Well here we go again. Did we really just vote for “business as usual” in Washington or did we vote for change? I’m starting to think the former.
It was reported today over at Pam’s House Blend that Rick Warren, the mega-pastor at the mega-church who wrote the mega-best-selling book The Purpose Driven Life, has been asked by the Obama transition team to do the invocation at President-elect Barack Obama’s inauguration on January 20th, 2009.
This is the same Rick Warren who has, on numerous occasions defended the passage of Proposition 8 in California, and compared gays and lesbians to zoophiles, pedophiles and polygamists.
(listen around the 2:10 mark)
The last time the President-elect was confronted with this sort of situation it was almost forgivable because the person was rather obscure. In particular I’m talking about the Rev. Donnie McClurkin, an ex-gay pastor who would sing at Obama campaign rallies.
Ross, subbing for Andrew Sullivan, just doesn’t seem to get why the “partial-birth abortion ban” and SCOTUS’ affirming stance is such a problem.
I guess I don’t think of laws banning prostitution, or even laws banning drugs, primarily as public health regulations – I think of them as morals legislation, outlawing practices that the majority considers sufficiently offensive to human dignity to deserve an outright ban. And in this context, I don’t see why killing one’s unborn offspring, even if the offspring isn’t a legal person and the crime therefore isn’t the same as murder, shouldn’t be something that the state has an interest in regulating on moral grounds. (We have laws against animal cruelty, for instance, even though animals aren’t legal “persons.”)
This, incidentally, is why so many conservatives hated on Lawrence v. Texas – not because it did away with sodomy laws, but because Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion seemed to hint that any and all morals legislation was effectively unconstitutional. That was the substance of Scalia’s dissent, which warned that laws against everything from prostitution to obscenity would be threatened by the decision. For now, though, that threat hasn’t been fulfilled – and as long as morals legislation in general is still safe from Supreme Court override, there’s no reason a state or Congress shoudn’t be able to restrict abortion (in a post-Roe world, that is) even without claiming legal personhood for the fetus.
No that’s not what it’s about. Most on our side of the fence of this issue see the human element that is at stake here. There are many circumstances at which a woman might want to or need to have a private relationship with her doctor and discuss such a “late term abortion”, as it’s more aptly called. This law makes no exception for the health of the woman. Circumstances where the fetus has a terminal illness and is likely going to die anyways either in the womb or shortly after the womb. Also circumstances where carrying the baby to full term could endanger the life of the mother or cause such permanent damage to the woman that she will never have the ability to have children again in her lifetime.
Abortion is never an easy decision for a woman to make! In most cases it is a mother’s decision to determine what is best for her and her child unborn or not. The government has no business making decisions like this for her. Conservatives want smaller government but at the same time want to regulate what happens inside of a woman’s body and in her own bedroom. RU486, or “Plan B” as it’s called is just one of many examples of this.
When it comes to public health issues the government has an interest in maintaining the lives of all currently born and future generations of its citizens which is why mandated HPV vaccinations are so important. Just like we were able to erradicate small pox and polio to almost complete non-existence, we should work to do the same with other diseases, especially ones that have been shown to cause cervical cancer.
In general most conservatives only see what is “moral” in their Leave it to Beaver fantasies of American life. What is reality and what is practical takes a back seat to fantasyland visions of 1950’s television sitcoms. The SCOTUS decision is just a step in the direction towards such a fantasyland, one where women find it necessary to get “back alley abortions” or travel to neigboring countries with the fear of jail to terminate an unwanted pregnancy to avoid the anguish of carrying to term her rapists baby. Ahh yes, the good ‘ole days.
Americans For Truth (AH?) have a fairly prominent theme or modus operandi for how they get their “truth” out to readers. It’s a fairly simple one. “Don’t refute the message. Attackthemessenger!”
Instead of simply refuting the arguments against them, they attack the very people who express their point of view. While holding the bible in their hands to boost the credibility of AFT, they use personal attacks to insult the sincerity of those making the opposing view points.
If one were to go to their page today or any day really but starting with the post at the bottom ”An Open Letter … ” dated January 5th, 2007 and work our way up to the top to “NEA’s Anti-Bullying Statement …” dated January 10th, one can see this trend of “blame the messenger” very clearly. I’m going to analyze the stories on the page today and then let you, the reader follow along in the preceding days to see how they handle this.
The first post we’ll analyze is “An Open Letter to Peter LaBarbera.” This was written by a person who comments on and reads Pams House Blend. It was an open letter addressed to Peter LaBarbera in which he states as a gay man who has come to Christ he can’t understand why AFT instead of helping people come to Christ as is commanded in the Bible and helping those that are truly needy, they only pick on a small minority of the population and work as hard as is possible to condemn in every way possible. Read the rest of this entry »
Kevinbegood (a regular patron of Pam’s House Blend) made a very important comment to a post that needs to be seen by all.
It is tyranny – plain and simple.
And we’ve been much too careful for the last two years about calling this situation exactly what it is – tyranny. This heterosupremacist attitude that only married people should be entitled to have control over their lives and relationships is not only against the framework of our own freedom of association, but is obscene in the methods being used to maintain supremacist control over our lives.
There are times when we have to step up to the plate and not be afraid to call these people what they are – and bigots is just the polite form. They are every bit as tyrannical as the very king and Parliament this nation fought to gain independence from – and they are just as determined to maintain some ridiculous sense of special rights for themselves just because some American “Christian” ayatolluh’s business is completely dependent on propagating a caste system.
When Leonard Pitt’s column ran in our local newspaper this morning (and what a shock that our local rightwing rag would even print it) there had to be at least one christo-fascist commenter whining about how we “choose” to be “unnatural”. Typically, I sent an online comment right back, challenging him to talk about how he projects sexuality in terms of his own experience – meaning apparently he chose the more “correct” one. You can’t choose anything unless you have the notion that you can be something else – it’s time to make these supremacists whining this crap to start spilling their tales of conscious selection.
As for third class status, Wisconsin can forget my support. When the people of an entire state are so stupid and so willing to sell out a basic human right to determine my own damned burial arrangements or let a partner make a simple hospital visitation, there isn’t much of a way to put lipstick over the bruises.
But I do blame our own community for much of this defeat. I know we have an uphill battle, but until we are willing to tell our stories – and tell them loudly – and insist our local media give us the right to say something about our OWN experiences, this situation ain’t gonna change too soon. And I’ve read those experiences even here on the Blend – those comments in a thread the other day which talked about how families accepted or rejected our relationships are exactly the kinds of stories that need to be told to everyone.
We shouldn’t have to continue attempting to overcompensate for being gay by trying to be better principled human beings than those lowlife trash who pass themselves off as “religious” people with a “moral” foundation. The only damned foundation these people have is to give themselves as much of a step up in life as possible at the expense of as many other people as possible.
There has never been a real “debate” over marriage, period. Straight people are too insecure to actually examine statutes dealing with such matters as life, property, health and death – and they most certainly don’t wish to discuss their abhorrent behavior when they strip a gay relative’s home of every possession and toss a partner out into the street because the good Lord told them being “gay” was a sin. But it is high time this discussion was handled – not just for gay Americans, but for every single person in this country.
Families are (and have never been) ideal structures where everyone gets along famously, no one abuses anyone or beats their children, and no one abuses their spouse and destroys any love that should naturally be there. And we all know the fundies are at the heart of the perpetration of those dysfunctional homes – there are too many stories of children and spouses abused and neglected by one member of a family joining some nutcase church and hauling home the nose of a meddling minister (or worse, his peepee) into that home environment.
It isn’t rocket science for any American to relate on his or her own experience and understand that there are millions and millions of people in this country who just don’t have the ideal 1950’s television sitcom life. And it sure as hell ain’t rocket science to figure out that in every damned family in this country, a funeral is nothing but the backdrop for the heavy-handed greed ensuing over anything of mortal and monetary value. We’ve all seen it – and so has every single official “family” member. The laws in their present form do not protect the people they are created to serve. And when those who have been awarded the only right to form relationships based on an image (and regularly break their vows without legal/social penalty)are also given absolute control over the lives of all other members in a family, then the “family” associations are promoting nothing but tyranny.
Well now – I’ve just been on a ranting spree lately…hahaha. I might just cross-post this rant on Democratic Underground…
If the Foley incident is not about pedophilia, it is also not, it seems to me, about homosexuality. It’s fundamentally about the closet. The closet is so psychologically destructive it often produces pathological behavior. When you compartmentalize your life, you sometimes act out in one compartment in ways that you would never condone in another one. Think Clinton-Lewinsky, in a heterosexual context. But closeted gay men are particularly vulnerable to this kind of thing. Your psyche is so split by decades of lies and deceptions and euphemisms that integrity and mental health suffer. No one should excuse Foley’s creepy interactions; they are inexcusable, as is the alleged cover-up (although we shouldn’t jump to conclusions yet about who knew what when). But there’s a reason gay men in homophobic institutions behave in self-destructive ways.
Or think of it another way: what do the Vatican and the RNC have in common? Here’s one potential list: entrenched homophobia, psychologically damaged closet cases, inappropriate behavior toward teens and minors … and cover-ups designed entirely to retain power. The parallels are looking a little creepy. And the source is the same.
Where I don’t agree with Sully is the part about how “closeted gay men are particularly vulnerable.” I don’t think this is entireley true. I beleive that most of us GLBT folk can live in or out of the closet if we like to. After all our personal lives are our personal lives. Foley wasn’t closeted. He was out just not publicly. He went to the gay bars and it’s well noted. Foley was however, a closet case when it came to his fellow gays and lesbians by voting against them. Though I can understand if someone forces him/herself into the closet and denies his or her own truth by trying to become an “ex-gay.” This can lead to more problems down the road. This is why I understand and partially agree with Sully. But I cannot accept that this is what led Foley to his abhorrent online behavior.
Ol’ Porno Pete responds to Sully with this:
The truth is Mark Foley, like the rest of us, is a sinner in need of a Savior. As fallen human beings, our hearts are bent toward sin. God spoke through the prophet Jeremiah: “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?” (Jer. 17:9, KJV) It’s tough to own up to that truth: each of our hearts is so bent toward “wickedness” [well at least we know where his hatred comes from] (now there’s a word you don’t hear very often) that we can’t even know our own potential for self-deception!
If Foley was molested as a youth as his lawyer states, then he joins the legion of sexually victimized men and women who have gone on to perpetuate their abuse, as adults, on others. But Foley, like all people caught up in the modern cult of homosexuality, IS responsible for his behavior before God. (Besides, why would it follow that his natural “orientation” is “gay” if a major contributing cause to his current state of sexual confusion is that he was abused as a teenager?)
So, Pete why then by your logic aren’t all gay people molesting children? After all your usual claim that ‘most were molested as youth’ isn’t it? Why can’t you understand that pedophilia and pederasty are orientation blind? Yes there are sick twisted groups like NAMBLA who are organized to prey on children and demand a lowered age of consent. But that is such a small fraction of our minority. Foley is not going to ‘convert’ anymore than you are, unless the allegations about you are true. But that would also infer than you are successfully living in the closet, because we haven’t found any nasty info on you yet.
Andrew Sullivan needs to be criticized on this, but by linking his sexual orientation to abuse when he was younger is just a strawman to try to focus the blame of Foley’s actions on gay people in general. Try again petey.
While the nation was distracted by the more vocally controversial “Detainee Treatment Act,” the legislation was passed on September 26, 2006 in the House of Representatives and has been sent to the Senate. The following is an exerpt from the bill:
`(b) The remedies with respect to a claim under this section are limited to injunctive and declaratory relief where the deprivation consists of a violation of a prohibition in the Constitution against the establishment of religion, including, but not limited to, a violation resulting from–
`(1) a veterans’ memorial’s containing religious words or imagery
`(2) a public building’s containing religious words or imagery
`(3) the presence of religious words or imagery in the official seals of the several States and the political subdivisions thereof; or
`(4) the chartering of Boy Scout units by components of States and political subdivisions, and the Boy Scouts’ using public buildings of States and political subdivisions.’.
(b) Attorney’s Fees- Section 722(b) of the Revised Statutes of the United States (42 U.S.C. 1988(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following: `However, no fees shall be awarded under this subsection with respect to a claim described in subsection (b) of section nineteen hundred and seventy nine.’
Erwin Chemerinsky did an excellent op-ed piece on this in the Washington Post in which he calls out what the bill does. Simply put it removes the ability of attorneys to collect their fees if the plaintiff is the winner of a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a law based on if he feels his religious freedom is violated. Specifically lawsuits that challenge the constitutionality of the Ten Commandments being placed on federal property, or prayer in public schools.
Despite the effectiveness of this statute, conservatives in the House of Representatives have now passed an insidious bill to try and limit enforcement of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, by denying attorneys fees to lawyers who successfully challenge government actions as violating this key constitutional provision. For instance, a lawyer who successfully challenged unconstitutional prayers in schools or unconstitutional symbols on religious property or impermissible aid to religious groups would — under the bill — not be entitled to recover attorneys’ fees. The bill, if enacted, would treat suits to enforce the Establishment Clause different from litigation to enforce all of the other provisions of the Constitution and federal civil rights statutes.
Such a bill could have only one motive: to protect unconstitutional government actions advancing religion. The religious right, which has been trying for years to use government to advance their religious views, wants to reduce the likelihood that their efforts will be declared unconstitutional. Since they cannot change the law of the Establishment Clause by statute, they have turned their attention to trying to prevent its enforcement by eliminating the possibility for recovery of attorneys’ fees.
Those who successfully prove the government has violated their constitutional rights would, under the bill, be required to pay their own legal fees. Few people can afford to do so. Without the possibility of attorneys’ fees, individuals who suffer unconstitutional religious persecution often will be unable to sue. The bill applies even to cases involving illegal religious coercion of public school children or blatant discrimination against particular religions.
This is an abomination to the Constitution! These are our rights and freedoms being stripped from us and worded in such a way that it’s own constitutionality can’t be challenged.
Please call, write, and urge your Senators of what this bill would do. Let them know that subverting our Constitutional rights and removing the barrier between Church and State is unacceptable! Be courteous and kind in your remarks but let them know that our rights arent to be taken away from us and that the “wall” between Church and State must not be torn down. Religion has no place in politics and politics have no place in religion. Stand up for what’s right!
It seems to me that since there is no oversight in our government and there has been one party rule for the last 6 years things have only gotten worse on the civil and religious rights front. We need to let Congress and the President know we won’t take this any more.
Vote Democratic in the November 7th elections! Put balance back into our government. Hold the Administration accountable for its actions.
Americans For Truth 
