www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnVzeGPrmiw

Thanks to my facebook friends who pointed me to this fabulous ditty!

At November 28, 2009, Fantastic Forrest halfirishrover.blogspot.com wrote:

Brilliant vid. Thanks for sharing this, John.

The US Department of Justice has decided not to appeal a federal district court ruling awarding transgender veteran Diane Schroer a total of $491,190 for the discrimination she suffered because of her sex after being refused a job with the Library of Congress…

Schroer had applied for a terrorism specialist position [...]]]> And may ENDA soon make cases like hers a thing of the past:

The US Department of Justice has decided not to appeal a federal district court ruling awarding transgender veteran Diane Schroer a total of $491,190 for the discrimination she suffered because of her sex after being refused a job with the Library of Congress…

Schroer had applied for a terrorism specialist position at the Library of Congress. Schroer was well-qualified for the job, having served in the US Armed Forces and having directed an organization that tracked and targeted international terrorist organizations. At the time she applied for the position, Schroer was undergoing the process to transition from male to female, but had not yet reached the stage of presenting herself as a woman. When she interviewed for the job, she used her legal, male name and presented herself to the decisionmaker with a male appearance. The Library of Congress offered her the job.

After the hiring paperwork had been submitted, but before she actually started work, Schroer told the decisionmaker that consistent with her treatment, she would present herself at work as a woman, change her name and begin dressing in traditionally female clothing. In part to allay any concerns the decisionmaker might have, she brought photographs of herself dressed as a woman. The next day, the decisionmaker withdrew the job offer, stating that Schroer would not be a “good fit” for the Library of Congress.
…
The record revealed that the decisionmaker who evaluated her did so based on sex stereotypes… The decisionmaker also stated that she had difficulty understanding the Schroer’s decision to “transition” because of her prior Army and Special Forces background “as a particularly masculine kind of man.”

Via VirgoTex, we learn that Oregon’s spectacular freshman Senator Jeff Merkley, together with Ted Kennedy and the Senatrix of Maine, has done the DoJ one better:

Senators … today introduced a fully-inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) into the U.S. Senate. Thirty-four senators co-sponsored the bill.

ENDA “would prohibit employers, employment agencies, labor organizations and joint labor-management committees from firing, refusing to hire, or discriminating against those employed or seeking employment, on the basis of their perceived or actual sexual orientation or gender identity. Such protections are already in place prohibiting discrimination based on race, religion, gender, national origin, age, and disability.”
…
Said Merkley: “There is no place in the workplace for employment discrimination. No worker in America should be fired or denied a job based on who they are. Discrimination is wrong, period. I’m proud to join Senator Kennedy, who is a civil rights legend, and Senators Collins and Snowe, both champions for equality, in taking this next step in our ongoing effort to create a more perfect union and guarantee every American, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity, the right to earn a living.”

I know I’ve told this story before, but it bears repeating (if only to remind myself that the turd in the punchbowl often has the moral high-ground, however uncomfortable that may be):

About 20 years ago I was home visiting, and at a dinner party, from the other end of the table, my Dad started in on what he thought was a hilarious story about a young lawyer he had hired who subsequently began to grow out his hair and wear earrings, and then makeup. Soon after, the young man approached my father, who was the firm’s managing partner, about legally changing his name. He explained that he was transitioning from male to female.

My father’s response? I was not in the room at the time, but I’m sure it was a short period of stunned silence and then a request for time to consult with the partners. Soon after, the young lawyer was asked to tender her resignation. And my Dad found all this very funny.

At the dinner party that night, I was the turd in the punchbowl who had the temerity to ask why this was funny. Granted, my Dad did grow up a very sheltered Catholic who even at age 50 had a very hard time believing all of the obvious signs that his law partner was screwing the help – that sort of thing just didn’t happen in Dad’s orbit. But I couldn’t just laugh along with the rest. And I’m proud to say that my now Democratic Dad would probably react differently today.

But that we are two decades past that point and it is still necessary for transgendered and gay people to fight for their rights is enormously frustrating and disheartening.

We are moving in the right direction, but it will never be fast enough, because there will always be someone who gets left behind. It could be any one of us, given the limitless creativity of nature, and the the very limited minds of too many Americans.

So please do as Virgo says: contact your reps and ask them to support ENDA – and if your Senators are co-sponsors, please call them to say thanks.

[W]e also have to do more to support and strengthen LGBT families. Because equality in relationship, family, and adoption rights is not some abstract principle; it’s about whether millions of LGBT Americans can finally live lives marked by dignity and freedom. That’s why we have to repeal laws like the Defense of Marriage Act. That’s why we [...]]]> How can the man who wrote this

[W]e also have to do more to support and strengthen LGBT families. Because equality in relationship, family, and adoption rights is not some abstract principle; it’s about whether millions of LGBT Americans can finally live lives marked by dignity and freedom. That’s why we have to repeal laws like the Defense of Marriage Act. That’s why we have to eliminate discrimination against LGBT families. And that’s why we have to extend equal treatment in our family and adoption laws.

I’ll be a president that stands up for American families – all of them.

Sincerely,
Barack Obama

file an amicus brief in the federal courts arguing this?

In light of society’s still evolving understanding of marriage, the statute adopted what amounted to a cautious policy of federal neutrality towards a new form of marriage. DOMA maintains federal policies that have long sought to promote the traditional and uniformly-recognized form of marriage, recognizes the right of each State to expand the traditional definition if it so chooses, but declines to obligate federal taxpayers in other States to subsidize a form of marriage their own States do not recognize. This policy of neutrality maximizes state autonomy and democratic self-governance in an area of traditional state concern, and preserves scarce government resources. It is thus entirely rational.

So if a state filled with, say, James von Brunns wants to limit marriage to same-race couples, that would be okay, because it’s “traditional” and wouldn’t “obligate federal taxpayers in other States” to “subsidize” the 1,400 federal benefits given to married couples?

Obama has turned his back on far too much of what he campaigned on, but this is by far the worst.

Go read it all, if you can stomach it.

By the way, Saturday in the Park gay pride festival in Esther Short Park is July 11th.

Gay marriage legislation became law in New Hampshire this afternoon. Gov. John Lynch signed the bills just after 5:20 p.m. before dozens of enthusiastic supporters of same-sex marriage.

New Hampshire’s law takes effect Jan. 1.

HB 73, compromise legislation demanded by the governor, was passed by a vote of 14-10 in the Senate and 198-176 in the House today. HB 73 (text), was [...]]]>

Gay marriage legislation became law in New Hampshire this afternoon. Gov. John Lynch signed the bills just after 5:20 p.m. before dozens of enthusiastic supporters of same-sex marriage.

New Hampshire’s law takes effect Jan. 1.

HB 73, compromise legislation demanded by the governor, was passed by a vote of 14-10 in the Senate and 198-176 in the House today. HB 73 (text), was an add-on to the gay marriage bill itself, HB 436 (text), and to HB 310 (text), which made technical changes to the main bill.

HB 73 clarifies the rights of religious organizations and their employees to refuse to participate in same-sex marriage ceremonies or celebrations. It states that religious groups have exclusive control over doctrine, teaching and beliefs on who can marry within their faiths.

Obviously, the wingnut scare tactics worked their magic at least a bit – but not enough to kill the bill.

Way to go, New Hampshire!

UPDATE - One of the commenters to the above article wrote:

We might as well go all the way and legalize recreational sex for everyone.

I believe (at least for adults) that horse has already left the barn, guy.

I’m sorry that you’ve obviously never allowed yourself to fully recreate, though. It might loosen you up a bit.

The decision, however, preserves the 18,000 marriages performed between the court’s decision last May that same-sex marriage was lawful and the passage by voters in November of Proposition 8, which banned it. Supporters [...]]]>

The California Supreme Court upheld a ban on same-sex marriage today, ratifying a decision made by voters last year that runs counter to a growing trend of states allowing the practice.

The decision, however, preserves the 18,000 marriages performed between the court’s decision last May that same-sex marriage was lawful and the passage by voters in November of Proposition 8, which banned it. Supporters of the proposition argued that the marriages should no longer be recognized.

Today’s decision, written by Chief Justice Ronald M. George for a 6-to-1 majority, said that same-sex couples still have the right to civil unions… But the justices said that the voters had clearly expressed their will to limit the formality of marriage to heterosexual couples.
…
Justice Kennard suggested that the substantive rights of gays were the same after the proposition, and all that had changed was “the label of marriage.”

I’m wonder if Justice Kennard – which I have to restrain myself from spelling “canard” – would have felt similarly about arguments against women’s suffrage that said that wives would vote as their husbands directed them to, so there was no reason to grant them the franchise.

The justices in the majority were obviously trying to split the baby in this case, by upholding the “will of the voters” while preserving the marriages of those lucky enough to take their vows before Prop 8 passed.

Cowards. There is no logical way that you can both uphold the guarantee of equal protection enshrined in California’s state Constitution while at the same time granting the majority the power to curtail the civil rights of a minority in that same document.

As Earl Warren wrote in Loving v. Virginia:

The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival.

To allow a civil right to be subject to tyranny of the majority is patently unconstitutional, whether under California’s or the U.S. Constitution.

2 Comments

• At July 20, 2009, The Obama Administration responds to DOMA uproar - Lez Get Real wrote:

  [...] “separate but equal” is back (democracyforvancouver.org) [...]

• At July 20, 2009, Back When Obama was a “Fierce Advocate” - Lez Get Real wrote:

  [...] “separate but equal” is back (democracyforvancouver.org) [...]

AUGUSTA – Governor John E. Baldacci today signed into law LD 1020, An Act to End Discrimination in Civil Marriage and Affirm Religious Freedom.

… “In the past, I opposed gay marriage while supporting the idea of civil unions,” Governor Baldacci said. “I have come to believe that this is a question of fairness and of equal protection under [...]]]> but it’s a good start:

AUGUSTA – Governor John E. Baldacci today signed into law LD 1020, An Act to End Discrimination in Civil Marriage and Affirm Religious Freedom.

…
“In the past, I opposed gay marriage while supporting the idea of civil unions,” Governor Baldacci said. “I have come to believe that this is a question of fairness and of equal protection under the law, and that a civil union is not equal to civil marriage.”

“Article I in the Maine Constitution states that ‘no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor be denied the equal protection of the laws, nor be denied the enjoyment of that person’s civil rights or be discriminated against.’”

Doesn’t the U.S. 14th Amendment say something similar? How about it, C.J. Roberts?

“This new law does not force any religion to recognize a marriage that falls outside of its beliefs. It does not require the church to perform any ceremony with which it disagrees. Instead, it reaffirms the separation of Church and State,” Governor Baldacci said.

“It guarantees that Maine citizens will be treated equally under Maine’s civil marriage laws, and that is the responsibility of government.”

And now, for the bad news:

“Even as I sign this important legislation into law, I recognize that this may not be the final word,” Governor Baldacci said. “Just as the Maine Constitution demands that all people are treated equally under the law, it also guarantees that the ultimate political power in the State belongs to the people.”

“While the good and just people of Maine may determine this issue, my responsibility is to uphold the Constitution and do, as best as possible, what is right. I believe that signing this legislation is the right thing to do,” Governor Baldacci said.

Which is why we need federal recognition of gay marriage, starting with the repeal of DOMA.

Remember your campaign promises, President Obama?

How do you feel about political speeches at the Academy Awards?

I grew up in a fairly apolitical home, with a Mom who loved the glamour of Hollywood and adored movies.  We rarely missed the annual Oscars show.  When a star used part of their acceptance speech time to make a political statement, Mom was very disapproving.

Le Placard (The Closet) is my choice to explore the social justice issue of gay rights. I’ll confess, when I began looking for films for my class, I first thought of Philadelphia. But that is such a sad movie. I wanted [...]]]> What better way to celebrate Monday than to talk about a French film? Ooh la la! I am so exotic I amaze myself.

Le Placard (The Closet) is my choice to explore the social justice issue of gay rights. I’ll confess, when I began looking for films for my class, I first thought of Philadelphia. But that is such a sad movie. I wanted something lighter. There’s lots of heavy stuff to talk about relating to gay rights after this most recent election. Proposition 8 and other measures like the one in Arkansas restricting adoption provide plenty of fodder. I look forward to your discussion questions!

Here’s the trailer.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHyMHzrBN84

As a special bonus, just because I love you so much, I’m sharing Prop. 8 The Musical. I would just like to go on record here that I will forevermore think of Jack Black as my personal savior. Rrowr! That man makes me happy.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5-fZKg4Uj4

PS I’m astounded that yesterday’s post didn’t elicit scores of insightful questions. I can only assume that everyone but me took Sunday off from blogworld. So when you’re done reading today’s call for questions, please hie thee thither and pour forth your wisdom.

My Dear Fellow Clergymen:

While confined here in the Birmingham city jail, I came across your recent statement calling my present activities “unwise and untimely.” Seldom do I pause to answer criticism of my work and ideas… But since I feel that you are men of genuine good will and that your criticisms are sincerely set forth, I want to [...]]]>

16 April 1963

My Dear Fellow Clergymen:

While confined here in the Birmingham city jail, I came across your recent statement calling my present activities “unwise and untimely.” Seldom do I pause to answer criticism of my work and ideas… But since I feel that you are men of genuine good will and that your criticisms are sincerely set forth, I want to try to answer your statement in what I hope will be patient and reasonable terms.
…
The purpose of our direct action program is to create a situation so crisis packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved Southland been bogged down in a tragic effort to live in monologue rather than dialogue.
…
We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was “well timed” in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word “Wait!” It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This “Wait” has almost always meant “Never.” We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that “justice too long delayed is justice denied.”

We have waited for more than 340 years for our constitutional and God given rights… Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging darts of segregation to say, “Wait.” But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate filled policemen curse, kick and even kill your black brothers and sisters; when you see the vast majority of your twenty million Negro brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society… when you have to concoct an answer for a five year old son who is asking: “Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?”… when you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you are forever fighting a degenerating sense of “nobodiness”–then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait.

Barack Obama most certainly understands this, but does he see how it applies to the current situation, to Boehner and McConnell and all of the Republicans for whom the only reasonable outcome of any negotiation is complete capitulation to their side? Does he understand that there can be no “bipartisanship” or “post-partisanship” under these circumstances; that when there is a wrong to be redressed, half-measures and compromises only prolong and deepen the wrong? That, like those clergymen Dr. King was addressing, the Villagers who call for conciliation and comity have never felt the deprivations they minimize with their demands?

And finally, does Barack Obama understand that these words of Martin Luther King, Jr. apply equally to gays and lesbians? That they despair at having to concoct an answer for a five year old son who is asking: “Daddy, why does Rick Warren treat gay people so mean?”

You have reached the top, Mr. Obama, and tomorrow we will rejoice to call you “Mr. President.” But many more are still fighting their way up that hill towards equality, and a concert on the National Mall – even one as stirring and hopeful as yesterday’s – will not get them any closer to it.

Extend your hand and help them up – and let no one stand in your way.

1 Comments

• At January 19, 2009, John democracyforvancouver.org wrote:

  Martin Luther King, Jr.

  Beyond Vietnam -- A Time to Break Silence

  Delivered 4 April 1967, at a meeting of Clergy and Laity Concerned at Riverside Church in New York City

  [audio:http://www.americanrhetoric.com/mp3clips/politicalspeeches/mlkagainstvietnam2.mp3]

A 1977 Florida state law that bans gay individuals from adopting has received its biggest challenge thus far: Foster father Frank Martin Gill won his suit to adopt two brothers he has been fostering since 2004.

In her decision this morning, Miami Dade Circuit Judge Cindy Lederman ruled that there was no “rational basis” to prevent the children from being adopted. The case, [...]]]>

A 1977 Florida state law that bans gay individuals from adopting has received its biggest challenge thus far: Foster father Frank Martin Gill won his suit to adopt two brothers he has been fostering since 2004.

In her decision this morning, Miami Dade Circuit Judge Cindy Lederman ruled that there was no “rational basis” to prevent the children from being adopted. The case, which marks the first time that a gay adoption case has been taken before a trial court in Florida, seems likely to go before the Florida Supreme Court, which could overturn the ban.

…Florida is the only state that prohibits gay individuals from adopting. But it allows them to be foster parents. That means that when Gill wanted to adopt the two boys he’d fostered for four years, ages 4 and 8, he couldn’t, leaving the brothers as official wards of the state.
…
… Over the course of the four-day trial, experts called by both sides presented evidence about how children of gay parents fare. The state’s defenders argued that gay people are more prone to a host of problems, ranging from alcohol and drug abuse to depression. Experts on the other side testified that while gays as a group do struggle more with particular issues, so do other demographic groups—but they’re not banned from adoption, because adoption is meant to be decided on a case-by-case basis, rather than with group generalizations. Meanwhile, no credible scientific study has shown that the children of gay parents are at more of a disadvantage than the children of straight parents, they said.
…
There’s no knowing yet what the appellate court will do. But as it usually gives deference to the factual findings of the trial court, gay adoption supporters are feeling optimistic—both that the Gill family will find closure and that the Florida law will, after 31 years, be overturned.

Florida is bizarre in that it has a very large gay population but, unlike California (at least until Prop 8), has been openly hostile toward gays since well before Anita Bryant brought her particular nastiness to the fight.

Kudos to Mr. Gill for his perseverance on behalf of his kids and kids across the state, and in places like Arkansas, who could find good homes with gay parents but are kept from that happiness by small-minded, fearful bigots.

And thank you for pushing my home state into the 21st Century.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnHyy8gkNEE

Keith provides a kind monologue in defense of marriage and the prop 8 perplexity.  I think there must be a gene out there that drives people to want to diminish others irrationally.  How else can you explain Bush and Cheney?  How else can you really explain why anyone would deny another human being the right to marry?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnHyy8gkNEE

And here is a not so kind monologue by Pat Condel who provides an explanation that it is the “The Tyranny of Scripture” rather than genetics that causes the errant behavior of voting for Proposition 8 and other such atrocious acts.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BaGHKe5oi0

It is amazing how primitive and inflexible we are towards one another.  We truly are “are own worst enemy”.  And if you don’t think so just read this article about stealing from a “little ol’ lady”.  Right now I would like to forget humanity exists altogether.

When it was Amaro’s turn to speak, he wiped his eyes, cleared his throat and talked about his own concerns. They were all about himself.

This makes me hope there is a hell.  That is where Amaro belongs.

Related articles by Zemanta

• It’s Not About You, It’s About Love and Equality
• Elton John thinks marriage is stupid
• Larry Abrams: The Word from California

3 Comments

• At November 13, 2008, Holly Forrest wrote:

  Good post, John. I liked Olbermann's comments. And I was equally outraged by the Columbian story about that scum Amaro and his concern about himself rather than any repentance.

• At November 13, 2008, John d4v.org wrote:

  Holly,

  Thanks

  I read the Amaro article after posting about prop 8 and it incensed me to the point of adding the link and commentary to the post.:reallyangry:

  It may sound simplistic, but if someone could come up with a medication that cures greed and selfishness, most, if not all, of the other maladies that afflict us would miraculously disappear.

• At November 14, 2008, missy nofishnonuts.blogspot.com wrote:

  The world is not all bad; proof: the juror in the case who is sending her jury pay to the victim. It's not much but it's a start.

  I hope everyone remembers her when the Walk & Knock food drive bags come out in the Columbian in the next few weeks...

This Saturday, there will be protests simultaneously (10:30 Pacific Time) at City Halls across the country protesting California’s passage of Proposition 8 and demanding marriage equality in every state.

Nothing is organized for Vancouver yet, but if you would like to help get something going for Vancouver you can sign up here. Otherwise, we Vancouverinos can join the protest in Portland at PSU.

Because we’re doing it again.

Today is the 70th anniversary of the end of the two-day race riot known as Kristallnacht, “the night of broken glass,” when Nazi brownshirts and the Aryan equivalent of the KKK destroyed 276 synagogues across Germany, along with hundreds of Jewish businesses, with 91 Jews being killed in the process. This was in 1938, eight years into Hitler’s [...]]]>

Because we’re doing it again.

Today is the 70th anniversary of the end of the two-day race riot known as Kristallnacht, “the night of broken glass,” when Nazi brownshirts and the Aryan equivalent of the KKK destroyed 276 synagogues across Germany, along with hundreds of Jewish businesses, with 91 Jews being killed in the process. This was in 1938, eight years into Hitler’s consolidation of power and mounting propaganda effort to blame all of Germany’s ills on the Jews (with lesser roles for Gypsies, Communists, leftists, homosexuals, labor union leaders and “race traitors”).

Two years earlier, Hitler’s regime instituted the Nuremburg Laws, stripping German Jews of their citizenship, banning them from political participation of any kind, and prohibiting Jews from marrying German citizens.

While nothing on this scale has happened in the U.S. since the decimation of Native Americans in the 19th century, Californians took a step toward their own Nuremburg laws last Tuesday, stripping a select portion of residents of one of the rights most important to human beings: the right to bind oneself, with the legal recognition of the state, to the individual of one’s choosing.

This is the first time in U.S. history that any government has stripped existing rights away from citizens who have done nothing to forfeit those rights.

And it was done with a simple majority vote, by self-identified church-goers who believe marriage is inextricably tied to the sacred rites of their faith, rather than being a simple contract recognized by the state to in order to classify the individuals involved for purposes of taxation, parental rights, and healthcare decision-making, but most of all for determining property rights and responsibility for debts.

This is how marriage started in the West: not as the solemnizing of a union under the aegis of one religion or another, but to say to the community at large “A and B are now a unit.” (And, for most of the history of marriage, and where B was female, to say “B, and all of her property, are now the property of A, to dispose of as he wishes.”) Marriages before this point were all of the common-law variety: A just picked B and brought her home (or more likely negotiated with B‘s father on the price to be paid for, or the dowery to be transferred with, ownership rights to B).

Then the Catholic Church got involved in marriage as it gets involved in every area of its adherents’ lives: for purposes of control. This was not just to quash divorce (which left women to be cared for by the Church, a drain on profits) and to enforce the Biblical decree to “be fruitful and multiply” (Rome was forever in need of more bodies with which to expand its Empire), but to protect the Church’s assets from the demands of wives and children. By deciding who could and could not marry, the Church could reinforce the laws of primogeniture, take 2nd born sons for priests and condemn them to celibacy, and pair up the rest to best serve the Church itself. It was not much different than breeding livestock.

As civilization progressed and the power of the Church declined with the Protestant movement and the rise of the individual both politically and commercially, it became all the more important to vest symbolic power in the sacraments and rites. You may not be a serf tending the Bishop’s fields anymore, but God would strike you down if you didn’t continue to obey His laws, as delineated by the Pope. And while the Catholic Church was more limited in the parts of the Bible they chose to enforce, the Protestants put the Bible in the hands of the flock, and the number of possible transgressions multiplied by orders of magnitude. The hellfire and brimstone of the Protestant church made sins against these newfound Biblical laws even more frightening.

Now comes the Mormon Church, with its angel Moroni handing golden tablets to his chosen prophet Joseph Smith, and old Joe – who had an eye for the ladies and had made a living knowing an easy mark when he saw one – understood the power of marriage beyond mere control of women and their property. Get control of sex, and you got control of men, as well – especially if you give them carte blanche and while keeping their wives monogamous.

So, with Joe on the brink of getting himself castrated for dallying with the daughters of his followers, God conveniently revealed to him that the men of the church were to spread their seed far and wide, “should they continue as innumerable as the stars; or, if ye were to count the sand upon the seashore ye could not number them”:

61…[I]f any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.
…
63 But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfill the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified.

Now, we come to Proposition 8, passed into law last week in California.

Eighty percent of the funding in favor of Proposition 8 was provided by the Mormon Church, with much of the remainder coming from Catholics; there is no question that in the minds of those who wanted Prop 8 to pass, there was a religious reason for it.

This is, of course, completely odds with the U.S. Constitution, which preserves to all individuals from of – and freedom from – religion. But because the religious reasoning behind Prop 8 is not explicit, this all-but-overt breach of the First Amendment is not among the bases for legal challenges to this new, hateful and exclusionary part of the California state constitution.

And as to Kristallnacht, and why I brought the Nazis into this in the first place?

Because if California can, by a simple majority vote of the people, and on a surreptitiously religious basis strip a class of its citizens of their right to marry, what is to keep them from stripping other groups of their rights?

For example, atheists like me are the most untrustworthy bunch in the country, if polls are to be believed. Why not stop us from marrying, or from adopting kids and indoctrinating them into our heinous lifestyle?

Granted, it would be a challenge to write a proposition without reference to religion that stripped away the rights of an atheist; nothing is so simple as identifying a person by a physical characteristic.

And that is the true reason behind Proposition 8. As humans, we have some monkey-brain need to hold ourselves above a distinct Other; we must be King of the Hill, at least in our own minds. Most easily-spotted – and therefore easily discriminated against – groups have been protected by the 14th Amendment, at least as far as government treatment and public accommodations are concerned. But, at least at the federal level, we still get to hate on the gays pretty much at will.

This is changing, ever so slowly. But California’s vote last week has been a steel-toed boot in the nuts for those of us who care about genuine equality for all. And that the handmaidens to the passage of Prop 8 were the Catholic Church (no stranger to discrimination or homosexuality) and the Mormon Church (no strangers to discrimination on the marriage front) and African American churchgoers (no strangers to discrimination and hate crimes) is the rotten icing on this moldy and putrefied cake.

The Bible says varied and contradictory things about marriage, sexuality and relationships: it hails both wives as property and priests dismembering their concubines. The Mormon Doctrine and Covenants blesses polygamy and then denounces it.

Every religion denounces some group or another out of an existential need to be the One True Faith.

But in its better moments, religion gives us higher virtues: Judge not lest ye be judged. Love thy neighbor as thyself. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

If the evangelicals are correct in saying that this nation was founded by Christian men,* then it was to these commandments that those men adhered when they wrote that all men are created equal, and are endowed with inalienable rights.

“Inalienable” means that those rights cannot be taken away by any man – or woman. Not even when they are in the majority.

The election of Barack Obama to the presidency was a beautiful step in the right direction for this country – but the passage of Prop 8 was an even larger step back, because it took away a basic right of a class of its citizens.

I never thought I would live to see an African American elected President. Now I wonder if I’ll live to see gay marriage given full faith and credit in all 50 states. It seems like such a small thing to ask.

*I don’t believe they are.