Is this story for real?

May 9, 2011 by Pastor Dan.

I often am reminded, in the Peanuts comic strip, of Lucy pulling the football away at the last second when Charlie Brown goes for the kickoff. I guess it’s been a defining symbol of our times, that if something sounds too good to be true,… it probably is.

In this case, the intersection of two of the high profile LGBT topics of our times: same-sex marriage and the repeal of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.”

I am not familiar with CNS News, so I’ll keep scouting to see if other news outlets run this story. But tonight CNSnews.com is running this headline: “Navy Authorizes Chaplains to Perform Same-Sex ‘Marriages’ in Naval Chapels.”

My suspicion started with the headline that puts “Marriages” in quotation marks. This is typically the sign that the publishers means “so-called” instead of authentic. A little Wiki-search reveals that CNS News now means Cybercast News Service, but it was launched in 1998 as Conservative News Service, funded entirely by “private donations.” According to Wikipedia, CNS’ editor for 7 years was Scott Hogenson, who simultaneously worked for the Republican National Committee for a time.

This is not a gay marriage story lifted from the pages of The Onion. According to a 2-page April 13 memo from Rear Admiral M. L. Tidd (bio here) linked CNS, this is a genuine article.

Citing “additional legal review” by Navy attorneys, the admiral said the Navy “has concluded that, generally speaking, base facility use is sexual orientation neutral.”"If the base is located in a state where same-sex marriage is legal, then the base facilities may be used to celebrate the marriage,” the admiral’s directive states.Tidd has been Chief of Navy Chaplains since last August, according to his official bio. But it surprised me I had not seen this story on mainstream news wires. I went digging and, well, it has, sort of. Yahoo News is running the Reuters version of the story, also with today’s date. And MSNBC is running it tonight. The only real question, then, is where was Tidd’s memo since April 13?The Family Research Council is lamenting this and crying foul, because it believes that DOMA still prohibits same-sex marriages on federal property. That, I am sure, will be open to interpretation. (see pro-DOMA or anti-DOMA sources.) The Obama administration announced more than two months ago its finding that DOMA is unconstitutional and that it will no longer defend DOMA in court. If this is the conclusion President Obama came too, and he is (ahem) Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, wouldn’t that settle this issue? But according to the MSNBC story, “Representative Todd Akin, chairman of a U.S. House subcomittee that oversees Navy and Marine Corps programs, said the new Navy guidance violates a federal law that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman. The Missouri Republican and 62 other members of Congress have sent a letter to the Secretary of the Navy calling for the service to obey the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act.”Nothing I could find says that any Navy Chaplain has actually performed a same-sex wedding since April 13. So as of this minute, the news still falls in the category of “probably too good to be true.” At least it gives our partisan political system something else to chew on. I wouldn’t send out your invitations just yet.

—Pastor Dan Hooper

Posted in Family, Lesbian/Gay Marriage, History, Public Affairs, Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

The Religious Reich’s moral pipe bomb.

March 29, 2011 by Pastor Dan.

Well as March runs out, Wayne Besen never misses a thing of interest. He heads up Truth Wins Out, which he started to counter the “Truth Won Out” pray-away-the-gay movement. the graphic is from Besen’s site; you can read it more easily here.

What is so transparent in the Harvard thing here is that Wallnau is trying to position his group or himself in the midst of the public discourse. Commentator Besen calls it red meat rhetoric.

And did we catch the “us who are Christians”? The phrase is not incorrect, but it’s opportunistic. Christians are not all of the same mind. Wallnau has no more moral authority to speak for “us who are Christians” than I do. He apparently wants Harvard University to bunch all LGBT people, abortion, all Muslims and “the financial collapse” in the same pot. “Ain’t it awful?” we used to say. Tsk, tsk.

Transparently, he positions the “us” opposite the “you”: “you remove God from public discourse.” Who is he speaking about here? You who? Obviously in his opportunistic world of us-and-them, the “us who are Christians” are meant to be opposed to the you” of “your homosexual activity, your abortion activity,” and “you” who “removed God from public discourse.”

Nobody has removed God from the public discourse. Almighty God, who is Play-Doh in the hands of demagogues, has never been more in the public discourse. As the partisan right wing tries to make everything there is into a political issue if it can benefit from it, the religious reich tries to make everything there is into a religious issue if it can benefit from it.

Certainly, there are issues of profound importance to America and to all human beings, which deserve public discourse, but which do not directly involve one or another religious view of God. Jesus was wise enough to distinguish between the things that belong to God and the things that belong to Caesar (state), Mark 12:17. There is a moral issue in the abortion debate, for example, that is not directly a religion issue, but Christians have differing views of the moral factors in anyone’s decision to have an abortion. And some people who differ profoundly on religion may be on the same side on abortion, for example.

Wallnau’s “baiting” over Islam is especially odious, because there are some of “us who are Christians” trying to promote serious and responsible dialogue with the adherents of Islam about our views of God, revelation, obedience, morality and peace. But to suggest that “You’ve got Islam invading the United States,” as Wallnau did last fall, is irresponsible and only brings more shame on Christians in America. Red meat rhetoric is the moral equivalent of a pipe bomb, and the religious reich doesn’t seem to give a rip about that.

Worse, these people are extremists even for religious wing-nuts. Besen quotes Rev. Bill Harmon, for example, who states that Leviticus requires “the penalty of death, bareness or excommunication” for adultery, etc. and “any sexual activity other than between husband and wife.” Not sure what bareness means to him, but Rev. Bill apparently hasn’t read the Song of Solomon, where erotic pleasure is beautifully described in some detail, and the lack of an actual marriage in the relationship is unmistakable. And, Rev. Bill, if you would check Matthew 1:18–21, you will see that when Joseph and Mary were betrothed, and he thought she must have committed adultery because she was pregnant, but he understood Leviticus to allow him to break the engagement quietly and not hurt Mary. If this was good enough for Joseph and Mary, why is Rev. Bill Harmon trying to incite the masses and beat the drum for the death penalty for any morality that doesn’t fit his personal preferences?

The quote from Dr. Pat Francis is pure “woo woo religion.” If he weren’t wasting his breath about “false religion” (in a nation which guarantees freedom of religion), maybe he could pay attention to James 1:27: “Religion that is pure and undefiled before God is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.” In other words, do some actual good for people who carry heavy burdens, and practice self-discipline in the things you think are not right for you. If such people don’t believe in abortion, then don’t have one. If they don’t like homosexuals, then don’t be one. If they don’t like Islam, then don’t convert to Islam.

But as to the “financial collapse,” they’re on their own. Jesus is opposed to serving both God and money anyway, according to Matthew 6:19 and 24. “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth,” says Jesus. “You cannot serve God and mammon” (money). I know, that won’t go over very well among the economic/political/religious right wing, but then they don’t pay close attention to the Bible anyway. I am sure the Social Transformation Conference will find a way around the teachings of Jesus and the Bible. Such people always have.

—Pastor Dan Hooper

　

　

Posted in Go figure!, wingnuts, Family, Sex, Bible & Interpretation, LGBT Christian, Fundamentalism, Public Affairs | Print | No Comments »

Religious Terror: What can I do?

February 25, 2011 by Pastor Dan.

This last link (”not in Iran“) from the previous blog, February 24, 2011, is a very thoughtful piece from 2007 that analyzes the complex forces with Iranian and other Islamic societies. I had not read all of it when I posted the link, but now I have.  Its author, Martin Beck Matustik, who came of age intellectually in then-Czechoslovakia, compares contemporary Islamist Iran to the sheer force of Soviet power in the 1980s, which also tried to hold back every change with all force.

It should be no secret that I stand against violence in all forms, and cannot support the death penalty. More basic, I oppose all forms of religious terror, whether sanctioned by civil law, fundamentalist law, schoolyard bullying, or the pathetic but relentless terror inflicted by Fred Phelps and his mentally deranged ilk.

A friend of mine in the LGBTQ movement here in Los Angeles (with whom I am long overdue to “do lunch”) raised the issue with me that: our society, which talks the talk of protecting its children from violence and abuse, is doing nothing to free any children from religiously-grounded domestic terrorism and abuse in homophobic families. Truthfully, it is equally as chilling as a hanging in Iran to realize that America tolerates another “deathstyle” for homosexual teenagers: suicide.

What are we doing to stop this wave of death (which fundamentalism seems to find more acceptable than abortion)? What am I doing? What are you doing? How can we do more than weep for those who are dying, and reach out to our own neighbors’ kids to turn them from all self-destructive behaviors, show them the way of life, and the joy of being the persons that God has created us?

Certainly, the volunteers of the Trevor Project, the It Gets Better Project, and other anti-suicide efforts are huge in trying to intercept a life spiraling down to death. But it should be Job One for Christians intercept all messages of hate (including self-hate), rejection, and violence wherever they are coming from — and especially when they are being spewed out by homophobes claiming to love Jesus. Christians are not following Jesus when we simply say, “tsk, tsk, how sad” where spiritual/emotional or physical violence is inflicted on others in the name of God. It is the ultimate misuse of religious faith to resign ourselves to the evils around us which harms countless people, especially the young.

—Pastor Dan Hooper

Posted in Family, Bullying, International, wingnuts, Violence, Fundamentalism, Homophobia, LGBT Christian | Print | No Comments »

Remembering the Closet

February 11, 2011 by Pastor Dan.

We are on a family vacation right now, and this afternoon, going through old family photographs.  Memories led to reflection and even theorizing about life and it’s strange experiences and demands and triumphs.  At several points, the touchy subject came up about distance or even estrangement between relatives, etc.  How much of this has been caused —especially in years past—by homophobia?  Relatives who kept us at arms length because we are a gay couple?  Or treated someone else in the family badly because that person was kind and accepting of us?  We will probably never know for sure.

I began thinking about the coming out process, and how huge this must be for millions of LGBT people.  But homophobia swings both ways, as we suffer both the slights and insults of others, and also suffer the psychic damage to ourselves–deeply buried like a knife. 

Probably thousands of blogs are out there to help people come out.  If you find this or as blog like this, chances are you are out or already testing what the process means.  It either could be or already has been scary.  Disclosing anything deeply truthful about oneself can be frightening because of the risks of rejection and actual mistreatment by family, friends and community.  I remember coming out to friends first, who were pretty much okay with it, and then my own parents, which I handled badly and which made my dad cry.  It was a mess, for several years, before it got better.

I started the coming out process only a few months after the Stonewall Rebellion, at a time when it was extremely to do so.  But with a number of years of life experiences and years for reflection and thinking about my life experiences, I still believe without a doubt that the most important thing anyone can do is to be honest with oneself and about oneself. 

If you are lesbian/gay, bisexual or even transgender, your inner spirit will either be free and honest or it will begin to die.  Know yourself, examine your self, test your feelings and experiences.  Keep a journal if you can’t tell anyone else. 

But denial will keep you locked in misery.  At this point in life, I think it is safe to say that I have no regrets that I have lived my life openly and honestly.  The risks were still there, and I took hits for it, even to the point of losing my job and career over it—not recently, of course.  The world has changed incredibly since I came out.

And the world will continue to change.  The more truthful we are with ourselves and others, and the more we hold firmly to our own sense of integrity, the more I believe the world will become a better place.

 

— Pastor Dan Hooper

Posted in Family, Homophobia, History, Public Affairs, Coming Out | Print | No Comments »

Change. For the better.

October 27, 2010 by Pastor Dan.

I am hopeful that America is not going to let this fall’s tragic rush of gay teen suicides just slide into the past without a deeper understanding of the pain and anguish that LGBT teens are facing. All of us need to do something about it, whether or not we have teen children.

Now this past week, we learn of the suicide of 19-year old Corey Jackson. This is becoming a national emergency.

But I am encouraged by two resources on the web. The one is the “It Gets Better Project“ on Youtube, launched by gay columnist Dan Savage, which features the voices of literally hundreds of Americans who offer their stories and their encouragement to LGBT teens. As of this week, even President Obama has posted his offering. The Human Rights Campaign’s Religion & Faith News” contained a link for Susan Russell’s video (on her personal blog). Rev. Canon Russell is the senior associate priest on the staff of All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena.

The other is the Make It Better Project, which I just learned about in an e-mail from Robin McGehee, Director of Get Equal, “President Obama, you can make it better,” which was posted yesterday. In it, McGehee shares the letter from Tammy Aaberg, whose son Justin Aaberg took his own life because of bullying. The Make It Better Project is produced by the GSA Network, where you can see young gay/lesbian people offering their experience and encouragement.

On that site, you can watch several video segments, including a 5:00 minute trailer for a new documentary “It’s Elementary” from Ground Spark there are other excellent-looking resources on their site about gender, bullying, family diversity, etc.

Personally, I was moved by the amateur videos on It Gets Better to write my own script, with a little bit of my personal story, but as yet I don’t have the camera to go visual. Work with me, people, and I may wind up on Youtube.

— Pastor Dan Hooper

Posted in Family, Bullying, Violence, Homophobia, LGBT Rights, LGBT Christian, Coming Out | Print | No Comments »

ADF misrepresents Yale study.

August 6, 2010 by Pastor Dan.

After the previous post’s review of the Alliance Defense Fund’s participation in Perry v. Schwarzeneggar, the landmark case decided earlier this week by Judge Vaughn Walker, I looked further into ADF’s web site. The ADF is self-described as ” a legal alliance of Christian attorneys and like-minded organizations defending the right of people to freely live out their faith.”

As we know, the argument to “save the children” from the scourge of knowing about homosexuality and therefore opening the possibility—they think—that some children will grow up with open minds about homosexuality, figures prominently into the highly inflammatory rhetoric about gay and lesbian couples.

Never mind that many of the same-sex couples who wish to, or have already, wed are not raising children, the “save the children” mentality assumes that civil marriage is primarily about procreation and nurturing the young. So, of course the social conservatives wish to pull in every bit of evidence they can to bolster their view that two moms or two dads either can’t do a decent job of parenting or homosexual parents will harm the children. That argument, by the way, failed to be presented convincingly in Judge Walker’s court room, for lack of evidence.

But look what I found on the ADF’s web site (the right-wing Christian legal outfit who put up at least 8 attorneys to fight back against Olson and Boies): In the press release announcing that ADF will enter an appeal of Walker’s ruling, it said this:

“A recent study conducted by Yale University supports the position that children, all things being equal, should be raised with their own mom and dad: 81 percent believe that society should do everything possible to encourage the ideal of children being raised by their mom and dad, 57 percent believe the law should encourage that children be raised by a mom and a dad, 68 percent worry about the decline of the traditional family, and 70 percent believe that a man-woman relationship is important in teaching children about how men and women interact.”

Since such an 81% finding would seem to be quite the opposite of reports I have read elsewhere suggesting that no harm is being done to the kids, I wanted to know what Yale University said that “supports the position.” This 17-page report from the “Cultural Cognition Project” are actually preliminary findings of a survey on people’s attitudes, not on whether the children are actually alright or are being harmed by gay or lesbian parents. Event at that, what is “summarized” on the ADF page is grossly misleading. The Findings reported on page 4 reveal that 57% said “the law should encourage that children be raised by heterosexual couples wherever possible.” It also reported:

• 56% said that when a court decides whether a person should be allowed to adopt their partner’s children, the court should not be allowed to consider the person’s sexual orientation.
• 58% said Gays and lesbians should be allowed to legally adopt children.
• 59% said Gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve as legal foster parents.
• 59% said Lesbians should have access to sperm banks on the dame terms as heterosexual women.

In fact, the 81 % figure shows up only on page 9 in the Yale report where it is used to label “Liberals.” But the report’s authors say, “Those who oppose gay and lesbian parenting generally view it as a threat to the ideal of the biological family.” They are not reporting data which show that biological families are harmed in any way, or that children are harmed in any way, but that gay/lesbian parenting is “a threat to the ideal of the biological family.”

Apart from the fact that heterosexual divorce and remarriage should be seen similarly, or for that matter, the orphaning of children, etc., what exactly is a threat to an ideal? Is a alleged threat to an ideal sufficient basis to deny civil rights to real people? Is an ideal, any ideal, sufficient reason to shape public policy in a manner which categorically treats an entire class of people as inferior to others? And for that matter, weren’t the anti-miscegenation laws for a big part of American history trying to protect “an ideal family” as all one color?

—Pastor Dan Hooper

Posted in Family, wingnuts, Lesbian/Gay Marriage, LGBT Rights | Print | No Comments »

The Legal Playing Field on the morning after.

August 5, 2010 by Pastor Dan.

It was this morning’s top headline: “Ban on gay marriage overturned.” I expected that. The Los Angeles Times article [updated 7:42 a.m.] reviewed much of the same ground that yesterday’s on-line commentaries did. I have already downloaded the decision and read the back-end completely, from page 109–136, so I’m already somewhat familiar with Judge Walker’s careful legal reasoning in dispensing the Pro-Prop 8 arguments one by one under the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the federal 14^th Amendment.

After dispensing with other pro-prejudice arguments (two moms or two dads aren’t good for the children, etc.), and underlining the complete lack of supporting evidence for those arguments, Judge Walker concludes that the State of California has no compelling reason to deny lesbian and gay couples the fundamental legal right of marriage. “The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples,” he wrote.

Still, it is interesting to see what others have to say about the quality of the decision, especially authoritative minds. Shannon Price Minter was quoted in the Times, for example. She is the legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) a major player in the larger LGBT movement for many years. Said Minter: “This is a tour de force—a grand slam on every count. This is without a doubt a game-changing ruling.”

(The game that changes is because of a judicial ruling which goes beyond the close-in arguments about the meaning and scope of civil marriage, to rather help build a case in support of full equality before the law for sexual minorities.)

It did not surprise me that the defense counsel had little to say–the guys hired to defend the constitutionality of Proposition 8. At least in what they were quoted a saying, there was no counter-argument (e.g. that Judge Walker had erred in legal reasoning, that there is solid evidence that gay marriage will wreck heterosexual marriage, damage children, destroy the institution and sink the State of California, etc.) except the one which attempts to stoke right-wing indignation: How dare the judge decide against the 52.3% majority of voters who [having been intentionally mislead in the fall of 2008 by a blitzkrieg of anti-gay advertising paid for largely by members of the Mormon religion] said they don’t like gay or lesbian couples. The Times quotes Andrew Pugno (General Counsel for Protect Marriage) as saying that Walker’s “invalidation of the votes of over 7 million Californians violates binding legal precedent and short-circuits the democratic process.” The Alliance Defense Fund is calling Judge Walker’s ruling “dangerous.”

(Pugno has a tendency to puff and bluff, which is understandable because that is the posture of the organization which pays him. For example, this is what Pugno said about the lawsuit filed the day after Prop 8’s passage by the ACLU and Equality California: “The lawsuit filed today by the ACLU and Equality California seeking to invalidate the decision of California voters to enshrine traditional marriage in California’s constitution is frivolous and regrettable. These same groups filed an identical case with the California Supreme Court months ago, which was summarily dismissed. We will vigorously defend the People’s decision to enact Proposition 8.” As it turned out, the arguments advanced against Proposition 8 are certainly not frivolous, and Pugno’s “vigorous defense,” at least in Judge Walker’s court room, turned out to be a total dud.)

On “being intentionally misled” I think Protect Marriage sums it up for me:

“In the campaign, voters were told clearly that voting YES on Proposition 8 would do 3 simple things: . . .

• It would protect our children from being taught in public schools that ‘same-sex marriage’ is the same as traditional marriage, and would prevent other consequences to Californians who will be forced to not just be tolerant of gay lifestyles, but face mandatory compliance regardless of their personal beliefs.”And binding legal precedent is a valid concept. But it generally means that lower courts must abide by the decisions of higher courts. The whole concept of judicial review, which has been with this American republic for two centuries, is meant to, yes, have the authority to overturn legislation—whether written by elected lawmakers or by the initiative process—which is inconsistent with and in conflict with America’s highest principles. That’s what declaring a law “unconstitutional” is all about. The pro-Prop 8 attorneys, by the way, failed in Judge Walker’s courtroom to demonstrate that there is binding legal precedent for forbidding same-sex couples to have civil marital rights. For example, here is the Protect Marriage blog page for Pugno’s Closing Argument before Judge Walker 7 weeks ago:

Hmmm.  Whether pugnacious Pugno’s whimper has any muscle remains to seen. Judge Walker has given the defense counsel until tomorrow, August 6, to submit more papers for a follow-up hearing about whether Walker’s Order should be “stayed” until the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals has a chance to consider it. According to Times writers Maura Dolan and Carol Williams, “To win a permanent stay pending appeal, Proposition 8 proponents must show that they are likely to prevail in the long run and that there would be irreparable harm if the ban is not enforced.”

Meaning: the don’t-like-gay-marriage side must immediately convince Walker and/or the 9^th Circuit that when all the legal dust has settled, the anti-gay view will have won; and that permitting any more same-sex marriages in the meantime would cause “irreparable harm.”

The second half of this is easier for non-experts to analyze. For starters, can attorney Pugno prevent evidence now (that he couldn’t produce during the trial phase) showing that there was irreparable harm caused by the existing marriages of some 18,000 same-sex couples who wed between June and November, 2008? I don’t think so.

The first half is of course open to much debate. Will the anti-gay forces ultimately win? A lot of commentators still fear that the United States Supreme Court, if and when this case comes before them, and if they choose to review it, is so conservative it will make a decision that reinforces anti-gay prejudice in America for many years to come. That’s mostly a political guess based on attitudes which can and do shift. For example, the Lawrence v. Texas decision (2003) which decriminalized consensual sexual activity between persons of the same gender surprised many of us because we thought the right-leaning Supremes would echo the reactionary Bowers v. Hardwick decision (1986), a grossly prejudicial decision even for the times.

I can’t speak to the legal procedural issues on this, but it would seem to me that Pugno and his forces can’t argue for a “permanent stay” of Walker’s ruling on the assumptions that (a) this case will one day be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, (b) that they will accept the case, which they don’t have to do, and (c) that they will overturn the lower court. What comes in between is the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals, a noticeably more liberal court that could very much agree with Judge Walker’s legal conclusions.

So my suspicions are that Pugno and company (Texas attorney Austin Nimrocks representing the Alliance Defense Fund is another attorney being quoted, but there were a total of 11 attorneys listed on the Closing Arguments filing) will not be able to get a “permanent stay” against the Walker decision until the appeal process winds through the 9^th Circuit Court–which could take a year or two. This would mean that Walker’s Order (on page 136) would have to be given full force—Proposition 8 would not be enforceable and marriage licenses would begin to be issued again for same-sex couples. We should have an answer to this within days.

The Christian reactionary Alliance Defense Fund (founded by leaders of Campus Crusade for Christ, Focus on the Family and Coral Ridge Ministries among others), you will remember, is also opposed to hate crimes legislation. ADF also seems quite nervous about the Walker decision, if its website is any indicator, especially about the apparent intentions of the American Bar Association to endorse same-sex marriage later this week! See: ABA to Consider Same-Sex Marriage Measure” The ABA is meeting in San Francisco, beginning today (what timing, what synergy!).

—Pastor Dan Hooper

Posted in Family, wingnuts, Lesbian/Gay Marriage, LGBT Rights, Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »