Shuster takes on NOM

I like David Shuster more everyday.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Has the tide turned?

I've had this renewed sense of love of country this week.  For the past two weeks now there has been a seemingly stark shift in momentum in favor of equality.  Everyday I woke up to new positive developments.  Developments that had I read were happening six months ago, I would have assumed I was reading the Onion.

Being the news junkie that I am, I take in most of the programs that contribute to the political discourse of our nation.  If I miss the live airing, I'm almost certain to find out what happened online.  A information addict I am.  

What has been happening on the national news channels (with the exception of Fox News) has been the main reason for my newfound optimism.  The release of the $1.5 million ad from the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) filled with hate-filled rhetoric inspired a burage of responses from every corner of the country - some shown the ridiculous nature of the ad while others refuted the attacks line by line.

The spokespeople of NOM were on the airwaves defending their bigoted position.  On every show that I was able to see the respective hosts challenged the spokespeople, generally to the point of telling them just how wrong they were - it felt good.

I leave you with a clip from the Thom Hartman radio show.  He is taking on NOM executive director Brian Brown.  Enjoy listening to Brown make no sense and talk in circles  - I did!  I genuinely think that we live in a different country than we did in November.  It seems that the norm is trending to be on the correct side of this issue.

Response to NOM's unfounded ad, yes it's just a bunch of lies

You've mostly likely seen the latest attack on equality from the National Organization for Marriage (NOM).  If not, here it is:



The Human Rights Campaign has responded to set the record straight about these ridiculous statements.

“The Real Truth Behind the Fake Ad”

The general argument of the ad is that the push for marriage equality isn’t just about rights for same-sex couples, it’s about imposing contrary values on people of faith. The examples they cite in the ad are:
(1) A California doctor who must choose between her faith and her job
(2) A member of New Jersey church group which is punished by the state because they can’t support same-sex marriage
(3) A Massachusetts parent who stands by helpless while the state teaches her son that gay marriage is okay

The facts indicate that (1) refers to the Benitez decision in California, determining that a doctor cannot violate California anti-discrimination law by refusing to treat a lesbian based on religious belief, (2) refers to the Ocean Grove, New Jersey Methodist pavilion that was open to the general public for events but refused access for civil union ceremonies (and was fined by the state for doing so) and (3) refers to the Parker decision in Massachusetts, where parents unsuccessfully sought to end public school discussions of family diversity, including of same-sex couples.

All three examples involve religious people who enter the public sphere, but don’t want to abide by the general non-discriminatory rules everyone else does. Both (1) and (2) are really about state laws against sexual orientation discrimination, rather than specifically about marriage. And (3) is about two pairs of religious parents trying to impose their beliefs on all children in public schools.

The real facts of each case are:

The California doctor entered a profession that promises to “first, do no harm” and the law requires her to treat a patient in need – gay or straight, Christian or Muslim – regardless of her religious beliefs. The law does not, and cannot, dictate her faith – it can only insist that she follow her oath as a medical professional.

The New Jersey church group runs, and profits from, a beachside pavilion that it rents out to the general public for all manner of occasions –concerts, debates and even Civil War reenactments— but balks at permitting couples to hold civil union ceremonies there. The law does not challenge the church organization’s beliefs about homosexuality – it merely requires that a pavilion that had been open to all for years comply with laws protecting everyone from discrimination, including gays and lesbians.

The Massachusetts parent disagrees with an aspect of her son’s public education, a discussion of the many different kinds of families he will likely encounter in life, including gay and lesbian couples. The law does not stop her from disagreeing, from teaching him consistently with her differing beliefs at home, or even educating her child in a setting that is more in line with her faith traditions. But it does not allow any one parent to dictate the curriculum for all students based on her family’s religious traditions.

Please share.  NOM needs to be silenced and called out for their lies.

Pretty good week for the gays

After the conservative voters of California chose to change their constitution to deny gays the right to proclaim their commitment of love with society, there was a collective defeated sigh among gays and their friends across the nation.  How could one of the the most liberal states in the Union have delivered such blatantly bigoted (I'm sorry, there's no other word for it) decision?  Many were scratching their heads.

In the months since we have to ask if this hate-inspired vote in California has done worked to promote gay equality.  Not only did it create an uproar within the gay community throughout the country, it also elicited reaction from rational-minded straight people who understand the implications that are involved in such an un-American action.

Let's take a look at some of the positive developments that occurred just this past week (there may be more):

Delaware - same-sex marriage ban fails to pass in state Senate

Delaware - anti-discrimination bill passes the state House

West Virginia - same-sex marriage ban fails to pass in state House

Iowa - Supreme Court strikes down gay marriage ban

Federal - hate crime bill reintroduced in Congress

Vermont - gay marriage passed in the state House (Governor threatening veto)

Would all of these forward movements for equality have happened without the tragedy in California?  Obviously we can never know.  However, sometimes it takes a fairly strong jolt to startle people out of their stagnant ways.

Keep fighting.

If everyone were as rational as this young man...

Well done, sir.

But you have to respect their views...NOT!

I'm constantly trying to understand people.  I'm infinitely curious as to why people act and think the way they do.  I could sit at the mall for hours and just watch passersby and try to figure out their stories.  I'm especially interested in understanding people who are different than me in some way - this topic has been using a lot of my daily energy as of late.

Most people are aware of my political leaning.  If you are not, it's to the left.  But because of my new obsession with trying to understand those who are different than me, I have been spending a lot of time reading conservative blogs and even the walls of conservative Facebook groups.  This has been an often frightening experience and can keep me up at night as I lay in bed with my laptop, my comforter shielding the heat from my legs.  My mind starts to spiral out of control, almost as if I'm in an alternate universe as I read some of the comments and ideas these people post for the world to see.

Gay marriage is obviously one of the topics that interests me most.  On a daily basis (that's not an exaggeration) I try to understand the thoughts of those who oppose giving this right to gay people.  I go through the basic arguments and try to see things from their point of view.  Each time I come up with the same result:  I don't get it.  

I've generally always thought that I should be the "bigger person" in such discussions.  I should stay calm and be respectful of the views of others.  I thought it necessary to go out of my way to show these people that their views, although different from mine, were theirs and I respected them.  I wanted to prove that gay people could have a rational conversation about the issue and perhaps this would help the opposing view to see that gay people are in fact perfectly normal.  I would say, "Well, I disagree, but I respect their views."

Today, I've changed my mind.  If I am to be completely honest I must say that I don't respect the views of people who oppose gay marriage.  An overwhelming number of people who hold this view think that homosexuality is "wrong" and "immoral."  By saying that I respect this point of view, it suggests that it's okay to make such a statement.  It is not okay.  These hateful, bigoted views must not be respected.  It is time that the discourse on gay marriage move away from the question of homosexuality's legitimacy.  

I'm tired.

I'm tired of accepting that certain people think who I am is "wrong."  I'm not going to do it anymore and I ask you to do the same.  

I'm tired of having to walk on egg shells around people who just might not "agree" with my "lifestyle"  that I have no control over, and I'm not going to do it anymore.  

I'm tired of putting on a gleeful face just to show that their hate doesn't affect me.  It does affect me and I'm not going to stand for it anymore.  They are wrong and I shouldn't have to deal with their hate anymore.

I'm tired of living in a country that speaks of the value of freedom for all people and yet these same people fight to deny me the same freedoms they hold so dear.  It's wrong and they need to know it.

We live in the United States of America.  The year is 2009.  There are still people who get away with preaching hateful, inaccurate views to the world.  These people need to be silenced.  Now.  

So, today I resolve to do what I can to not allow hate to be respected.  Please join me, won't you?  

Can you step outside of yourself?

I've taken some time away from writing after the conclusion of the heated election season (although the MN Senate race remains hot and heavy).  There were many great victories along with even greater defeats.  It goes without saying that the election of Barack Obama as President provides forward motion on so many levels for the United States.  I am truly filled with hope for what it to come.

However, on certain days that hope is stifled.  There are days in which I am reminded that while America had a great victory in electing its president, it had many losses when a variety of states chose to deny and take away rights from their gay citizens.

In reflecting on these defeats and considering what might be the best way to move forward, I can't help but think there is something missing from the debate.  It's almost impossible to know what is in fact the best way to move the cause of equal rights forward - but I always come back to one thought:  at the end of the day we are all humans.

When you think about the struggle for human rights that spans our history it essentially comes down to a simple formula: different = threat.  It looks like this.  Group A sees something different about Group B and automatically equates that difference as bad, as somehow a threat to Group A's way of life.  In order to maintain their comfort, Group A seeks to ensure that Group B doesn't enjoy the same basic rights as Group A.  This will give Group A the comfort of not having to learn about Group B and Group A can continue to believe the Group A's beliefs are truth - the last word.

I think the most important thing that is missing, and always has been missing, in the discourse on equality is the ability or willingness to step outside of one's self and truly attempt to understand what it's like for the other group.  As humans, we get so caught up fighting for our side, we have this notion that what we personally believe must be right and the other side must be wrong - no matter what.  We don't take time to time to consider what it must feel like to be on the receiving end of our words.

So as the conversation on gay rights continues, I  would hope that those that fight so hard to ensure that gay people don't have the same basic human rights as they, attempt to understand how it feels to be on the receiving end of the oppression.  This isn't an easy task, it takes a true commitment to understanding what it's like to be someone you know nothing about.  It is truly stepping outside of yourself and entering the heart and mind of another person.  But we are all humans and we all share emotions - so try to understand those emotions and see how you might react.

Consider:

• How might it feel to be told constantly that the relationship with the person you are in love with is not valid?
  
• When all you want to do is live your life with your family and contribute to society, but you are told that you can't because your relationship equates to incest - how might that feel?
• When you want nothing else but to enjoy the same rights of protection in committing yourself to the person you love, and you are told that your love is perverse - how might you feel?
• When people go on television and tell you that you are worse for America than terrorists - how might you feel?
• When people equate your love to that of pedophilia - how might you feel?
• When all you want to do is raise children in a loving, supportive family, and you are told that you can't because your love is morally wrong - how might you feel?
• When you are told that your love will lead to the destruction of society - how might you feel?

I know these questions have been asked before, but I have to wonder if people truly consider them.  Do they actually step outside of their own narrow world view and consider the perspective of others - consider the perspective and life experience of the people they are trying to oppress?  I don't think so.  If they did, they might realize the hate in their words and they might just realize the irrational basis for their argument.

Step outside of yourself once in awhile and whole-heartedly consider what it's like to be someone else.  You just might be surprised what you discover.

Not a policy issue, a human issue

No one is perfect.  It seems that when you might think someone is perfect, there always comes a time when you realize that in fact he or she is just like everyone else: not perfect.

This recent revelation has shown itself to me in President-Elect Obama.  It happened yesterday as he was addressing questions related to the selection of Pastor Rick Warren as the person to give the invocation at the inauguration.  

I should point out that it was not the sheer fact that Pastor Warren was chosen that elicited this revelation.  While I certainly was a little disappointed because I do not believe that a person who holds Pastor Warren's beliefs does anything to unite people, but rather divides more starkly than most.  I was disappointed because Pastor Warren was one of the biggest proponents of Proposition 8 in California and likens gay relationships to that of incest and polygamy - to men, this is not someone who should be celebrated by a campaign largely guided on the message of unity.  However, I didn't think his selection was the end of the world and in some regards I think I do understand what the President-Elect might be trying to do with this decision.

My disappointment came yesterday as President-Elect Obama said, in relation to gay rights, that, "we can disagree on policy issues." 

This is when I realized that he doesn't get it, just as so many people don't get it.  There is still this notion that there is something to disagree with in terms of what or who people are.  Imagine if Pastor Warren would have replaced the word "gay" in his hate-filled statements with "black."  Hard to believe?  Well, it wasn't that long ago that statements like that were made and if they were said today - they would not be accepted.

So, I come back to what I've been saying lately.  At the heart of this isn't a policy issue - it's a human issue.  The debate must move away from whether homosexuality is right or wrong.  This isn't something people choose, this isn't something people can change.  It shouldn't be open for debate as there is nothing we can do about it!  Once the conversation moves from this "right or wrong"/"agree or disagree" nonsense, perhaps some progress can be made.  Once people realize that gay individuals are humans who love, perhaps we can put aside the unproductive and hateful rhetoric that gets us nothing but division.

I want to clarify that I do think President-Elect Obama will do many good things on behalf of the GLBT people in America.  In the same press conference he said that he is a "fierce advocate" for equality.  I do believe this and I think that he understands he must choose his words carefully in these times of extreme division that are created by Rick Warren and the like.  Mr. Obama is such a rational person that it's hard to believe he doesn't support same-sex marriage; rational people understand that it is indeed the right thing to do and the world will not come to an end.  But he's clearly aware that he would not have been elected if he would have said that.

So, is President-Elect Obama perfect?  Of course not, and he would be the first to admit it.  Does he really understand what is at the heart of this issue and why it stings us gays so much to hear a debate on our rights?  It's hard to say, but his words, and the words of many others, appear to show that he and they do not.

I'm glad that the dialogue about this choice of Pastor Warren remains in the media days after its announcement.  While I may not be as outraged as others, I think it is important that everyone understand why people are so upset.  For me it is as simple as this:  People who hold and express divisive, hateful views should not be rewarded.

Not victims, Americans

I try to avoid posting articles/posts from other sites, but when I see something good I must share it.  The following is a post from The Bilerico Project contributor, Sara Whitman.  It is perhaps that best statement for same-sex marriage and equality that I have seen, ever.  I feel very strongly that we should not be playing the victim card.  People generally don't respond well to people who play the victim card (even if it is warranted).  If the goal is truly equality and inclusion, then that's the language we should be using to plead our case.  This is what Ms. Whitman does:

I Am An American

Sara Whitman

12/9/08

I have spent much of my life as a victim. As a lesbian, as a woman, I have been a victim of hate, of violence, of job discrimination.

I'm done. I don't want to be the other. I don't want to be on one side while the rest of the world, divided by what often feels like an arbitrary line, sits on the other.

I am an American. I am responsible for three kids, my wife- my family. I love them and it is my job to take good care of them- the best care of them I possibly can. I pay taxes and a mortgage. In order to do that, I need to be an excellent employee, work hard, put in my best effort.

I am motivated by being a good role model for my children. I need to support them emotionally, and provide the best education possible. My marriage, more than just our community wrapped around our relationship, keeps us intact. It provides laws to do so, too.

Marriage is good for society. It keeps families whole and provides safety nets- especially for children. It has for a long time. It will continue to for a long time.


I'm not looking for any special treatment- except on my birthday, when I love my kids waking me up at the crack of dawn to provide me a "leisurely" breakfast in bed. I don't except to pay less for gas, or to have a special line to get past airport security faster than anyone else.

Most of all, I don't want pity. I am stronger than most people. I can haul wood or groceries or laundry endless distances. I can stay up all night and rub a sick child's back until they can fall back asleep again. I can cook dinner for my family every night or for 50 people on Superbowl Sunday.

I can hold unbearable past experiences and still breathe in the joy of my life today.

I am a good friend. I care deeply about my neighbors, my community, my country. I donate my time, my money to help better the world.

I am not on the other side. I am not a tiny piece of a small fragment in this country.

Don't ever feel sorry for me.

Let me have the full responsibility of being an American. Because we deserve an American workforce free of discrimination, we deserve the strongest military in the world and every child in this country deserves a family.

I am an asset to this society. Let us all erase the lines of Us and Them. Think of what we can do if we do it together.

I want excellence. Don't we all?

Brothers assumed gay, attacked

The Associated Press reports that two brothers were beaten with an aluminum baseball bat in New York by four attackers.  The two were walking arm in arm Sunday morning down a Brooklyn street.  Police say one of the brothers (31-years-old) died Monday in a NYC hospital.

The assailants used anti-gay slurs and anti-Hispanic insults, city officials said at a news conference.  “We believe all of this happened simply because of who these individuals are and who these perpetrators perceived them to be,” said City Council Speaker Christine Quinn. “For some reason (they) didn’t like the two men they believed were gay … and felt so emboldened in their hatred that they acted it out in violence.”

According to Police, the attack occurred around 3:30 a.m. Sunday as the brothers were walking. One attacker jumped out of an SUV, used the anti-gay slur and smashed one of the brothers over the head with a bottle.  The other brother ran away and three more attackers joined the assault. One hit the victim in the head with the bat while the others kicked him.  At some point, the other brother returned holding a cell phone and told the men he had called police. They then drove off together.

The office of Brooklyn prosecutor Charles Hynes and the New York Police Department’s Hate Crime Task Force are investigating.  Hynes “is shocked and appalled at this senseless, bigoted, brutal act,” said Assistant District Attorney Charles Guria. “We need people out there who have any piece of information to please come forward.”

How many more times does this have to happen before people realize they need to stop teaching hate?  These two innocent people were just assumed to be gay and they were attacked and one of them died.  There is no excuse for this, obviously.  I have to think that if the lies and misconceptions about gay people were not taught, this might not have happened.

Kern delivers hate and lies

"We have to get rid of that and start curing those sinners. It's past time that this nation stopped placating sin and start putting them in education programs. Courts can force drug offenders into treatment centers and violent people into anger management. There's no reason our courts can't do that with homos."

These are the words of Pastor Steve Kern.  These are the kinds of words that perpetuate misunderstanding, lies, and hate.  These are the kinds of words that need to stop.  These words need to be called out for what they are: hateful, ridiculous, unfounded rhetoric.

Lesson of hope from "Milk"

Just over a week ago I saw the new movie starring Sean Penn, "Milk."  For those who may not be familiar, it is the story of the first openly gay elected public official, Harvey Milk.

In the movie we experience Milk's attempts at running for office, until finally winning in 1977.  The film goes on to show the struggle that was California Proposition 6 in 1978, better known as The Briggs Initiative.

Prop 6 was an attempt, introduced by conservative state legislator John Briggs, to ban homosexuals and anyone who supported them from teaching or working in California's public schools.  The Briggs Initiative failed in California, but Oklahoma and Arkansas actually passed such measures prior to 1978.

The film roused within me myriad emotions.  Sadness, anger, confusion, excitement, empathy, and perhaps most the most prominent, hope.

California's Proposition 6 in 1978 was an awful thing, no discussion should be needed on that point.  As a former teacher, the thought of not being able to practice such an honorable profession because I'm gay is deeply distressing.  This is a profession that is starving for thoughtful, compassionate people to join its ranks, and to think that there were once individuals who believed gay people (or anyone who supported them) shouldn't be allowed to do so is frankly disgusting.

Enter: hope.  You see, I felt hope because I think you would be hard pressed to find people today who would even consider proposing such an initiative.  Well, perhaps with the exception of Michele Bachmann.  But the important thing to take from this is that progress has been achieved.  The view of homosexuality in the United States has come a long way since the days of Anita Bryant and John Briggs.  I'm certainly not suggesting that the journey to equality is complete or even close for that matter.  However, the finish line doesn't seem quite as far off as it once did.

So, in the words of Harvey Milk, "I'm here to recruit you."  Let us join together as one people, Americans, and finish this journey to ensure equality for all.  Many thought we would never be where we are today, let's show them that we can reach the finish line.

NC more progressive than I thought

The Associated Press reports that the city of Carrboro, North Carolina, has passed a resolution supporting gay marriage, sending it off to the state and federal government.

The bill was introduced by Alderwoman Jacqui Gist after California voters passed Proposition 8, amending the constitution to ban same-sex marriage. The resolution was supported and signed by Mayor Mark Chilton, and reads:

"Whereas, the denial of such benefits has been demonstrated to have significant psychological and social impact on the physical, social, and economic well-being of gay and lesbian couples and their families; and whereas the U.S. Supreme Court recognizes marriage as one of the ‘basic civil rights of man’ fundamental to our very existence and survival” and “one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men … [be it resolved] that civil marriage for same-sex couples must include all the benefits commonly bestowed upon opposite-sex couples, including, among other rights, healthcare coverage and related decision-making, privileges under immigration and naturalization law, survivor benefits, inheritance rights, and child custody.”

According to the AP, Carrboro is one of the most liberal cities in the south and is growing as many northern businesses move south.

Nice work, Carrboro.  You set a fine example.

Prop 8 - The Musical

It's too good to not post. Mark Shaiman, the composer for Hairspray, wrote this song about Prop 8. It's got everything: humor, truth, and stars! Enjoy!

See more Jack Black videos at Funny or Die

Hope

I know this has been posted everywhere, but I couldn't help myself. It's so inspiring. Hope is alive, perhaps now more than ever - and the time to stand up for the us's is now.

Senator Marty says, "It's time..."

Minnesota state Senator John Marty introduced legislation to legalize same-sex marriage. His letter (below) describes his plan to move the legislation into committee. It's a great letter with pragmatic, rational ideas. Get ready to show your support!

It's Time to Move forward with Gay Marriage Legislation
by Senator John Marty
December 2, 2008

Last session, along with several of my colleagues, I introduced legislation to legalize same-sex marriages in Minnesota. Now we are asking for a hearing on the legislation in the Senate Judiciary Committee during the 2009 legislative session.

Minnesota's law prohibits any gay or lesbian from marrying the person they love. Our legislation would repeal that prohibition and extend equal marriage rights to all people regardless of sexual orientation.

This effort is made with no illusion about the difficulty of passing the legislation. In the November election, several states passed voter initiatives banning same-sex marriages. California's initiative actually took away the existing right for gay couples to marry.

But Minnesotans have a strong sense of fairness. Minnesotans are open to change when presented with new information.

Opponents have great fear and misunderstanding about gay marriage. A legislative committee hearing could begin to address those misconceptions. I am not asking for a hearing where we have hours of testimony from multiple speakers on each side, then a brief committee debate and vote.

Instead, let's have a gay couple briefly tell their story. Have them talk about their love, the challenges they face as parents, the problems they encounter because they are not allowed to marry. Opponents would have equal time to voice their concerns.

Then, instead of a debate, the Judiciary Committee could break past the heated rhetoric on the issue with a candid discussion, conducted in a civil tone. Discussions help to inform and educate people. With all of the divisiveness over gay marriage, a civil discussion might bring people closer together.

If opponents say they worry that allowing same-sex couples to marry will hurt their own marriages, I'd like to ask them to tell us how. I'd really like to know whether they feel my marriage – Connie and I just celebrated our 28th anniversary – would hurt their marriage too. And if it does not, why a gay couple's marriage would have any more impact on them than my marriage has had.

If opponents say they believe gay marriage is sinful or morally wrong, I'd like to tell them why I, as a Christian, believe we should not just allow, but actually encourage gay couples to marry. It is because of my faith, not in spite of it, that I think we should promote marriage and work to strengthen families of gay couples as well as heterosexual couples.

The Judiciary Committee could talk about the coexistence of different religious beliefs in a democratic society. We could discuss how our nation has a proud history of protecting the right of religious liberty and freedom of conscience; how every individual is entitled to his or her beliefs and has the freedom to join a church that shares those views.

I would like to ask my colleagues who oppose this legislation why they consider it acceptable for Minnesota's government to endorse their religious beliefs about gay marriage and enforce them over the religious beliefs that thousands of other Minnesotans have. Every member of the Senate took an oath of office to support the Constitution of the United States, and each of us understands that government should treat all people in a fair, non-discriminatory manner.

Opponents worry that their churches would be required to perform gay marriages. But we can reassure them that the freedom of religion that would allow gay marriages, is the same freedom of religion that allows them to perform marriages only for couples they choose to marry. We could point to the U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down laws prohibiting interracial marriage which was strongly opposed by many Christians at the time, and remind them that the churches objecting to those marriages have never been forced to solemnize them.

A Senate hearing that confronts these issues with a civil discussion will not end all opposition to gay marriage, but it will help break down the misunderstandings that exist.

This may be the only legislative attempt to allow gay marriage in the Midwest, but it is time for Minnesota to look forward. California's Prop 8 and other bans on gay marriage have been painful setbacks for people who want to marry the partner they love; couples who want nothing more than the same rights and responsibilities other married couples have. It's time to show them that the people of Minnesota care about their families too.

Some may say that this legislation is premature. But how long is discrimination against gay couples acceptable? I'm confident that most Minnesotans, even those uncomfortable talking about homosexuality, will recognize the fundamental fairness of allowing every adult to choose his or her own marriage partner.

Disagree?

Far too often I hear people utter the phrase, "I disagree with homosexuality."  My mind immediately enters a state of both confusion and concern.  There is no way around it - people who use that phrase are ill-informed and need to be corrected upon saying those four words.  

Please allow me to explain myself.  When people say they "disagree with homosexuality" it infers that there is some sort of choice involved on the part of gay people.  That somehow there is a choice we all, as humans, make about our sexuality.  One day we all wake up and decide if we are going to be straight or gay.  I certainly do not need to go into the ridiculousness that is that line of thinking.  Homosexuality is not a choice, it is not a mental disorder.  This is supported by the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Psychological Association.

So if in fact homosexuality is not a choice, and we know it is not, then what is there to disagree with?  It seems that the statement of disagreeing with homosexuality is as blatantly ridiculous as saying you don't agree with someone being black or having blue eyes.  It's just the way people are, there is nothing they can do about it (contrary to the beliefs of certain religious groups).  Disagreeing with the way in which a person is born?  Doesn't make much sense to me.

The notion that homosexuality is a choice and that it is even possible for people to "disagree" with it needs to stop being taught.  

Perhaps we should say we disagree with heterosexuality.  Doesn't make much sense does it?

There Will Come A Day

Perhaps now more than ever the rights of gay Americans are a major part of the nation's debate.  The passing of Proposition 8 in California has sparked a fire within Americans on both sides of the vote.  Florida and Arizona also passed bans against gay marriage and Arkansas banned unmarried couples from adopting or fostering children.  

My initial response to these votes was anger.  Anger at the lack of compassion, understanding, and love for fellow human beings.  Perhaps it stings a little more knowing that there are people in my life that would have voted in support of these bans and feeling an overwhelming sense of an entire group of American citizens being so misunderstood and so hated for reasons that are inaccurate, ridiculous, and hateful.  As the days passed after the election,  I began to hear all of the unfounded ways the proponents of these bans convinced voters to vote yes.  The purpose of this article is not to go into those absurd lies, but rather to discuss how my anger has turned to hope.

When I consider politics, I don't think there is necessarily a right or a wrong viewpoint.  We all would like to think that the side we align with is the right side, but the truth is that these are just varying philosophies that generally have the same goal - to form a more perfect Union.  When it comes to politics, I don't think that one side or the other is inherently right, perhaps one philosophy might work better than another at certain times throughout history.  Maybe one makes some really bad decisions on one issue, but redeems itself on another.  There isn't always clear cut answers to our countries problems, but there are certainly a variety of approaches to the problems.

However, when one considers the issue of gay marriage, there is a right and a wrong.  There is not a spec of doubt in my mind or my soul - allowing gay Americans the right to marry is right.  It is correct on every level of that which is the foundation of this country, the Constitution.  Many would argue that this is a moral issue and I wholeheartedly agree.  Denying rights to gay people - fellow human beings, is immoral.  Denying this is wrong.

I've been able to sleep at night because I know I am on the right side of this issue and I know there will come a day when most agree.  This is how I know.

In 1664, the state of Maryland passed a law against interracial marriage.  The rest of the states followed suit and by the time of the Civil War, miscegenation laws were on the books throughout the country.  It wasn't until the 1830's that a group in Massachusetts challenged the law claiming that it stood in the face of the fundamental principle of civil equality.  Abolitionists fought until 1843 when then legislature finally overturned the law.

The rest of the country did not follow.  In fact, towards the end of the Civil War, white southerners worked to pass stronger miscegenation laws.  The federal government fought back during the Reconstruction giving us the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, guaranteeing "equal protection."  As a result, eight of the eleven formerly Confederate states overturned their laws banning interracial marriage.

In the late 1870's, as Reconstruction collapsed, lawmakers and citizens began to reinstate and strengthen miscegenation laws.  They used four main arguments to plead their case: 

1) Marriage belonged under the control of the states rather than the federal government; 

2) they began to define and label all interracial relationships as illicit sex; 

3) they insisted that interracial marriage was contrary to God's will; 

4) they were adamant that interracial marriage was "unnatural."

Between 1880 and 1950, miscegenation laws strengthened and became the norm of society.  However, in 1948, the Supreme Court of California made a move in the right direction, declaring California's miscegenation law unconstitutional.  Justice Roger Traynor spoke on the decision, "A member of any of these races may find himself barred by law from marrying the person of his choice and that person to him may be irreplaceable."  He continued, "Human beings are bereft of worth and dignity by a doctrine that would make them as interchangeable as trains...the right to marry is the right of individuals, not of racial groups."

In 1967, the United States Supreme Court agreed and the case of Loving v. Virginia spelled the end of America's history of miscegenation laws.  Although some states didn't give up so easily.  Alabama didn't remove its miscegenation law until 2000.

To most Americans, the idea of banning interracial marriage is now a ridiculous one, but not many years ago - it was the norm.  The reasons used to support this ban are many of the same reasons used to support the ban on gay marriage.  How are those people viewed today that held these views on interracial marriage?  My hope and firm belief is that there will come a day when the same happens with same-sex marriage.

There will come a day when Americans join in embracing all human beings.  There will come a day when this great country realizes that there is nothing to be afraid of in allowing equal rights to all its citizens.  There will come a day when all will realize that people are who they are and they should be accepted as they are.  There will come a day when those who preach and cause division and exclusion will see the error of their ways.  There will come a day when the proponents of denying rights to gay people today will be viewed just as the people who denied rights to interracial couples of the past.

There will come a day when those who are on the right side of this issue will prevail.

Thank you, Mr. Olbermann

Monday evening MSNBC's Keith Olbermann had a Special Comment on Prop 8. For those of you who may not know, Prop 8 was the amendment that passed in California banning gay marriage.

I was moved and inspired by Mr. Olbermann's comments. He spoke sincerely and eloquently about a subject that affects me in a deeply personal way and I must say that I was humbled at his ability to truly understand this issue. Please read and share his comments:


Finally tonight as promised, a Special Comment on the passage, last week, of Proposition Eight in California, which rescinded the right of same-sex couples to marry, and tilted the balance on this issue, from coast to coast.

Some parameters, as preface. This isn't about yelling, and this isn't about politics, and this isn't really just about Prop-8. And I don't have a personal investment in this: I'm not gay, I had to strain to think of one member of even my very extended family who is, I have no personal stories of close friends or colleagues fighting the prejudice that still pervades their lives.

And yet to me this vote is horrible. Horrible. Because this isn't about yelling, and this isn't about politics.

This is about the... human heart, and if that sounds corny, so be it.

If you voted for this Proposition or support those who did or the sentiment they expressed, I have some questions, because, truly, I do not... understand. Why does this matter to you? What is it to you? In a time of impermanence and fly-by-night relationships, these people over here want the same chance at permanence and happiness that is your option. They don't want to deny you yours. They don't want to take anything away from you. They want what you want -- a chance to be a little less alone in the world.

Only now you are saying to them -- no. You can't have it on these terms. Maybe something similar. If they behave. If they don't cause too much trouble. You'll even give them all the same legal rights -- even as you're taking away the legal right, which they already had. A world around them, still anchored in love and marriage, and you are saying, no, you can't marry. What if somebody passed a law that said you couldn't marry?

I keep hearing this term "re-defining" marriage.

If this country hadn't re-defined marriage, black people still couldn't marry white people. Sixteen states had laws on the books which made that illegal... in 1967. 1967.

The parents of the President-Elect of the United States couldn't have married in nearly one third of the states of the country their son grew up to lead. But it's worse than that. If this country had not "re-defined" marriage, some black people still couldn't marry...black people. It is one of the most overlooked and cruelest parts of our sad story of slavery. Marriages were not legally recognized, if the people were slaves. Since slaves were property, they could not legally be husband and wife, or mother and child. Their marriage vows were different: not "Until Death, Do You Part," but "Until Death or Distance, Do You Part." Marriages among slaves were not legally recognized.

You know, just like marriages today in California are not legally recognized, if the people are... gay.

And uncountable in our history are the number of men and women, forced by society into marrying the opposite sex, in sham marriages, or marriages of convenience, or just marriages of not knowing -- centuries of men and women who have lived their lives in shame and unhappiness, and who have, through a lie to themselves or others, broken countless other lives, of spouses and children... All because we said a man couldn't marry another man, or a woman couldn't marry another woman. The sanctity of marriage. How many marriages like that have there been and how on earth do they increase the "sanctity" of marriage rather than render the term, meaningless?

What is this, to you? Nobody is asking you to embrace their expression of love. But don't you, as human beings, have to embrace... that love? The world is barren enough.

It is stacked against love, and against hope, and against those very few and precious emotions that enable us to go forward. Your marriage only stands a 50-50 chance of lasting, no matter how much you feel and how hard you work.

And here are people overjoyed at the prospect of just that chance, and that work, just for the hope of having that feeling. With so much hate in the world, with so much meaningless division, and people pitted against people for no good reason, this is what your religion tells you to do? With your experience of life and this world and all its sadnesses, this is what your conscience tells you to do?

With your knowledge that life, with endless vigor, seems to tilt the playing field on which we all live, in favor of unhappiness and hate... this is what your heart tells you to do? You want to sanctify marriage? You want to honor your God and the universal love you believe he represents? Then Spread happiness -- this tiny, symbolic, semantical grain of happiness -- share it with all those who seek it. Quote me anything from your religious leader or book of choice telling you to stand against this. And then tell me how you can believe both that statement and another statement, another one which reads only "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

---

You are asked now, by your country, and perhaps by your creator, to stand on one side or another. You are asked now to stand, not on a question of politics, not on a question of religion, not on a question of gay or straight. You are asked now to stand, on a question of...love. All you need do is stand, and let the tiny ember of love meet its own fate. You don't have to help it, you don't have it applaud it, you don't have to fight for it. Just don't put it out. Just don't extinguish it. Because while it may at first look like that love is between two people you don't know and you don't understand and maybe you don't even want to know...It is, in fact, the ember of your love, for your fellow **person...

Just because this is the only world we have. And the other guy counts, too.

This is the second time in ten days I find myself concluding by turning to, of all things, the closing plea for mercy by Clarence Darrow in a murder trial.

But what he said, fits what is really at the heart of this:

"I was reading last night of the aspiration of the old Persian poet, Omar-Khayyam," he told the judge.

"It appealed to me as the highest that I can vision. I wish it was in my heart, and I wish it was in the hearts of all:

"So I be written in the Book of Love;

"I do not care about that Book above.

"Erase my name, or write it as you will,

"So I be written in the Book of Love."

Stuck

I love this country. That's right, Michele Bachmann, I'm a democrat and I love this country. This country affords anyone who is willing to face circumstantial barriers, an opportunity to live up to their God-given potential. In this country we are allowed to freely voice our opinion, even at the expense of others (which is often the case). Because this country allows me the right to speak freely, I'm going to do so.

I'm stuck today. I can usually let the ridiculous things people say roll off my back and I go about my day getting done what I need to. My thoughts are generally not consumed with the words of those who choose to speak so ill of gay people. I hear things from time to time, pause to convince myself that the majority of the people in the world may not agree with such hateful comments, and then get on with my day.

I'm unable to do that today. I'm not really sure why, but I'm just not able to accept it today. I sit back and stay pretty quiet on this topic as I don't want to create waves and offend others. I try to stay cool and allow people to have their views and not let those views affect me. I'm tired of accepting it. I'm tired of not letting my voice be heard. I'm tired of walking on eggshells around people who don't think about how their hateful words affect others and that maybe, just maybe they are really doing much more harm than anyone.

There are so many questions I have, specifically for people who are so adamantly opposed to allowing equal rights to same-sex couples. I would like to speak directly to those people for a moment: Why do you care? What is it you are so afraid of? How is your life affected by two strangers living their life peacefully together? How does the marriage of two people threaten your marriage? Why do you think you have the right to generalize the ideologies of your religious beliefs to the entire country?

The fact that a lot of the arguments are based on Biblical context is fairly disturbing to me. Since this country is based on the separation of church and state, how are Biblical texts relevant in making an argument for legislation? The simple fact that everyone in the United States doesn't believe in the Bible and doesn't have to believe in the Bible, makes it an irrelevant document in terms of legislating. It can certainly inform the values of its believers, many who happen to be lawmakers, but it cannot be used specifically as an argument.

I think I'm stuck today because of Michele Bachmann, U.S. Congresswoman from Minnesota. In an interview on Hardball with Chris Matthews last Friday, she suggested that Barack Obama has "anti-American values" and that the media should investigate how many democrats in congress are actually anti-American. In what way are these comments helpful in forming a more perfect union? How does further dividing the country with these divisive comments make this a better place to live? It is irresponsible and dangerous.

Her comment was denounced by Colin Powell as "nonsense" in an October 19, 2008 interview. Powell said, “This business of... a congresswoman from Minnesota who’s going around saying, ‘Let’s examine all congressmen to see who’s pro-America and who’s not pro-America. We have got to stop this kind of nonsense and pull ourselves together and remember that our great strength is in our unity and our diversity." Thank you, Mr. Powell.

In support of a constitutional amendment she proposed to ban same-sex marriage, Bachmann said that the gay community was specifically "targeting children." Bachmann believes that people who are homosexual, lesbian, bisexual or transgender suffer from "sexual dysfunction" and "sexual identity disorders." I assume these latter comments are inspired by her husband who operates a Christian counseling center.

This kind of language is hurtful. It cuts right to the center of who I am. I'm gay and there is nothing I can do about it. I have accepted that fact and frankly, it's just not a big deal. I live my life day-to-day trying to make the world a little better place to live. As much as I try to wrap my mind around it (and trust me, I try very hard to understand the opposite view) - I just can't seem to understand why people like Michele Bachmann wake up each day and work hard to ensure that I cannot enjoy the same things in life that she can. I don't understand why she thinks it's ok to pass such extreme judgment on people that she does not know or understand.

I'm stuck at the moment, but I won't be for much longer. I will be able to go about my daily business and try to make the world a better place for all. But people like Congresswoman Bachmann will be stuck in a world in which they feel the need to pass judgment and hatred and in doing so make the world a much less desirable place for a lot of people. When we are all looking back on our lives, who will feel better about what they have contributed to the world?

I suppose that's not for us to decide.

Photo from minnesotamonitor.com