California's Prop H8: The State Supreme Court Punts.

Upon hearing the decision of the Supreme Court of California on Prop H8, the first comment I made to my friend Juanita was made 'off-the-cuff', she asked me what I thought and I said "The Supreme Court is buying time", the reason I felt that was the case is very simple, in the previous rulings they have pleased the Pro Prop H8 proponents and angered the LGBT Community when they ruled that licenses for same-sex marriage were invalid under State Law because it barred such unions (California Proposition 22 (2000)), next, in another decision, they pleased the LGBT Community and angered the Prop H8 Proponents when they ruled that Prop 8 was an unconstitutional abridgment of civil rights, oookey... So, in their latest ruling, which they announced on Tuesday May 26, 2009, they declared the Prop H8 constitutional amendment is valid, albeit it takes away rights protected under the 'equal treatment under the law constitutional clause' (Part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution), furthermore, they ruled that the 18,000 or so same-sex marriages performed in between their second and third ruling, were valid, because of their second ruling which was apparently reversed on their third.

He, he, he... I don't mean to laugh at this very serious issue, but, in addition to being a little confusing to follow their steps and logic, it brings to my mind overtones of the 'Keystone Cops' on a State Supreme Court Scenario, bumbling and fumbling.

But just taking a sample of the opinion pieces out there, here is Dan Walter's on the San Jose Mercury News on May 27th:

Opinion: California Supreme Court followed the law on Prop. 8

"marriage licenses that San Francisco was issuing to same-sex couples at the behest of Mayor Gavin Newsom were invalid because state law prohibited such marriages.

A year ago, the same court pleased gay rights groups and angered conservative "pro-family" groups when it declared that the statute barring same-sex marriages, although enacted by voters, was an unconstitutional abridgment of civil rights.

The court seemingly reversed itself again Tuesday, declaring that Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment again outlawing same-sex marriages, is valid. But all three decisions were correct, even courageous, because they upheld the limited role that courts play in public policy.

As the court itself said, "In a sense, this trilogy of cases illustrates the variety of limitations that our constitutional system imposes upon each branch of government — the executive, the legislative and the judicial."

In petitioning the court to set aside Proposition 8, gay marriage advocates wanted the court to rule that it was a constitutional revision, rather than an amendment, and thus could not be enacted via initiative. But had it done so, it would have made a mockery of the initiative system — which, for all its flaws, remains a valuable tool for effecting public policy — and created a legal quagmire with unimaginable unintended consequences."

It is not a simple issue no matter which way you look at it, but two points are blatantly clear, 1. Protection of Civil Rights on equal treatment under the Law and, 2. Public Policy or, putting it another way, pure, unbridled democracy, the worst kind of government but the best thing we got going for us, on the one hand, the governed have, supposedly, participatory prerogatives on a democracy, on the other, notwithstanding that nobody is either better or worse than the other, we humans have differences on how we look, what we think or our nature, but... And this is a big but, regardless of our differences, all of us are supposed to have the same inalienable rights, hence, "Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities.". but, there seems to always be a but, isn't?, what about democracy? Well, this beautiful monster called democracy, in it's extreme, purest form, is what is known as 'anarquism', another extreme manifestation of unbridled democracy is that "Fifty-one percent of a nation can establish a totalitarian regime, suppress minorities and still remain democratic."

Is it just? According to Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, "The voice of the majority is no proof of justice", Maximilien Robespierre said that "Any law which violates the indefeasible rights of man is essentially unjust and tyrannical; it is not a law at all." and the great humanitarian, Mahatma Karumanchi Gandhi, left us one of his tenets "In matters of conscience, the law of majority has no place.", the answer to me appears to be a resounding no!

Going back to my comment that the California Supreme Court was 'buying time' or, as stated in this post's title, they 'punted', I must say that the point is valid because a) in their first ruling they validated the voice of the majority and, b) on their second ruling they upheld the inalienable rights of the individual and, c) in their latest ruling they upheld unbridled democracy as the supreme policy-maker of the land, making a little aside to say that because in their second ruling, they temporarily made legal the marriage between persons of the same sex, the legal marriage contracts made during that period, remained legal (Something to do with legal retroactivity versus current legal status, I think)

Yes, the State Supreme Court punted, they decided to go the political route, they left it to the electorate to decide public policy instead of settling once and for all the issue of whether or not a majority has the prerogative to take away constitutional rights from a minority, or until the US Supreme Court rules on the issue, which will happen, since already legal suits challenging the Cal Supremes' ruling have been filed.

I do totally agree with Dan Walter's point that the California Supreme Court have "created a legal quagmire with unimaginable unintended consequences", fortunes and majorities change, public opinion attitudes change as well, today's majority may in the near, or far future, whichever may be the case, change too; so, let the 'political pin ball game' commence, the 'pro-this' or 'pro-that' will win a scrimmage or a battle here and there, only to be reversed later by the 'con-this' or 'con-that' majority, only to be set back later by the 'pro or con on this or that', yes indeed, by all means, let the 'political pin ball game' commence instead of answering two simple, yet vital, questions: "Does the individual has inalienable rights?" and "Does a majority has the right to abridge them?"

I do also agree with Dan on another point he makes because there is no question on my mind that same-sex marriage contracts will be legal in California and other states sooner than later, but I disagree that it is the appropriate course of action, as he and others are saying:

The appropriate course for same-sex marriage advocates to take is to pursue their cause in the same political arena in which their opponents prevailed in November. Polls indicate that Californians are split roughly 50-50 on the issue of gay marriage, but support is growing over time, and a pro-gay marriage measure has a fair chance of succeeding next year.

In closing, I do most fervently disagree with the opinion of many and that Dan also exposes in his piece, while leaving for another post the role of "Organized Religion", more aptly called "The Religious Right" And the innumerable and outrageous ironies and the accompanying plethora of hypocrisies in this matter:

A victory at the polls would have much more moral validity than the Supreme Court's ignoring legal precedent and blithely overturning Proposition 8.

I'll state why I disagree, moral validity is acquired when what is just is followed, what Dan and others are saying is that they expect that their views will be validated by political Trends/Will - What legal precedent? It seems to me this claim was done in a vacuum due to his not specifying to which precedent he is referring to.

I heard somewhere that the California State Supreme Court's ruling on Prop H8 was courageous, excuse me?

They punted, the stage is set thus bringing up a final question: Which minority will be next?

FLEE TOXIC RELIGION LIKE THE PLAGUE THAT IT IS

SOURCE:

A CHRISTIAN VOICE FOR GAY, LESBIAN, BISEXUAL, AND TRANSGENDER RIGHTS

"A Church that doesn't provoke any crisis, a gospel that doesn't unsettle, a word of God that doesn't get under anyone's skin, a word of God that doesn't touch the real sin of society in which it is being proclaimed, what gospel is that?" -- Archbishop Oscar Romero (1917-1980)

"Never let other people define your reality or put you into bondage to their ways of thinking." -- Jerry Maneker.

Thursday, February 19, 2009

In the pathetic attempt to deal with the "homosexual problem" that they themselves, the Vatican and most of the clergy within the Roman Catholic Church, have created, "ministries" to Gay Roman Catholics are occurring within many parishes to help Gay people deal with their "problem" and thereby presumably remain closer to God.

I have absolutely no illusion that I am any closer to God than anyone else out there. Nor do I have any inside track as to what God wants for anyone else's life! Like the Pope and the clergy within the Roman Catholic Church, and the clergy within the Protestant churches, I am a mere human being, and I would never presume to speak for God when it comes to anyone else's life!

In what I view as a cynical attempt to "minister" to Gay Roman Catholics so as to keep the gullible and self-loathing Gay people and their families remaining in that Church, and hopefully attract other Gay people and their families to join the Roman Catholic Church, some parishes have begun facing this "issue" (an "issue" that they, themselves, have helped create) by initiating a program called "Courage." "Courage" views homosexuality as a "problem to be overcome!"

So, the Vatican helps define and create being Gay as a "problem"; seeks to deprive and/or rescind civil and human rights protections from Gay people; calls being Gay "intrinsically disordered"; calls Gay relationships "sinful." And many Roman Catholic clergy now have the chutzpa to create a "ministry" to deal with the fallout from their (and other toxic religions') nefarious creation, and their condemnation of the very essence of a person made in God's image; seek to do so by reinforcing the correctness of their equation of Gay "inclinations" as being "disordered" and Gay relations as being "sinful." And they call "Courage" a "ministry," and undoubtedly view that "ministry" as being a "loving outreach" to "disordered" people!

The Rev. James Fukes, pastor of St. Julia Catholic Church in Siler City, N.C., who will serve as the spiritual director for Courage, said the new ministry was added at the request of parishioners.

"There have been some people who asked for some ministry by the Catholic Church to help them deal with the challenges and difficulties they have and remain close to God," he said.

Next month, the Rev. Paul Check, national director of Courage, will lead a workshop in Raleigh for priests and lay leaders. A priest in the Diocese of Bridgeport, Conn., Check has written widely on homosexuality, including one article in which he suggests that gay men come from broken homes or grew up alienated from their fathers and overprotected by their mothers.

"For example, many men with same sex attraction lack hand-eye coordination and as a result were spurned or the subject of jokes by their fathers or the neighborhood boys because they could not play certain sports easily," Check wrote in the St. Austin Review's November-December 2008 edition.

[For the full article, see here.]

All people, Gay and Straight, regardless of the pull of inertia, must flee toxic religion like the plague that it is, at all costs, given the tremendous harm it does to people's psyches and, often, to their very lives!

"Christianity" is the epitome of showing love and compassion; respecting and honoring all of God's creation; being harmless and never judging or condemning others; trusting God over and above seen circumstances and one's own prejudices; being agents of God's grace in this world!

The pathetic assertion of Rev. Paul Check, the national director of "Courage" that being Gay results from "lack of hand-eye coordination and as a result [being] spurned or the subject of jokes by their fathers or the neighborhood boys because they could not play certain sports easily," or that "gay men come from broken homes or grew up alienated from their fathers and overprotected by their mothers," would be laughable if it weren't so pathetically ignorant, simplistic, and downright dangerous.

Frankly, if being Gay resulted from the old discarded theory that one is Gay because of having strong mothers and weak or absent fathers, then I suggest that virtually everyone would be Gay! And I can't even find the words to deal with the asserted "lack of hand-eye coordination" and the ensuing reactions and their relationship to being Gay. This kind of arrogant ignorance boggles the mind!

But such arrogant ignorance is part and parcel of the discrimination and hateful rhetoric visited upon Gay people and their families by assorted clergy in most denominations of the institutional Church as well as by all too many professing "Christians," by some politicians, and even by many youngsters in schools.

And, it's that kind of arrogant ignorance, if not downright hateful stupidity, that leads emotionally vulnerable Gay kids and adults to live lives of shame and self-loathing, resulting in lives lived in quiet and sometimes not so quiet desperation. All sorts of risk taking behaviors are likely to ensue, as well as many suicides. And the verbal and physical assaults and even murders of Gay people, or murders of people perceived to be Gay, can also be seen to be the direct result of such arrogant stupidity ironically spoken with oracular authority "in the name of God."

Regarding the Roman Catholic Church: here we have presumably celibate clergy, and many of their followers, whose Church has been rife with, and tainted by, assorted ephebophilia scandals by not too few of their clergy, and their systematic coverups by assorted Bishops (who, in my opinion, would be serving hard time in prison for criminal facilitation, if they were not associated with the powerful Roman Catholic Church) presuming to lecture the rest of us on criteria of "morality," as well as on love and sex!

Let's make it crystal clear: God doesn't make junk! God doesn't make mistakes! Being Gay is a gift from God! To deny or seek to suppress this gift is not honoring to God or to the person who seeks to repress this wonderful gift!

To be a Christian is to be a conduit for the love of God to others! And anyone who dares condemn in the name of God what God has made, is a heretic who, wittingly or unwittingly, is a tool of the devil!

Shun and run from toxic religion for your own sake and for the sake of all of God's children! And always trust your own experience and never let other people define your reality for you or put you into bondage to their ways of thinking!

So, who do you trust? God and the reality of your own awareness and life-experience OR those who invoke the name of God to justify their prejudices, and spew ignorant hate-speech couched in sanctimony, falsely invoking the name of God in so doing?

You decide!

Posted by Jerry Maneker