UGH! What's he thinking?

So, is this part of that "crossing boundaries" thing that the President Elect spoke of? Because if it is, it may be a boundary that's not worth crossing.

This morning it was announced that Rick Warren, Senior Pastor at an Orange County (CA) megachurch, would be offering the invocation at Barack Obama's inauguration. Interesting.

Yes, he hosted Obama and McCain during the election for what some say was a move at inclusion. And yes, he's been moving his church toward the center--at least when it comes to certain issues. But what is also true is that his church was part of the "Yes on 8" campaign that recently voted to strip millions of Californians of their right to marry.

It's no small issue, and there are a lot of people who aren't very happy.

I can understand that, given that there are hundreds of qualified clergy out there who haven't confused their personal religious beliefs with the "will of God" and recognized that treating people differently under the law for whatever reason is not the American way. Why not choose one of them?

Or why choose anyone, for that matter? Are we really still in a place where we have to have someone stand and mumble some words that most people will ignore to invite and/or placate a God about whom we do not agree? What's the point?

Really, Mr. Goldberg?

Nice try....no, really.

In case you haven't seen it, this morning's LA Times (December 2, 2008) printed a column by the venerable Jonah Goldberg in which he likens an anti-prop 8 ad that featured Mormon missionaries to antisemitism and anti-Muslim propaganda. In the column, he lambastes "gay-rights groups" for running a "scorched-earth campaign." (link: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-goldberg2-2008dec02,0,6411205.column).

Of course the problem with Mr. Goldberg's argument is that, somehow, we're supposed to muster sympathy for the Mormons and agree with him that the gay community is liberal, white, and wealthy (ie, not really the underdog). The elusive truth (at least to conservatives, it seems) is that the gay population of the United States is not representative of "Hollywood liberals" (that's right, whenever you want to win popular opinion to your side, start talkin' 'bout them thar Hollywood types!), can hardly be described as wealthy (another stereotype...studies have shown that the gay community is not wealthier than average, nor does it have power elites in its pocket, as has been suggested). True, the emerging voice of the pro-gay agenda (which, arguably, is pro-everyone, because it represents equality for ALL citizens, no matter what their religious conviction or affiliation), has been represented by white people with money. But is that any different than in any OTHER part of the socio-political sphere?

It seems that Mr. Goldberg has managed to turn this whole thing around and point fingers at those whose rights were being attacked in the first place. It wasn't the anti-prop 8 people who put this question before the voters. It was, in actuality, people (including Mormons) who hoped that, by simple majority, the rights of the minority could be removed. Tsk, tsk....

History has proven, over and over, that the majority will not necessarily do the "right" thing, that progress toward "liberty and justice for all" does not necessarily happen in the voting booth. When the gauntlet is thrown down, what else can those who are threatened with second-class citizenship really do but fight back?

It's true, the ad that parodied Mormon missionaries wasn't really fair. But would anyone really say that all those ads from the pro-prop 8 campaign (funded, in good measure, by Mormons whose church TOLD them how to vote!) were FAIR?

I'd agree, Mr. Goldberg, that "gay marriage is likely inevitable." I also know that it won't happen if those whose rights are being trampled upon don't rise up and fight. It's easy for those who enjoy the full rights and freedoms of their citizenship to somehow make this about themselves. But no matter how much those on the conservative side of things might wish to be defined as the victims, it just ain't so.

Plate Tectonics?

I don't know about you, but the last time I looked at a map, Rome and Salt Lake were on opposite sides of the globe. Yet these days, at least here in California, these two meccas have collided on common ground.

How is it that these two competing hierarchies and their minions have arrived at consensus? What looming threat could have the power to create such queer bedfellows?

The pro-Proposition 8 anti-marriage campaign is a colossal waste of resources, rooted in fear. If these two bodies of the so-called "faithful" really cared about the will of their God, they might check to see what that God has said about fairness, love, justice, and stewardship--that is, the good and proper use of resources.

It's not the same

Separate but equal is not equal...it's separate. No matter what issue we're talking about, when it comes right down to it we need to treat everyone the same under the law. There CAN be no legally sanctioning of class based on perceptions of race, color, gender, orientation...or CREED.

What the proponents of Prop. 8 have failed to grasp is that, in effect, they are asking the citizens of California to create a separate class for heterosexuals, one in which they are entitled not only to rights and privileges guaranteed under the law, but also to the exclusive use of a word that carries with it its own particular cache. Their argument is often religion-based, and claims that "religious rights" are being trampled.

In what way? Even if Prop. 8 passes it doesn't change anyone's right to believe whatever she wants to believe. And freedom of religion does not imply that any particular religion has the right to force its views on others, in effect creating inequalities under the law.

What it all boils down to is an attempt by some to limit the freedoms of others based on a particular religious perspective. And we all know where that can lead.

Vote NO on Prop. 8