What really overturned "traditional" marriage (Hint: it wasn't us)

Marriage Scholar Stephanie Coontz

The redefinition of traditional marriage began about 250 years ago, when Westerners began to allow young people to choose their partners on the basis of love rather than having their marriages arranged to suit the interests of their parents. Then, just 100 years ago, courts and public opinion began to extend that right even to marriages that parents and society disapproved.

...In 1967 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional for states to prohibit interracial marriage. In 1987 it upheld the right of prison inmates to marry.

...The longstanding idea that the validity of a marriage depended on the ability and willingness of a couple to have children was eroded on two fronts when married couples who were not biologically capable of having children won access to other ways of starting a family—through artificial insemination, sperm donors, surrogate mothers, and liberalized adoption laws—and married couples who did not want children won the right to use contraception. ... 

But the most important cultural change that has increased support for same-sex marriage is the equality revolution within heterosexual marriage. ... 

Between the 1970s and 1990s... most Americans came to view marriage as a relationship between two individuals who were free to organize their partnership on the basis of personal inclination rather than preassigned gender roles. Legal codes were rewritten to be gender neutral, and men’s and women’s activities both at home and work began to converge.
 ...
The growing acceptance of same-sex marriage is the result of these profound changes in heterosexual marriage. It’s not just the president’s views on marriage that have evolved. Marriage itself has evolved in ways that make it harder to justify excluding same-sex couples from its benefits and obligations.

Equality is good for business

Why the 30 states with anti-equality amendments may be in trouble.  From the NY Times:

[T]here’s mounting evidence that a state’s support for same-sex marriage yields important benefits for business, especially with the younger, highly educated, affluent population avidly courted by most employers. ... 

There is data to suggest that members of the so-called creative class, a phrase coined by Richard Florida in his 2003 book “The Rise of the Creative Class,” with an updated version due out next month, are disproportionately influenced by a state’s attitude on issues like same-sex marriage. This group, which Mr. Florida estimates at more than 35 million people, tends to be mobile, affluent and well educated. “These people have choices,” Mr. Ellner noted, “and if you’re gay and you can be married in New York or Boston, would you opt for that over North Carolina? Of course you would.” 

Mr. Florida, now a professor at the University of Toronto, and Mr. Gates collaborated on a 2002 study for the Brookings Institution, called “Technology and Tolerance: The Importance of Diversity to High-Technology Growth.” The two concluded that “perhaps our most striking finding is that a leading indicator of a metropolitan area’s high-technology success is a large gay population.” They continued, “Frequently cited as a harbinger of redevelopment and gentrification in distressed urban neighborhoods, the presence of gays in a metro area signals a diverse and progressive environment.” They noted that the five metro areas with the highest concentration of gay residents — San Francisco, Washington, Austin, Atlanta and San Diego — are among the nation’s top 15 high-tech areas. 

“Why the correlation? It’s not that gays and lesbians equal economic growth or are more entrepreneurial,” Professor Florida told me this week, “but because places that are open-minded and diverse attract people who are original thinkers, and these communities percolate with entrepreneurial and creative ideas.”

Predicting the outcomes

This article in the Guardian finds that three variables account for votes for or against same sex marriage: Religion, Partisan identification, and Education. Race accounts for very little of the outcome.

Education, it turns out, is far more important at accounting for the differences between county votes in favor of same sex marriage bans. When holding religious adherence and Obama support constant, we would expect that the percentage of support for same-sex marriage bans to drop by 0.8-0.9 of a point for every extra 1% of a county's population that has at least a bachelor's degree.

Whether the effect of higher education implies "indoctrination" by liberal schools, or simply encourages openmindedness, I cannot say. The result does mean, along with the highly significant partisan variable, that people aren't just being led to a position by their preacher or their bible; on the contrary, the evidence suggests that people choose their own path when it comes to whether they support same-sex marriage.

We'll see what paths people decide to take in Maine and Minnesota later this year. Polling and demographics agree that Maine will probably be the first state to overturn a same-sex marriage ban, while they suggest that a ban on same-sex marriage is a slight favorite to pass in Minnesota.

Why it matters: it could happen to you (video Sunday; hanky warning!)

I dare you to watch this and not cry.

WIll Mormons change towards gays? Don't count on it

Part 2 following from last week: an ex Mormon considers his former church.

[Mromon theology states] God loves all his children equally, therefore all must be capable of the heterosexual marriage required for the highest rewards, therefore homosexuality is not divinely created or approved, therefore it must be a mistake or a temptation to be fixed or resisted, at the peril of losing one’s eternal reward. Gay people “suffer” and “struggle.” They are not whole.

This is how most Mormons interpret their scriptures, and this is why it will be nearly impossible for the Mormon church to accept gay people with full equality without abandoning its own theology.

In the past, gay Mormons were excommunicated just for coming out. Now, policy is that it’s OK to be gay, but one must never “act on it.” ....The church defends its ban on gay sex as consistent with “one standard of morality” for everyone, namely, no sex outside marriage. This disingenuously ignores the fact that straight single Mormons always have hope of finding “the one,” but a faithful gay Mormon does not. Their church demands that they remain single, celibate, and lonely throughout their lives; if they do, they’re told God will “fix” them and later on give them every blessing they didn’t have in this life.

But to a growing number of people like myself, raised Mormon but proud of being gay, this is no incentive at all. We should live a cold, lonely life, with the “heavenly” reward of being turned into something we never wanted to be anyway? No thanks. We’ve realized that, given the way the Mormon church has framed this issue and painted itself into a doctrinal corner, there was no reconciling the church and its demands with a happy life and the chance for the kind of love God intended for us. Nor do we think the Mormon church either trustworthy on these issues or capable of reforming itself to achieve true equality.

Increasing understanding is fine, but the only thing that will stem this tide is a theological re-write so monumental that it could fracture the church. I think the leadership will play to their base, choose doctrinal consistency, and accept the ongoing loss of all the talent and devotion gay members could otherwise contribute. There just aren’t enough gay Mormons to force them to do otherwise.



I’m grateful for much in my Mormon upbringing. I wish my Mormon friends well. My path lies elsewhere, with new faith, new friends, new family. It’s been better than I could ever have imagined.

We've heard these arguments before.

Does this quote surprise you? From the Supreme Court of Virginia:

The purity of public morals," the court declared, "the moral and physical development of both [sexes requires] hat connections and alliances so unnatural that God and nature seem to forbid them, should be prohibited by positive law, and be subject to no evasion.

That's in keeping with Virgina being a state of hate, and utterly in keeping with the brutal anti-gay rhetoric we saw from North Carolina, in the run up to a hate amendment more extreme than Prop8. In NC, anti-gay "Christians" insisted that gay children should be beaten to "cure" them, and that gay men use cell phones as sex toys.

 Except that the quote comes from 1878 years ago, in a decision about inter-racial marriage laws. I changed the words in the bracket. (The correct quote is below).

 I recently read an excellent article discussing the efforts to outlaw inter-racial marriages, including efforts to amend the US constitution:

Here are four of the arguments they used:
1) First, judges claimed that marriage belonged under the control of the states rather than the federal government.
 2) Second, they began to define and label all interracial relationships (even longstanding, deeply committed ones) as illicit sex rather than marriage.
 3) Third, they insisted that interracial marriage was contrary to God's will, and
 4) Fourth, they declared, over and over again, that interracial marriage was somehow "unnatural." 

Does this sound familiar? It seems that anti-marriage equality advocates are really just the same as the racists of 150 years ago.

 The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally." 

This is no different than the argument that laws against gay marriage aren't unequal, because a gay man can marry a woman. (Would they want a gay man to marry THEIR daughter?) Oh, and the slippery slope argument? You know, that once we let "X" people marry, there will be incest and polygamy? Yup, they used that too.

Now, being black is not the same thing as being gay. Neither is being a woman. Neither is being a Jew.   The discrimination experienced by each minority group is unique to that minority. Yet it is also the same, because bias and bigotry are the same regardless of their target.  

Thus it behooves us to recognize that racism, sexism, heterosexism, and other "isms" are all rooms in the same house, one that would define some of us as "second class" simply because of who we are, or who we love, or what we believe.  The great achievements of the Civil Rights Movement stand as beacons to any group that is struggling for recognition. Dr Martin Luther King remains an inspiration to all of us, not just African Americans.

And thus, yes, we can take hope from the progress on civil rights for other groups, and hope that the arc of history really WILL bend towards justice.

The quote comes frome a decision in 1878:

The purity of public morals," the court declared, "the moral and physical development of both races….require that they should be kept distinct and separate… that connections and alliances so unnatural that God and nature seem to forbid them, should be prohibited by positive law, and be subject to no evasion.

Black leaders endorse Obama's "evolution"

From The Advocate: 

Reverend Al Sharpton, president of National Action Network; Julian Bond), chairman emeritus of NAACP; Melanie Campbell, president and CEO of the National Coalition on Black Civic Participation; and Reverend Dr. Joseph Lowery, president emeritus of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference all signed the following statement:

"Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. once said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” As leaders in today’s Civil Rights Movement, we stand behind the President Obama’s belief that same sex couples should be allowed to join in civil marriages. We also affirm that individuals may hold different views on this issue but still work together towards our common goals: fair housing and equitable education, affordable health care and eradicating poverty, all issues of deep and abiding concern for our communities. 

President Obama stated his view that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry. This is a view that we concur with, because as civil rights leaders we cannot fight to gain rights for some and not for all. At the same time, we acknowledge that the President stated his personal opinion, which everyone is entitled to – both those who agree with him, like us, and those who disagree. The President made clear that his support is for civil marriage for same-sex couples, and he is fully committed to protecting the ability of religious institutions to make their own decisions about their own sacraments. 

There will be those who seek to use this issue to divide our community. As a people, we cannot afford such division. It is our hope that conversations on strengthening African American families continue in a civil and respectful way, on all sides, both with those who support the ability of same-sex couples to marry, and those who do not.
We are glad that President Obama has joined Dr. Joseph Lowery, Dr. Julian Bond and so many others in full embrace of equality for gay and lesbian individuals in our country. We also welcome the civil debate on this issue that will surely spring. And we encourage all individuals to keep all issues of import to our communities in mind in the days ahead, and we seek to secure equal justice, opportunity, and dignity for all God’s children."

The Bible and homosexuality: a gay Christian speaks out (video Sunday)

Very powerful witness from gay christian Matthew Vines. and here's an article Matthew wrote.

Polls: the arc of history continues to bend

From CBS News/NY Times:

From Gallup:

What to expect from a Mormon President

A former Mormon describes the LDS views of sexuality--why you don't want Mitt Romney as President.

This is also why the “equal civil rights” argument and the “it doesn’t harm your marriage” argument don’t work for most Mormons. Since they believe marriage is not just divinely designed for social order but eternally essential, most Mormons see marriage equality not as a matter of civil rights but of unchangeable principle, and they truly believe society and future generations will be harmed by “legitimizing” a “lifestyle alternative” that they think diverts people from God’s approved path. It’s therefore a moral issue to them, one of presumptuous humans daring to redefine and thus ruin a divine institution. Mormon church presidents have spoken against this, and for the faithful, that’s the same as God speaking. End of discussion. ... 

Mormonism is not just a religion, it’s a culture, a worldview. That outlook must inevitably influence Mormons’ political beliefs. And while not all Mormons see things the same way politically, most American Mormons tend to. Romney represents that majority. His record on LGBT issues is actually one of moving away from equality and toward discrimination. ... 

Mormon leaders are hypersensitive to the church’s public image. They know the public outcry that would result if they even seemed to try to influence Romney. They’ll avoid any appearance of meddling. Any Mormon influence in a Romney presidency and any potential threat to separation of church and state will result not from Mormon church action but from how Romney tries to translate his own church-influenced beliefs into public policy.

If we left marriage to the Fed, there would be no married LGBT couples

Lots of people are complaining that Obama did not make a sweeping statement that the Fed should define marriage, rather than leave it to the states.  But what he did was very canny. From EJ Graff: 

Here's the truth: If we had national marriage laws, I would not be married right now.

The U.S. has only recently been able to break through and try out same-sex marriage, which is leading people to realize, albeit slowly, that it's no threat to anyone. But that's only been possible because our federalist marriage system allows each state to make its own decision. And because we have a federalist system, LGBT advocacy groups are able to challenge the one national marriage law that the U.S. has passed: the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
....
But getting people there requires time. Some parts of the country have been more willing than others to extend that gender-neutral, equal marriage philosophy to marriage's entrance requirements. And what all the DOMA lawsuits are saying to the federal courts is this: let the states decide. The federal government has no power to write marriage's rules, or to pick and choose which marriages it likes and which it doesn't. The federal government's only power is to apply its own decisions—on such things as pensions, health insurance, immigration, Social Security—to whatever marriages the states make.... 

More tactically, it would be terrible for Obama to talk about imposing same-sex marriage on states. The backlash would be horrifying—not just against same-sex marriage but against the imperiousness of the overeducated coastal elites. I get a little impatient with liberal straight folks who think that Doing The Right Thing is enough. I know I'm overcautious--I come from a different time--but there are still a lot of people who think it's disgusting to be queer, or even if they don't, just aren't there yet on opening marriage's doors. Those minds are more likely to open one at a time than if they feel their being dictated to by overeducated know-it-alls with no common sense. ... 

Law and culture change in tandem. The president's statement helps change the culture. ....The administration's actions are helping to change the law. If he gets re-elected, I believe we will see DOMA repealed before 2016, even with a Republican House.

Barney Frank tackles Tony Perkins

Tony Perkins spends a lot of time on CNN and other networks decrying gays who want to marry. Of course, he represents a certified hate group that tells lots of vicious lies about gays, but he's never challenged about that.

But things may be changing. This from Hardball:

A religious view of Obama's "evolution"

From Religion Dispatches:

President Obama’s historic statement on same-sex marriage was 122 words long, and “God” was not one of them. Nevertheless, it was an important religious statement that merits our attention—not just because it’s a slap in the face to the so-called Christian Right (neither Christian nor Right, as some of my progressive Christian friends like to say) but because of its own positive values.... 

But it is also a principled stand for a different variety of religious values. Rick Santorum believes that you have to choose between God and gay, between sexuality and religion. And although I’ve gotten in some trouble for saying so, I’ll repeat my view that Dan Savage did as well.... Savage’s view is fine as a personal religious ideology, but coming in a public statement from Gay Activist #1, it tells traditional religious people that there’s no space for them in an LGBT-inclusive world. Once again, it’s God vs. Gay, at least as that God is understood by traditionalists. 

Obama’s thoughtful statement sends a different message. It says that values like introspection, compassion, and justice support, rather than oppose, equality for LGBT people. We can interpret Leviticus, Romans, and Corinthians ten ways from Sunday. But what we can’t ignore are the calls to justice and compassion. 

What, according to the statement, led Obama to this position? The right kind of thinking. Over time, he said, he has come to understand the truth of same-sex couples: that they are as capable of commitment, love, and sanctity as opposite-sex ones; and that it is an injustice to deny the benefits of marriage to gay people. Those are religious values, expressed in a personal way.... 

Is that not the same reasoning that applies in all anti-oppression work, whether regarding sexual minorities, gender minorities, racial minorities, or issues of class, immigration, and economic justice? 

Only 122 words, but we could teach this statement in Sunday school as an example of how we grow as human beings by opening ourselves to the truth of other people’s experiences, by opening our hearts, by revising our opinions. Usually it’s religion that tries to speak to politicians. But today, we saw the reverse.

Pro-marriage candidate from MOntana (video Sunday)

GREAT ad.

On evolution

Being gay is being civically "other", always on the outside, looking in.  As blogger Barry Yeoman writes,

I attend a friend's heterosexual wedding; talk at a party with someone who volunteers with his son's Boy Scout troop; or receive an invitation to donate blood during a drive—and find myself viewing all those experiences as outside to my own. Then I generalize to other things, because it has become a habit. This is your world. It is not mine. 

This sense that many of these basic rituals are available to others but not to me can't help but alter my relationship to civitas. Self-identifying as American is predicated on some elemental expectations: I can bind my financial life to another's. I can volunteer my time to help foster our community's youth. I can volunteer my healthy blood to save a life. Take away these basic assumptions, and patriotism means very little. Funny, but I don't get angry when I think of this, or even sad. It just is. 

Multiply me by a few million, and think about how much civic energy is squandered as a result.

But yesterday, that changed.  Yesterday, the president said, yes, he supports marriage equality, and he does so because he's a Christian.  Andrew Sullivan describes it as "letting go of fear".   More than one has compared it to Harry Truman in 1948, an election year, who signed an unpopular order to integrate the military over the opposition of (you guessed it) the South.

I phoned the white house to say thanks and found myself tearing up.  E. J. Graff sums up my feelings pretty well. 

There's something very deep about having your government declare you a stranger to its laws, defining your love as outside all respectable recognition. For my president to stand up and say that I should belong fully to my nation, that my wife and I should be considered as fully married as my brother and his wife—well, it reopens and washes out some very deeply incised sense of exclusion...

Of course the battle is not yet won.  But Chris Geidner at Metroweekly argues that this is all of a piece with other recent moves by the Administration, part of that arc towards justice.  Nate Silver, uber meta-pollster, finds more support than opposition.  Rob Tisinai doesn't care about the calculated politics of it.

Ultimately, it doesn’t matter. It’s happened Obama can claim another civil rights first. He hasn’t just broken the color barrier — he’s opened the yellow brick road. He’s giving back, repaying the fighters and activists of previous generations who made his own election possible, so that now, somewhere, in a tiny little no-name corner of the nation, a bright and talented gay kid has suddenly realized: I can be president.

And as  Jonathan Rauch said,

The courts, as Obama, the former law professor, must be well aware, will take notice. Two big gay-rights cases--one challenging California's revocation of gay marriage, the other challenging the Defense of Marriage Act--are on their way toward the Supreme Court. With his switch from ambivalence to advocacy, Obama is sending a signal to the courts that the country is ready for gay marriage, giving them more cover to uphold it. Courts may not go by poll results, but they do like to stay within the mainstream. And Obama has just moved it.

Justice Kennedy, are you listening? 

What Amendment One was REALLY about

From Andrew Sullivan:

[Amendment One] reveals that the anti-marriage equality peeps are not simply anti-marriage. They are against any civil recognition of gay couples' commitment, responsibility and equality. The Amendment today would ban any relationship rights whatever to gay couples in the state. No domestic partnerships, no civil unions - nada. It renders spouses strangers at hospitals, it ensures no legal stability for shared homes or shared children. It is in many ways a simple declaration that gay relationships are anathema to the people of North Carolina. That's what drives the anti-marriage equality movement: the removal of gay people from full family life.

Do you believe in evolution?

PResident Obama has "evolved" to recognize that LGBT citizens should be fully equally under the law.

Letter to North Carolina

Dear North Carolina,
Back in 2009, I warned Maine what to expect if they put the rights of LGBT citizens to the popular vote.

And now you've done the same thing. The lies, the ignorance, and the divisiveness happened just as they did in California, and Maine, and 27 of my sister states. The haters told vicious lies, and they won.

I know just how your GLBT citizens, their friends, and their families feel this morning. Because we still feel that way, 4 years later.

Oh North Carolina, you have deeply injured the fabric of your entire community. People don't just "get over" being told they are second class, that their families are not worth protecting and that their love is meaningless. People don't recover when their sons and daughters are singled out like this. People don't just move on from the insults and the bile.

 Now, every interaction is tinged with doubt: did this person vote against me? Does this person hate my son?

Workplaces will be on edge. Civic interactions will suffer. Churches will be split. There will be deep, deep hurt.

North Carolina, you have torn the heart out of many people. And that damage will linger for a long, long time.

I'm so sorry you did this. But after all I've been through, and Maine, and all the others, you can't say you didn't see it coming.

Sadly,
California.

It passed--despite the BIble.

Headlines read, "North Carolina bans gay marriage". That's false. North Carolina had ALREADY banned gay marriage. This was, in Andrew Sullivan's words,

a simple declaration that gay relationships are anathema to the people of North Carolina. That's what drives the anti-marriage equality movement: the removal of gay people from full family life.

You hate us? We get it. The sad thing is that you say you hate us because you're Christian.

So perhaps it's worth pointing out how unChristian this is, from last Sunday's Bible readings for liturgical churches that follow the Common lectionary.

There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear; for fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not reached perfection in love. We love* because he first loved us. Those who say, ‘I love God’, and hate their brothers or sisters,* are liars; for those who do not love a brother or sister* whom they have seen, cannot love God whom they have not seen. The commandment we have from him is this: those who love God must love their brothers and sisters* also. 1 John 4:18-21

So maybe some Christians ought to read their Bibles more, what do you think?

Today's the day: vote NO on Amendment One!

Today, North Carolina will vote on a draconian "Amendment 1" to its constitution that will not only outlaw marriage between same sex couples (which is already illegal there), but will outlaw civil unions and any sorts of rights shared by unmarried opposite couples. It is driven by vicious anti-gay rhetoric--not just the usual bleats about "saving marriage" but actual vicious lies about the lives and loves about gay people, and a desire to hurt us (see here, here, and here for examples.)  And its effect will definitely be to deny gay people protections, hurt our children, as well as children and families of unmarried straights, elderly people with domestic partnerships, and so on.  Business is against it, so is the governor.    

 From Joe.my.god, the final polls don't look good:

 I don't know if the majority is ignorant, or uninterested, but it's pretty sad that with all the effort, the majority of people don't even know what the hell they are voting for.

From the Raleigh News & Observer:

…Constitutional amendments should be about law, not about religion, and not about the social agendas of conservative or liberal politicians. They should be solidly constructed to protect rights and weather the test of time, like cornerstones. They should stand for all the people. This one, instead, is bitterly divisive. Even one of its prominent backers, the speaker of the state House, has said he doubts that, if passed, it will stand beyond another generation.Amendment One meets none of the criteria by which a constitution can properly be modified. It is motivated by politics, driven in some cases by a vindictive attitude toward groups of people not approved of by those who believe themselves to be in the “mainstream.” 

 Marriage is far too strong an institution to have phony “protections” like this one.

Sadly, that falls on deaf ears in NC. The naked animus of Amendment One has been driven almost exclusively by fundamentalist "Christians", who invoke the most disgusting lies about  gay people, may be racist, and advocate hitting gay children to "beat teh gay out of them".  The damage they have done to the Christian "brand" is immeasurable.  I can't imagine any young person in NC daring to tell his friends he's "Christian" when this is now burned on their brains as what "Christians" stand for.

As for me, if this passes, the most I'll be doing in North Carolina is changing planes.   My rainbow dollars will be spent in places that don't actively hate me.

Update:From the Huffington Post:  (because suppressing votes is one way to win)

All, we're getting reports here in Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Raleigh (which are base areas for us, e.g. anti-Amendment 1) of precincts handing out INCORRECT ballots. In North Carolina, 17-year-olds can vote in the statewide primary (e.g., for governor, etc.) if they turn 18 by November 6th. However, they CANNOT vote on Amendment 1 in this primary -- they can only vote for candidates -- therefore they are being handed ballots WITHOUT Amendment 1. That is proper election procedure. 

The problem is, the reports we are getting are that people OVER 17 are also being handed these ballots WITHOUT Amendment 1 in what would normally be heavily anti-Amendment 1 precincts (Carrboro, Chapel Hill, Raleigh).... call 1-866-OUR-VOTE if you experience this in NC, or know someone who did.

Rise up against Amendent One (video)

This amendment will bar any gay couple from having any rights, any unmarried straight couple from having any protections. It's a hate amendment through and through, driven by Christianist extremists and gay-obsessed conservatives.

North carolina, you're better than this.

The next generation (video Sunday)

Zach Walls, son of two moms, talks about how they formed him

Amendment One hurts kids

Here's a video, showing how Amendment One actually hurts children.

Anti gay, anti child,and anti-minority: Amendment 1 supporters

Item:  A minister preaching in favor of Amendment 1 (the drastic North Carolina amendment that would outlaw not only same sex marriages but any form of domestic partnership) advocates beating Teh Gay out of your kids:

"So your little son starts to act a little girlish when he is four years old... Dads, the second you see your son dropping the limp wrist, you walk over there and crack that wrist. Man up. Give him a good punch. Ok? You are not going to act like that. You were made by God to be a male and you are going to be a male."

Because nothing says "parental love" like beating the crap out of your gay kids--and turning them into their own little self-loathing homophobes while you're at it. 

   

Susan Russell, Episcopal priest and outspoken advocate for LGBT justice, takes this guy on,

We're not going to compromise on having the Good News of God's love, justice and compassion that are the core values of our Judeo-Christian heritage hijacked by those who want to turn our religion into a weapon of mass destruction aimed at LGBT people. ... 

Finally, we are most certainly not going to stand by and let the opponents of marriage equality argue that they are "protecting children" while advocating violence against children. You cannot have it both ways.

Jesus said, "Suffer the little children to come to me." He did NOT say "make the little children suffer in order to come to me." Jesus said, "Love your neighbors as yourself." He did NOT say "Love your neighbor unless he has a limp wrist - then give him a good punch."

Violent words beget violent actions and it is long past time for those misusing their bully pulpits to perpetuate bullying behavior against our LGBT youth to be called on it. 

Preach it, sister!

Item: the wife of an Amendment 1 author says its real purpose is to "support the Caucasian race"  From the HuffPo,

According to the alternative Yes! Weekly, writer and campaigner Chad Nance spoke to a pollworker who told him that Jodie Brunstetter said, "The reason my husband wrote Amendment 1 was because the Caucasian race is diminishing and we need to uh, reproduce."

Because apparently if gays marry, well, then white folks won't have babies. or something.  I tell you, the dog whistle is clear:  increasingly, I think anti-gay is code for racist.

Item: Amendment 1 supporters nakedly appeal to religion as the sole justification for denying rights to their fellow citizens. They aren't even pretending there is a rational civil reason for it.

 (One of these days, these guys will realize that putting stuff up on YouTube makes a permanent record that will follow them.  Meanwhile, it makes it easier to see what they really think.)

Another "ex-gay" advocate repents

This time from the UK.  Jeremy Marks, who admits he's gay and married a woman, also admits that trying to "cure" homosexuality is wrong.

We ran a residential programme called Steps Out Of Homosexuality. People came from all over Europe. I did feel attractions, but we believed wholesome friendship was the answer, so I turned my battles into a great cause..... 

A few years later, we had to close our live-in discipleship houses, but I kept in touch with people afterwards and was dismayed to see what happened. Once people were on their own again, their world collapsed. Family and friends would say, "So, when are we going to hear wedding bells?" It never occurred to them that maybe you are gay because that's just the way you are. I began to see more people losing hope, getting severely depressed. One made a serious suicide attempt. 

By the end of the 1990s, the only ones doing well were those who'd accepted they were gay and found a partner. It was as if a great burden had been shifted, that they thought, "Now at last I know who I am. I know I'm in love with somebody and they love me." I thought, this is the kind of result we hoped they'd achieve living an upright Christian life, but they're finding that contentment just being themselves. I began to think that perhaps we'd got it really wrong. 

I still run Courage, but now it's with a belief that you can be gay and Christian. We offer a chance to meet other gay Christians and support committed same-sex relationships. It's been difficult for my wife, because she's naturally very concerned that I might therefore decide, "That's it, I want to go and find a man." But we're coming up to retirement age and I wouldn't feel happy just to leave her – feeling abandoned after all we've been through together. Ours may not be the traditional heterosexual romance, but the care for one another's wellbeing is just as real. I try not to look back, but I know I've missed out in a big way – and so has she. She should have been with some heterosexual guy who adored her, as she should be adored.

We need to be highlighting these movements--not the ex-gay movements, but the way Marks here advocates committed relationships held to the same standards as straight relationships.  Yes, I know that many in the LGBT community don't see themselves as part of the historical patriarchal relationships of marriage, etc.  That's fine.  Lots of straights don't either.  But too often, the opponents of equality assume all of us are promiscuous revolutionaries, and frankly, we aren't.

Voices of Faith Speak Out: Episcopal Bishops oppose Amendment One

North Carolina's Episcopal Bishops have released a statement:

Bishop Michael B. Curry, Diocese of North Carolina, Bishop Clifton Daniel, III, Diocese of East Carolina, and Bishop G. Porter Taylor, Diocese of Western North Carolina, co-authored the joint letter to provide context for their stance against the amendment and to encourage clergy to study what they see as likely impacts should the amendment pass.

“We oppose Amendment One because the love of God and the way of love that has been revealed in Jesus of Nazareth compels us to do so. We oppose Amendment One because every time we baptize someone in the Episcopal Church, the entire congregation vows to ‘strive for justice and peace among all people, and respect the dignity of every human being.’ We oppose Amendment One because it is unjust and it does not respect the dignity of every human being in the state of North Carolina. If passed, it will harm not only law-abiding gay and lesbian citizens but other men, women and innocent children in our state,” reads one excerpt from the letter.

... Nationally, the Episcopal Church is on record in support of measures that extend equal benefits and protections to gay and lesbian couples and against any state or constitutional amendments that prohibit same-sex civil marriage or civil unions. The Episcopal Diocese of North Carolina echoed that stance during its 196th Diocesan Convention in January.

Just remember this next time someone tries to argue that "Christians" support Amendment One.

Vote NO on May 8.