Democrats & Liberals Archives

I think you are a new editor (correct?) and this was an excellent article. Thank you for doing such extensive research!

Yes, I am, though you’d know me already from the comments section as “Jarin”. It’s a shortened form of Jarandhel. I was just accepted as an editor here, and I wanted to make sure that my first article used appropriate sources to back up the premises inherent to my reasoning. Thank you for the compliments, Misha. :)

Jarandhel,
Good post. Only a couple of comments stick out in my mind.
Most of the fundementalists of the right see any religion other than “their” brand of Christianity as paganism and therefore the work of the devil.
I don’t know how anyone can get past that hurdle.

Secondly, civil unions asside most of the right can’t seem to get past the “sexual” of homosexual. You and I both know that beyond the sex thing gays of both sexes are caring, loving, human beings, that deserve to be allowed to join in a marriage to the partner of their choice.
They have jumped through every hoop put in front of them on the road to exceptance. They have done everything that has been asked of them and more.
Yet they are still denied anything but second class citizenship.

Rocky-

Given that hard-line fundamentalists are a very small portion of practicing Christians I think there is plenty of room on the value issues.

Democrats must realize that people who support traditional marriage are not necessarily anti-gay. Traditional marriage supporters represent a much larger percentage of the church going population than evangelicals, and this helps explain the 70% or so votes against gay marriage. If you can stop proponents from making this leap of logic then there is plenty of room within the Christian community to come to a reasonable solution(s), especially if you take the preferable State approach.

Also, the gay marriage proponent’s tactics should be examined. Continual use of courts to circumvent the legislature is diluting many worth-while causes. The Administrators who over-step their authority don’t help either.

I saw Carville and his egg head yesterday, and he should really listen to his wife sometimes. He recognizes that if the Democrats continue to be the opposition party then they will fade to nonexistence, but he thinks the answer is to offer alternative proposals. Most people don’t want that, and would instead support a Democratic Party that was willing to work cooperatively on complex issues. The key for the Party is to frame the debate on their issues though. I think they are almost afraid to give the GOP a win on any issue as part of their opposition strategy. A GOP success is o.k. if it is a bi-partisan solution and it is on a core Democratic issue.

Take education as an example. Teddy Kennedy basically wrote the NCLB, and yet the Democrats railed against it during the election instead of taking credit for their cooperation. All because they didn’t want to give Bush a win. Continually running against things is eroding Democratic support among Middle America.

Jarin, thanks for the link on the letter to the editor. Separation of Church and State does not mean secularism. Progressives forget that history is not on their side when they say that this is a secular nation.

Rocky,

Thank you for the compliment.

As to your comments:

First, I think that it’s important to remember that militant fundamentalists are not the only people of faith who feel alienated by the Democratic attitude towards religion. Our goal is not to convert those entrenched against us by adopting their religious language, it is to reach out to the moderates of strong faith who feel alienated by the Democratic taboo on religious language and expressions of personal faith in government.

As for gay rights, I completely agree. I currently live in a state (Virginia) where my partner and I have no rights as a couple under the law. Where even civil unions and contracts which might grant the same “privileges and obligations” as a heterosexual marriage have been outlawed. I’m firmly against such discrimination. But I think that our current focus only towards the seperation of church and state alienates some people who would otherwise support us. There are a surprising number of people who oppose gay marriage because they are completely convinced that legalizing same-sex marriage would lead to a swarm of lawsuits descending upon churches who refuse to marry homosexual couples. Many of them call for new legislation specifically protecting churches from being forced to recognize gay marriages if they choose not to, before they would consider supporting gay marriage on a civil level. Clearly I don’t support such redundant legislation, churches already being protected from doing so under the first amendment, but I think it would profit us to specifically address and quell such fears; and to focus more on promoting the freedom of all religions to define their marriage sacraments and have them equally recognized under the law.

George:

If you can stop proponents from making this leap of logic then there is plenty of room within the Christian community to come to a reasonable solution(s), especially if you take the preferable State approach.

The state approach is inherently untenable, since it abandons those homosexuals not living in states which would support gay marriage. For example, myself and my boyfriend living in the great Commonwealth of Virginia. And just telling us to move to places that would is simply not practical for a variety of reasons including but not limited to money, education, and future employment goals. Gay rights should not, and can not, be limited by state borders.

Also, the gay marriage proponent’s tactics should be examined. Continual use of courts to circumvent the legislature is diluting many worth-while causes. The Administrators who over-step their authority don’t help either.

I disagree about the use of the courts, though I do think that we would do well to address the public as to why we are working through the courts rather than the legislature. Fundamentally, it comes down to this: working through the legislature would be appropriate if new and unique rights were being sought. They are not. The rights being sought by gay couples are rights inherent to being american citizens, and it is not law but prejudice in the interpretation of law which keeps them from being extended to us in the same manner that they are extended to heterosexual couples. Therefor, it is appropriate to ask the courts which interpret the law to rule in our favor; rather than seeking new laws that would give the impression we were seeking special rights as a minority, when we are asking only for the rights afforded to others.

Jarin, thanks for the link on the letter to the editor. Separation of Church and State does not mean secularism. Progressives forget that history is not on their side when they say that this is a secular nation.

True, though I think it is understandable why so many people favor secularism. Personally, as a pagan, I find the monotheistic assumptions inherent in phrases like “under God” somewhat offensive. I can easily understand how atheists and agnostics would find it even more so, since they deny or doubt the existence of any sort of divinity. But it seems to me that pluralism can be embraced without sacrificing their principles either. Philosophy, science, these things can be referred to or quoted as easily as religious texts, and a fully pluralistic expression of faith within politics would leave ample room for such non-theistic expressions as well.

Jarin, excellent post. Glad to see you as an editor. Keep it up.

I’m in favor of the truce theory of the Separation of Church and State: I believe in government that we should vote as our conscience dictates, and should be free to cite the wisdom that we believe supports us. Where we get into trouble is when we start to believe that our religion has the right to claim precedence and pre-empt the imperatives of conscience of others.

I believe, in terms of Abortion, for example, that it is wrong, but by the terms of our constitution, it is nonetheless the right of others to make their decision on the subject according to the dictates of their conscience. As long as there is no legal standard under the law that can be applied fairly to all, I believe the choice is in the hands of the individual, and it is the conscience of the individual we must appeal to along private and personal lines, if we wish to spread the influence of our philosophy.

The substance of this truce is that we acknowledge the authority of the law in this country, and not resort to what conservatives call judicial activism that may put the fairness and stability of the law into question.

Christians are called upon by the scriptures to be obedient to the law and those that govern with it under most circumstances. I think we must be careful of the power we attempt to take hold of, so that we do not allow those who unfairly try to surpress religion the tools and ability to do so by breaching the wall between church and state.

By the way, Jarandhel…

Your name has a very Tolkien aspect to it. Would I be wrong if I supposed that your name has roleplaying origins? I’m no stranger to fantasy myself. I write it!

Jarin, Evangelicals may be a small minority, but they seem to yell the loudest. They also seem to have the ear of our right wing leaders.
Even though I am a straight guy, I have lived amoung gays most of my adult life. I remember the sixties and seventies well.
Gays have come a long way from the bathhouse queens of those times, and have been amoungst the most responsible members of our society for quite some time, they deserve better. Discrimination cases should be heard by the courts. It will take time just as the fight for equality has taken time. Sooner or later it will happen.

As for secularism. I do belive that there should be freedom from religion as well as freedom of religion. I belive in live and let live. I belive though that my first amendment rights are violated when group after group of Christians come to my door to try and save me. I belive that people should be left in peace to belive what they choose to belive.

First, I disagree with a fundamental premise. Bush has not officially been elected. Why? This does not occur until the electoral college does its certification in January. There are challenges going on right now. But let’s put that aside.
The idea of becoming more inclusive always sounds like a good idea, but once again, let’s consider the situation. In a close election, a very close election, Dems lost the presidency by a whisker. The Dems fielded a candidate selected by a faction of the party, and undermined the candidacy of the strongest candidate, Dean. Water under the bridge, right? Kerry and the DNC ran a relatively weak campaign. Kerry decided to stress his military credentials at the convention, and in my opinion, and more than once found himself on the wrong side of the Senate vote when it came to Iraq. When smeared, he spent his time responding, rather than presenting his positives. The Kerry campaign walked right into the Republican echo chamber and tried to shout it down, and wasted energy on Bush’s embarrassing performance in the National Guard.

In sales, you never say anything negative about the competition. You always accentuate your positives. Let someone else take the low road- don’t worry, there will always be someone there to do that. Edwards followed that model and made it to the VP slot. Too bad. He was a lightweight.

Kerry did well in the debates.

Finally, we come to the point of your essay, and the issue of values. It pains me to say it, but Carville was right. Homophobia is alive and well, and the Dems were slaughtered on this issue. While I believe gay marriage is a good thing, we’re talking politics, and the vast majority of the country obviously opposes it. It’s not right, but it’s a fact. For now, I’d agree with Carville; stress civil unions, do as best we can to erase differences between marriage and civil union, and keep the issue in the background as much as possible. While it sickens me to write that, I fear that’s where we’re at.

Is this becoming more inclusive? I’d suggest the Dems stand pat. The reality of the situation is that the Republicans have a lock on the branches of government, and short of a filibuster, the Dems are powerless. Again, I’d agree with Carville, and suggest the Dems present simple alternatives as loudly as possible.

But I would go one step further. The Republicans own the rope for the next four years anyway; I’d subtly encourage them to play out the line until they hang themselves with it. For example, I’d undermine Arlen Specter, and do whatever it takes to make sure the Repubs put in judges who will overturn Roe v Wade. Any Repub with a lick of sense will oppose this as political suicide, but the right wing and fundamentalists are pretty drunk on their own power right now, and I can think of no faster way to turn this trick, and turn the most people against the conservatives, than to let this happen. Yes, it hurts too, but we’re talking political reality and the achievement of objectives. Publicly oppose to it; but behind the scenes, make sure Roe v Wade is overturned, and publicly hold the right wing responsible.

I could go on in this vein, and give other examples for other issues, but you probably get the idea.

Stephen:

The only reservations I have with your concept of a truce between Church and State is your reference to judicial activism. Where would you draw the line between the issues it is appropriate to ask the courts to decide (real civil rights issues) and that which should be left to the legislature?

As for my name, yes the first time I used this pseudonym was actually for a very brief dungeons and dragons campaign about 8 years ago. (Though I used the abbreviated form Jarin, Jarandhel was arrived at much later.) At this point, however, I haven’t role-played in years save for the occasional solo computer game or video game; yet I feel a strong connection to the name. Jarandhel fits me very well, and I feel the Dreamsinger appellation both complements it and describes me. Certainly, as a whole, it fits me better than my given name. I’m strongly considering legally changing my name someday, should it become convenient to do so. Though, if I do, I might start claiming it has obscure ethnic roots if people ask me its origins. ;-)

As an atheist who strongly supports the idea of separation of church and state, I’m continuously surprised when Democrats make so much of this issue.

Images like this one tell the whole story why.

What the Constitution tells us is that the state shall make no law establishing an official religion. I haven’t seen either party attempt anything of the kind.

It’s completely okay, however, for anybody to advocate for causes which their religion compells them to. For this reason, being against abortion or gay marriage—though I disagree with both causes—is an entirely appropriate part of polical discourse.

Government funding of faith-based organizations, however, though I see no problem with school vouchers being given religious schools (another hot-button issue). The reason is that the goverment would issue the vouchers and the citizens would then give them to whoever they choose.

As things stand now, the attacks against the religious community constitute a much graver threat to consitutional freedom than those who choose to exercise religious freedom.

Nice posts here.

On the gay marriage issue. I support so many “pieces” of the “whole” of what gays seem to be demanding. For instance, I support finding a type of union where you can visit in hospitals when your loved one is sick and act as next of kin. I support certain beneficiary designations like on IRA’s etc. There are many many other areas where I would certainly be on the side of moderation, which would improve the rights of gay americans. In exchange there would need to be some legal bonding. Those rights need to be granted in some sort of serious legal arrangement, otherwise they undermine privacy.

I guess my point on this is that when the issue is too far out there for me to reach, you turn a “I support you” into a “I can’t vote for you”. Gays walk away with none instead of some.

In order to win, democrats don’t need to “win” the far right. I think they need to reign in their extreme elements so as not to increase the turn out of the far right, and reach out to the middle. I actually think if the gay community would have been pushing for civil unions instead of same sex marriage, and if the Michael Moore and his “type” would have not been leading the charge in the press, the election might have been different.

Great thread,

Craig

Greg:

Jarin, excellent post. Glad to see you as an editor. Keep it up.

Thank you. I will do my best.

Jarin,

First of all, welcome to the WB Blue Column!

It’s great that your post delved into this aspect of the religion, faith, government and politics. However, here’s is were I respectfully disagree with your proposals.

And, Don/Phx8 comes the closest to nailing it by saying ‘Kerry did well in the Debates’. No, John Kerry won all 3 debates!

Yes, you can possibly dismiss the online media Quick Polls as skewed by joyful Kerry supporters, however you cannot dismiss the average of +57% percent of those polled in the Gallup and Zogby, as Democrats masking their voices.

That means when our message gets to the voting public without being filtered thru the distortions of the RoveVision Fear-Mongatron - it resonates with credibility.

Unfortunately Jarin, as well-reasoned and thoughtful of case you have made, it would be lost on that part of the electorate that wrongly believes WMDs’ were found, and Saddam ordered 9/11.

I fully understand, but will never acquiesce to the unspoken premise that launches all this introspective hand-wringing by members of the Kerry Minority - that we do not have stupid people in this country that vote!

Of course, it would not be smart for an author pushing a book to say this out loud, as it would be counterproductive for Wolf Blitzer to blurt this out, as CNN is in the hunt to convert Fox News viewers.

And George, there are no visible, appointed ‘Gay Marriage proponents’. There is no group spearheading any movement, although many gay/lesbian groups have given their blessing.

It is not crusade driven, guided or counseled by anyone within the Democratic Party or the Kerry campaign. There is no one organization or one person that Pat Buchanan, Jerry Falwell or Rick Santorum has pointed to as leading this ‘radical homosexual assault’ on marriage.

These were the acts of individual citizens who keenly took advantage of the non-sexual ambiguity of the legal marriage statutes on the books, across the nation. These were simply committed people seeking to confirm their relationship in the moral authority of the sacred principles set down in our Constitution, and not your Bible.

Interesting post, Jerin. You don’t think changing the pledge to, “One nation, under [insert deity(ies) here]”, wouldn’t tick those guys off even more? How about putting the thousand names of Vishnu next to the ten commandments in our courts?

And at what point were Democrats pushing for gay marriage? I thought we just backed civil unions. You know, giving gay couples the same civil rights as married couples. I don’t remember Kerry or any other prominent Democrat asking for gay marriage, and I don’t personally know any Democrats who favor it. I don’t.

Jarendhel-
I figured your name had elvish origins ;-)

Seriously though, when I wrote of judicial activism, I qualified it with “What the conservatives refer to as”, or something to that effect. Essentially I was saying that if some conservative judge makes a judgment that relies more on politics and audacity to support it than the law itself, then we will be in trouble. I’m not a strict constructionist in any way, shape or form, but I do believe legal language introduces enough hair-splitting into the process that we need to watch making any kind of decision in any political camp’s direction that doesn’t found itself well on constitutional fundamentals. If Bush can code things by saying he would oppose the Dred Scot decision (which supported an inhumane practice. Like perhaps… Abortion in the eyes of Conservatives.) I would code things by saying I oppose Plessy Vs. Ferguson, where the constitution’s promise of equal rights was subjected to a hideous reinterpretation for the cause of an age’s local prejudices. To me, an improperly constructed ban on abortion would be as unjust as the ban itself. So too, in my eyes, would a constitutional ban be overkill.

I think if abortion is to be made illegal, it must be done with the full informed consent of the electorate, or at least the good faith adhesion to the undergirding legal principles of this nation. Otherwise, it could be the source of a total reversal or perversion of the law that could lead to worse happening. I guess the best way to express my sentiments is that I do believe abortion to be a tumor on the nation’s morality, but I believe the therapy or surgery must be less harmful than the disease itself.

On other issues, I firmly believe that the best way to ensure the morality of one’s children is to teach them well when you’ve got their attention, and not be a bad example.

Defense of Marriage is an issue I feel qualifies as an illustration of this. People in Red States divorce more than people in blue states. They never consider the harm that such rampant divorce causes children when they go to start their own relationships. If you want to save marriage, denying it to gay people will not do the job.

I think Christians have to realize that America is like Rome was in many ways: a diverse, sprawling, mostly secular institution, a nation of this world which will never completely conform to anybody’s idealized notion of a Christian country, even if political control is taken by religious conservatives.

Government will always be a function of the masses, as Religion will always be a function of the individual and their beliefs. In our country we wisely struck a truce between the Goverment’s need to control the private citizen’s life (so as to govern), and the private citizen’s ability to think, believe, speak and worship as they wish in the face of that authority. This has kept American religion healthy and robust in the face of a modern age that has alienated most Europeans from their ancestral faith, as the authorities that gave way in the sixties took the faiths entangled with them into disfavor.

Me? I believe faith is a choice, and can only be trully brought out in a person if they are allowed to develop it of their own free will. People should not be motivated by worldly pressures to seek out the divine, because then they worship to gain the rewards of this world, and as Christ says, those who worship with worldly rewards in mind (approval of others, financial incentives, etc.) recieve their reward then and there. Faith must come from the heart, from the most secret of places inside, or else it is just theatre. I really wish those who try to legislate God would understand that crucial point.

Rocky:

I belive (sic) though that my first amendment rights are violated when group after group of Christians come to my door to try and save me.

First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

I respectfully submit that you are not looking at a first amendment issue at all, and that by alleging that someone coming to your door is a first amendment issue, you actually diminish the first amendment greatly.

You actually want to prohibit the ability of someone to speak freely, whether about religion or not. To take your step would prohibit anyone from coming to your door, whether it be to sell Girl Scout cookies or to proselytize.

You raise a minor annoyance to a level of Constitutional requirement, and in doing so, you trivialize the entire issue.

I don’t particularly like the Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses who come to my door, but I don’t particularly mind it either. Anymore than I mind the telemarketing calls. I’ve learned to handle both with calm decisive disinterest while maintaining politeness.

But to suggest that YOUR first amendment rights are abridged by someone ELSE practicing theirs is really diminishing to the excellent issue in this thread. I’d ask you to rethink your position, and if you feel led to do so, respond with which part of your first amendment rights are being violated.

Jarin-

Thanks for your response, although your reasoning about the State approach neglects the fact that we have sovereign States that have the right to issue or not issue licenses as they see fit. There is no federal marriage license. Many gay marriage proponents have backed off the full faith and credit argument as it is a battle they can not win. And it does lead to an amendment struggle.

Now I do think that the DOMA should be challenged. I think the Federal Government should recognize any marriage or civil union that a State sanctions. Democrats are reluctant to address the DOMA because it was a Clinton era law, but that goes to my point about worrying less about political wins and losses and focusing instead on bi-partisan wins as long as they are on Democratic issues.

Bert,

I was talking about people like Gavin Newsom and Robin Tyler. They are not doing the movement any favors. If, as you say, there are no true leaders on the issue and it is only a grass roots campaign, then maybe some better organization would be in line. The current campaign is definitely not working and a majority of the electorate is polarizing against the issue. That leaves the movement with only the judicial tract which again is facing a backlash of its own.

Joe, my right to punch you in the nose ends a millimeter from the end of it.

Jarin —

Great post. I’ve been hoping you would apply for editorship for awhile now.

I still stand by my assertion that the Democratic party is not so far out of touch. A sitting war president eked by with a couple of percentage points, whereas if the Democrats were so far off base Bush would have crushed Kerry.

Joe, your comment comparing Jehovah’s Witnesses to telemarketers and Girl Scouts is priceless.
Look I have lived in the same house for 25 years. I see the same people coming to my door to proselytize over and over.
When does this become abuse?

Rocky:

i made no such comparison about the two. The comparison I made was in regard to the activity of a person soliciting at your door. Both Jehovah’s Witnesses and Girl Scouts have that in common—any other connection you might assume is at your own doing.

I understand that unwanted solicitation is annoying. Yet your conclusion that it is a first amendment issue is incorrect, in my opinion. I asked you to show me how the first amendment applies—you have not done so yet. I dont think it does, but I’m willing to entertain your notion that it does apply.

Our society has gone so far beyond the pale in looking at “abuse”. Someone coming to MY door, and respectfully asking if they might talk to me about anything will never constitute abuse. Are we so thin skinned that any such activity is deemed abusive?

Rocky, in legal terms, if you deny a JW the right to knock on your door, who else do you also deny that right to? You might want to think on that before claiming constitutional infringement.

Jarin
Great post!
As I have said before, I believe that this issue transends the party-line way of thinking and that the blitzkreig approach is wrong.
The only way equal rights will be achieved is when BOTH sides try to understand the other.
Simply writing off a persons religious beliefs and calling them a right-wing extremist will not work with this issue.
The left doesn’t have to compromise, but trying to understand will only help its cause with this one.

Joe, so the next time the JW’s come to my door I will send them over to your house.

“right of privacy: an overview
Distinct from the right of publicity protected by state common or statutory law, a broader right of privacy has been inferred in the Constitution. Although not explicity stated in the text of the Constitution, in 1890 then to be Justice Louis Brandeis extolled ‘a right to be left alone.’ This right has developed into a liberty of personal autonomy protected by the 14th amendment. The 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments also provide some protection of privacy, although in all cases the right is narrowly defined.”

Rocky and jbod —

I think solicitors have the right to come to your door unless you post a sign telling them they can’t. What about that option?

Alejo,
those signs only mostly work.
Telemarketers, Televangelists, whats the difference?

Alejo-

1978 Congress

Senate: 61-38 Democrat
House 292-143 Democrat

2005 Congress

Senate: 55-44 Republican
House: 231-201 Republican

That’s minus 17 Senators and 91 Congressmen, plus Five out of Seven Presidential races during the period. If the Democratic Party, as Carville suggests, is in the business of wining elections then it has failed miserably over the last 26 years.

Wouldn’t it be wise to pull a Tom Peters on someone like former Education Secretary Dick Riley and compare his success as a Democrat to the successes of current Democrat politicians? In 1978, Riley won election, as a Democrat, for Governor of South Carolina. He proceeded to raise the State’s sales tax from 4% to 5%, championed education and social programs, changed the State’s Constitution to allow serving consecutive terms, and then ran unopposed in 1982. He is still viewed as one of the best Governors in SC history.

Don’t you think it would be worth-while to understand how someone like Riley could be so popular in a very conservative, and now very red, State like South Carolina? And also what has changed in the Party’s message since its dominance? Maybe you won’t like what Riley represents (although obviously Clinton and Carville did) or maybe you will. But now is not the time to hold on to slim minorities in most every elected body.

Just a thought.

George:

I think you have a good point. I’m not actually a Democrat, so I definitely would like to see the party change its message, or at least the way it delivers it. I was merely pointing out that there are too many Democrats who are buying into the idea that losing the election means the party is sunk. I think that stems from our “culture of immediacy” and needs to be ameliorated by the fact that a lot of people did in fact vote for John Kerry.

Me, I’d like to see the Democratic party be more inclusive, and the more I think about Jarin’s proposal that the party acknowledge religion without espousing it the more it makes sense to me.

George,
is it coincidence that during that same time we had deregulation of everything?

Rocky-

Although I don’t see a correlation, I wouldn’t dismiss any premise at this stage of the game.

The point is to look at the past successes and benchmark them against the current state. Riley is an easy example for me because I know him personally and have admired him for many years. Sam Nunn would be another good choice. You might even want to look at Al Gore’s 1988 Presidential campaign and compare to his 2000 bid.

Here’s a 1988 Gore campaign brochure. It mentions things like his study of theology , his strong stance on national defense and his service in Viet Nam, a quote from Mort Kondracke, and Tipper’s family values advocacy.

Alejo,

The most extreme difference between the Democratic and Republican parties is that the Democrats insist on not letting religion play into the statehood. To incorporate religion into it’s party’s politics, “espousing” it or not, would be a huge breakdown in the Democrats belief system. Don’t you agree?

Maybe that’s why Kerry wasn’t the best choice- he tried to be too much to too many; incorporated too many “conservative” values into his campaign (i.e. Did you see the picture of him in fatigues?!). If you’re going to preach “I’m a Catholic and here is my belief system”, how can you overcome “…but the Church disagrees with everything I stand for politically”? It was the hatred for George Bush that brought the democrats together in this election- not necessarily the democratic candidate.

Alejo:

I don’t mind people coming to my door. I’ve engaged young Mormon missionaries in healthy discussions—they’ve not altered my thinking much, nor have I altered theirs.

Were I to not want people coming to my door, I’d put a sign up. Seems pretty easy to me to do. I suppose I could build it into a Constitutional issue and head for the local bar association to see about getting time in front of the SCOTUS, but yeah, I think a sign might do just fine instead.

Joe, My point was I don’t think that I should have to put a sign up.
Why do these folks assume that I want anything to do with them?
I don’t have anything against them personally, they have a right to their beliefs, however I find it arogant for them to think they have the “right” to disturb me.
I belive that their “rights” end between their knuckles and my front door.

Greg:

I’m not (and I don’t think Jarin is either) suggesting that the Democratic party become religious or actually incorporate religion, but that it would behoove Democrats to acknowledge that religion exists and does shape people’s worldview. For example, while the expression “Love thy neighbor” is from the Bible, it also makes sense from a social standpoint, so using it in a speech doesn’t push a religious agenda but does include Christian listeners. I don’t see that as a breakdown so much as a nod to the fact that many Democrats are also religious.

It’s a fine line, no doubt — I wouldn’t want to see the kind of religious embrace that goes on in the Republican party — but I think there is room on the Democratic platform to welcome the faithful. (And I’m an atheist, even.)

jbod —

I wasn’t suggesting that you put up a sign; merely suggesting a way to solve the argument between you and Rocky might be that HE put up a sign.

Jarin:
“The Republicans are right. As much as it may pain us to hear it, we lost this election by not appealing to the majority of American voters. This election was the Democratic party’s to lose far more than it was the Republican party’s to win. We did lose it, and the blame for that must rightly be laid at our own feet. We do need to rethink our platform, as many have told us.”

I hate to even mention this, because it sounds like conspiracy theory paranoia, but did we lose it? Or did Diebold Machines and rigged opti-scans take it away from us? I’m not hearing much about this in the press, but there seems to be a lot of investigation underway in several states…
And if we didn’t actually lose it, do we need to re-think our platform?
Just wanted to throw that out there.

“So, rather, let us quote the bible as they did, let us find the wisdom in the teachings of Christ and Moses and the God of Abraham… but let us also quote the Koran, the Tao te Ching, the Torah, the Analects of Confucius, the Sutras of Buddhism, and every other text of faith whose words contain wisdoms that Man can profit by, regardless of an individual’s faith. Let us not shun religion, but embrace it in its true diversity and splendor, placing no religion above another but welcoming them all. Such timeless, universal wisdom, when married to the knowledge and understanding of Creation which Man gains through science; should not be barred from any truly human affair.”

Interesting idea, Jarin. The only risk is that Democrats may end up looking like we use religion _simply for effect_, just as we accuse Republicans of doing, but you may very well be right to suggest we do so in the future.
On a thread that is waning at the bottom of the blue column I was just quoting Lincoln - who was not a religious man at all. He never went to church, and it is clear and obvious judging by his personal correspondence that he disliked the pomposity of pious men, and yet, in a great many of his public addresses, he liberally utilized biblical quotes or appealed to the ideals of religious thinkers. Those were powerful speeches that deeply moved people - which is why they are still quoted from constantly today.
Doing what you suggest might work well for us - but don’t you think we’d need someone extremely charismatic to be able to pull it off?

BTW - really good article! I look forward to reading a lot more from you.

Rocky:

I understand what you are saying. I’m not sure if you fully understand the ramifications of what you are saying.

You would exclude Girl Scouts from selling cookies door to door. You’d exclude band members from selling candy bars door to door to pay for band trips. You’d prohibit politicians from canvassing door to door. You’d prevent paperboys potentially from collecting door to door.

First off, its NOT a first amendment issue. Second, I believe you are blowing it out of proportion. Third, I’m not convinced that you’d want to exclude all these groups, but rather just exclude the ones you dont want at your door. But it is not possible to legislate in such a way—its all or nothing.

Alejo:
I know you didnt mean for me to put up a sign. I was being sarcastic at the level that some people will go to prevent “abuse”, and also the level to which the term “abuse” has gone to.

George,

Although Gavin Newsom is Mayor of San Francisco, he is happily heterosexual. And again, I insist there is no movement, there is no campaign leader and there is no grassroots campaign. If there were, I’d know about it!

I’ve been in total agreement with Rep. Barney Frank on this issue. I have been a proponent of civil unions believing Gay Marriage an overreach. And, if I were the leader or spokesman for the gay/lesbian community, that is what I’d advocate.

While civil unions are wrong, they may provide the best way.
I still find it hard to believe our country has come to that though.

kctim -

civil unions are wrong in what way? Certainly not a legal way. You find it hard to believe that our country has come to this, do you mean come to respecting personal decisions made by a human being? America cannot legislate morality, and our government has a mandate to ensure fair treatment of its citzens, even if you believe their choices to be wrong. Especially in a situation such as this - the decision of a gay person to have a consenting relationship with another adult. This does not significantly affect anyone else in society (except as fodder for sitcoms), and there is no reason not to allow a legal recognition of their status if they so desire.

Bert:

Oh man. I agree with Barney Frank on something???

CH

AParker
I knew after I posted it, that it didn’t come out right.
I am in total support of gay marriages and I think it is really wrong for us to create “civil unions” to describe gays getting married.
Sorry about that everybody.

kctim,

Do not get me wrong, I am not against Gay Marriage and I believe it is a right as an American citizen.

However, Rep. Barney Frank (and I) were always right - this is not the time! Brown v Brd of Education did not end racial discrimination, just as there was significant opposition in America, at that time. It was a battle won, in an ongoing war that was eventually won.

Civil Unions are also that battle. Gay Marriage will be a reality in a future generation. I’ve accepted the fact that it cannot happen now.

Craig who knows, you might get an invite to my civil union someday!

The language used by the right is painting progressives into a corner. How can you defend a vote against the Clear Skies Act, American Jobs Creation Act, Working Families Tax Relief Act, Defense of Marriage Act, or the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit? On the surface, these all seem to be firm examples of benevolent legislation with nothing but the interests of the American people at heart.

In truth, all of these acts seek the opposite of what they claim. When presented in sound bite form, they strike an emotional chord intentionally designed to quell opposition. Under greater scrutiny they begin to unravel, though still inundated with doublespeak. Title VI of the American Jobs Creation Act is entitled Fair and Equitable Tobacco Reform which is essentially a bailout for tobacco farmers (notice the similarity to “fair and balanced”?).

The details of all these pieces of legislation are even harder to muddle through. In order to truly understand their ramifications, a concerned citizen must attempt hours of extensive research and cross-referencing of previous bills dating as far back as 1938. Who has the time? The mass media, in their attempt to replace journalism with stenography is certainly not going to waste precious resources when the Peterson verdict has just been handed down.

By recording a vote against these initiatives, a politician will be perceived as anti-environment, anti-jobs, anti-working families, pro-taxes, or against seniors. Is it a coincidence that these are the core constituents of the Democratic Party? Is it a coincidence that the Patriot Act liberates citizens from civil liberties fought for by the original patriots of 1776? It is not.

In the wake of the election, progressives are up in arms about election fraud and voter suppression. After the 2000 Bush v. Gore debacle, concerned citizens from both ends of the spectrum demanded legislation to re-instill confidence in our electoral system. In response to these demands, President Bush signed HR3295, the Help America Vote Act, into law in October of 2002. At the signing ceremony, Bush called for “free and fair elections” and claimed “the vitality of America’s democracy depends on the fairness and accuracy of America’s elections.” In his statement prior to signing, Bush listed a brief synopsis of the law’s key components and intent. Of particular interest, his statement “States must ensure that voting systems have minimal rates of error and allow voters a reasonable opportunity to review their ballots and correct any mistakes before a vote is cast”(for full text of this interview: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021029-1.html)

Americans were helped to vote by staunch republican allies such as Diebold Electronics, who apparently mistook the president’s call for “minimal rates of error” with “rates of error consistently favoring particular candidates”. An honest mistake I’m sure. Democrats raised many concerns over the language of the bill, specifically in regard to audibility of voting systems, but faced strong opposition to such language by the republican leadership. Had the democrats held out on passing this legislation they, in effect, would be taking a position of not wanting Americans to vote.

The ruling party is beginning to announce its plans for the coming years. Tax cuts are being referred to as “tax relief” and “tax simplification”. Corporate accountability for public safety is being disguised as “medical liability reform” and tort reform designed to eliminate “frivolous lawsuits” by those pesky “trial lawyers”. Corporations can also look forward to an investment boon stemming from “social security reform (otherwise known as privatization)”. The opposition must devise a new strategy to counter these Orwellian tactics.

Protests have long been the mechanism of dissent for the minority. Picture the evening news, a shot of protesters on the mall with signs reading “NO Clear Skies” or “NO Jobs for America”. I hate to use the term “think outside the box,” so I won’t. Instead, let me call on progressives to “think outside the corner”, because that red paint is rapidly closing in.

kctim -

Hey, at least its cleared up. Sorry for jumping on that, but it reminds me too much of what I hear from certain members of my church, of course directed against gay marriage instead of lamenting civil unions.

Joe,
I don’t want anybody at my front door. I will buy Girl Scout cookies from my nieces or in front of the grocery store. Any one else can do there business elsewhere.

Parker, it would seem that some “Christians” are the least Christ like amoung us.

Bert:

Do you want a toaster or a crockpot?

Craig

Rocky,

Jarin, Evangelicals may be a small minority, but they seem to yell the loudest. They also seem to have the ear of our right wing leaders.

I’m not sure what you are contending here. Are you saying that we need to persuade Evangelicals, rather than moderates, simply because of them yelling loudest and having the ear of our political opponents?

Even though I am a straight guy, I have lived among gays most of my adult life. I remember the sixties and seventies well. Gays have come a long way from the bathhouse queens of those times, and have been amongst the most responsible members of our society for quite some time, they deserve better. Discrimination cases should be heard by the courts. It will take time just as the fight for equality has taken time. Sooner or later it will happen.

Agreed.

As for secularism. I do belive that there should be freedom from religion as well as freedom of religion. I belive in live and let live. I belive though that my first amendment rights are violated when group after group of Christians come to my door to try and save me. I belive that people should be left in peace to belive what they choose to believe.

I agree, there should be freedom from religion. I’m just not convinced that it takes freeing our society and our government from all references to religion to provide that right.

But I disagree that your first amendment rights are being violated by Christians who come to your door trying to convert you. The first amendment applies to government, not to individuals, first of all. Secondly, they are not forcing you to change your religion against your will. There is no fundamental right to practice your own religion (or even to not practice any religion at all) that is being removed here. They’re just trying to persuade you. No different than any other form of door-to-door sales or advertising campaign. It only has as much power over you as you give it.

Jarandhel,
I posted this at 10:26am today.
“Although not explicity stated in the text of the Constitution, in 1890 then to be Justice Louis Brandeis extolled ‘a right to be left alone.’ This right has developed into a liberty of personal autonomy protected by the 14th amendment. The 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments also provide some protection of privacy, although in all cases the right is narrowly defined.”

I would have to say that while I am not an atheist, I am not particularly religious.

Look I don’t deny that these religious groups have a “right” guaranteed under the constitution to bang on my door till the cows come home. That doesn’t make it right. We as human beings have this propencity to do things just because we can. So that means that I have the “right” to tell these people to take a hike.
I don’t want my country to be over run by folks that take life on faith. I will not deny them the “right” to worship in any way they deem nescessary. In fact I will fight to the death to provide them that right.
That said, the constitution guarantees the “right” to worship without interference from the government as long as the worship falls within the rules of civilization. It does not require me to be governed by the religious right.
Yes, there are religious icons all over our government buildings, but our form of government is adapted from ancient Greece, not a particularly Christian civilization. They also had religious icons on their buildings.
Our Founding Fathers were men of their time, and for the most part they were Christians, however they took great care to separate church and state.
I am all for that. As to stripping all religious icons from government, what a waste of time.
The Christian folks live here, they have to realize that other folks live here too.

Bert
“Gay Marriage will be a reality in a future generation. I’ve accepted the fact that it cannot happen now.”

Civil unions ARE a step towards that goal. I agree.
I just think it is wrong that gay marriage cannot happen now.

Heres some food for thought.
They don’t care what happens in the bedrooms of gays, but being a homosexual is a “SIN” and they cannot promote it by allowing gays to get married.
Obviously, the SIN they are refering to is gay sex.
Are they not also promoting a SIN, fornication, by not allowing gays to get married?

I’m not a bible scholar.
Does the bible say “same gender LOVE” is wrong or is it “same gender SEX” is wrong?
LOVE is all that is required for marriage and they don’t care what happens in the bedroom.
Whats the big deal.

kctim, the Bible says that gays should be put to death.

Thanks Rocky.
How does it define “gays” though?
Is it gay sex or gay love they consider wrong?

Gay sex

kctim:

The bible’s position is that all sex outside of marriage is sin. The bible does not address gay love, not gay marriage. A person would have to stretch pretty far to take a position that the bible is accepting of Gay marriage.

One of the sins of the christian church is to hold two standards, one for gays and one for straights. A straight couple “living in sin” and a gay couple “living in sin” are treated very differently. On couple is treated like “I don’t approve, but since I had sex before I was married I wont judge.” The second are treated a bit like freaks, or as outcasts from humanity. It’s very wrong to do so. This hypocrisy from a biblical point of view is as wrong as sex outside of marriage or more so.

Craig

kctim:

The Bible does not teach that being gay is a sin. It teaches that gay sex, like hetrosexual sex outside of marriage is sin. Basically THEE ONLY PLACE sex is sanction is within marriage.

Celibate gays are in exactly the same position biblcally as celibate straights.

Craig

Rocky:

You are close but no cigar. As my previous post have said, it was the sex outside of marriage not the gayness.

Looking back on it, sex outside of being marriage being criminally wrong was’nt that bad of a law in it’s day. It beats what is happening in Africa right now with aids. Take away modern medicine, and abstinence is the only way to control disease. Condoms were not of our current quality back then!!

Can you imagine our current sexually orientated culture today without the pill, condoms, abortion, or our modern drugs?

Craig

Craig:

On the gay marriage issue. I support so many “pieces” of the “whole” of what gays seem to be demanding. For instance, I support finding a type of union where you can visit in hospitals when your loved one is sick and act as next of kin. I support certain beneficiary designations like on IRA’s etc. There are many many other areas where I would certainly be on the side of moderation, which would improve the rights of gay americans. In exchange there would need to be some legal bonding. Those rights need to be granted in some sort of serious legal arrangement, otherwise they undermine privacy.

I disagree that a type of union needs to be found. Civil marriage already provides all the rights you describe, plus the legal bonding you suggest would be necessary. The type of union is there already, it just needs to be opened to us.

I guess my point on this is that when the issue is too far out there for me to reach, you turn a “I support you” into a “I can’t vote for you”. Gays walk away with none instead of some.

Precisely what makes the issue too far out for you to reach?

Bert:

Jarin,

First of all, welcome to the WB Blue Column!

Thank you. I’m very glad to be writing here. I’m already starting to think about what my next article is going to be on.

That means when our message gets to the voting public without being filtered thru the distortions of the RoveVision Fear-Mongatron - it resonates with credibility.

Your problem is that it does not primarily get to the voting public in that manner. Nor should we expect it to, without fundamental changes to the system. Changes which will certainly not occur while we are out of power. And brief glimpses of the clear message during debates are simply not enough to influence the vote in our favor, in and of themselves.

Unfortunately Jarin, as well-reasoned and thoughtful of case you have made, it would be lost on that part of the electorate that wrongly believes WMDs’ were found, and Saddam ordered 9/11.

I fully understand, but will never acquiesce to the unspoken premise that launches all this introspective hand-wringing by members of the Kerry Minority - that we do not have stupid people in this country that vote!

I never said that we did not. Their existence, however, does not mean we should pander to them. There are other voting blocks that do think, and there are also blocks of people who do not choose to vote. Also, given the right language, perhaps it is possible to reach even those who are not swayed by reason. There’s still Pathos and Ethos to rely on in the absence of Logos. Appeals to patriotism and faith may persuade through emotion and virtue where reasoning from facts alone cannot.

American Pundit:

Interesting post, Jarin. You don’t think changing the pledge to, “One nation, under [insert deity(ies) here]”, wouldn’t tick those guys off even more? How about putting the thousand names of Vishnu next to the ten commandments in our courts?

I don’t think we need to change the pledge at all. Pluralism doesn’t mean that all religions have to be equally represented in every individual instance. Somewhere else, say in a public speech, someone can insert references to a different religious path. There is a lot of wisdom to be found in various sacred texts, whether you subscribe to the religions as a whole or not.

As for what to put next to the ten commandments? I was thinking more like the code of hamurabi, the brehon laws, the magna carta, and the constitution itself. A sort of display of the concept of Law as it has evolved over the ages. They keep claiming they want it there for its historic significance, let’s put it in a real historical context. From the distant past, all the way up to now.

And at what point were Democrats pushing for gay marriage? I thought we just backed civil unions. You know, giving gay couples the same civil rights as married couples. I don’t remember Kerry or any other prominent Democrat asking for gay marriage, and I don’t personally know any Democrats who favor it. I don’t.

Yes, you do know democrats who favor it. I’m one, as I’ve clearly said in this forum before.

George:

Thanks for your response, although your reasoning about the State approach neglects the fact that we have sovereign States that have the right to issue or not issue licenses as they see fit. There is no federal marriage license. Many gay marriage proponents have backed off the full faith and credit argument as it is a battle they can not win. And it does lead to an amendment struggle.

You’re welcome. But I do not believe that my reasoning neglects anything. The Supreme Court has previously ruled that states do not have the right not to issue marriage licenses to mixed-race couples, I believe this falls into the same category. If the Supreme Court properly has jurisdiction over that matter, in defense of the civil rights of mixed race couples, it has jurisdiction over the matter of same-sex marriages in defense of the civil rights of gay couples.

Now I do think that the DOMA should be challenged. I think the Federal Government should recognize any marriage or civil union that a State sanctions. Democrats are reluctant to address the DOMA because it was a Clinton era law, but that goes to my point about worrying less about political wins and losses and focusing instead on bi-partisan wins as long as they are on Democratic issues.

Now that is a matter that we agree on. DOMA was as bad an idea as Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

Alejo:

Great post. I’ve been hoping you would apply for editorship for awhile now.

Thank you. I hope my next article is received as well as this one has been.

I still stand by my assertion that the Democratic party is not so far out of touch. A sitting war president eked by with a couple of percentage points, whereas if the Democrats were so far off base Bush would have crushed Kerry.

It was not my intention to suggest we were out of touch. I just think we can do better. The last few elections have been close… very close. I think we need to go on the offensive and start gaining ground again. And I really REALLY think we need to abandon the concept of swing states vs safe states. We need to go after America as a whole. Seriously. I want the next election to be so far in our favor that no amount of election tampering can change the outcome.

Adrienne:

I hate to even mention this, because it sounds like conspiracy theory paranoia, but did we lose it? Or did Diebold Machines and rigged opti-scans take it away from us? I’m not hearing much about this in the press, but there seems to be a lot of investigation underway in several states… And if we didn’t actually lose it, do we need to re-think our platform? Just wanted to throw that out there.

I understand that’s a possibility, but really I think that the fact it’s so close that election tampering can change the outcome just illustrates the problem. We’re only appealing to about half the public. We need to target them all, and start claiming victories that are so clear-cut election tampering can’t possibly change them without being so apparent it is caught and stopped. Fraud can really only play a major role in close elections.

Interesting idea, Jarin. The only risk is that Democrats may end up looking like we use religion _simply for effect_, just as we accuse Republicans of doing, but you may very well be right to suggest we do so in the future.

I don’t think that it would necessarily appear that way. If it was just dropped at random into a speech, that would be problematic… but what I’m suggesting isn’t dropping quotes awkwardly, it’s carefully selecting well-known ones that illustrate your points. I think that would really appeal to people of faith.

On a thread that is waning at the bottom of the blue column I was just quoting Lincoln - who was not a religious man at all. He never went to church, and it is clear and obvious judging by his personal correspondence that he disliked the pomposity of pious men, and yet, in a great many of his public addresses, he liberally utilized biblical quotes or appealed to the ideals of religious thinkers. Those were powerful speeches that deeply moved people - which is why they are still quoted from constantly today. Doing what you suggest might work well for us - but don’t you think we’d need someone extremely charismatic to be able to pull it off?

I think people rely too much on the idea of charisma today without really understanding it, honestly. Yes, Lincoln was a great speaker, and very charismatic, but he learned how to be. As did many other men in his age and the centuries before it. Benjamin Franklin was born a peasant and taught himself how to be eloquent enough to speak before Kings. Can modern man not aspire to the same?

BTW - really good article! I look forward to reading a lot more from you.

Thank you. I really appreciate all of the positive reactions my article has received from everyone.

Rocky:

I posted this at 10:26am today. “Although not explicity stated in the text of the Constitution, in 1890 then to be Justice Louis Brandeis extolled ‘a right to be left alone.’ This right has developed into a liberty of personal autonomy protected by the 14th amendment. The 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments also provide some protection of privacy, although in all cases the right is narrowly defined.”

Sorry I hadn’t seen it yet, I’ve been going through all the replies in order so I (hopefully) would not miss anyone. I’m a little overwhelmed by how many responses this article has gotten. Though very pleased by them all, I must say.

I think that you would benefit from reading the rest of the information on that page, though. To whit:

The Constitutional right of privacy has developed alongside a statutory right of privacy which limits access to personal information. The Federal Trade Commission overwhelmingly enforces this statutory right of privacy, and the rise of privacy policies and privacy statements are evidence of its work. -Legal Information Institute

What you are interested in, what protects you from telemarketers and other violations of privacy by the public, is not the Constitutional right to privacy. It is the statutory right to privacy. Thus, this is not a first amendment issue. The constitutional right to privacy, and the first amendment, protect you from the government itself. The statutory right to privacy protects you from other citizens.

Craig, I will admit that I am no Bible scholar but this makes it pretty plain.

” Putting these texts to the side, we are left with three references, all of which unequivocally condemn homosexuality. Leviticus 18:22 states the principle: “You [masculine] shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” The second (Lev. 20:13) adds the penalty: “If a man lies with a male as a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them.”

This is the website link

http://www.bridges-across.org/ba/wink.htm

Bert:

However, Rep. Barney Frank (and I) were always right - this is not the time! Brown v Brd of Education did not end racial discrimination, just as there was significant opposition in America, at that time. It was a battle won, in an ongoing war that was eventually won.

So it is your position that we are asking for too much, too soon? I’ve been hearing that a lot lately. Frankly, it reminds me of other rhetoric:

In South Africa, a major issue among the Africans is how the so-called “liberal” whites have begun to complain that blacks want too much, too fast, and just too much overall, they think blacks should just be happy apartheid is over, but remain content to be marginalized economically and politically in their own land, while those liberal whites just replace the apartheid whites, all the while maintaining their places of elitism and privilege. -ecofem@csf.colorado.edu

I cannot and will not accept the premise that we should be fighting to achieve lesser goals. If we are granted partial victories along the way, so be it, but I feel our goal must remain equality.

As Benjamin Franklin said: “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

If we wait for the public to be “ready” for us to achieve equality, and accept half-measures until that time, we will never live to see equality.

Jarandhel, pushing on folks that won’t be pushed, will not solve anything.
Should you be satisfied with the progress made so far? Absolutely not.
Look at how long it has taken for the minorities of this country to achieve even a semblence of eguality.
The wheels of progress move slowly.
Pushing on them won’t make them turn any faster.

Rocky:

All the evidence, however, is to the contrary.

Yes, look at the way minorities in this country has achieved even a semblence of equality: not one bit of it came from waiting until people were ready. It came from movements which pushed for rights that people were not yet ready to give. Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King Jr, Richard and Mildred Loving… the rights they fought for were not ones that the public had decided they were ready to simply give them.

Pushing on the wheels of progress may not make them turn faster, but it does make them turn.

Without someone pushing, they stop.

No doubt! Waiting for people to want something other than the status quo is like waiting for reality shows to be real.

Jarandhel,

I hate to bring this up, and please don’t take offence, but blacks weren’t condemned in the Bible.
I’m not the one you have to convince.

Rocky:

Actually, at the time, the prevailing biblical “wisdom” was that people of african descent bore the biblical “Mark of Cain”. A sort of hereditary sin or curse, like original sin, due to their supposed descent from the bloodline of the biblical first murderer.

Do you know what forced the people of my generation to face our inherited and accepted racist institutions? It was a series of cultural pressures that impinged upon and exposed their injustice. When those pressures began opening schools and doctors’ offices to minorities, many churches remained closed to them. Their pulpits continued to offer a traditional interpretation of the “curse of Ham” in Genesis 9 that had long been offered as a biblical defense of segregation. -Rubel Shelly

“To illustrate: Cain, Ham, and the whole Negro race have been cursed with a black skin, the mark of Cain, so they can be identified as a caste apart, a people with whom the other descendants of Adam should not intermarry. (Gen. 4; Moses 5.)” (Mormon Doctrine, Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, pg. 114) -Mormon racism in perspective

We will begin where segregationist Christians began: with the Bible. When civil rights supporters quoted the Apostle Paul’s argument in Acts 17:26 that “From one single stock [God] … created the whole human race so that they could occupy the entire earth,” segregationists responded by reciting the second half of the verse, in which the God who created all men “decreed how long each nation should flourish and what the boundaries of its territory should be.” Reliance on this particular Bible verse freed segregationists from the discredited separate creations theory (polygenesis) cited by proslavery advocates a century earlier. It also meant that the Biblical defense of segregation could exist side-by-side with contemporary anthropology cited by Christian supporters of integration. -Journal of American History

That last source contains a great deal of information on such biblical defenses of segregation, beyond what I have quoted here. I highly recommend reading it further.

Jarandhel, I’m sorry but you missed my point.
While blacks are no longer thought of the spawn of Cain, homosexuality is still thought of as a sin against nature.
Old habits die hard. I realize that it’s time to bring these people kicking and screaming into the 21st century, but they aren’t going to go easy.

Like I said, I’m not the one you must convince.

Rocky:

I’m sorry, but I continue to miss your point. You implied that the african-american civil rights movement did not have to fight against a negative biblical impression during the period they were fighting for equality (“blacks weren’t condemned in the Bible.”), while the gay civil rights movement does. I showed how that was not true.

Yes, most current interpretations of the bible favor the idea that it condemns homosexuality. I don’t see that as a reason to stop “pushing on the wheels of progress”. Judging from the lessons of the past, we must continue to push if we want to reach real equality. As earlier civil rights movements did. It was not until after Brown vs Board of Ed that the theology of segregation was seriously reconsidered. And even afterwards, in Loving v Commonwealth (the Virginia Supreme Court case that preceded Loving v Virginia), biblical reasons for anti-miscegenation laws were cited by the court itself:

“Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.” -definition of loving v. virginia

Surely this shows that prevailing biblical prejudice is not itself a reason to stop “pushing” for progress in the arena of civil rights? And that prevailing biblical interpretations will not change unless fiercely challenged by those who desire equal rights?

I’m afraid I do not really understand why you keep telling me that you are not the one I need to convince, while simultaneously suggesting that I (and by extension all those favoring equal marriage rights for gay couples) should stop pushing on “those who will not be pushed” (presumably meaning Christians who believe homosexuality is condemned by their God) by demanding full marriage rights instead of mere civil unions. Am I misinterpreting your position in some way?

Jarandhel,

“I’m afraid I do not really understand why you keep telling me that you are not the one I need to convince, while simultaneously suggesting that I (and by extension all those favoring equal marriage rights for gay couples) should stop pushing on “those who will not be pushed” (presumably meaning Christians who believe homosexuality is condemned by their God) by demanding full marriage rights instead of mere civil unions. Am I misinterpreting your position in some way?”

My implication was that those who will not be pushed are going to push back. Hey I’m all for you. It sounds trite but most of my best friends are gay, male and female. I don’t like them being second class citizens any more than they like being one.
Blacks only now are really receiving the freedoms they deserve for the trials they went through I’m afraid I do not really understand why you keep telling me that you are not the one I need to convince, while simultaneously suggesting that I (and by extension all those favoring equal marriage rights for gay couples) should stop pushing on “those who will not be pushed” (presumably meaning Christians who believe homosexuality is condemned by their God) by demanding full marriage rights instead of mere civil unions. Am I misinterpreting your position in some way?

Only now are blacks receiving the freedoms they fought for during the generations before the civil rights era.
You have a long tough road ahead of you and it isn’t going to change over night. It may well take a generation before the changes you seek take place. I never said or implied that you should stop, what I tried to imply was don’t expect anything from the republican party or the “Christians” that comprise it.

Boy I sure screwed that last post up.
Lets try this again.

Jarandhel,

“I’m afraid I do not really understand why you keep telling me that you are not the one I need to convince, while simultaneously suggesting that I (and by extension all those favoring equal marriage rights for gay couples) should stop pushing on “those who will not be pushed” (presumably meaning Christians who believe homosexuality is condemned by their God) by demanding full marriage rights instead of mere civil unions. Am I misinterpreting your position in some way?”

My comparison with blacks is that only recently have they begun receiving the freedoms they fought for during the generations before the civil rights era.

My position is that those who will not be pushed are going to push back. Hey I’m all for you. It sounds trite but most of my best friends are gay, male and female. I don’t like them being second class citizens any more than they like being one.
You have a long tough road ahead of you and it isn’t going to change over night. It may well take a generation before the changes you seek take place. I never said or implied that you should stop, what I tried to say was don’t expect anything from the republican party or the “Christians” that comprise it.