Rowan and Barack: both of you need to speak up!

I was having a really hard time this weekend.  I was in a bear of a mood.  There are more and more ties to US evangelical churches influencing legislation in Uganda; the healthcare reform public option was being watered down;  the economy is starting to recover, but it's not showing in MY budget....etc.  Then, a couple of wonderful things started happening.

1. The Episcopal Diocese of LA elected an out, partnered lesbian as one of its suffragan bishops.  This is significant for two reasons.  First, she is only the second female to be elected as a bishop in LA (the other is her colleague who was elected in the same election); and second, she is the second openly gay bishop in the US.
2. The Affirmation Declaration was publicized.  We need more progressive, pro-gay voices speaking out. 
3. The New Jersey committe passed marriage equality! On to the Senate!

However, even with the positive news, there are some issues that need to be addressed.  I was struck by the parallels between Rowan Williams and Barack Obama.  Both men are highly educated, and made strong statements about equality and social justice before rising to high office.  It can be argued that those statements helped put them in that office.  Once they are in office, they back off of their strongly advocated positions for more neutral, low-key ones--Mr. Obama on multiple issues including the healthcare public option, various LGBT legislation, etc.;  The Most Rev and Rt Hon The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury on Uganda.  I find it interesting that both of them claim to be 'working on things' but when the chips are down, they are silent.

This is deplorable.  It's no wonder the religious and secular political tone has sharply shifted to the right.  The right wing knows how to motivate it's base getting them to speak out, and the more progressive voices remain silent waiting for someone else to speak up.  Because they are not speaking out to counter the conservative voices, the decision makers then think the conservative voices are the consensus, and therefore the 'voice of their constituents'.  As my mother told me when I was dealing with bullies in school who were picking on me, "Deciding not to make a decision, is making a decision." 

This non-decision to not speak out and to wait on others is simply political cowardice.  If you can't fight for the courage of your convictions, then what can you fight for?

"Those who stand for nothing, will fall for anything."--Alexander Hamilton
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

Straw Man Question: By prohibiting Gay marriage aren't we violating the separation of church and state?

The Family Policy Institute of Washington has released a video entitled "By Prohibiting Gay Marriage Aren't We Violating the Separation of Church and State?"  and their Joseph Backholm answers the question:

No.


The phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear anywhere in the United States or Washington State Constitutions. Regardless, the fact that people of a particular religious faith share common ideas does not mean that those ideas are necessarily unconstitutional because they are religious.

To the contrary, our laws against stealing, killing, lying, perjury, incest, rape, battery, and destruction of property were all religious tenets before they were laws. No one wants to repeal the criminal code because its major themes were first recorded in the Bible.

The idea that a preference for heterosexual marriage is unconstitutional simply because it is consistent with a religious doctrine is legally and constitutionally unsupportable.

Our Founding Fathers wanted to avoid a situation where a religious organization wrote the law for the country. However, they did not intend to create a country in which citizens and elected officials were forbidden from reading, discussing, thinking about, or legislating ideas that happened to be religious in nature

The problem is that he is completely missing the point.  He is correct in stating that prohibiting marriage equality does not violate the separation of church and state.   Like Joseph indicated in the video, the concept of a eparation between church and state was to prevent religious organizations writing the laws of the country. 

More after the jump