they do and say what they wish — in their pews, homes and hearts.  But outside of those places? You must put up with me, just as I put up with you.

Unlike the author of the column,  I don't respect most people of faith.  Certainly not religious fundamentalists who have chosen ignorance and bigotry over knowledge and tolerance to those who are different.   Rather than give them a license to discriminate, we need to restrict their rights in the public square and put religion back where it belongs: in homes and houses of worship and nowhere else.

Five Antigay Nightmares Now That the GOP Controls Congress

Like many I am less than thrilled with the outcome of yesterday's elections - I simply keep repeating to myself "we survived eight years of Chimperator Bush and Emperor Palpatine Chaney, so we can survive two years of a GOP controlled Congress."  Surprisingly, I even had my ex-boyfriend who now lives in North Carolina call me this evening lamenting over the fact that his state is becoming crazy land.   But seriously, the Republican "wave" as some are calling it does not good things for LGBT Americans.  Anti-gay organizations like NOM are exulting in the defeat of pro-gay candidates and Ted Cruz, a gay-hater extraordinaire, are seeming themselves as enjoying a mandate.  A piece in Queerty looks at some of the far right batshitery that we can expect over the next two years.   Here are some excerpts which sadly are not tongue and cheek:

Here are five antigay issues that are bound to arise now that the GOP has full rein of Congress…

1. Endless attacks on marriage equality
At this point, there’s not a lot that Congress can realistically do about marriage equality. The Supreme Court has pretty much spoken, and states are falling in line. But the same could have been said about Obamacare, and that didn’t stop Republicans from shutting down the government for 17 days last year in the vain quest to kill the law. Realism is not the GOP’s strong suit these days, especially in the Ted Cruz wing of the party.

What will happen is a lot of symbolic gesturing that will still be damaging to the LGBT community. There will be bills to resuscitate DOMA and resolutions trumpeting support for traditional marriage. None of these will have any practical effect, but they will have a psychologically one, by de-legitimizing same-sex marriages and empowering opponents of marriage equality. To some extent, we will still have to play defense, particularly since the Supreme Court has chosen not to issue the final word yet.

2. Open war over Supreme Court nominees
And because the Supreme Court ducked the issue this year, any vacancy on the Supreme Court will immediately become an all-out war over marriage equality. Marriage equality will be as much a litmus test as reproductive rights. Republicans controlling the Senate will never allow an openly pro-marriage nominee to be seated on the bench. (Given their embrace of obstructionism to date, they may never allow an Obama nominee on the bench at all.)

The fight will be especially fierce if one of the departing justice is one of the five that struck down DOMA. That means a single vote in the opposite direction could halt the progress of marriage equality. This will become a do-or-die battle for the right, and Republicans getting ready to go into the 2016 presidential campaign will be in no position to stake out a middle-of-the-road position. The right wing has signaled it’s ready for a party civil war on this issue, and the Supreme Court nominee will be a call to arms.

3. Enshrining religious liberty in legislation
Looking to shore up the party base in advance of the presidential election, Congressional Republicans will likely turn to the refuge of the homophobic: religious liberty. In order to make the world safe for anti-marriage bakers, the GOP will look to create a right-wing version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act that will specifically exempt individuals from following laws that they object to on religious grounds. That would mean not just marriage equality laws, but even nondiscrimination laws.

4. Kiss ENDA goodbye
ENDA has about as much chance of passage in a Republican-controlled Congress as Mitch McConnell has of winning RuPaul’s Drag Race. Two more years of delay doesn’t mean much to a bill that’s been kicking around for nearly two decades, but at some point the stench of failure becomes impossible to remove and the bill becomes a zombie–dead but not buried. It also means that nondiscrimination protections in the workplace will still be hit-or-miss, leaving many states where you can both get married and get fired.

5. Creating a forum for nutburgers
The loony right will always be with us, but now they will have a loudspeaker in Congress. We will be subjected to all kinds of ‘expert’ testimony from antigay activitists. It’s already happening in the House, where the head of the Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty recently testified before a subcommittee about the “apparent hostility” the Obama administration was showing to evangelicals in the military. 

President Obama can stop a number of these problems. He can veto bad legislation, and Republicans won’t have enough votes to override his veto. But he can’t stop the efforts to erode, derail or otherwise delay the gains we’ve made. He won’t be able to make things happen that might help us.
 
The problem could be short-lived. The 2016 Senate map favors the Democrats, so Republicans may hold onto the Senate for just two years. (It will be a while before they lose control of the House because Republican-controlled states have redrawn districts to ensure the maximum number of GOP seats.) In the meantime, though, the damage will have been done.

The only upside: voters won’t take kindly to restarting the culture wars. In the end, the party may end up doing as much damage to itself as it does to us. But after this election’s results, that’s pretty cold comfort.

Nondiscriminating Mississippi Businesses Accused of "Bullying" Christians

Recently, the GOP controlled Mississippi legislature passed a "turn the gays away" law that was signed into law by the GOP governor.  Some businesses were appalled at the legalization of religious based discrimination and came up with a simple campaign to indicate to customers that they were open to business for all citizens by placing stickers in their windows (see image above).  Not surprisingly, hate merchants from the vitriolically anti-gay American Family Association ("AFA") are now claiming that such businesses are "bullying" and persecution Christians.  AFA, a designated hate group, like what seems to be a majority of Christofascists, believes that anything that restricts Christians' ability to persecute others equates to "bullying" Christians.  It's a sick mindset, but it is now the norm among the "godly folks."   OneNewsNow - an AFA controlled "news" outlet - looks at the disingenuous shrieks of Christian persecution: 

In response to passage of that bill, owners who want the business of homosexuals are now posting blue, circular window stickers that incorporate the rainbow colors typically associated with homosexual activism.

Buddy Smith, executive vice president of Tupelo-based American Family Association, offers his take on the sticker campaign.

"It's not really a buying campaign, but it's a bully campaign," he says, "and it's being carried out by radical homosexual activists who intend to trample the freedom of Christians to live according to the dictates of scripture.

"They don't want to hear that homosexuality is sinful behavior – and they wish to silence Christians and the church who dare to believe this truth."

Smith offers a word of caution for those who do business with facilities posting the decal supporting homosexual activism. "If you do that, you are agreeing with these businesses that Christians no longer have the freedom to live out the dictates of their Christian faith and conscience," he tells OneNewsNow.

A website affiliated with the sticker campaign lists the Mississippi businesses that are participating. One of those listed is Jackson-based Milsaps College, which is connected with the United Methodist Church.

The take away?  That AFA and those who support it are vile and such people should not be treated with deference or respect.  They need to become social and political pariahs. A second take away?  It's little wonder that Mississippi ranks almost dead last among most states except when it comes to racism, homophobia and bigotry in general.

U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Anti-Gay Photographer's Appeal

Anti-gay bigot, Elaine Huguenin

One of the lunatic wingnut justifications for Arizona's "turn away the gays" bill was that ultimately vetoed by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer was that "godly Christians" needed to be protected from serving those members of the public whose existence offended their religious sensibilities.  One of the instances cited for the need for the license to discriminate based on feigned claimed religious belief was the case involving Elane Photography which was found to have violated New Mexico's public accommodation statute.  The New Mexico Supreme Court upheld Elane Photography's conviction and the case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court (Elane Photography was represented by the same whack jobs at the Alliance Defending Bigotry Freedom who are representing the Prince William County Clerk of Court in the Bostic v. Rainey case).  Today, the U.S. Supreme Court drop kicked Elane Photography and the Alliance Defending Freedom  by refusing to take the appeal from the New Mexico Supreme Court ruling.  The conclusion?  That the Arizona statute and Mississippi's new anti-gay statute were based on lies when they claimed that non-discrimination laws trample on the "religious freedom" of Christofascists.  The Washington Blade has details.  Here are excerpts:

The U.S. Supreme Court announced on Monday it won’t take up a case in which a New Mexico photography business alleges its rights were violated when it landed in hot water for refusing to shoot a same-sex wedding ceremony.

In orders published Monday morning, the court listed the case, Elane Photography v. Willock, without comment as among the cases it won’t consider.

The case was brought to the Supreme Court by Elane Photography, which was found to have violated New Mexico’s anti-discrimination law for refusing to take a photo for the same-sex wedding ceremony for Vanessa Willock and Misti Collinsworth in 2006. (The wedding was only ceremonial because the incident took place before the state legalized same-sex marriage.)

Elane Photography filed lawsuit in state court, alleging that its refusal to photograph a same-sex wedding is protected on religious grounds. However, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled against the claims, saying the businesses service can be regulated because it’s a public accommodation. Following that decision, Elane Photography asked the U.S. Supreme Court to consider the lawsuit based on First Amendment protections under the U.S. Constitution.

To grant a writ certiorari, or a take up a case, at least four of the nine justices on the court must agree to consider lawsuit. It’s unknown what the vote was on denying certiorari in this case.  Had the court taken up the case, justices could have found a constitutional right across the country for individuals to discriminate against LGBT people or refuse services for same-sex weddings ceremonies on the basis of religion.

Anti-gay groups had pointed to the incident as a reason to enact laws in various states to allow individuals and business to refuse services to gay people without fear of reprisal, such as the controversial “turn away the gay” bill recently vetoed by Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer and signed into law by Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant. Other bills along those lines are pending in numerous states — Kansas, Mississippi and Georgia — but have seen resistance going forward.

Bigotry is bigotry whether wrapped in claimed religious belief or not and it is fortunate that the Court rejected this case  and sent a message to the Christofascists that they are NOT above the law. 

Don't Fall for the New Myth that Republicans are Driving LGBT Progress

Perhaps a few Republicans and conservatives are slowly waking up the the reality that the GOP's anti-gay stance is toxic to its long term survival.  But sadly, instead of making any real change to the GOP heinously anti-gay agenda, some in the GOP and apologists in the news media are trying to create a myth that the GOP isn't really anti-gay.  One GOP candidate with whom I am having dialogue says he supports equality for everyone, yet his party does not. Some even claim (suffering from delusions, no doubt) that Republicans are assisting in the advance of LGBT rights and same sex marriage.  Other than Republican appointed judges who have ruled in favor of gay rights and/or marriage equality, however, the examples of pro-gay Republicans are largely non-existent.  And let's not forget that it has been the GOP behind the state level "turn away the gays" bills or that the GOP 2012 platform on social issues was co-authored by Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, a designated anti-gay hate group.  A piece in Salon tears apart this myth of GOP friendliness to gays and our lives.  Here are excerpts:

In a recent piece in the Atlantic, reporter Molly Ball largely credits Republicans for the progress in the fight for marriage equality. She points to recent events involving Republicans that prove that the GOP is actually a hospitable place for the LGBT community and the progress it seeks.

I will not be the first, but let me be the latest, to reply: no, it is not.

Because of actions by judges appointed by Republican presidents, Ball assumes this signals a shift in party thinking.
Republicans are playing a role in the changing landscape of same-sex marriage. While it is certainly true that some within the party and within the conservative movement are, in fact, changing their minds, Republicans are not by any stretch of the imagination driving the improving legal and social positions for the LGBT community in the United States. Not by a long shot. And scientific, empirical political science research confirms it. I’ve just finished writing a book on the topic (co-authored with Dr. Melissa Michelson) that examines support for LGBT rights and same-sex marriage among different identity groups.

A few glaring facts are treated as ephemeral aberrations in Ball’s piece: only three Republican U.S. senators support marriage equality. That’s right, three. Out of 45 current Republican U.S. senators. There are currently 184 current members of the U.S. House of Representatives on record in support of marriage equality. Of them, 182 are Democrats. That’s 98.9 percent. There are 17 current governors who have announced their support for marriage equality. All 17 are Democrats. And those Republican elected officials who recently declined to oppose marriage equality cited in Ball’s piece? Let’s review some background from these so-called Republican “drivers of momentum.”

For example, Gov. Chris Christie remains staunchly opposed to same-sex marriage. He vetoed a bill approved by the New Jersey Legislature in 2012 to legalize the practice. When a trial-level judge ruled in October 2013 that the state must allow same-sex couples to wed, Christie appealed that ruling to the state Supreme Court. He finally decided to abandon his appeals because the state “would have little chance of overturning them,” not because his issue preferences changed.

Gov. Brian Sandoval came to a similar conclusion when Nevada’s constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage was struck down, responding, “Based upon the advice of the attorney general’s office and their interpretation of relevant case law, it has become clear that this case is no longer defensible in court.” Not exactly a glowing endorsement of the freedom to marry.

[I]n a letter to the Republican Party, social conservative leaders like Tony Perkins, James Dobson and Phyllis Schlafly suggested that Republicans should hold steadfast in their opposition to marriage equality, instead focusing on how to better articulate those positions of opposition to avoid high-profile Republican gaffes. Just four days later, and just prior to the Supreme Court’s rulings in Perry and Windsor, the Republican National Committee passed resolutions affirming the party’s opposition to marriage equality, . . .

For our book, we conducted two randomized experiments to test the effect of partisan identity on support for marriage equality. . . . . Republicans were staunchly opposed to marriage equality regardless of what they read, with only 17 percent support (Democratic support paragraph) and 19 percent support (Republican support paragraph). In New Jersey, running a similar study, we found that Republicans overwhelmingly disapproved of marriage equality.

The poll also finds that among the roughly 50 percent of Republicans who believe that people are born gay, 64 percent support same-sex marriage, 61 percent say the Constitution provides the right to such unions and 70 percent favor allowing gay and lesbian individuals to adopt (Craighill & Clement 2014). In other words, while Republicans and conservatives are generally slower to change their opinion, there seems to be a non-trivial number of Republicans who are either supportive of marriage equality or are at least open to considering the issue.

To claim they are “driving the momentum” is another argument entirely. One that isn’t valid.

For the time being, if one is LGBT, supporting the GOP continues to be against one's own best interest unless greed and a desire for lower taxes is all that matters to you.  In every other respect, the GOP continues to want to treat us as less than full citizens and in some instances less than fully human.  The myth makers are simply lying if they claim otherwise.