A Kiss to Canada

A happy Canadian couple married in Banff

December 7, 2006, is a day I will never forget. That's when Canada's parliament gave a ringing defeat to Prime Minister Harper's attempt to overturn equal marriage in that country, by a vote of 175 to 123.

This was the third vote supporting same-sex marriage taken by three Parliaments under three Prime Ministers in three different years. The Supreme Court of Canada had also ruled that not only was gay marriage allowed under their Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it flowed from it as an integral, essential part of the law of the land.

What a thought.

I pulled up the CTV and CBC broadcasts of the vote in the House of Commons, and I wept as member after member answered the roll call, their names reflecting the ethnicities of Canada, drawn from the four corners of the globe. And I watched as one after another stood up to preserve equal marriage in that nation, the equal respect and dignity of all gay people. It was a breathtaking moment.

Thanks, Canada.

Because I foresaw that if equal marriage prevailed in Canada, it would one day spread to this nation too, and all around the world. I hope I live to see that day. I wish my late husband and I could have seen it, and married as we wanted to.

Canadians can marry. Why can't we?

Member of Parliament Olivia Chow defending equal marriage in the House of Commons before the final vote:

CBC News story and video on the defeat of the motion here.

Sunday Drive: I Am What I Am

Martin Luther, 1522 - from Wikipedia

Honk to Doorman-Priest for turning up this essay by Giles Fraser in the UK paper The Guardian from 2004:

"I did not love God and was indignant towards him, if not in wicked revolt, at least in silent blasphemy." Martin Luther's admission that he had come to hate God sparked a theological revolution that transformed the political geography of Europe.

For Luther, service to a God who demanded human beings earn his love had become service to a heartless despot, impossible to please. The confessional had become a private hell of never being good enough, of never earning enough merit to satisfy the unattainable demands required for salvation.

Luther's deep sense of human inadequacy meant that a God who dealt with human beings strictly on the basis of merit was always going to be a God of punishment. He thus came to see his former understanding of Christianity as inherently abusive, as a destructive cycle in which the abused child constantly returns to the abusive heavenly father for comfort.

Parallels with arguments that are now transforming the political geography of Anglicanism are remarkable. For the debate about homosexuality is about a great deal more than sex. It is about the nature of God's love for human beings, and has much in common with debates that drove the Reformation.

The message the church has given to gay Christians is the message Luther came to see as inherently abusive: God does not love you as you are - you need to be completely different before he will love you.

Take the Bishop of Chester, Dr Peter Forster's advice that gay Christians should seek to "reorientate themselves". "I would not set myself up as a medical specialist on the subject, that's in the area of psychiatric health," he said. But gay Christians who have tried to become acceptable to God by subjecting themselves to electric shock therapy, or by being bombarded with pornography, have been forced into precisely the sort of private hell Luther experienced in the confessional.

Luther's theological breakthrough was to describe a wholly non-abusive God, who loves his children gratuitously - not on the basis of merit. God's love is experienced as grace, freely given, not as a demand that, in order to be loved, human beings must become something impossibly different to what they already are. It was a conception that released Christians from bondage to a theological construction that made their lives seem as desperate as a hamster on a wheel.

Against those who would conscript this desperation into financial gain through the system of indulgences, Luther spoke of Christian freedom and the Babylonian captivity of the church; against those who would make sexuality part of a package of guilt and self-disgust, he would renounce his monasticism by marrying a nun. Ecclesiastical authorities can no more insist on celibacy than "forbid eating, drinking, the natural movement of the bowels or growing fat," he declared.

Following Luther, generations of evangelicals described the joy of being released from the burden of impossible expectations. Remember Charles Wesley's hymn: "I woke, the dungeon flamed with light/My chains fell off, my heart was free/I rose, went forth, and followed thee." The next verse begins: "No condemnation now I dread."

Being saved is evangelical language for describing the new life beyond the censure of an abusive God - the sense of facing the truth, of admitting it to others, of being accepted as one is, of being released from the burden of impossible condemnation. Being saved is an experience emotionally identical to coming out of the closet.

This is not political correctness. It is about the nature of God. For the one thing all Christians believe about God is that he seeks to call us out of darkness into light, out of pain into joy, out of deceit into truth, out of oppression into freedom. Amazingly, Gloria Gaynor's gay anthem - "I am what I am, and what I am needs no excuses" - turns out to be the contemporary voice of Luther's own protest: "Here I am, I can do no other."

America Loves the Gays

Two men marry in Connecticut on November 12th (Newsweek)

. . . at least more than they used to. Newsweek has just polled 1,006 Americans and got these encouraging results:

the latest NEWSWEEK Poll finds growing public support for gay marriage and civil unions—and strong backing for the granting of certain rights associated with marriage, to same-sex couples. (Click here to see the full poll.)

Americans continue to find civil unions for gays and lesbians more palatable than full-fledged marriage. Fifty-five percent of respondents favored legally sanctioned unions or partnerships, while only 39 percent supported marriage rights. Both figures are notably higher than in 2004, when 40 percent backed the former and 33 percent approved of the latter.

When it comes to according legal rights in specific areas to gays, the public is even more supportive. Seventy-four percent back inheritance rights for gay domestic partners (compared to 60 percent in 2004), 73 percent approve of extending health insurance and other employee benefits to them (compared to 60 percent in 2004), 67 percent favor granting them Social Security benefits (compared to 55 percent in 2004) and 86 percent support hospital visitation rights (a question that wasn't asked four years ago).

In other areas, too, respondents appeared increasingly tolerant. Fifty-three percent favor gay adoption rights (8 points more than in 2004), and 66 percent believe gays should be able to serve openly in the military (6 points more than in 2004).

Despite the recently approved state measures, public opinion nationally has shifted against a federal ban on same-sex marriage. In 2004, people were evenly divided on the question, with 47 percent favoring a constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage and 45 percent opposing one.

In the latest poll, however, 52 percent oppose a ban and only 43 percent favor one. When respondents were asked about state measures, the numbers were closer: 45 percent said they'd vote in favor of an amendment outlawing gay marriage in their states, while 49 percent said they'd oppose such a measure. . . .

One reason that tolerance for gay marriage and civil unions may be on the rise is that a growing number of Americans say they know someone who's gay. While in 1994, a NEWSWEEK Poll found that only 53 percent of those questioned knew a gay or lesbian person, that figure today is 78 percent.

Drilling down a bit more, 38 percent of adults work with someone gay, 33 percent have a gay family member and 66 percent have a gay friend or acquaintance.

Scared of the Sissy Mob!

(click to enlarge)

You know, all my young life I was put down with all the usual names - sissy, faggot, queer, homo, etc. And of course everybody knows people like us are too weak, too girly, too useless to accomplish anything worthwhile.

Oh but now that us queer folks have stood up and roared back, the religionists and the homophobes are quaking in their boots at the prospect of - too funny - mob rule! Apparently, in their minds standing up for your rights in the best American tradition, like free men and women, is tantamount to anarchy. Like a plantation owner, they're telling us, Now you just be good little ****ers and get back to work, and don't you dare complain about the world we've set up and run for you. Right.

So they ran this full-age ad in the NYT this week, making it sound like raving bands of homos are assaulting the Bastille and driving tumbrils through the streets. Too funny. But to run something like this, they must secretly realize that their days are numbered as lords and masters of our fate. They must be pretty damn scared. That's rich.

Now I do agree with them on one point, when they say "violence and intimidation are always wrong, whether against believers, gay people, or anyone else." Agreed.

But as Joe.My.God. says,

They are asking for support to do EXACTLY what WE have been doing: exposing and publicly shaming anyone who resorts to anti-gay bigotry. So it's HATE when we do it, but OK when they do. How fucking typical.

You'll note that they decry the "violence" of the anti-Prop 8 protests, but remain as silent as always about the uncountable brutal attacks against LGBT people which are committed EVERY DAY of EVERY YEAR by people trained by THEM to hate gay people from the moment they know what the word means.

Joe is exactly right (him and me and Signorile have got to be related somehow, the telepathy here is amazing). They train people to hate us. They encourage it. They brew it and they spew it. And they keep that hatred enshrined in the law of the land.

All. That. Must. Stop.

The HRC - which I think is getting a bad rap lately, not entirely deserved - made a great reply yesterday to the ad:

Today, members of the Human Rights Campaign's Religion Council responded forcefully to a full-page ad in the New York Times that implies there is an organized attempt to foment mob intimidation and violence toward the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints due to its actions dehumanizing lesbian and gay people in the recent election campaign, particularly in California around passage of Proposition 8, which stripped gay families of the right to a civil marriage. The ad was sponsored by NoMobVeto.org, a project of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.

When did the LDS Church become the victim? It’s hard to believe, but that is exactly what it is trying to convince the public of. It is continuing to spend an excess of dollars in an attempt to mislead the public and transform its image. But the truth is that this is the same church that conducted a national broadcast to every temple, calling on members to organize and write checks to the Prop 8 campaign. The same church that donated more than half of the $40 million behind Prop 8, even though California Mormons represent just 2 percent of the state's population. Yes, it’s the
same church.

Don’t allow them to replace the truth with their own version of the truth. Use our Religion Council’s message today to take action and demand the truth:

Click here to write a letter to the New York Times
Click here to send an email to the Becket Fund, the organization that paid for the misleading New York Times ad
Click here to share your personal story with NoMobVeto.org and let them know how the passage of Prop 8 affected your life

Members of the HRC Religion Council posted their own reactions:

"Several signatories to the ad are generals in the culture wars," said Rev. Susan Russell of All Saints Church (Epsicopal), Pasadena, Calif. "They lied about gay people in the campaign, and now they are lying again when they say we are in favor of mob intimidation and violence. I personally talked legitimately angry demonstrators in California out of such action and every credible LGBT organization called for peaceful resistance to the Prop 8 travesty. Many of the leaders cited in this ad preach hate against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, then look the other way when LGBT people are the victims of hate crimes. This ad is an act of individual and corporate hypocrisy."

Bishop John Selders of Amistad United Church of Christ in Hartford, Conn. commented, "As an African-American, I've heard this before. A few frustrated members of a minority group respond in anger to a new indignity and the oppressor calls them anarchists. Satan, sometimes called the Father of Lies, is at work when powerful people seek to dehumanize those who are less powerful."

Rev. Dr. Miguel de la Torre of Iliff School of Theology in Denver agreed, “I am always struck that those in power, those who manipulate the truth to maintain oppressive structures, present themselves to the public as the ones being persecuted. Make no mistake, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty is a powerful organization with an agenda of imposing a narrow religious view upon the rest of America. As we Hispanics say, ‘que vergüenza’ (what a shameful act).”

Calls for tolerance of certain religious viewpoints rings hollow in a world where religion often stands by tolerating violence perpetrated on God’s lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender children," was Rev. Dr. Erin Swenson's reply. Dr. Swenson is a Presbyterian minister and psychotherapist in Atlanta.

Rev. Dr. Ken Stone of Chicago Theological Seminary said, "While I agree that violence and anti-religious bigotry need to be combated, we must also demand an end to the violence undertaken by those religious institutions that not only encourage but also fund bigotry against lesbians and gay men. Where will the Becket Fund be when we call for endorsements of hate crimes and employment protection legislation for LGBT people?"

Here's what Rev. Dr. Mary A. Tolbert of the Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies at the Pacific School of Religion had to say: "The 'No Mob Veto' ad would be more convincing as a statement of concern for civil debate over the well-organized and well-funded participation of the LDS church in the passage of Prop 8 had it not itself ended with a clear threat of intimidation toward anyone criticizing that church's role in the election. As the Christian gospels demonstrate in Jesus' action of overturning the tables of money-lenders in the temple, sometimes speaking the truth to entrenched and wealthy religious leaders requires a dramatic stroke. To protest the enormous financial involvement of a religious body in stripping equal rights from California LGBT people, their families, and their children is in no way anti-religious bigotry; it is instead, like the example of Jesus in the temple, an attempt to speak the truth to those rooted in power and wealth whose actions serve to deprive other human beings of the equal respect and dignity all of God's children deserve."

Rev. Rebecca Voelkel of the Institute for Welcoming Resources of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force summed up: "As a Christian, I was taught not to 'bear false witness.' One of the deepest tragedies of the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign in California was its bearing false witness-- more plainly stated, its lies-- about the lives of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons. This ad is one more example. In response to the passage of Proposition 8, faithful, honorable, patriotic Americans from every walk of life and of many sexual orientations and gender identities gathered to say no to lies and yes to love, truth and the American way. To name these overwhelmingly peaceful gatherings as mobs dishonors me, my family, members of my church and so many others who participated in them. As a Christian, my religious tradition also admonishes me to speak the truth in love. Therefore, I prayerfully ask those who have run this ad and others like it, to stop your false witness. Instead, and especially in these times, our country and our world need all of us, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, pagans and all people of faith, to work on behalf of the dignity of all human beings."

Afternoon Drive: A Regular Guy

. . . like Nick McCoy here is what revs my motor.

Slide over buddy, let me drive . . .

Y'all drive safely, have a good one now.

(Honk to The Truck Man for the photos)

Canadian Crackup

No, that's not a new brand of beer, it's the big brawl going down in Canada's parliament. I know for Canadians it's quite a serious issue, but it is mildly amusing to read about the current political crisis up there.

The current Prime Minister, Conservative party leader Stephen Harper - who tried to undo gay marriage up there in 2006 - has stepped on his opponents' toes big time. They are now out for blood and determined to form a coalition to take over the reins of power. Harper is just as determined not to let them do so.

Canadian newscasts, editorials, and blogs are full of invective from both sides of the issue, with people yelling about Harper being a fascist dictator and the other side screaming about the undemocratic power grab by socialists. Sound familiar?

Hell. Those people just don't know what the "fascist" vs. "socialist" war is all about, do they?

As veteran correspondent Neil Macdonald observes in this witty explanation of the crisis - written especially for Americans - their Conservatives are sort of equivalent to our Democrats. Sort of.

And their socialist party (yes, a real one!), the New Democrats, are rather like, well, um - would you believe George W. Bush? Sort of. Just go read the article.

The left-leaning parties were all poised to shoot Harper down next week like a wolf from an airplane, and thought victory was in the bag. But the Governor-General has just granted Harper's request to prorogue Parliament (don't ask) until Jan. 26, so he's safe till then, and perhaps in the meantime everybody will have a few Molsons, watch some hockey, sing Christmas carols, and settle down.

Or maybe they'll just keep duking it out and letting the fur fly till Parliament resumes and votes one way or another. I'm just glad we don't have to go through all that for another four years, aren't you?

Unless, of course, our Supreme Court rules that Obama can't be president.

OMFG.

Canada's little political spat would be nothing in comparison to what would happen here, eh?

Hump Day: Pipeline

Is That a Gun in Your Pants?

A Utah college student proudly wears his Colt while sipping

some java at Starbucks. (Photo by Ellen Jaskol/L. A. Times)

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram reports on the movement to allow Texans to openly carry handguns:

More than a month before the legislative session starts Jan. 13, gun-rights supporters are asking state lawmakers to pass an "open carry" law to let Texans
stop covering up the guns they carry and wear them openly.

They are putting their message on billboards, on banners on cabs and in radio ads, asking others to sign on to the cause.

"We are targeting Texas," said Mike Stollenwerk, co-founder of http://www.opencarry.org/, a champion of the growing nationwide effort. "Texas is probably the most pro-gun state, but doesn’t have open-carry laws.

"As Texans realize how restrictive their rights are . . . there will be an awakening. Get ready for a showdown in Austin come January."

Texas is somewhat of an open-carry battleground because it is one of only six states where handguns cannot, in some form, legally be worn in plain view. Texas residents may carry concealed handguns if they have a permit.

More than 28,000 people have signed an online petition asking Gov. Rick Perry and the Legislature to make Texas an open-carry state.

Dallas Morning News columnist Jacquielynn Floyd makes these observations on the proposal:

It would be heresy – on both sides of this contentious debate – to suggest that allowing duly licensed handgun owners in the Lone Star State to openly display their sidearms probably wouldn't make an appreciable difference in life as we now know it.

People won't be much more likely than they already are to shoot each other over 11 items in the 10-or-less supermarket express line, as those who favor gun limitations may be relied upon to predict.

On the other hand, we're not going to make crime evaporate by visibly packing heat, as the gun lobbies so wishfully expect. They love to talk about the deterrent effect of guns-for-the-good-guys, but if criminals were really that risk-averse, they'd be in a different line of work.

Because my immediate family includes a fair number of responsible and well-trained gun owners, I don't harbor a particular dread at the very idea of firearms.

And statistics suggest that Texas' decade-old law allowing residents to carry concealed weapons did not lead to mayhem. Department of Public Safety records of conviction rates for handgun license holders show that in 2006 – the last available accounting year – legal gun owners were accountable for barely two-tenths of a percent of all felony convictions.

Moreover, Texas is one of few states that doesn't allow legal gun owners to carry them openly. Some states require people with guns to carry them where everybody can see them.

So when you get right down to it, as a matter of safety and practicality, open-carry probably isn't a dramatic departure from what Texas law already permits.

What do you think, Truckers? Is open carry a good idea? Or not?

LGBT Rights "On Warp Drive"

Honk to Chris Turner over at DH Blog for making note of Sir Adrian Fulford's speech at the recent opening of the Pink Law Legal Advice Center in London.

According to PinkNews, "Mr Justice Fulford's appointment as a High Court judge in 2002 was the first time that an openly homosexual QC had been appointed to the court. Mr Justice Fulford, known outside court as Sir Adrian, was subsequently elected at the United Nations in 2003 to serve as a judge on the International Criminal Court."

Here's an excerpt of the speech:

To be out as a practitioner in the year 1978, which is the year I was called, was something of a rollercoaster of a ride. Some of my colleagues were fantastic, others were simply gross in their rudeness and prejudices.

People lost jobs, families were destroyed, lives were broken by the large number of prosecutions of men for such absurdities as allegedly chatting up other men in places such as Old Brompton Rd, thereby 'persistently importuning for an immoral purpose.'

It sounds quite ludicrous to think of those court cases now. Policemen in supposedly provocative tight t-shirts and jeans, acting effectively as agent-provocateurs along that stretch of road between the Colherne pub and the Brompton cemetery in Earls Court.

And that was something that was repeated in every town and city, the length and breadth of the country. What a waste of time and money. What warped morality and how unbelievably destructive it was.

The workplace could be an equal nightmare for the LGBT community. Men and women losing their jobs and facing real discrimination because of their private life. And as for adopting children, you were practically branded a paedophile for even suggesting the idea. And few lawyers were prepared to assist in any attempt to redress those sorts of discriminatory practice.

And inheritance arrangements, what actually happened in respect to the true legal position, when one partner died in a relationship, could be dire. So many men and women suddenly found themselves homeless and without anything, when the relatives of the person who had been ostracised by his or her family for years suddenly descended out of thin air, having not been seen for years, on the day they departed to take every last stick of furniture. No 'civil partnerships' back then and the law did not smile sympathetically on claims that were akin to spouses or wives.

Now why am I visiting the past? It's not just the autumnal reminiscences of an aging judge. But rather, I seek to highlight that we have suddenly travelled a long way in a very short period of time. To use the language of 'Star-Trek', it's as if the warp-drive has suddenly been attached to LGBT rights.

In truth, I cannot conceive that we will in the predictable future return to the ghastliness of thirty-plus years ago. But that said, when you scratch the surface, particularly in times of difficulty when people feel threatened, prejudice, misunderstanding, fear and conservatism with a small 'c' can be found on occasion lurking surprisingly close to the surface.

While we have every reason to be confident about the future, we should also strive to ensure that we do not become blasé about the present. We should not take these fundamental advances for granted. And the more deeply rooted the projects like this become, providing an invaluable service and benefit to both the legal advisers and to clients alike, the more certain we can be that Pink Law will not be an anomaly but rather the shape of things to come.

Together Forever: Cardinal Newman and Father Ambrose

It appears the Vatican's plan to separate two longtime companions who wanted to be together forever in death has been providentially thwarted.

The Venerable John Cardinal Newman was England's most famous convert to Catholicism in the 19th century; he was widely admired by people of all faiths for his tireless work on behalf of improving living conditions for the poor and marginalized of his day.

According to PinkNews,

The decision to remove his remains from their final resting place was controversial as the Cardinal had stipulated he wanted to be buried with his longtime companion, Father Ambrose St John. . . .

Though Cardinal Newman was a lifelong celibate, and many scholars argue that his love for his fellow priest was merely Platonic, this move by the Catholic Church has fuelled speculation that they are embarrassed by the close nature of the friendship between the two men.

Newman and St John shared a house together and were lifelong friends. They share a tombstone with the inscription "out of shadows and phantasms into the truth" etched across it.

The Catholic Church claims the move is in preparation for his beatification, the third stage of recognition of sainthood.

Martin Prendergast, a homosexual campaigner in the Catholic Church, claimed the relationship had caused misgivings in the Vatican: "I don't think they can just pretend the relationship didn't exist," he said.

However, when Newman's grave, near Birmingham, was opened on October 2,

[T]here were no remains of the body of John Henry Newman. An expectation that Cardinal Newman had been buried in a lead lined coffin proved to be unfounded.

"In the view of the medical and health professionals in attendance, burial in a wooden coffin in a very damp site makes this kind of total decomposition of the body unsurprising. . . .

The Very Reverend Paul Chavasse, Provost of the Birmingham Oratory and Postulator of the Newman Cause said:

"The lack of substantial physical remains does nothing to diminish our deep reverence for Cardinal Newman. Yesterday's outcome seems to have a Providential significance."

Human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell said,

The Vatican wanted to rebury the Cardinal's remains in a marble tomb, separate from St John, to dampen speculation that he might have been gay.

Newman's and St John's bodies have decomposed together, uniting them forever in the same soil. They cannot now be separated, as the Catholic Church planned. Cardinal Newman's wishes have triumphed over the Vatican's homophobia.

Movie Trailer: "P."

(Honk to Andrew Sullivan)