Reviews in Brief: Hinako Takanaga's You Will Fall In Love

A word about cover art versus interior art: in yaoi, it can be highly misleading. Cover illustrations are usually more finished, in color, and as often as not do not reflect accurately the interior graphics. I've mentioned a few notable examples -- Dog Style and Yakuza in Love come immediately to mind. The reason I bring this up is that yaoi are usually shrink-wrapped, so that you can't actually see the interior illustrations before you buy the damned thing. Not that that has ever stopped me, although thinking on it, it's more likely to make me pass over a book than buy it. The reason this comes up now is that the cover art for Hinako Takanaga's You Will Fall in Love is just beautiful, and, although the interior stuff is fine, it's not quite as eye-catching.

Haru Mochizuki was once a star archer. In high school, he and his best friend Reiichiro Shudo shared top honors in every tournament. And then Haru's game began falling off, and he left the sport. Of course, the fact that he was in love with Reiichiro may have had something to do with it -- that's what Haru thinks, anyway. At any rate, he's now a substitute teacher at a private school which has, among other amenities, an archery range. The first person he sees there is Tsukasa, Reiichiro's younger brother, captain of the archery club, whom Haru doesn't recognize at first. The Shudos are, in fact, proprietors and teachers of an archery dojo where Haru used to practice with Reiichiro. In spite of his resistance, and in spite of his wholly fictitious wrecked elbow, Haru is talked into becoming an advisor and coach for the archery club, and it doesn't take long for Tsukasa to confess his love. Haru is attracted to him, but regards his same-sex attractions as shameful and the reason for his archery going bad. Tsukasa sets out to prove to him that he's wrong. And then Reiichiro reappears and things go straight to hell.

If it weren't for jealousy and insecurity, I don't think anyone would be able to create yaoi. Those are the driving forces behind this story, along with Haru's own confusion in regard to his feelings, and I have to say they provide a good set of motivations: the story's a solid one, and I am once again favorably impressed by the psychological realism that Takanaga has brought to this one.

And, my opening salvo aside, the graphics are excellent, if not as ethereally beautiful as the cover, although the character designs are all slanted very much toward the youthful, which makes sense for Tsukasa, not so much for Haru and Reiichiro. (And while I have to admit that both Tsukasa and Haru are cute, Reiichiro is a total fox.) Visual flow is excellent, and there's a wonderful sense of motion in many of the scenes.

Another one from BLU, and, although I'm not as immediately taken with it as I have been with some others I have a feeling it's going to grow on me. (A note: Since I wrote this, I've looked at it a couple more times, and it's grown on me, enough that I went out and got volume 1 of Takanaga's previous work, Little Butterfly. Tsukasa, in particular, is a strongly defined character whose youth and intensity provide full justification for the somewhat melodramatic story line.)

FGB Saturday Edition: Some Thoughts on Rick Warren

How to offend everyone to the left of Attila the Hun:

Rick Warren is still all over the blogosphere -- man! are people pissed off. I'm not as furious as I was yesterday, which is maybe a good thing, and I'm sort of over it at this point: to reiterate, I've never had that much confidence in Obama because I think he's an operator, although I'm willing to entertain the idea that his heart, ultimately, is in the right place. On this one, though, I'm basically appalled.

Glenn Greenwald has an interesting take on the choice and the reasoning:

But there is one aspect of the worldview of many Obama supporters that I find genuinely difficult to understand. These supporters insist that by symbolically including and sometimes compromising with even those on the Right with whom he vigorously disagrees, Obama will be able to chip away at the partisan hostilities and resentments, and erode the cultural divisions, that have inflamed and paralyzed our politics. People on the Right may disagree with him, claim these supporters, but they won't be wallowing in rage, suspicions, and hatred towards him. Instead, they'll feel respected and accommodated. They therefore won't be distracted by petty sideshow controversies. As a result, he'll encounter less reflexive resistance to implementing the key parts of his progressive agenda. A New Politics will emerge: one of respectful and civil disagreements, but not consumed by crippling partisan and cultural hatreds.

The one question I always return to when I hear this -- and we've been hearing it a lot to explain the Warren selection -- is this: in what conceivable sense is this approach "new"? Even for those who are convinced this will work, isn't this exactly the same thing Democrats have been doing for the last two decades: namely, accommodating and compromising with the Right in the name of bipartisan harmony and a desire to avoid partisan and cultural conflicts? This harmonious approach may be many things, but the one thing it seems not to be is "new."

And let me add that not only is it not new, it's been disastrous. I, like so many other people who concern themselves with the nefarious activities of the anti-gay right, hate to sound like a broken record (remember records?), but Warren was quite clear on his willingness to compromise:

And Warren says "there is no need to change the universal, historical defintion of marriage to appease two percent of our population." As Warren puts it: "This is not a political issue -- it is a moral issue that God has spoken clearly about."

That was, of course, part of his comments on Prop 8, in which he also lied about its effect on freedom of religious expression and free speech.

However, Obama is a much more complex man than Bush -- we've gotten used to a nonfunctional frat boy in the White House, and there are other aspects to this that Obama's seeing but not talking about. I found this comment from this post at Mahablog illuminating:

The significance isn’t as much that Obama invited Warren, but that Warren accepted.

Just two years ago, Warren was getting slammed in evangelical circles for inviting Obama to take part in his church-sponsored AIDS conference, with Obama even back then being called “the anti-Christ” and inherently un-Biblical and anti-American, which in evangelical-speak is basically calling someone satanic. Warren stuck to the decision, weathered the claims that he was endorsing The Beast, and remains huge in the evangelical world today–while pushing evangelicals to move past cultural issues to focus more on world health and poverty.

The point is not to convert the diehard, right-wing, functionally theocratic evangelicals to a progressive agenda, or to win their votes for Obama in 2012. The point is to drive home the message that those folks can no longer define evangelicalism. (Right now the movement is mostly on poverty and the environment, but attitudes towards same-sex marriage and civil unions are changing also).

So, is Warren better than Dobson or Reed? Marginally, overall, but not at all on gay issues, reproductive choice, and the like. He's still a snake-oil salesman, when it comes right down to it.

(Sidebar: Chris Crain seems to have his head stuck in something, as this obvious misreading of Warren's rhetoric demonstrates:

One thing they cite is how supposedly "compared" or "equated" gay marriage to incest and polygamy in explaining his support for Prop 8 in California:

I’m not opposed to [gay marriage] as much as I’m opposed to the redefinition of a 5,000-year definition of marriage. I’m opposed to having a brother and sister be together and call that marriage. I’m opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that a marriage. I’m opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.

This is neither "comparing," nor "equating." In fact, Warren specifically draws a distinction between that which he does not oppose -- gay marriage -- and the parade of horribles he thinks opening up redefinition of marriage will lead to -- incest, pedophilia and polygamy.

Let's leave aside that polygamy has been an integral element of that "5,000-year definition," with Biblical validation; that "child bride" is not a new concept by any means; and that the marriages of Egyptian royalty were routinely incestuous (and they were not alone, and it would be interesting to hear how Warren classifies the Biblical injunction that a man marry his brother's widow); and any observations that Warren is no more constrained by factual accuracy than any of his peers. However, I think I'm justified in pointing out that Crain is doing some "editing" here. Jim Burroway provides some context:

Rick Warren: But the issue to me is, I’m not opposed to that as much as I’m opposed to the redefinition of a 5,000-year definition of marriage. I’m opposed to having a brother and sister be together and call that marriage. I’m opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that a marriage. I’m opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.

Steven Waldman: Do you think, though, that they are equivalent to having gays getting married?

Rick Warren: Oh I do. …

I'm not going to accuse Crain of intellectual dishonesty here. I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

Updated: Jeremey Hooper also noticed that little truncation.)

Back to the main thread: As I noted, I think Obama is playing a deeper game than most people are seeing, but the fact remains that most of us are taking this at the very least as indicative of the relative weight gay interests are going to carry within the Obama administration, which I'm reading as "light" to "inconsequential." Frankly, that's pretty mainstream: much as we may hate to admit it, we're not on most people's radar. On that score, Prop 8 and Rick Warren may give us a boost: if we can sustain the energy, we're going to be more visible, and if we're more visible, more people are going to be forced to realize that there's actually something going on here. It's up to us to harness that.

I've seen some objections to the furor based on the idea that this is simply a "symbolic gesture," but that slides past a very important point: we are a symbol using species. Symbols have weight and meaning, and we as a species are very sophisticated in their use. (That's one reason marriage is the issue it is right now: in addition to being a community ritual, which is a symbolic event in itself, it is a potent symbol of community acceptance.) Update: Ezra Klein addresses this issue briefly and makes an important point:

I'd endorse Matt's comments on "symbolism" here, and suggest that calling the Warren issue "symbolic" is just a method of marginalizing minority discontent. Warren is not a symbolic figure. He's a religious leader who mobilizes his flock and leverages his public influence in order to affect electoral outcomes.

I'd like to point out, thought, that this is not an either/or proposition: Warren himself is an instrumental figure; the importance of the symbolism of handing him the spotlight at the inauguration, however, can't be denied. Do read the post by Matthew Yglesias that Klein links to -- it's brief and he gets it.

So, wither Warren? Frankly, I was totally outraged, and I'm still fairly pissed off, as much at the sheer thoughtless ineptitude as the insult -- and it is an insult. Now, it's just giving me heartburn: in spite of his "passionate" words, I don't expect Obama to deliver, except maybe as a second-term kind of thing, if the climate is right.

I still have a review to finish this morning, and it has to be this morning. At this point, if you want to see differing points of view on this, it's all over the blogosphere. And frankly, I think the outrage is a good thing.

Later.

Friday Gay Blogging

will be delayed this week. I'm on deadline and I just lost a lengthy post on Rick Warren and the inauguration which I don't have time to reconstruct. So, later. . . .

Who Would Have Thought

that such dry little article would lead to such an explosion:

Aretha Franklin and Dr. Rick Warren, an evangelical minister of the Saddleback Church, are among the select group of people who will participate in Barack Obama’s inaugural swearing-in ceremony on Jan. 20. . . .

Dr. Warren, author of “The Purpose Driven Life,” will deliver the invocation.

If you want to read some of the explosions, check out Box Turtle Bulletin (which provides contact e-mails for various members of the transition team and inaugural committee), Pam Spaulding (here and here), John Aravosis -- and those are just the first three blogs I checked. From Burroway:

This is the same Rick Warren who recently said that the relationships of his “many gay friends” are no different from child rape, incest or polygamy. He also jumped on the paranoia bandwagon surrounding same-sex marriage by falsely claiming that Prop 8’s failure somehow would have overturned the Constitution’s First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech and religion. (It can’t. No law or state constitution can.).

Warren himself has acknowledged that the only difference between himself and Focus On the Family’s James Dobson is just “a matter of tone.” So given President-elect Obama’s stated commitment to bringing the country together, it’s hard to fathom the reasoning behind choosing such a divisive figure.

A couple of thoughts:

Actually, Obama's pick of Warren is not that big a surprise -- we really should have seen this coming. This is, after all, the man who gave us Donnie McClurkin. His heart may be in the right place (and sorry, but I have to emphasize that "may"), but his brain shuts off when it comes to gay issues. He can pick up on the obvious ones, but then, so can HRC.

I said two years ago that I didn't trust Obama -- remember, he was one of my senators -- and I've had no reason to change that reaction. I supported him, which given the alternative was a no-brainer, but I can't say that I get all warm and fuzzy about him. And he's prone to major gaffes with the gay community, I suspect because he sees us as a useful demographic, but doesn't really care aboiut our issues.

Pam's House Blend has published the Obama team's "rationale" for the selection of Warren, which is pretty much the sort of self-congratulatory, CYA kind of blandness that comes out of press offices these days.

* This will be the most open, accessible, and inclusive Inauguration in American history.

* In keeping with the spirit of unity and common purpose this Inauguration will reflect, the President-elect and Vice President-elect have chosen some of the world's most gifted artists and people with broad appeal to participate in the inaugural ceremonies.

* Pastor Rick Warren has a long history of activism on behalf of the disadvantaged and the downtrodden. He's devoted his life to performing good works for the poor and leads the evangelical movement in addressing the global HIV/AIDS crisis. In fact, the President-elect recently addressed Rick Warren's Saddleback Civil Forum on Global Health to salute Warren's leadership in the struggle against HIV/AIDS and pledge his support to the effort in the years ahead.

* The President-elect disagrees with Pastor Warren on issues that affect the LGBT community. They disagree on other issues as well. But what's important is that they agree on many issues vital to the pursuit of social justice, including poverty relief and moving toward a sustainable planet; and they share a commitment to renewing America's promise by expanding opportunity at home and restoring our moral leadership abroad.

* As he's said again and again, the President-elect is committed to bringing together all sides of the faith discussion in search of common ground. That's the only way we'll be able to unite this country with the resolve and common purpose necessary to solve the challenges we face.

* The Inauguration will also involve Reverend Joseph Lowery, who will be delivering the official benediction at the Inauguration. Reverend Lowery is a giant of the civil rights movement who boasts a proudly progressive record on LGBT issues. He has been a leader in the struggle for civil rights for all Americans, gay or straight.

* And for the very first time, there will be a group representing the interests of LGBT Americans participating in the Inaugural Parade.

Wonderful -- a high-profile anti-gay bigot who worked actively to remove our rights (and still does) gets to deliver the invocation, and we get to participate in the parade. Does that tell you where the balance point is here? Who knows -- maybe Rev. Lowery can pull his ass out of the fire, but I ain't holding my breath on that one.

There's also the fact that it's not just on gay issues that Warren is a devil: he's against all the core issues of the Democratic party and, if we are to believe what we've been hearing for the past two years, of Obama himself. It's all very well and good to invite dialogue, but we're talking here about one of the group of prominent "Christian" leaders (although Warren may be more genuinely Christian than the likes of Ralph Reed or James Dobson) who admit of no compromise. From Kyle at Right Wing Watch:

As we've pointed out several times before, in 2004 Warren declared that marriage, reproductive choice, and stem cell research were "non-negotiable" issues for Christian voters and has admitted that the main difference between himself and James Dobson is a matter of tone. He criticized Obama's answers at the Faith Forum he hosted before the election and vowed to continue to pressure him to change his views on the issue of reproductive choice. He came out strongly in support of Prop 8, saying "there is no need to change the universal, historical defintion of marriage to appease 2 percent of our population ... This is not a political issue -- it is a moral issue that God has spoken clearly about." He's declared that those who do not believe in God should not be allowed to hold public office.

See? God has spoken. No debate allowed.

Anyway, use some of those e-mail addresses in Burroway's post and let them have it. Contrary to what you may hear from any number of sources, it is indeed the squeaky wheel that gets the grease.

Update: Here's Digby with a slightly larger take on this one:

There are those who feel this is a very savvy political move on Obama's part --- by inviting Warren to give the invocation at the most watched inauguration in history, Obama is validating the views of the Christian Right and they may very well be moved enough by that to become Democrats. But it naturally follows that in order to keep their votes, the Democrats would have to honor their agenda and views --- the evangelicals are big voting bloc and if the Democrats become the social conservative party, they could count on their votes for sure. (If they don't make substantial moves toward social conservatism, this won't work, obviously.) It doesn't leave much room for liberals, but perhaps that's a good thing. They are nothing but trouble, defending women's civil liberties, agitating for gay rights and hectoring the government about not torturing and starting wars and all that. It would be a big relief if they didn't need them.

I'm not sure she's right, but then, she usually is.

Update II: BooMan gets it about right:

I care that inviting gay-bashing preacherman Rick Warren to do the inauguration invocation is gratuitous and mean-spirited. This decision is a needless insult to every gay person in the country and to all those that support gay rights.

Donnie McClurkin writ large.

Unenumerated Rights

There's an interesting post at Balkinization that discusses unenumerated rights and the Court's Due Process jurisprudence. For those non-legalists who happen by, "unenumerated rights" are those assumed but not explicitly listed in the Constitution. It's worth reading, but one thing struck me. I thought at first it was a typo, but it appears that it's not:

The rights of heart and home that the Court’s substantive due process cases have vindicated beginning with Meyer v. Nebraska are the very rights that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment sought to guarantee for the newly freed slaves. The framers recoiled at the treatment of slave families – parents were denied the right to marry and often separated, children were taken from them, and education and free worship were limited or prohibited altogether – and they wrote the Privileges or Immunities Clause to protect these liberties of heart and home.

"Liberties of heart and home." That sort of says it, doesn't it?

Another Crime Against Nature

Birds do it:

'We decided to give them two eggs from another couple whose hatching ability had been poor and they've turned out to be the best parents in the whole zoo,' said one of the keepers.

Some interesting insights in the article.

You Have To Wonder

I mean, David Horowitz had to have been sitting at the keyboard laughing his ass of while he was writing this.

Could anyone take that sort of thing seriously?

Retrograde . . . um, Amnesia?

It's now the twenty-first century and the Republicans are still working on union-busting. How would we ever have guessed? John Cole has a couple of good takes on the Republicans torpedoing the bridge loans to the Big Three, here and here. Money quote of the year, of course, comes from Morgan Johnson of the UAW:

Otherwise, Johnson said of Vitter, it would appear, “He’d rather pay a prostitute than pay auto workers.”

That's David Vitter, of diapers fame, who purports to represent a state that has subsidized -- are you ready -- foreign auto makers.

On the other hand, you do have to be crazy to be able to pretend that somehow any principles are at stake other than union busting, which, I guess, is a principle in and of itself:

An action alert circulated among Senate Republicans on Wednesday called for Republicans to “stand firm and take their first shot against organized labor.”

In doing so, analysts said, Republicans were planting the seeds for a fundraising appeal to big business—other than the Big Three, of course—as they gear up for a major political fight next year over expected legislation that would make it easier for unions to organize.

Mitch McConnell and the Republicans (a more complete list here) who all voted against this bill but for the financial bailout will all earn 160k and the best benefits package in the country, but are going to let an entire industry die because some autoworkers make more money than Bob Corker thinks they should.

That sort of says it, doesn't it? Of course, most commentators are somewhat puzzled by Republican congressional acquiescence to the bank bail-out -- which will run well over a trillion dollars, when all is said and done -- against their resistance to a measly $15 billion for the auto industry. Hint: the banks aren't unionized.

And here I though we left the thirties behind a few decades ago. (Cole's posts are the best I've seen for reducing the whole debacle to apprehendible proportions, and well worth a read.)

What amazes me is the fact that the Senate Republicans, after being trounced in the last two elections, have decided to take on a major voting bloc.

WTF?

Reviews in Brief: Ellie Mamahara's Alley of First Love

Ellie Mamahara is another mangaka recommended to me by my yaoi guru -- or maybe I should call her "sensei." I ran across Alley of First Love and, having learned to rely on April-sensei's judgments, snapped it up. It doesn't disappoint.

Shusuke works in his family's liquor store and is quite popular -- he has a string of girlfriends, as well as catching the attention of the little old ladies in the town who play at matchmaking. Then his childhood friend Atsushi returns from England, where he had been working in a research lab. Their parting was not the best. Atshushi made his arrangements without telling Shusuke, who was really messed up by the whole thing, since, in addition to being best friends, he was in love with Atsushi. Nevertheless, they make their peace and start hanging out together again. It becomes a gentle, low-key comedy, with every opportunity to get to the meat of the matter -- leading, ultimately, to love confessions -- thwarted by interruptions by friends dropping by, customers, younger brothers, or Atsushi's twin nieces, who swear they will marry Shusuke when they grow up.

Low-key, yes, and I'd categorize the comedy more as humor, situational and personality driven, but funny nevertheless, although not in a laugh-out-loud sort of way, and not in a way that undercuts the seriousness of the story. It's another study in fear and indecision, mostly from Shusuke's point of view, as he works himself toward finally making that confession.

The graphics reflect this tension between humor and import, with a unique blend of an almost brutal angularity and an open innocence that's quite appealing. The proportions of the character designs are at first glance odd -- think Alberto Giacometti does comics -- but one soon gets used to them. No, I take that back -- I actually found them very engaging and quite expressive. There's a kind of heavy sensuality to Mamahara's more finished renderings that is hard to describe, but the cover art gives a good idea; amazingly enough, she slips into more comedic, not-quite-chibi renderings easily and with no disruption.

This one's a winner, and I'm eagerly awaiting Baseeball Heaven, due out in April. From BLU.

(And please note that this really is "in brief." I'm trying to tighten up on these because they've been getting too long.)

Well, This Is Annoying

Can I make a comment about Nate Silver's comment on the nonexistent Blagojevich/Obama connection?

With Rod Blagojevich facing the triple threats of impeachment, court-ordered removal from office, and a federal indictment, the tribulations of the Illinois Governor may yet prove to have an effect on Barack Obama's approval ratings -- but the early signs are that Blago will have no tangible impact on the public's perception of the President-elect.

There seems to be an underlying tone of amazement here. Maybe it's just that I consider the whole question not even worth asking to begin with. Of course, I live in Illinois, so maybe I have a better idea of what's actually going on here. (Of course, I probably have a better idea of what's going on anywhere than most of the people commenting on things.

What annoys me about it is simply the fact that Silver's comments actually grant the whole mantra some validity. I realize it's going to take time to break the pattern of the last ten or fifteen years -- just eating whatever the RWNM comes up with and spewing it back out -- but can we at least make a start with a healthy dose of scepticism? Please?

Maybe, just maybe, the public has finally gotten over taking the pronouncements of such as William Kristol and Michelle Malkin as something worth listening to. And maybe, just maybe, that means that in spite of all their efforts to shape the public perception of Obama, they're tanking.

Ya think?

If You Needed Further Evidence

that Camille Paglia is a self-absorbed idiot, look no further:

Marriage is a religious concept that should be defined and administered only by churches.

(And yes, the link is to the right page -- the rest of the piece is a wandering, toothless, bad-tempered ramble that doesn't make a whole lot of sense in any context, so don't waste your time looking for the beginning of it. It's not worth the trouble.)

Well, OK -- so in one declarative sentence Paglia demonstrates that she doesn't know history, doesn't know how America works, and is given to ridiculous decrees. Please note that marriage has always been much more a civil institution than a religious one, even within the modern West, as Andrew Sullivan points out. It's even less a religious institution as you go farther back and spread the net wider, so basically Paglia's full of the brown stinky on that score.

As it happens, clergy who perform marriages do so as agents of the state: in all states, I believe, they are granted the courtesy of acting as magistrates and justices of the peace for that purpose -- and that prupose alone. They have no inherent right to do so, and any marriage performed without an authorized signature on that state license is not recognized.

And no, marriage is not a religious concept. It is a social/cultural concept. You can just as easily, and with just as much accuracy, if not more, call it a business arrangement, at least in the 5000-year-old "tradition" so often cited by the rabids.

And, big surprise! In the rest of that section of her screed, Paglia falls right into line with the "gay" conservative position that we should just STFU and go back in the closet.

I'm not terribly impressed. But then, I never am.

Fallacies: An FGB Update

Related to the Mike Huckabee/Jon Stewart video I posted yesterday, this post by Ta-Nehisi Coates at The Atlantic:

The case for/against gay marriage is hung-up on this idea of choice--i.e. we should frown on gay marriage because it's a deviant lifestyle. Or we shouldn't frown on it because it isn't a lifestyle, it's a biological fact. This is where the comparisons with race come in. But I always hated this argument. Whenever people say, "You should not discriminate against people because they didn't chose to be black," I hear the mild tones of wild liberal condescension.

The comparison with race makes sense on the level that Coates is dealing with, i.e., the assumption that there is a more desirable "norm." Of course, the comparison with religion, which Stewart makes in the video, is much more apt: you can't get more choicier than that.

And of course, the "evolutionary" argument comes up in the comments:

From ja, this statement

For those of us who believe in Darwin and evolution, I think there has to be acknowledgement of the mechanics of reproduction. So when talking about Darwin and survival versus homosexuality and inability to procreate, I think (like it or not) heterosexuality wins out in the evolutionary game.

First off, this is an extraordinarily simplistic take on evolution and the way it works. The mechanics of reproduction are just that -- the mechanics. The fallacy here is equating same-sex orientation with sterility, and it's a pretty obvious mistake that anti-gay advocates seem to make again and again: we're gay, we're not sterile. We're not unable to procreate, as we've proven time and time again. We may or may not choose to do so.

In point of fact, Edward O. Wilson, in his discussions of the genetic economics of altruism in Sociobiology, made quite a convincing argument for the evolutionary advantages of non-procreative individuals and behaviors through the mechanism of kin selection, which ties in with the research that another commenter, jordan, noted, that found increased fertility in the siblings of those with same-sex orientations.

So, next time you get the "choice" argument from some wingnut, ask them about current research to find the fundamentalist Christian gene.

Marriage Equality in New York State: Via Joe.My.God:

Sen. Malcolm Smith said today that he will cease negotiations on the reorganization of the Senate with the so-called “Gang of Three”. "We are suspending negotiations, effective immediately, because to do so otherwise would reduce our moral standing and the long-term Senate Democratic commitment to reform and change,” Smith said. “It became very clear to me, over time, that those negotiations started being more about self interest.”

This sort of puts the final nail in the coffin on the idea that Prop 8 killed marriage equality in New York, so beloved of "gay" conservatives.

Jon Stewart nails Mike Huckabee:

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Mike Huckabee Pt. 2

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

That's enough wing-nut watching for today. On to something more real: New Jersey.

The final civil unions commission report is out, and guess what? Separate is not equal. Here's the full report:

Final Report of the CURC

Publish at Scribd or explore others:

And a final note on Prop 8: Queerty has an interview with Rick Jacobs of the Courage Campaign, which fielded possibly the most on-point ad of the campaign in spite of No on 8:



The ad has gotten over 450,000 YouTube views and framed the church leadership as out of touch and over reaching for its interference in our state. The ad was written, directed and produced for under $1,000 by volunteers.

It was the only ad in the entire season that showed a same-sex couple. After the election, the LA Times editorial criticizing the No on 8 campaign said this was the only “hard-hitting ad” of the campaign, and it was not even an official [ad].

Does that tell you everything about the No on 8 leadership? They think like establishment Democrats, which is a sure recipe for disaster.

Gack! Enough. Running out of steam, and done with it for today.

Dessert courtesy of DNA:

The RIC

Which stands for "Religious Industrial Complex," vide Digby. I wasn't sure where to put this one -- it could be an FGB post, but it seems much larger. But then again, maybe not.

At any rate, Sarah Posner has written a piece that examines the phenomenon of "religious outreach" on the left. She's taking the same jaundiced look at this "new" phenomenon that I to do, especially in the area of social policy, which for me, as you might guess, is a deal-breaker:

Yet, while these leaders have taken on issues outside of abortion and gay marriage—not a new development, incidentally, for mission-oriented evangelicals—and claim to tamp down the divisive rhetoric on those issues, each remains wedded to core religious right beliefs. Warren and Hunter supported the same-sex marriage bans on the ballot this year in their respective states (California and Florida). Warren has argued that homosexuality disproves evolution and has compared pro-choice advocates to Holocaust deniers. Although Wallis has been at the forefront of promoting the “abortion reduction” agenda as “common ground” he says everyone can agree on, he remains opposed to reproductive choice.

So these new, more "liberal" voices on the evangelical right, are, when push comes to shove, still on the right -- note the comment on Warren's argument that homosexuality "disproves" evolution, based firmly, it would appear, on total ignorance in service of a religious agenda: Edward O. Wilson came up with a very tight, more than plausible evolutionary basis for homosexuality over 25 years ago. (See the discussions of "altruism" in Sociobiology.) And if you think these people have changed their spots, check out the sad story of Richard Cizik.

The bottom line here seems to be that the "establishment" faith outreach gurus are doing nothing more than pursuing the old Democratic pipe dream of luring the hard-core evangelical vote away from the Republicans.

There has, of course, been a response from the establishment, which Pastor Dan deconstructs rather effectively.

I had started a much lengthier post on this set of commentaries, but you can read them -- and I strongly recommend that you do. What I want to do, in keeping with the original intent of this blog, is to drop back a step and look at a basic question that doesn't pop up in any of them: What is the appropriate role of religious belief in public life in a secular nation? The arguments being tossed around in the writings referred to here seem all to boil down to "whose religious beliefs are going to be written into public policy?"

It occurs to me that the mere fact that this particular debate is happening is evidence that we are moving away from the core principles on which this country was founded -- note that this is all couched in terms of brands of Christianity. It's probably no surprise that as a non-Christian, I'm not real comfortable with this. (And to provide some context, when I say "non-Christian," I really mean that I don't subscribe to any of what Joseph W. Campbell called "the desert religions": I am a devout but not particuarly observant Pagan, and I don't really think that my beliefs, or anyone else's, should be public policy.) This is, when all is said and done, a secular state, and I think it should remain that way.

Do my beliefs influence the way I vote? Certainly. Does that mean I vote for candidates who express the same beliefs? Never -- I'm an issues voter, by and large, with an eye to how effective anyone is going to be at governing. Yes, my religion influences my vote, but that vote is going to be exercised toward those policies that best fit. I should point out the one salient factor that makes me weird in this context, that is, in terms of the "culture war": what other people do with their lives, as long as it's not destructive to others, is not my business. And so, a candidate's personal religious beliefs, particularly in that area, are at best an irrelevancy and at worst, a reason to vote the other way.

Digby touches on what I consider the bottom line, but doesn't quite nail it. I guess my bottom line is that this whole phenomenon -- the ascent of the religious right and the attempt to counter it among Democrats by embracing it, is cause for concern, but no less so are appeals to a "religious left." Whatever the hell happened to secularism?

Think about that for a while.

Censorship Update

The offending works have been re-installed:

Portraits of gay Brigham Young University students taken by a photography major for a class project are back in an exhibit at the school's fine arts building four days after school officials removed the display.

Michael Wiltbank, a senior from Eagar, Ariz., photographed students who identified themselves as gay, then paired each one with a portrait of a friend or family member who provides that student with support.

The photographs were not labeled. The artist's statement said labels create societal divisions. "It is my hope this body of work can be a vehicle for tolerance, support, love and change," Wiltbank wrote.

The display debuted in the atrium of the Harris Fine Arts Center on Dec. 1 in an exhibit of projects done for a fine arts photography class taught by Paul Adams. On Friday, Wiltbank's display was removed and the exhibit rearranged.

BYU spokesman Michael Smart said a miscommunication between administrators in the College of Fine Arts and Communication led to the removal.

"When the action became apparent after the weekend, college administrators reviewed the decision," Smart said. "Because the project does not violate BYU's honor code, the project was rehung Tuesday afternoon."

Wiltbank, as might be expected, regrets some of the commentary on the Internet:

"I don't have any bitterness," he said. "The whole premise of the show was to show tolerance and support on both sides of the issue. What I wrote on my blog about the removal has been construed as bitter, but I didn't think it was. I think what some said on the Internet went against what I was trying to do with the exhibit.

"If we yell out hatred and bigoted things, nothing gets better."

I'd like to suggest that BYU had a moment of revelation when the reaction began to be heard: the LDS Church is already reeling under the impact of the response to its support of Prop 8. I suspect that more negative publicity is not what it's looking for right now, especially since its feet are being held to the fire on its statement that it is not "anti-gay."

God and the Economy

Why do you suppose James Dobson hasn't claimed credit for the collapse of the Big Three automakers?

Marriage, the Bible, and All That

Well, the unforgivable has happened: someone published a rational look at the religious -- specifically, Biblical -- context for same-sex marriage. Lisa Miller, in a cover story for Newsweek, noted:

The practice of inclusion, even in defiance of social convention, the reaching out to outcasts, the emphasis on togetherness and community over and against chaos, depravity, indifference—all these biblical values argue for gay marriage. If one is for racial equality and the common nature of humanity, then the values of stability, monogamy and family necessarily follow.

Of course, given sentiments like that, you can imagine what the reaction from the "Christian" right has been:

“I see it as an attempt to caricature and reduce to a cartoon the social conservative belief in the efficacy of traditional marriage, and try to reduce it to some formulaic, scriptural literalism,” said Ralph Reed, the former executive director of the Christian Coalition. “There’s more of a practical, sociological foundation for why we seek to affirm marriage as an institution than I think is generally understood by those who want to legalize same-sex marriage.”

Two observations here -- mmm, make that three:

You have to remember that if it's Ralph Reed speaking, he's not really talking about affirming marriage as an institution. That -- and this is going to become a recurring motif here -- is what everyone on both sides of the issue wants to do: reaffirm the importance of marriage. Reed is talking about confirming marriage as an exclusionary device to limit social recognition to those couples he approves of.

Second, the social conservative belief "in the efficacy of traditional marriage" is a caricature and a cartoon, and it is invariably presented by such as Ralph Reed as a formulaic, scriptural literalism. That's the whole point of the article -- a point that Reed's statement doesn't address in any substantive way.

Third, Reed and his ilk keep citing a practical, sociological foundation for "affirming" traditional marriage, but he never seems to be able to say what it is, aside from "children to better with a mother and father," which isn't borne out by the evidence. If he's referring to the somewhat questionable "study" by Child Trends, which opponents of same-sex marriage seem to think is the only study done so far on this question -- and of course, that study doesn't deal with children raised by same-sex couples -- then he's really on thin ice.

Though Reed said he had respect for Newsweek, he said this week’s cover story was based on a “false assumption”: “We’re not trying to take the Bible and put a bill number on it and legislate it.”

If you believe that, I have a bridge I'd like to talk to you about.

Land pointed to campaigns for anti-same-sex marriage referenda around the country as evidence that biblical instructions were not necessarily the main impetus behind social conservative opposition to same-sex marriage.

“The arguments that are used are often not biblical arguments. They are secular arguments, arguing about marriage as being a civic and a social institution, and that societies have a right to define marriage,” Land said. Broadening the definition of marriage could “shatter” the social role married couples have traditionally played, he said.

There's a major logical backflip here: no one's arguing that marriage is not an important civic and social institution: that's why gays want to get married. I've touched on that one before -- the most telling comment I've found is from Joseph W. Campbell. It's indicative of the sheer closed-off solipsism of the social (read "religious") conservative position that Land can say something like that and not even realize that it not only doesn't support his position, but undercuts it.

Jim Burroway has some very apt insights into the reactions:

But the other part of the outrage also seems clearly aimed at someone who really did intrude onto their home turf. After all, in the same-sex marriage debates, only one small group of Christians are presumed to be allowed to use the Bible — when they think nobody else is looking. Anti-gay activists behave as though the Bible is solely their possession and no one else’s — including other Christians who read the same Bible and come to different conclusions. It’s okay for anti-gay opponents to turn outside their own sphere of authority — science — to make their point. But now that Lisa Miller has taken them on in their own home turf, they’ve let loose with their persecution complex and complained that they– and by extension all of Christianity, since they presume to speak for all Christians – have been “attacked.”

Remember that: any disagreement, no matter how stated, is an "attack," not on the fuzzy, self-referential thinking of the Christianist right, but on Christianity itself, because, after all, only people who agree with the likes of Richard Land and Ralph Reed are real Christians.

The Governor's A Crook

And this is news exactly how? Here's some native coverage assembled at C&L. The sense is pretty much my own: Blagojevich was a big mistake, a total idiot, and a crook to boot. Of course, having governors indicted is nothing new here -- my own feeling is they should move over to the Legislature and just go down the list, alpahbetically, by district, it doesn't matter.

The irony is that Blagojevich came into office on the heels of George Ryan's scandals. I guess that just sort of proves how dumb he is.

BTW, the lead from Dave Neiwert's post makes me wonder just what flavor KoolAid Neiwert's been drinking: "Boy, this is just the kind of mess Obama doesn't need."

Huh? I know the RWNM (that's "Right-Wing Noise Machine," for you neophytes) will be churning out more bullshit linking Obama to Blagojevich, but it's more manufactured junk. No reason for Neiwert to buy into it. (Digby has already sketched out the scenario.)

Here's the original story.

Censorship: Ur Doin' It Rite

Didn't I hear something from the Mormons about protests of their smear campaign on Prop 8 violating their constitutional rights to free speech? Do we know what they really think about free speech? I think we do: from Dan Savage:

Gay People Exist...

...and some people out there actually, kinda, sorta like us. I know, I know: it's enough to blow your mind, huh? It's also enough to get your artworks yanked from a student show at Utah's Brigham Young University.



Says the artist...

Apparently the topic of homosexuality is a bit much for the BYU audience and my part of our Fine Art Classes show was taken down today. It seems that censorship is favored over support and love. This really saddens me. I found out because a friend of mine went to the show and said that my peices had been removed and the show had been rearranged.

The show was rearranged so that no one who attended would realize that the works on display had been censored for political/religious reasons. So... shhh. Don't tell anyone.

The student artist took pictures of openly gay BYU students—openly gay and openly ballsy—and a companion portrait of a supportive friend or family member. The artist didn't label the portraits; you don't know who in each pair of portraits is the fearsome, terrible, ungodly gay, and who is the tragically deluded enabler of evil—excuse me, "the supporter."

Uncensored examples of the work.

"By their works shall ye know them." That line keeps coming back to me.

Thanks to AmericaBlog.

Speaking of John Cole

As I believe I was -- well, I mentioned him, at least. Anyway, this post is wonderful:

Which is why, of course, when we are dealing with issues that involve the religious right, we so often come into problems. If they would at least make an effort to couch their arguments in logic and reason, rather than quoting scripture or providing arguments from their God, we might be able to better find common ground. As it is, tell me a certain public policy should be so because your religious beliefs make anything else a sin, and I will respond with a shrug and work to elect people to do the opposite of what you want.

Basically, it boils down to this- if I wanted to live in accordance to rules as set by your faith, I would join your church. Until then, until you see me sitting two pews over on Sunday morning, just assume that I really don’t care what your God thinks. I don’t want the rules of your faith imposed upon me by the government, just as I do not desire the government telling me to live under the rules of Cardinal Ratzinger, the Church of Latter Day Saints, Sharia law, Wiccan rules, Buddhist tenets, and on and on and on. Nor do I think you should have to lives under laws that force you to adhere to the religious principles of someone else.

This kind of thinking -- the religious right kind -- is why those who keep trying to find common ground are doomed to lives of torture and frustration: there is no common ground. The religious right will not permit it. If anyone hasn't figured that out after a couple of generations, I don't know what to say.

If you think I'm overstating the case, look again at the pastoral letter from Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles, or this statement by Archbishop George Niederauer of San Francisco. How much room do they actually leave for compromise, after you've discarded the false assumptions and pruned out the double-talk?

New Discovery

Just ran across the Secular Right blog: conservative discussions without the religious hardliners, which means, as Andrew Sullivan is fond of calling it, "real" conservatism.

In fact, just reading through a few of the posts, the place seems refreshingly free of wingnuts. Was beginning to wonder if that was possible. (With apologies to John Cole.)

Health Care

Interesting post by Ezra Klein on "the best health care system in the world." Some number-crunching involved, since it's Klein, but worth reading. I started crunching a couple of numbers myself: the U.S. population is roughly 310 million, of which 48 million do not have health insurance. My calculator says that's about 15.5%. Yes, you read it right: 15.5%. That's staggering. I'd like to call attention to one of the questions Klein finishes off with:

Whenever I read posts like Pollack's, I'm reminded of something David Frum wrote in his book Comeback. "Who agreed that conservatives should defend the dysfunctional American health care system from all criticism?" He asked. "Who volunteered to take the bullet for every crummy HMO and overpriced surgeon in the country? Who decided that it was okay with us for tens of millions of Americans to lack health care coverage?"

15.5%

Just WhenI Thought It Was Safe to Surf

I run across this post by Timothy Kincaid about the latest damage control from the Catholic hierarchy.

Cardinal Roger M. Mahony, Archbishop of Los Angeles, has issued A pastoral message to homosexual Catholics in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles assuring gay Catholics that they “are cherished members of the Catholic Church, and that we value you as equal and active members of the Body of Christ”.

I know what the Cardinal is trying to say. He just wants gay Catholics to know that this very personal action that he encouraged to harm their life wasn’t personal. It’s not out of some desire to hurt them, you see, it’s just out of Mahony’s absolute certainty about how things should be.

And that while he actively seeks to eliminate any measure of equality for same-sex attracted persons either in society or in the Church, he values them as equal members of the Body of Christ. You’re equal in the eyes of God, you see, but dogma and doctrine require that you be treated as intrinsically disordered, not to be protected from death sentences, and psychologically suspect due to your “deep-seated homosexual tendencies.”

Read Kincaid's post -- I can't do any better.

Reviews in Brief: Ritsu Natsumizu's Crushing Love

Ritsu Natsumizu's Crushing Love is sort of problematical for me, but illustrates a type of BL manga that seems to have some popularity: one of the protagonists is not a very nice person at all, and in fact is manipulative, aggressive, and given to deception. He may or may not be a reformed character by the end of the story.

The title story and its sequel, "Love Life," are about Keiichiro Kuroda, betrayed by his lover who ran off with his money and another man. Said lover has the cheek to come back and ask for a loan to help his new boyfriend's business, and Kuroda, out for some revenge, makes a bet: he will put five million yen in a bag on a park bench and if the money is turned into the police within three days, the boyfriend can have his loan. The first person to happen along, while Kuroda is still standing there watching, is a young man who looks at the bag of money indecisively for a few moments and than picks it up and approaches Kuroda, asking to borrow money for transportation. Kuroda is flabbergasted, but intrigued: the young man, Kaoru Otomo, explains that he has to pay off a debt that day, but his creditor is in Kyoto. So, Kuroda, to see this little drama play out and to have his revenge on his ex, takes Otomo to Kyoto.

The second pair of stories, "Purity and Tyranny of Love" and "Love of a Tyrant King," are about Yukihiko Shingyoji, Otomo's "creditor" from the first set, and his childhood friend and the son of a family in service to his own, Sei Aoyama. Yuki is not a nice person at all: lecherous, tyrannical, snide, but nevertheless, Sei loves him, although he's kept it a deep, dark secret for years. Yuki, in spite of being a piece of human trash, is not completely insensitive, and has it figured out -- but he doesn't want to be told that Sei is just doing his duty.

"My Throbbing Heart" takes us back to school with Kimijima and Nakahara, sex buddies. Nakahara discovers a love letter from Kimijima to someone; although tempted, he doesn't read it, but it preys on his mind until he finally confronts Kimijima, who tells him who the letter was for. Wanna guess?

Finally, "Love Love Me" is another schoolboy story, about Adachi and Himura, another pair of sex friends. Adachi, needless to say, has feelings for Himura, who is his opposite: a top student, from a wealthy family, athletic and popular, although he tends to be a bit aggressive about sex. Then Adachi learns that his father has been transferred and they are going to move to another town within a month. But he can't bring himself to tell Himura, having missed all the little clues that Himura thinks of him as something more than release.

In the two main groups of stories, Natsumizu has given us characters who are not people we would want to know, most likely. Kuroda is bitter and driven by anger, although Otoma manages to find his better parts. Yuki, on the other hand, seems to be irredeemable. Nakahara describes himself as "a bit of a bully," but turns out not to be all that bad, while Himura is, in a lot of respects, clueless -- but no more than Adachi.

As I noted, this collection was a bit problematical for me, mostly because I'm not looking for stories about nasty people, although there is a strong current of such stories in BL manga, some of which are excellent. (I'm still looking forward to jumping into Let Dai by Sooyeon Won, which from the images I've seen is beautiful, but a tough story. It's also 15 volumes.) Graphics are fairly standard, although characterizations are appealing. Kuroda is the winner in that regard -- not only is he attractive visually, but his moods -- including some unsuspected vulnerabilities -- are apparent from his face.

Another from Juné.

The War On Christmas

Excellent post at Mahablog:

My point is that if Christians would stop taking affront at non-Christians who don’t kowtow to Christmas, and instead just observe Christmas with all the solemnity and reverence it ought to require, the world would be a better place.

Joseph W. Campbell, in The Hero With A Thousand Faces, made the point that what he calls "the desert religions" in their modern incarnations have lost the spiritual and focused on doctrine. I think there's no better everyday example than Christmas. (Campbell was not kind to the monotheisms in that book.)

I tend to agree with O'Brien: I have no objection to Christmas displays. In fact, I probably have less objection than she does: most of the symbolism is directly appropriated from Paganism, so they fit very neatly into my observances. I should also note that Chicago decorates: the whole damn city is full of lights and pine boughs and ribbons. It's quite nice.

Language Changes

Something strikes me as off about this comment by Andrew Sullivan:

The temperance movements of the 19thC & 20thC were classic Protestant Christian movements, conservative in nature. Wesleyans, Methodists, arts colleges, working men's clubs, self-improvement, all that sort of thing. You could just as easily say it was "early 20th-century conservative Christians' grand social engineering agenda". All the more compelling since the war on drugs is its direct descendent and prosecuted just as vigorously by contemporary Christian conservatives. Failed social engineering can be a conservative enterprise as much as anything else.

Prohibition occurred during what is commonly referred to as the Progressive Era and was considered part of the progressive movement's agenda. And while "failed social engineering can be a conservative enterprise" there are plenty of modern-day self-proclaimed progressives who still back the war on drugs.

Yes, the period of the early 20th century when all this was happening liked to style itself "Progressive," but that word had a much different meaning then than it does now. And do keep in mind that "progressive" has been very recently hauled out of storage and dusted off to replace the toxic "liberal" so beloved as a target by the likes of Rush Limbaugh. You have to look a little more closely at what was actually going on in these movements, and the temperance movement is as good an example as any: the methods, the tactics, and ideology are pretty damned near fungible with those of the anti-gay, anti-science, forced birth advocates of today.

The temperance movement, and the other phenomena mentioned by Sullivan's interlocutor, were about social control and enforcing a particular vision of morality on the populace at large. (Although the other examples were more positive and the concept more palatable.) The fact that many more people were prepared to accept that morality as valid doesn't really matter -- it was enlisting government in the service of controlling personal choice, and as much as right-wingers might like to point at today's progressives as embodying the same philosophy, it seems that the shoe is on the other foot. (No, I'm not going to take the wingnut PC left fringe as representative of contemporary progressives, as seems to be the habit with the aforementioned Pimple-Butt and, in fact, most commentators.)

And even though "plenty of modern-day self-proclaimed progressives" back the war on drugs, that doesn't change the shape and philosophy of that particular endeavor (which has been, need I point out, almost as successful as the war in Iraq). It's the old saw about the extremes meeting: I don't see all that much difference in tactics and approach between, say, the far left fringe of the gay movement and the far-right fringe of the anti-gay movement. They meet at the fringe, just the way moderates meet at the middle.

Language changes, and those who are working against the perceived status quo are, by and large, going to call themselves "progressives." That applies whether their aims are what we would understand as progressive or not.

Just Doin' Their Jobs

This one has popped up a couple of places today:

Apparently the SCOTUS is set to discuss whether it will hear the case of Donofrio v. Wells, which challenges Barack Obama’s citizenship.

More background here:

The remaining case with the highest profile is Donofrio vs. Wells. Because it was distributed by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to other justices for conference, it gained undue importance for people unschooled in how the court works, Volokh said.

Many petitioners seeking stays of pending events have their cases distributed to the full court, he said. Of those, Volokh found that 782 were denied in the last eight years while just 60 were heard--and not all of those ultimately were successful.

It's instructive that Thomas is the one who passed it on -- the quieter ideologue on the right, if you'll remember.

It's really sort of astonishing, scrolling through the comments at The Swamp, to see how many people actually take this as a legitimate issue. I mean, it's obviously an attempt to discredti Obama's presidency before it even starts, and I'm not at all hesitant with suggesting that Thomas brought it to the Court for just that reason -- he is, as I noted, the quiet ideologue, but he's still a party hack. Even though one of the original suits was filed by Phil Berg, a Democrat (and it would be interesting to know who he supported in the primaries), it's tailor-made for the Republicans, who have already said they're gong to do everything they can to stop Obama's legislative agenda.

And it's also now a matter of the Constitution, which in wing-nut land only applies when you can use it against someone you don't like.

Friday Gay Blogging

I don't remember whether I've used this image before. It's one of my favorites.

OK -- I'm back, sort of. Still a little burnt, but I couldn't let Friday go by without something, so here's a bit of a wander through the gay news and commentary for the week.

First, this story from the SF Chronicle, by way of Pam's House Blend. It seems the Catholic hierarchy is stepping in to aid their friends of the moment, the LDS Church, with damage control:

The Mormon church has said Niederauer, previously the bishop of Salt Lake City for 11 years, played a pivotal role in its joining the cause.

"We were invited to join the coalition," Michael Otterson, managing director of public affairs for the church, told The Chronicle in an interview shortly after the election. "We didn't unilaterally go into the battle."

Otterson said Niederauer's letter persuaded the Mormon church that they wouldn't be fighting this battle alone, a status that would have made them vulnerable.

"Having Catholics, evangelicals and Jews in a coalition was exactly the right way to do it," Otterson said. "We knew someone would make this a Mormon-versus-gays battle."

In his statement Wednesday, titled "Moving forward together," Niederauer urged both sides to tone down the rhetoric and move toward a common cause.

Maybe Niederauer should start by toning down his own rhetoric.

Niederauer's statements need a hard look. Actually, not even that hard -- the falsities are obvious. Take this:

"Religious leaders in America have the constitutional right to speak out on issues of public policy," Niederauer wrote in a statement posted on the archdiocese's Web site. "Catholic bishops, specifically, also have a responsibility to teach the faith, and our beliefs about marriage and family are part of this faith."

Niederauer, who has declined interview requests, wrote that "to insist that citizens be silent about their religious beliefs" would have had a detrimental effect on history, gagging the voices of important abolitionists and people in the civil rights movement.

First, no one tried to gag the Mormons, or the Catholics, or anyone else. And, following the lead of other demagogues on the right, Niederauer conflates the constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of expression without interference from the government with some fantasy right to say what you want without consequences from the public. Take another look at the First Amendment:

Congress shal make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;

The whole point of that was to encourage "the free marketplace of ideas," which is exactly what statements like Niederauer's are trying to curtail: he's using his position as a religious functionary to try to stifle dissent with his and hs allies' pronouncements, and even more their actions in suppressing the freedoms of a minority of whom they disapprove. And he's lying about it by placing the blame on those who have objected, quite rightly, to the actions of his church and the Mormons in placing their religious dogma into the law of California, which is itself a violation of constitutionally guaranteed rights.

This is the standard cant from the religious right, when they're not busy calling gays perverts, child molesters, terrorists, and worse:

In his statement Wednesday, titled "Moving forward together," Niederauer urged both sides to tone down the rhetoric and move toward a common cause.

"Tolerance, respect and trust are always two-way streets and tolerance, respect and trust often do not include agreement, or even approval," he wrote. "We need to be able to disagree without being disagreeable. ... We need to stop hurling names like 'bigot' and 'pervert' at each other. And we need to stop it now.

"We churchgoers need to speak and act out of the truth that all people are God's children and are unconditionally loved by God," he wrote.

Try reconciling that statement with this, which I noted a day or two ago:

The Catholic church — as part of a what it sees as a consistent “pro-life” ethic — opposes the death penalty. But the Vatican’s representative in the United Nations is opposing a measure calling on governments around the world to decriminalize homosexuality — including countries which impose the death penalty on gays:

Archbishop Celestino Migliore said the Vatican opposed the resolution because it would “add new categories of those protected from discrimination” and could lead to reverse discrimination against traditional heterosexual marriage.

“If adopted, they would create new and implacable discriminations,” Migliore said. “For example, states which do not recognize same-sex unions as ‘matrimony’ will be pilloried and made an object of pressure,” Migliore said.

The proposed measure does nothing to extend rights to anyone — unless you consider the elimination of the death penalty, imprisonment or fines for homosexuality a special right. Because that’s all the proposed resolution does: it only calls for decriminalization.

The Vatican has obviously worked its way into a corner -- everything that involves treating gays like human beings is an attack on marriage (which, let me remind you, the Church didn't want to be bothered with for a thousand years -- it only became a sacrament in the early thirteenth century, and now it's the cornerstone of Catholic thought. Who knew?)

And spare me the bullshit about "all people are God's children." Niederauer and his cronies believe that a lot less than I do. Doesn't the Bible say something like "By their deeds shall ye know them"? I seem to remember that one from Sunday school.

You have to admire, though, the consistency of the message: Don't criticize us, no matter what we do.

Here is the full text of Niederauer's statement. It is a case study in special pleading, miscasting and misstating the opposition to the churches' involvement in the campaign. Read it through, keeping a couple of facts in mind that Niederauer doesn't mention: the Catholic Church does not officially permit dissent any more than the Mormon Church does; his comments about disagreement ring rather hollow; also, the Catholic Church, quite officially, does not believe in separation of church and state, one of the foundational principles of American society.

One of the people interviewed in the SFGate article called the letter "condescending." I think it's much worse than that -- it's arrogant, self-serving, and fundamentally mendacious. If you need any evidence of that, Queerty has a very good commentary on Niederauer's statement, and notes one thing I missed, which appears in the headline:

SF Catholic Archbishop Compares Prop. 8 Supporters to Abolitionists & Civil Rights Marchers

Somehow, I find that one hard to swallow, but then, nothing's beyond the reach of the Christianist right.

For another illustration of the degree of blindness on the right, watch this video of Mike Huckabee on the "violent" protests against Prop 8 and hate crimes laws in general. Aside from the gross misrepresentation of what hate crimes laws do and how they work, it's enjoyable to hear him backtrack when challenge on one such anecdote: suddenly a "violent" attack on the church service becomes merely disruptive, although hate crimes continue to be "thought control." When you consider that the thoughts of someone like Huckabee have a demonstrated need for some control, I find that hilarious.

Jeremy Hooper touches on a good question to ask the next time you run into a character like that: How many "Christians" have been murdered by gays for being Christian?

I start feeling like a Cassandra. This report from Queerty confirms what I've been saying for a while:

"The losses we suffered are political, which are not as predictable as poll results are– or as manageable", Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) President Neil Giuliano told Queerty this afternoon after the release of a GLAAD-commissioned Harris Interactive survey that showed widespread support for gay & lesbian rights and issues across a variety of demographics.

My objection to Giuliano's statement stems from the fact that, if they can't read the politics at this point -- remember, these are the "professionals" -- they should get out of activism and get a real job. Any idiot could have figured out that the Christianists were going to go all out on Prop 8, and that blacks, latinos, and other minorities were going to be targeted demographics. Duh.

Incompetent.

And if you don't believe me, check out this story, also via Queerty:

So, the nation's largest gay rights advocacy and political action organization was caught totally unawares that there's a highly qualified openly-gay person who would make a great candidate for Labor Secretary? Isn't the primary goal of the HRC to help out and advocate for gay and gay-friendly politicians and legislation? Are they even tracking the openly-gay political leadership in the U.S.?

You need to ask these questions. How sad is that?

That's it. I've had it. The gay news is no better than the rest of it.

Dessert. We need dessert. Something yummy and sweet,



with maybe a nice spicy chaser:

Odetta

Dead at 77.

Winter

We haz it:

Self-Hating Homosexuals

I don't throw phrases like that around very much, and I don't call gays "homosexuals," which I think is insulting. I figure I don't really know what's going on in anyone else's head, but with the Catholic hierarchy, they do so much to make it so obvious that I really don't have much to worry about. Via Box Turtle Bulletin:

The Catholic church — as part of a what it sees as a consistent “pro-life” ethic — opposes the death penalty. But the Vatican’s representative in the United Nations is opposing a measure calling on governments around the world to decriminalize homosexuality — including countries which impose the death penalty on gays.

Maybe it's just that I haven't noticed, but I don't recall seeing any major statements from the Vatican about torture or pre-emptive wars, or any such -- just quiet little statements that the Church opposes those sorts of things. Maybe it's just that the press can't resist something like this coming from such an obvious bunch of queens.

Archbishop Celestino Migliore said the Vatican opposed the resolution because it would “add new categories of those protected from discrimination” and could lead to reverse discrimination against traditional heterosexual marriage.

“If adopted, they would create new and implacable discriminations,” Migliore said. “For example, states which do not recognize same-sex unions as ‘matrimony’ will be pilloried and made an object of pressure,” Migliore said.

Well, as far as being pilloried, they should be. And gods forbid we should add new categories of people to be protected from discrimination. What is the world coming to, when you can't discriminate on the basis of your own unreasoning prejudices?

Remember that the pope has called separation of church and state "a myth."

You Only Need to Look in The Corner

To find an idiot. Jonah Goldberg:

If opposition to gay marriage is morally indistinguishable from Jim Crow racism, anti-Semitism and the like (as so many of you say), why on earth aren't you screaming bloody murder at Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid and the other Democratic politicians who run the US governmemt? Surely, they matter more than a few Mormon donors. Why aren't they bigots even though they hold the same fundamental position as Mormons?

Gads -- where to start? First off, the people Goldberg names haven't been running the government, in case no one noticed. I doubt they would have made such a mess of things even trying. Second, they all opposed Prop 8. A "few Mormon donors" gave over half the funding for the campaign to strip gay Californians (and actually, when it comes right down to it, the rest of us) of fundamental rights.

And of course, Obama, Biden, Clinton, et al. don't hold the same fundamental position as Mormons. There's a big difference in thinking that marriage should be between a man and a woman as a religious doctrine and expending major efforts to impose that religious doctrine on others.

As a thinker, Goldberg's a great . . . gee, I don't really want to insult anyone by comparing them to Jonah Goldberg.

Here's the editorial Goldberg mentions. It's an amazing study in false equivalents, straw men, buzz words, and just plain ol' everyday arrogance. It's a fairly appalling piece of tripe, demonstrating that the right doesn't know how this country was designed to work, thinks mob rule is "democracy," will say anything as long as it suits their agenda, and thinks that only they and those who agree with them (for the time being) should have access to guarantees of basic rights. I mean, that "editorial" is so full of holes it would take a couple of days to parse. I realize it's an opinion piece, but doesn't that demonstrate to you the idea that some people should just keep their opinions to themselves? What's that old line about opening your mouth and proving you're an idiot?

Thanks to Andrew Sullivan (I think). And here's Sullivan with more on Goldberg:

Jonah, moreover, does not mention the fact that the Mormon hierarchy planned this campaign for eleven years, that their decision to make this a public issue is unprecedented in the history of the LDS church, and that their donations made up a huge proportion of the Prop 8 forces. He doesn't mention that their public bluff that they only care about the m-word and favor rights for gay couples has been called in Utah, where gay rights advocates are demanding the LDS church back strong civil union laws (and the LDS church is resisting). He cites no instance in which any Mormon anywhere has had any right removed or threatened by marriage equality.

It's called "cherrypicking."

Burnout

I think I may have hit it. Or maybe it's just that the politics overload has finally come home to roost. There are all sorts of stories out there, and I look at them, and I think "Yeah -- and so what else is new?"

I can't believe I've run out of outrage.

So, I may or may not be posting this week, but if I do it will be light. I need a rest.

But -- your reward for being so patient:

So Sorry

My brain has officially turned to mud. I actually tried putting together a post today, and when I looked at it again, it didn't even make sense to me.

Maybe tomorrow.

And then again, maybe not.