And Then They'll Come for You

Good as You makes a good point:

Don't kid yourself into believing that the "pro-family" side's mission ends at banning same-sex unions. What they seek is an all-out revolution, in which they tell EVERYONE how they should live and love.

That's not paranoia. In a letter to Congress this week, Bigot Bishop Harry Jackson and a band of "national pastors and leaders," urged Congress to intervene in DC's legalization of marriage equality. They claimed standing to demand action, describing themselves as "moral and cultural watchmen."

They aren't simply demanding a stop to gay marriage. They could have said they are watchmen over traditional marriage but instead chose to assert themselves broadly as guardians over all morals and culture. They are demanding to become America's theocratic ruling class. They threaten:

Let us restate the fact that the demographic we purport to represent is not simply an appendage of the “religious right.” If our estimates are correct, people who think like us number between 60 and 75 million voters. This voting block is the foundation of a new kind of coalition that voted for Proposition 8 in California. They also voted for President Obama. A danger for both parties would be to write us off as being doctrinaire, impractical, or out of touch with their respective political bases.

In short: Do what we say, or else.

And this passage is also telling:

Our views are based on timeless values and clear principles that anchor both our faith and our politics [Emphasis added].

In Bishop Harry Jackson's America, there is only freedom for HIS religion. There is no room for other religious views here, it's tradition and culture viewed through only one faith-based lens. Theirs.

There's a scene in that horrible Star Trek movie (5, I think) where, having traveled to the center of the galaxy to find God, and the "God" they find attempts to steal the Enterprise. This prompts Kirk to ask, "Why does God need a starship?"

Why does God need a Congress? Or human government?

Garry Wills, author of "What Jesus Meant" argues that Jesus' didn't need or want his followers to impose Christianity through government:

Many would like to make the reign of Jesus belong to this political order. If they want the state to be politically Christian, they are not following Jesus, who says that his reign is not of that order...If people want to do battle for God, they cannot claim that Jesus has called them to this task, since he told Pilate that his ministers would not do that.

Harry Jackson and his ilk are not of that opinion. And at a time when an otherwise rational, thoughtful and highly educated man who is president of the United States himself shapes his views on marriage equality based on his religious biases, I worry that they may succeed.

Thomas Jefferson, please call your office.

It's Civil Marriage, Dammit

As happy as I am about marriage equality moving forward in DC, and as thankful I am to the religious leaders here who stood up for marriage equality, this is the wrong move.

It's hard enough already to separate civil marriage from religion and church from state in dealing with matters homosexual. Fenty is as clumsy as he is courageous.

Congress Suddenly Interested in Respecting DC's Voters?

HT: Joe My God.

DC Mayor Adrian Fenty and Council Chair Vincent Gray were called on the carpet by Congress for not allowing the majority of District residents to vote on the civil rights of a minority. Let's listen in:

At a hearing on proposed changes to the city's Home Rule Act, two Republicans on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee grilled Fenty and Gray about why the District will not allow a public vote.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (Utah), the ranking member of the subcommittee that has oversight over District laws, noted that voters in 31 states have rejected same-sex marriage. "I'm disappointed the people are not getting an opportunity to vote on this issue," Chaffetz said.

Yes, you see, Congress -- Republicans in particular -- really care about respecting the wishes of DC's voters. That's why they've blocked attempts to actually giving DC voting representation in Congress. And why they feel they can waltz in and undo actual initiatives approved by District voters.

Case-in-point: Medical Marijuana. In 1998, 69 percent of DC's voters approved a ballot initiative authorizing medical marijuana. 69 percent.

And then, since Congress respects the will of the peeple so much, former Rep. Bob Barr, a Republican from Georgia, stepped in, said no, and through an amendment killed the implementation of medical marijuana which had won approval from DC's Congressional subjects voters.

To the meddlesome members of Congress: if others can vote on my equal rights, I want the same opportunity. Fair is fair.

And it's great that you want to respect the will of the people of the District of Columbia. Do that all the time, not just when it fits your narrow social homophobic agenda.

Marriage Equality - a Busy Day

Lots today on the marriage equality front.

All the major GLBT "activist" organizations counsel against filing federal lawsuits on marriage equality.

David Boies and Ted Olsen (yes, that Ted Olsen) file suit to do just that, claiming Prop 8 violates the U.S. Constitution.

Meanwhile, more locally, some pastors announce plans for a referendum in DC on whether we will recognize same sex marriages legally performed in other jurisdictions.

Lots to digest. Meanwhile, there is a great discussion over at Pam's House Blend about the call for a moratorium on lawsuits by our "leaders" and the Olsen gambit. Don't just read the post, there's some great points made in the comments.

And, President Obama's spokesperson ducks and weaves on the issue. Perhaps he should consult a Constitutional law professor.

I'm mulling it all over. What do you think?

Gay Marriage Advances Again in Massachusetts

The MA House of Rep. voted to repeal the 1913 law preventing out of state couples from getting married there is their marriage at home is not legal. The Senate earlier agreed to this and the Gov. said he would sign it.

This means gay couples from anywhere can be married legally in the Bay State. This was an expansion of marriage rights enacted not by court mandate (aka "activist judges") but by the people's duly elected representatives. If California voters reject their proposed constitutional amendment against same sex marriage this fall that will be another electoral victory and yet another sign that legalizing same sex marriage doesn't mean sudden death politically.

So, let's review the bidding. We have:

• A possible 60 seat majority for Democrats in the Senate - meaning Republicans couldn't filibuster without Democratic defections
• The electoral expansion of same sex marriage rights elsewhere in the country
• A possible Democratic president who has said states should decide the marriage issue for themselves
• A DC mayor and city council that is on record in favor of same sex marriage

You'd think the time would be right for DC to recognize gay marriages.

Won't happen, though. Gay marriage will be legal in Mississippi before it is here in the capital of the free world.