Repainting the Lane Lines

We need to repaint the lane lines on Church and on State.  The boundaries are getting dangerously blurred. When is it simply exercising one's personal religious beliefs, and when is it a violation of someone's civil rights?

Sarah Palin recently ranted about how the founding fathers did not believe in the separation of church and state; the first amendment notwithstanding.  She objected to President Obama making a comment that "America is not a Christian Nation." (It is not.  Neither is it a Hindu, Jewish, Muslim, Pagan, etc. Nation)

In the early 80's and 90's, the "Religious Right" made a concerted effort to get "good, Christian" men and women involved in various governmental bodies--school boards, city councils, state and federal legislatures, etc.  They felt that these "good Christians" would then make laws and decisions based on their conservative values, and reverse changes they felt were against God, like the right to an abortion or invalidating sodomy laws.

That is all fine and good.  While I may not agree with their ideals  they are perfectly within their rights (or lane, if you will) as American Citizens.  However, these people are starting to become road hogs.

The religious conservatives in their various offices of power now exercise their power at the expense of many groups, especially LGBTs.  Take the case of Clay Greene and Harold Scull in Sonoma County, CA.  Harold and Clay were together for 25 years when Harold fell and broke his hip.  Preparing for the future, the men had drawn up wills, healthcare proxies, advanced directives and whatnot that each designated the other as the person to make health decisions if he was incapacitated.  County officials ignored this paperwork, misrepresented the relationship to the court and took control of all that the men had amassed in their time together, without trying to determine who owned what.  They then terminated the lease, auctioned off all of the men's posessions and put them in two separate nursing homes.  Harold later died in the home he was housed in, and Clay was not allowed to see his partner to comfort him or say goodbye.  The National Center for Lesbian Rights has joined with Clay to sue the county and its officials who made these decisions.  While this story is horrific enough, Joe.My.God has evidence that one of the county officials named in the complaint has links to evangelical Christianity, which is notoriously anti-gay. (Ok, the evidence might not stand up in court, but it is suggestive.)

There is also a case making its way to the Supreme Court about whether a school-based Christian law group has to admit gays.  The school says that any officially school-recognized groups have to allow any student who wishes to join.  The Christian Legal Society at Hastings College says that forcing them to take gays and non-believers violates their first amendment rights.  This case could have a large impact on how non-discrimination policies across the board are enforced, not just the educational policies, but also in various federal funding and public policies as well.

Where is the line that separates the Church from the state?  Is it in a state official acting according to his own personal interpretation of the laws based on his beliefs?  Is it in federal laws that force private organizations using public funds to abide by nondiscrimination laws?  The right to swing your fist ends at my nose.  Where does my nose end and your fist begin?
Share

Thinking About the Marriage Equality Failures

It seems likethe meme all around the blogosphere over the past few days is the latest marriage equality failures in various states and the resolve to not let it keep happening.  For instance there is a vote coming up on it in New Hampshire scheduled sometime next week.  One thing I notice is just how many seemingly supportive politicians turn Benedict Arnold and stab their LGBT constituents in the back.  There are many candidates who raised money from the LGBT community, and traditionally LGBT donors have made a significant contribution to the Democratic party as a whole. 

While money doesn't buy a vote, people do give monetary support to the candidate that supports their causes.  I urge you to vote for and donate to the individual candidates who have actively done things to support the LGBT community, not groups like the Democratic National Committee, who will distribute your cash to multiple candidates, who may or may not support the issues you want. 

One of the biggest factors in the losses also seems to be support and voter turnout.  Our elected senators and representatives hear more from the Anitas, and therefore think that their message is the consensus among their constituents.  Write, call, email, or otherwise contact the Senators and representatives in your area, and ask for their support.  If they are supportive, thank them and urge them to keep fighting.  If they are not, lobby them and make a case why they should be supportive.  The Anitas get their message out because they've succesfully used fear to motivate their base.  While I dislike fearmongering, progressives need to mobilize their base as well.  If they're going to turn the volume up to 11, we need to turn it up to 13--making sure we counter their message appropriately with facts, and logic. 
Share

Tuesday News Roundup: World Aids Day, Washington DC Marriage equality bill, and more

:

Today is World Aids Day. The 2009 theme is "Universal Access and Human Rights". According to the World Health Organization:

HIV/AIDS remains one of the world's most significant public health challenges, particularly in developing countries.



Thanks to recent advances in access to antiretroviral therapy (ART), HIV is no longer a death sentence for many in developed countries. However, more than 5.5 million people in need of ART in low- and middle-income countries still have no access to treatment

An estimated 2 million people die every year from HIV/AIDS and its complications. The economic crisis has hurt many organizations, and cut funding for many programs. Please consider donating to your local Aids Charity if you are able, or click here to donate to the Minnesota Aids Project. Now on with the News:

• 
  
  Same Sex Marriage
  
  • Richard Cohen discusses Gay Marriage and the Manhattan Declaration in the Washington Post
    
  • Do you want to protect the sanctity of marriage? Don't ban same-sex marriages; Ban Divorce.
    
  • DC Council votes to approve marriage equality. Are they going to call Archbishop Wuerl's bluff?
    
  • New York may vote on Gay Marriage Bill today
    
  
  
• BBC: Are we getting complacent about AIDS?
  
• Rachel Maddow on Rick Warren, Uganda and their "Family" ties, Via Towleroad
  
• 
  
  World AIDS day
  
  • Presidential Proclamation
    
  • 
    
    Minnesota Marks World AIDS day, via KARE11.
    

    A total of 8,819 Minnesota HIV/AIDS cases have been reported, including 2,976 people who have died, since AIDS tracking began in 1982 and HIV tracking began in 1985. An estimated 6,220 people are currently living with HIV in Minnesota. On average, the Minnesota Health Department received a new report of an HIV case every 27 hours in 2008.A total of 8,819 Minnesota HIV/AIDS cases have been reported, including 2,976 people who have died, since AIDS tracking began in 1982 and HIV tracking began in 1985. An estimated 6,220 people are currently living with HIV in Minnesota. On average, the Minnesota Health Department received a new report of an HIV case every 27 hours in 2008.

    
    
    
  • Advocate: World Aids Day Around the US
    
  
  
• A Right-wing 'go-to blogger 'has had enough of the lunacy from the teabaggers/birthers/fundie/nutjobs
  
• Protesters in St. Louis, MO protest outside the Catholic Basilica there to protest Diocese's donation to Maine's anti-gay "Yes on 1" campaign.
  
• Gay By Nature? Part 1
  
• PEPFAR funds being laundered to promote antigay and 'Ex-Gay' programs?

I am “the Intersection of Church and State”

Where did "Separation of Church and State" Come from?

"The intersection of Church and State" is not just a useful metaphor.  The American ideal is that the State does not mess with Church business, and the Church doesn't meddle in State affairs, referred to as the "Separation of Church and State".  This principle comes from the First Amendment to the US constitution.  However, recently the line has started to be muddied.  Churches have started taking positions on issues like LGBT rights and abortion.  Based on the "separation" principle, I feel that religious institutions have the right to issue position statements on issues, and privately influence their members to vote a particular way.  However, by taking actions like signing the "Manhattan Declaration" and funneling money to various political organizations in support of ballot initiatives, these Churches and other religious institutions are acting like political action committees. If they are going to act as PACs then they should be treated as such.


However, the blurring of that line is a double-edged sword. While separating Church and State is a lofty ideal for creating laws, it is easier said than done. Someone once told me that we should have "Christian men and women in office making Christian laws." I disagree. Making a 'Christian' law violates the separation of Church and State because it respects one religion over another, and in the words of the First amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…

In addition, much of the atrocity in human history can be arguably attributed to some religious person/people trying to impose their interpretation of their faith on someone else. That being said, I have no issue with people of any faith voting for or against a law because of the way it matches or conflicts with their personal faith.

The Intersection of Church and State

Individual people are the "intersection of church and state". Their understandings of their faith, and of the laws in the US, place them there. The issues in the two areas overlap, especially in the case of LGBT citizens. The attacks on our lives and loves come from both sides, especially from people who have a stake in blurring the line, like certain religious institutions or conservative politicians. This intersection results in institutionalized heterosexism, where "one man + one woman" is considered normal and anything that is not is abnormal. One of the major issues I have with this though is that the conservatives have hijacked the conversation.


When analyzing the response to any political issue, whether it is a referendum on a local budget item or a law to allow gay couples to marry in any state, there are going to be three groups of opinions: for, against, and undecided. The object in the political fight is to sway the undecided votes to your side of the issue temporarily (long enough to vote). In the fight for gay rights, unfortunately the majority of the religious voices getting the attention, and therefore spreading their message to those 'undecided' voters, are the conservatives. They go on quite loudly about how gay rights are a threat to marriage, our society, etc. and how granting LGBT rights will cause (in a fruity, booming announcer's voice) "the END OF THEWORRLLLDDD!"

Unfortunately, the progressives don't get as much media attention. It is unclear whether this is from the progressives' distaste for using the same over-the-top histrionics as their opponents, cowardice, or just the simple fact that supporting gay rights is not that controversial an issue. We need to do a better job of not only countering the negativity from the right, but also communicating the pro-gay positions and mobilizing the voters on our side. One way to help build a coalition that actually has political influence and counter the right-wing negativity is by reaching out to other groups that we are part of.


LGBT rights issues have been cast as "single voter" issues so long that the meme is not even questioned. In actuality, LGBT people come from various political, religious, ethnic, economic, ability and social groups. (I probably left some groups out, but you get the idea.) Once when I mentioned that I would not support a political candidate who did not support LGBT rights, the reply came back "So you're a single issue voter? What about the economy, healthcare, national security, immigration, etc.?" I could not convince him that by expressing support for LGBT issues I was not abandoning other issues. LGBT rights do not override these issues; they are a material part of these issues:

• ENDA (which would prohibit job discrimination based on sexuality, gender identity, and gender expression (in addition to the other protected classes from the Civil Rights Act of 1964) keeps people from losing their jobs. Therefore, they are working and have money to buy things. How does preventing job loss not have a bearing on the economy?
  
• Repealing "Don't Ask; Don't Tell" addresses both the economy and national security. SLDN estimates that approx 400,000 LGBT people would enlist if it were repealed. That means that 400,000 people are now working and contributing to the economy. Additionally, it helps improve national security because it means that many more troops are available to fight wherever necessary.
  
• Recognizing gay relationships under the law has a bearing on healthcare and the economy because it does no one any good to reform healthcare if their spouse/partner cannot be covered or you have to pay more to cover them.
  
• Few people think about the Uniting American Families Act. It affects immigration reform similar to the way gay relationships affect healthcare. If a bi-national straight couple lives in the US, the spouse who is a citizen can sponsor the non-citizen spouse. In the case of gay relationships, one partner cannot sponsor the other, and therefore once the partner's visa is up. That couple either is exiled from the US (since the partner would be an illegally entered alien) if they want to stay together, or they break up because the partner is deported.
  

Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. once said, "Justice delayed is justice denied." If LGBT people reach out to other groups they belong to, they can build the bridges necessary to create a coalition and be heard.
Share