Separate Isn't Equal

All arguments are inherently matters of semantics.  Sorry, but it is unavoidable.  Public perception and behavior do change over time, and not just because the courts make rulings on issues of justice.

Court rulings may at times lead and promote that change and at other times follow changes in cultural norms.  The recognition that blacks have the right of equal treatment under the law is a good example of how norms change.  One could semantically argue that racial differences make one race inferior to another, a belief that was, as you know, the norm in America when we were children.  And as you probably recall interracial marriages were not only considered immoral but were actually illegal at that time.

In the case of same sex orientation it is primarily religious beliefs about sexual orientation that makes "coming out" an act of courage.  And, by the way, although one might argue that all crime is "hateful," they aren't all motivated by hate.

During the 50s and 60s, in sympathy to blacks, and in recognition of a need to treat them more fairly, the segregationist principle was established called "separate but equal" under the Jim Crow laws of the time.  The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal.  Labeling unions between same sex couples a "civil union" only complicates the legal and social climate in which we live.  And it allows people to maintain a perception that one form of sexual orientation is indeed inferior to another.

In my post that used the term "overlapping" I was referring to the overlapping domains inherent in marriage.  Religions define marriage differently than the state that issues the licence to marry.  Religions deny the right to divorce but civil law does.  So, whether or not one admits that cultural norms change over time and that our laws should reflect those changes seems moot.

Religious people who belief that marriage is a sacrament that joins a man and woman together forever by God are still free to do so, even though civil laws allow for divorce.  Divorce laws don't interfere with their religious freedom to believe that marriage is forever.

In the same way, civil laws could be easily expand to allow for people of all sexual orientations to marry under existing statutes, and in the process grant everyone equal protection under the law, not just heterosexuals.

More on Gay Issues

Pat: Why are you so obsessed with the semantics argument? We agreed in the original exchange on this issue that the effort to legislate public perception is ineffective. In order to win acceptance Gays need to tone down their confrontational posture.

Early in 2009 I watched a You Tube video of a demonstration in San Francisco by the GLBT because Prop 8 passed in the 2008 with a large majority. (Prop 8 stipulates that a marriage between one man and one woman is the only valid or recognized marriage in California).

In that video there were several offensive scenes of nudity, public masturbation, and even one man engaged in fellacio with (I assume) his lover, while onlookers watched and cheered them on. That is a far more offensive problem than the argument about which term they use for legal unions.

Recently the GLBT leadership has been trying arduously to lead their constituents away from such behavior because it is so destructive to their cause and I applaud those efforts. It has led to a strong movement within the Gay community to be openly gay but not intentionally offending others. That is a thoughtful and intelligent approach.

Re: Christians: Of course Christians think marriage is a Holy Sacrament; IT IS a Holy Sacrament in the Church. That’s what is taught and that is what they believe. Are you in favor of religious freedom or not? It seems as if you are determined to have full acceptance for atheism but you refuse to respect the beliefs of Christians.

By the way, why do you have such vociferous animosity toward Christians but not, apparently, for any other religious belief system?

Newt The Nominee

Surprising to me, the polls now show that Professor Newt Gingrich is far out ahead of his rivals in popularity among Republicans.  I really thought his campaign was dead in the water with his staff abandoning him and his lack of adequate campaign finances.  But it seems the dead can rise again.  Although many have asked whether he can ever live down his reputation of being the ultimate Washington insider he seems confident in himself.  And why not, I suppose, when one considers the other possible candidates.

And Gingrich himself seems to believe that he will be the Republican nominee for president.  And just as I was beginning to think that Ron Paul might really stand a chance of getting it, as other candidates seem to be self-destructing before our eyes.  


In this clip from a video interview below I don't see Newt knock on wood.  So, I guess his self confidence or perhaps more correctly his arrogance is genuine.

  

Don't Demonize the 1% - Peter Joseph

I think it is important that the 99% take some responsibility for the culture of systemic injustice that is inherent in our corrupted capitalist system.

Americans represent about 5% of the wold's population yet we consume approximately 25% of the wold's natural resources.  Whether we like to admit it or not we have all been the beneficiaries of the system as it is.  The majority have tacitly if not actively agreed to the assertion of American empire across the globe.

And now that the inevitable consequences of acquiescence have come home to roost, we want to blame the 1% who made it possible for us to all enjoy the cheap prices at WallMart.

In this video clip of an RT interview with Peter Joseph who is the creator of the film "Zeitgeist: Moving Forward" and founder of The Zeitgeist Movement, warns us of the 99% that we should avoid demonizing the 1%.  If the coming chaos devolves into a class war we will not move forward to real solutions to our current global problems.  We need a way to redefine our common values and develop a shared vision of the problems we face in the future, not just as Americans but as global citizens who must confront the realities of global warming and the declining years of the Oil Era.

First - End Corporate Personhood - Jack Abramoff

The 99 percenters should listen closely to the advice given by Jack Abramoff, the former lobyist who was convicted of  mail fraud and conspiracy related to influence peddling in Washington back in 2008.  He once bragged that he owned a hundred congressmen.  Having now completed his sentence in federal prison, Abramoff has switched sides, so to speak, and now works to clean up the corruption in Washington.  Read More


This video interview with Thom Hartmann gives a stunningly clear assessment of what must be done if we ever hope to restore democracy in the US. 

What is Dominionism? - The Seven Mountains

This video gives a better description of Dominionism than I might be able to articulate.

The suggestion that the word "Dominionism" is not a legitimate one because it is used by bloggers, journalist and social scientist is rubbish. It quite accurately describes what those involved in this movement intend and hope to achieve. In this video, created by Dominionist themselves, the narrator says, "In every city of the world an unseen battle rages for dominion, for God's creation and the souls of people."  They are using the word themselves, and they don't make any secret about what they themselves mean by it.

Although dominionism is used in several distinct ways, most usage originates directly or indirectly from a specific passage in the King James Version of the Bible:
And God blessed [ Adam and Eve ] and God said unto them, "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." —Genesis 1:28 (KJV) - Wikipedia

It is hard to gage the extent of the influence the Dominionists actually have in Washington. What is known with certainty is that Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann are politicians who have a direct connection to the Dominionist movement. Although it is clearly unlikely at this point that either of them will become the Republican nominee for president, it astounds me that they have gained as much influence as they have.


According to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, there were about 40 faith-based lobby and advocacy groups in Washington in 1970. Today there are more than 200. These groups address domestic and international issues, among them the separation of church and state, abortion and marriage issues, and global poverty. They spend nearly 400 million dollars a year combined. AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobby, spends the most, followed by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. 

The GOP has actively sought to use the grassroots organizational structures that religious organizations provide them.  They have publish voter guides that have been distrubted through religious organizations across the country.  And it isn't just the wacko religious fundamentalists that have participated.

Churches enjoy  their tax exempt status with the priviso that they do not actively advocate for any particular political cause. But the law is blatantly ignored.

Overlapping Magisteria - The Gay Dilemma

A Response to Rebuttal on Gay Unions

This problem of "Gay Marriage" is not just a problem of nomenclature. It is not just about whether we should call it a "marriage" or a "civil union"  It is all about allowing or prohibiting an alteration in the public perception of homosexuality.  There is a segment of the population that deeply fear the consequences that they imagine will come about if homosexuality becomes as legitimate as heterosexuality.

Also one should consider that marriage is not just a secular term.  It also falls within the domain of religious authority. This overlap creates a disturbing confusion to some   Many Christians think of the word marriage as representing a holy sacrament.  The concept of what gays and lesbians do with each other disgusts some people.  They simply have a visceral gut reaction to their mental images.  And are offended by the idea that "abnormal" "sinful" people should have their union be blessed by God.

To call Gay unions anything else than marriage is simply a maneuver to prevent a change in the public perception of homosexuality.  Giving gay marriage a name of its own is intended to uphold the perception that gays and their lifestyle are anomalies and inferior.  You don't need to say it outright.  It is just inherent in the denial of giving equal status to gay and lesbian citizens.