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.

Reviews in Brief: Yun Kouga's Loveless, Vol. 1

Loveless by Yun Kouga is a series I've been eyeing for a while now, and I finally broke down and started it. It's cryptic, bizarre, and fascinating.

Ritsuka is twelve years old, has recently lost his older brother, and is sharing his head with someone else. Or it may be that his difficulties stem from amnesia: he doesn't remember anything of his life before the past two years. His mother is convinced that, whoever is inhabiting her younger son's body, it's not her son, which, as you might imagine, leads to a somewhat problematical relationship between the two. However, Ritsuka shows himself to be a self-assured boy, very intelligent and used to taking charge of his life, on his first day at a new school, where he is greeted by, among others, Yuiko, a classmate who refers to herself in the third person and is desperate to be liked.

All of this is complicated by the appearance of Soubi, a friend of his brother, whom Ritsuka is willing to accept at face value, even if he is a grown-up. It gets even more complicated when Soubi, who seems to have many, many secrets, declares that he loves Ritsuka (although he doesn't want to have sex with him) and he will do anything Ritsuka says -- because Seimei, Ritsuka's dead brother, told him to. While they are talking, they are accosted by two children who call themselves "Breathless," a team of some sort, who are appalled at finding Soubi defending Ritsuko: they were to bring him back to Septimal Moon -- the entity, it so happens, who murdered Seimei.

I think one thing I find appealing about this series so far (it's presently up to eight volumes) is that Kouga doesn't tell you what's going on. You, the reader, discover information as Ritsuka does, in pieces and bits. The oddness of the story is evident from the very beginning: children have cat-ears, in addition to their human ears, and tails. (It sounds grotesque, but they're adorable.) We gradually understand that there is a connection between the ears and having sex -- one assumes, after a few hints, that once you've done it, the ears disappear. (I've really got to figure out what it is with the Japanese and pets. Any hints would be appreciated.)

There are also the battles: Soubi is a fighter unit who was part of the team "Beloved" with Seimei; he has now linked up with Ritsuka, who, unknown to himself, is "Loveless"; this is supposed to be impossible, but Seimei, who obviously suspected he was a target, seems to have made arrangements to protect his little brother. Soubi is a top-notch spellcaster, which is how the battles are fought -- it doesn't hurt that he's an adult, or at least that's the impression one gets. (And we're not sure that he's entirely human.)

Nor are we sure who Ritsuka is; neither, it appears, is he, except that he's pretty sure that he's not really Ritsuka.

Graphically, the story is very well done, with the open, sometimes free-form narrative flow I've come to expect from manga in general. Character designs are wonderful -- Ritsuka is one of the cutest characters I've seen so far, and Soubi is what I can only call a quiet beauty, composed and enigmatic. The drawing is exceptionally expressive and sometimes very subtle, especially in facial expressions, and the battle scenes are wonderful -- clear, direct, with a terrific sense of motion in them.

This one's from Tokyopop, and I can tell where all my extra money is going for a while.

Green Man Review Special Edition

Devoted to the writing of yours truly, and I'm pleased with it -- at least, as pleased as I ever am with anything I've created.

There will be a Review in Brief today, as soon as I sit down and write one. Anything else, we'll see.

But you do deserve a picture: