I Agree With Dan Savage

So President Obama has finally EVOLVED. There's still a long, long way to go. And here's what the Right will make of it:

BREAKING!! Bishop Eddie Long Now Has THIRD Lawsuit Filed Against Him!

Well, the story gets juicier and juicier or worse and worse (depending on the way you look at it).

Chronicle News:

ATLANTA — Attorneys representing two men who say a prominent pastor of a 25,000-member megachurch near Atlanta coerced them into a sexual relationship have filed a third lawsuit on behalf of another young male member of his church.

Attorney B.J. Bernstein said Wednesday the allegations in the lawsuit are similar to the previous civil complaints filed late Tuesday.

A Quick Take:

Just how many young men did "Bishop" Eddie Long have a "covenant" with? Considering his vociferous stance on same-sex marriage, this the "covenant" puts Long into the category of uber-hypocrite, doesn't it?

I'll be posting more today, so please stay tuned.

The Prop 8 Decision: Can We Laugh Now?

I won't lie: I had a hell of a time writing this. Oh, it was fun, to be sure, because any situation involving the Christian Right always comes with its own form of amusement. In fact, it seems that the CR holds dear the maxim "we've made a religion out of entertainment and an entertainment out of religion." But this time, I was torn between the ridiculous and the just plain disgusting: on one hand knowing that the CR reacted ridiculously and on the other that the CR reacted so viciously that "Christian" had no business being part of its label.

The decision handed down by Federal Judge Vaughn Walker about the Right's ban on same-sex marriages in California hit every nerve in the body of the CR. I'm sure that remarks about his sexuality will be the least bothersome to him. And while I haven't yet read about death threats, it goes without saying that there will be some. You can't be that stupid to think that if you say that his decision will bring about Armageddon,  no one will get out their crayons and scrawl a note.*


Such is the fine line between comedy and tragedy in this case: we laugh and cry at the same time at the Right's handling of the case/trial and of its reactions. The plot of the Prop 8 play had so very many twists and turns, so many elements: religion, politics, deceit, ineptitude, money, fear, power and greed. And pathos (in the form of love fighting hate) hung in front of them like some dingy scrim. Certainly from the Left's point of view, it was a "tale told by an idiot." The CR cobbled the script together with snippets of ideologies they thought everyone wanted to hear while they paid no attention to the laws and mores protecting a diverse (and secular) society. Some unschooled people of the audience fell for all the machinations, while most looked on in amazement because the clueless CR wound up portraying itself: reactionary, ruthless and lacking reason.

At this point, we have to ask ourselves what drugs the Protect Marriage (Prop 8) people were on when they asked the Alliance Defense Fund to represent them as proponents for the trial? To say that they were inept presents a lack of depth: they were horrendously stupid. 

 - They did not know before the trial that PROPONENTS OF  THE TRIAL HAVE NO "STANDING" TO APPEAL!! Only the governor and the attorney general have a right to appeal since the state of California was on trial and NOT Protect Marriage. Proponents are merely legal counsel to supporters of the defense. 

 - ADF CANCELLED all of their pertinent witnesses except two: David  Blankenhorn and William Tam.  

Proponents elected not to call the majority of their designated witnesses to testify at trial and call not a single official proponent of Proposition 8 presented to voters and the arguments presented in court. 

And they never vetted them properly (or at all) nor did they practice in a mock trial. Both witnesses were deemed completely unacceptable by the judge. They had no pertinent academic credentials and they both had ties to the George Reeker scandal as well. When asked about sources for a statement, William Tam gave one of the most anemic answers in trial history "I found it on the internet."

While they were supposedly acting as proponents for the State of California (NOT Protect Marriage), they did nothing to prove that the State of California would be harmed in any way by same-sex marriages. NOTE: Judge Walker has been known to weigh heavily on economic impact in cases like these. They certainly didn't do their homework.

Neither Blankenhorn nor Tam could come up with plausible reasons for the vicious ads placed during the campaign. In fact, these "experts" couldn't explain much of anything. The whole campaign was clearly discriminatory. And the defense folded before everyone's eyes. As with Mark Twain's sentiment above, monkeys might have done better.

Their slowly diminishing I.Q not withstanding, the proponents not only threw away their own case, but placed in stark contrast the points that Walker focused upon:

•  The defendants were backed by a "broad coalition" of churches.
•  No state has ever required "individuals entering a marriage be willing or able to        procreate."
•  Domestic partnerships "lack the social meaning associated with marriage."
• The purpose of Proposition 8 - evidenced by its campaign - was to portray gays and lesbians as less worthy of marriage and therefore less than equal citizens.
•  They could not prove that same-sex marriage would in any way harm families or the citizens of California.

The Alliance Defense Fund DID PROVE that if you say "God" "Bible" "Family" and (probably) "abomination" enough, you can convince any Christianist to hire you. 

Has Protect Marriage asked for its money back?

As entertaining as the trial was, the reaction to its decision was stellar in its righteous outrage:

- Pat Robertson (the last to chime in, perhaps because God took too much time explaining it to him): "Why, homosexuals want to destroy the church"


- Tony Perkins: 

Despite Walker 's own biases, which are woven into all 136 pages of the court's opinion, protecting marriage is not discriminatory. Nor is it, as he mocked, an "artifact" rooted in "unfounded stereotypes and prejudices."

(BTW: Perkins had a tough time alluding to Walker's gayness on Face the Nation: he looked the complete homophobe in spite of himself)

- Tim Wildmon, leader of the American Family Association: 

“tyrannical, abusive and utterly unconstitutional” and  “It’s also extremely problematic that Judge [Vaughn] Walker is a practicing homosexual himself. … His situation is no different than a judge who owns a porn studio being asked to rule on an anti-pornography statute.” 

 Wildmon later called for Walker's impeachment.


- Bastion for the sanctity of marriage Newt Gingrich called the ruling a:

 “notorious decision” and showed “outrageous disrespect for the Constitution.”


 - Andy Pugno, general counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund (heretofore known as the  Loony Lawyers League), said Walker had

“literally accused the majority of California voters of having ill and discriminatory intent”  

 - Robert George of the American Principles Project said that same-sex marriage supporters have a  “revolutionary sexual ideology.” 

 -  The decision shocked Richard Land, past president of the Southern Baptist Convention, so much that he didn't put "God" in his pronouncement: 

"This is a grievously serious crisis in how the American people will choose to be governed,” he said. “If and when the Supreme Court agrees with the lower court, then the American people will have to decide whether they will insist on continuing to have a government of the people, by the people and for the people, or whether they’re going to live under the serfdom of government by the judges, of the judges and for the judges.”

 - Maggie Gallagher, chairman of National Organization for Marriage (NOM):

If this ruling is upheld, ...Parents will find that, almost Soviet-style, their own children will be re-educated using their own tax dollars to disrespect their parents' views and values.

 - And finally, Bryan Fischer of American Family Association:

What they want is not equal rights, but special rights. They want a special exemption carved out for them so that their sexually aberrant relationships can be recognized as marriages, an exemption we don’t grant to folks who want to marry a son or a daughter, or a mother or a father, an uncle or an aunt, or a child.

Just in: American Family Association provided the biggest laugh today by presenting the results of a OneNewsNow.com poll. But accident (or was it - horrors! - sabotage?) the poll gave people  a choice that included the Supreme Court as an answer:

Which entity should have the final say in whether same-gender 'marriage' is legal? 

Congress - 0.64%

The Supreme Court - 85.77%

State legislatures - 1.49%

Voters - 12.10%

As if to cement the ADF and Protect Marriage people in their place, Judge Walker  threw some proverbial pies in their faces in his Fact section of the decision. IF an appeal is granted, these are the ONLY points that will be considered by the appeals court - no new wacko witnesses or dubious "studies":

• 
  
  

  Religious leaders may determine independently whether to recognize a civil marriage or divorce but that recognition or lack thereof has no effect on the relationship under state law.

• 
  
  

  California, like every other state, has never required that individuals entering a marriage be willing or able to procreate.

• 
  
  

  That the majority of California voters supported Proposition 8 is irrelevant, as 'fundamental rights may not be submitted to [a] vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.'"

AND:

Proposition 8 places the force of law behind stigmas against gays and lesbians.

So there we have it: a bumbling, disorganized, clueless defense chasing after same-sex marriage and the "homosexual agenda" followed by The Christian Right reactionaries, their billy clubs of arrogant self-righteousness waving in the air. 

Yes, we can laugh now.

*Stock tip: Crayola.

To clarify some of the hilarity that went on, watch an indredulous, can't-stop-laughing Rachel Maddow:

The Second Original Sin

An Obscure Biblical Doctrine 

Spread By Today's Christian Right

I was born in an infant asylum. OK, a orphanage.* A Catholic orphanage.** I was a bastard. OK, to be more PC:  illegitimate. It was only by the grace of Edna Gladney*** that "Illegitimate" was not stamped on my birth certificate, but that's another story. I then went on to a Catholic grade school that took pleasure in immediately informing us kids that we were born in sin. Original Sin. Two strikes against me? I was born in a mess of bastards in addition to a blot on my "permanent record"?

The guilt set in early.

Later on, I found out that the guy who founded and fostered the idea of Original Sin, Saint Augustine of Hippo, had an Oedipus complex and such massive guilt about it that he figured everyone should share in the pain. Nice work, Augustine. You set the stage for Western Civilization's cockeyed world view: everyone's born with a black mark against them. "We're ALL sinners" has been used to soften the blows from street preachers and pulpit pimps the world over. It sounds more egalitarian than just pointing the finger and casting the first stone.

In Augustine's view (termed "Realism"), all of humanity was really present in Adam when he sinned, and therefore all have sinned. Original sin, according to Augustine, consists of the guilt of Adam which all humans inherit. As sinners, humans are utterly depraved in nature, lack the freedom to do good, and cannot respond to the will of God without divine grace.

But (horrors!) what if there is more than one Original Sin? What if a certain sin could be passed on from one person to the next - like a cold?

I think there is such a sin, and it is so bad that its effects can be horrific. However, the reason we don't hear about it from our pulpits is because of the method of contagion: for the method is just as bad as the sin itself.

The Second Original Sin is like the First for it is found at birth. Second birth, that is. It is the Original Sin peculiar to the Born Again Christian. I am writing of course, about the sin of Intolerance.

"But not all Born Agains are intolerant!!"  No, they are not. But that is simply because some are de-programmed not to be so later on. Intolerance is born along with the Born Again. Simple, but true. I suppose some people might argue that a Born Again chooses to be intolerant, but that would be counter-intuitive to a Christian. No, it's a simple fact that all Born Agains are born with the black mark of intolerance until they can prove otherwise.

Think of it: a Born Again does not think, but KNOWS that he is saved by Jesus Christ the son of the One True God. The Born Again also KNOWS that others have not been saved. The Born Again is flush with the knowledge that God loves him and counts him as a true Christian: the insufferably righteous phrase "It's the Christian Thing To Do" is proffered every time, everywhere. The Born Again KNOWS that his distinct spiritual philosophy is true and others are false and evil. The  Born Again is always on the lookout for sinners in every nook and cranny with the hope that he can save them, thereby chalking up one more saved soul on their spiritual scorecard. The Born Again avoids people who have shunned his offer of salvation or dares to counter his divine reasoning. The Born Again is a novice at demonizing, but an eager pupil: the sin of Intolerance does not need much encouragement. Under the guise of "love" a Born Again is allowed to bludgeon a person's life and loves with impunity. The duty of the Born Again is to make you feel as shameful and guilty as possible.

And along with that grave sin of Intolerance come its sister sins of righteousness: righteous arrogance, righteous indignation, and righteous stupidity****

The ministers who hang every sermon, every word on John 3:5 are the conductors of the Original Sin of Intolerance, passing it on ... no ... BESTOWING it as a great gift to the Born Agains. The most obvious and vocal example is Lou Engle who manages to make Intolerance sound very virtuous and very righteous:

In speaking of the legalization of same-sex marriage in California, Engle has alleged that "What happened to California will release a spirit that is more demonic than Islam, a spirit of lawlessness and anarchy. And a sexual insanity will be unleashed into the Earth." Lou Engle has also said: The most "dangerous terrorist" is not Islam but God. One of God's names is the avenger of blood. Have you worshipped that God yet."

Born Agains (especially Born Again ministers) like Lou Engle will always be tainted with the sin of Intolerance because they embrace it and consider the sin to be a badge of honor. Of course, we call it Intolerance, while they call it Righteousness.

And it is not, as some people think, easy to be saved from the sin of Intolerance. Salvation involves opening the mind that the ministers and mentors closed. It involves looking at others without being judgmental in any way. It involves honoring the right of individual thinking. It involves pure love. 

I know that sounds naive: salvation from Intolerance can't win against Engle's imagery of blood, war and martyrdom. Maybe it is.

But it's the only way of erasing the black mark of the Second Original Sin.

Just a thought.

* The sobriquet "asylum" was not always paired with "insane," although some of the orphans may have differed. 

** I popped out of my mother's womb into the arms of a big, strapping nun. I know I screamed "PUT ME BACK!!" after I saw her, but not having mastered sounds much less the English language, it came out as a cry the ancient nurse/nun ignored.

*** Edna Gladney's life was immortalized by actress/diva Greer Garson in the movie Blossoms in the Dust." Gladney looked nothing like Greer Garson, but was able somehow to get the disgustingly boorish and "conservative" legislators of her state to remove the word of shame. The state was Texas, of course.

****There is also an obscure sin of righteous halitosis that effects some Born Agains who become ministers and people who hang around water-coolers.