KnowThyNeighbor.org

Time to Call 'em Out

Not OK:

• It is not OK to impose your personal beliefs on any group of fellow humans.
• It is not OK to attempt to legislate your religion on larger American society.
• It is not OK to select portions of your sacred texts to justify harming others.
• It is not OK to use mob rule by ballot initiatives to replace representative democracy.
• It is not OK to proclaim yourself as judge of people who are different from you.
• It is not OK to deny to and jerk back civil rights from other humans.

The deeply disappointing finish in the sprint to save and implement marriage equality in Maine carries an underlying warning. The most vocal leaders of the anti-LGBT and anti-civil rights forces intend to remain relentless, cruel and ruthless. Any thought of playing nice with them is masochistic.

As Left Ahead! co-host Ryan Adams said in our post-election roundup podcast (about 6 minutes in), it is time for the pro-equality movement to be more aggressive. Voters who say jerking back legal rights from any group is not discrimination, not bigotry need to be called out.

We saw and heard it all in Maine — with spillage into Massachusetts — this week. In the cowardly euphemistic people's veto, voters overturned same-sex marriage before the law could take effect. As in half our states, that is the way initiative, referendum and override procedures can work. That is still not OK.

I have ranted before at Marry in Massachusetts about the befuddled form of direct democracy. We should not be surprised that many of the same folk who have befuddled forms of Christianity are the strongest advocates for this form of mob rule. They can't win by logic or compassion or national interest. These bastardized forms of plebiscite are their shot to win on emotion.

What we need to keep before us is that these folk are as relentless as they are cruel. In contrast, those who honestly believe and act on the underlying principles of virtually all religions are not like that. Think of the Talmudic early statement of what Christians call the Golden Rule. That which is hateful to you, do not do to another.

Instead, the Yes on 1 people, the Massachusetts Family Institute leaders, and particularly the hateful National Organization for Marriage live the axiom that those whom they hate and fear are fair game.

If you're feeling timid or unsure about speaking up, consider the emotions, thoughts and words of the uncloseted anti-equality folk:

• Matt Barber, Liberty Counsel and Liberty Alliance Action — Here’s the bad news. The margin of victory could have been greater. Many behind the ‘Yes on 1’ campaign, rather than simply telling the truth, chose the Neville Chamberlain approach. They merely circled the wagons around the word "marriage," even suggesting that "domestic partnerships" ("gay marriages" by another name) are acceptable. This makes no sense. If that’s a viable compromise, then why not simply allow 'gay' duos the word "marriage"? It’s an incongruity that demands an explanation. This is an historic battle for the minds and souls of our children – for our very culture. The mealy-mouthed approach must end. This is not just about "marriage." It has everything to do with forced affirmation of homosexuality – under penalty of law.
• Kris Mineau, Mass. Family Institute — This is a great victory for the people of Maine, but once again a bittersweet moment for us here in Massachusetts. It is appalling that in the so-called 'cradle of liberty' the people have never been allowed to speak on the definition of marriage. With marriage vote victories being 31 for 31 states across the country, there is no doubt why the homosexual special interests groups spent so much money and time in denying the citizens of Massachusetts the opportunity to vote on our Marriage Amendment...We certainly have never given up on finding the opportunity or making the opportunity available for the citizens of Massachusetts to vote. It’s by no means decided in Massachusetts.
• Bill Donohue, Catholic League — The people have spoken. The time has come for homosexuals to pack it in.
• Brian Camenker, Mass Resistance — Right now, we're all happy for a great victory. But given the close calls in recent "gay marriage" statewide elections, this debate needs to continue.
• Christian Civic League of Maine — Victory over the radical homosexual agenda does not consist in a temporary rejection of the concept of homosexual marriage. It means faithfulness to God's laws pertaining to marriage and the family, and a return to the Biblical truth about homosexuality. Victory will only be realized when the public returns to an awareness that homosexuality is a sin.
• Michael Heath, solar cooking guy and former head of the CCL — In the interest of protecting and affirming all of Maine's people, especially our children and grandchildren, we must repeal domestic partnership laws that provide benefits on the basis of homosexuality, we must defund the so-called "civil rights teams" and remove "sexual orientation and gender identity" from the Maine Human Rights Act and the Maine Civil Rights Act. It would also be prudent to reinstate Maine's anti-sodomy law that was quietly removed from our criminal code in the late 1970s.We must not stop fighting until Maine's laws are once again just, and equal rights are guaranteed to all Maine citizens on the basis of good conduct, not sinful behavior. For the sake of our children and grandchildren we must fight this evil. And we will fight. We will never surrender. There is too much at stake.

Have no doubts. The self-appointed leaders of the anti-equality forces intend to continue to hamper, hinder, hurt and harm.

They may feign religious ideals of love, but their actions are as far from Christian teachings as possible. The voters whom they influence are not yet fully aware that saying the hateful things many times at increasing volume does not make those messages true. Instead, it means the speakers are loud, repetitive liars.

Cross-post: This also appears at Marry in Massachusetts.

~Mike

Minority Voters Huge in Proposition 8

In California, the other Barack Obama race issue has increasing weight. One manifestation was a 9/21 piece in the New York Times suggesting a large November 4th black turnout in California for him might help pass ballot Proposition 8. That measure would halt recently legalized same-sex marriages in our most populist state.

“There’s no question African-American and Latino voters are among our strongest supporters,” said Frank Schubert, the co-campaign manager for Yes on 8, the leading group behind the measure. “And to the extent that they are motivated to get to the polls, whether by this issue or by Barack Obama, it helps us.”

While it seems a fair statement than many black ministers preach against SSM, some of the inferences drawn from that are more questionable. Over at Bloggernista, for example, three key points arise:

1. It ties historic electoral enthusiasm among Black voters to an anti-gay proposal put forth by white evangelical conservatives.
2. White voters are a majority in California.
3. The article assumes black voters are a monolith that all vote the same way.

To those, I would add that nodding affirmatively in the pew does not necessarily translate into voting affirmatively in the booth. Also, the influence and pervasiveness of preachers in the black community is increasingly an atavism. While approximately 40% of U.S. Christians report weekly church attendance, more accurate large phone polls suggest that figure is about half that.

You can break that out in many ways to produce a hypothetical majority for or against Prop. 8. Neither black voters nor black and Latino voters together would pass or sink the measure. However, white voters are a majority and could, as are women.

Even though there are many socially conservative white voters in California, analysts don't tend to think they will vote in a block any more than they do women will. In contrast, the underlying assumption that most black voters will vote yes on 8, to overturn SSM, is common. It remains to be proven.

Prop. 8 has been slowly and steadily sinking in the polls, presently 55% no and 38% yes. Yet, the no-on-8 forces, like by Equality California, look at up to 20% undecided voters and are not confident. The Times article says each side will spend about $20 million on advocacy advertising.

The Obama connection has the additional convolution of his not supporting SSM. He and VP candidate Joe Biden are both on record favoring civil unions and opposing SSM. Moreover, the Democratic platform for this year is similarly spongy. It states opposition to the Defense of Marriage Act, but is non-specific on marriage with "We support the full inclusion of all families, including same-sex couples, in the life of our nation, and support equal responsibility, benefits, and protections."

That's tepid until you consider the GOP side. An amusing overlap with the Dems is that both Obama and John McCain avoid the SSM issue and each suggests that the decision resides with the states. The similarities end there, with McCain and VP candidate Sarah Palin opposing both SSM and any extension of tax, benefits or other rights and privileges to SS couples.

The Republican platform claims it is for equal rights but very opposed to SSM. In its Preserving Traditional Marriage plank, it includes:

Because our children’s future is best preserved within the traditional understanding of marriage, we call for a constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage as a union of a man and a woman, so that judges cannot make other arrangements equivalent to it. In the absence of a national amendment, we support the right of the people of the various states to affirm traditional marriage through state initiatives.

It decries what it says are Massachusetts and California "activist judges" and urges the Congress to prevent such decisions. It supports the Defense of Marriage Act and "...oppose(s) initiatives to erode parental rights."

The Times article suggests that neither any subset of black anti-gay voters nor even white evangelicals can pass Prop. 8. It notes that black voters should represent 6% of those at the polls and Latinos 15%. "Taken together, those two groups could easily decide the election, people on both sides of the issue said."

Of course, while the outcome of Prop. 8 is extremely important to the California GLBT community, it could be a real catalyst for marriage equality nationwide. As the most populous state, California's 36.6 million residents is nearly six times Massachusetts 6.4 million. Out-of-state couples find it much easier and quicker to marry on in California as well.

The flood of anti-SSM money into California is understandable, as is that for the no-on-8 movement. Now both sides are advertising to and canvassing the black and Latino communities. No one can count on a lock-step vote into the polls.

At the moment, Obama resides on that nebulous ground that his party inhabits. As a gay-rights advocate and avowed progressive, he is in stark contrast to his opponent and the GOP in general. However, in what many see as a necessary concession to get elected, he claims that the marriage-between-man-and-woman (oh, but civil unions are fine). Further complicating his wishy-washy stance, in his book The Audacity of Hope, he wrote "It is my obligation, not only as an elected official in a pluralistic society but also as a Christian, to remain open to the possibility that my unwillingness to support gay marriage is misguided...and that in years hence I may be seen as someone who was on the wrong side of history."

Short-term, that's no help for voters.