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.
» by flahute in: Music on November 2nd, 2008 at 03:41:24 UTC |
TWO GALLANTS - STEADY ROLLIN’
You might have seen me ‘neath the pool hall lights.
Well baby I go back each night.
If you got a throat I got a knife.
Steady rollin’, I keep goin’.
I don’t mind how quick the seasons change.
You know to me they’s every one the same.
The sweetest sunshine drips the drain.
Death’s comin’, I’m still runnin’.
Well I come from the old time baby,
too late for you to save me.
If I remain then I’m to blame.
But if you should ever need me,
I’ll go where’er you lead me.
It’s all the same, the same old game.
My lovin’ lady she’s a ball and chain.
I still can travel but my speed has changed.
I bring the money, I take the blame.
Steady rollin’, I keep goin’.
But I shot my wife today,
dropped her body in the Frisco bay.
I had no choice it was the only way.
Death’s comin’, I’m still runnin’.
Well I come from the old time baby,
too late for you to save me.
If I remain then I’m to blame.
But if you should ever need me,
I’ll go where’er you lead me.
It’s all the same, the same old game.
Out waltzin’ with the Holy Ghost,
from the Bowery to the Barbary Coast.
The land I’m from you know I love the most.
Steady rollin’, I keep goin’.
And everyday is just another town.
The more I search you know the less I’ve found.
Me, I’m a sucker, just a slave to sound.
Death’s comin’, I’m still runnin’.
Well I come from the old town baby,
where all the kids are crazy.
If I remain then I’m to blame.
But if you should ever need me,
I’ll go where’er you lead me.
It’s all the same, the same old game.
Wireless communication is changing the way people work, live, love and relate to places—and each other, says Andreas Kluth.
Illustration by Bell Mellor
AT THE Nomad Café in Oakland, California, Tia Katrina Canlas, a law student at the nearby university in Berkeley, places her double Americano next to her mobile phone and iPod, opens her MacBook laptop computer and logs on to the café’s wireless internet connection to study for her class on the legal treatment of sexual orientation. She is a regular here but doesn’t usually bring cash, so her credit-card statement reads “Nomad, Nomad, Nomad, Nomad”. That says it all, she thinks. Permanently connected, she communicates by text, photo, video or voice throughout the day with her friends and family, and does her “work stuff” at the same time. She roams around town, but often alights at oases that cater to nomads.
Christopher Waters, the owner, opened the Nomad Café in 2003, just as Wi-Fi “hotspots” were mushrooming all around town. His idea was to provide a watering-hole for “techno-Bedouins” such as himself, he says. Since Bedouins, whether in Arabian deserts or American suburbs, are inherently tribal and social creatures, he understood from the outset that a good oasis has to do more than provide Wi-Fi; it must also become a new—or very old—kind of gathering place. He thought of calling his café the “Gypsy Spirit Mission”, which also captures the theme of mobility, but settled for the simpler Nomad.
It’s probably not a great secret that I consider myself to be something of a reluctant nomad. I think a huge part of that stems from how much I moved while I was growing up. Until I started university, I never went to a school for more than 2 years; and generally when I moved, it was mid-year.
So like many people in the generation that succeeded my own, I don’t have a deep-seated sense of place. Depending on my mood, when someone asks me where I’m from, I answer Tennessee, Northern California (Santa Cruz/San Francisco), and increasingly Utah.
Like Ms. Canlas, I seem to be connected constantly throughout the day via email, text, this blog, and now Twitter and Facebook.
Kim (my ex) considers the constant connectivity to be a bad thing … she steadfastly refuses to sign up for any social networks; but I tend to feel like so many of my connections are so tenuous that I need to maintain them in any way I possibly can. I find I’m reconnecting with people from my past though these social networks, and am redeveloping some friendships that I’ve let slip through my fingers in the past.
I’m also trying to disconnect from the Interwebs enough to connect with real live people in face-to-face social situations; I seldom refuse an invitation anymore, whereas, in the past I used to come up with any excuse I could come up with not to go out because I was letting my anxiety control me, rather than controlling my anxiety. When I do find myself in the company of other people, I’m working on being as warm and welcoming as I can be … to listen, to engage, and to forge lasting friendships with people; something which has always been a weak point of mine in the past. It’s still a struggle at times, but it gets easier.
Morning Edition, June 16, 2008 · As gay couples in California head to the courthouse starting Monday to get legally married, there are signs of a coming storm. Two titanic legal principles are crashing on the steps of the church, synagogue and mosque: equal treatment for same-sex couples on the one hand, and the freedom to exercise religious beliefs on the other.
The collision that will play out over the next few years will be filled with pathos on both sides.
As many of my regular readers know, before I moved to Utah, I lived in San Francisco for many, many years, and Santa Cruz prior to that. Needless to say, having spent nearly 2 decades in Northern California, the issue of gay rights has had a lot of visibility in my life … so to me, the recent California Supreme Court decision overturning the state’s ban on same-sex marriage prompted thoughts of “It’s about freakin’ time!”
I’ve always felt that it was just plain wrong to deny gay couples involved in a committed long-term and loving relationship the same basic rights that a violent, abusive husband has simply by virtue that his wife hasn’t yet filed for divorce.
And seriously, how does Adam & Steve getting married have a negative impact on Adam & Eve’s marriage?
Lesbian rights activists Del Martin, 87, and Phyllis Lyon, 84, were the first same-sex couple to receive a marriage license in San Francisco on Monday, with Mayor Gavin Newsom presiding over their wedding ceremony.
“This is an extraordinary moment in history,” Newsom told a cheering, standing-room-only crowd at City Hall. “I think today, marriage as an institution has been strengthened.”
But this morning, I listened to the above linked (and excerpted) story on NPR’s Morning Edition … and it got me thinking about some of the other involved issues tied to gay marriage … and religious freedom.
In the story, a lesbian couple wished to have their (New Jersey) civil union ceremony performed in a Pavilion owned by a Methodist retreat center, formally known as the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association. The Methodist group gave them permission to have their ceremony anywhere on the property except those areas used for religious purposes by the group.
The couple filed an anti-discrimination suit. The NPR story continues:
The Methodist organization responded that it was their property, and the First Amendment protects their right to practice their faith without government intrusion. But Lustberg countered that the pavilion is open to everyone — and therefore the group could no more refuse to accommodate the lesbians than a restaurant owner could refuse to serve a black man. That argument carried the day. The state revoked the organization’s tax exemption for the pavilion area. Hoffman figures they will lose $20,000.
Now, with the help of the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), a Christian legal firm, Hoffman is appealing the case to state court. He says religious freedom itself is in jeopardy.
“And that potentially affects every religious organization in America, not just Christian organizations, but every religious organization. And I get calls from Jewish rabbis who are equally concerned — people from across the spectrum who think it’s a battle worth fighting. And we agree,” Hoffman says.
Now, I am hardly the most religious person in the world, but I do believe that any person should be able to practice the religion of their choice … and in this particular case, I happen to agree with Reverend Hoffman; especially since the group didn’t tell the couple they couldn’t have their ceremony on the property at all, just not within structures used for religious purposes by the group.
A case like this, carried to its extreme, could mean that the the Catholic Church and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (and everyone else) could be forced to allow gay couples to hold their civil ceremonies (and/or marriages, in those states which currently or will ultimately allow them) on, and within Church property.
While part of me finds the idea of the Mormons being forced to allow gay weddings amusing, not only on Temple Square but within the Temple itself, a far bigger part of me feels that the members of a church should be allowed to worship as they please, and that churches should be able to disallow activity on their property that goes against their core beliefs.
I don’t equate a church refusing to allow a gay couple to “marry” on church property because it’s against their religious beliefs, with a restaurant owner refusing to serve a person simply based on the color of their skin … primarily because owning a business isn’t protected as free speech or freedom of religion, as guaranteed by the First Amendment.
Elsewhere in the overall piece is a story about a wedding photographer who was sued for discrimination because his business indicated that they would not photograph same-sex marriages because it goes against the owners’ religious beliefs.
This is a little closer to the restaurant analogy … but it’s still an iffy situation.
I’m afraid that these kinds of legal battles may lead to a backlash against the gay and lesbian community; that groups like the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association will close up their property to everyone, and only allow it to be used for religious purposes. I’m afraid that more states; less enlightened states, will put amendments banning gay marriage into their constitutions.
I’m afraid that society, while making making some huge steps forward right now, will get pushed back even further …
Paris-Roubaix winner and former world champion Tom Boonen has tested positive for cocaine, Het Laatste Nieuws reported on Tuesday.
The newspaper said that the 27-year-old Boonen tested positive for the drug three days before the Tour of Belgium on May 25, although anti-doping officials say the rider will not face suspension since use of the drug is not specifically banned except in competition.
Boonen and his Quick Step squad have scheduled a news conference for Wednesday at the team’s headquarters in Wielsbeke, Belgium, promising “an annoucement regarding the current situation.”
Will be interesting to see what comes out of this. I can certainly understand the allure of cocaine … when I was younger, I did a fair amount of “experimentation” with various illicit chemical substances, cocaine amongst them … I know firsthand what the effects are, how it makes the user feel, and why someone would want to continue using.
Thankfully, after a really bad night in the Tenderloin District of San Francisco involving glass pipes, getting robbed (twice), and the offer of needles (with other substances, which I turned down), I wised up. I have been clean since August 1991; almost 17 years at this point.
This is not some huge confession that I’m putting out here … I’ve never really hidden this from anyone, and have discussed it fairly freely when the topic has come up. I’m certainly not proud of it, but nor am I ashamed of it.
To me, there is a huge difference between taking drugs to cheat, and taking drugs to escape. What I did, and what Brother Boonen has been doing was seek an escape from the pressures of our lives. Different pressures I’m sure, but not always easy to admit and seek help for.
Hopefully, this will be Boonen’s wake-up call, and he’ll seek the help he needs, rather than continue down the same path that Marco Pantani and Jose Maria Jimenez have traversed, to their unfortunate and tragic deaths.
And lest anyone worry, based on other posts on the blog over the past year or so, as bad as my life sometimes seems to me now, it’s not nearly as bad as it was in the last 1980s and early 1990s … I am in no danger of falling back into old habits.
I’m not even drinking really … a beer here and there, but I can’t remember the last time I’ve had a real cocktail. It certainly wasn’t at home. I still have the same 4 unopened bottles of vodka in the freezer that I’ve had since posting about the The Great Vodka Taste Test last fall.
» by flahute in: Life on June 7th, 2008 at 04:18:45 UTC |
I’ve got a lot of causes that I support … perhaps too many, because I find I’m always getting solicitations in the mail (and email) asking for more and more of my money.
To some extent, it’s hard for me to even remember everything I’ve given money too, until I go back through my finances every spring to file my taxes.
Christine’s Fountain (to honor Fastgrrrl’s best training pal, as far as I know, not tax-deductible)
Susan Nelson’s WIN Fund (Fatty’s wife, who has been battling cancer for years now, not tax-deductible)
There are doubtless other organizations to whom I’ve written a check that I can’t think of right off hand. Altogether, I think I’m going to give away about $2,000 this year. I know it’s going to be well over $1,000.00.
Now lest anyone think I’m bragging, let me get to the point. All I give of myself is my money … I can’t think of the last time I volunteered my time to work with an organization because it was the right thing to do, and it was a cause I believed in.
I find it quite ironic that I’m generous with my money (which I don’t have nearly enough of), yet stingy with my time (which I have more than enough of).
So with that in mind, one of my goals for the summer is to find a suitable organization to which I can donate at least 4 hours of my time, and hopefully I’ll find something inspiring enough to give even more my time and myself to.
For time is truly the most valuable commodity which you can give to any organization.
Pity the nation whose people are sheep
And whose shepherds mislead them
Pity the nation whose leaders are liars
Whose sages are silenced
And whose bigots haunt the airwaves
Pity the nation that raises not its voice
Except to praise conquerers
And acclaim the bully as hero
And aims to rule the world
By force and by torture
Pity the nation that knows
No other language but its own
And no other culture but its own
Pity the nation whose breath is money
And sleeps the sleep of the too well fed
Pity the nation oh pity the people
who allow their rights to erode
and their freedoms to be washed away My country, tears of thee
Sweet land of liberty!
And speaking of Lawrence Ferlinghetti, there is a great interview with the legendary Beat Generation poet, publisher, and owner of City Lights bookstore in San Francisco at Democracy Now!, in a variety of formats including .mp3 podcast, .mp4 downloadable and streaming video, and RealMedia streaming audio and video, as well as a rush transcript.
@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
