Opponents of a measure that banned gay marriage in California took their outrage to the spiritual hub of Mormonism on Friday.
More than 3,000 people swarmed downtown Salt Lake City to march past the LDS temple and church headquarters, protesting Mormon involvement in the campaign for California’s Proposition 8. The measure, which defined marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman, passed this week.
A sea of signs in City Creek Park, where the march began, screamed out messages including, “I didn’t vote on your marriage,” “Mormons once persecuted . . . Now persecutors,” and “Jesus said love everyone.” Others read, “Proud of my two moms” and “Protect traditional marriage. Ban divorce.”
Former Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson and three openly gay state legislators, Sen. Scott McCoy and Reps. Jackie Biskupski and Christine Johnson, spoke out in support. At one point, the crowd took up the mantra made famous by the country’s new president-elect: “Yes, we can!”
Then, the masses headed west, weaving between cars, waving at those who watched from windows in the LDS Church Office Building and shouting chants such as: “What do we want? Equality! When do we want it? Now!”
The comments after the article can be very telling. One commenter asked:
What’s wrong with calling marriage and civil unions just that ?? Why do we have to use the word marriage in both cases when most feel that marriage is between husband and wife ??
Simplistic yes — but that’s the way that I want it and most of the Calif. voters feel the same way — there is a differance.
The problem with maintaining the fiction of “marriage” and “civil unions” comes down to the segregationist concept of “separate but equal”; which as was proven time and time again during the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s was never equal.
I can understand people having moral/religious qualms against marriage between two people of the same sex, but for me personally it’s about NOT legislating and especially not Constitutionalizing morality. Morality comes from within. It should not be imposed on others.
No one has ever been able to give me a rational non-religious reason for why gay marriage should be banned; no one has been able to tell me how allowing two men or two women to get married to each other damages their own marriage to the point that it needs to be “protected” by law.
If someone can give me a coherent argument on that side, maybe I’ll reconsider; but until then, personally, I must choose to support equal rights for everyone, regardless of race, creed, religion or sexual orientation.
Other people are calling for the revocation of the Church’s tax-exempt status.
The problem there is that the LDS Church is well within its rights to speak out on socio-political issues.
501(c)(3) prohibitions state that a church may not make statements that directly support or oppose a candidate or slate of candidates in a “sermon, church bulletin, on a church website or in an editorial in a church publication.” The bottom line is that § 501(c)(3) prohibits charities—including houses of worship—from endorsing or opposing candidates “either expressly or by implication.”
However, this does not mean that church leaders are not permitted to voice their opinions regarding important socio-political matters that could have profound impact on their congregations. Church leaders have always been free to speak out on moral and ethical issues at stake in pending legislation or public referenda. They may take stands on political issues such as abortion, gay rights, gun control, and health care, to name a few.
Taking away the Church’s tax-exempt status could have a profoundly negative impact on other tax-exempt organizations, such as the American Cancer Society, the San Francisco AIDS Foundation, the American Foundation for AIDS Research (AmFAR), and a host of other organizations’ ability to lobby Congress or support ballot initiatives to increase funding for research.
The Church’s position will never be changed by direct attacks; this will only bolster their opinions. What needs to happen is for active members who disagree with the Church’s position to speak up, rationally and calmly and over and over and over again. Challenge the Church to change from within.
Elsewhere, the focus should be on challenging the legality of Proposition 8 itself in the Courts. Does it constitute a Constitutional revision (which requires approval of both houses of the California State Legislature) rather than an amendment? Does it put the California Constitution into direct conflict itself, by banning same sex marriage, when the Courts have ruled that bans on same sex marriage violate the equal protection clause?
There have also been calls to boycott Utah … I need to think about this one a bit more, but part of me says that rather than boycotting Utah, gay rights activists should start organizing trips to Utah. Most Utahns are isolationists already. Boycotting may just give them a sense of relief. Instead more gay people should travel to Utah, move to Utah, and keep the issue front-and-center in Utah.
And to think I was worried about how I’d spend my post-election blog time.
Sometimes, I really wish I didn’t have to turn to the foreign media to get the best news from an unbiased and objective perspective. The Economist has long been one of those foreign sources of news to which I have turned to get a broader perspective of world events.
The Economist generally has a center-right leaning … it is a British magazine concerned with world events and the economy, after all … and yet, like so many other media outlets, it is giving its endorsement to Barack Obama.
If there is anyone out there reading this blog that is still undecided about whom to vote for, please read this article … for once, I’ve quoted the entire article, rather than just an excerpt. Hopefully The Economist won’t come after me for copyright violation.
Read the article, and then go vote. Cast your ballot for whomever you think will better lead the United States over the next four years. I feel that man will be Barack Obama, which is how I cast my ballot in early voting. Even if you vote for the other guy, please make sure you get out today, brave the lines and the weather and exercise your right, your privilege … and as far as I’m concerned, your duty to vote.
IT IS impossible to forecast how important any presidency will be. Back in 2000 America stood tall as the undisputed superpower, at peace with a generally admiring world. The main argument was over what to do with the federal government’s huge budget surplus. Nobody foresaw the seismic events of the next eight years. When Americans go to the polls next week the mood will be very different. The United States is unhappy, divided and foundering both at home and abroad. Its self-belief and values are under attack.
For all the shortcomings of the campaign, both John McCain and Barack Obama offer hope of national redemption. Now America has to choose between them. The Economist does not have a vote, but if it did, it would cast it for Mr Obama. We do so wholeheartedly: the Democratic candidate has clearly shown that he offers the better chance of restoring America’s self-confidence. But we acknowledge it is a gamble. Given Mr Obama’s inexperience, the lack of clarity about some of his beliefs and the prospect of a stridently Democratic Congress, voting for him is a risk. Yet it is one America should take, given the steep road ahead.
Thinking about 2009 and 2017
The immediate focus, which has dominated the campaign, looks daunting enough: repairing America’s economy and its international reputation. The financial crisis is far from finished. The United States is at the start of a painful recession. Some form of further fiscal stimulus is needed (see article), though estimates of the budget deficit next year already spiral above $1 trillion. Some 50m Americans have negligible health-care cover. Abroad, even though troops are dying in two countries, the cack-handed way in which George Bush has prosecuted his war on terror has left America less feared by its enemies and less admired by its friends than it once was.
Yet there are also longer-term challenges, worth stressing if only because they have been so ignored on the campaign. Jump forward to 2017, when the next president will hope to relinquish office. A combination of demography and the rising costs of America’s huge entitlement programmes—Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid—will be starting to bankrupt the country (see article). Abroad a greater task is already evident: welding the new emerging powers to the West. That is not just a matter of handling the rise of India and China, drawing them into global efforts, such as curbs on climate change; it means reselling economic and political freedom to a world that too quickly associates American capitalism with Lehman Brothers and American justice with Guantánamo Bay. This will take patience, fortitude, salesmanship and strategy.
At the beginning of this election year, there were strong arguments against putting another Republican in the White House. A spell in opposition seemed apt punishment for the incompetence, cronyism and extremism of the Bush presidency. Conservative America also needs to recover its vim. Somehow Ronald Reagan’s party of western individualism and limited government has ended up not just increasing the size of the state but turning it into a tool of southern-fried moralism.
The selection of Mr McCain as the Republicans’ candidate was a powerful reason to reconsider. Mr McCain has his faults: he is an instinctive politician, quick to judge and with a sharp temper. And his age has long been a concern (how many global companies in distress would bring in a new 72-year-old boss?). Yet he has bravely taken unpopular positions—for free trade, immigration reform, the surge in Iraq, tackling climate change and campaign-finance reform. A western Republican in the Reagan mould, he has a long record of working with both Democrats and America’s allies.
If only the real John McCain had been running
That, however, was Senator McCain; the Candidate McCain of the past six months has too often seemed the victim of political sorcery, his good features magically inverted, his bad ones exaggerated. The fiscal conservative who once tackled Mr Bush over his unaffordable tax cuts now proposes not just to keep the cuts, but to deepen them. The man who denounced the religious right as “agents of intolerance” now embraces theocratic culture warriors. The campaigner against ethanol subsidies (who had a better record on global warming than most Democrats) came out in favour of a petrol-tax holiday. It has not all disappeared: his support for free trade has never wavered. Yet rather than heading towards the centre after he won the nomination, Mr McCain moved to the right.
Meanwhile his temperament, always perhaps his weak spot, has been found wanting. Sometimes the seat-of-the-pants method still works: his gut reaction over Georgia—to warn Russia off immediately—was the right one. Yet on the great issue of the campaign, the financial crisis, he has seemed all at sea, emitting panic and indecision. Mr McCain has never been particularly interested in economics, but, unlike Mr Obama, he has made little effort to catch up or to bring in good advisers (Doug Holtz-Eakin being the impressive exception).
The choice of Sarah Palin epitomised the sloppiness. It is not just that she is an unconvincing stand-in, nor even that she seems to have been chosen partly for her views on divisive social issues, notably abortion. Mr McCain made his most important appointment having met her just twice.
Ironically, given that he first won over so many independents by speaking his mind, the case for Mr McCain comes down to a piece of artifice: vote for him on the assumption that he does not believe a word of what he has been saying. Once he reaches the White House, runs this argument, he will put Mrs Palin back in her box, throw away his unrealistic tax plan and begin negotiations with the Democratic Congress. That is plausible; but it is a long way from the convincing case that Mr McCain could have made. Had he become president in 2000 instead of Mr Bush, the world might have had fewer problems. But this time it is beset by problems, and Mr McCain has not proved that he knows how to deal with them.
Is Mr Obama any better? Most of the hoopla about him has been about what he is, rather than what he would do. His identity is not as irrelevant as it sounds. Merely by becoming president, he would dispel many of the myths built up about America: it would be far harder for the spreaders of hate in the Islamic world to denounce the Great Satan if it were led by a black man whose middle name is Hussein; and far harder for autocrats around the world to claim that American democracy is a sham. America’s allies would rally to him: the global electoral college on our website shows a landslide in his favour. At home he would salve, if not close, the ugly racial wound left by America’s history and lessen the tendency of American blacks to blame all their problems on racism.
So Mr Obama’s star quality will be useful to him as president. But that alone is not enough to earn him the job. Charisma will not fix Medicare nor deal with Iran. Can he govern well? Two doubts present themselves: his lack of executive experience; and the suspicion that he is too far to the left.
There is no getting around the fact that Mr Obama’s résumé is thin for the world’s biggest job. But the exceptionally assured way in which he has run his campaign is a considerable comfort. It is not just that he has more than held his own against Mr McCain in the debates. A man who started with no money and few supporters has out-thought, out-organised and out-fought the two mightiest machines in American politics—the Clintons and the conservative right.
Political fire, far from rattling Mr Obama, seems to bring out the best in him: the furore about his (admittedly ghastly) preacher prompted one of the most thoughtful speeches of the campaign. On the financial crisis his performance has been as assured as Mr McCain’s has been febrile. He seems a quick learner and has built up an impressive team of advisers, drawing in seasoned hands like Paul Volcker, Robert Rubin and Larry Summers. Of course, Mr Obama will make mistakes; but this is a man who listens, learns and manages well.
It is hard too nowadays to depict him as soft when it comes to dealing with America’s enemies. Part of Mr Obama’s original appeal to the Democratic left was his keenness to get American troops out of Iraq; but since the primaries he has moved to the centre, pragmatically saying the troops will leave only when the conditions are right. His determination to focus American power on Afghanistan, Pakistan and proliferation was prescient. He is keener to talk to Iran than Mr McCain is— but that makes sense, providing certain conditions are met.
Our main doubts about Mr Obama have to do with the damage a muddle-headed Democratic Congress might try to do to the economy. Despite the protectionist rhetoric that still sometimes seeps into his speeches, Mr Obama would not sponsor a China-bashing bill. But what happens if one appears out of Congress? Worryingly, he has a poor record of defying his party’s baronies, especially the unions. His advisers insist that Mr Obama is too clever to usher in a new age of over-regulation, that he will stop such nonsense getting out of Congress, that he is a political chameleon who would move to the centre in Washington. But the risk remains that on economic matters the centre that Mr Obama moves to would be that of his party, not that of the country as a whole.
He has earned it
So Mr Obama in that respect is a gamble. But the same goes for Mr McCain on at least as many counts, not least the possibility of President Palin. And this cannot be another election where the choice is based merely on fear. In terms of painting a brighter future for America and the world, Mr Obama has produced the more compelling and detailed portrait. He has campaigned with more style, intelligence and discipline than his opponent. Whether he can fulfil his immense potential remains to be seen. But Mr Obama deserves the presidency.
While I certainly expected Sarah Palin to run for the top spot of the ticket in 2012, I didn’t expect her campaign to start before the 2008 election was over.
POLK CITY, Florida (CNN) — At a boisterous Sarah Palin rally in Polk City, Florida on Saturday afternoon, one name was surprisingly absent from the campaign décor — John McCain’s.
Looking around the Fantasy of Flight aircraft hangar where the rally took place, one could see all the usual reminders that it was a pro-McCain event. There were two large “Country First” banners hung on the walls along with four enormous American flags meant to conjure the campaign’s underlying patriotic theme. Many of the men and women in the audience wore McCain hats and t-shirts.
But on closer inspection, the GOP nominee’s name was literally nowhere to be found on any of the official campaign signage distributed to supporters at the event.
Members of the audience proudly waved “Country First” placards as Palin delivered her stump speech. Those signs were paid for by the Republican National Committee.
The other sign handed out to supporters read “Florida is Palin Country,” but those signs were neither paid for by the Republican National Committee nor the McCain campaign. In small print, the signs were stamped with the line “Paid for and authorized by Putnam for Congress” — as in, the re-election campaign of Florida congressman Adam Putnam, whose district skirts Polk City.
In fact, Putnam’s name was considerably more prominent than was McCain’s — his campaign had placed a number of large “Putnam for Congress” banners around the event site.
This is truly frightening. A Sarah Palin presidency scares me more than Dick Cheney … at least Cheney understands the document he’s trying to undermine; but Sarah Palin’s grasp of what the Constitution (and the Bill of Rights) stands for is tenuous at best, and non-existent at worst.
Don’t vote … unless you care about your future, your children’s future, your grandchildren’s future, the economy, civil rights, human rights, women’s rights or gay rights, the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom to worship (or not to worship) how you choose, education, defense, the arts, the environment, alternative energy, renewable energy, oil prices, gas prices, healthcare, welfare, social security, veteran’s affairs … if you care about any of these things, then perhaps you might want to consider voting.
Vote your heart. Vote for the person who you feel best represents your values. Vote for the person who you think will do the best job.
A repost from March, prompted by various Twitter and other assertions that the United States was founded on “Christian principles” … nothing could be further from the truth.
The only part of became the United States that was founded on “Christian” principles was the original Plymouth colony in Massachusetts, by the Puritans who were escaping religious persecution in England … and of course, they promptly started inflicting their own warped sense of Christian values on the Native Americans and amongst themselves (Salem Witch Trials, anyone?).
In any case, back in March mother sent me more mom-spam, this one being a purported re-write of the Preamble of the Constitution, accompanied by a series of articles. Some of the articles are basic pleas to common sense. But one in particular really got my goat.
ARTICLE XI: You do not have the right to change our country’s history or heritage. This country was founded on the belief in one true God. And yet, you are given the freedom to believe in any religion, any faith, or no faith at all; with no fear of persecution. The phrase IN GOD WE TRUST is part of our heritage and history, and if you are uncomfortable with it, TOUGH!!!! GET OVER IT!!!
The problem is that this nation was NOT founded on the belief in one true God. Far from it; when asked about it, Alexander Hamilton once flippantly responded that the United States was not in need of “foreign aid.”
Please show me, in the original Constitution, where it makes mention of God. Please!
Unfortunately, you can’t, because the word does not appear once in the entire document.
The word God did not appear on US money until the Civil War, and did not appear in the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954, as a reaction to the McCarthy-driven anti-Communist hysteria.
Oh, sure, there are two brief mentions in the Declaration of Independence (cf. the phrases, “Laws of Nature, and Nature’s God” and “endowed by their Creator”), but the Declaration of Independence is not the document on which our nation is based … the Constitution, which was drafted 11 years later, holds that estimable position.
Heck … most people think that George Washington was the first President, too … but he wasn’t.
There were several Presidents of the United States prior to George Washington. Under the Articles of Confederation (drafted in 1777 and ratified in 1781), the following men served as President of the United States in Congress Assembled:
Samuel Huntington (March 1, 1781 – July 9, 1781)
Thomas McKean (July 10, 1781 – November 4, 1781)
John Hanson (November 5, 1781 – November 3, 1782) — the first to serve a full one-year term, and the first selected after the surrender of the British Army … but not the first.
Elias Boudinot (November 4, 1782 – November 2, 1783)
Thomas Mifflin (November 3, 1783 – October 31, 1784)
Richard Henry Lee (November 30, 1784 – November 6, 1785)
John Hancock (November 23, 1785 – June 5, 1786)
Nathaniel Gorham (June 6, 1786 – November 5, 1786)
Arthur St. Clair (February 2, 1787 – November 4, 1787)
Cyrus Griffin (January 22, 1788 – March 4, 1789)
By the way … the word “God” isn’t mentioned in the Articles of Confederation, either.
And because some people weren’t clear on the concept, the first 10 words of the First Amendment to the Constitution specifically state: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”
If God isn’t an establishment of religion, I don’t know what is.
Furthermore, in the Treaty of Tripoli, ratified in 1797 in one of the Senate’s only unanimous votes, Article 11 famously states:
As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
In 1802, Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association:
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.
Note that Jefferson did not even capitalize the name of God in his letter. He, along with Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Paine were not Christian, although they were Deists … they believed in one Supreme Being, however, but rejected many elements of the Christian church. James Madison, primary author of the Constitution once wrote on Christianity:
What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution.
For what it’s worth, I do believe in God, or rather that there is a higher power within all of us, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist alike … even in the fuckwit currently inhabiting the White House. I guess that makes me a Deist, like Jefferson, et al.
But God, in whatever form, has NO place in official government, by design. Please try to remember that when you cast your ballot over the next 6 days.
On the bike, however, is a different story all together … when I’m on the bike, I’m constantly praying … if only to make it to the top of the next rise without my lungs exploding. And I wear my Madonna del Ghisallo … now without a rash, since I finally got a nickel-free chain. And as a legally-ordained minister in the Universal Life Church (and member of The Church of the Big Ring), I feel like that’s acceptable.
(CNN) — Former Secretary of State Colin Powell announced Sunday that he will be voting for Sen. Barack Obama, citing the Democrat’s “ability to inspire” and the “inclusive nature of his campaign.”
“I think he is a transformational figure, he is a new generation coming onto the world stage, onto the American stage, and for that reason I’ll be voting for Sen. Barack Obama,” Powell said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
Powell said he was concerned about what he characterized as a recent negative turn of Republican candidate Sen. John McCain’s campaign, such as the campaign’s attempts to tie Obama to former 1960s radical Bill Ayers.
“I think that’s inappropriate. I understand what politics is about — I know how you can go after one another, and that’s good. But I think this goes too far, and I think it has made the McCain campaign look a little narrow. It’s not what the American people are looking for,” he said.
Powell, a retired U.S. general and a Republican, was once seen as a possible presidential candidate himself.
Powell said he has some concerns about the direction of the Republican Party, adding that it has “moved more to the right than I would like to see it.”
In regard to the financial crisis, which Powell called the candidates’ “final exam,” Powell said McCain appeared unsteady in dealing with it, while Obama had excelled in handling the situation.
“Obama displayed a steadiness, an intellectual curiosity, a depth of knowledge,” Powell said.
“He has met the standard of being a successful president, being an exceptional president,” he said.
In a later interview shown CNN after his Meet the Press interview:
Reporter: Do you think that Sen. Obama will be a better transitional president than potentially Sen. McCain?
Colin Powell: I think that Sen. Obama brings a fresh set of of eyes, a fresh set of ideas to the table. I think that Sen. McCain, as gifted as he is, is essentially going to execute the Republican agenda, the orthodoxy of the Republican agenda with a new face and with a maverick approach to it. And he’d be quite good at it. But I think we need more than that. I think we need a generational change. And I think Sen. Obama has captured the feelings of the young people of America and is reaching out in a more diverse, inclusive way across our society.
Oct. 10, 2008 PALMER, Alaska — | On the afternoon of Sept. 24 in downtown Palmer, Alaska, as the sun began to sink behind the snowcapped mountains that flank the picturesque Mat-Su Valley, 51-year-old Mark Chryson sat for an hour on a park bench, reveling in tales of his days as chairman of the Alaska Independence Party. The stocky, gray-haired computer technician waxed nostalgic about quixotic battles to eliminate taxes, support the “traditional family” and secede from the United States.
So long as Alaska remained under the boot of the federal government, said Chryson, the AIP had to stand on guard to stymie a New World Order. He invited a Salon reporter to see a few items inside his pickup truck that were intended for his personal protection. “This here is my attack dog,” he said with a chuckle, handing the reporter an exuberant 8-pound papillon from his passenger seat. “Her name is Suzy.” Then he pulled a 9-millimeter Makarov PM pistol — once the standard-issue sidearm for Soviet cops — out of his glove compartment. “I’ve got enough weaponry to raise a small army in my basement,” he said, clutching the gun in his palm. “Then again, so do most Alaskans.” But Chryson added a message of reassurance to residents of that faraway place some Alaskans call “the 48.” “We want to go our separate ways,” he said, “but we are not going to kill you.”
Though Chryson belongs to a fringe political party, one that advocates the secession of Alaska from the Union, and that organizes with other like-minded secessionist movements from Canada to the Deep South, he is not without peculiar influence in state politics, especially the rise of Sarah Palin. An obscure figure outside of Alaska, Chryson has been a political fixture in the hometown of the Republican vice-presidential nominee for over a decade. During the 1990s, when Chryson directed the AIP, he and another radical right-winger, Steve Stoll, played a quiet but pivotal role in electing Palin as mayor of Wasilla and shaping her political agenda afterward. Both Stoll and Chryson not only contributed to Palin’s campaign financially, they played major behind-the-scenes roles in the Palin camp before, during and after her victory.
But hey, go read the rest of the article for yourself.
@neilkod I do back-office operations work for a brokerage firm. Liaison between the branches and various processing depts. in reply to neilkod6 hrs ago
Back to work today ... am I looking forward to it? No, but it likely means I'll be tweeting more, so all y'all get to enjoy my presence! 8 hrs ago
For all the shortcomings of the campaign, both John McCain and Barack Obama offer hope of national redemption. Now America has to choose between them. The Economist does not have a vote, but if it did, it would cast it for Mr Obama. We do so wholeheartedly: the Democratic candidate has clearly shown that he offers the better chance of restoring America’s self-confidence. But we acknowledge it is a gamble. Given Mr Obama’s inexperience, the lack of clarity about some of his beliefs and the prospect of a stridently Democratic Congress, voting for him is a risk. Yet it is one America should take, given the steep road ahead.
