Eye of Newt. . .

Since Newt Gingrich seems to have become the latest to become the darling of the ABM (Anyone But Mitt) movement among the know-nothing Tea Party and “Evangelical” Christianist Republicans, let’s take an opportunity to skewer one of his latest platform statements – his response to the call by the WAcKO Iowa group, The FAMiLY LEADER

NEwT: To Bob Vander Plaats and the Executive Board of The FAMiLY LEADER: I appreciate the opportunity to affirm my strong support of the mission of the FAMiLY LEADER by solemnly vowing to defend and strengthen the family through the following actions I would take as President of the United States.

Defending Marriage.  As President, I will vigorously enforce the Defense of Marriage Act, which was enacted under my leadership as Speaker of the House, and ensure compliance with its provisions, especially in the military. 

JP: The fact that the so-called Defense of Marriage Act is really an assault on states’ rights, an assault on marriage, and actually does nothing to preserve and strengthen marriage, is lost on Newt.  DOMA is unconstitutional and likely to be held to be unconstitutional by the courts.

NEwT: I will also aggressively defend the constitutionality of DOMA in federal and state courts. 

JP: A waste of taxpayer dollars, to defend a law that should so obviously a violation of the Constitution to anyone who claims to be a constitutional scholar.

NEwT: I will support sending a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the states for ratification. 

JP: it’s so rare that constitutional amendments to take away rights are introduced.  The last one ushered in Prohibition. The constitutional Amendment we need to see is a reintroduction of the Equal Rights Amendment.  It is about time.

NEwT: I will also oppose any judicial, bureaucratic, or legislative effort to define marriage in any manner other than as between one man and one woman.  I will support all efforts to reform promptly any uneconomic or anti-marriage aspects of welfare and tax policy.  I also pledge to uphold the institution of marriage through personal fidelity to my spouse and respect for the marital bonds of others.

JP: Given Newt’s personal history, “personal fidelity to his spouse” in that “one man/one woman for life” scenario can only mean returning to the first wife he previously abandoned while whoring around with the second, and the third  he whored around with while still married to the second, and abandoning the later whores. But he is a whore himself who deserves the serial polygamy he *really* favors. His “one man and one woman”pledge should mean just that – not just serial polygamy, or “one man and one woman at a time.”  Oh, but wait, to his adopted Roman Catholic Church, Newt gets a pass, since neither of his earlier marriages are recognized by the pedophile-pandering priests (or any of the other more decent priests) in his Church as having been valid.  But don’t all these “Evangelical” Christianist types look at Roman Catholics as “papists” in sort of the same way they see Mormons as pagan idolators? Wouldn't that be especially true since he used to be a white Southern Baptist good ol' boy, and he actually converted to the papist cause?  Aren; these the same sort of people who objected to Al Smith and Jack Kennedy?

NEwT: Defending the Unborn.  I believe that life begins at conception. 

JP: He “believes.”  This is important. I will note that this belief that “life begins at conception” has absolutely nothing to do with the idea of when that life is entitled to be considered a human being.  Anyone who professes to be a bible-believing Christian and who does not accept the idea that the soul is intimately connected with *breathing* (i.e., the span of a human person’s ensoulment runs from first breath to last only.  Even under the English Common Law, which was rather bible-based in many ways, a baby that was born, but did not take a single breath, was not deemed to be a person, but was called stillborn.  No inheritance or inheritance rights would pass through such a non-entity. But Newt is one of those people who like the idea of granting full personhood status to inanimate corporations.  He would also likely consider the construction plans to be a home, and pans on regulating chicken eggs as if they were fully formed and once-breathing chickens.  But his "belief"is consistent with the kind of thing the Pope wants to impose on all Americans.

NEwT: On day one of my administration, I will sign an executive order reinstating Ronald Reagan’s Mexico City policy that prevents taxpayer dollars from being used to fund abortions overseas. 

JP: That’s right, Newt “believes” and only his beliefs count. How he can say this, and then claim to defend “Religious Liberty” two points down from this one, is a conflicted position that can only be taken seriously by people who do not have the capacity to understand the fact that these principles are in opposition - such as anyone who might have signed Robbie George and Chuck Colson's bombshell of a Manhattan Declaration.    So Newt wants to take way from the religious freedom of women.  For Newt, women are a necessary inconvenience, and as an originalist on the Constitution, he believes that women should not be counted, and that African Americans should be returned to a state of involuntary servitude. (See his position on appointing "Originalist" judges!)

NEwT: I will also work with Congress to repeal Obamacare, defund Planned Parenthood so that no taxpayer dollars are being used to fund abortions but rather transfer the money so it is used to promote adoption and other pro-family policies, and enact legislation that provides greater protections for the unborn.

JP: Even the English Common Law recognized that “the unborn” are not people.  So protecting the “unborn” means taking away the rights of women who are already born.  And so little of Planned Parenthoods budget goes to abortion,  Most of it goes to other reproductive health services.  I am sure that Newt would rather give taxpayer money to "religious" groups that discriminate against people they don't like.

NEwT: Defending Religious Liberty.  As President, I will vigorously defend the First Amendment’s rights of religious liberty and freedom of speech against anyone who would try to stifle the free expression of believers. 

JP: Newt wants to impose his religion in everyone, and then comes out with this? This is inconsistent with his policy on women’s reproductive rights. There are women who share my religious belief that is bible based, and consistent with the common law understanding that we are only human beings between first breath and last breath.  Our souls are intimately bound up in our breath – and literally, “spirit” and “breath” are the same thing.  So, why doesn't our religion count? Is it because Newt only believes that Religious freedom is for people who agree with him?

NEwT: I will also promote legislation that protects the right to conscience for healthcare workers so they are not compelled to perform abortions and other procedures that violate their religious teachings.

JP: how about the religious liberty of healthcare workers whose religious beliefs allow them to participate in assisting women in their reproductive health care.  I think that people who have a religious objection to performing their jobs should find another line of work.

NEwT: Defending Against Debt.  As President, I will undertake vigorous policies to maximize capital investment and job creation, along with common sense entitlement reforms, to dramatically turn around the nation’s fiscal situation. 

JP: This is meaningless drivel.  Newt has every intention to line the pockets of fat cats at the expense of the people.  He already intends to scuttle child labor laws.

NEwT: Building upon the same principles I championed during my four years as Speaker, when we reduced the national debt by over $400 billion and dramatically reduced the national debt as a percentage of the GDP, we will reduce the enormous burden upon American families of the public debt and unfunded liabilities.

JP: Newt is infamous for being the huckster who designed the program one can only call “The Contract On America” - The only way to fairly accomplish the goal he seeks  is to stop the insane defense spending and end the wars.  It is a well-known principle since the Vietnam war that America  can’t afford to have Guns *AND* Butter. 

NEwT: Defending the Right of the People to Rule Themselves.  Today, as federal courts have intervened in sectors of American life never before imaginable, including the intervention in the definition of marriage as well as when unborn life can be protected under the Constitution, the public has increasingly come to view them as an usurpative device for unelected rulers. 

JP: The real activist judges have ruled that fictitious corporate “people” have the same rights as human beings – the next step is to give corporate entities perpetual voting rights.  And the slippery slope will be to give Republican-built robots voting rights (something that they apparently have tried clandestinely in Ohio, with the apparent voting rights of voting machines there).  The courts actually exist to protect the *individual* people against the tyranny of the majority – a job they don’t do terribly well because of conservative activism from the bench

NEwT: This abuse of power and loss of public confidence amounts to a constitutional crisis.  I believe the executive and legislative branches each have an independent responsibility to interpret the Constitution,

JP: That is true, within their parameters, but the SCOTUS has the final say on constitutionality.

NEwT: and in those rare circumstances when they believe the federal courts, including the Supreme Court, have engaged in a serious constitutional error, they can choose among an array of constitutional powers to check and balance the courts. 

JP: The “check and balance” on the SCOTUS is the constitutional amendment process.  Is Newt an ass, or what?  Since he is a self-proclaimed constitutional scholar, doesn’t he actually know this?

NEwT:  As President, I will nominate for federal judgeships, including justices of the Supreme Court, only those individuals who are committed to an originalist understanding of the Constitution.  Judges with an originalist understanding will subordinate themselves to the meaning of the Constitution as it was intended by the framers, and not substitute their own judgments about its meaning. 

JP: Originalism is an error.  Times have changed, and I expect a SCOTUS and federal judges who are more civilized than their predecessors, and more civilized than the Founders, who believed in slavery, and in the oppression of women.  Newt is saying tight here that he wants to roll back the interpretation of the Constitution to a point prior to 1870.

NEwT: The inherent judicial self-restraint that comes from an originalist approach to the Constitution offers the best long-term assurance that federal judges will not exceed their powers and trample on individual liberties.  I will also work with Congress to use the Constitutional means available to reassert the right of the elected branches of government to defend their understanding of the meaning of the Constitution, including limiting the jurisdiction of the federal courts to decide on certain issues, when they believe the federal courts have engaged in a serious constitutional error.

JP:  I think that Newt treads on dangerous ground here.  While the courts have traditionally been a drag on progressivism, on occasion they lurch toward civilization.  Newt would kill that, and insure that the tyranny of the majority can crush individual rights for people who don’t fit into the majority.  Newt is a dangerous demagogue, and a threat to the republic, as dangerous as a mad dog I the streets.  If he were to be elected to the presidency, I would fear for the survival of the nation.  Gingrich, the Gingrinch, would steal the childhood from children, freedom from women, and human rights from LGBT people.

NEwT: Sincerely, Newt Gingrich

JP: Newt is *anything* but sincere.  He is a liar, a cheater, an adulterer, a miserable excuse for a human being, and he has a problem with the meaning of words.  His answer to charges of influence peddling was that he was not a “lobbyist.”  This fuzzy definition thing  is exactly the same kind of thing that he ha the House impeach Bill Clinton for exhibiting  – Clinton was technically truthful when he said that he “did not have sexual relations with that woman.”  Because what Clinton meant by “sexual relations” was limited to a particular act that he didn’t actually perform.  So Gingrich technically tells the truth when he says he was not a “lobbyist” but there are other aspects of influence peddling that he had his hand in once he was gone from Congress.  Newt’s hands are stained and unclean. None of the Republican candidates for President are qualified for the job, but Newt has shown himself to be less qualified than Michele Bachmann.  He is already committing “high crimes and misdemeanors” under his own definition of the term, well before getting the nomination, much less taking office.

Catholic "Leaders' Lie about Prop 8 Ruling

After reading the press release from the out-of-control United States Conference of Catholic Bishops over the recent federal court decision striking down California’s Proposition 8 as unconstitutional (see the press release at: http://www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2010/10-145.shtml ), I figured it’s time for yet another rational analysis of yet another irrational outburst from the Roman Catholic hierarchy.

Unfortunately, there doesn’t appear to be a new official document from the USCCB, so I’ll have to resort to working over the coverage from Catholic News Service, (see the article at: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/71235) which includes quotes from inane conservative Catholic lay leaders as well as members of the hierarchy – so here goes:

Catholic Leaders Refute Judge’s Ruling Overturning Proposition 8
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
By Jane McGrath

--

JP: The headline is pretty much proof is just how delusional the Roman Catholic leaders, and the headline-writer, really are. Refute, indeed!

--

(CNSNews.com) -- Catholic leaders refuted. . .

--

JP: Refuted? Really?
--

. . . Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling earlier this month that California must stop enforcing Proposition 8, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman, and which blames religious institutions’ beliefs, including those of the Catholic Church, for harming homosexuals and lesbians.

Cardinal Francis George, head of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), rejected Walker’s claims, stating that “no court of civil law has the authority to reach
into areas of human experience that nature itself has defined.”

--

JP: By hewing blindly to Roman Catholic hierarchy’s interpretations of teachings as they relate to human rights for cisgender and non-heterosexual and people, Cardinal George obviously does not have an inkling about nature as it applies to human beings or other creatures. People like me are by our natures different. When Cardinal George limits “nature” to the nature of cissexual heterosexual people, and ignores the small minority of people who were created by God to be different, he loses sight of the truth and condemns himself to being numbered among the goats on the Day of Judgment.

As to the authority of the courts, the federal courts do have the authority, duty and responsibility to interpret the Constitution, federal laws, and the federal constitutionality of state laws. There is nothing that Cardinal George can say that changes the fact that the trial court ruling in this matter is a masterful exercise of judicial analysis of the issues presented before the court. If Cardinal George were to read the trial transcript, and if Cardinal George applied right reason to the reading, he would be unable to conclude any differently from the judge. But Cardinal George apparently lives in an alternate universe, where black it white and Truth can be any old lie.

--

The Aug. 4 ruling, which the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals put an emergency stay on this week, stated that, “Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians.”

This finding cited, among other things, the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith’s Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons.

--

JP: And, of course, I have already completely skewered the Vatican document, back on my od geocities site. Perhaps Cardinal George should read my commentary before he relies on the Vatican document in the future. It can robably be found using the Wayback machine . . .

--

When asked for comment on the judge’s ruling, Sr. Mary Ann Walsh, spokeswoman for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), said in an e-mail to CNSNews.com that, “Judge Walker, in his decision, backed his bigotry with errors, including the misstatement that the ‘Catholic Church views homosexuality as sinful.’ The fact is, the Catholic Church sees homosexuality as a condition, an inclination in a person, something not intrinsically sinful.”

--

JP: Sister Mary Ann is technically correct, here, and in the below paragraph, as it relates to Catholic teaching. But beyond that, she ends up falling into the same errors as the hierarchy.

--

“The church calls for pastoral support, not condemnation, for people with this inclination,” said Sister Walsh. “The Catholic Church makes clear that it is homosexual activities it deems sinful, because it holds that all sexual activity belongs within marriage between a man and a woman.”

--

JP: Sister Mary Ann, the Church’s “clarity” about deeming “homosexual activity” to be sinful is perfectly fine if it were kept within the confines of addressing the Roman Catholic faithful. But the Church claims that its teachings in this area, which are completely wrong, must be applied universally.

--

Sr. Mary Ann defended the Church against the judge’s claim that its religious teachings “harm” gays and lesbians, saying, “the Catholic Church opposes all unjust discrimination against gays and lesbians and abhors violence against them.”

--
JP: Sister Mary Ann, that is a lie - The Catechism may provide this, but the hierarchy's actions misapply the teaching. It is unjust to deny civil marriage and the bundles of legal rights that appertain to civil marriage, to those who because of their natural sexual orientation have a desire to pursue legal family formation with a person of the same sex. Denying the right is clearly violative of the federal constitution, because there truly is no *rational* basis for giving special rights to heterosexual people just because theya re in the majority.

--

But, admitting that anti-gay bigots exist, she added, “bigoted people are an unfortunate result but not a reason to upend the U.S. Constitution.”

--
JP: Sister Mary Ann doesn’t understand that the U.S. Constitution is not being “upended,” but rather that it is being properly interpreted by the court.
--

Fr. Francis de Rosa, parochial administrator of two parishes in Virginia, responded to the judge’s ruling in an e-mail to CNSNews.com. “We are not opposed
to the human rights of someone with same-sex attraction,” he wrote. “Rather, we assert that there is no such thing as a special category of ‘gay’ rights. Why? Because homosexuality is a pyscho-sexual disorder that harms the person and society.”

--

JP: Father Francis! Homosexuality was at one time considered a psychiatric disorder by the American Psychiatric Association. That position was changed in 1973. Science does not support your sadly misinformed statement. We have come to the realization that considering people to be mentally disordered solely because their nature is different from that of the majority is a mistake.

We are increasingly coming to the realization that it’s much more rational to consider Roman Catholicism to be “a psychosexual and moral delusional disorder that harms the person and society.” Look, the Assumption and the Resurrection, and a lot of other Catholic teachings, are harmlessly delusional. But many of the Church’s “moral” pronouncements, particularly those that relate to the treatment of women, of gays, of transsexual people, are harmful to society, as well as to the individuals that the Church continues to mercilessly persecute.

While I would hesitate to call all religion harmful, there is much harm that is done in the name of religion. Jesus Christ was a great teacher, as was Buddha, and there were others. But it’s a harmless delusion to elevate Jesus into godhood. I have no problem with many aspects of the Roman Catholic delusion – it’s just when the Church crosses the line in ways that adversely affect other people, that the delusion becomes harmful.

--

“Condoning such behavior and encouraging people to engage in it by the passage of permissive and protective laws does the real harm, not the position that warns people of the destructive consequences and nature of homosexual acts,” wrote Fr. De Rosa.

--

JP: Father Francis! You should take inspiration from your namesake, Francis Bernardone! Equal justice under the law is a human right, and there is nothing destructive about people who are by their nature same-sex-oriented acting on their orientation. I’ll grant that when heterosexual people “commit homosexual acts” you may have a point – but that is just as destructive as homosexual people “committing heterosexual acts.” The lucky bisexuals are the only ones who can go either way without being self-destructive.
--

The judge’s ruling concluded that “moral disapproval alone” was an “improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians.”

--
JP: The judge was being polite. “Moral disapproval” of equal rights for non-heterosexual and non-cissexual people is itself immoral! But the judge is not the moral police, but the constitutional police.

--

William Donahue, president of the Catholic League, told CNSNews.com: “Law is only the imposition of morality. That the law requires you to wear seatbelts is the imposition of morality, but this is a bogus argument to suggest that one side is imposing morality and the other side is not.”

--

JP: My dear Bill! Law is, in some situations, an imposition of a morality. But not all laws are moral laws. It is not immoral to drive through a red light at 2 AM when there is no other traffic around. It is, however an illegal activity that would merit a traffic citation if there is an alert police officer in the vicinity who hasn’t met the monthly ticket quota!

The seatbelt law is not a moral law! It is not an imposition of morality, it’s a mere governmental regulation – one that actually interferes with the moral judgment that each adult should be allowed. Of course, a seatbelt/carseat law aimed at protecting children does have a moral value. Society has an interest in protecting children.
--

Judge Walker also wrote in his decision that, “In the absence of a rational basis, what remains of proponents’ case is an inference, amply supported by evidence in the record, that Proposition 8 was premised on the belief that same-sex couples simply are not as good as opposite-sex couples.”

Walker continued, “Whether that belief is based on moral disapproval of homosexuality, animus towards gays and lesbians or simply a belief that a relationship between a man and a woman is inherently better than a relationship between two men or two women, this belief is not a proper basis on which to legislate.”

--

JP: Okay, what’s wrong with Judge Walker’s ruling? Nothing. It’s the right ruling.

--

In response to Judge Walker’s statement that, “A state’s interest in an enactment must of course be secular in nature,” Donahue said that the state does indeed have an invested, secular interest in upholding traditional marriage.

--

JP: Wrong, Bill! As a matter of fact, the testimony from the opposition’s own experts showed that your conclusion is wrong!

--

The traditional family is the anchor of society and teaches children citizenship, said Donahue. “All the psychological data show that children need a father and a mother.”

--

JP: Studies have actually shown that children do even better with two mothers. But let’s not rush into pushing a form of plural marriage where there is a second wife to help raise children, or pushing heterosexual couples into divorce so that the wives/mothers can find a female spouse.

There is nothing about having a father as a male role model that can’t be filled by another male figure in a child’s life.

--

Other Catholic clergy have made public statements disapproving of Judge Walker’s decision. Calling heterosexual marriage “the bedrock of any society,” . . .

--

JP: No one is disputing that heterosexual marriage is a bedrock of society – the question is whether it is fair to limit marriage to heterosexual people. And the answer is that it is indeed unfair.

--

. . . Cardinal Francis George said, “It is tragic that a federal judge would overturn the clear and expressed will of the people in their support for the institution of marriage. No court of civil law has the authority to reach into areas of human experience that nature itself has defined.”

--

JP: Cardinal George, as I wrote already, does not have a grasp of nature, natural law, or morality. And the first sentence in this quote is the Cardinal’s endorsement of what deTocqueville called “the tyranny of the majority.” In a system that prizes individual human rights, the use of the ballot box by a majority to impose its will to unjustly discriminate against a minority is one of the ultimate moral corruptions. Had the people of California voted to abolish marriage for everyone, it might have been a stupid decision, but at least it would have been fair. But to abolish marriage for just those who have a same-sex orientation was unfair, immoral, and in the court’s just analysis, unconstitutional. Freedom of religion allows Cardinal George to use his Roman Catholic Church’s delusional teachings to refuse to sacramentally celebrate a same-sex marriage in a church or cathedral, but it does not permit Cardinal George to discriminate against married same-sex couples in the public square. The Contitutional protection of religious freedom has limits, and Cardinal George is not free to impose his religious beliefs on me, just as I am not allowed to force him to accept that “God is One” as I maintain as a Unitarian, or that “God is in all” as I maintain as a Universalist. I’m no longer a Trinitarian, and while I have abandoned that belief in favor of something else, I still support the Cardinal’s right to maintain it.

--

And Archbishop Joseph Kurtz, who chairs the USCCB Ad Hoc Committee for the
Defense of Marriage,

--

JP: That title is, of course, a joke. All this blather about “Defense of Marriage” is merely a code for being an “Assault on Marriage.” Archbishop Joe favors assaulting marriage equality.

--

. . . joined Cardinal George in his statement and added, “Citizens of this nation have uniformly voted to uphold the understanding of marriage as a union of one man and one woman in every jurisdiction where the issue has been on the ballot.”

--

JP: See my comments above about the immorality of the tyranny of the majority, when it is used to impose the majority’s will on the human rights of the minority. Even the majority is not entitled to vote itself special rights.
--

The archbishop also said, “Marriage is more fundamental and essential to the well being of society than perhaps any other institution. It is simply unimaginable that the court could now claim a conflict between marriage and the Constitution.”

--

JP: Archbishop Joe is even more of an ass than I thought from his first tidbit. I agree, it is “simply unimaginable that the court could now claim a conflict between marriage and the Constitution” But that’s not what the court ruled, Archbishop. Are you capable of reading ane understanding the English language? The court held that marriage should be available on a gender-neutral basis, and that the Constitution demands that the majority is not entitled to special rights. Nothing at all is being taken away from the heterosexual majority’s right to enter into a marriage and raise children, except the exclusivity of the relationship to the cissexist heterosexist majority

--

Supporters of Proposition 8 cite that voters have upheld traditional marriage in all of the more than 30 opportunities to vote on it throughout the United States. . . .

--

JP: The ruling does not prohibit “traditional marriage.” It’s not as if the judge took away the right of marriage to straights to give it to gays – but these “supporters,” who actually oppose marriage equality, act as if that was in fact what was done. Perhaps they should pay some more attention to reality, rather than their supersititous delusions.

--

. . . However, Judge Walker wrote in his ruling that without “some support in
evidence,” voters’ “conjecture, speculation and fears are not enough.”

He continued, “Still less will the moral disapprobation of a group or class of citizens suffice, no matter how large the majority that shares that view. The evidence demonstrated beyond serious reckoning that Proposition 8 finds support only in such disapproval. As such, Proposition 8 is beyond the constitutional reach of the voters or their representatives.”

Fr. de
Rosa, also addressed this, saying, “Vaughn Walker’s ruling asserts that the Catholic argument against homosexual acts is without a ‘rational basis,’ yet that teaching is not based solely upon principles of faith. It is certainly possible to argue from pure reason that it is against the nature of the human person to engage in homosexuality.”

--

JP: Father Francis is completely wrong! I’ve already addressed this issue in my commentary on the Manhattan Declaration. Robby George’s arguments on natural law do not hold water, and Father Francis can argue until he is blue in the face, but he can’t deny the reality of nature and come across as being truthful. The only nature Father Francis seems to understand, may be seen through an Aristotelian lens – perhaps he should look closer.

--

“One very obvious point is the manifest lack of bodily and sexual complementarity in homosexual acts,” said Fr. De Rosa. “Furthermore, there is plenty of clinical psychological data to show that same-sex attraction is the result of a developmental disorder. Were one to make an argument from the theory of evolution, homosexuality is most certainly an inferior, dead-end phenomenon.”

--

JP: Bodily and sexual complementarity? That’s seemingly a code that indicates that homosexual activity does not result in pregnancy. So? No one is suggesting that everyone should be gay. When over 90% of the population, including many who are totally unfit to be parents, can engage in the “sexual complementarity” that makes babies, there’s no need to insist that the rest of humanity engage in the same acts. God wouldn’t have created people to be different otherwise. In fact, nature points out numerous reasons for homosexuality existing in a natural setting. As long as it is not exclusive, the species is likely to continue to propagate, perhaps excessively.

--

Bishop Jaime Soto of the Diocese of Sacramento has also weighed in on the issue. He decried the “hysteria” that, he says, “has, unfortunately, become the hallmark of California discourse. … It is important for the Catholic community and all Californians of good will not to be intimidated into silence and accommodation.”

--

JP: Now, in this snippet above, Bishop Jaime starts to sound pretty good – but what else does he have to say?

--

In 2003, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, then-headed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, issued a letter on homosexual unions that was cited by Judge Walker as harmful to the social progress of homosexuals. The letter, in part, states, “No ideology can erase from the human spirit the certainty that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman” who “mutually perfect each other, in order to cooperate with God in the procreation and upbringing of new human lives.”

--

JP: I don’t need an ideology to refute the Congregation. In fact, I’ve skewered Joe Ratzinger’s reasoning in *that* document rather effectively, too. If all the documents the Catholic Church relies on are the result of defective reasoning, what does that say about the conclusions? To persist in these wrong-headed teachings is delusional – and to insist that these be the basis for civil law is beyond reason.

--

“Homosexual unions are totally lacking in the biological and anthropological elements of marriage and family which would be the basis, on the level of reason, for granting them legal recognition,” states the letter. “Such unions are not able to contribute in a proper way to the procreation and survival of the human race. … Society owes its continued survival to the family, founded on marriage. … If, from the legal standpoint, marriage between a man and a woman were to be considered just one possible for of marriage, the concept of marriage would undergo a radical transformation, with grave detriment to the common good.”

--

JP: The reasoning was wrong in 2003, and its still wrong in 2010.

--

Proposition 8 was passed after a fierce political battle in California in 2008. Although Judge Walker’s ruling, handed down earlier this month, had been scheduled to go into effect on Wednesday, Aug. 18, an emergency stay was imposed by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday. The Associated Press reported that oral arguments begin in the appeals court on Dec. 6.

--

JP: I sincerely hope that the 9th Circuit comes out with a just ruling! It's entirely possible that the appellants lack standing to appeal. In that case, the ruling will apply ony in California - if the 9th Circuit decides on the merits, several other states will be affected - and if the Supreme Court of the United States gets the opportunity to rule on the merits, and does so with a proper constitutional interpretation, the ruling would apply nationally!

That won't stop the opponents of justice, equality and fairness. They are likely to continue raving their delusions, the way they already do about women's reproductive rights.

Chuckie Colson, Still Obstructing Justice

Chuck Colson, former chief counsel to President Richard Nixon, is perhaps best known for pleading guilty to obstruction of justice by creating an environment in which the Pentagon Papers defendant Daniel Ellsberg’s chances for a fair trial were damaged. He was also reputed to be deeply involved in the Watergate scandal, but was never charged or tried for this.

While working for Nixon, Chuckie believed his value was based on his willingness, in his own words, “to be ruthless in getting things done" – essentially a belief that an evil end justifies an evil means.

After spending time in prison, Chuck organized a not-for-profit organization devoted to prison ministry, and has a daily radio broadcast. The organization, Prison Fellowship, is based on the idea that the basis for every criminal act is a destructive decision.

Despite this central message, and seven months imprisonment for his own admitted crime, Chuck doesn’t seem to have learned the lesson of the destructive decisions that led to criminal behavior. He still seems to be devoted to obstructing justice, but now his prey is the LGBT community.

As a case in point, we have Chuck, who was trained as an attorney, seeming to show a complete and total ignorance of the First Amendment to the U.S Constitution, and the religious freedom it protects, in a column entitled “Gay Activists and Religious Freedom.”

Chuck starts by mentioning the New Jersey settlement by which Neil Clark Warren’s eHarmony dating and matchmaking website agreed to stop discriminating against gay and lesbian participants.

Colson believes that the settlement forced Warren to act against his “sincerely held religious convictions.”

This is, of course, not true. Warren runs a dating website that is not limited to people who belong to a particular religion. If, for example, Warren was a member of the Church of God the Creator (the religion for members of the KKK), which has no non-white members, he could market a private club dating service limited to members of the religion, who are all white, without running afoul of racial discrimination laws. But the moment the service is open to the public, then the state laws about racial discrimination become an issue – and African Americans should be able to use the service.

It’s the same thing with the gay issue – Warren’s website service does not limit itself to members of a particular religion, so if he is marketing the service to the public, he can’t legally discriminate against blacks, or gays.

Colson thinks that these laws adversely affect the rights of Christians (though Colson is not Christian, he’s a Christianist), Catholics, and Orthodix Jews with businesses in the public square.

Colson writes:

“It’s as if the First Amendment no longer exists. I can’t help but suspect that radical gays deliberately target outfits run by religious believers in order to force them to accommodate their political agenda—or go out of business.”

Can you imagine? The first thing is that religious believers should learn to avoid situations and businesses that could compromise their “sincerely-held religious beliefs.” People should not be in a business aimed at the general public if their religious beliefs require them to discriminate against minorities. Warren’s eHarmony business is lucrative – if he were to limit it to certified born-again-Christians, he would not be making the money he does (and he’d still run the risk of running into gay evangelical Christians – they do exist).

The First Amendment says, in its entirety:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

The right to one’s deeply-held religious beliefs is guaranteed – but there is no concomitant right that one may act to harm others by the exercise of these beliefs.

If the government were to support one religious belief, against marriage equality, it would be “establishing religion,” and denying the religious freedom of those who believe in marriage equality. Chuckie believes quite sincerely that the only people who are entiled to freedom of religion are Chuckie and people who believe the way he does.

True fundamentalist Christianists believe that it’s appropriate to stone to death gays and adulterers. They would love to act as fundamentalist Islamists do in countries where Shariah religious law holds sway, such as Iran and Iraq, where gays and adulterers are routinely executed at the behest of the mullahs.

Chuck apparently wishes to join with James Dobson and other Christianists, to oppose the passage of the Matthew Shepard Act because it impinges on the religious freedom of funadamentalist ministers to call on their flocks to stone gays to death.

Colson writes:

“The issue is critical. We all must learn how to answer the charge of “bigotry,” and winsomely explain why marriage cannot exist between same-sex couples; and how same-sex “marriage” will not broaden marriage, but radically and dangerously change its nature."

It is simply amazing that Chuckie can take Christianity and pervert it to support his personal bigotry, just as James Dobson, Maggie Gallagher and their ilk in the Christianist community seem to do. He asks that his followers learn how to lie, “winsomely explaining” the things they twist.

Colson’s May 12th column, “Same Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty, Why They Can’t Co-Exist” goes through the usual lies used by the National Organization for Marriage and the other perverted Christianist Organizations. These are the lies Colson wants his followers to spread in support of their bigotry - pretty much the same ones in the "Gathering Storm" ad.

Lesbians using the oceanfront Pavilion at a New Jersey Methodist Camp. The Methodist camp got its tax exemption based on the pavilion being open to public use. The tax exemption was lost, not because of “gay marriage” but because lesbians are part of the “public” and the pavilion had been used for similar purposes by non-Methodists. Parts of the camp still have tax exemptions because they are for religious purposes. This had nothing to do with marriage and everything to do with the pavilion being open to the general public.

Christianist Physician refusing in vitro fertilization for lesbian. Sorry, there is no excuse for a physician licensed by the state to discriminate against patients based on who they are. This doctor performs in vitro fertilization for a living – discrimination isn’t appropriate here. If the doctor has “sincere religious beliefs” she should have become a fundamentalist minister. Like the other cases, this wasn’t about marriage equality, it was because the services were offered to the general public, and the profession is licensed by the government.

Catholic Charities in Massachusetts stopping its adoption service. The only reason was that state taxpayer subsidy money was withheld because of the discrimination. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints still runs an adoption agency in Massachusetts using its own funds and limiting clientele to straight Mormons. Again, this has nothing to do with marriage equality and everything to do with unlawful discrimination, this time with taxpayer money..

The firing of the mental health counselor in Mississippi is more the result of the application of ordinary employment law principles, not “gay marriage.”

The Yeshiva University medical college housing case had to do with campus housing, not marriage – and the same “non-discrimination laws.” If the university was open solely to Orthodox Jews, it might have been a different story.

And it goes on . . .

Chuck quotes Maggie Gallagher, that paragon of perversity: “As marriage expert Maggie Gallagher puts it, same-sex “marriage” advocates claim that religious faith “itself is a form of bigotry.””

But Chuck, it isn’t religious belief that is a form of bigotry, it’s bigotry cloaked in the trappings of religious belief that is still bigotry, despite the illusion of "faith."

I can and have gone on in several of my blog posts to show that the Bible doesn’t support the Christianist antipathy for gays and lesbians. The Christianists are still entitled to their bigoted beliefs – but they should not be allowed to use them to harm others.

No one is going to force Chuck or Maggie to believe that homosexuality is a moral good. No one is going to force Chuck to marry a man, or Maggie to marry a woman. No one is going to force them to date black people either, or marry them – but if they own a restaurant, they’d have to seat and serve both the black and the gay customer, regardless of their personal “religious” bigotry.

Chuck, you’re still obstructing justice – will you ever learn your lesson?

I do pray that you do - before you, too, will find yourself numbered among the goats on the day of Judgment.

Separating Christ from Caesar: An Open Letter to Floyd Flake, Ruben Diaz, Sr., and Malcolm Smith

Monday, April 27, 2009

Reverend Pastor Floyd H. Flake, D. Min.
The Greater Allen A.M.E. Cathedral of New York
110-31 Merrick Boulevard
Jamaica, New York 11433

Hon. "Reverend" State Senator Ruben Diaz, Sr.
307 Legislative Office Building
Albany, New York 12247

Hon. State Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith
250 Broadway, Suite 1930
New York, NY 10007


Re: Separating Christ from Caesar

Recently I published an open letter in my blog addressed to New York’s new Roman Catholic Archbishop Timothy Dolan, in which I was critical of some misstatements he made in an interview made just prior to his installation.

On this eve of tomorrow’s Equality and Justice Day in New York, I think it’s appropriate to respond to the report in the April 26, 2009 Sunday New York Times about Reverend Floyd Flake’s negative preaching from the pulpit about the marriage issue (“Marriage Bill Poses A Test Of Loyalties: Church vs. State” by Jeremy W. Peters), and “Reverend” State Senator Ruben Diaz Sr.’s macho negative fixation on this issue that spills over from his church to his politics. I am also writing to commend State Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith for his understanding of the line between his commitment to equal rights for all, and his personal religious beliefs.

I would only wish that Reverend Floyd Flake and “Reverend” State Senator Diaz would be able to learn to separate their religious beliefs from their understanding of equal rights.

Unlike the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church, which teaches that only the Church hierarchy has the right to interpret sacred scripture for the benefit of Roman Catholics, it has always been a cardinal rule of Protestants that each person can understand and interpret scripture on their own, with the grace of God. And various Protestant traditions do exactly that, disagreeing on many different doctrinal issues. So, unlike the situation with Archbishop Dolan, I don’t need to go so far as to consider Reverend Flake or “Reverend” State Senator Diaz to be apostates or heretics for having biblical interpretations on the issue of marriage rights that diverge from mine. All I need do is disagree with their interpretation of Scripture.

Among the founding principles of the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights are the two provisions in the First Amendment that deal, first with the relationship between the government and religion, and then with the rights of individual people. The first, called the “establishment clause,” prohibits the government from imposing particular religious beliefs on the people. The second, called the “free exercise clause” guarantees every American the right to freely exercise their own religious beliefs.

That free exercise clause is not totally untrammeled, however. Just because there are verses in sacred scripture that authorize believers to stone adulterers or gays to death, does not mean that the “free exercise clause” provides for the right to have such public stonings.

I am familiar with this particular aspect of the free exercise clause, because in my law practice some years ago, I was with a firm that represented a local hospital, and we had several “Jehovah Witness Baby Transfusion” cases. Jehovah Witnesses believe that a biblical verse that prohibits the eating of blood also forbids blood transfusions. Adults are free to refuse life-saving medical treatment for themselves on a religious basis, but there is a conflict when it comes to the rights of their infant children, in whom the state has a legitimate interest. Thus, in cases where an infant is born with a serious bilirubin issue that requires a blood transfusion for the child to live, and the parents cannot consent because of their religion, the physician and the hospital must obtain an immediate court order authorizing the transfusion.

The fact that the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy, Reverend Flake, “Reverend” State Senator Diaz and other religious leaders interpret the Bible in such a way so as to see a prohibition of same sex marriage, does not mean that the government should impose their particular religious interpretation on everyone who does not share that belief.

First, from a purely religious point of view, there is the same sex marriage of David and Jonathan that is found in 1 Samuel 18, confirmed in the latter part of the chapter as an actual marriage when King Saul declares that when David also married Saul’s daughter Michal, David became Saul’s son-in-law a second time. (Look to Darby or ASV for this translation of original Aramaic and Greek sources – St. Jerome fudged this in the Latin Vulgate, leading Douay-Rheims, King James and other Vulgate-based translations to have an error in this.)

Reverend Flake and “Reverend” State Senator Diaz can choose to interpret scripture differently – but they cannot claim that their interpretation is any better than Darby’s, or mine, or that of some ministers of the United Church of Christ, Quakers or Unitarians and others who wish to sacramentally recognize same sex marriages in the same way they recognize opposite-sex unions. This willingness to endorse marriage equality by some Christians and members of other religions is a free exercise issue that is not like stonings, baby blood transfusions or even handling poisonous snakes.

Reverend Flake, especially, should be mindful of the preachings of many earnest white Protestant ministers in the 19th century who railed from the pulpit that the involuntary servitude of African Americans was biblically justified, referring to the slaves as “Children of Ham” and referring to the Genesis 9:20-27 story in which Ham’s descendants (Canaan and his children) are punished by God – to be the servants of the children of Shem and Japeth.

Yes, those white ministers of religion believed that Christianity endorses slavery - and it was not limited to the teaching of St. Paul abjuring slaves to be obedient to their masters (Ephesians 6:5, Titus 2:9).

In the 1830’s and 1840’s and beyond, many ministers of religion opposed basic human rights for women, particularly married women, because altering the laws relating to marriage by giving women control over their own inheritances, or wages, or allowing women to vote, would destroy the sacred institution of marriage. After all, just as slaves were told by St. Paul to be obedient to their masters (see Ephesians and Titus citations above), wives were told to be obedient to their husbands (Titus 2:5).

The Times article closes with the following paragraph:

Ultimately, Mr. Flake said, the decision to support same-sex marriage and the consequences that decision may produce belong to Mr. Smith. “I told him he has to live with his conscience,” Mr. Flake said.

I really think that Reverend Flake should consider his own advice, and learn from his protégé State Senate Majority Leader Smith – while Reverend Flake has every right to interpret sacred scripture in the way that he does, and to decide to not perform a same-sex wedding in his church, he must live with his own conscience over his preaching from the pulpit that his belief must be imposed legally on everyone who doesn’t agree with his interpretation of the Bible, or, for that matter, whose religion or non-religion doesn’t recognize the Bible as the source of their beliefs.

Reverend Flake and “Reverend” State Senator Diaz really should be American enough to be able to separate their own personal religious beliefs from their political views.

After all, if they are not willing to speak up in favor of oppressed minorities like LGBT people, who will speak up for them when right wing Christianists and neo-cons seek to roll back the interpretation of the 14th Amendment to the 1870’s when the Supreme Court held it applied only to the federal government and not to the states. If equal rights for all are not cherished on the secular level in support of the bedrock principles under which the nation was founded and as they have evolved to improve over the years, how long will it be before African-American men are once again counted for census purposes as 3/5ths of a man, and women of any race are not counted at all. How long will it be before women are denied control over their own reproductive rights, and how soon will secular marriage be restored to the sort of thing it was in America before 1848 – a union in which the two become one, and that one is the husband – relegating the wife to the equivalent of the civil death imposed on convicted felons with life terms.

It is one thing to teach the members of one’s own congregation your interpretation of scripture for their religious education, and quite another when you use the pulpit to preach politically that your interpretation of a religious writing must serve as the source for the law that applies to everyone.

I am joining with over 2,000 New Yorkers tomorrow in Albany – our voices will be heard in favor of passage of the Dignity for All Students Act (DASA), the Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act (GENDA), and the Marriage Equality bill. I would like nothing better than for Reverend Flake and “Reverend” State Senator Diaz to have a revelation to see the light and support civil rights under the secular law, even if they continue to interpret scripture the way they do. I invite both of you to join with us tomorrow.

In peace and with a deep regard to both human rights, I remain,

Sincerely,

Joann Marie Prinzivalli
Serva Servarum Deae

On Maggie Gallagher, Marriage and Religious Liberty

Nearly a week late, on her Tuesday, April 7, 2009 column entitled Gay Marriage and the future of religious liberty, nationally syndicated right-wing columnist, President of the so-called National Organization for Marriage (which, curiously, is an anti-marriage group), and Ossining, New York resident Maggie Gallagher makes the claim that laws that make marriage gender-neutral threaten the religious liberty of the citizens of those states that enact such laws.

She claims that same-sex marriage “asks religious Americans to surrender a core belief” vaguely citing both Leviticus and Genesis, but like most Bible-thumpers, completely ignores the message of 1 Samuel 18, in which David, the anointed of God, enters into a same-sex marriage covenant with King Saul’s son Jonathan, and later in the same Chapter, when Saul also gives David his daughter Michal in marriage, Saul says that this makes David his son-in-law a second time. Maggie claims that opposite-sex-only-marriage is a core belief of Christians, but she ignores the Biblical evidence for gender-neutral marriage.

Her argument is specious – the adoption of gender-neutral marriage laws does not force religious Americans to give up any belief at all with regard to their religious beliefs with regard to marriage. In fact, the adoption of gender-neutral marriage laws involves an affirmation of religious freedom.

The Catholic Sacrament of Holy Matrimony between a man and a woman is not adversely affected by making civil marriage laws gender-neutral – a man may still sacramentally marry a woman in a Catholic Church. But now, Quakers, Unitarians and others whose deeply held religious beliefs sanction the religious marriage of two men, or two women, may now exercise the freedom of their deeply-held beliefs.

Maggie also envisions a dystopian future where courts will ban private discrimination within the churches. To an extent, this is utter nonsense. However, when it comes to dealing on the secular plane with people of different religious beliefs, the law should brook no discrimination. Religious freedom, like the freedom of speech, is not an absolute and untrammeled right of one religious tradition to impose its beliefs on all. That would be like Maggie Gallagher, whose organization seeks to do just that.

But when religious groups venture into the world of commerce, respect for other beliefs must be paramount. Mormons can ban anyone without a Temple Recommend (even other Mormons) from their temple precincts – but if they operate a business, they should be obliged to obey non-discrimination laws in the conduct of that business – particularly if they receive government funding or tax relief.

Still, I believe there is a legitimate church-state issue here that Maggie does not seem to comprehend or raise – government should have no authority over religious marriage or the regulation or sanctioning of religious marriage. New York’s domestic relations law has several sections pursuant to which clergy are authorized to perform marriages in the State of New York, and provides penalties for clergy who do not perform marriages in accordance with state law. This is an unwarranted intrusion into religious freedom. Clergy should have no right to preside over a secular marriage (unless they do not discriminate against anyone with a valid government-issued license), and the government should have no say about the termination of any religious marriage contract.

The distinction between secular and religious marriage is most apparent in the area of divorce laws – while under current unconstitutional law, a Catholic priest might preside over a combined secular/religious wedding, a catholic tribunal may only terminate or void the religious sacrament, while the divorce court may only terminate the civil marriage contract. It’s the same in Jewish tradition, where the Jewish religious marriage contract can only be terminated by a “get,” while the state only requires that the husband agree to obtain a get as a condition of the civil divorce decree being obtained. (This, too, is an intrusion into religious liberty.)

We should look to the more enlightened European countries, which strictly separate the secular civil marriage performed by a civil official, from a religious sacrament, contract or blessing. Such a true separation of church and state would help ease the confusion in the minds of ignorant people like my neighbor Maggie Gallagher and her ilk. She objects to being called a bigot, even though to those who are not ignorant, her position on imposing her personal bigoted narrow un-Christian Christianist beliefs on everyone is clearly seen as bigotry by anyone who has a modicum of decency or morality. To be charitable, perhaps she is truly ignorant or incapable of grasping truth, and not bigoted and mean-spirited on purpose.

If I can respect her civil rights under secular marriage laws, why can’t she accept that those rights should be equally available to persons other than the heterosexual majority?

While I could make a theological argument based on 1 Samuel 18 to the Roman Catholic hierarchy to implore it to change its stance so that it sacramentalizes marriage on a gender-neutral basis, I would expect the hierarchy to make its own rules with regard to sacramental issues. I do not expect the Catholic hierarchy to butt its way into civil marriage, but the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has done so, in a document that is offensive to anyone who respects the founding principles and the social contract upon which the American republic was created.

Maggie Gallagher and her errantly-named NOM group also want to impose Christianist religious bigotry on the civil institution of marriage.

The First Amendment to the American Constitution expressly guarantees freedom of religious expression, not just to conservative Christianists, but to all Americans. The same Amendment also prohibits the government from establishing religion. The only way to accomplish both the religious freedom and the non-Establishment is to separate religious and civil marriage, at the commencement, during the marriage, and also at and after the termination. A civil divorce should not be sufficient to end a religious contract, nor should a religious annulment be permitted to end a civil marriage – it should be the same way at the beginning.

While the government may not establish religion, it can, and perhaps should, respect the binding nature of religious sacramental contracts and blessings, requiring that any existing religious blessing or sacrament be dispensed with prior to permitting a party to enter into any new civil marriage or as a prerequisite to formally granting a divorce (though a civil separation would be available to those under a religious disability). But perhaps that should be the extent of the government/religion connection in the area of marriage.

Such an arrangement would strengthen the religious freedom of Mormons to enter into their more solemn form of marriage with sealing, or a fundamentalist Christian “covenant marriage,” or the Catholic Matrimonial sacrament. After all, a contract should be respected, even if it is a contract entered into under religious auspices.

However, a civil marriage should be required for any of the secular civil rights and responsibilities of marriage to inure.

Interestingly, this separation also creates a hope for some senior citizens in nursing homes who may choose to enter into a religious-only marriage so they can sleep together without sin, while keeping their estates separate and their social security checks intact.

In any event, the picture Maggie paints of gender-neutral marriage laws is bleak and uninviting – but it is all based on a tissue of lies, innuendo and falsification.

Maggie’s final question is “Is Vermont the beginning of a new willingness on the part of the powerful gay-marriage movement to let Christians be Christians?”

Ah, but the question should be asked of Maggie herself – is she and her curiously-named anti-marriage organization willing to let Christians be Christians rather than forcing the state to impose Christianist bigotry on everyone?

Jesus Himself recognized a separation of religion from the secular law when He said, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” (cit. all the synoptic Gospels: Matthew 22:21, Mark 12:17 and Luke 20:25). Perhaps Maggie might consider respecting these wise words of Jesus, and keep her religious bigotry out of civil laws that respect all religion, even atheism.

Perhaps Maggie may some day become enlightened. Perhaps she may one day be given the efficacious grace of the Spirit so that she may grow in Wisdom and Understanding, and that she will see the inherent error of her current position. Like Pastor Rick Warren, whom she skewers in her column, perhaps she may one day start down the road to a change of heart - in which her organization might some day truly and really be *for* marriage and not really against it. Perhaps only time will tell.