July 20, 2009

David Boies: “Law is about justice, not bumper stickers”

Wonderful piece in the WSJ by David Boies (H/T to my lovely wife):

Tweet This Post!

July 3, 2009

We Don’t Know Much About Poker, But We Know What We Like: Annie Duke

Dear Annie: Please forgive us for stealing this image from your site without permission, but we think this pic is totally hot, we think you’re, like, totally cool, and we’re, like, totally plugging you. OK?

No, darlings, not Anna Duke, as in Patty Duke (who, by the way, is appearing live, along with Bruce Vilanch, at the Castro screening of Valley of the Dolls July 20th), but Annie Duke, a seriously-hot redhead who is, apparently, A Very Big Name Indeed in the world of live, sit-down poker (as opposed to the sit-down but not-so-live video poker yours truly enjoys, very, very much, even while plonked down just yards from the usually awful local country-western cover bands on the downstairs stage at the dearly-departed Fitz at 3:00 a.m., trying to decide whether or not to keep the high pair or go for the outside royal, while a very nice, but unbearably longwinded unemployed trucker on disability tells yours truly, a saintly-polite, empathetic smile and nod ever in place, his long, long life story).

Tweet This Post!

July 1, 2009

Flash! Sally Kern Still Nuts! “Proclamation for Morality” Due to Hit Oklahoma Floor Tomorrow

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

United States Constitution, Amendment 1

“As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion…”

Treaty of Tripoli
Passed unanimously by the Senate,
and signed by President John Adams
1797

With those simple few words in mind, let’s see what mischief Oklahoma’s greatest embarrassment — batpoo-bananas Sally Kern (R-Nutjbonia)— is up to now (with video and much more after the jump):

Tweet This Post!

June 22, 2009

Southern Baptists Irrelevant-ing Themselves into Dustbin of History

The spectre of the Southern Baptist Convention dying out once and for all couldn’t make me happier — although I do recognize the tragedy; i.e., the SBC was once among the greatest leaders in the fight to keep church and state separate (and, of course, the AA civil rights movement):

Tweet This Post!

June 21, 2009

What Part of “No Law Respecting an Establishment of Religion” Does Texas Not Understand?

What year is this again? What century? What planet— oh, wait, it’s Texas.

This is what it’s about — which the article (after the jump) doesn’t tell you until midway:

In 1999, pastor Rick Barr converted two homes he owned in the San Patricio County town of Sinton into halfway houses — which are classified as rehabilitational facilities — primarily for drug offenders recently released from prison. Up to 16 men lived unsupervised in the houses, court records show.

In response, Sinton passed a zoning ordinance three months later that banned correctional and rehabilitational facilities from being located within 1,000 feet of a home, school or church in the town of about 6,000 — effectively banning the halfway houses from the city and clearly placing a substantial burden on Barr’s ministry, [Texas Supreme Court Justice Nathan Hecht] wrote.

Now that you know it’s about halfway houses for ex-cons — and not even a real church, here’s rest of the story about the idiotic, patently un-American decision from the Texas SC:

Tweet This Post!

June 10, 2009

How to Put Away an Anti-Gay in Three Short Sentences

Along the lines of the fabulous “But people aren’t animals!” conversation— Oh, I’m certain I’ve told you that one more than a few times, but for those who came in late, it goes like this (with my apologies for forgetting long ago who came up with this):

Anti-Gay: “Homosexuality is not natural!”

You: “Actually, it is. Homosexuality has been documented in more than 1,500 species of animals. So it’s natural.”

Anti-Gay (sputtering): “But PEOPLE aren’t ANIMALS!”

In the same vein, here’s a fine exchange you can use to make annoying anti-gay fundies short-circuit. From Pianofight:

ME: Do you [believe] the government should regulate religious traditions?

CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALIST: No!

ME: Do you believe marriage is a religious institution?

CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALIST: Yes!

ME: Then why should the government regulate marriage?

CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALIST: … er …?

Tweet This Post!

June 6, 2009

Eeek! Surround By Pagans! Eeek!

As the Anti-Gays continue to flog the crumbling, dysfunctional marriage between the Evangelical Wrong and that decaying corpse of an elephant called the Republican Party (why, yes, that would be necrophilia), head corpse-flogger and altogether unpleasant little troll Newt Gingrich pulled a new one out of his chubby chipmunk cheeks: the threat of paganism to the ever-increasingly larger wall between church and state.

Tweet This Post!

June 5, 2009

Obama Appoints Radical-Right, Anti-Abortionist Catholic to Faith-Based Council

“While the administration favors reducing the need for abortion by reducing unintended pregnancies, Kelley has made clear that she seeks instead to reduce access to abortion. That is an extremely disturbing development, especially coming this week in the wake of George Tiller’s assassination.”

— Sarah Posner

Much more after the press release:

WASHINGTON, D.C. — June 4, 2009 — Jon O’Brien, president of Catholics for Choice, issued the following statement today about the announcement that Alexia Kelley had been appointed to be Director of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships at the Department of Health and Human Services:

The antichoice organization Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good (CACG) has announced that Alexia Kelley, its co-founder and former executive director, has been appointed to be Director of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships at the Department of Health and Human Services. Ms. Kelley’s appointment would be a defeat for reason and logic and calls into question whether President Obama’s administration is serious about reducing the need for abortion. And, while it may not gain many headlines, the impact and significance of this appointment should not go unnoticed.

Tweet This Post!

May 19, 2009

Radical Wrongy Wake-Up Slap of the Day

“Even if you have a grandiose wedding worthy of a four-page spread in People and performed by the Pope himself, you’re not married in the United States until you file an official license with the government and some clerk with a bad attitude and hair extensions enters your information into the state’s computer records. Then, you stay married until some court says you’re not, at which point you are legally single, regardless of what your church thinks or says.”

The whole thing’s a great read, by the way.

Tweet This Post!

May 9, 2009

Media Matters: This Week’s Despicable Anti-Gay Lies from O’Reilly, Hannity, Robertson, et al.

Via email:

“Perhaps fearing a hate crimes bill that protects gay, lesbian, and transgender people will soon be enacted, many media conservatives have seen fit to maliciously attack the legislation often times raising the right-wing’s favorite red herring that efforts to protect the LGBT community will somehow protect ‘pedophiles.’

Tweet This Post!

May 8, 2009

Gotcha! Video: Bishop Harry Jackson’s Hate Rally in D.C. (Inadvertently Admits to Separation of Church & State!)

MetroWeekly was good enough to post two videos (watch them after the jump) of the anti-gay hate rally in Washington, D.C., at which Bishop Harry Jackson, of Hope Christian Church in Maryland, inadvertently admits — at least twice — that religious marriage and civil marriage have nothing to do with one another.

Tweet This Post!

May 7, 2009

More Evidence the Anti-Gays Are Coming to Terms With Reality. Sort Of.

They’re not happy about it, of course, and there will always be that core stubbornly stuck in LaLaLand, but we’re seeing more of them come around, and admit they’re losing the war.

From Hot Air — the most aptly-named right-wing blog on the Intertubes, which surprised me to no end with this piece that is essentially rational (albeit shrouded in the ever-present veil of imagined persecution):

Tweet This Post!

April 11, 2009

The Things You Find When You’re Researching Prop 8 Donors… (This One’s Chilling)

I’m just going to reproduce this as I’ve written the record for our upcoming Proposition 8 donor database — I don’t think I need to comment further:

Corporate Legal Consultants
6009 W Parker Rd #149, M/S 301
Plano, TX 75093
Phone: (214) 476-0920

What do you get when you cross Mormonism with Dominionism?

PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM (ANTI-GAY)
MR. GEORGE BRUNT - ATTORNEY
[Owner, per LinkedIn]
CORPORATE LEGAL CONSULTANTS
PROVO UT 84604-2828
10/14/08 - $250.00 - 1369259-INC104724

Mormon; BYU.

Why does Brunt gives his address for this donation as Provo, Utah, when he works in Texas… and lists himself as an attorney in Utah, when he’s not shown as a member of the Utah State Bar, but is licensed to practice law in Texas (and in California)?

Because his (presumably “real”) business, Prosper, Inc. (”executive-level coaching for individuals”), is located at 5072 N 300 W, Provo, UT 84604 (Phone: (801) 371-0755; Toll-free: 1-800-748-5199; Fax: (801) 374-2358; www.prosperlearning.com).

What’s really scary about George Brunt: His LinkedIn profile lists two URLs under Brunt’s “Websites” — one for Prosper, Inc., and the other for a 501(c)(3) non-profit called “Constitutional Freedom Foundation”; the site, www.constitutionalfreedomfoundation.org, is dead as of April 11, 2009, so we went to the latest archived version (2006). Bold/italic emphasis ours:

“Dear Concerned Citizen,

“America has always counted on the decency and morality of its people to preserve our values, our constitution, and our moral institutions. Sinister forces are now at work from within our own borders. They would restrict our rights of public worship, undermine our family values, alter the institution of marriage and replace virtue with vice at every turn. They are an organized and well-funded minority. They use the courts and the legal system to their advantage. They are effectively making changes in the foundation of our government – our Constitution. The Constitutional Freedom Foundation is calling upon you to help assure the preservation of our American way of life for future generations. You can make the difference.

“It is in the courts where decisions that have long-reaching impact for our people are made. The front line may be in our families, churches and civic organizations, but the final stand is in the courts. When the well-funded ACLU goes to court to stop people from praying in public or to remove the Star of David or the Ten Commandments from a Courthouse display, we want to challenge their efforts in court.

“The Constitutional Freedom Foundation has been formed to be a voice of morality, family values and responsibility in the courts. We do everything in our power to uphold the Constitution of the United States and to preserve the principles upon which it is based. …

“Timothy B. Lewis, Southern Utah University, has written a series of articles on the constitution that you will find educational and interesting. …”

Under Vision & Goals:

“The Constitutional Freedom Foundation (CFF) is a nonprofit organization that is committed to defending religious and civil liberties and to protecting traditional marriage and the natural family from mounting threats. By educating the public and providing legal services to safeguard religious liberties, morality, and family values, the CFF acts as a nonprofit private attorney general, where appropriate, in enforcing neglected just laws.

“As a public-interest law firm, the CFF provides a national network of attorneys from disparate practice areas who are committed to defending the religious rights of Americans from every religious tradition and to upholding traditional familyvalues [sic]. The CFF cooperates and coordinates with other organizations with similar missions. …

“The CFF is also dedicated to defending and advancing the centrality of the family, the institution of marriage between a man and a woman, and the sanctity of human life. …”

So, we’re basically talking Dominionism here — crossbred with Mormonism. And that, friends, is whacko-fringe, out-there, scary.

So where does George Brunt fit into all of this? He’s mentioned on the CFF Web site (”If you would like to add a pending case please e-mail information to: George Brunt at gbbrunt@aol.com”), but what’s not mentioned is that he’s the head of the CFF, which Tax Exempt World shows headquartered at George Brunt’s home address in Plano, TX. (This address matches his Shantara Lane address found in Zabasearch.)

What else scares us: We find no information for the Constitutional Freedom Foundation from any of the usual sources we use to check the truth about right-wing orgs (such as SourceWatch and Right Web); Timothy B. Lewis’s ravings (here’s one prefaced with “Forward by George B. Brunt, Chairman of the Constitutional Freedom Foundation”) have been noticed only by such Mormon strongholds as Meridian Magazine, and a Mormon blog called Orson’s Telescope (which, we assume, is a reference to radical anti-gay Mormon and sci-fi hack Orson Scott Card). Even this blog calls the CFF “rather fringe-y sounding” (again, bold emphasis ours):

“Meridian magazine has posted the first of several articles authored by the rather fringe-y sounding Constitutional Freedom Foundation, (no individual author is named), a group of Mormons who see themselves as fulfilling the prophecies about the Constitution hanging by a thread and being saved by the elders of the Church, etc. … Of course, the sorts of things they want to do to protect the Constitution are the very things that others see putting it in danger–gay marriage amendment, Ten Commandments in courthouses, etc. …”

That we can find so little mention of the CFF outside its own Web site (and none whatsoever from the loyal opposition) tells us this outfit is flying way too low under the radar for comfort.

Tweet This Post!

April 6, 2009

Hey, Obamaites, About the Token “Faith Fags”: B.F.D. I Repeat: B.F.D.

Can you say “token”? I knew ya could.

One lamb, 24 wolves/spineless not-wolves: B.F.D.

Let him kick the overt anti-gays off his “council,” and maybe I’ll be half-impressed.

Kill this whole anti-democratic “faith-based” garbage, get this anti-democratic religiosity out of our government, and I will be impressed.

Until then:

B.F.D.

Gay man joins Obama’s faith-based council

President Obama has selected a gay man and Human Rights Campaign staffer to serve on his Advisory Council on Faith-Based & Neighborhood Partnerships.

Harry Knox, the new appointee, was among the eight people announced Monday who are on the now 25-member council. Knox said he was “humbled by the invitation” in a statement. …

Knox is not the only gay man on the council. In February, Obama selected Fred Davie to serve on the group. Davie is gay and president of Public/Private Ventures, an organization that helps low-income families. …

Big whoop. Not.

And not good enough, Barry. Not nearly good enough.

And if you need me to explain why, you’re never going to get it. Never.

Tweet This Post!

April 1, 2009

Phyllis Schlafly, Pete Knight, Alan Keyes… and Tony Dungy?

“I’ll always remember him as a sweet, young boy. But I’ll also remember him as that young boy who was trying to change into a man and trying to find his manly identity. That’s hard to do today.”

— Tony Dungy, eulogizing his 18-year-old son, Jamie, 2005
Boston Globe, November 4, 2007

Sometimes I’ve got nothing for you but my gut feeling, and most of the time (believe it or not), if I haven’t got hard facts, I keep my gut feeling to myself. But sometimes, something eats at me so much, I’m compelled to share it with you:

So why did James Dungy commit suicide?
WNYMedia.net, March 22, 2007

Back in late 2005, we were saddened to hear of this story regarding James Dungy, the 18 year old son of NFL coach Tony Dungy. Why would such a fine young man abruptly kill himself? It was sad, it was tragic, and there seemingly were no answers.

But knowing Coach Dungy and his constant religious pontificating, my gut told me that his son was hiding a deep secret. My instinct told me James was gay, and if you understand the parallel universe that Christians operate in, sometimes death might be preferable to the *insert shriek here* horror of being gay.

Now my instincts are being reconfimed as I read this report in the Indianapolis Star, as Dungy was the keynote speaker at a banquet the other night for some nut group called the “Indiana Family Institute”. This organization is apparently fighting to adopt legislation to ban same-sex marriage in Indiana and also rescind hard won equal rights initiatives in the state.

“IFI is saying what the Lord says,” Dungy said. “You can take that and make your decision on which way you want to be. I’m on the Lord’s side.” …

A year or so ago when Jamie Dungy, Tony Dungy’s 19-year-old son, committed suicide, I was close friends with a co-worker who belonged to Dungy’s Northside New Era Baptist Church. Naturally we talked about the tragedy; and I was told that it was understood by some New Era members that Jamie killed himself soon after his father learned that Jamie was gay. My friend didn’t don’t know exactly what Coach Dungy said to his son, but one can imagine. My friend believes that a beautiful young man took his own life because his father refused to accept him. Ever since then, the sight of Tony Dungy makes me ill. It is one thing to believe homosexuality is wrong; it is quite another to be so rigid in that belief as to refuse to accept one’s own son. But to go public with his anti-gay self-rightiousness after what happened to Jamie is absolutely unforgivable.

Reader comment
Dungy “embraces” homophobia
Bilerico Project
March 21, 2007

His son who committed suicide was invariably described as “sensitive” and “personable”. The son was reportedly every mother’s favorite among his friends. The son was raised in a very strict overtly religious home. He was only eighteen and struggling with unidentified “problems”. It sounds like too many I knew when young, a few (thankfully few) who committed suicide because they could not reconcile their sexual orientation with their father’s representation as the ultimate outwardly successful straight man. Suicides are unbelievably painful for those that remain. It appears that his son’s death has only reinforced the father’s religiousity of intolerance.

Reader comment
Indianapolis Colts Coach Tony Dungy
Honored by Anti-Gay Group
TowleRoad
January 29, 2007

Now, read this again:

“I’ll always remember him as a sweet, young boy. But I’ll also remember him as that young boy who was trying to change into a man and trying to find his manly identity. That’s hard to do today.”

See what I mean?

Backstory:

We Interrupt the Tony Dungy Love Fest to Remind You: He’s Still a Radical Homophobic Creep
January 12, 2009

Obama-McClurkin-Warren-Meeks-Et-Cetera Redux: Are You Ready for Gay-Basher Tony Dungy on the Obama Jesus Team?
March 31, 2009

Tweet This Post!

March 31, 2009

Obama-McClurkin-Warren-Meeks-Et-Cetera Redux: Are You Ready for Gay-Basher Tony Dungy on the Obama Jesus Team?

Never mind the fact that there should be no “faith-based” anything connected with our government — I don’t feel like ranting about that again today.

No, this is about Barack Obama throwing us under the bus, backing it up, and running us down again… and again, and again, and again…

Former NFL Coach Tony Dungy Invited to Join White House Faith Council

The White House has invited recently retired NFL Coach Tony Dungy, whose outspoken Christian faith fueled his 2007 support for a gay marriage ban and has won accolades from evangelical leaders, to join its Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, U.S. News has learned. The invitation is likely to draw praise from conservative evangelical groups and criticism from liberals and gay rights activists.

Dungy has long been active with evangelical Christian charities like the Fellowship of Christian Athletes and the Prison Crusade Ministry, along with other nonprofit groups, including Big Brothers Big Sisters and the United Way. Leading the Indianapolis Colts in 2007, he became the first black coach to win the Super Bowl.

The White House press office did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Officials with the Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships would not confirm the invitation to Dungy, but his publicist said rumors of the invitation in Washington were true. …

The soft-spoken Dungy sparked controversy in 2007 by endorsing an Indiana ballot initiative to ban gay marriage and similar legal arrangements for gay couples. “I feel like telling people when they look at this issue of same-sex marriage . . . I’m not on anybody’s side,” Dungy said at a 2007 banquet sponsored by the Indiana Family Institute, a conservative Christian group associated with Focus on the Family. “I’m on the Lord’s side.”

At the event, Dungy said he “embraced” the Indiana Family Institute’s support for the gay marriage ban. “IFI is saying what the Lord says,” Dungy said, accepting the group’s Friend of the Family Award. “You can take that and you can make the decision on which way you want to be.”

“We’re not trying to downgrade anyone else,” Dungy added. “But we’re trying to promote the family—family values the Lord’s way.” …

I don’t give a damn how well-liked Dungy might be — he’s one mean, cold, smug, arrogant, delusional, homophobic bigot.

And as for Obama… What can I say that I haven’t already said? A lot, but after spending more than a year trying to open people’s eyes, I gave up on worrying about anything Obama does unless it directly impacts me. (That’s not selfishness talking; I mean, I finally conceded the fact that whatever he’ll do, he’ll do, and nothing I say will ever change that — he doesn’t care what I think — so why waste the effort?)

And there’s plenty I’d like to say to however many remaining Obama worshippers there are out there, but I don’t see much point to that either. They’ll either finally admit that those of us on the Left — the real Left — were right about Obama and his to-hell-with-the-gays policy from the beginning, or they’ll continue to stick their fingers in their ears and run the ol’ “You’re just a racist!” diversion.

And why not? I’m sure — no, actually, I know — there are plenty out there still stuck in the groove of “It’s only ONE SONG!” and “It’s just a TWO-MINUTE PRAYER!”

Right. Whatever.

Tweet This Post!

March 3, 2009

Doug Kmiec Comes Out… AGAINST Prop 8?!

First, know who Doug Kmiec is. Now…

You read that headline right. And I like the way the ol’ ‘phobe does it too: In “Equality in substance and in name,” Kmiec and his co-author, fellow Pepperdine professor Shelley Ross Saxer, push for the one thing the radical righties don’t want anyone to do — eliminate the word “marriage” altogether. (Hey, if the straights are willing to downgrade their marriages to “civil unions” or the like, I’m willing to compromise, too, as long as we all get exactly the same rights and privileges. Well, no, I’m really not, and I’ll explain why in a moment.)

“To blunt the notion that people can be deprived of fundamental civil or religious liberties by initiative,” Kmiec and Saxer recommend, among other items, that the court:

Direct the state to employ non-marriage terminology for all couples — be it civil union or some equivalent. While new terminology for all may at first seem awkward — mostly in greeting card shops — the third step dovetails with the court’s important responsibility to reaffirm the unfettered freedom of all faiths to extend the nomenclature of marriage as their traditions allow.

Mind you, this idea (which is certainly not new) isn’t some sneaky trick Kmiec and Saxer are pulling in a desperate attempt to reach a “compromise” between two diametrically opposed parties, each of whom thinks s/he’s losing the war (a la David Blankenhorn and Jonathan Rauch); it is the only logical conclusion that satisfies the religionists’ unbudgeable demand that the word “marriage” be reserved solely for male-female partnerings, while upholding the Equal Protection clause — any “compromise” of which is a non-starter.

(The religionists don’t say marriage should be restricted to religious straight couples — they cannot, or they would be forced to either explain why atheists should still be allowed to marry, or begin a campaign to deny/nullify marriages of non-religious citizens — but as they continually box “marriage” into a religious context, it’s clearly implied.)

In any case, by insisting that marriage is ordained solely by God, the religionists have painted themselves into this corner, and as a result, one of their own — and one of high stature among the anti-equality crowd — has come to realize that they can’t declare marriage codified by the state is a religious institution without destroying the very basis of one of their (and Kmiec’s) primary arguments against marriage equality: religious freedom.

The argument for Prop. 8 must be resisted for two reasons: First, because it gives the proposition a far broader discriminatory effect than its language warrants, and second, the proposition is oblivious to the differing faith practices of our citizens. Marriage is of religious origin; it should remain there. Indeed, neither the original court decision nor Prop. 8 showed adequate recognition of the religious nature of marriage, so Thursday’s case can be a do-over.

Some faiths accept same-sex relationships and others profoundly object. As a matter of religious freedom, both must be accommodated, but how? Separate state and church. Prop. 8 keeps the state — not the church — from using the terminology of marriage to officially acknowledge a same-sex relationship. That’s all it does. Prop. 8 should not be thought of, as some argue, as revoking rights granted by an activist judiciary. After all, the official ballot summary recited: “Prop. 8 … doesn’t take away any rights or benefits ….”

Kmiec and Saxer are wrong about that. Maybe one of the many original ballot summaries, as written by the anti-equality camps (there were more than one battling out the wording before Prop 8 finally made it to the ballot) claimed Prop. 8 “doesn’t take away any rights or benefits,” but that is not the official summary of Prop 8 as presented to the voters. (See “California: Anti-Equality Crybabies Threaten to Sue Over More Accurate Prop 8 Wording,” July 29, 2008.)

Nor is it a correct interpretation; Proposition 8 does indeed take away rights and benefits, aside from the right to marry itself (all of which have been detailed endlessly here on the Newswire, and elsewhere).

Anyway… While I’m not a proponent of the push to strike the word “marriage” (for one reason and one reason only: the nightmare of red tape, including the rights everyone will lose when trying to transfer non-portable, non-marriage, utterly useless “civil unions” across state lines or country borders), even I can see how this idea fits perfectly with the original decision in In re Marriage Cases (PDF) last May. After reading — nay, studying — the court’s opinion word for word, it was clear that the court was left with only two choices: recognize the marriages of all, or recognize the marriages of none. Guess which one they chose?

The court could have gone the other way — and could (especially if they’re pushed too hard by the anti-gay brigades) to do the one thing the religionists dread: invalidate all existing marriages in California by downgrading them to “civil unions,” “domestic partnerships,” or any other term.

There is no other choice. It’s either marriage for all, or marriage for none.

Kmiec and Saxer don’t say that in so many words, but do state unequivocally: “The court is duty bound to construe Prop. 8 to maintain the equality already granted under law.”

So, go read Kmiec and Saxer’s piece; it’s interesting stuff, and it’s satisfying to see Kmiec actually write like a lawyer for a change, especially where he and Saxer call out Ken Starr’s (deliberately?) erroneous statement that “the loss of [the marital] title [to be] symbolic, [conceding] [i]t need not affect any legal rights.”

The last line, incidentally, is a throwaway:

By not over-reading Prop. 8, and reaffirming the separate roles of state, a result without religious animosity is possible.

Meh… The authors should have rewritten that, or struck it completely; there is no way the proper result — equal application of the law to all — can possibly assuage “religious animosity.” No way.

Still, it’s worth the read.

Tweet This Post!

February 24, 2009

Jonathan Rauch: Conspiratorial Sell-Out, Or Just a Self-Defeating Wimp?

“A Reconciliation on Gay Marriage,” co-written for the New York Times by anti-gay activist David Blankenhorn of the Institute for American Values (rule: beware any organization that uses the word “values” in its name) — who had the rest of the anti-gays spraying their pants over his “I’m a liberal Democrat. And I do not favor same-sex marriage” snowjob op/ed last September — is the biggest steaming pile I’ve seen since… well, since Blankenhorn wrote his “I’m a liberal Democrat. And I do not favor same-sex marriage” snowjob op/ed last September. On the surface, it’s just more baby spew from the anti-equality brigades, and something I would have dismissed as such without bringing it to your attention, except for one thing: Jonathan Rauch’s name as co-author on the byline.

Rauch, a longtime writer for Independent Gay Forum (which is where I discovered him, in the days when there were about three of us using the Internet), has always been too conservative for my comfort; while he wrote the book Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America, he also has a strong tendency to fall right into the trap of allowing the anti-gays to frame the debate — beginning with the idea that marriage equality should even be debated in the first place — and gives up far too much ground in his willingness to leave it — “it” being marriage equality, abortion, or whatever else is bothering him — “to the states” (i.e., the old separate but equal canard). Sometimes openly, and sometimes furtively (but probably unknowingly), Rauch extends “respect” to the promotion of blatant anti-gay bigotry, as if it were a legitimate alternative point of view. (Hint: It’s not.) “Let States Lead” is typical of his constant compulsion to capitulate.

Which brings us to the Blankenhorn-Rauch NYT op/ed, the basic thrust of which is: Let’s “compromise” on marriage equality.

It would work like this: Congress would bestow the status of federal civil unions on same-sex marriages and civil unions granted at the state level, thereby conferring upon them most or all of the federal benefits and rights of marriage.

Hey, guys, guess what? That’s exactly what Barack Obama proposes to do (whether he does or not, or whether he can or not, is another story), so it’s not like you came up with a revolutionary new idea. The difference is that Obama’s plan would give us all the privileges of marriage, not some or “most.” (Christ, I can’t believe I’m practically defending Obama when I don’t believe a word our new president says about the issue; that’s how boneheaded Blankenhorn and Rauch’s “idea” is by comparison.)

But wait — it gets stupider:

But there would be a condition: Washington would recognize only those unions licensed in states with robust religious-conscience exceptions, which provide that religious organizations need not recognize same-sex unions against their will. The federal government would also enact religious-conscience protections of its own. All of these changes would be enacted in the same bill.

How can I say this nicely? I know: You dopes. Religious organizations are ALREADY PROTECTED in their “right” to discriminate against anyone they want, on the federal level. Ever hear of a thing called the First Amendment, boys? Specifically that little business about “free exercise”?

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Word to the wise, boys: Don’t give up your day jobs to become constitutional scholars.

But wait — it gets even worse:

Further sharpening the conflict is the potential interaction of same-sex marriage with antidiscrimination laws. The First Amendment may make it unlikely that a church, say, would ever be coerced by law into performing same-sex wedding rites in its sanctuary. But religious organizations are also involved in many activities outside the sanctuary. What if a church auxiliary or charity is told it must grant spousal benefits to a secretary who marries her same-sex partner or else face legal penalties for discrimination based on sexual orientation or marital status? What if a faith-based nonprofit is told it will lose its tax-exempt status if it refuses to allow a same-sex wedding on its property?

Rauch, you put your name on this crap? After these baseless bogeymen have been debunked countless times? Never mind that you grant that’s it’s “unlikely” a church “would ever be coerced by law into performing same-sex wedding rites” — you just planted that seed in the mind of the reader: “It’s unlikely, but it could happen!” Planting doubt while feigning reassurance is the oldest trick in the book (and I’m convinced this cagily-crafted phrasing is Blankenhorn’s contribution).

Let’s set everybody (including the authors) straight, so to speak, on the unfounded junk in this paragraph. Apparently, Dave-O and Jonny, nobody sent you my “Six Big Lies the Freedom-Haters Are Spreading About Proposition 8.” Read it now, and pay special attention to Big Lie #2 — “Churches will be sued if they refuse to allow same-sex marriage ceremonies in their religious buildings that are open to the public. Ask whether your pastor, priest, minister, bishop, or rabbi is ready to perform such marriages in your chapels and sanctuaries” — and to my response, the Reader’s Digest Condensed Version of which is this:

• Churches cannot be forced to perform marriages for anyone. For this to change, you’d have to gut the “free exercise” clause from the First Amendment.

• If church-owned facilities are already open to the public, then yes, the owner could be sued for refusing to allow access to same-sex couples. The solution: Keep the facilities private.

As for “What if a church auxiliary or charity is told it must grant spousal benefits to a secretary who marries her same-sex partner or else face legal penalties for discrimination based on sexual orientation or marital status?” I’ll you exactly what, via Jeffrey Rosen of The New Republic (yes, the liberal magazine) in his article, “Charitable Choice & Hiring Practices“:

At the end of January—

—in the year 2001—

—President Bush signed an executive order removing impediments to charitable choice, which allows religious as well as secular organizations to administer federal social service programs.

…Bush proposes to exempt religious organizations that receive government funds from federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of religion. “Faith-Based Prescription for Discrimination,” shrieks the ACLU’s website. “Under the Bush initiative, for example, a Catholic church receiving public funds for literacy programs could fire a teacher for getting pregnant outside of marriage.”

As of February, 2009, President Obama has not rescinded this order.

In his most irritating (but enlightening) defense of allowing churches to discriminate freely on your tax dollar, Rosen continues:

It may seem that religious organizations are asking for special treatment when they demand the right to engage in discrimination with public money, accepting public funds but not the restrictions that usually accompany them. But it’s obvious, on reflection, that without the ability to discriminate on the basis of religion in hiring and firing staff, religious organizations lose the right to define their organizational mission enjoyed by secular organizations that receive public funds. As Ira C. Lupu of George Washington University Law School has argued, Planned Parenthood may refuse to hire those who don’t share its views about abortion; equal treatment requires that churches, mosques, and synagogues have the same right to discriminate on ideological grounds. The Supreme Court accepted this reasoning in 1988, when it upheld religious nonprofits’ exemption from the federal law prohibiting religious discrimination.

And by extending this exemption to religious groups that receive government funds, the charitable-choice law is careful to insist that these groups can discriminate in the hiring of staff but not in the treatment of beneficiaries. In other words, a Baptist church may refuse to hire Jews as drug counselors, but it may not refuse to serve Jews who ask for drug counseling. Under charitable choice, the requirements of anti-discrimination law extend not to providers but to beneficiaries.

It’s not hard to understand why faith-based organizations need to discriminate on the basis of religion to maintain their essentially religious character. A Jewish organization forced to hire Baptists soon ceases to be Jewish at all. … If you want to work in a Baptist soup kitchen, all you have to do is become a Baptist.

While Rosen worries about churches retaining the right to discriminate based on gender and against people who, as he puts it, “refuse to conform to traditional gender roles” (as if it were a choice), he admits that the Supreme Court of the United States “refused to prevent the [Boy Scouts of America] from discriminating against a gay scoutmaster,” and opines that, to “protect the integrity of their religious message, faith-based organizations, too, should be able to refuse to hire drug counselors whose lifestyles conflict with their traditional beliefs — that single women should remain chaste before marriage, for example, or shouldn’t work without their fathers’ consent. The Boy Scouts case suggests that religious and nonreligious private associations should receive exemptions from sex discrimination laws whenever necessary to preserve their distinctive character.”

And:

In recent cases, some churches have taken the disingenuous position that they don’t discriminate on the basis of sex but should be spared the requirement to defend their hiring and firing practices in court because the First Amendment gives them a blanket exemption from having to answer to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. In the spirit of the Boy Scouts case, faith-based organizations should be free to discriminate only if they are willing to take the political heat.

They should be willing to take the political heat, and forfeit all public funding, including tax exemptions. Oh, I’m sure David Blankenhorn and his ilk will scream like little girls at that, but that’s the trade-off: I’ll support your right to discriminate against me in your private religious organization, as long as you don’t get a penny of my money to fund your discriminatory practices. (You want “compromise,” righties? Well, “compromise” means neither of us can have it one way — and yet while you have free reign to do whatever you want, I’m being forced to fund you. But we’ll come back to LGBTs’ ongoing taxation without representation another day).

Still (and unfortunately), for the time being, churches have every right to discriminate against LGBTs. So cut the crap, Blankenhorn — and Rauch.

Back to the NYT piece. Our feckless fearmongerers continue:

Yes, most gays are opposed to the idea that religious organizations could openly treat same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples differently, without fear of being penalized by the government. But we believe that gays can live with such exemptions without much difficulty. Why? Because most state laws that protect gays from discrimination already include some religious exemptions, and those provisions are for the most part uncontroversial, even among gays.

If you admit “most state laws that protect gays from discrimination already include some religious exemptions,” then why did you just waste all that ink fretting about “the potential interaction of same-sex marriage with antidiscrimination laws”? You just shot down your own bogeyman about churches being “coerced by law into performing same-sex wedding rites” and all the rest of the nonsense in the same paragraph.

Jiminy Christmas, boys, if you’re going to spew anti-equality rhetoric, at least try to make it sound as if you’re following something remotely resembling a logical train of thought. You’re making it way too easy to show your “ideas” up as the half-baked malarkey they are.

A successful template already exists: laws that protect religious conscience in matters pertaining to abortion. These statutes allow Catholic hospitals to refuse to provide abortions, for example.

Uh… Duh! I just finished explaining that — churches have the right to discriminate, in accordance with their deeply held bigotry beliefs.

There’s more cringemaking capitulation (and condescension) at the link, if you can stomach it. The piece ends with a confirmation of what I read into it, from the very first reading, from the very first line: Blankenhorn and Rauch each think he’s on the losing side of the marriage equality battle, and, rather than stand strong for his principles, right or wrong, each figures he’d better cave, at least partway, before losing the entire war. (That, or both are incurable narcissists who probably have some bright ideas for achieving peace in the Middle East overnight, too.)

Most telling, however, is the very first sentence:

In politics, as in marriage, moments come along when sensitive compromise can avert a major conflict down the road.

“Avert a major conflict down the road”? Avert? Down the road? Boys, have you been sharing a coma a deux for the past nine months? We are in the midst of a major conflict, and you can’t “avert” something that’s already in progress.

Rant, for now, off.

Addendum: My lovely wife informs me she has just posted her take on this piece. I haven’t read her post yet, and won’t until after I post this; I’m curious to see how our views compare, but I have a hunch we’ll be very much on the same page, as it were — although Buffy will, undoubtedly, as always, make her points with far more clarity, precision, and beautiful brevity than I ever could.

Tweet This Post!

January 30, 2009

Mormon Church Donated $30,354.85 to Eradicate Marriage Rights for Same-Sex Couples.

That’s the church itself, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in Utah, not just individual Mormons. They did it on November 3, and that’s what they were so desperately trying to keep under wraps in their lawsuit asking to keep donor information private. Full story in my post at The Gaytheist Agenda.

 

Tweet This Post!

January 16, 2009

Here’s Another Reason to Love Tom Hanks: He Just Put the Mormon Church in Its Place

You know it has to be one helluva good story to make us link to Faux News — but since the meat of it is in direct quotes, it’s got to be legit:

Tom Hanks Says Mormon Supporters of Proposition 8 ‘Un-American’

Tom Hanks, an Executive Producer for HBO’s controversial polygamist series “Big Love,” made his feelings toward the Mormon Church’s involvement in California’s Prop 8 (which prohibits gay marriage) very clear at the show’s premiere party on Wednesday night.

“The truth is this takes place in Utah, the truth is these people are some bizarre offshoot of the Mormon Church, and the truth is a lot of Mormons gave a lot of money to the church to make Prop-8 happen,” he told Tarts. “There are a lot of people who feel that is un-American, and I am one of them. I do not like to see any discrimination codified on any piece of paper, any of the 50 states in America, but here’s what happens now. A little bit of light can be shed, and people can see who’s responsible, and that can motivate the next go around of our self correcting Constitution, and hopefully we can move forward instead of backwards. So let’s have faith in not only the American, but Californian, constitutional process.”

What cracks us up is the response from Bill McKeever, an ultra-uber-super-duper Christian who’s made a career of ripping the Mormon church to shreds (so much so that we’ve used his article on “celestial marriage” for a Mormon Lesson of the Day). Too bad McKeever fails to see the irony in his own rebuke:

Bill McKeever, a rep for the Mormonism Research Ministry, added, “Personally, I find it un-American to tell people that they shouldn’t vote their conscience. Hanks said he doesn’t ‘like to see any discrimination codified on any piece of paper.’ Considering that just about every law discriminates in some form or another, makes this comment ridiculous. Hanks’ comment shows that he very much believes in discriminating against people with whom he disagrees. I may not agree with Mormon theology, but I certainly defend their right to express their opinion.”

Bill, you’re such a card!

Oh, by the way, “Big Love” starts its new season night after tomorrow, on January 18th. We looooooooove “Big Love”!

Tweet This Post!

January 14, 2009

Religious Leaders, Faith Organizations to Court: Invalidate Prop 8

SACRAMENTO — January 14, 2009 — Today, the California Council of Churches and other religious leaders and faith organizations representing millions of members filed an amicus curiae brief with the California Supreme Court urging the Court to invalidate Proposition 8. The brief argues that Proposition 8 poses a severe threat to the guarantee of equal protection for all and was not enacted through the constitutionally required process for such a dramatic change to the California Constitution.

The brief is filed on behalf of the California Council of Churches, the General Synod of the United Church of Christ, two Episcopal Bishops (of California and Los Angeles), the Progressive Jewish Alliance, the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations and the Unitarian Universalist Legislative Ministry of California, and the Northern and Southern California Nevada Conferences of the United Church of Christ. The groups are represented by Eric Alan Isaacson, based in San Diego, and by Jon B. Eisenberg of Eisenberg and Hancock, LLP, based in Oakland.

The religious groups originally filed a writ petition challenging Proposition 8 on November 17, 2008. On November 20, 2008 the California Supreme Court deferred action on that petition, and invited the petitioners to file an amicus curiae brief.

“Proposition 8 poses a grave threat to religious freedom,” said Rev. Rick Schlosser, Executive Director of the California Council of Churches. “If the Court permits gay men and lesbians to be deprived of equal protection by a simple majority vote, religious minorities could be denied equal protection as well — a terrible irony in a nation founded by people who emigrated to escape religious persecution. If the Court permits Proposition 8 to take effect, religious discrimination similarly could be written into California’s Constitution.”

“The United Church of Christ is honored to join other religious bodies in this challenge to Proposition 8,” said the Rev. John H. Thomas, General Minister and President of the United Church of Christ. “We believe our communities are strengthened and our religious freedoms protected by ensuring that the principle of equal protection applies to all Californians. Religious groups know from long experience the dangers posed by placing unchecked power in the hands of temporary majorities.”

For a copy of the brief visit http://www.calchurches.org/marriage/

Tweet This Post!

January 12, 2009

AU: White House Report Seeks to Mask Monumental Failure of “Faith-Based” Initiative

WASHINGTON, D.C. — January 12, 2009 — Today’s White House report on President George W. Bush’s “faith-based” initiative seeks to mask the shortcomings of a badly failed policy, says Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

“The Bush initiative played crass politics with social service funding and jeopardized civil rights and civil liberties,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director. “All the PR spin in the world can’t turn this monumental Bush failure into a success.

“President Bush should have gotten the Golden Globe,” Lynn continued, “for playing a ‘compassionate conservative’ while doing precious little to actually help disadvantaged Americans.”

Americans United has spearheaded opposition to the Bush faith-based plan from its inception. A wide array of religious, civil liberties and civil rights groups has joined forces to oppose central elements of the Bush plan.

Lynn said Americans should remember that the Bush administration failed to get its faith-based initiative through Congress because it endangered basic civil rights and civil liberties. It would have subjected Americans in need to unwelcome proselytism in publicly funded programs and allowed faith-based agencies to discriminate on religious grounds in hiring for government-funded jobs.

When Congress said no, Lynn added, Bush forged ahead through executive orders.

“President-elect Obama has promised to roll back the Bush administration’s civil rights and civil liberties infractions,” said Lynn, “and we hope he will keep his commitment.”

Lynn noted that even former Bush administration staff conceded that the faith-based initiative was more about politics than policy improvement.

John DiIulio, former head of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, said political strategists controlled Bush domestic policy.

“What you’ve got,” he told Esquire, “is everything and I mean everything being run by the political arm. It’s the reign of the Mayberry Machiavellis.”

David Kuo, the number two staffer in the faith-based office, confessed in his book Tempting Faith: An Inside Story of Political Seduction that faith-based conferences were manipulated to help Republican candidates win votes.

Americans United is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom.

Further reading:

Barack Obama: A Crumb for the Queers, and Blood-Red Meat for the Fundies (Or: Is it already time for another “I told you so” post?)
July 1, 2008

Your Tax Dollars at Work: Funding Fundies Forcing First Amendment Forfeit
August 26, 2008

AU: Dear President-Elect Obama…
November 23, 2008

Tweet This Post!

January 7, 2009

AU: Arkansas Public School’s Promotion of Religion Violates Constitution

WASHINGTON, D.C. — January 7, 2009 — A public school in Arkansas violated the U.S. Constitution by arranging construction of a special meeting room for a Christian student group, according to Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

School officials at Fountain Lake High School in Hot Springs, Ark., refer to the room, built for the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, as the “FCA room.” The space was constructed as an addition to the school’s football complex; it contains a plaque that displays a cross and the words “Fellowship of Christian Athletes Meets Here!”

According to an article in the Hot Springs Village Voice, the addition was paid for with private funds, but school officials came up with the idea and were candid about the room’s religious purpose.

Assistant Coach Andi Kinsinger told the newspaper, “Fellowship of Christian Athletes has impacted many people for over 50 years through the influence of athletes and coaches, and we want to share those experiences with the students at Fountain Lake.

“This new building will make a statement and hopefully change the lives of many for His Glory,” Kinsinger continued. “FCA camp is where I came to know Christ; it provides a lot of opportunity for all.”

In a letter sent today to the school’s superintendent and principal, Americans United demanded that the school remove the FCA plaque, ensure that the room is shared equally by all student groups and refrain from referring to the room as the “FCA room.”

“This is a public school, not a Sunday school,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director. “Public schools must welcome children of all faiths and none.

“The school’s actions are patently unconstitutional,” he continued. “It is wrong for school officials to meddle in religious matters.”

Americans United’s letter was drafted by AU Legal Director Ayesha N. Khan, Senior Litigation Counsel Alex J. Luchenitser and Staff Attorney Ian Smith.

Americans United is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom.

Tweet This Post!

January 4, 2009

“While everyone who voted for Proposition 8 may have succeeded within the narrow confines of their particular belief system, they have failed utterly as Americans.”

Good op/ed in this morning’s Napa Valley Register. I particularly like the not-at-all-impossible scenario of a Catholic voting majority in California and the subsequent potential for a constitutional amendment that would restrict marriage to “a man and a woman who have not previously been married.” (That would seem even more difficult an amendment to fight if Proposition 8 were allowed to stand; the addition of those six little words would indeed be merely an amendment, and not a revision.)

That everyone’s rights are now up for a vote is something the religious zealots refuse to discuss, for obvious reasons. Yet you can be sure that if, or perhaps when, their rights are on the line, they will experience a sudden epiphany about the value of separation of church and state. (Will I be there to defend their rights? As a good liberal, I should. As a mere mortal, I know I won’t.)

In diverse land, a narrow-minded vote

Nothing could better illustrate the deplorable condition of the California education system than the continuing furor over Proposition 8.

How else can a reasonable person explain the fact that, in the most ethnically and culturally diverse state in the country, the very diversity of which implies a wide range of belief systems, an amazing number of people don’t understand that their right to their particular beliefs is precisely what the Constitution exists to protect? …

Like the original Pilgrims, people of the Buddhist, Christian, Confucian, Hindu, Jain, Jewish, Muslim and Taoist persuasions — not to mention aboriginal faiths too numerous and esoteric to mention — have all at various times sought the protection of a constitutional government that distinguishes between beliefs and the right to hold those beliefs.

Never mind that all those belief systems disagree with one another — that’s a given. …

The question that such diversity raises is, how are all these people supposed to live in anything like harmony except by virtue of a system that prevents any one group from imposing its beliefs on all of the others? …

…[S]peaking of the Roman Catholic Church enables me to put the tire back on the road by way of an example. Considering the growing influence of the Hispanic community in California, it is not inconceivable that at some point in the near future it may comprise a voting majority.

Inasmuch as the Hispanic community is overwhelmingly Roman Catholic, when that time comes it will be a matter of doctrine that marriage can only take place between a man and a woman who have not previously been married.

Will the people have spoken if they succeed in amending the state constitution to that effect?

I think we all need to pray on this matter — or should we chant? Before we do, however, we need to face the fact that, while everyone who voted for Proposition 8 may have succeeded within the narrow confines of their particular belief system, they have failed utterly as Americans. …

More at the link.

Tweet This Post!

December 31, 2008

You Might Think We’d Put “The Battle Over Gay Marriage” At Number One, But No — AU’s Got the Top Ten Spot-On

The role of religion in the presidential campaign tops the 2008 “Top Ten” list of top church-state stories, according to the editors of Church & State.

The monthly magazine, published by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, is the nation’s only news periodical devoted exclusively to the intersection of religion and government.

Said Church & State publisher Barry W. Lynn, “It was a wild and crazy year. To tell you the truth, I’m glad it’s coming to a close. I’m hopeful 2009 will be a lot better.”

After studying the past 12 months of news, the editors selected the following 10 stories as the most important and most interesting church-state developments for the year.

1. The Role of Religion in the Presidential Campaign: Not since 1960 when John F. Kennedy the first Roman Catholic president was elected, has religion played such a large role in a presidential campaign. News media representatives grilled candidates on what sins they had committed and what their favorite Bible verses were. Barack Obama fought false rumors that he is secretly a Muslim, and Mitt Romney’s Mormonism became a controversial topic. Candidates were held accountable for the incendiary comments of their pastors and their clergy supporters, such as the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and TV preacher John Hagee. Many observers thought the whole thing was an unholy mess, especially in a nation that separates religion and government.

2. The Resurgence of the Religious Right: While pundits and progressives have proclaimed the demise of the Religious Right, the fundamentalist political movement remained extraordinarily powerful. Republican John McCain found it necessary to name evangelical Sarah Palin as his running mate to mollify the GOP’s restive religious base, and Religious Right forces rammed through bans on same-sex marriage in California, Florida and Arizona. Moderate evangelical Richard Cizik was forced out as government affairs representative at the National Association of Evangelicals after coming under fire from Religious Right forces.

3. The Battle Over Gay Marriage: Bans on same-sex marriage were approved in California, Florida and Arizona with conservative religious forces leading the drive. California’s approval of Proposition 8, with massive funding from members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, was particularly contentious. The Mormons, joined by the Roman Catholic hierarchy and evangelical Protestant congregations, were successful in passing a constitutional amendment that takes away the right of same-sex couples to marry and reflects church doctrine in civil law. The issue now moves back to the state Supreme Court.

4. The Ascendancy of Rick Warren: Once known primarily as a mega-church pastor and best-selling author (The Purpose Driven Life), the Rev. Rick Warren has rapidly moved into position as the nation’s most prominent preacher, despite right-wing views on reproductive freedom, gay rights and church-state separation. Warren, a Southern Baptist who heads Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, Calif., is viewed by progressives as Jerry Falwell in a Hawaiian shirt with an ace PR team. After hosting a presidential debate stacked toward John McCain and being asked to give the invocation at Barack Obama’s inauguration, many think Warren seems destined to be the new Billy Graham.

5. Religious Right Influence at Justice Department: Religious Right influence at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) was exposed this year. According to an internal DOJ investigation reported in the media in July, senior aides in the department used religious and political criteria to hire staff members for non-political positions. Monica Goodling, a top adviser to the attorney general, checked to see if job applicants were “pro-God in public life” and held right-wing views on abortion, homosexuality and other issues. (Goodling is a graduate of TV preacher Pat Robertson’s Regent University.) DOJ also posted a legally dubious memorandum this year insisting that the federal government may give grants to “faith-based” social service agencies that discriminate in hiring, even if Congress has explicitly banned such bias.

6. Battles Over Creationism in Public Schools: New battles have erupted over the teaching of evolution in public schools. Blocked by the courts from teaching fundamentalist religious concepts directly in biology classes, Religious Right forces are trying a backdoor strategy. They are demanding that schools teach the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution, a euphemism for creationist ideas. Over the heated objections of educators, scientists and civil liberties activists, the Louisiana legislature approved an “academic freedom” law encouraging such instruction in the state’s schools. Now the Texas State Board of Education is debating a similar proposal as part of its 10-year review of science standards.

7. Church Politicking Plot: The Religious Right’s dream of building a fundamentalist church-based political machine took a big step forward in 2008 when more than 30 pastors used their pulpits to endorse Republican political candidates. They acted at the behest of the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), a wealthy Religious Right legal outfit that wants to challenge the federal tax law ban on partisan politicking by tax-exempt groups. The ADF, which was founded by TV preachers and other religious broadcasters, hopes the Internal Revenue Service will revoke participating churches’ tax exemptions leading to a court showdown.

8. Defeat of Jeb Bush Referenda: Florida Gov. Jeb Bush saw his school voucher subsidies for religious and other private schools overturned by the state Supreme Court in 2006. Undeterred, the now former governor’s allies on an obscure tax commission engineered two measures onto the November 2008 ballot that would have repealed the state constitution’s ban on public funding of religion as well as diluted its provision for a strong system of public schools. To Bush’s dismay, the state Supreme Court on Sept. 3 struck the referenda from the ballot, derailing the scheme.

9. Blocking of ‘Christian’ License Plate: The South Carolina legislature unanimously approved a special “Christian” license plate featuring a bright yellow cross, a stained-glass church window and the words “I Believe.” Backed by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, four local clergy and two minority faith groups challenged the government favoritism toward one faith. On Dec. 11, a federal district court blocked issuance of the plates. The judge’s action may forestall similar sectarian plates under consideration in other states.

10. The Christmas Wars: It has become an annual holiday tradition Religious Right groups and their allies in the right-wing media launch a yearly crusade to stop the alleged secularization of Christmas and to pressure government to include Christian symbols in the holiday mix. They rail against stores’ use of the term “Happy Holidays” and insist that advertisements say “Merry Christmas” instead. This year, much of the attention focused on a Washington State battle where an atheist Winter Solstice sign was positioned near a Christian Nativity scene in the state capital. Fox News pundit Bill O’Reilly and an array of Religious Right scolds lambasted Gov. Christine Gregoire for allowing the anti-religious sentiment. Ironically, credit for the atheist display actually should go to the Alliance Defense Fund, a Religious Right legal group that sued Gregoire last year, insisting that the Capitol is an open forum where a Nativity scene (and all other forms of speech) must be allowed.

Americans United is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom. Americans Unitied for Separation of Church and State Links: Homepage; Americans United (Press Center); Americans United (Action Center)

Tweet This Post!