Views on the American Family Association

As I mentioned in my last post on this subject, I am going to address some of the claims made on the AFA (American Family Association) website regarding HR 254 and other gay-rights issues.

The AFA, and all such organizations like it, proclaim their Christian values and morals while promoting hate, discrimination, censorship, and lies. These types of organizations, and those who run them, truly are the "wolf in sheep's clothing" that Jesus allegedly warned about - at least in my opinion.

According to their About Us page, the American Family Association was founded back in 1977 by Don Wildmon, an ordained Methodist minister. It claims he was angered by the lack of "appropriate" content for his family on television, and led a call for his congregation to turn off their TV's for a week, which thanks to his press release, was noted by various news media and garnered a lot of attention. This led to the formation of AFA as an organization dedicated to monitoring television programming, attacking sponsors of programs they felt were not in line with "family values" (which means Christian values), and advocating for the banishment of other forms of "sin" such as pornographic magazines in 7-Eleven stores.

Since then, AFA has branched out into many other areas. Currently they list their "Battlefields in the Culture War" as:

Preservation of Marriage and Family

Decency and Morality

Sanctity of Human Life

Stewardship

Media Integrity

Sounds benign enough, right? However, let's remember first of all that in order to accomplish their goals, AFA is not just influencing what their own members and other Christians may view, read, hear, or do - but they also want to influence it for everyone in America, whether they are Christian or not, and whether or not they agree with AFA's Philosophical Statement, which proclaims that:

"The American Family Association believes that God has communicated absolute truth to man through the Bible, and that all men everywhere at all times are subject to the authority of God's Word. Therefore, a culture based on Biblical truth best serves the well-being of our country, in accordance with the vision of our founding fathers."

So now we come to the heart of the AFA agenda, as well as the agenda of all other such organizations. As stated in their own philosophy, they want to force everyone to live by Christian morals and doctrine, whether or not they are Christian themselves, and in spite of the Constitution that guaranteed us all liberty, freedom of expression and association, and religious freedom (which includes the freedom to not follow any religion if one should so choose). Further, one can imply that groups such as AFA feel they have special authority
to force their views on everyone else simply because they think the "God" they believe in wants it that way.

One of the things I find so incongruous about organizations like this, and the whole mindset of the Christian right, is that during my younger days as a Catholic, I was taught that "God" gave us all "free will" for a reason. The reason was that "God" wanted faith to be a choice that we made voluntarily. We were supposed to choose good over evil, right over wrong, and belief over non-belief. Organizations like AFA are working against that by trying to remove our choices, and yet they don't seem to see that they are actually working in opposition to the very Christian teachings they claim to uphold.

That is only one way in which the "wolf" shows itself though. Among the other tenets of Christianity is the 10 Commandments, including the commandment "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor". Yet one
only needs to read the list AFA published in regard to HR 254 and it's potential to "open the door" to what AFA believes to be much more heinous laws and regulations to see how easily they break this commandment - over and over again.

Here's the text of their assertions:

Here is a partial list of what homosexual activists are trying to force on every American. While HR 254 will not, in and of itself, accomplish these goals, it will open the door to such regulations. Once the elephant gets its trunk under the tent, the way is open for the elephant to move inside and do whatever he wants.

• Preaching that homosexuality is a sin from the pulpit will result in the preacher being charged with “hate speech.”
• Churches will have their tax-exempt status revoked if they oppose homosexuality.
• Homosexual marriage will be legalized and recognized in all states.
• Polygamy will be legalized.
• Landlords will be forced to rent to homosexuals.
• Scouts, and all non-profit organizations, will be required to hire homosexuals as leaders.
• Biblical language used to define homosexuality will be considered “hate speech.” City officials have already had a billboard removed in Long Island, NY, because it was classified as “hate speech.” The billboard read: “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination.” (Leviticus 20:13)
• Employees will not be allowed to say anything negative about homosexuality in their workplaces.
• Classes promoting the homosexual lifestyle will be included in school curricula beginning with the lower grades.
• Employers will be forced to hire homosexuals.
• Adoption by homosexuals will be legalized in every state.

Here you have a perfect example of a "Christian" organization that claims to uphold the teachings of Jesus and the Commandments, yet blatantly violates both the words and the spirit of both. They start out by claiming that the items listed are part of the "homosexual agenda". I have never heard any gay person or gay advocacy group push for things like polygamy or the arrest and prosecution of ministers who preach that homosexuality is sinful. This then, is the first in a series of lies, half-truths, and misinformation that the list offers as justification for opposing the proposed legislation.

AFA does add the codicil that HR 254 itself can not produce all the suggested results that are listed, but they try to manipulate the reader through fear with their elephant analogy, and the list of potential "threats" the legislation might "open the door" to. For instance, the very first assertion is that preachers who speak out against homosexuality will be subject to criminal charges based on "hate speech", and the second is that churches can lose their tax-exempt status for preaching against homosexuality.

Both of those claims are flat out wrong. The separation of church and state (something organizations like this would like to end) is a two-way street. It not only guarantees we can have a government free of religious influence, but also protects all religious groups from government interference. Therefore, it is simply not possible for the government to arrest a preacher for preaching the tenets of his faith. Furthermore, as a minister myself, and the founder of a church, I am well aware of the rules for maintaining tax exemption as a religious institution. Churches must refrain from endorsing a particular political candidate, or advocating legislation, from the pulpit or through any official church communications such as weekly newsletters. As long as they do not involve themselves in political or policy speeches from the pulpit, no church has to fear losing it's status (ministers can speak about their personal views outside of the pulpit, but they must make it clear that it is their view and not portray it as an official church position or "divine" direction).

Personally, I think many Christian churches have crossed this line over the last decade, and specifically in relation to supporting right-wing Christian political candidates. It's my belief that such things were overlooked, since those who might have raised a concern about it were also those who benefitted most from it, such as our current President. But that's strictly my opinion.

AFA knows that because of the separation of church and state, there is no threat whatsoever to any minister or church regarding arrest or tax exempt status. In fact, even if Rev. Wildmon and the management of AFA did not, I am certain that their lawyers did (and what organization like this doesn't have a lawyer or five?). Yet they make this spurious assertion anyway. Why? Because they hope that anyone reading it will believe it without giving it a lot of thought, and it will spark enough fear in their hearts that they will support the cause, donate, lobby their politicians, etc. - all without being told the truth that such a thing is not legally possible in America. Is this not misleading, or in fact, bearing false witness?

Next they claim that "Homosexual marriage will be legalized in all states". While I certainly hope that this will be true eventually, there is no reason to think that the hate crimes legislation in HR 254 has any relationship whatsoever to the issue of same-sex marriage. So this is another misleading assertion.

"Polygamy will be legalized". As I recall, the most prominent group that actively sought and supported polygamy, and engaged in it on a regular basis (at least until recently), was the Mormons. Although they have since backed down from this, there is a splinter group that still practices it, albeit illegally. But the point is, Mormons are Christians! So who exactly is it that would be pushing for legalization of polygamy? (More fear-mongering and falsehood.)

"Landlords will be forced to rent to homosexuals". First of all, if a landlord were to ask me about my sexual orientation when I applied to rent an apartment, I would not want to live there anyway, despite being straight. I doubt any homosexual would either. Such a question is an invasion of privacy and none of his or her business. However, because of equal housing protection laws, this assertion is true, but it's already true. It's not something that might happen, it's something that is already a fact. So claiming it's a looming threat is yet another lie.

The same is true of the next point. First of all, any organization that recieves government funding is subject to government rules regarding discrimination. That has always been true, although Bush's "Faith-Based Initiatives" have blurred the line on this somewhat. The only question is whether non-profits and religious organizations that do not recieve such funding have the right to refuse to hire or retain those who do not share their faith or abide by the organization's idea of a correct lifestyle. I believe the separation of church and state comes into play here as well, since as long as these organizations are not using government money, then I see no reason for the government to interfere. Furthermore, such organizations could avoid the problem entirely by simply advertising their mission and requirements in their job postings. The anti-abortion group "Priests for Life" has an office near me, and whenever they advertise in the local paper for a new employee, they make it clear what they stand for. Needless to say, someone like myself, who disagrees with their mission, would not apply for a job with them.

The next point regarding "hate speech" and the removal of that billboard is interesting. AFA neglects to point out that preaching belongs in the pulpit, and not in the public square. I'm sure the AFA would be just as offended if a group of Muslim clerics began posting billboards proclaiming the glory of Allah and demeaning Christians. Apparently the instruction by Jesus to "treat others as you wish to be treated" is yet another Christian teaching that groups like AFA choose to ignore when it suits their purpose.

Next they claim that "employees will not be allowed to say anything negative about homosexuality in their workplace". Well, this first begs the question, aren't they there to work, and not make political or religious speeches? Secondly, this is another point that is already a fact of life. Laws protecting workers from harassment, including sexual harassment, also cover "creating a hostile work environment", which would include making derogatory remarks about gays or their lifestyle when it is known that a coworker (or even a member of their family) is gay. So once again, while there is some truth to the statement, it is presented as a potential threat, which is misleading and untrue.

The next one is a real grabber. The AFA handily manipulates our innate fear of anyone harming our children to make the reader think that their babies are going to be inundated with images of homosexual sex acts. It seems downright abusive to consider a 5 year old being taught about gay sex, right? Except that it's not true, and will never happen.

For one thing, any tangible sex education does not even begin until middle school, and in some cases not until high school, if at all. Secondly, such classes focus primarily on understanding our own bodies and how they work, protecting ourselves from sexually transmitted disease and unplanned pregnancy, and being responsible for our behavior (things the Christian right would prefer were not taught at all). They do not delve into the nitty-gritty details of having sex, and most do not even mention homosexuality.

What might be taught in lower grades, however, is tolerance. One of the functions of education is to promote social order and peaceful communities. This is in part why formal education was instituted. It makes sense, then, that we should teach our children early on that every person has the right to be who they are, and that we should not objectify someone for being different. Such lessons do not focus on homosexuality alone, but all kinds of differences, including skin color, religious belief, disability, etc.

Encouraging children - who will eventually grow up and have to learn to live, work, and get along in a world made up of millions of unique individuals - to accept that their community and the larger world are made up of all kinds of people from all different kinds of backgrounds, family structures, and beliefs, but that it is possible for us all to live and work peacefully together if we respect each other's right to be different, helps promote social order and peaceful communities, as well as preventing hate crimes and other social ills.

This is teaching tolerance. It does not demand acceptance of alternative lifestyles, or agreement with ideas and practices that go against the individual's religious beliefs. It merely gives children a context for living in a society where the Constitution guarantees freedom of expression, association, religion, etc., and teaches them to respect the right of others to believe, live, or think differently.

The next point, "employers will be forced to hire homosexuals" is another misleading assertion. For one thing, no employer has the right to ask a job applicant about their sexual orientation. Secondly, the Equal Employment Opportunity Act already guarantees workers the right to equal hiring without regard to race, sex, age, disability, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, etc. So once again, AFA presents as a potential future threat something that is already a fact of life and law in America. I call that lying, which, according to Christian beliefs, is a "sin".

Finally, AFA claims that homosexuals will be allowed to adopt children. Yet again, they ignore the fact that this is already true in many (but not all) parts of the country. Adoption laws vary by state, and there are some states where homosexuals are not allowed to adopt or care for foster children. However, in many states they can adopt, and in others they can be foster parents but not adopt. So this statement is misleading because it assumes that homosexuals do not have that right at all, when - depending on the location - some do.

So here we have a "Christian" organization that claims to uphold the Bible as the literal word of "God", yet consistently violates "God's" commandment against bearing false witness by exaggerating, misleading, or outright lying to it's constitutents about the issues and their potential impact on Christians or society in general. As I mentioned earlier, this to me is exactly what Jesus meant when he allegedly warned against the "wolf in sheep's clothing". The message there was to be alert for those who pay lip-service to Christian teachings, but do not actually "walk the walk" and will use very un-Christian tactics to try and control others.

Is that not exactly what the Christian right has been doing all along? They not only try to bully others into being "saved"; but have now actively engaged in trying to take over our government by filling Congress, the Supreme Court, and the White House with those who think and believe as they do; by trying to legislate a strict Christian interpretation of morality for all Americans (whether or not they are Christian); by demeaning anyone who does not share their beliefs; and by using deceit to manipulate the minds and hearts of their followers. Add to that the fact that they wish to prevent legislative protection against discrimination and hate crimes against gays, and you begin to see how little their actions resemble those of someone who truly believes in and follows the teachings of Jesus.

On Same-Sex Marriage....

I've been involved in several discussions over at Paradoxum recently. One in particular focuses on the issue of same-sex marriage. It began with a post by Dissident Madison asking his readers to follow a link and write a letter opposing HR 254, which is a bill under review by Congress that would make crimes based on sexual orientation part of the class of "hate crimes" that qualify for Federal as well as state prosecution.

As you will see if you follow the link, the organization that is protesting HR 254 is the American Family Association, which is basically one more in a long series of right-wing fundamentalist Christian organizations trying to legislate the morality of our nation based on their very narrow and religiously-influenced view of right and wrong. These are the same groups who want to ban abortion, have "Intelligent Design" theories taught in the Science classroom, send all homosexuals back in the "closet" (or worse), make Christianity the official "state religion" for America, and more.

When I read what the AFA had to say about HR 254, I had to respond. I am simply not able to ignore such blatant disregard for the truth (I will address some of the AFA claims in a subsequent post), or the hypocrisy of claiming to stand for morality while advocating looking the other way if the object of a hate crime happens to be part of a group that isn't marching in lockstep with Christian doctrine.

I posted my opinion in the comments to Dissident's post, and one of Paradoxum's other regular readers, Everett, responded. Thus a debate regarding the issue of same-sex marriage began, which you can read in the comments section.

In Everett's most recent reply, he made several assertions and posed questions that require an answer. I did some research to provide evidence for my responses, and then realized that in order to form a proper reply, I'd need to use quotes and links/citations that just wouldn't work well in the limited formatting of a comment. So I decided to move the discussion here.

In his post, Everett began with:

You correctly observe that the government does regulate heterosexual marriage through the issuance of marriage licenses and confers special privileges on those relationships. This is done for one reason and one reason only: heterosexual sexual relationships are the relationships that produce the next generation. Of those relationships, the ones where a marriage commitment is made are going to provide the most stability for the children.

I would disagree with this quote on two points. The first is that nowhere in our Constitution does it state that the government has an interest in ensuring the production of successive generations, or that it is the charge of the federal government to ensure children are raised in a "stable" home. Regarding the procreation issue, I would venture to guess the lack of any language about it in the Constitution reflects the fact that our founding fathers knew that no such language was necessary, since the urge to procreate is part of our biology anyway, and so future generations were already guaranteed by nature.

Secondly, I would beg to differ with Everett's assertion that marriage provides the most stability for children. It can, under the right circumstances - but quite often the circumstances are not right, and when that happens, the children suffer the most. Furthermore, there is no reason to think that marriage between two homosexuals would provide any less stability for any children they may choose to have, or for anyone else's children either.

In fact, unlike heterosexuals, who can and do "accidentally" produce children (often unwanted children) with or without being married, simply because they "forgot" to use contraception in the heat of the moment or were ignorant of the methods available (thanks to Christians blocking effective sex education in our schools); homosexuals cannot have an "accident". Where a heterosexual couple, married or not, (or any heterosexual "one-night stand") can produce children, often without giving any serious thought to the welfare of the child or whether they even want or should have a baby; homosexuals must spend a great deal of time thinking about whether they want a child, planning how to go about it if they do want one, and going through the actual process of insemination, surrogacy, adoption, etc. The process for a gay couple to have a child can take years, can cost thousands of dollars, and can be filled with heartache and disappointment. It is not for the faint of heart, and any couple (gay or straight) that is not truly committed to each other and the goal of raising a family will not make it through that process.

Therefore I submit that children born to or adopted by a homosexual couple are much more likely to have a stable home than children born to heterosexuals simply because no one would willingly go through all that unless they were truly committed to each other and to being parents. I find that an infinitely preferable situation for a child to be raised in when you compare it to the number of children that are born to hetero couples that:

• may or may not be married or have a good marriage - or even know each other well,
• may or may not have wanted a child at all,
• may or may not have any idea how to be good parents,
• may or may not have drug or alcohol problems, or be involved in criminal activity
• may or may not be abusive or neglectful
• may or may not be able to support a child
• may or may not stick around to actually raise the child.

Furthermore, since there is no prohibition against gays having children (by whatever means necessary, although adoption is not available in all states), then the claim that marriage creates a better environment in which to raise children actually supports the legalization of same-sex marriages. After all, if the concern truly is the welfare of the child, and if marriage is actually a better environment for a child to be raised in, then why aren't we more concerned about the children whose same-sex parents cannot marry? (Or will that be the next item on the fundamentalist Christian agenda - ie: preventing gays from having children by any means, including forced sterilizations? See, I can play the worst-case scenario game just as well as the AFA did. )

On to Everett's next point:

You mischaracterized my argument about the government’s reason for regulating a sexual relationship. It has nothing to do with promoting procreation. It has to do with the welfare of the children that are created. Your arguments about the heterosexual couples that choose not to have children and gays that have them by artificial means don’t make sense. Heterosexual unions produce children. Whether some individuals fail to or elect not to has no bearing on the fact that these are the relationships the government has interest in because they produce the next generation as a rule. Every culture since the beginning of time has recognized this. Homosexual unions do not produce children. Gays can’t produce kids without going back to an inherently heterosexual process. Just because there are exceptions, does not make the rule.

I will grant that I may have misinterpreted the original comment Everett had made regarding the government's interest in procreation. However, while by today's standards, our government has a responsibility to protect children, that has not always been the case. In fact, less than a hundred years ago there were no child labor laws, no protections for children who were abused, little to no enforcement of school attendance, and almost no intervention by government authorities in the "private" conduct of any family. Parents could and did beat their children, sometimes to the point of permanent injury, with no legal repercussions whatsoever.

So while I certainly do not advocate returning to a time when children were considered property and an asset because of their ability to work the fields or maintain the house, I see little precedent within our own history to back up the claim that the government's concern is the welfare of the child. That may be true now, but even under current law, that responsibility only extends to protecting children from abuse and mistreatment, deciding custody issues, and in the case of poor children or wards of the state, ensuring that they have adequate housing, food, education and medical care. Even in this regard, the laws regulating such things are variable based on location, with only the broadest policy being dictated by the Federal government.

As to the last two sentences in that quote, I will grant that creating a child still requires both egg and sperm, and if you consider this to be the "inherently heterosexual process" mentioned, then I suppose you are technically correct. But considering the various ways in which the joining of those two parts can be achieved without any physical contact or even an exchange of names between the two "donors", I hardly think that qualifies as a traditional heterosexual act of procreation. It certainly does not qualify as a reason to bar same-sex couples from marrying.

Everett said:

You mention that domestic partnerships are denied in many states. This is for the simple reason that special recognition is given to a man and woman in a committed marriage relationship because the government recognizes that our children are our future and is charged with protecting them.

Again I see no explanation or evidence offered to support the claim that allowing a same-sex couple to marry is any threat to the future of America, or to any children that couple may choose to have or adopt, or to anyone else's children. Therefore I would ask Everett to please explain, with references and supporting evidence wherever possible, how the children of America (regardless of the demographic characteristics of their family) would be threatened by same-sex marriages.

Everett continues:

You say that lack of domestic partnerships limits the options of individuals to be with the person of their choice. That’s exactly right. Let me borrow Greg Koukl’s argument here because he says it well:

“We’re being denied the same rights as heterosexuals. This is unconstitutional discrimination.”

There are two complaints here. First, homosexuals don’t have the same legal liberties heterosexuals have. Second, homosexual couples don’t have the same legal benefits as married couples. The first charge is simply false. Any homosexual can marry in any state of the Union and receive every one of the privileges and benefits of state-sanctioned
matrimony. He just cannot marry someone of the same sex. These are rights and
restrictions all citizens share equally.

I realize that for homosexuals this is a profoundly unsatisfying response, but it is a legitimate one, nonetheless.

This part of Everett's reply constitutes one of the most illogical arguments I have heard yet on this subject. Basically, and I'm sure Everett will correct me if I am misunderstanding him, what he's saying is that there is no case for discrimination because both gay and straight Americans have the right to marry, but only to marry a member of the opposite sex. This completely ignores the fact that the Constitution guarantees every American the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". How can one pursue happiness if the only way they can be married is by marrying someone they do not love, do not want to have sexual intercourse with, and are not attracted to in any way?

Yes, there have been cases of gays marrying a member of the opposite sex, but those marriages often end in pain and suffering for all concerned - and most especially for the children of that marriage. Furthermore, such things take place for reasons that have nothing to do with procreation and everything to do with trying to survive in a culture that is hostile to gays. The recent case of New Jersey's former Governor is a perfect example of this. He lived a lie of heterosexuality for most of his life just so he could pursue his political career without fear of losing an election over his sexual preference, including getting married to a lovely woman and having a family with her. Yet he could not completely deny his nature, and engaged in secret relationships with men. In the end the lie was revealed, and not only his tenure as Governor, but his marriage and other relationships were permanently damaged. And I can only imagine what his children have gone through.

Similar situations have arisen all over this country, including with some relatively well-known Christian leaders.

That kind of disaster, and the ensuing harm done to the children, is an excellent example of why same-sex marriage should be legalized. If it had been, then not only would the governor have not been forced to lie to everyone from his constituents to his wife and children about who he really was, but his children would not have had to endure the public humiliation of having their father's lies exposed, his forced resignation, and the breakup of their family. I daresay all of that has been much more emotionally damaging for them than if they had been raised by an honest and open, loving couple who happened to be of the same gender.

Everett said:

Let me illustrate. Smith and Jones both qualify to vote in America where they are citizens. Neither is allowed to vote in France. Jones, however, has no interest in U.S. politics; he’s partial to European concerns. Would Jones have a case if he complained, “Smith gets to vote [in California], but I don’t get to vote [in France]. That’s unequal protection under the law. He has a right I don’t have.” No, both have the same rights and the same restrictions. There is no legal inequality, only an inequality of desire, but that is not the state’s concern.

I'm not sure this is a fair analogy, on the grounds that it is based on two citizens of one country and the right to vote in a different country. The simple answer would be that if Jones cared that much about France's politics, he should apply for French citizenship. This does not equate with two Americans who want to marry, because the one who is gay cannot simply go somewhere else to achieve their end. Even with the legalization of same-sex marriages in Massachusettes, only those who already live there will be granted a license, and at this time, those marriages are still not recognized by the federal government or most other states.

Furthermore, no matter how much Jones may care about the French political scene, his inability to vote in the French elections will not impact his American life in any way. But for a gay person who is unable to marry their partner, the impact on their life can be devastating:

from http://www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm

Why This Is A Serious Civil Rights Issue

When gay people say that this is a civil rights issue, we are referring to matters of civil justice, which often can be quite serious - and can have life-damaging, even life-threatening consequences.

One of these is the fact that in most states, we cannot make medical decisions for our partners in an emergency. Instead, the hospitals are usually forced by state laws to go to the families who may have been estranged from us for decades, who are often hostile to us, and can and frequently do, totally ignore our wishes regarding the treatment of our partners. If a hostile family wishes to exclude us from the hospital room, they may legally do so in most states. It is even not uncommon for hostile families to make decisions based on their hostility -- with results consciously intended to be as inimical to the interests of the patient as possible! Is this fair?

Upon death, in many cases, even very carefully drawn wills and durable powers of attorney have proven to not be enough if a family wishes to challenge a will, overturn a custody decision, or exclude us from a funeral or deny us the right to visit a partner's hospital bed or grave. As survivors, estranged families can, in nearly all states, even sieze a real estate property that a gay couple may have been buying together for many years, quickly sell it at the largest possible loss, and stick the surviving partner with all the remaining mortgage obligations on a property that partner no longer owns, leaving him out on the street, penniless. There are hundreds of examples of this, even in many cases where the gay couple had been extremely careful to do everything right under current law, in a determined effort to protect their rights. Is this fair?

If our partners are arrested, we can be compelled to testify against them or provide evidence against them, which legally married couples are not forced to do. In court cases, a partner's testimony can be simply ruled irrelevant as heresay by a hostile judge, having no more weight in law than the testimony of a complete stranger. If a partner is jailed or imprisoned, visitation rights by the partner can, in most cases, can be denied on the whim of a hostile family and the cooperation of a homophobic judge, unrestrained by any law or precedent. Conjugal visits, a well-established right of heterosexual married couples in some settings, are simply not available to gay couples. Is this fair?

These are far from being just theoretical issues; they happen with surprising frequency. Almost any older gay couple can tell you numerous horror stories of friends and acquaintences who have been victimized in such ways. One couple I know uses the following line in the "sig" lines on their email: "...partners and lovers for 40 years, yet still strangers before the law." Why, as a supposedly advanced society, should we continue to tolerate this kind of injustice?

These are all civil rights issues that have nothing whatsoever to do with the ecclesiastical origins of marriage; they are matters that have become enshrined in state laws by legislation or court precedent over the years in many ways that exclude us from the rights that legally married couples enjoy and even consider their constitutional right. This is why we say it is very much a serious civil rights issue; it has nothing to do with who performs the ceremony, whether it is performed in a church or courthouse or the local country club, or whether an announcement about it is accepted for publication in the local newspaper.

And from http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Partners&CONTENTID=14362&TEMPLATE=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm

Although the federal government has taken the lead in protecting many minority groups from discrimination, it has not only failed to do so for lesbian and gay families, but actually penalizes same-sex couples for being unable to marry.

For example:

• Lesbian and gay families are denied the same benefits married heterosexual families receive under Social Security.
• Lesbian and gay families are taxed for health benefits provided to their domestic partners, while married heterosexual families are not.
• After the loss of a job, lesbian and gay families are not guaranteed the opportunity to purchase continued health coverage for a domestic partner, although married heterosexual couples are.
  

So here you have a wide range of ways in which gay American couples (and their children) are being denied the ability to function in society as a family, with the same level of ease and legal protection as straight Americans, simply because they are gay. Can you honestly claim that stopping this glaring discrimination would be harmful to our society as a whole, or to anyone's children (whether their parents are gay or not)? If so, then I ask that you produce evidence to back up that claim, because I have looked for such evidence and have found none.

The truth is that there is only one reason the Christian right opposes same-sex marriage, which is that according to their beliefs, gay sex is an "abomination". That is all fine and good, and every person is entitled to believe what they wish. But no person has the right to impose their beliefs, or their religious morality, on the rest of us. Just as no Christian would want to be forced to live under the thumb of Islamic law, no American should be forced to live under the yoke of Christian doctrine when they either are not Christian or do not subscribe to the same sect of Christianity as the one's attempting to impose their morality on us all.

Welcome

Because of several conversations I have been engaged in at other blogs lately, I decided that I needed to create a new blog page for myself. My original blog page has a specific theme, which is "What kind of world do YOU want?", and I want to stay focused on that theme. However, I also want to share my personal views on current issues facing our society, our nation, or our world - and have a place where I can respond to the various issues raised in my discussions at other spots.

So, my original blog will continue to be about the kind of world I want, and open to anyone to share their ideas and ideals for the world of our future as well. Meanwhile, this blog will be the place for more in-depth discussion of issues, debate, and hopefully, new understanding.