NORTON META TAG

Showing posts with label civil unions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label civil unions. Show all posts

04 April 2021

Editorial: Vatican's decree on gay unions risks making Francis into a hypocrite & Vatican sources suspect Pope Francis was distancing himself from CDF statement on same-sex unions in address 19&21MAR21



 JUST like many religious people interpret scripture's words to justify their beliefs, rules and regulations so too many religious interpret a spiritual leader's words the same way. I think this is what has happened here and I think there will be a more explicit statement from the Pope in the future. Hopefully he will not wait for a tragedy to occur  to speak. From NCR and America...

Editorial: Vatican's decree on gay unions risks making Francis into a hypocrite

There are many laudatory words and phrases we might use to describe the Pope Francis the world has come to know over these past eight years. Genuine. Pastoral. Open-minded. Concerned for the poor, humanity, the environment. Friend of the marginalized.

But the pope's decision to approve the March 15 decree from the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith instructing Catholic priests not to offer blessings for same-sex couples brings to mind a word that is much more bitter in the throat. Hypocrite.

Although gay unions can have "positive elements," the Vatican determined, they are "not ordered to the Creator's plan." God, said the doctrinal office, "does not and cannot bless sin."

Forgive us if we have whiplash. Pope Francis approved this? The same man who, when asked in 2013 about a gay priest in Vatican service, famously replied: "If a person is gay and is seeking the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?"

The same man who has met with LGBT couples throughout his papacy, including during his visit to the U.S. in 2015? The same one who told Chilean abuse survivor Juan Carlos Cruz in 2018 that "it doesn't matter that you are gay" and "God made you that way and he loves you the way you are"?

The same one who personally intervened for one Italian gay couple to make sure their three children were able to be raised Catholic?

We recognize, of course, that the earlier papal quips and meetings did not ultimately change the church's teaching on human sexuality. That will take many years and will likely require the kind of open-ended, "no topic off the table" synodal process Francis has spoken so elegantly of throughout his papacy.

At NCR, we have been calling for such a dialogue on sexual ethics for years, urging a continuation of the development of the doctrine of sexuality that began in Vatican II. "This work has largely been stalled by the hierarchy's unwillingness to loosen its rigid interpretation of millennia-old ideas about natural law and the procreation norm," we editorialized in 2017.

It will also require a fundamental reorienting of the role of the doctrinal congregation. Nearly 60 years since the closing of the Second Vatican Council, it still remains unclear how such an office accords with the council's vision of a church of dialogue and shared pilgrimage.

But we come to the point of absurdity — and hypocrisy — when a pope says he wants to welcome LGBT people into the church but then simply cannot countenance that they might want to pursue loving relationships, just like the rest of humanity.

Perhaps Francis could learn from himself. About six years ago, he was asked by journalists traveling with him to three African countries whether the church should change its stance on artificial contraception, given the continuing spread of HIV/AIDS across the continent.

The pontiff paused before saying: "The question seems too small to me."

The pope said the query reminded him of how Jesus was questioned for performing healing miracles on the Sabbath. Identifying a host of urgent problems facing the world, such as malnutrition, human trafficking and lack of safe drinking water, Francis said: "I do not like to descend into reflections that are so casuistic when people are dying."

"I would say to not think if it is licit or not licit to heal on the Sabbath," the pope said then. "I say to humanity: Make justice, and when all are healed, when there is not injustice in this world, we can speak of the Sabbath."

Where has that Pope Francis gone? Surely, as the world stumbles to emerge from the greatest health and economic crisis in a century, there are more urgent issues for the Vatican to focus on rather than how God does or doesn't view gay unions.

For Catholic LGBT couples and their families, the timing is especially unfortunate. The forced distancing imposed by the pandemic has cut many off from their usual support structures, including their parishes. And now the pope of "building bridges and not walls" has erected another barrier.

Vatican sources suspect Pope Francis was distancing himself from CDF statement on same-sex unions in address

Gerard O’ConnellMarch 21, 2021

Was Pope Francis alluding to the recent statement of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that said priests could not give blessings to same-sex unions because “God cannot bless sin,” when he spoke at the Angelus today, March 21? Informed sources in Rome told America they believe he was, but they did not wish to be identified since they were not authorized to comment.

They noted that when commenting on the Gospel of the day, which recounts that some Greeks wanted “to see Jesus,” Pope Francis said many people today also want to see, to meet and to know Jesus, and so “we Christians and our communities” have “the great responsibility” to make this possible by “the witness of a life that is given in service, a life that takes upon itself the style of God: closeness, compassion and tenderness.”

Francis explained that this “means sowing seeds of love, not with fleeting words but through concrete, simple and courageous examples; not with theoretical condemnations but with gestures of love.” He added that “then the Lord, with his grace, makes us bear fruit, even when the soil is dry due to misunderstandings, difficulty or persecution or claims of legalism or clerical moralism. This is barren soil. Precisely then, in trials and in solitude, while the seed is dying, that is the moment in which life blossoms, to bear ripe fruit in due time.”

He said that “it is in this intertwining of death and life that we can experience the joy and true fruitfulness of love, which always, I repeat, is given in God’s style: closeness, compassion, tenderness.”

According to three sources, it was significant that Francis called on Christians and the church to give witness to Jesus “not with theoretical condemnations but with gestures of love” and that he speaks about “misunderstandings, difficulty or persecution or claims of legalism or clerical moralism” as “barren soil.” They noted that many people had read the C.D.F. document as judgmental or condemnatory and saw it as marked by much “legalism and clericalism,” far from the pastoral spirit of Francis, even though the document also had positive aspects. The sources suggested that with his remarks today, Pope Francis appeared to be distancing himself to some extent from the C.D.F. statement—to which he gave “assent to its publication” before his visit to Iraq.

One senior Vatican source, who asked not to be named because he was not authorized to comment publicly, said, “the three words—‘closeness, compassion, tenderness’—that Pope Francis repeats speak to the heart of every father and mother, of every spiritual father and mother.” He said, “They are the true blessing of the church and its shepherd for every person, for every situation.” Moreover, he added, “They are the true measure of the very magisterium [i.e., the teaching authority of the Church] when it enlightens consciences and guides the faithful. Every ‘responsum’ [i.e., official magisterial answer] and the doctrine in which it is couched should rise to that measure.”

Given the controversy that has followed the publication of the C.D.F. statement, sources in Rome told America they would not be surprised if the pope were to return to the whole question more explicitly at some future date.

Full Text of the Angelus Address

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

Buongiorno!

On this Fifth Sunday of Lent, the liturgy proclaims the Gospel in which Saint John refers to an episode that occurred in the final days of Christ’s life, shortly before the Passion (cf. Jn 12:20-33). While Jesus was in Jerusalem for the feast of Passover, several Greeks, curious because of what he had been doing, express the wish to see him. They approach the apostle Philip and say to him: “We wish to see Jesus” (v. 21). “We wish to see Jesus”. Let us remember this: “We wish to see Jesus”. Philip tells Andrew and then together they report it to the Teacher. In the request of those Greeks we can glimpse the request that many men and women, of every place and every time, pose to the Church and also to each one of us: “We wish to see Jesus”.

And how does Jesus respond to that request? In a way that makes us think. He says: “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified…. Unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains just a single grain; but if it dies, it bears much fruit” (vv. 23-24). These words do not seem to respond to the request those Greeks made. In reality, they surpass it. In fact, Jesus reveals that for every man and woman who wants to find him, He is the hidden seed ready to die in order to bear much fruit. As if to say: if you wish to know me, if you wish to understand me, look at the grain of wheat that dies in soil, that is, look at the cross.

The sign of the Cross comes to mind, which over the centuries has become the symbol par excellence of Christians. Even today, those who wish to “see Jesus”, perhaps coming from countries and cultures where Christianity is not well-known, what do they see first? What is the most common sign they encounter? The Crucifix, the Cross. In churches, in the homes of Christians, even worn on their persons. The important thing is that the sign be consistent with the Gospel: the cross cannot but express love, service, unreserved self-giving: only in this way is it truly the “tree of life”, of overabundant life.

Today too, many people, often without saying so, implicitly would like to “see Jesus”, to meet him, to know him. This is how we understand the great responsibility we Christians and of our communities have. We too must respond with the witness of a life that is given in service,  a life that takes upon itself the style of God – closeness, compassion and tenderness – and is given in service. It means sowing seeds of love, not with fleeting words but through concrete, simple and courageous examples, not with theoretical condemnations, but with gestures of love. Then the Lord, with his grace, makes us bear fruit, even when the soil is dry due to misunderstandings, difficulty or persecution, or claims of legalism or clerical moralism. This is barren soil. Precisely then, in trials and in solitude, while the seed is dying, that is the moment in which life blossoms, to bear ripe fruit in due time. It is in this intertwining of death and life that we can experience the joy and true fruitfulness of love, which always, I repeat, is given in God’s style: closeness, compassion, tenderness.

09 May 2012

The Conversion of Phillip by a Gender Transgressive Foreigner & MARRIAGE from PRES OBAMA & President Obama: Same-Sex Couples Should Be Able To Wed & Gay Marriage Ban Passes In North Carolina 9MAI12

ON the day after N Carolina voters passed law banning same sex marriage and civil unions (actually all civil unions, surprise N Carolina voters who didn't read the fine print!) and on the day Pres Obama came out in support of same sex marriage and civil unions, I found this sermon (and I wasn't looking for it) buy Rev Nadia Bolz-Weber, the Sarcastic Lutheran, on the issue of the Church and inclusion and it seems appropriate to post all three articles together to give all of us something to think about...
 By Nadia Bolz Weber 
3 years ago I preached a sermon on Phillip and the Ethiopian Eunuch that became seminal to the identity of House for All Sinners and Saints.  This text came up in the lectionary again this week and I was asked to preach it again.  What follows is my adaptation.  The audio is not available due to a technical glitch.
Acts 8:26-40
The 1980s pop star Tiffany has a hermaphrodite[1] stalker who helped me write this sermon 3 years ago. Kelli, the stalker in question, doesn’t know that she helped me.  All she did was walk into St Mark’s coffee shop where I was struggling to write a sermon about Phillip and the Ethiopian Eunuch.  This shocked me because there is a documentary called I think We’re Alone Now – about her and another Tiffany obsessed fan, and I had literally watched it just 2 days before. And then she walked in weird, right?  But I was ashamed that, before I could stop myself, I felt disgust or something close to is, at how both male and female she seemed, not androgynous like David Bowie or Annie Lenox; Kelli had long hair like a woman and a face that seemed both female and male, and breasts and a man’s midsection and thick legs. I’ve been around gay men and queer gals and drag queens and transgender folks most my life and yet I felt disgust the day I saw an intersex woman in a Denver coffee shop.
And that didn’t feel good since I had just written the first draft of a pretty self-congratulatory sermon on inclusion in which I take a couple pot-shots at Christians who aren’t as “open and affirming” of the GLBTQ community as we are at House for All Sinners and Saints.
My denomination had been fighting about the issue of human sexuality for years at this point.  The argument was over the ordination of GLBTQ folks and if Lutheran pastors would be allowed to preside at same-gender unions.
And the argument my denomination was having about inclusion “The Gays” mirrored the argument 40 years earlier around the ordination of women which mirrored the argument in the early church around inclusion of Gentiles. Which means that disagreements over “inclusion” happened approximately 20 minutes after Christianity started.
See, much like the early church who were convinced that Gentiles could only become Christians if they changed into being Jews first (which, for the record, involved a rather unpleasant process for the fellas), well, like that, a segment of the church today thinks that if we extend the roof of the tent to include “the gays” then the whole thing will come crashing down around us. For them, the tent of the church must be protected from being stretched too thin and collapsing in on itself. Some Protectors Of The Tent suggest that we must “evangelize” the gays – ie. change them into us before they will fit. Several organizations exist to help queer folks “pray away the gay” (which, for the record, involves a rather unpleasant process for everyone and oh, by the way… doesn’t work) Meanwhile the other side of the church, the liberal side, is all about “inclusion”;  we are the Extenders of the Tent and must stretch the tent to include the marginalized, the less fortunate, the minorities. Our job is to extend the tent until everyone fits because we believe in inclusion. And this was the point of the mediocre and self-congratulatory sermon I wrote about the Ethiopian Eunuch.
But there I was, the pastor of a GLBTQ “inclusive” congregation and I feel revulsion at seeing an intersex person.  It was humbling.  And it made me face in a very real way, the limitations of “inclusion”.  If my salvation is in my ability to be more inclusive than the next pastor, then there are several problems with this.  One, I will always, always encounter someone: intersex people, Republicans, criminals, Ann Coulter etc who I don’t want in the tent with me.  Two, inclusion cannot save me.  Because sometimes while I am writing a sermon about how wonderfully inclusive we are of sexual minorities a intersex celebrity stalker walks into the coffee shop and I react with something far from a gracious desire to include them and well,  then I have to re-write a perfectly bad sermon.
So instead I wrote about how a few weeks earlier, our dear Stuart had shown up to liturgy wearing slacks and button down shirt rather than his normal ironic Grease Monkey jacket and jeans.  Earlier that day he had stood as Godfather and baptismal sponsor for the child of a straight couple, Charlie and Duffy (who now are part of this church) who had known Stuart for a number of years.  Apparently after the baptism there was a little reception back at Charlie and Duffy’s house.  To Stuart’s surprise they got all of their guests attention so they could say a few words about why they had chosen Stuart as their child’s godparent.  We chose you Stuart they said because for most of your life you have pursued Christ and Christ’s church even though as a Gay Man all you’ve heard from the church is that ‘there is no love for you here’.  I heard that story as his friends saying to him you, Stuart convert us again and again to this faith.
Growing up I always heard the Phillip and the Eunuch story called the Conversion Of The Ethiopian Eunuch. I was always told that the message of this text was that we should tell everyone we meet about Jesus because in doing so we might save them.  We might convert them.  We might change them into being us. But after thinking about what Charlie and Duffy said about Stuart I began wanting to call this story from Acts not the Conversion of the Ethiopian Eunuch, but the conversion of Phillip.
Because in the story the Eunuch was riding along the desert road in his chariot reading Isaiah, returning from Jerusalem having gone there to worship. But If he was reading Isaiah surely he was also familiar with Deuteronomy, specifically 23:1 which says No one whose testicles are cut off or whose penis is cut off shall be admitted to the assembly of the Lord.  (hands up if you had that one as a memory verse growing up)
The point is that this law strictly forbids a Eunuch from entering the temple.  Their transgression of gender binaries and the inability to fit in proper categories made them profane by nature.  They do not fit in the tent.  But the Eunuch went to Jerusalem to worship despite the fact that in all likelihood he would be turned away by the religious establishment.  The Eunuch sought God anyway despite the fact that he had heard there is no love for you here.
So, when the Spirit guided Phillip to that road in the desert I wonder if she guided him to his own conversion. When Phillip joined this person who sought to worship God despite his exclusion from the tent, maybe it was Phillip himself who was converted to the faith.  It was perhaps even a mutual conversion.  Maybe because Phillip and the Eunuch only asked each other questions.  If you go back and read it you’ll see that the only commands came from God and the command was go and join.  Go and join the other.  What we don’t know is if the Spirit also gave the Eunuch a command to invite.  Invite this nice Jewish boy – representative of all that clings to the law and rejects you from God’s house.  Invite him to sit by you.  Go…join…invite…ask questions. Perhaps Phillip in his encounter with this gender transgressive foreigner learned what seeking the Lord looks like.
I started to think that maybe I can’t actually know what this Jesus following thing is about unless I too have the stranger show me.  Or maybe even an intersex person.  I regret not meeting Kelli, not having her join me at my table, not asking her questions. And this is far more than “inclusion”. Inclusion isn’t the right word at all because it sounds like in our niceness and virtue we are allowing “them” to join us – like we are judging another group of people to be worthy to be included in the tent.  “inclusion” seems like a small thing.  A charity.  A mercy. But the truth is that I need the equivalent of my Ethiopian Eunuch to show me the faith.  We continually need the stranger, the foreigner, the “other” to show us water in the desert.  We need to hear here is water in the desert, so what is to keep me the eunuch from being baptized? or me the queer or me the intersex, or me the illiterate or me the founder of Focus on the Family.  Until we face the difficulty of that question and come up as Phillip did with no answer…until then we just look at the seemingly limited space under the tent and either think it’s our job to change people so they fit or its our job to extend the roof so that they fit.  Either way, it’s misguided because …it’s not our tent.  It’s God’s tent. The wideness of the tent of the Lord should concern me only insofar as it points to the gracious nature of a loving God who became flesh and entered into our humanity.  The wideness of the tent should only concern me insofar as it  points to the great mercy and love of a God who welcomes us all as friends.
So maybe here in this story of the conversion of Phillip and the Eunuch is some hope for the church and maybe society itself.  That under God’s really big tent we might ask questions, invite those who represent the establishment to come and sit by us, to stay in the scriptures, to be converted anew by the strange and the stranger, to see where there is water in the desert, to enter fully into the waters of God’s mercy with foreigners, with the “not us”. And to go on our way rejoicing having converted each other to this beautiful, dangerous expansive life of faith.



[1] The term “hermaphrodite” is generally considered offensive but it more known and understood  (however imperfectly) than the more appropriate term “interest” the term which is then used throughout the sermon.  I chose to start with the familiar term and switch to the appropriate one rather than starting with a language lesson. In no way am I intending offense, rather I am confessing my unfortunate reaction.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/nadiabolzweber/2012/05/the-conversion-of-phillip-by-a-gender-transgressive-foreigner/

MARRIAGE-FROM PRESIDENT OBAMA
Today, I was asked a direct question and gave a direct answer:

I believe that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.

I hope you'll take a moment to watch the conversation, consider it, and weigh in yourself on behalf of marriage equality:

http://my.barackobama.com/Marriage

I've always believed that gay and lesbian Americans should be treated fairly and equally. I was reluctant to use the term marriage because of the very powerful traditions it evokes. And I thought civil union laws that conferred legal rights upon gay and lesbian couples were a solution.

But over the course of several years I've talked to friends and family about this. I've thought about members of my staff in long-term, committed, same-sex relationships who are raising kids together. Through our efforts to end the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, I've gotten to know some of the gay and lesbian troops who are serving our country with honor and distinction.

What I've come to realize is that for loving, same-sex couples, the denial of marriage equality means that, in their eyes and the eyes of their children, they are still considered less than full citizens.

Even at my own dinner table, when I look at Sasha and Malia, who have friends whose parents are same-sex couples, I know it wouldn't dawn on them that their friends' parents should be treated differently.

So I decided it was time to affirm my personal belief that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.

I respect the beliefs of others, and the right of religious institutions to act in accordance with their own doctrines. But I believe that in the eyes of the law, all Americans should be treated equally. And where states enact same-sex marriage, no federal act should invalidate them.

Thank you,

Barack
 
President Obama On ABC News
President Barack Obama is seen on a monitor in the White House briefing room in Washington, Wednesday. President Barack Obama told an ABC interviewer that he supports gay marriage.
Enlarge Carolyn Kaster/AP President Barack Obama is seen on a monitor in the White House briefing room in Washington, Wednesday. President Barack Obama told an ABC interviewer that he supports gay marriage.
In an interview with ABC News, President Obama declared his support for gay marriage. This marks a departure from the president's previous stance, which has repeatedly been described as "evolving."
Here's the money quote from ABC's OTUS blog:
"I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don't Ask Don't Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I've just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married."
In the interview with ABC's Robin Roberts, the president also said where Americans stand on gay marriage depends on their generation.
"You know, Malia and Sasha, they have friends whose parents are same-sex couples," the president said. "There have been times where Michelle and I have been sitting around the dinner table and we're talking about their friends and their parents and Malia and Sasha, it wouldn't dawn on them that somehow their friends' parents would be treated differently. It doesn't make sense to them and frankly, that's the kind of thing that prompts a change in perspective."
The interview comes about a week after Vice President Joe Biden said he supported gay marriage on Meet The Press. That put the president's own position in the spotlight.
Update at 5:11 p.m. ET. Announcement Comes 'Too Late':
The Log Cabin Republicans, a group of GOP members who support gay rights, say the president's announcement is a "a day late and a dollar short."
"Log Cabin Republicans appreciate that President Obama has finally come in line with leaders like Vice President Dick Cheney on this issue, but LGBT Americans are right to be angry that this calculated announcement comes too late to be of any use to the people of North Carolina, or any of the other states that have addressed this issue on his watch," R. Clarke Cooper, Log Cabin Republicans Executive Director, said in a statement.
Update at 4:39 p.m. ET. Obama On The Religious Aspect:
Good Morning America has added a little bit more of Obama's interview. He gave this answer when he was asked about first lady Michelle Obama's role in his decision:
"This is something that, you know, we've talked about over the years and she, you know, she feels the same way, she feels the same way that I do. And that is that, in the end the values that I care most deeply about and she cares most deeply about is how we treat other people and, you know, I, you know, we are both practicing Christians and obviously this position may be considered to put us at odds with the views of others but, you know, when we think about our faith, the thing at root that we think about is, not only Christ sacrificing himself on our behalf, but it's also the Golden Rule, you know, treat others the way you would want to be treated. And I think that's what we try to impart to our kids and that's what motivates me as president and I figure the most consistent I can be in being true to those precepts, the better I'll be as a as a dad and a husband and, hopefully, the better I'll be as president."
Update at 4:34 p.m. ET. Romney Reaffirms His Position:
During a stop in Oklahoma City, Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, reaffirmed his position that marriage should be between a man and a woman.
He acknowledged that the issue was a "tender" and "sensitive" one but said that he has the same view "I've had since running for office."
Update at 4:01 p.m. ET. A Bit More On The Politics:
As we noted earlier, one of the big questions is how this pivot by the president will play in November. It's a political gamble for sure. Over at the Washington Post, Chris Cillizza writes that on plus side, this move may re-ignite Obama's base and bring young people, who had such a huge effect in 2008, to the polls. On the negative side, this could shrink Obama's support from the black community and could hurt his chances in Virginia and North Carolina, two hugely important states.
Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, which advocates for gay rights, says that this decision won't make much difference politically.
"I think at the end of the day, this election will continue to be about the economy and about economic struggles we all face," Solomese told our colleague Liz Halloran. "As all contests like this, it will also be a question of character. What the president demonstrated today is that he is a person of deep conviction."
Mark Knoller, White House correspondent for CBS Radio, says on Twitter that Obama administration officials say this won't be a "cornerstone" of the president's campaign and "don't think it will have a bearing on the outcome."
That's certainly not what Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, which advocates for a Christian organization that advocates for a traditional family unit, told NPR's Liz Halloran.
"What everyone said was not going to be an issue in this election is now an issue," Perkins said. "The president has made it an issue. this provides a very clear contrast between him and Mitt Romney. I think [Romney] may have been handed the key to support from social conservatives. Obama just turned up the heat and intensity."
Perkins also noted that 10 of the 16 battleground states have passed amendments barring gay marriage.
Update at 3:50 p.m. ET. Republican Reaction:
Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus sent this statement to reporters:
"While President Obama has played politics on this issue, the Republican Party and our presumptive nominee Mitt Romney have been clear. We support maintaining marriage between one man and one woman and would oppose any attempts to change that."
Update at 3:43 p.m. ET. Where Does The Country Stand?:
According to the latest Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, Americans are almost evenly divided on the issue.
"46% favor allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally, while 44% are opposed," Pew reports.
National opinion, however, has been shifting in favor of gay marriage. Perhaps indicative of that fact: When ABC News cut in to its programming to deliver the news, they interrupted a segment featuring Tim Gunn, a gay TV fashion guru. When NBC interrupted its programming to deliver the news, it cut into the Ellen Degeneres Show. Degeneres is also gay.
Update at 3:32 p.m. ET. Audio Of The Interview:
Note we've added audio of the two-minute clip released by ABC News at the top of this post. The rest of the interview is set to air on ABC World News tonight and tomorrow morning on Good Morning America.
Update at 3:28 p.m. ET. 'A Historic Moment':
Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, told NPR's Liz Halloran this was a "historic moment."
"I think that the president spoke from his heart, from a place of common humanity," Solomese said. "His words give a great deal to give hope to LGBT Americans that, as he has always said, he sees them as a part of the American fabric. The leadership of the president, the words of the president, his coming out in support of an issue as important as marriage equality, and around which many are still struggling, still on a journey, will help those people."
Update at 3:17 p.m. ET. North Carolina And The General Election:
This policy shift from the president was also made more dramatic because of yesterday's vote in North Carolina, which changed the constitution making all gay unions illegal.
It was a rare occasion where African Americans and Republicans voted on the same side of an issue. It's something that will almost certainly come into play during the November election.
The big question is, of course, whether this position by the president will erode his overwhelming support from African Americans.
A New York Times/CBS News Poll from February found that only 29 percent of black respondents said gays should be allowed to marry. 23 percent said they should be allowed to form civil unions.
Update at 3:13 p.m. ET. 'Stood On The Side Of Broader Equality':
ABC has posted a two-minute video on its website. In it Obama says that he has always "stood on the side of broader equality" for gay community. For a long time, he said, he thought that civil unions would be enough. But, now, that view has evolved, Obama said, and he now believes same sex couples should be allowed to get married.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/05/09/152356770/president-obama-gay-marriage-should-be-legal?sc=nl&cc=brk-20120509-1509
North Carolina voters decided to rewrite the state constitution, passing an amendment that makes the only recognized, domestic legal union a marriage between a man and a woman.
The AP made that projection based on an actual tally of votes. With 35 percent of the vote counted, 58 percent of those casting ballots voted in favor of the amendment, making North Carolina the 30th state to adopt such a measure.
The Charlotte Observer reports that the amendment gained national attention, bringing in more than $3.5 million in donations. The paper adds:
"Supporters of the amendment said it would ensure the preservation of traditional families. In addition, they say, it means marriage has an actual definition in the state constitution — and is not subject to definition by 'activist judges' or legislators.
"Opponents said the amendment would be devastating to unmarried women and their children. They said it would strip them of domestic violence protections, and their children would lose health benefits."
  During the run up to the vote, former President Bill Clinton recorded phone messages asking voters to reject the measure, while the Rev. Billy Graham endorsed the amendment in full page ads that ran in 14 of the state's newspapers.
As Liz reported earlier, the North Carolina-based Public Policy Polling found that many of the voters did not understand the intricacies of the amendment. The state already had a ban on gay marriage, but this amendment goes further by barring same-sex civil unions.
Our Original Post Continues:
A referendum that would outlaw same-sex marriage and civil unions is driving a high turnout in North Carolina.
As Liz reported earlier, nationally the vote is symbolic, even if former President Bill Clinton and the Rev. Billy Graham jumped in on opposite sides of the debate. Still it's a contentious issue in the state and a mirror of the kind of debate happening nationwide.
Coincidentally, the presidential campaign was drawn into the conversation this week. On Meet the Press, Vice President Joe Biden expressed his support for gay marriage. President Obama has not gone that far, and his position was further highlighted when his education secretary, Arne Duncan, also expressed his support.
The Charlotte Observer reports that the referendum is likely to pass and that the controversial measure might push turnout to record levels. The paper reports:
"Gary Bartlett, the state elections supervisor, told NewsChannel 36, the Observer's news partner, late Tuesday morning that the state-wide turnout could exceed 37 percent. That would make 2012's turnout the biggest for a primary in a quarter-century, Bartlett said.
"Several people questioned by The Observer at precinct places said they were voting for a variety of reasons, but each mentioned Amendment One."
Polls in the state have now closed. We'll update this post as the votes are tallied.
Update at 9:11 p.m. ET. Marriage Amendment Leads:
With 30 percent of the precincts reporting, 57 percent of voters approve of the constitutional amendment.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/05/08/152297983/gay-marriage-referendum-drives-high-turnout-in-north-carolina?sc=nl&cc=brk-20120508-2130


 
 

21 February 2012

My testimony at the Colorado Senate Judiciary hearing on civil unions from NADIA BOLZ-WEBER15FEB12

THERE is a lesson about compassion and self righteousness in this testimony for all of us. Well said Rev Bolz-Weber!


I was asked by the Interfaith Alliance of Colorado to testify in front of the senate judiciary committee on the issue of civil unions for GLBTQ couples.  Here it is.
Thank you Madam Chair and members of the committee.
My name is Pastor Nadia Bolz-weber.  I am ordained in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and serve a congregation here in Denver called House for All Sinners and Saints.
I’d like to start by saying that people of good faith dis-agree on this issue but I speak in favor of civil unions.
I’m not an activist.
But I am a preacher and a public theologian. So here’s what I feel is mine to say.
Much of the early church were convinced that gentiles could only become Christians if they changed into being Jews first (which, for the record, involved a rather unpleasant process), and much like our first century brothers and sisters there is a segment of the church today who thinks that if we extend the roof of the tent to include “the gays” then the whole thing will come crashing down around us.
And some will say that if we allow gay couples to have equal status under the law, the institution of marriage will come crashing down.
So there are some who see it as their job to stalwartly guard the boundaries of the tent to keep it from crashing, and some who think it our job to be bravely inclusive and stretch the tent.
Either way, it’s misguided because …it’s not our tent.  It’s God’s tent. The wideness of the tent be it the church or society, should only concern me insofar as it points to the great mercy and love of a God who welcomes us all as friends. And of Jesus who welcomes all to his table.
You think I like that?  You think I want to sit at the heavenly banquet next to Ann Coulter?  Not so much.
But that’s what I’m stuck with because I’m in the Jesus business.  And in the Jesus business there is not male or female, jew or greek, slave or free, gay or straight, there is only one category of people: children of God. Which means nobody gets to be special and everybody gets to be loved.

People born in this country aren’t special.
Men aren’t special.
Christians aren’t special.
Straight people aren’t special.
And if the laws of our great land make it seem so, then SHAME.  ON. US.
Thank you Madam Chair.

26 January 2012

Newt Gingrich wrong in attack against media on open marriage question from the WASHINGTON POST 26JAN12

It was one of the highlights of the South Carolina debate: Newt Gingrich fielding a question about one of his failed marriages, lashing out at the media, stirring the debate audience to its feet and going on to win the South Carolina primary in a landslide.
According to a CNN report late Wednesday, Gingrich misspoke on the
Republican presidential candidate former House speaker Newt Gingrich makes a point during the opening question of a debate at the North Charleston Coliseum Jan. 19., in South Carolina. (John Moore - GETTY IMAGES)
debate stage when he accused ABC of airing an unfair report about his second marriage. The report included an interview with Marianne Gingrich, who accused her ex-husband of asking for an "open marriage" in the 1990s. But it didn't include interviews, Gingrich said on the debate stage last Thursday in Charleston, with people who say the charge is false.
"The story is false," Gingrich told CNN's John King at the debate. "Every personal friend I have who knew us in that period says the story was false. We offered several of them to ABC to prove it was false. They weren't interested because they would like to attack any Republican."
The Gingrich campaign conceded Wednesday that the only two people they offered to ABC were Gingrich's two daughters, from his first marriage (not Marianne Gingrich’s daughters). ABC contacted both of them and they said Marianne Gingrich’s allegations were false.
What's unclear is whether Gingrich's advisers told him otherwise.When asked Thursday morning to explain the misstatement Gingrich spokesman R.C. Hammond replied: “I’m not talking about ABC anymore. I’m sick of talking about ABC. It’s a week old.”
At the debate, Gingrich went on to call King "despicable" for opening the debate with a question about Gingrich's marital history. And in an interview this week with King, he said it was "just plain baloney" that that his campaign hadn't offered any other contacts beyond his daughters. But he faltered a little, looking off camera at his staff and saying: "I'll check with R.C. Hammond in a minute, but if they're saying that, they're just not being honest."
In CNN's Wednesday report, King said: "The Gingrich campaign concedes now that Speaker Gingrich was wrong, both in his debate answer and in our interview yesterday. 

Gingrich spokesman Hammond says the only people the campaign offered to ABC were the speaker's two daughters from his first marriage.

01 December 2011

Zach Wahls Speaks About Family 3FEB11

SPEAKING of family (my post below, THANKSGIVING 2011 & TATTOO) check out this amazing speech by Zach Wahls....And consider that right now the republican party's presidential party front runners are a man who has cheated on two of his wives, one while she was dying from cancer, and is now on his third marriage (newt gingrich), one who is married but is facing accusations of sexually harassing several women and having a 13 year extramarital affair with a Georgia woman (herman cain), and one who's faith claims to reject polygamy but in practice tolerates and even protects it in Utah (mitt romney). This is the party, repiglicans and tea-baggers, who rants and raves about the threat civil unions and gay marriage poses to the American family and yet at the moment seem poised to nominate and vote for one of these three men for president of the United States.......  
Zach Wahls, a 19-year-old University of Iowa student spoke about the strength of his family during a public forum on House Joint Resolution 6 in the Iowa House of Representatives. Wahls has two mothers, and came to oppose House Joint Resolution 6 which would end civil unions in Iowa.

03 July 2010

ACLU ONLINE NEWSLETTER 25JUN10

ACLU Online

In This Issue

Ms. McMillen Goes to Washington!

Humanitarian Groups Criminalized Under "Material Support" Law

Nebraska Town Passes Discriminatory Arizona-like Measure

Death by Firing Squad Highlights Inhumanity of Death Penalty

Help Defend the Women Who Defend Us

Victory! Politicians Play Doctor, but ACLU Helps Secure Veto

Make Hawaii Proud, Gov. Lingle: Allow the Civil Unions Bill to Become Law



Help fund us with just a click. Vote now at CREDO

Victory! Politicians Play Doctor, but ACLU Helps Secure Veto

In an 11th-hour move during Florida's 2010 legislative session, legislators tagged two harmful amendments onto a health care bill (H.B. 1143) without opportunity for public comment, review by any committee of the legislature or expert testimony. The result of the legislation would have been devastating to women in Florida, drastically undermining access to reproductive health care and dictating what types of health insurance coverage private employers may offer their employees.

Had the bill passed, it would have required doctors—with only extremely limited exceptions for documented victims of certain crimes—to perform an ultrasound before providing an abortion in the first trimester. Additionally, it would have allowed government to dictate to businesses that receive tax credits what types of health insurance coverage they can provide to their employees. As a result, millions of Floridians would have lost the coverage that they currently have through the private market.

In a coordinated effort, the ACLU and 35 partner organizations sent Gov. Charlie Crist a letter urging him to veto H.B. 1143. The letter was part of a collaborative effort by a broad spectrum of organizations to alert Floridians about the realities of this anti-women's rights legislation.

ACLU supporters made over 10,000 calls and emails to Gov. Crist, encouraging him to veto the Florida Legislature's attempt to play doctor. Gov. Crist responded by vetoing H.B. 1143, a major victory for all Floridians. Along with our allies such as Planned Parenthood and Progress Florida, we sent a clear message to legislators: write good legislation, not prescriptions.

Your dedication and overwhelming response no doubt led to this success. Thank you for helping to stop this damaging legislation and commend Gov. Crist's resolve to veto the bill. This veto is a victory for women's rights, reproductive rights, health care, privacy and personal freedom.

back to top

Make Hawaii Proud, Gov. Lingle: Allow the Civil Unions Bill to Become Law

LGBT rights supporters in Hawaii have been waiting on pins and needles since April 29, 2010, when the Hawaii State House of Representatives passed House Bill 444, a civil unions bill, and sent it to Gov. Linda Lingle for her signature. The governor has until July 6, 2010, to either sign it into law, allow it to become law without her signature, or veto it.

H.B. 444 would allow both same-sex and different-sex couples to enter into a civil union, which will provide them with the same responsibilities and legal protections under state law as those provided to married couples. While civil unions will not confer those social and cultural benefits or federal legal protections that come with marriage, they will go a long way towards ensuring that same-sex couples are able to adequately take care of each other and their families.

H.B. 444's long and excruciating two year journey through the Hawaii State Legislature will surely go down in history as one of the most hard-fought battles for LGBT rights in Hawaii. In addition to endless community organizing, lobbying, and public education, supporters of the legislation have endured historically long public hearings, wavering legislators and vote after vote after vote. Even now, while waiting for Gov. Lingle's decision, supporters are lobbying the legislature to come back to the capitol to override her veto if necessary.

It has been reported that the governor, in deciding how to act on H.B. 444, has been reading about the legacy of former Hawaii Gov. John Burns, who allowed a bill legalizing abortion to become law without his signature despite his personal opposition. In his statement to the legislature, Burns noted that his decision was "the decision of the Governor of Hawaii, not the private and personal whim of John A. Burns. It reflects my best judgment as Governor, made after consultation with the best minds in the State, in regard to what is in the best interest of all the people of Hawaii." We hope that Gov. Lingle sees the wisdom and logic in Gov. Burns' position and follows his example.

>> Take action: Please contact Hawaii's Governor and ask her to allow the civil unions bill to become law.

back to top

Send to a friend
Do you know somebody who would be interested in getting news about the ACLU and what we're doing to protect civil liberties? Help us spread the word about ACLU Online — forward this newsletter to a friend.


June 25, 2010

Ms. McMillen Goes to Washington!



ACLU client Constance McMillen with Senator Al Franken (D-MN).

Join Constance in urging members of Congress to support the Student Non-Discrimination Act.
Earlier this week, ACLU client Constance McMillen joined President Obama at a White House ceremony recognizing the contributions of LGBT Americans.

President Obama closed his remarks at the reception by highlighting the struggles of LGBT young people like Constance who, through their courage and commitment, are helping to make change happen in America and opening hearts and minds in the process.

Constance made headlines this spring when her Mississippi high school took the extraordinary step of canceling the school prom rather than allow her to go with her girlfriend and wear a tuxedo. Constance and her girlfriend were eventually sent to a "decoy" prom that was attended by only a few other students while the rest of her classmates attended a private prom 30 miles away.

Constance made the most of her time in D.C. by squeezing in a jam-packed day advocating for protections for other LGBT students across the country. She started the day with a CNN interview, in which she stated that the reason she has been so willing to speak out is so other LGBT youth will not have to endure the same struggles she and others like her have.

Next up was a personal sit-down meeting with Senator Al Franken (D-Minn.), lead sponsor of the Student Non-Discrimination Act. This legislation would bar discrimination based on "actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity" in public elementary and secondary schools across the country, and would provide legal remedies to students whose civil rights were violated. There is simply no reason why these important protections should not be afforded to LGBT students, a particularly vulnerable population in many schools.

>> Take action: Join Constance in urging members of Congress to support the Student Non-Discrimination Act.

back to top

Humanitarian Groups Criminalized Under "Material Support" Law



Learn how U.S. terrorism finance laws hurt legitimate charities helping Muslims in need. Watch this short video.
This week, the United States Supreme Court upheld the broad application of a federal law that hinders the ability of human rights and humanitarian aid organizations to do their work by making it a crime to provide "material support" to designated "foreign terrorist organizations" (FTOs).

Under the law, individuals face up to 15 years in prison for providing "material support" to FTOs, even if their work is intended to promote peaceful, lawful objectives. "Material support" is defined to include any "service," "training," "expert advice or assistance" or "personnel."

The ruling thwarts the efforts of human rights organizations to persuade violent actors to renounce violence or cease their human rights abuses and jeopardizes the provision of aid and disaster relief in conflict zones controlled by designated groups. The ACLU filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case, Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, on behalf of the Carter Center and several other organizations known for their work to promote peace, further human rights and alleviate human suffering around the world.

"The 'material support law'—which is aimed at putting an end to terrorism—actually threatens our work and the work of many other peacemaking organizations that must interact directly with groups that have engaged in violence," said former President Jimmy Carter, founder of the Carter Center. "The vague language of the law leaves us wondering if we will be prosecuted for our work to promote peace and freedom."

>> Learn how U.S. terrorism finance laws hurt legitimate charities helping Muslims in need. Watch this short video.

back to top

Nebraska Town Passes Discriminatory Arizona-like Measure

Arizona isn't the only jurisdiction passing laws that encourage discrimination and racial profiling.

Fremont, Nebraska voted this week to banish undocumented immigrants from rental homes or jobs in the 25,000-person town. The law requires town officials to evaluate the citizenship status of any person renting property, while employers must check the status of would-be hires using a flawed federal database.

The vote could make Fremont the latest battleground in a national fight against discriminatory laws like the one recently passed in Arizona requiring police to demand "papers" from people they stop who they suspect are not authorized to be in the U.S.

"If this law goes into effect, it will cause discrimination and racial profiling against Latinos and others who appear to be foreign born, including U.S. citizens," ACLU Nebraska Executive Director Laurel Marsh said about the Fremont law. "The ACLU of Nebraska has no option but to turn to the courts to stop this un-American and unconstitutional ordinance before the law goes into effect. Not only do local ordinances such as this violate federal law, they are also completely out of step with American values of fairness and equality. We will be working with concerned citizens in Fremont who want to stop Arizona-like laws from getting on the books in their city."

The ACLU has successfully challenged local anti-immigrant laws across the country. Similar laws have been struck down by courts in California, Pennsylvania and Texas.

>> Learn more about this challenge.

back to top

Death by Firing Squad Highlights Inhumanity of Death Penalty

When Ronnie Lee Gardner was strapped into a chair last week, a hood placed over his head and a small white target pinned over his heart, the citizens of Utah—and indeed the entire country—were reminded in the most graphic of fashions of the nation's ongoing adherence to the barbaric, arbitrary and bankrupting practice of capital punishment.

Five anonymous men, each carrying identical .30-caliber rifles, carried just the third execution by firing squad in Utah—or anywhere else in the U.S.—since 1976, and the first since 1996. It is a practice so brutal that even Utah's state legislature outlawed the practice in 2004, though it left the option available to prisoners who were condemned prior to the legislative action.

While executions in the United States are generally carried out largely under the radar and absent much fanfare or media attention, most Americans might be surprised to learn that a death sentence is carried out almost every week. But the brutal nature of Gardner's planned killing by firing squad has resulted in it being unavoidably high-profile.

As savage and inhumane as Gardner's execution was, we cannot let it shroud the systemic injustices and inequities that plague every other execution that takes place in this country, and which delegitimizes the death penalty system in Utah and across the nation.

Like taxpayers in other death penalty states, Utah's taxpayers are wasting millions of dollars every year to prop up a system in which a few randomly selected individuals receive the death penalty. Instead, we can condemn the worst offenders to permanent life imprisonment, a severe, swift, certain and much more cost-effective punishment that serves our shared priorities of punishing offenders and protecting society.

In the past three years, the systemic injustices of the system have compelled New York, New Jersey and, most recently, New Mexico, to replace the death penalty with permanent imprisonment. In fact, New Mexico is the 15th state without the death penalty and the first in the continental western U.S. Utah should join them.

>> Learn more about the ACLU's work to end capital punishment.

back to top

Help Defend the Women Who Defend Us

Tell your members of Congress to protect the reproductive rights of women serving our country.
It's totally unacceptable. More than 100,000 women serving overseas in our nation's armed services can't exercise the rights they defend with their lives.

But that's what's happening: women in the armed services are prevented from getting abortions—even if they pay for them themselves.

The Senate Armed Services Committee recently voted to lift the military facilities abortion ban and allow privately financed abortions in U.S. military hospitals. But anti-choice members of Congress are trying to keep the senseless ban in place.

This is one of the many ways in which anti-choice extremists are trying to chip away at the rights of women. And each time, ACLU supporters have stood up to defend reproductive rights.

From proposed state initiatives that define the fetus as a person to attempts to drastically undermine access to reproductive health care and dictate what types of health insurance coverage private employers may offer their employees, we're fighting extremist forces that want to impose their values on the rest of us.

>> Take action: Tell your members of Congress to protect the reproductive rights of women serving our country.

back to top

Join us on...
facebook twitter YouTube
American Civil Liberties Union
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
New York, New York 10004-2400
Geraldine Engel and Lisa Sock,
Editors


Privacy Statement
This mail is never sent unsolicited. You, or someone on your behalf, has subscribed to receive this information from the American Civil Liberties Union. At the ACLU Web site, the ACLU gathers anonymous summary statistics on the responses to our email newsletters in order to better serve list subscribes and ACLU members. To review our Privacy Statement, click here.

Click here to forward this message.