Senate Votes 65-31 to Let Gays Shoot Straight for America

Dr. Blanchard said it was time to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell, and the Senate listened. Our Senator John Thune lacked the courage to vote yes, but Senator Tim Johnson did not. Various fundagelicals are showing their lack of faith in the strength of our soldiers and the Republic they defend.

Dr. Blanchard encapsulates well my sense that the folks opposed to gays serving in the military don't have much in the way of good arguments. Unit cohesion? That's all you've got?

This strikes me as a very bad argument. There are all kinds of reasons why one solider might be disinclined to trust another. He's Irish, or a Democrat. She's a privileged White girl, or a Red Sox fan. It is one of the jobs of soldiers, sailors, marines, etc., to judge their fellows by their competence and loyalty and nothing else. We expect our armed forces to do their job in harm's way, which means in the face of a kind of fear that us civilians can scarcely imagine. Compared to that, nervousness about a fellow warrior's sexual orientation seems like pretty small potatoes [Ken Blanchard, "It's Time to Dump DADT," South Dakota Politics, 2010.12.18].

Well said, Ken. Now let's sign off on this issue and do what soldiers do: drop the bull and fight our real enemies, the terrorists who want to destroy America, not the good men and women who want to defend it with honor and integrity.

Update 21:30 CST: Equality South Dakota gives me a welcome shout and shares some optimism for more positive change. EqSD also points to this WaPo article that indicates the relief and disbelief current gay soldiers feel. One compelling passage:

For some, the news was bittersweet. That was the case for a 28-year-old West Point Army captain who resigned from active duty this spring after wrestling for years with deprivation, loneliness and half-truths. His boyfriend was sitting next to him.

"Oh God, oh God," the decorated captain, who served two tours in Iraq, said by phone from Dallas as the vote neared. "My heart was thumping."

Text messages began pouring in as soon as the tally was announced.

"So when are you back on active duty?" wrote a straight intelligence officer who served with him in Iraq in 2009.

"LOL. I dunno," the captain responded.

"Let me know so I can get stationed there," the intelligence officer wrote back. "I work with a lot of morons. It'd be nice to have a battle [buddy] with some common sense and discipline again" [Ernesto Londono, "Gay Troops Cautiously Optimistic Following 'Don't Ask' Repeal," Washington Post, 2010.12.19].

Tenth Amendment Kills Defense of Marriage Act: Health Insurance Reform Next?

The Defense of Marriage Act got toasted in federal court last week, with a Nixon appointee ruling the law a violation of the Tenth Amendment—you know, that little gem conservatives love about powers not delegated to the feds being reserved to the States and the people.

Funny, I don't think I heard repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act on the teabaggers' to-do list. It's certainly on mine: the only help I need in defending my marriage comes from the one person wearing the ring that looks like mine.

But as David Montgomery notes, conservatives might want to cheer a little more loudly—or liberals more cautiously—for this affirmation of the Tenth Amendment:

In particular, a variety of states — including South Dakota — are challenging the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the 2010 health care bill, in part on Tenth Amendment grounds.

Let's (incorrectly) oversimplify things here for a moment and say that these two measures are linked by the same interpretation of the Tenth Amendment — that a robust judicial interpretation of the Tenth will strike down both DOMA and Obamacare, while a liberal interpretation will uphold both laws [David Montgomery, "Tenth Amendment Collateral Damage," Behind Government Lines, 2010.07.09].

Montgomery poses a Constitutional gut check to both sides. Imagine if we Wellstone Democrats had to trade victory on health care for victory on same-sex marriage. Imagine if Gordon Howie could be vindicated in his crusade to destroy Obamacare but had to accept Adam and Steve's domestic partner insurance benefits and adjoining burial plots in veterans cemeteries.

I think we may avoid Montogomery's proposed dilemma. Attorney General Marty Jackley and his grandstanding pals on the health insurance reform lawsuit aren't making the same Tenth Amendment argument as the DOMA challengers did.

AG Jackley will want to review South Dakota v. Dole, which figures prominently in Judge Tauro's DOMA ruling. South Dakota v. Dole was our lawsuit against Uncle Sam over the 1984 National Minimum Drinking Age Act, which required states to raise their drinking age to 21 or lose some federal highway money. South Dakota sued, saying setting the drinking age was a power reserved to the states. In 1987, Chief Justice Rehnquist and six colleagues disagreed, establishing five criteria to justify a federal law under the Spending Clause, despite Tenth Amendment doubts:

1. the intent is "general welfare";
2. conditions are clear, so states know what happens if they participate or don't;
3. conditions must relate to the purpose of the programs involved;
4. the law must be consistent with the rest of the Constitution; and
5. the financial pressure involved can't be so huge as to effectively leave the states with no choice but to go along.
   

Judge Tauro found that DOMA fails to pass Constitutional muster in part on criterion #4, because DOMA violates the Equal Protection Clause. In other words, DOMA tells states, "You have to discriminate against same-sex couples." Not cool... and not replicated in any way by the health insurance reform law AG Jackley is challenging. The insurance mandate imposes no discrimination.

Satisfied with the above reasoning on the Equal Protection Clause, Judge Tauro dodges Massachusetts's claim on criterion #3, that DOMA's conditions are not germane to Medicaid, state cemetery policy, etc. But I would suggest Massachusetts has a winning argument on that point, too, that AG Jackley won't be able to replicate on the health insurance lawsuit. Keeping homosexuals from saying "I do" is at least a couple policy steps away from the purpose of Medicaid and veteran burials. In health insurance reform, requiring every citizen to carry coverage is pretty germane to health insurance policy.

Judge Tauro's ruling finds that DOMA clearly intrudes on state sovereignty by denying each state the right to define marriage. What similar intrusion on states' rights does the insurance mandate cause? How does the federal insurance mandate prohibit states from passing any number of their own laws relating to health insurance? Massachusetts was able to demonstrate a direct conflict between its sovereignty and the requirements of the Defense of Marriage Act. AG Jackley must show a comparable conflict by which the insurance mandate and other provisions of the Patient Protection Act prevent South Dakota from exercising its sovereignty on health care.

DOMA forced states to discriminate, imposed social policy through unrelated programs, and intruded on an area of state sovereignty with a long-standing, well-attested tradition. The Patient Protection Act does not do any of those things, at least not as clearly as DOMA. AG Jackley and his quixotic friends may have other Constitutional arguments to offer, but they won't much help in last week's Tenth Amendment ruling from Judge Tauro.

Of course, I could be wrong. Dr. Blanchard, a fellow supporter of legalizing same-sex marriage, find's Judge Tauro's ruling more odious judicial activism that reads the Tenth Amendment in a way that runs counter to 220 years of Constitutional practice. Your thoughts?

David Astin PAC Does Karaoke, Impressions, Smear Campaigns

I can live with the fundagelical wingnuts doing their Limbaugh/Beck karaoke in the car and at their little meetings. If it makes you feel good to mouth the rhetoric fed to you by talk radio and World Net Daily and hear it echoing in your own head, then go ahead, knock yourselves out.

But when that karaoke goes public and starts spreading lies about good people, the wingnuts need a whoopin'... or at least a reasonable refutation.

That's what Curtis Price does as he responds to the wingnuttery of self-styled family-values crusader David Astin of Hermosa, whose "Family Matters PAC in South Dakota" has mailed out a big pink postcard attacking Equality SD as an extremist group pushing an agenda of deviance and oppression. The accusations are pretty much the same tired text Astin used to attack District 33 state senate candidate and Democrat Dennis Finch in the 2008 election.

On the latest FMPACinSD campaign finance report, Astin lists a Gmail address of "inquisitiveminds." Gee, maybe if Astin really had an inquisitive mind, he'd have been able to cite for reporter Kevin Woster some examples back in 2008 of how Finch supports the kinds of laws Astin shouts about on his lying postcards. Astin could only substantiate his wild accusations with the (Woster's words) "impression he got from reading the Equality South Dakota website."

Really, Mr. Astin, I hope you've stopped doing impressions and can come back with some actual research and examples on your current smear campaign.

FMPACinSD had a whopping $203 on hand last month. (When you have less money than the Lake County Dems, you're really wimpy.) FMPACinSD has reported no donations this year. I'd like to cite that as evidence that the usual right-wing "family values" distractions aren't playing this year in the face of the economy, education, and other issues that really are the government's business.

But FMPACinSD's lack of donations is more an indication that they aren't really a PAC. They are hardly a they. They are David Astin, spewing his insecure and hateful publications on his own dime. Since the PAC's inception in 2006, Astin has received $452.19 in unitemized contributions versus the $3475 of his own money poured into securing his own intolerant worldview with deceitful rhetoric.

By the way, pastor's son Astin doesn't appear to have a website for his PAC yet... but another more tolerant and tolerable SD Family Matters already exists... and appears to be doing more to protect real families than Astin's propaganda.

---------------------
Maybe related: political karaoke progenitor Rush Limbaugh is supporting family values by getting married for the fourth time. Of course, the Lord will likely strike down this relationship as he did Limbaugh's previous three marriages due to the presence of notorious homosexual Sir Elton John, whom Limbaugh paid $1 million to sing at the reception.

---------------------
Update 2010.06.09: Casey Murschel in District 12 says she got whacked by what sounds like the Astin PAC attack. Yuck!

Johnson Right on Gays in Military; SHS Casts Correct Vote

David Montgomery works late to give a good breakdown of where our Congressional delegation stands on allowing gays to serve in the United States Armed Forces. Senator Tim Johnson, who didn't actually get to vote on the defense appropriations amendment that would repeal the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy, made the clearest statement of why we should support that repeal:

As things stand now, any repeal would go into effect only after the study is completed and military leaders and the President give the go ahead. Once that happens, I support ending Don't Ask Don't Tell because any individual who is willing and able to defend our country should be able to do so, regardless of their sexual orientation. My view is shared not only by the administration, but top military leaders as well [Senator Tim Johnson, quoted in David Montgomery, "South Dakota's delegation weighs in on 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,'" Behind Government Lines, 2010.05.27].

Representative Stephanie Herseth Sandlin joined 233 House colleagues in voting for the repeal. She fails to address the issue of justice and opportunity for all, talking instead about the importance of leaving it to military leaders to "determine what's best for the military." I would prefer SHS add, "...and what's best for the military is to take every willing and able soldier it can get, regardless of whom they love. Forcing gays to stay in the closet and kicking them out when they don't (or when the Rapid City police rat them out) is wrong." Even if SHS manages not to let the gay-word cross her lips, her GOP opponent will still hoot and holler that her vote shows she's beholden to Speaker Pelosi and the "gay agenda." Why play word games, Steph? Call a discriminatory spade a spade and say "Gays have rights like everyone else."

Senator Thune plays a similar game of dodging the real issue. As Montgomery points out, Thune mischaracterizes the repeal amendment as a "White House ultimatum" rather than a compromise. (And don't tell me Thune doesn't have in mind some ultimata he'd issue if he got to be President.) Thune calls repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell a "last-ditch effort by the White House to deliver on a campaign promise"... as if delivering on campaign promises is a bad thing.

On Don't Ask Don't Tell itself, Senator Thune drops this turd in the rhetorical crapper:

"It just seems to me that moving forward [with repeal] would be a mistake.... There are very serious misgivings about changing a policy that has worked pretty effectively" [Thune, quoted in Montgomery, 2010].

..which translates as "Our soldiers are such wimps they couldn't shoot straight if we forced them to serve alongside queers. So kicking out over 13,000 skilled but annoyingly gay soldiers is a great idea. Besides, homosexuals aren't real Americans, anyway. Our Founding Fathers didn't mention them in the Constitution, so screw 'em."

Thank you, Senator Johnson, for the straight talk on this issue. Thank you, Rep. Herseth Sandlin, for at least voting the right way. And thank you, Senator Thune, for exposing the continued bigotry and ignorance of your party.

MDL Obit Policy Fraying: Mentions Friends, Not Gay Partners

Remember the Madison Daily Leader's policy of shunning gay partners in obituaries? MDL says they don't include "special friends" in obits.

But they do include plain old friends. An obituary this week mentions "cousins, other relatives and many friends."

Now that's pretty thin mention: no names, just a catch-all phrase. But maybe the Leader is coming around. If maybe 5% of the population is gay, and if the deceased had "many" friends, then there's a fair chance (20 friends = 64% probability) that at least one of those friends was gay.

Really: if we can mention a general group of grade-school playmates in an obituary, we can mention a committed and loving adult partner of 21 years, can't we?

Madison Daily Leader Shuns Homosexuals, Even in Death

The Madison Daily Leader runs an obituary for MHS alumnus William Charles Elliot Clarke:

He was born on Feb. 23, 1962, at Lennox to Erhard and Lily Borchardt. He grew up in Madison and graduated from Madison High School. He attended the University of Arizona at Flagstaff and was a music and art major. In 2004, he received his nursing license.

He was preceded in death by his parents; a sister, Sharon Lampson; and a brother, Ray "Butch" Borchardt.

Hmm... no spouse or family to survive him? I have to turn to a paid obituary, lower left, page 2 of Friday's print edition, to learn about Mr. Clarke's significant other:

He was a true friend, caring brother, and loving partner to his life partner Bob Schmitz. Bill and Bob were together for 21 years and through all times their deep love and support for each other was apparent.

So Mr. Clarke had a partner of 21 years, and our local newspaper chooses not to mention him in the formal obit?

This is not the first time Madison's newspaper has chosen to omit mention of a gay partner from an obituary. Consider this 2003 obit for Douglas Richard Larson (emphasis mine):

He was a member of the Kiwanis, Elks, Lions Club, Toastmasters, Madison Chamber of Commerce and the Area Development Board.

Survivors include his wife Victoria of Brookings; two sons, Sean and Kenneth, both of Brookings; his father, Richard of Brookings; a brother, Brent of San Francisco, Calif.; a sister, Linnea (David) Bradbury of Plano, Texas; two nieces and a nephew.

He was preceded in death by a grandfather and a grandmother.

Now view the obit from Rude's Funeral Home:

He was a member of the Kiwanis, Elks, Lions Club, Toastmasters, Madison Chamber of Commerce and the Area Development Board. He enjoyed riding motorcycle, sailing, photography, computers, writing and philosophy. He was also an ordained minister. He especially enjoyed spending time with his family. Doug is survived by his wife Victoria of Brookings; two sons Sean and Kenneth both of Brookings; one brother Brent Larson and his partner Joseph Driste of San Francisco, CA; one sister Linnea Bradbury (David) of Plano, TX; his father Richard Larson of Brookings; nieces Andrea Lovoll and Stephanie Simons and nephew Nick Simons. He was preceded in death by his grandfather Ferman Feeney and grandmother Pearl Larson.

The MDL obit mentions the husband of a sister, but not the partner of a brother.

As I've said before, the Madison Daily Leader is a private business. Publisher Jon Hunter can choose to print or not print whatever he wants (and he usually does, regardless of any stated "policy").

But the choices Hunter and his staff make tell us something about our local culture. The Leader will mention fiancées in obituaries. Compare also the coverage of the death last week of MHS alumnus Benjamin Bundy. Along with Bundy's formal obit, Hunter publishes a tribute article that, in Friday's print edition, features a color photo of Bundy "with his long-time girlfriend, Laura Niedert."

Long-time. Bundy was 20. Long-time means what, six years, tops? Clarke shared his life with a man for 21 years, and the Leader won't mention that unless it's paid.

I guess some meaningful relationships are acceptable for news coverage, but some remain unspeakable to our "free" press.

Dems: Run Hard, Turn Left!

Montrose track coach Ken Greeno effectively boiled his guidance to young tracksters down to four words: Run hard, turn left. The Democrats in Congress (you too, Stephanie!) should follow the same advice.

Public Policy Polling finds that much of the opposition to two Democratic priorities, reforming health care and repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell, comes from people who wouldn't vote Dem if you paid them (and in South Dakota, we do pay them, with all these crotchety conservatives getting free roads and farm checks and Medicare).

Among folks whose votes are at least up for grabs, President Obama's health care reform has 64% approval. 72% of those voters want gays and lesbians to be able to serve openly in the military, says Public Policy Polling.

If you're after votes, Dems, playing Blue Dog to appeal to the GOP naysayers won't get you anywhere. Besides, Stephanie, are you in office to win elections or to pass good policy? Shoot the moon: stop apologizing and vote like Dems!

SD House Republicans Table Anti-Discrimination Act

Curtis Price at Robbinsdale Radical documents the yeas and nays on the regrettable tabling of HB 1144 yesterday. The bipartisan bill would specify that discrimination on the basis of age, sexual orientation, gender identity, or military status in employment and housing is not cool. Equality SD asks for fairness; the faux family values crowd screams perversion and social collapse, and the Republicans chicken out and table the bill.

In an otherwise mostly sensible interview on Dakota Midday yesterday, new "political junkie" and MDL publisher Jon Hunter unloaded a bonehead comment on HB 1144. He said something about being uneasy with creating all these new legal protections for special groups and worrying that pretty soon public radio will be forced to hire people who can't speak. Jonathan Ellis from that Sioux Falls paper quickly pointed out that HB 1144 really just catches South Dakota up with the times. 44 of South Dakota's 50 largest employers already prohibit discrimination against sexual orientation and/or gender identity, as do SDSU, USD, and various cities, counties, and school districts.

So if Hunter really thinks HB 1144 would take us down some slippery slope, he should realize our biggest employers have already taken us there. Employers like Sanford Health, Citigroup, Larson Manufacturing, 3M, Hy-Vee, Sam's Club, Target, Poet, Qwest, Lewis, and Gehl....

Go ahead, family values crowd. Try boycotting all of those companies. Try getting all of your relatives and neighbors to quit their jobs at those outposts of liberal tyranny.

The Williams Institute at UCLA has a really good report on why legislation like HB 1144 is good for citizens and doesn't cause any of the made-up disadvantages Jon Hunter and other regressives cite. Read it, call your legislators, and let's get HB 1144 back on track!

HB 1144: Expand Protection Against Discrimination to Old Folks, Gays, and Veterans

If you enjoyed the fracas in Rapid City over their anti-bullying policy, then let's get ready to rumble on the state level. Mr. Price at Robbinsdale Radical alerts us to the welcome entry of HB 1144 into the Legislature's agenda. HB1144 adds age, sexual orientation, gender identity, and veteran or military status to the classes of persons protected from discrimination under South Dakota's Human Rights laws.

HB 1144 does not add corporations to the list of protected persons. It does, however, replace salesman with salesperson in the statute prohibiting business discrimination. Landladies, your window of opportunity to discriminate is about to close.

Local legislator Mitch Fargen (D-8/Flandreau) has the guts to put his name on this bill—Russ, Gerry, where are you? Some of my other favorite Dems are also sponsors (e.g. Pam Merchant, Bernie Hunhoff, Ben Nesselhuf). They are joined in sponsorship by some prominent Republicans, including Senator Abdallah and Representative Krebs. Let's see who starts trotting out the anti-political correctness meme against Grandma and veterans....

Gee, who's Gordon Howie going to threaten if this bill passes?

Pastor Nussbaum Ashamed of Anti-Gay SD Family Policy Council

Curtis Price has provided excellent blog coverage of the anti-gay bullying the Rapid City School Board faced from gubernatorial candidate Gordon Howie and other religious fundamentalists for restoring a policy specifically addressing discrimination against homosexual students.

Price reminds us that we must not equate Christianity with prejudice. He cites the example set by Pastor Martin Nussbaum:

The other day at the school board meeting I met the wonderful Pastor Martin Nussbaum of Rapid City, who told the assembled at the Jan 7 Rapid City School Board meeting that he felt "ashamed" when he received an invitation from the South Dakota Family Policy Council urging him to push the school board to NOT protect LGBT people.

He's been a long time voice in support of Christians that don't agree with Focus On The Family's contention that The Gay™ is a threat to their faith!

Anyway, the news is that Martin is interested in help start a LGBT-friendly church -- they may meet at the BHCFE, it's still in the drawing-board stages. But it's a good thing since the Met Church in Rapid City folded more than five years ago now, and this was a big loss [Curtis Price, "A New LGBT Ministry in Rapid City?" Robbinsdale Radical, 2010.01.23].

Long time voice... indeed! Martin graduated a year ahead of me from Madison HS. He was a fellow debater and thespian. Even in high school, he was an outspoken advocate of strong and tolerant Christianity. I still remember his letter to the editor telling off the local fundagelicals who were busy striking poses over Martin Scorcese's The Last Temptation of Christ. The West Twin Theater had advertised with a whiff of self-righteousness that it would not be showing Scorcese's film. Martin scolded his fellow believers, noting that his God was strong enough to withstand any piece of celluloid. Martin's example back then helped me move away from my juvenile rejection of religion to a recognition that believers can be intelligent and compassionate allies in the fight for justice (not to mention good company at breakfast).

--------------------------------
An intriguing Google twist: Do not confuse Pastor Martin Nussbaum with L. Martin Nussbaum, who was the lawyer for New Life Church in Colorado Springs when Ted Haggard revealed his own tolerance for homosexuality.

Hoadley Leads Winning Gay Rights Campaign in Kalamazoo

Here's an election result you won't hear the conservatives celebrating: voters in Kalamazoo, Michigan, passed a ban on discrimination against GLBT folks in public services, housing, and employment by an overwhelming 65–35 margin. Leading the "One Kalamazoo" campaign to pass the ban: South Dakota native Jon Hoadley. Conservative "family" groups tried twice to overturn city action before Kalamazoo leaders turned the issue over to voters. Hoadley was able to help local groups organize a voting drive and win the endorsement of numerous civic groups, including some religious groups.

In a year of Tea Party bluff and bluster, it's good to see Jon successfully fighting to take America back... for all Americans. Nice work, Jon!

I Got a Guy in Kalamazoo: SD Native Hoadley Leads Rights Push

Another South Dakota debater moving and shaking: OneKalamazoo has hired Vermillion native and activist Jon Hoadley to lead a campaign in Kalamazoo, Michigan, to pass a gay-rights ordinance in the city's November 3 election. The local theocracy chapter is quaking in their boots, boo-hooing that Hoadley "has the ability to raise a quarter-million dollars and deliver a cadre of national volunteers" to help pass this city ordinance that would prevent landlords, restaurant owners, and employers from saying, "We don't take your kind" to folks of different sexual persuasions.

If Hoadley has that kind of power, he must be doing something right. Jon, when you get done fighting the good fight in Kalamazoo, come back to South Dakota and help us overturn our silly gay-marriage ban. You almost got us to victory last time; let's try again!

Wrath of God: Ordain Homosexuals and Women... or Else?

The ELCA has approved the ordination of practicing homosexuals. John Piper, a Baptist preacher in Minneapolis, is claiming that God sent that tornado through town this week to register His disapproval. That claim wins SD Humanist's disdain; Pastor Piper's meatheadery also elicits six very appropriate questions and objections from Pastor Shel Boese. [Update 12:50 CDT: Father Tim adds his theological perspective as well!]

Let's test Pastor Piper's claim against a South Dakota story:

Pioneer Lutheran Church up by White used to be ELCA. According to the church history page, "Since the ELCA has drifted from its Lutheran and evangelical roots, Pioneer has associated more over the past five years with Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ." Their June 2009 newsletter indicated that a call to missions pastor Tom Walker was predicated on his willingness to leave the ELCA and join the LCMC.

The church's website offers a number of resources. Among them:

• an article by Greg Lockwood arguing scriptural support for excluding women and homosexuals from ordination (Lockwood also digs male headship and denies it is "oppressive or demeaning to anyone.")
  
• Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood – Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, called a "useful resource," even though only one author in it is Lutheran. Co-editor of that book, and member of that council: Pastor John Piper.
• an article that says the Rapture is non-Scriptural bunk.
  

Pioneer Lutheran's pastor, Tyler Hepner, adjunct professor of religion and philosophy at SDSU, is also part of a budding Lutheran seminary in Brookings. Pastor Hepner calls honest atheists like me "spiritual parasites."

Ruins of Pioneer Lutheran
[photo courtesy Brookings Register]

Pioneer Lutheran burned down in the wee hours of April 19, 2009.

So if, as Pastor Piper claims, God goes snapping off steeples to indicate his displeasure with the ELCA's vote on human sexuality, what does he make of God leveling a church that leaves the ELCA, preaches male headship, links Piper's book, and hires a pastor who takes pokes at atheists?

Given enough time and Google, I could find some statement or action by pretty much anyone that I could portray as a sin that explains some misfortune rained down on them by a wrathful God. But is that really a worthwhile rhetorical game? And is it really something with which an ordained pastor should waste his time?

I don't know... maybe we should all check our home insurance policies.

SD Synod Vote on Sexuality Statement: More than Fairness

My wife Erin returned home from the South Dakota ELCA Synod Assembly and gave me a little first-hand perspective on yesterday's vote to reject the proposed statement on human sexuality and stick with existing position papers. She said the debate was civil and not terribly tense. She thought the pastor from Sioux Falls didn't really need to include the discussion of rectal and vaginal tissues to make his point (eeww!). But she was able to vote to reject the proposed human sexuality statement. Another Madison delegate voted for it, and the two of them were able to sit down for lunch and have a perfectly neighborly discussion about their disagreement over barbecues (you don't get much more Lutheran than that).

Now homosexuality is only a small part of the proposed statement, "Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust." (And remember, the statement isn't dead: the South Dakota Synod has simply stated its position, which it will take to full debate at the churchwide ELCA assembly in Minneapolis in August.) The overall focus is on much broader issues of trust and respect in all human relations. But the main conflict point getting media attention is that yesterday's vote affirmed the ELCA's current position that practicing homosexuals should not serve as clergy (see that Sioux Falls paper and KELO).

Madville Times readers from both sides of the aisle will likely find it interesting that Erin, whose progressive Lutheranism has played a significant role in my conversion from Republican to Democrat, essentially voted against equality for homosexuals. What the heck is she doing voting like Bob Ellis would (if he were Lutheran)?

I won't do Erin's argument nearly as much justice as she can. After all, she's the Lutheran in the family. But I want to capture one slice of it.

Erin heard delegates at the assembly argue for the sexuality statement by saying it was about fairness for homosexuals. One young delegate said it was unfair to limit homosexuals' ability to answer the call to serve as ministers. Erin and I both have a hard time looking a call like that for social justice in the eye and saying no. Socially and politically, we see no evidence that homosexuals are any less qualified than heterosexuals to carry out the functions of any job—pastor, soldier, journalist, teacher, garbage man, whatever. Neither does the ELCA: currently homosexuals can serve as ELCA pastors but are "expected to abstain from homosexual sexual relationships." (Feel free to debate the questionable distinction between being and doing.) One could argue that's not much different from the ELCA's expectation that unmarried heterosexual ministers remain celibate.

However fair it might be politically to extend the call to ministry to practicing homosexuals, Erin finds the proposed sexuality statement uses bad theology to justify that position. It's not written explicitly in the proposed statement; to recognize the bad theology, you have to read and think carefully. By Erin's careful reading and thinking, the proposed statement essentially declares that God has issued a new calling, a new Word in addition to the Old and New Testament.

I suggested making campaign buttons reading, "ELCA: We're not Mormons!" Erin felt that was unnecessary. But that line captures, I think, Erin's fundamental opposition to the proposed sexuality statement: no matter how good the goals, you don't go adding to Scripture. She's not a literalist: she's all for studying and interpreting the Bible in its fullest linguistic, literary, historical, and cultural context. But you still have to ground your theological positions (including sexuality statements) on what you get from Scripture as is.

As I said, it's not easy to explain—"Such is the burden of confessional Lutherans," says Erin. Yesterday's vote is complicated. I don't like the practical outcome of the decision, but I can tolerate it. Erin's vote comes not from irrational fear, intolerance, or malice. It comes from well-reasoned theology. It seeks no political revolution or support from the state. It only protects the philosophical integrity of a religious organization. I can live with that reasoning... not to mention with the person who made it.

Now if only the rest of society could coexist as well as the folks in my household.

ELCA South Dakota Synod Rejects Human Sexuality Statement

News flash from Nina Joy, Luther Seminary student, live-blogging the ELCA South Dakota Synod Assembly: our Lutheran friends have rejected the ELCA's proposed social statement on "Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust." The statement is a wide-ranging declaration of the ELCA's position on issues pertaining to sexuality, marriage, divorce, trust, etc. It also happens to include, as I understand it, permission for non-celibate homosexuals in committed monogamous relationships to serve as clergy. The synod assembly passed Resolution 6, a rejection of said statement and affirmation of current ELCA teachings on sexuality, by a vote of 362 to 238.

Now understand, this vote was not simply rednecks nervous about letting those durned homina-homina-sexuals near our kids. There were genuine concerns that the proposed new statement derived too much support from some shaky theology. Resolution 6, in the original form distributed prior to the assembly, takes this tack, focusing on theological language and only declaring the new statement "less helpful" than existing documents (see page 8 of the resolutions packet)

I'll learn more about that theology and the vote this evening, upon the return of my lovely wife, a voting delegate to the synod assembly from St. John Lutheran Church of Madison.

Dakota Voice Celebrates Lying Topless Model

I'm sorry: when the Christian Right will exalt as a role model a beauty queen who poses for topless photos (she says she was a minor when she did it—parents?—but some question that assertion), accepts breast implants paid for by the pageant to win a beauty contest, and violates her contract, I can't pass up the headline.

I guess as long as you stand up against Satan and those darn homina-homina-sexuals, all is forgiven. All hail Miss California, Carrie Prejean, icon of a movement that is all image and fading substance.

But hey: at least Bob Ellis took a break from reprinting Star Parker and the Christian Post so we can actually hear a Dakota Voice on this pressing issue. Hmmm, which fake bikini model gets to promote unhealthy body image as well as unhealthy politics? That's the pro-woman spirit we've come to expect from our fundamentalist friends.

Everyone please note: it's the Christian fundamentalists holding this topless model up as a role model, while the atheist dad in the room vows never to encourage his daughter to grow up and be like Carrie Prejean.

Day After Iowa Overturns Same-Sex Marriage Ban, My Wife and I Still Wearing Rings

Kudos to the Iowa Supreme Court, for recognizing the rights of all citizens to get married and raise a family. (Funny: I hear same-sex marriage will cause incalculable damage to children and families... but my wife and I slept—together—just fine last night. Madville Times Jr. also looks like her normal happy and healthy self this morning.)

The court's unanimous ruling is great reading. Here are some highlights all South Dakotans—who vandalized their Constitution with a same-sex marriage ban in 2006—should read:

On the homosexual plaintiffs... also known as neighbors and fellow citizens:

This lawsuit is a civil rights action by twelve individuals who reside in six communities across Iowa. Like most Iowans, they are responsible, caring, and productive individuals. They maintain important jobs, or are retired, and are contributing, benevolent members of their communities. They include a nurse, business manager, insurance analyst, bank agent, stay-at-home parent, church organist and piano teacher, museum director, federal employee, social worker, teacher, and two retired teachers. Like many Iowans, some have children and others hope to have children. Some are foster parents. Like all Iowans, they prize their liberties and live within the borders of this state with the expectation that their rights will be maintained and protected—a belief embraced by our state motto ["Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain"].

Despite the commonality shared with other Iowans, the twelve plaintiffs are different from most in one way. They are sexually and romantically attracted to members of their own sex. The twelve plaintiffs comprise six same-sex couples who live in committed relationships. Each maintains a hope of getting married one day, an aspiration shared by many throughout Iowa [p. 7].

What do same-sex couples want?

They seek to declare the marriage statute unconstitutional so they can obtain the array of benefits of marriage enjoyed by heterosexual couples, protect themselves and their children, and demonstrate to one another and to society their mutual commitment [p. 9].

Can't those darn homosexuals just keep their relationships private and not bother the state for a marriage license?

This [district court] record included an explanation by some of the plaintiffs of the disadvantages and fears they face each day due to the inability to obtain a civil marriage in Iowa. These disadvantages and problems include the legal inability to make many life and death decisions affecting their partner, including decisions related to health care, burial arrangements, autopsy, and disposition of remains following death. Various plaintiffs told of the inability to share in their partners’ state-provided health insurance, public employee pension benefits, and many private-employer-provided benefits and protections. They also explained how several tax benefits are denied. Adoption proceedings are also more cumbersome and expensive for unmarried partners. Other obstacles presented by the inability to enter into a civil marriage include numerous nongovernmental benefits of marriage that are so common in daily life they often go unnoticed, such as something so simple as spousal health club memberships. Yet, perhaps the ultimate disadvantage expressed in the testimony of the plaintiffs is the inability to obtain for themselves and for their children the personal and public affirmation that accompanies marriage [p. 9].

And what interests could the state, through Polk County, muster to justify such disadvantages?

• promoting procreation
• promoting child-rearing by a mother and father
• promoting stability in an opposite-sex relationship
• conserving state resources
• promoting the concept and integrity of the traditional notion of marriage [p. 10]

Polk County also argued that denying same-sex couples marriage licenses doesn't violate equal protection because homosexuals cannot "procreate naturally" [p. 26]. I assume Polk County also denied marriage licenses to impotent men, barren women, and users of in vitro fertilization.

The Court declares bogus the arguments for a state interest in banning same-sex marriage:

Maintaining traditional marriage:

...A specific tradition sought to be maintained cannot be an important governmental objective for equal protection purposes, however, when the tradition is nothing more than the historical classification currently expressed in the statute being challenged. When a certain tradition is used as both the governmental objective and the classification to further that objective, the equal protection analysis is transformed into the circular question of whether the classification accomplishes the governmental objective, which objective is to maintain the classification. In other words, the equal protection clause is converted into a “ ‘barren form of words’ ” when “ ‘discrimination . . . is made an end in itself’ ” [p. 53].

Promotion of optimal environment to raise children:

...The civil marriage statute is under-inclusive because it does not exclude from marriage other groups of parents—such as child abusers, sexual predators, parents neglecting to provide child support, and violent felons—that are undeniably less than optimal parents [p. 56]....

...The ban on same-sex marriage is substantially over-inclusive because not all same-sex couples choose to raise children. Yet, the marriage statute denies civil marriage to all gay and lesbian people in order to discourage the limited number of same-sex couples who desire to raise children [p. 57]...

...Quite obviously, the statute does not prohibit same-sex couples from raising children. Same-sex couples currently raise children in Iowa, even while being excluded from civil marriage, and such couples will undoubtedly continue to do so. Recognition of this under-inclusion puts in perspective just how minimally the same-sex marriage ban actually advances the purported legislative goal [p. 57].

Promotion of procreation:

...[T]he sole conceivable avenue by which exclusion of gay and lesbian people from civil marriage could promote more procreation is if the unavailability of civil marriage for same-sex partners caused homosexual individuals to “become” heterosexual in order to procreate within the present traditional institution of civil marriage. The briefs, the record, our research, and common sense do not suggest such an outcome [p.59].

Promoting stability in opposite-sex relationships:

We must evaluate whether excluding gay and lesbian people from civil marriage encourages stability in opposite-sex relationships. The County offers no reasons that it does, and we can find none [p. 61].

Conservation of resources:

Excluding any group from civil marriage—African-Americans, illegitimates, aliens, even red-haired individuals—would conserve state resources in an equally “rational” way. Yet, such classifications so obviously offend our society’s collective sense of equality that courts have not hesitated to provide added protections against such inequalities [p. 61].... Indeed, under the County’s logic, more state resources would be conserved by excluding groups more numerous than Iowa’s estimated 5800 same-sex couples (for example, persons marrying for a second or subsequent time) [p. 62].

The Court even takes a couple pages to discuss an issue the County was smart enough not to mention—religious opposition to same-sex marriage (this is really important; bold emphases are mine):

Whether expressly or impliedly, much of society rejects same-sex marriage due to sincere, deeply ingrained—even fundamental—religious belief.

Yet, such views are not the only religious views of marriage. As demonstrated by amicus groups, other equally sincere groups and people in Iowa and around the nation have strong religious views that yield the opposite conclusion.

This contrast of opinions in our society largely explains the absence of any religion-based rationale to test the constitutionality of Iowa’s same-sex marriage ban. Our constitution does not permit any branch of government to resolve these types of religious debates and entrusts to courts the task of ensuring government avoids them.... The statute at issue in this case does not prescribe a definition of marriage for religious institutions. Instead, the statute declares, “Marriage is a civil contract” and then regulates that civil contract.... Thus, in pursuing our task in this case, we proceed as civil judges, far removed from the theological debate of religious clerics, and focus only on the concept of civil marriage and the state licensing system that identifies a limited class of persons entitled to secular rights and benefits associated with civil marriage [pp. 64–65].

...As a result, civil marriage must be judged under our constitutional standards of equal protection and not under religious doctrines or the religious views of individuals. This approach does not disrespect or denigrate the religious views of many Iowans who may strongly believe in marriage as a dual-gender union, but considers, as we must, only the constitutional rights of all people, as expressed by the promise of equal protection for all. We are not permitted to do less and would damage our constitution immeasurably by trying to do more.

In the final analysis, we give respect to the views of all Iowans on the issue of same-sex marriage—religious or otherwise—by giving respect to our constitutional principles. These principles require that the state recognize both opposite-sex and same-sex civil marriage. [p. 66].

You're going to hear arguments (some might say pernicious lies) to the contrary, but the Iowa Supreme Court is making clear that they are defending religious liberty. And to that, religionists of all stripes should say Hallelujah and Amen.

--------------------
By the way, anyone thinking the Iowa Supreme Court would uphold unequal protection under the law should have considered the Court's history:

In the first reported case of the Supreme Court of the Territory of Iowa... we refused to treat a human being as property to enforce a contract for slavery and held our laws must extend equal protection to persons of all races and conditions. This decision was seventeen years before the United States Supreme Court infamously decided Dred Scott v. Sandford, which upheld the rights of a slave owner to treat a person as property. Similarly...[in 1868 and 1873] we struck blows to the concept of segregation long before the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education. Iowa was also the first state in the nation to admit a woman to the practice of law, doing so in 1869. Her admission occurred three years before the United States Supreme Court affirmed the State of Illinois’ decision to deny women admission to the practice of law..., and twenty-five years before the United States Supreme Court affirmed the refusal of the Commonwealth of Virginia to admit women into the practice of law.... In each of those instances, our state approached a fork in the road toward fulfillment of our constitution’s ideals and reaffirmed the “absolute equality of all” persons before the law as “the very foundation principle of our government” [pp. 17–18].

Obama to Boot "Don't Ask Don't Tell"

Hat tip to Mr. Schwartz!

Let Rick Warren say whatever he wants in the Inaugural invocation on Tuesday: President Obama will end the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Hear it straight from Obama's spokesman Robert Gibbs on Change.gov (go to time 4:15):



Now don't start hyperventilating: the change won't happen at 12:01 p.m. on Tuesday. Obama's spokesmen clarified yesterday that fixing the economy is job #1. Obama also can't snap his fingers on this change; Congress will need to pass legislation.

I'm less inclined to wait. Allowing gays to serve openly is an issue of ending discrimination and ensuring justice. It is also a question of military readiness: "don't ask don't tell" has forced the military to discharge hundreds of soldiers with critical skills, like speaking Arabic.

Still, I suspect the same thinking that motivates me to tell Tom Brunner to put his guns away motivates the next President of the United States to focus on getting an economic recovery package (and maybe health care reform) through Congress before turning to other issues.

Change may not come as fast as we'd like (does it ever?), but it's coming. Keep the faith, kids!

Keep Marriage out of the Constitution -- Note for Ken

Ken Blanchard is right: he and I agree much more than we disagree on the issue of marriage. His critique of my effort to differentiate monogamous adult relationships from polygamy and incest is reasonable. I said that polygamy and incest are too often entangled with power issues, but as Blanchard points out, there are plenty of conventional marriages and homosexual unions tainted with inequality, if not abuse. If I could go around with my magic legislation wand banning all relationships in which partners fall short of loving, honoring, and cherishing each other as equal partners, well... how many marriages can you think of that would go poof? Yikes.

I recognize Ken's point that the Constitution doesn't lay out principles governing marriage, thus leaving decisions to the legislatures. I would suggest that the decision needs to be left even further down, at the church steps. (Maybe that's further up, depending on your perspective.) When I refer to contortions of law and Constitution, I refer to the effort to enshrine marriage in law—not civil unions, not insurance beneficiary designations, not visitation rights, but marriage, this institution that, as far as I can tell, is really distinguished only by its sacred component. Sacred means religious, and religious means hands off for secular authorities.

Remember, I'm married. Mrs. Madville Times and I said our I do's at First Lutheran in Brookings (yup, Touchdown Jesus). If Pastor Scott has looked at the two of us, shaken his head, and said, "Nope, I can't be marryin' off one of our precious Lutheran angels to a heathen like this guy," well, I'd have been disappointed, but I wouldn't have had a court case. I couldn't sue a pastor for not marrying me any more than I could sue Pastor Daryl here in Madison for denying me communion (don't worry, Daryl, I'm not coming to test that one).

If the state is going to get into the business of granting certain practical rights to partners in committed relationships (e.g., see above), it can't Constitutionally distinguish between relationships that are religiously sanctioned and those that aren't. That's why I view having to obtain a license from the courthouse to get married as an improper "contortion" of the law.

By the way, Ken mentions nookie. Rebutting my contention that the legal discussion of marriage need not be about sexual intercourse, Ken says, "We wouldn't be considering extending the relationship of marriage to couples of men who are just chums. Without the nookie, no one would be talking about marriage." A minor quibble: the law generally turns a blind eye to whom we choose to have sex with (as ought we all). Why the law would suddenly start paying attention to our genital activities after we buy a ring is beyond me. And to be honest, if two heterosexual male best friends decided marriage wasn't for them but wanted to be roommates for life, share the mortgage and insurance coverage, and be each other's go-to guy if the other was in the hospital, I'd say, "No problem." Give 'em a civil union and all the concomitant legal recognitions. Rights shouldn't depend on nookie.

(Ken also notes his virgin spellchecker doesn't recognize "nookie." Ken's spellchecker doesn't know what it's missing.)

Protecting Gay Marriage: Not About Nookie

Dr. Blanchard amuses me, as he so often does, this time with a clever and not homophobic argument on gay marriage. Now pay attention: unlike the lesser lights of the conservative SD blogospheroid, the good professor doesn't condemn homosexuality as sin or a threat to traditional families. Blanchard even opens by saying he's "not opposed to same-sex marriage as policy." He simply argues that supporters of gay marriage can't use the Constitution as the basis for their advocacy:

Banning gay marriage does not "discriminate against a group of people by denying them rights enjoyed by other groups." Under such laws, a gay man can marry a woman but not another man. A non-gay man has exactly the same rights. Whatever may be wrong with traditional marriage restrictions, it isn't equality [Ken Blanchard, "Same Sex Marriage & the Constitution," South Dakota Politics, 2008.11.11].

An anonymous interlocutor (vocabulary is another reason I like Dr. Blanchard) contends that marriage bans constitute unequal treatment under the law by denying homosexuals the right to marry folks with whom they are "physically compatible." I agree with Dr. Blanchard: That's not the best standard to which to appeal. Blanchard suggests that if "physically compatible with" means "physically attracted to," the state already imposes similar restrictions on incestuous or polygamous relationships.

The anonymous interlocutor appears to be thinking about sex, and if I know anything, it's that people tend not to think straight when they think about sex.

To disagree with the good professor, I will appeal not to lust, but to love, to the intentional choice that a free person can make to commit to a relationship with one significant other. That is a valuable, character-building, society-leavening choice. That commitment is about much more than what we do with our naughty bits. It's about sharing a household, raising children, tending each other when sick or dying. Incest and polygamy may still fall under the purview of responsible government, as those behaviors entail problems with power and submission. But if two rational citizens want to make a lasting commitment to each other, we should not contort our law or Constitution into denying that choice.