Morning Awesome

One of his best, that comment should cut to the bone (if any of the people who needed to hear it were listening, which I doubt). Thanks, Bob.

http://www.terry-gilmores-head.com/2008/11/yellow-and-red.htmlKeep this conversation going

Terry, on your blog you wrote:

I propose a simple, non-religious resolution to this question. All people, gay straight, or otherwise, who want to enter into a LEGAL UNION in any state that is under the jurisdiction of the Constitution, will file for a Civil Union License. This will be the document that is recognized by the Government for legal purposes. This contract will define the rights of those people, and will be the document that is dissolved in the case of divorce (which happens more than 50% of the time in your so called sacred institution).

This is my favored solution. What is your sense of it’s likelihood? My sense is it is not very likely. Anyway, I certainly feel Mr. Olbermann’s sentiments, and fear I will run afoul of everyone here if I answer the points that are more emotional than real, so I will say no more.QT

Changed my mind. I think I should show up here, since here is where the dialogue is happening. I posted on my site, but I’ll repost in the entirety here.Have at it:What is it to me that homosexuals have or do not have the right to marry? When most marriages only have a 50-50 chance of surviving – a number driven up by the(as high as) 75% failure rate of black marriages, why would I want to deny anyone else the chance to get it right?I’m answering this question personally, because Keith Olbermann’s “Special Comment” was addressed personally, and to not take personal ownership of the issue seems a cop out, unfair, and unjust to those who are sincerely asking.I take it Mr. Olbermann is not a religious man. If he were, he could not use some of the words he used. A religious person doesn’t start from the point of view of “no matter what the text says, my heart says different.” A religious person agonizes over that conflict, and tries to find a way to live within the constraints given. A religious person recognizes in him or herself any number of conflicts – of ways that they fall short of the text they strive to follow. A religious person turns continually to the God of their understanding for both forgiveness for their shortcomings, and understanding of why some things are required of them. A religious person turns often to God and says “that seems capricious… why did that have to happen?” And a religious person considers that ongoing struggle, argument, fight, and reconciliation – to be the substance of faith.Because that is the way of religious life, the appeal to conscience is destined to fail. Every time someone accuses a religious person of hypocrisy, or sneers at a religion just because it says something contrary to what other people believe, they are reinforcing the behavior they hope to change. Those who are faithful expect the sneers, and those who are faithful expect the agony. Those who are faithful can honestly look at what is hypocritical in themselves, and try to make good – but making good doesn’t come by dropping their faith – it comes by clinging more to it. Whenever you ask me, “How can a loving God reject the love of homosexuals?” I ask God. (In fact,I don’t believe that God rejects the love of homosexuals – that’s a strawman argument. But I’m answering as if I did.) I don’t decide, unilaterally, that God is wrong, and I am right, or that the God of my understanding is wrong and the God of someone else’s understanding is right. That way of thinking – of changing what we believe when it is no longer convenient to believe it – is the fundamental definition of hypocrisy.My understanding of homosexuality has evolved. I don’t believe homosexuality is a symptom of sin. I don’t hate homosexuals. And I don’t personally believe that homosexuals getting married has anything to do with me, nor do I believe it affects me in any way. But – if you ask me should they do it, I’m still likely to say “No.” I will say it because I’ve belonged, in my lifetime, to three different religions, none of which embraced gay marriage.I THINK I would have voted “No” on Proposition 8, had that task fallen to me. I think I would have, because the supreme court already said that the right existed. But I’m not judging those who voted “yes” because I was not in their climate – I was not subject to the argument day and night – I’m not sure if everyone would automatically understand their duty to vote on the issue as a separation of church and state issue – their obligation to reserve their personal judgment in favor of voting for a civil law.So – what does this mean? Ultimately, it means we need to find a way to articulate, loudly, clearly, that we are talking about a civil issue. We need to find ministers and other religious leaders who can authoritatively say “this is a separation of church and state” issue. We need to vote on what our conscience CAN vote on.Having said that… I note that the landmark changes to people’s fundamental understanding of the law required intervention by the Supreme Court, and a war. Blacks did not get the right to marry, nor the right to intermarry by plebiscite. Perhaps there is something to be learned here. I would sign on for a fight all the way to the Supreme Court to make civil unions the law of the land, and marriage the domain of religious institutions to administer as they will. I would join on such a fight, wholeheartedly.QT

“A religious person agonizes over that conflict, and tries to find a way to live within the constraints given”The constraints given? You stated that gay marriage does not effect you, but you would say No to it, because that is the constraints given? Given by whom? You do not believe it is a sin, you do not hate gays, and it effects you in no way, but you would say No because all of the hokey religiouns you have belonged to do not condone it?With that said, you even go on to discuss Hyprocisy of all things.You say that changing what you believe in when it is no longer convenient is true hypocrisy, but how about changing what you believe in when it is wrong? If you do not believe God rejects homosexuals, then who or what are you clinging to? “the text?”" would sign on for a fight all the way to the Supreme Court to make civil unions the law of the land, and marriage the domain of religious institutions to administer as they will”Then what is the point? If you are searching for hypocrisy in yourself, look no further. A civil union and marriage for all intents and purposes of common law are basically the same thing, but you would label them differently because you do not agree with them? You already stated it doesn’t effect you, so why should it have to be called something else?Im sure I’ve offended you now, but trust me when I say I’ve been as polite as possible. I’m not gay, I don’t even know anyone that is gay, but im also not a blindly led sheep basing my opinions on what others or “texts” say. If something does not effect you, harm you, offend you, or you do not find anything morally wrong with it, yet you still oppose it because of a “text,” then I would say you have been formally uninvited from the community of rational thinking human beings.I do not believe I will be revisiting this thread, because self-proclaimed religious people who use thier religion as a reason not to be rational enrage me beyond imagination and my respect follows with it. I don’t need religion to have feelings of what is right and wrong. I feel sorry for anyone who does.

Why? What is it to you?

The constraints given? You stated that gay marriage does not effect you, but you would say No to it, because that is the constraints given? Given by whom? You do not believe it is a sin, you do not hate gays, and it effects you in no way, but you would say No because all of the hokey religiouns you have belonged to do not condone it?

Erm… Not sure how to respond to this, because I’m not sure I understand your point. A religious person necessarily believes that they should live by the constraints of their religion. That’s the point I’m making. The purpose of this dialogue is to understand why people would vote as they did. I’ve already stated that I don’t think I would have voted in favor of Proposition 8, but I’m trying to provide some clues as to why people would – and I’m addressing what seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding on the part of those on the other side of the debate.

With that said, you even go on to discuss Hyprocisy of all things.You say that changing what you believe in when it is no longer convenient is true hypocrisy, but how about changing what you believe in when it is wrong? If you do not believe God rejects homosexuals, then who or what are you clinging to? “the text?”

Wrong determined by whom? I’m trying to open the door to dialogue, but that actually requires openness on both sides.Let me make this more personal. There used to be an interpretation of the bible that said that black people bore the mark of Cain, and therefore were punished with slavery. As a Christian (when I was one) I actually had to deal with this interpretation honestly. Whether I liked it or not – I had to dig into the scripture to find where it was a wrong interpretation – just my wanting it to be wrong didn’t make it so.We’re talking about why Christians, Mormons, and whomever else, would vote no on Proposition 8. I’m standing here because I can. I’ve made a choice to try to be a bridge between the two sides, because I think that’s something that’s needed. So I hope my intentions aren’t misunderstood.

” would sign on for a fight all the way to the Supreme Court to make civil unions the law of the land, and marriage the domain of religious institutions to administer as they will”Then what is the point? If you are searching for hypocrisy in yourself, look no further. A civil union and marriage for all intents and purposes of common law are basically the same thing, but you would label them differently because you do not agree with them? You already stated it doesn’t effect you, so why should it have to be called something else?

No – you’ve misunderstood me. Maybe I’ve not expressed myself well. Civil unions is a government function. This is something I’ve always believed. I’ve never believed that government should be involved with “marriage.” Heterosexual marriage. I don’t believe government should be involved with it. But this debate, and the widespread opposition to “gay marriage” brings the issue back into sharp relief, at least for me. Government is responsible for a number of civil laws and responsibilities that constitute civil union, but various religions have different practices and requirements that validate marriage. Some religions believe in gay marriage, some don’t. But not only that, but some religions believe you have to have a priest in order to consecrate a marriage, and some religions require a dowry. Etc. All those extra interpretations and practices constitute “marriage” in my mind, and have nothing to do with the government. I argue that that’s how it should be, and I argue further that everyone, gay or straight, should seek civil unions from the government, and if they want to be “married” should seek out the blessings of their faith in perfect freedom.

Im sure I’ve offended you now, but trust me when I say I’ve been as polite as possible. I’m not gay, I don’t even know anyone that is gay, but im also not a blindly led sheep basing my opinions on what others or “texts” say.

You have not offended me. You have in some cases (already stated) misunderstood me, but then, that’s the point of this dialogue. I hope you calm down and come back to the discussion, because – as stated already, my vote was probably already won – but there are apparently many whose votes were not, and it’s important to win their vote (or, as I also suggested, stop giving them a choice, and win this battle in the Supreme Court).QT

“Why? What is it to you?” part of an earlier bit of note-taking and should not have made it into the above post. Sorry.QT

Oops. Forgot to mention this (and suprised no one else has). In my blog, I raised the issue of the problem of this issue going to proposition in the first place. It seemed to me that if it were a right, no popular vote could reasonably rescind it, and the question at hand was therefore really “does the constitution accidentally confer a right?” The ACLU and other groups similarly contest the rightness of the proposition altogether: http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/37706prs20081105.html

Legal Papers Claim Initiative Procedure Cannot Be Used To Undermine the Constitution’s Core Commitment To Equality For EveryoneFOR IMMEDIATE RELEASECONTACT: media@aclu.orgSAN FRANCISCO – The American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal and the National Center for Lesbian Rights filed a writ petition before the California Supreme Court today urging the court to invalidate Proposition 8 if it passes. The petition charges that Proposition 8 is invalid because the initiative process was improperly used in an attempt to undo the constitution’s core commitment to equality for everyone by eliminating a fundamental right from just one group – lesbian and gay Californians. Proposition 8 also improperly attempts to prevent the courts from exercising their essential constitutional role of protecting the equal protection rights of minorities.

That seems about right to me.QT

I was struck by KO’s hushed, choked tone; full of rage and emotion, yet subtle, almost weeping.Begging to be heard.

QT, thanks for sharing your opinion. I think it can only help to hear all perspectives on the issue if we are ever going to resolve this.I live in California, and had the Yes On 8 camp made their case in the way you just did, I’m certain the vote would have come down differently. But they didn’t. Instead, imo, they used the most amoral tactics I’ve ever witnessed. They purposely sought to incite fear and panic, falsely held up children to be victims of mental anguish should it pass, and made every effort to instill in parents the fear that they would no longer have control over what their children were taught, nor would they have an opportunity to even know the teaching was occurring. Essentially, the subtext was, if this passes “the Gays” are coming after your children.My 16 year old daughter has many friends that will be affected by this decision, and as a result she took to the streets to protest for weeks before the vote. She would tell me stories of how people would be sitting at the light – honking their horns and smiling to see so many “kids” out making their voices heard. Many times those same cars turned into the parking lot and their drivers picked up signs to stand with the kids. It was really heartening to hear the stories. People coming together.Then, as the vote came closer, the Yes on 8 protesters started to arrive. They didn’t come ad hoc. They arrived in vans, with large manufactured signs, and with what appeared to be a formal organization structure. Captains divided the groups to the 4 corners of the intersection. The Yes on 8 protesters began to literally outflank the No on 8 kids and push them back away from view. The mood quickly turned to a simmering conflict. My daughter was literally pushed into the street by a Yes on 8 protester who was wedging himself into the No on 8 group. Eventually the police arrived and physically segregated the groups to opposite corners of the intersection. It got ugly.I say all this because in hindsight I now see that the Yes On 8 movement was not some sort of honest effort by religious conservatives to voice their concern for the issue, it was a calculated political campaign that was deeply funded to achieve a goal. They ginned up homophobic concerns as a means to achieve their goal.But the thing that I can’t figure out is, what was their goal? What is achieved for them by this result? Was it a method to GOTV of the religious community to help the Republican base? This is CALIFORNIA, McCain never had a shot here, and the statewide districts are so gerrymandered there’s no Republican at risk anywhere. So what was the goal? I honestly don’t know, but I’m convinced it wasn’t to “save marriage”. This is worth someone’s time to research why so much money would be spent to rescind other people’s rights.I just want everyone out there to understand that the Proposition out here was not so clearly represented as to be a relatively simple referendum on the protection of rights. I wish it had been that simple.

As evidenced by Keith’s very passionate and heart-felt plea for understanding, this topic in one which stirs up many emotions. I was raised as a Mennonite, a very conservative group of Christianity, and my father, although we feel the same on a majority of political and moral issues, is still against gay marriage. As an adult, I have found my own way spiritually and have released some of the more hard-line teachings of the church.It seems that for many people, the issue is with the term “marriage,” and the feeling that “marriage” should only refer to a religious union between a man and a woman. I’m cool with the state issuing only “civil union licenses” to all couples, and letting individual religions and denomination battle it out amongst themselves about who should be “married” within their religion, as long as legally all civil unions are recognized equally.One of the things that bothers me about Prop 8 is that it means a religious viewpoint is now a legal one, and we are in a country where church and state are supposed to be separate. It also creates further division between those who can and those who can’t, and haven’t we had enough of those in all areas of our society? I really liked Keith’s emphasis on love, and that love is so rare and should be treasured and celebrated wherever it is found. It was also really beautiful that it came from someone who is such a cynic – it was almost surprising.I’ve mentioned before, and I’ll mention again, that one of the things I love most about this blog (beyond being able to cuss like a sailor – it’s practically required around here!) is that we are able to discuss different points of view while maintaining respect for each other, and I hope we can continue to do that, even on such a heated topic such as this one. We have a really great community here.

LFOD08:There’s a side of things I haven’t really talked about, because its troubling, and I can’t own it. But it is the side that I’m arguing most strenuously for building a movement AGAINST… and that is the theocratic impulse of a portion of the religious right. This viewpoint believes that they have a right and moral obligation to impose their religious views on the nation. I can probably dig up some of the scriptures that are used to support this point of view (at least from a Christian perspective – I don’t know the Mormon text). But this group is more concerned with pushing through legislation that reflects their world view than they are with electing particular politicians. Their attachment to politicians is only as far as those politicians will advance their causes.In the other thread, I argued to Lee that a group of ministers need to band together and promote separation of church and state. Forgotten in this debate is the fact that the religious views of those denominations that DO sanction gay marriage are being violated by these laws. These ministers can and should organize a loud and noisy coalition for religious freedom, because the theocratic elements of society are a genuine threat.QT

Ok, I have to get some actual work done but I will finally (today!) post on my blog why African Americans are more likely to vote yes on this issue, at least as I see it, and why a religious argument that reaches their churches would have been helpful.And KatinWilm… thank you. I agree. QT

That was an awesome Special Comment by Keith Olbermann. It sums up almost everything to be said on the subject, and very movingly.I constantly wonder that so many people spend so much time ignoring much of what Jesus said, in favor of stray passages from Leviticus or a phrase in a Pauline letter that is subject to multiple interpretations (as is most scripture). Jesus spoke strongly against those who observed every “jot and tittle” of the law (i.e., scripture) but had not love in their hearts. He said that “the kingdom of heaven is within.” He did not say a word about homosexuality. If God is Love (and I believe he/she is), then yes, Love does trump Scripture. Scripture is man’s attempt to interpret God in words, but God speaks in our hearts. Even Paul said “the greatest of these is Love.”

One of my favorite words is “enlightenment”. I think we are seeing manifestations of this right now across our society here in the US. To me what Keith is talking about is the pain that can come with personal enlightenment. It hurts to see what ignorance can wrought in the lives of our fellow men and women. Voting yes to proposition 8 is a good example of this. KO is right about love. God is love. Love would vote no on Prop 8.

I would have been far more impressed if KO hadn’t told the women on “The View” that he doesn’t vote. In any election.Some bullshit about “journalist objectivity.”As if.So, while I’m sure his commentary was heartfelt, if he doesn’t vote, then to me, his impact is diminished.Not voting is crap.

So.Did my post not work because of TypeKey, or was I scrubbed?

PackyJ – your post is there I think. I don’t think Bob “scrubs.”LFOD08 – I just thought of something else. You said there was a sudden build up of the Yes on 8 effort… I was just reading that the Mormon church bankrolled this. It occurs to me that they want to position themselves at the forefront of the conservative movement, as a backing to Mitt in 2012…QT

I didn’t think he scrubbed. it was just TypeKey.Did I mention FUCK typeKey?

The morality Nazis win another one.God bless Keith Olberman.

I thought Keith was brilliant, insightful and humane. Thanks for that, Bob. Comments which follow are thoughtful and truly heart-searching. As peggygeorge and others pointed out – the heart of all great religions is love. And love is inclusive, not exclusive. Jesus was part and parcel of his time, but set an example by keeping company with those whom the rest of his society shunned, taking what had been basically a religion forged on principles from an Iron Age context and evolved to a new understanding. His faith was not frozen, calcified, rigid, but expansive, imaginative and inspired. So those of us who are ‘believers’ and those not, need to keep our hearts and minds open to ‘the promptings of love’ for our fellow human beings. We are still evolving. I believe miracles and revelations still happen, only we sometimes fail to recognize them as such. But my heart tells me that the California the repeal of legal gay marriage rights is not one of them.

hey QTif you need to turn to your religion to answer every question society brings to you, then you are an unintelligent, insecure human being who is brainwashed by the church to control people to carry out the absurd wishes of the church. You keep going back to religion, but this isn’t a question of religion. stop bringing religion into this for once. this is a question of human rights. human freakin rights. so if you can’t for once think for yourself without referring to what a book said 2000 freakin years ago, then you are in literal terms retarded.Have you ever thought about if you were gay and religious. Would you want to be able to marry someone you love or would you be happy and ok with all of your fellow religious peers telling you “no you can’t marry because you are gay”…”but you can still come and pray with us at our church.” effing ridiculous. you sicken me.