I'm Convinced. Rick Warren IS a bad idea at the inauguration

This is one for the "better late than never" file. Rick Warren. He explains here that he is not homophobic, and yet he thinks that gay marriage is equivalent to a marriage between and adult and a child, a brother and a sister, or a man and multiple women. He claims, incorrectly, that throughout time, all major religions define marriage as between a man and a woman. Um. Helloooooooooo. Ever heard of John Smith, Pastor Rick?

But while the rest of the world was having exasperated conniption fits about Mr. Warren's selection, I was finding it terribly difficult to give a shit. I don't concern myself much with religious folks. I find it impossible to live my life according to the tenets set down by Bronze Age "thinkers", who modified folk tales and peddled delusions of being God's chosen race with an incredible capacity for hatred, slavery, revenge and justice meted out at the end of an axe--or worse yet, as part of a gory, God-of-Abraham-pacifying sacrifice. Neither do I much go for the feelgoodness of New Age "spiritualism". My brain doesn't work that way. So the selection of inaugural woo-meister matters about as much to me as what pattern they put on my toilet paper.

But it matters a great deal to others. And I listened to as many sides as I could. The objections appear to fall in three main camps:

1) Warren is anti-gay and the LBGT community was instrumental in getting Obama elected. The truth in the latter part of that statement can certainly be disputed, but I will give you that the gay community probably did support Obama in large numbers. But look at the alternative they had. I mean, isn't "gay Republican" an oxymoron? He spoke out about his support of Prop 8 in California and the gay community seems to be looking to vilify any and all supporters of that measure. I've made clear my opinions on Prop 8 for anyone interested in refreshing their memories.

2) Warren is against legalized abortion. I'm unclear whether this is in all cases or if he will make exceptions. But let's assume that he is of the Palin ilk and against it in any circumstances. Does this surprise anyone? He's an evangelical. And yet, self-described feminists are up in arms over this. Now, women weren't so single-minded in their political support this election (or in their support of abortion), so Obama is probably good with ignoring that far-left pissed-off feminist demographic. (And before you begin piling on, I don't think that ALL feminists are far-left or pissed off, it's just that that seems to be the sub-group that finds this point MOST offensive. I clearly consider myself a feminist as well.) In this case, it's not Warren in particular that is so offensive as evangelicals in general. And last time I looked, we didn't have feminists protesting evangelical services across the country. I'm feeling pretty weak on this point. Especially since I'm pretty clear on Obama's position on abortion and I can live with it.

3) Warren is against federal support for research using embryonic stem cells, and he doesn't believe in evolution. Dipshit. Dipshit. Dipshit. Oh, did I mention that I think people who claim not to "believe" in evolution are stupid? Well, now I have. So sure, he's a moron, but he's certainly not alone. Once again, an evangelical bent here. Obama has come out saying he supports federal support for stem cell research and he believes in evolution.

I think the thing that pisses the left off the most about Warren is that he is being praised for his work in Africa on AIDS. He believes in human-induced climate change and the need to do something about it. He is not your garden variety evangelical. But still, solidly evangelical.

So I've tried to listen to everyone's beefs and consider them in the context of my own world vision. So, to get to the big question...should Warren be given a national audience on one of the most historic days in our nation's short history?

Hell to the no.

He has worked hard to advance his beliefs. He has done much good in his life. He motivates people to live, according to their beliefs, a better, more meaningful life. He tries, according to his belief, to be a positive force in the universe. But he cannot change the fact that he is a bigot.

A big fat, woo-spouting, white, Christian bigot, and I reject nearly everything upon which he bases his morality.

The question then becomes--should America be expected to tolerate bigotry? It would seem that Obama thinks so. So I have to ask, Mr. Obama, what level of tolerance should I be expected to exhibit?

Do I support those, who, based on religious convictions, harass women seeking abortion services? Do I support them when they start blowing up clinics and murdering physicians? Do I applaud as right-wing nuts hold back research that might lead to a wave of life-saving treatments? How about I run to the defense of the bat-shit crazy evangelical nut case that walked into a New Age business in my community and attempted to set the store owner on FIRE for selling "heretical" icons? Should I welcome evangelical Christians who think that it's okay to prevent people from humane treatment in the courts, our health care system, and in their every day lives, simply because they are different? Do I smile in blissful tolerance when Rick Warren tells me that Prop 8 was going to turn his Sunday sermons into prosecutable hate speech? Do I stand by and say nothing when I hear people slinging epithets at one another on the street? Do I join in so they don't feel so uneducated and alone? Do I lend my support to those who blackball Jews and Communists and nigger-loving honkies? Maybe I should have Mark Fuhrman and O.J. over for a reconciliatory dinner. How do I distinguish between bigotry that is okay, and bigotry that is intolerable? Someone needs to send me a copy of the Bigot Handbook so I can get this all clear in my head.

Rick Warren is not okay because it is not okay to give anyone a national platform on which to stand and wrap himself in a halo of Christian benevolence when he is, in fact, an intolerant, ignorant bigot.

And we got enough big fat steaming piles of bigotry in this country without patting them on the hand and telling them it's alright.

By God (pun intended), it ain't alright.

I vowed not to pick on Obama until he actually took office. Then again, marriage has vows and I broke those, too. Mr. Obama, you are wrong. Rick Warren is a very bad idea. Don't let this pattern continue or you risk my becoming disillusioned with you.

Discrimination is Legalized

I'm just going to say it: Prop 8 legalized discrimination. Plain. and. simple.

I am not gay. I don't much concern myself with what people do in their bedrooms and with whom. In fact, I go to great lengths NOT to think about what other people do in their bedrooms and with whom. I am also not religious. I don't much concern myself with what people do in their churchs, synagogs, tabernacles, and mosques. I don't much bother to learn about the entity to whom they whisper their greatest desires, on whom they thrust their most wearisome burdens, and in whose essence they seek their solace. I seek my solace in alcohol, yard work, and great dogs.

But I have been married. I was not making a religious statement by that choice. And that makes an important point. Marriage is not a religious invention. It is not the exclusive provenance of people of faith. Any Tom, Dick or Harry can walk over to any courthouse and marry Mary, Stella, or Pam. A great deal of a marriage is the social and cultural statement you make to people around you. To imply that matrimony is a Holy bond between man, woman and God is total poppycock.

There, I said it. Poppycock.

Marriage between a man a women and God is a dysfunctional three-way, but if that's your gig, own it. Just sell crazy somewhere else, because America ain't about one belief system getting to make all the rules.

Why? Because I do not play by your rules. That's right. I don't believe what you believe. In fact, not only do I not believe what you believe, I don't give a flying fig what you believe. Your rules do not apply to me. I reject them forthwith. Be gone with them.

And this is how it should be. This is America. This is the way of democracy.

Over on Huffington Post, Dan Agin wrote a cogent piece on the relationship between religion, politics and democracy that I think sums it up quite nicely. Read it. Seriously. It's short.

The fact that the LDS and the Catholics made gay marriage a banner issue in this election is, quite simply a level of heavy handedness by institutionalized religion in the democratic process that I am not comfortable with. I am neither Mormon nor Catholic and I do not want the Pope or the leader of the Mormon Church making the rules for America.

As Keith Olberman recently pointed out, the parents of our president-elect were prevented by law in a number of states from marrying at the time Barack Obama was born. Just because some people think imposing their views on everyone else is acceptable, doesn't make it right. It doesn't make it fair. And in cases where allowing dissent of opinion harms no one, it doesn't make sense.

If the LDS and Catholics don't want gay people to marry, they shouldn't marry them in their churches. But please, keep these religious views out of other people's lives, bedrooms, and legal contracts. One religion's views are of no concern to the people who hold conflicting views...or even hold no views at all. How dare any one group attempt to limit social and cultural bonds to only those of whom they approve? What if next they say that only Catholics should be able to marry? Would we continue to support their bigotry? Would we claim they had gone too far?

They have already gone too far.

I do not believe that Proposition 8 should even have been placed before the voters in California. Just because 50 million people can agree to discriminate against a group does not make their agreement just. Or right. Or humane. Slavery. Denying women the vote. Blacks being only 3/4 of a man. Tell me...what is the difference between any of these things that we consider blemishes on our American historical record and our legalized discrimination against people whose sexual orientation differs from our own? I think that denying equal rights to gay people is sinful. That is my belief. How dare anyone attempt to outlaw my beliefs?

Some perfectly decent, loving people among us have been denied the affirmation of their relationship that should be available to all. The right to love and have one's relationship formally accepted in our society is not a God-given right. It is not a government-given right. It is a basic human right and this country should be ashamed that it continues to deny it to anyone.

I think it's time we started being a little more humane to one another. I think it's time we stopped bitching about someone stepping on our toes and started helping other people cross the street. What California has done is not right. It should be undone as quickly as possible. I hope that the rest of our states follow suit.

Don't get me wrong. If you are Catholic or Mormon, I don't blame you personally for this anymore than I blame Catholics for the atrocities perpetrated on children by their priests. I don't agree with those who have made supporters of Proposition 8 the target of economic boycotts or protests. People have a right to support or oppose any legislation that is put before them. This legislation should never have been put before them. This legislation denies one group their human and civil rights simply because the majority do not approve of their lifestyle and vilify them for it. People have a right to spend their money however they choose. If they chose to spend it to support institutionalized discrimination, that is their right.

I am saying this: church thinking is seldom the best thinking for a democracy. Your relationship with your God is a personal thing. It has no bearing over others and should not enjoy the rule of law. In a functional democracy, we have to allow dissenting opinions and we have to acknowledge that those opinions are equally as valid as our own. We must acknowledge that there are times that our beliefs are not what is best for the country. We have to allow for our own beliefs to be wrong. Without the possibility of other opinions being superior to our own, without an understanding that our beliefs can be fallible, we are a theocracy. Without tolerance, we lose democracy. If you so threaten democracy, I will fight you to the bitter end. I choose freedom. For all.

To head back to Feministing, click here.

Why "I Do" are the most Dangerous Words in the English Language

I'm not a big fan of marriage. I think I've made that abundantly clear. When people ask me what problem I have with marriage, I reply, "You get married in a church, but divorced in court." People tease me with "oh, you'll get married again, you just wait."

I won't. I will never be married again. Not when hell freezes over. Not when pigs fly. Not when it means the difference between letting someone else make medical decisions for someone I love. Not when it denies me the ability to inherit property. The answer is no.

That is not to say that I don't hope one day to have a long-term monogamous co-habitating type relationship. I would like that very much. But it will not involve walking down the aisle and saying "I do." The first reason is purely selifsh. I want someone to choose every single day to be with me. Not to be there out of obligation or because it is too expensive to think about getting out. Trust me, I know the toll such conditions can take. My blood pressure toward the end of my marriage was 160/91, I drank Pepto Bismol for breakfast, I had a constant headache, my teeth hurt, and the skin on my head was taught from the never-ending aggravation. I recall thinking that death wold be preferable to spending one more day in that house with him. The second reason is that I firmly believe that my personal life is none of the state's damn business. End of discussion.

The real reason I've come upon this topic is that I have been thinking about the Equal Rights Amendment lately. Many of you have probably never heard of it, but in the mid-1970s, the Equal Rights Amendment was the culmination of the women's movement. It proposed, quite simply, that equality of rights would not be denied based on sex. The Amendment was hard-fought in Congress, but never ratified. What I didn't know until I started poking around on this topic, was that the ERA has been proposed in every congress since, and STILL it isn't taken seriously. But, I'll get back to that later.

Marriage has entered the political arena over the past decade or so as the gay community has pressed to have same-sex unions recognized as marriages. They maintain, and I have to agree, that marriage comes with rights and privileges that they are denied. Currently, marriage between men and women is permitted, albeit regulated, by every state in the union. Marriage between same-sex couples is permitted by only two states: California and Massachusetts. What do I mean by regulated? I mean that the state gets to decide whether a marriage is legal and has the right to prohibit illegal marriages.

Call me a libertarian, but my ultimate question is, why the hell is the government involved in my social, sexual, economic, and familial relationships? Interesting question that, so I set out to do some research.

Turns out, the government got interested in regulating marriage about the time some black and white folks wanted to tie the knot, jump over the broomstick, or take a spin around the altar. Since we all know what sorts of mayhem can result when big black bucks weave a spell of romance over our lily-white daughters, the state got involved by requiring a marriage license. Efforts to outlaw miscegenation is how the states got involved in your love life. IMO, the marriage license is the state's silent but subtle support of white morality--more specifically, white male superiority--over the other dirty races. It's like asking the KKK if it's ok for you to get married. I believe that marriage licenses were the way for white men to prevent themselves from becoming obsolete and to maintain white privilege and white power. I'll leave it at that.

The marriage license is an insidious little instrument that basically says that marriage is a privilege, not a right. So you have a marriage license, a driver's license, but a death certificate. I guess everyone has a right to die.

So, my original flippant remark about marriage isn't exactly right. The states are involved up front. Any marriage conducted without a marriage license isn't valid. Common law marriages are the only exceptions. Not all states recognize common law marriages. And this is where is gets muddy. States with common-law statutes don't say a damn thing about the gender of the participants. Only that they are husband and wife. Since husband and wife are not, to the best of my understanding, legally defined, it stands to reason in my head anyway that same-sex partners need only identify themselves as husband and wife, not husband and husband or wife and wife. Shrugs. I'm sure there's a loophole in there somewhere.

The Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 defines marriage as that between a man and a woman, and offers a specific exception to the Full Faith and Credit Provision of the Constitution. So a same-sex marriage in California or Massachusetts need not be recognized in Kentucky or Colorado. Furthermore, the DOMA specifically prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex unions as marriages, even if the states do. This is pretty heady stuff. For instance, the Full Faith and Credit Provision is what prevents deadbeat parents from fleeing to other states to escape support orders. It is what accounts for our liberal extradition laws. I'm not sure, but I would imagine that the Full Faith and Credit Provision prevents other states from disenfranchising felons, when the state in which they were incarcerated enacts laws re-establishing their suffrage. (I bring up the right to vote because it is holds special significance in our republic. Four of our 27 Constitutional amendments deal directly with the voting rights of the people.) The second provision (that prevents the federal government from recognizing the state marriages as marriages) seems inherently unconstitutional. Why? Because any right not specifically given to the federal government is given to the states or the people. If the states are the ones with the right to determine what is a legal marriage, then that seems to prevent the federal government from abridging those rights. Without a Constitutional amendment establishing marriage as that between a man and a woman, the DOMA (at least as it pertains to the federal government), seems to be unconstitutional.

But I'm no constitutional scholar.

So why the hell have I just researched and written all this on a subject that I'd rather die than enter again? It's the issue of rights. As I understand it, the Equal Rights Amendment has been proposed in every Congress since 1923. In 1970, it managed to get to the floor but it was not ratified before it expired. It has been proposed in every Congress since.

The state maintains that marriage is a privilege. In fact, the issuance of a license (and not a certificate) reinforces the precedent that it is a privilege, not a right. However, it seems to me that there are certain rights afforded married persons that are denied unmarried persons. For instance? Well, husband and wife are considered to be "blood family". They have rights of inheritance, rights to make medical decisions on behalf of their spouses and children, and so forth. Family rights are most definitely seen as off limits by the states. Therefore, these "family rights" should appropriately be considered civil rights, not privileges. If they are civil rights, they can't be denied or abridged by the state. So while marriage itself may be a privilege, the rights assigned to married persons are specifically denied to unmarried persons. Therefore, certain civil rights are provisional and are being infringed by denying same-sex couples from marrying.

The Equal Rights Amendment as proposed in the 70s said that no rights may be denied or abridged based on sex.

Do you see where I'm going here?

We could kill two birds with one stone. If the gay community and the feminist community managed to get the ERA ratified, it would be a de facto ratification of gay marriage. All it would take is one successful court case that argues that rights afforded to married persons but denied to single ones is based on sex.

The reasons that the ERA failed to be ratified in the 1970s are many. It had to do a bit with the cultural climate--women had only begun to enter the workforce in numbers. Remember, Title Nine was enacted in 1972 and think of the stink it causes still.

In the end, I have no idea why gay people would want to marry. I don't see any use in the institution at all. But if they are determined, no reason they shouldn't have the right to suffer high blood pressure and chronic headaches, too. I hope they like Pepto Bismol. It's the breakfast of married people. And I wouldn't scream if it did something--anything--to address income, opportunity, and other inequalities of women in America.