Showing posts with label Civil Rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Civil Rights. Show all posts

Monday, August 27, 2012

Archbishop-Elect Salvatore Cordileone (Co-Creator of CA Proposition 8) Arrested for DUI

What a fascinating development!


When Father Peter Petroske was recently arrested in Michigan for a DUI, he was immediately suspended from his duties.  (He also happened to be driving naked.)  It will be interesting to see if +Cordileone is suspended from his duties and sent off to detox or whether bishops on the fast track to cardinal, who author anti-gay constitutional amendments, get a free pass.  

ABC reports that Archbishop-elect Cordileone was arrested at 12:30 AM Saturday morning in the College District of San Diego State University.  Why was a drunken +Cordileone cruising at that hour?  I doubt he was canvassing against gay rights.





Sunday, July 29, 2012

Catholic Seminary's Website Contains Picture of Priest Removed for Alleged Sexual Abuse of Minors

     When recently visiting my alma mater's website, I discovered that St. Mary's Seminary and University of Baltimore is still using pictures taken during my first semester in 1998.  One photo includes a classmate of mine, who was removed from ministry in 2002 after he was accused of sexually abusing children.


     Very classy, St. Mary's.


     Perhaps the Catholic Church should divert some of the funds that it's using to fight LGBT rights into procuring pedophile-less pictures for its seminaries' websites.


St. Mary's Seminary and University
(Photo taken by me.)

Saturday, July 28, 2012

Monday, July 11, 2011

Dan Savage and Keith Olbermann Get to the Heart of the Hatred Involved in Religious Homophobia

     In the video below, Dan Savage and Keith Olbermann get to the heart of how religion conditions gay persons to hate themselves.  So much of what Savage says speaks true to my past experience of being trained to hate myself as "God created me." 

     An example of this is in an Advocate article by John Becker, a married gay man, who went undercover and experienced the "ex-gay therapy" offered at Michelle Bachmann's husband's "clinic."  So much of what they told Becker is what I was told in Catholic seminary "formation."  I'm so grateful that I escaped.

     Back to Savage and Olbermann.  Savage is brilliant at turning homophobic arguments on their heads.  (The first half of the interview is about the Tony-winning The Book Mormon and marriage equality in New York.)  Start the video at minute 11:00 to get the point about the homophobia preached by many religions, Christianity in particular.


Here's a little bonus video: "I Believe" from The Book of Mormon.

Saturday, July 9, 2011

A Response to Archbishop Dolan's "Afterthoughts" and "Apology" Concerning the Same-Sex Marriage Battle in New York

Hello, readers.  I apologize for the long absence.  For my own well-being, I had to take a break from confronting the hatred out there.  That said, much has happened in New York where same-sex couples will now enjoy the state-level civil rights that opposite-sex couples enjoy.

Image Credit:   CBS News/Mike Segar
Archbishop Timothy Dolan just posted his "Afterthoughts" on his experience of being the mouthpiece for the anti-gay side of the New York marriage equality battle of the past few months.  In the response, which you can read in full here, he compares himself to John the Baptist and Thomas Moore, who were both beheaded.  He also "apologizes" to any gay persons who may have been offended by anything that he said.  (If you recall, he compared same-sex couples marrying to marrying his mother and that polygamy would follow gay rights.)

Here is my response.

Dear +Tim,

You are correct about one thing: "Finally, last point, for us in the Church, not much changes." Exactly, because in the U.S.A. there is a separation of church and state. You can discriminate as much as you want to in your churches and sacraments. That's what you purchase with your tax exemption. But know this: when you come after people's civil rights, you give up your claim to tax exemption. We will continue to fight you to retain our civil rights.

Those of us who are fighting for equal civil rights for LGBT persons are not "theophobic" or anti-religion; we're anti-theocracy. We don't care about your sacramental rights or rites.

I would think you would be anti-theocracy as well, since that's the real reason Thomas Moore was beheaded--he lived in a state where the King believed he was the hand of his god and not the pope's god. World history and your Old Testament show that there is a great danger marrying church and state; it always ends very bloody.

As for your "apology" to those of us who were "unintentionally" hurt by your "defense" of marriage, now you just dilute yourself. You said so many things that were based on unscientific, outdated and historically-abused stereotypes about homosexuals (i.e. the way you linked same-sex marriages to incest, polygamy, and such). You calculated your responses to hit below the belt and to stir the fears of your followers. You stoked hatred against LGBT persons who have been historically repressed and even tortured and murdered (see the Inquisition) in the name of your church.

Your "apology" is as hollow as the arguments you made against marriage equality. How do you look yourself in the mirror in the morning? How do you look gay priests and youth in the eyes? Do you have any idea how hurtful, demoralizing, and harmful your characterizations of homosexuals are? Your "apology" shows how out of touch you are with the virtue of compassion.

Yours outside of Christ,

Heretic Tom


Postscript: In case you forgot, +Tim, here's what the church did to gays in the Inquisition.
Source: Woodcut. Published in the 'Speculum in oculis Domini abominatium' by Franziscus Grotius, Leipzig,1474.  Reproduced in 'Inquisition torture instruments from the Middle Ages to the Industrial Age, "Qua d'Arno, Florence, 1985.


Thursday, April 28, 2011

A Response to Donald Trump's Racism and Disregard for the Dignity of Every Black American

     Baratunde Thurston's heartfelt response to the undying Gospel According to Hate and Racism that fueled the release of President Obama's birth certificate to Donald Trump's Tea Party.

Sunday, April 10, 2011

Will Right-Wing Christians Go after Interracial Marriages Next?

     46% of these hardcore Republican voters believe interracial marriage should be illegal, while 40% think it should be legal.
     No, this isn't 1966 when interracial marriage became legal in Mississippi.  This is 2011.   

     But who are these "hardcore Republicans"?

     The PPP poll also revealed that [Sarah] Palin has more support among voters who believe interracial marriage should be illegal than among those who are OK with it. Mitt Romney's numbers reveal just the opposite. He has a higher favorability among Mississippi Republicans who want interracial marriage to remain legal.
     Interesting.   

     One thing I hear all the time from well-intentioned supporters of marriage equality is "Just be patient.  The next generation is more accepting. Things will change in another ten or twenty years."  Well check out this result from the poll:


Saturday, March 12, 2011

Wisconsin, Michigan, Washington, Public vs Private Sector, Salaries, Unions, Tax Cuts, Corporations, Greed, Religion, Hypocrisy, & the Republican Jesus Christ of the Upper Class: David Koch -- A Lament for Our Time

     Good Christian white rich men rejoice!  With heart and soul and voice!  If Calvin was right and the Prosperity Gospel is true, then you are on your way to heaven.  Only, you may not want to stay long as your Jesus will be hanging out with the poor people who's rights, benefits, and livelihoods you've crushed.  

     You say it's the middle class and public employees that are bankrupting America, especially those money-hoarding teachers, power-hungry nurses, and lazy road-construction workers.  You hypocrites!  You forget, that we are the poor souls are paying your salaries.


             So, why don't all of you Tea Party/Republican politicians put your money where your mouth is and lower your wages, benefits, and expense accounts to the average made by your fellow public workers?  In Wisconsin, you would drop to a salary of $50,774; in Michigan, $58,801; and in Washington, DC, $82,607 (which is only $457 more than DC's private sector workers.  Hmm.  I wonder if the immense cluster of elected public officials and their six-figure salaries have anything to do with DC leading the nation's average public-sector salary?).  Or better yet, you should all work for free.   When you each average nearly a million dollars in personal wealth, why should we be paying you?

             But the public money that the Scott Walkers and John Boeners of the world are being paid is peanuts compared to the billions their benevolent benefactors are making thanks to unprecedented tax cuts, courtesy of the political lobbying and campaign donations bought and paid for by multi-billionaire heir David Koch (Roman Catholic) and the like.  

             Mister Koch--Or shall we refer to you as "Master"?--you might want to catch up on the social ethics of your own precious Holy (Dysfunctional) Mother Church, who has supported the right of workers to join unions and collectively bargain, not to mention a just wages, universal healthcare, taxation of the rich, and service to the poor, alien, and ill.  Of course, Mother Church is still giving you and your Speaker Boehner communion, which makes her a hypocrite, as well.

             Oh, America, when did you become so ungrateful?  Oh, Middle Class, when did you become so ignorant, so easily duped?  When will you wake up and see that the problem is not that public workers are paid too much but that private workers, whose corporate overlords are stuffing their pockets via tax loopholes they've bought and secured with your votes, are paid too little!  You are fighting over the difference of a few thousand dollars, while the upper class of our nation, Wall Street thieves, and corporate hoarders are transferring wealth from the middle class to the upper 2% at unprecedented proportions.  The Forbes 400, the richest 400 individuals in the nation, have no amassed more wealth than a combined 155 million Americans.

             Yes, 0.0001% of the American public holds 50% of the nation's wealth.  Don't believe me, take it up with Forbes and simple math (although I had to get out my old scientific calculator to divide 400 by 310,964,000).  Trickle down economics--the warrior's cry of the Republican politicians of my youth--has shed it's grace on thee, upper 0.0001%.

             But still, the GOP wants to extend tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans at the expense of the poor and middle class.  This chart from the Center for American Progress says it all:

             If faced with such an immoral disparity, what would Jesus do?  

             Apparently, the Jesus of the United States of America would take back the loaves and fishes he'd given to the middle class of Wisconsin, shake the snow from his sandals, and walk across the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers to Wichita so he could hand-feed David Koch.
             I've heard the middle and lower classes despairing on Facebook and in the streets, "What can we do?"  "We're helpless."  "We don't have the money to influence politicians like the corporations and billionaires do."  Well still have the votes, although the upper class is working pretty hard to take those away from us too.  We have the numbers.  It's time to STRIKE!  If every public employee in this nation stopped working for one or two days, the nation would come to a standstill.  And even David Koch couldn't save the upper class then.


             Postscript: In my years as a Catholic school student, seminarian, and priest, I never once heard a private sector/Catholic school teacher or parish employee, who was making between twenty and forty thousand dollars while trying to feed a natural-family-planning family of four or five children, ever say, "You know, I'm making just the right amount of money for what I do."  So, let's not blame the state for being too generous to school teachers, when it's the private sector who refuses pay its workers a just wage.

        Hug a teacher!

        Friday, February 25, 2011

        The Taliban and the Tea Bagger, Part MMMDCCLXIII: Loving Christian Republicans Laugh at Town Hall Question, "Who Is Going to Shoot President Obama?"

             Here's a follow-up to yesterday's post.

             Salon reports:
             Here's the latest evidence that nothing has changed in post-Tucson America: A person at a Tuesday town hall with Rep. Paul Broun, R-Ga. [Baptist], got up and asked, "Who is going to shoot President Obama?" 
             The exact wording of the question is not clear because, the Athens Banner-Herald reports, there was a lot of noise at the event. Perhaps more significant than the question was the response of the crowd and Broun, who is a member of the Tea Party Caucus and one of the most right-wing members of Congress. 
             The question prompted a "big laugh" from the crowd, in Oglethorpe County, Ga., according to the Banner-Herald. Broun, for his part, did not object to the question.  [Click here for the rest.]

             So much for any post-Tuscon civility.   On average, 34 Americans die from guns every day.  If you are looking for gun laws to change and a way to help bring down the statistics, check out Mayors Against Illegal Guns.  They are a bi-partisan coalition trying to do something about this gun-inflicted terror raging within our nation.

             As for the anti-union, anti-healthcare reform, anti-government GOP myth, how quickly they have forgotten their party's history.  Look at what a little bit of history reveals about Presidents Reagan, Eisenhower and Nixon (from the San Francisco Chronicle's article about the California Assembly recognizing President Reagan a few weeks ago):
             "Eisenhower supported unions, and Nixon advanced health care reform that was more ambitious than what President Clinton proposed and certainly more than what President Obama got," he said. "President Reagan was a member of a union. He was the first president to allow a black couple to spend an evening at the White House. And he even imposed taxes when he was the governor of California. He created the welfare program in California, and he did it not only as a Republican but as a patriot. It's important to recognize his contributions."
              The speeches prompted one Democratic staffer at the back of the chamber to quip, "Who's this left-wing nut job they're talking about?"
             The answer: someone they would threaten to shoot, were he president today.

        Wednesday, February 23, 2011

        President Obama Finally Comes Out Against the Defense of Marriage Act & Refuses to Defend It in Court

             This is a huge and long-fought victory in the fight for marriage equality and to repeal the hateful discrimination that is the Defense of Marriage Act.  The National Journal reports:
             President Obama believes that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional and will no longer defend the 15-year-old law in federal court, the Justice Department announced today.  The decision, which stunned and delighted gay-rights activists, means that the administration will withdraw its defense of ongoing suits in two federal Appeals Courts and will leave it to Congress to defend the law, known as DOMA, against those challenges. It will remain a party to the lawsuits. The law itself remains in effect.  DOMA, signed by President Clinton in 1996, allows states not to recognize same-sex marriages preformed in other states and provides a federal definition for “marriage” that excludes same-sex couples.
             In a statement, Attorney General Eric Holder said, “After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the president has concluded that, given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny”. . .
             The decision means the Justice Department will cease to defend two suits brought against the law. The first was a summary judgment issued in Gill et al. v. Office of Personnel Management and Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services last May by the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts. The plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of the law’s definition of “marriage” as a legal union between a man and a woman.

        Saturday, February 19, 2011

        The GOP's War on Women's Rights and Poor Children; Democratic Representatives Moore & Speier Fight Back

             Do you remember October and November, when Republicans said that the election was about job creation?  Well, the past month has shown their true agenda.  One of the groups they are targeting is women.  How is this for the Gospel According to Hate?

             MoveOn.org compiled the following report:

        Top 10 Shocking Attacks from the GOP's War on Women

        1) Republicans not only want to reduce women's access to abortion care, they're actually trying to redefine rape. After a major backlash, they promised to stop. But they haven't yet. Shocker.
        2) A state legislator in Georgia wants to change the legal term for victims of rape, stalking, and domestic violence to "accuser." But victims of other less gendered crimes, like burglary, would remain "victims."
        3) In South Dakota, Republicans proposed a bill that couldmake it legal to murder a doctor who provides abortion care. (Yep, for real.)
        4) Republicans want to cut nearly a billion dollars of food and other aid to low-income pregnant women, mothers, babies, and kids. 
        5) In Congress, Republicans have a bill that would let hospitals allow a woman to die rather than perform an abortion necessary to save her life. 
        6) Maryland Republicans ended all county money for a low-income kids' preschool program. Why? No need, they said.Women should really be home with the kids, not out working. 
        7) And at the federal level, Republicans want to cut that same program, Head Start, by $1 billion. That means over 200,000 kids could lose their spots in preschool.
        8) Two-thirds of the elderly poor are women, and Republicans are taking aim at them too. A spending bill would cut funding for employment services, meals, and housing for senior citizens.
        9) Congress just voted for a Republican amendment to cut all federal funding from Planned Parenthood health centers, one of the most trusted providers of basic health care and family planning in our country.
        10) And if that wasn't enough, Republicans are pushing toeliminate all funds for the only federal family planning program. (For humans. But Republican Dan Burton has a bill to provide contraception for wild horses. You can't make this stuff up).

        Sources: 

        1. "'Forcible Rape' Language Remains In Bill To Restrict Abortion Funding," The Huffington Post, February 9, 2011http://www.moveon.org/r?r=206084 
        "Extreme Abortion Coverage Ban Introduced," Center for American Progress, January 20, 2011http://www.moveon.org/r?r=205961 
        2. "Georgia State Lawmaker Seeks To Redefine Rape Victims As 'Accusers,'" The Huffington Post, February 4, 2011http://www.moveon.org/r?r=206007 
        3. "South Dakota bill would legalize killing abortion doctors," Salon, February 15, 2011http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2011/02/15/south_dakota_abortion_killing_bill 
        4. "House GOP Proposes Cuts to Scores of Sacred Cows," National Journal, February 9, 2011http://nationaljournal.com/house-gop-proposes-cuts-to-scores-of-sacred-cows-20110209 
        5. "New GOP Bill Would Allow Hospitals To Let Women Die Instead Of Having An Abortion," Talking Points Memo, February 4, 2011http://www.moveon.org/r?r=205974 
        6. "Republican Officials Cut Head Start Funding, Saying Women Should be Married and Home with Kids," Think Progress, February 16, 2011http://thinkprogress.org/2011/02/16/gop-women-kids/ 
        7. "Bye Bye, Big Bird. Hello, E. Coli," The New Republic, Feburary 12, 2011http://www.tnr.com/blog/83387/house-republican-spending-cuts-pell-education-usda-pbs 
        8. "House GOP spending cuts will devastate women, families and economy," The Hill, February 16, 2011 http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-a-budget/144585-house-gop-spending-cuts-will-devastate-women-families-and-economy- 
        9. "House passes measure stripping Planned Parenthood funding," MSNBC, February 18,2011 http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/02/18/6080756-house-passes-measure-stripping-planned-parenthood-funding
        "GOP Spending Plan: X-ing Out Title X Family Planning Funds," Wall Street Journal, February 9, 2011http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/02/09/gop-spending-plan-x-ing-out-title-x-family-planning-funds/ 
        10. Ibid. 
        "Birth Control for Horses, Not for Women," Blog for Choice, February 17, 2011http://www.blogforchoice.com/archives/2011/02/birth-control-f.html
            Here's Representative Gwen Moore (D-WI) speaking out against #9 on the above list, from her own experience of becoming a teenage mother in poverty.  She calls the GOP out on their claim that they are helping black babies and both parties for the gutting of support programs for low income mothers.


             Here's Representative Jackie Speier (D-CA) speaking on the floor of the House of Representatives calling the Republicans out for their hypocrisy of speaking about job creation while attacking people's private medical decisions.

        Monday, February 14, 2011

        St. Valentine, Patron Saint of Gay Marriages

             Happy feast day of the god Lupercalia!  He's the reason for the season of love that we celebrate today.  Back in ancient Rome (before Christianity), February 13-15 were spent in festival, performing rites to purify the city for health, fertility and love.  In ancient Greece, Lupercalia was known as Pan.  Of course once, the Christians took over, this "pagan" feast was eventually syncretized into St. Valentine's Day.  And thank goodness, because flogging one's self bloody is not very romantic.

             As straight Christian couples around the world glorify their heterosexual love in name of St. Valentine's Day, homosexual couples continue to fight for their right to be civilly married.  The financial disclosure of political donations has shown that the vast majority of the funding for the campaigns to crush same-sex couple's civil rights comes from Catholics, Mormons, and Fundamentalist Christians.  What these "good" Christians don't realize is that they are repeating the history of their very own St. Valentine.  But now, they are the oppressive majority.

             Contemporary celebration of St. Valentine's Day is associated with the romantic legend of a third century Christian priest named Valentine, who broke the Roman marriage laws by performing banned marriages for young Christian men and women.  Yes, he was fighting for the the rights of his young flock to be married.  But don't blame the Roman majority.  Emperor Claudius II's Defense of Marriage Act was only trying to preserve the sacred and historically-founded unions of those who worshiped within the established Roman pantheon (and to keep those peace-loving Christians from dodging the draft).  

             Thus, when Christians gained control of the Roman Empire and usurped the right to marry, they changed what they now claim is the unchangeable institution of marriage.  [If you don't believe me or if you disagree, that's okay.  This is all according to Christian legend, and as I learned in my Catholic scripture classes, it doesn't matter if the scriptures are historically accurate, its the interpretation of the truth within the myth that matters.]

            For losing his life in the name of marriage equality and giving "straight" men everywhere an excuse to wear pink, St. Valentine should be the patron saint of marriage equality.  

        Plus, the name, Valentine, is so gay.

        Image Credits
          

        Tuesday, January 25, 2011

        Hypocrisy Today: Iowa's Republican House Goes after Same-Sex Marriages AND Anything Resembling a Domestic Partnership

             When the Religious Right and their anti-gay Republican (and sometimes Democrat) allies repeatedly claim that they're not against same-sex couples having equal civil rights as long as it's not called "marriage," they are lying.

             A proposed amendment to the Iowa Constitution in the newly-elected Republican-controlled Iowa House is proof.

             The Des Moines Register reports:
             The Iowa House Judiciary Committee approved a proposal Monday to amend the Iowa Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriages.
             The vote was 13-8, with Rep. Kurt Swaim, a Bloomfield lawyer, the only Democrat to join Republicans in supporting it. The resolution is now eligible for debate by the full House
             The amendment would not only prohibit same-sex marriages but also would deny state recognition to arrangements such as civil unions and domestic partnerships.
             The resolution reads, "Marriage between one man and one woman shall be the only legal union valid or recognized in this state."
              Once again, it's okay to lie and hit people with your god-stick, as long as Jesus is on your side.

        Wednesday, January 5, 2011

        Justice Scalia Justifies Discrimination Against Women and Minorities Using the Fourteenth Amendment

             When it comes to the rights of women (and, by default, LGBT persons and racial or religious minorities), Roman Catholic Supreme Court Justice Scalia has voiced his biblical understanding of The Constitution of the United States.

        In 1868, when the 39th Congress was debating and ultimately proposing the 14th Amendment, I don't think anybody would have thought that equal protection applied to sex discrimination, or certainly not to sexual orientation. So does that mean that we've gone off in error by applying the 14th Amendment to both?
        Yes, yes. Sorry, to tell you that. ... But, you know, if indeed the current society has come to different views, that's fine. You do not need the Constitution to reflect the wishes of the current society. Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't. Nobody ever thought that that's what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that. If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws. You don't need a constitution to keep things up-to-date. All you need is a legislature and a ballot box. You don't like the death penalty anymore, that's fine. You want a right to abortion? There's nothing in the Constitution about that. But that doesn't mean you cannot prohibit it. Persuade your fellow citizens it's a good idea and pass a law. That's what democracy is all about. It's not about nine superannuated judges who have been there too long, imposing these demands on society.
        What do you do when the original meaning of a constitutional provision is either in doubt or is unknown?
        I do not pretend that originalism is perfect. There are some questions you have no easy answer to, and you have to take your best shot. ... We don't have the answer to everything, but by God [sic] we have an answer to a lot of stuff...
             "By God [sic]" indeed.

              Here is one response as reported in The Huffington Post:
             For the record, the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause states: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
             Marcia Greenberger, founder and co-president of the National Women's Law Center, called the justice's comments "shocking" and said he was essentially saying that if the government sanctions discrimination against women, the judiciary offers no recourse.  In these comments, Justice Scalia says if Congress wants to protect laws that prohibit sex discrimination, that's up to them," she said. "But what if they want to pass laws that discriminate? Then he says that there's nothing the court will do to protect women from government-sanctioned discrimination against them. And that's a pretty shocking position to take in 2011. It's especially shocking in light of the decades of precedents and the numbers of justices who have agreed that there is protection in the 14th Amendment against sex discrimination, and struck down many, many laws in many, many areas on the basis of that protection."
             Greenberger added that under Scalia's doctrine, women could be legally barred from juries, paid less by the government, receive fewer benefits in the armed forces, and be excluded from state-run schools -- all things that have happened in the past, before their rights to equal protection were enforced.
             "In 1971, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that they [women] were protected, in an opinion by the conservative then Chief Justice Warren Burger," Adam Cohen wrote in Time in September. "It is no small thing to talk about writing women out of equal protection -- or Jews, or Latinos or other groups who would lose their protection by the same logic. It is nice to think that legislatures would protect these minorities from oppression by the majority, but we have a very different country when the Constitution guarantees that it is so."
             From a well-articulated editorial in The New York Times:
             Justice Scalia is now getting attention for his outlandish view, expressed in an interview in the magazine California Lawyer, that the promise of equal protection in the Constitution’s 14th Amendment does not extend to protecting women against sex discrimination. Legislatures may outlaw sex discrimination, Justice Scalia suggested, but if they decided to enact laws sanctioning such unfair treatment, it would not be unconstitutional.
             This is not the first time Justice Scalia has espoused this notion, and it generally tracks his jurisprudence in the area. Still, for a sitting member of the nation’s highest court to be pressing such an antiquated view of women’s rights is jarring, to say the least.
             No less dismaying is his notion that women, gays and other emerging minorities should be left at the mercy of the prevailing political majority when it comes to ensuring fair treatment. It is an “originalist” approach wholly antithetical to the framers’ understanding that vital questions of people’s rights should not be left solely to the political process. It also disrespects the wording of the Equal Protection Clause, which is intentionally broad, and its purpose of ensuring a fairer society.

        Saturday, November 20, 2010

        More Arrests at White House of DADT Protesters, Including My Friend Geoff Farrow

             This week, my friend Father Geoff Farrow was arrested for civil disobedience in Washington, DC, along with twelve other civil rights advocates, including Dan Choi.  They were protesting Don't Ask Don't Tell and the Obama administration's heel dragging in ending this hateful and discriminatory policy.  Here is a link to Geoff's blog and his reflections upon why he handcuffed himself to the White House's fence.

        Thank you Geoff, for putting yourself out there to confront hatred.
        This image is from fathergeofffarrow.blogspot.com.

        Sunday, November 7, 2010

        Spanish Gay Couples Stage Kiss-In in Protest of Pope Benedict's "Intrinsically Disordered" Anti-Gay Politics


             Pope Benedict XVI strongly defended traditional families and the rights of the unborn on Sunday, directly attacking Spanish laws that allow gay marriage, fast-track divorce and easier abortions as he dedicated Barcelona's iconic church, the Sagrada Familia.
             It was the second time in as many days that Benedict had criticized the policies of Spain's Socialist government and called for Europe as a whole to rediscover Christian teachings and apply them to everyday life.
             As he headed to the church named for the sacred family, about 200 gays and lesbians staged a “kiss-in” to protest his visit and church policies on homosexuals, condom use and a host of other issues. Church teaching holds that gays should be treated with dignity and respect but that homosexual acts are “intrinsically disordered”.
             So, according to the Catholic Church and Pope Ben, this is "intrinsically disordered":

             But this is okay:

        And this is sweet:

        And this is properly ordered:

        And this is just politics:

        And this is way normal (and good for digestion):
        (He's kissing dirt.)

        And this is so 100% normal:

        And this is in every conceivable way 
        intrinsically ordered.

             P.S.  Here's iol News' short description of part of Pope Ben's blessing ceremony at Sagrada Familia.  Notice the proper order of things:
             During the ritual-filled dedication ceremony, Benedict poured holy oil over the marble altar and spread it across all four corners with his hands, an apron protecting his vestments. He then lit a brass incense burner on the altar as Spain's King Juan Carlos and Queen Sofia looked on.  Afterward, four nuns dressed in black mopped up the remaining oil from the altar and placed fresh linens on it.
        Image Credits: