The Gaytheist Agenda

Yesterday’s amazing news was that we finally have marriage equality here in California, though it doesn’t become effective until next month. My fiancee and I will be among the first in line to get married on or shortly after June 15th. We already have our engagement rings (below, from Love and Pride ) and are going to be shopping for our wedding bands soon.

Today I got a great new job that I’d been hoping for. Now I’ve got two very good reasons for a celebratory dinner this weekend.

Finally, this afternoon I got the first issue of my new Scientific American subscription. New reading material is always something to be happy about. Now off to enjoy it.

 

I’ve mentioned Specialist Jeremy Hall two times previously. Well, he’s in the news again over his lawsuit against the army.

FORT RILEY, Kan. — When Specialist Jeremy Hall held a meeting last July for atheists and freethinkers at Camp Speicher in Iraq, he was excited, he said, to see an officer attending.

But minutes into the talk, the officer, Maj. Freddy J. Welborn, began to berate Specialist Hall and another soldier about atheism, Specialist Hall wrote in a sworn statement. “People like you are not holding up the Constitution and are going against what the founding fathers, who were Christians, wanted for America!” Major Welborn said, according to the statement.

Major Welborn told the soldiers he might bar them from re-enlistment and bring charges against them, according to the statement.

Last month, Specialist Hall and the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, an advocacy group, filed suit in federal court in Kansas, alleging that Specialist Hall’s right to be free from state endorsement of religion under the First Amendment had been violated and that he had faced retaliation for his views. In November, he was sent home early from Iraq because of threats from fellow soldiers.
…..

Specialist Hall’s lawsuit is the latest incident to raise questions about the military’s religion guidelines. In 2005, the Air Force issued new regulations in response to complaints from cadets at the Air Force Academy that evangelical Christian officers used their positions to proselytize. In general, the armed forces have regulations, Ms. Lainez said, that respect “the rights of others to their own religious beliefs, including the right to hold no beliefs.”

To Specialist Hall and other critics of the military, the guidelines have done little to change a culture they say tilts heavily toward evangelical Christianity. Controversies have continued to flare, largely over tactics used by evangelicals to promote their faith. Perhaps the most high-profile incident involved seven officers, including four generals, who appeared, in uniform and in violation of military regulations, in a 2006 fund-raising video for the Christian Embassy, an evangelical Bible study group.

“They don’t trust you because they think you are unreliable and might break, since you don’t have God to rely on,” Specialist Hall said of those who proselytize in the military. “The message is, ‘It’s a Christian nation, and you need to recognize that.’ ”
…..

That old “Christian Nation” canard. America is not, and never has been, a Christian Nation. Sadly the revisionists will never tire of repeating that as they hope repetition will make it true.

Complaints include prayers “in Jesus’ name” at mandatory functions, which violates military regulations, and officers proselytizing subordinates to be “born again.” After getting the complainants’ unit and command information, Mr. Weinstein said, he calls his contacts in the military to try to correct the situation.

“Religion is inextricably intertwined with their jobs,” Mr. Weinstein said. “You’re promoted by who you pray with.”
…..
Specialist Hall said he did not advertise his atheism. But his views became apparent during his second deployment in 2006. At a Thanksgiving meal, someone at his table asked everyone to pray. Specialist Hall did not join in, explaining to a sergeant that he did not believe in God. The sergeant got angry, he said, and told him to go to another table.
…..
Though with a different unit now at Fort Riley, Specialist Hall said the backlash had continued. He has a no-contact order with a sergeant who, without provocation, threatened to “bust him in the mouth.” Another sergeant allegedly told Specialist Hall that as an atheist, he was not entitled to religious freedom because he had no religion.

There are definite and serious violations of Church/State Separation involved here. And the sergeant who claimed Hall had no freedom of religion because he had no religion reminds me very much of this individual who claimed the Constitution doesn’t protect atheists. How hateful some people can be.

I now move on to this letter I came across which makes a common false assertion about atheists.

I read with interest your recent story about 23-year-old U.S. Army Specialist Jeremy Hall who calls himself an atheist and feels harassed because his superiors challenged him in his ability to lead people of faith in combat conditions.
Advertisement

This young man’s convictions and character must be very weak if he had to resort to a lawsuit and a lawsuit in a time of war. Atheist means simply “no god.” If he feels this is a fact, why argue? It should be moot to him.

I suspect, however, that this young man doubts his atheism and senses that there may indeed be a God with whom he must reckon with and the fight is not with his superiors but his heart in this matter.

We need military leaders at all levels who can respect the beliefs and convictions of the ones they lead. If, in the case of this young man, they profess no faith, respect them, too. We cannot, however, suspend any discussion of faith or our chaplaincies because of a small number of insecure atheist who should really say they are agnostic.

A dishonest atheist is just as annoying as a dishonest believer.
Walter Jackson
Millbrook

Would Mr. Jackson claim a Christian who sued an employer for harassment and threats of physical violence was weak of character? Would he think for a minute the Christian was doubting his faith? I don’t imagine he would.

So why is it that atheists are held to different standards than Christians? Why should we tolerate verbal harassment and threats of violence where others would not? Why are our intentions always called into question whenever anything like this occurs?

Maybe it’s because some people can’t fathom that others are actually content not being like them, and that all the begging and even threatening in the world won’t change things. That seems to strike a deep chord in certain people, and their reactions are very unpleasant indeed.

 

The handy chart from eQualityGiving will help you determine how your rights stack up in six different categories: Hate Crimes, Non-Discrimination, Marriage, Gender, Youth and Parenting. Hat-tip to Autumn Sandeen.

 

The score indicates the number of Equality Goals that have been reached in that state. Each “YES” gives 1 point. Half a point is given for partial achievement of an Equality Goal. One of the seven Equality Goals (repealing “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”) can only be achieved at the federal level. Therefore, at the state level, the maximum score is 6.

ANALYSIS (50 states + District of Columbia):

* Half of the states satisfy none or just one of the 6 Equality Goals that are required to ensure that LGBTQ people have the same legal protections as everyone else.

* No state offers full legal equality. California would have been the first state offering full equality if it were not for the veto of marriage equality legislation by Governor Schwarzenegger.

* Only two states (California and New Jersey) achieve 5 of the 6 Equality Goals.

* Massachusetts scores only 4.0 despite that if offers marriage equality. This is because it falls short in transgender protections in hate crimes, non discrimination, anti-bullying, and providing new birth certificates.

* Passing federal legislation on an Equality Goal would increase every state score by 1.

The scores range from California’s high of 5.5 (Yay!) to the shameful low of 0.5 shared by Idaho, Mississippi and Ohio. Click here to see the chart and find out what your state’s score is!

 

That’s the simple yet critical lesson of this video . Please be warned that this piece contains some adult language and brief violence.

 

On April 15th the National Center for Science Education will be posting their full response to Ben Stein’s Expelled. In the meantime they’ve provided a handy list of resources for us including reviews and news coverage of Expelled, and other useful information. For future reference I’ve included a permanent link to this on the sidebar under “Helpful Links”.

 

You may recall that I previously wrote about the ongoing problem in the US military with persistent Christian evangelism and bigotry toward those of other faiths, or of no faith. Recent news indicates that the trend continues, sadly. Spc. Jeremy Hall, the atheist who filed a religious discrimination lawsuit, has recently alleged that he has been threatened as a result.

Spc. Jeremy Hall filed a formal statement Wednesday with the Army. He says he overheard a conversation between two sergeants in his platoon and one wanted to “bust Hall in the mouth.”
Hall says he faces the animosity because he is an atheist and is suing the Department of Defense. He alleges it permits a culture that pushes fundamentalist Christianity.

He says he does not feel safe his unit.

Apparently Freedom of Religion, particularly in the military only applies to Evangelical Christians. Woe to non-conformists.

Now, from Newsweek:

The little book, with the camouflage cover, is everywhere. There are more than 50,000 copies with the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. It’s on military bases across America. It’s in the homes of military families, who are praying their dear ones come home. It’s circulating at the Pentagon. Even the president has allegedly read it. “An aide to President Bush called me and said, ‘Henry, I think you’d like to know that the president is on his face before God every morning, and he’s using your [book]’,” its author told NEWSWEEK. The author is Henry Blackaby, a 72-year-old Canadian minister who is largely unknown outside Christian circles and who wrote the book together with his son Richard more than a decade ago. The book is the ever popular guide to prayer called “Experiencing God Day by Day.”

The Blackabys had already written and published the devotional when Henry was invited to speak in 2005 before a group of U.S. military chaplains. The chaplains were so inspired by Blackaby’s talk, the story goes, that they asked for copies of “Experiencing God Day by Day” to give to the men and women in the Army. Blackaby took the request to heart: he tapped some of his friends in the business world, received $176,000 in donations, redesigned the cover to match the Army’s camouflage uniforms and, with the help of his publisher, printed 100,000 copies to be distributed to the Army free of charge. …..

Military bases are flooded with religious literature, Christian literature in particular, and “Experiencing God Day by Day” is notable mostly for its serious tone and its orthodox approach to evangelical Christian theology. The book presents a daily verse from Scripture and a commentary on that verse; its intention is to help readers keep God ever present in their minds……The devotional is also a deeply evangelical text, and as such holds Christianity above other religions. “If you did not grow up in a Christian home,” reads the entry for June 10, “you can decide, as Joshua did, to reject your heritage of unbelief and begin a generation that serves the Lord.”

There would not seem, on the face of it, to be much of a problem with a group of private citizens sending a Christian prayer book abroad to lonely and spiritually hungry men and women who are, for the most part, Christian. But if you look closely at the “Experiencing God” phenomenon, says Jeff Sharlet, there is. Sharlet is a journalist who has been covering the Christian right for many years and is author of “The Family,” a forthcoming book about fundamentalist elites in America. “The military stands for our democratic nation, not for any religion,” he says. The ubiquity of this devotional “creates the appearance that this is an approved religion, that it’s favored by the state.” Not only is such an appearance isolating for military men and women who happen to not be evangelical—even mainline Protestants on military bases say they can feel marginalized, Sharlet says—but it also continues to create the impression abroad that the United States is engaged in a holy war. One man’s comfort is another man’s crusade, and such is the sad state of the world.

I find it disgusting, particularly considering the evangelical slant of the book. It’s obviously designed to recruit new Christians in addition to offering reading material to existing ones. Would the military allow books intended to proselytize for other religions, for atheism, etc? If not, then why are they allowing books evangelizing for Christianity and for one form in particular? This is wrong on so many levels.

Now from TheReporter.com :

What do the U.S. military and Christianity have in common? Nothing, if Mikey Weinstein has his way.

Weinstein is the founder of Military Religious Freedom Foundation, a nonprofit organization that seeks to resurrect what he believes is the crumbling wall between church and state in the military.

Specifically, Weinstein believes that a minority Christian viewpoint - one that seeks to turn the military into a Christian force - is infiltrating the ranks at all levels. If they succeed, he says, their beliefs could be forced onto people around the world and here at home.

As Weinstein says it: “We’re a Tiger Woods’ putt away from becoming the United Fundamentalist Christian States of America, brought to you by the faith-based Department of Defense and its Pentacostalagon.”

…..

It’s a cause that came to him four years ago, in the form of a conversation with his younger son, who at the time was a sophomore at the U.S. Air Force Academy in Colorado. His son complained about being unduly pressured by other cadets and academy leaders to give up his Jewish faith and become a Christian.

Weinstein, a 1977 Air Force academy graduate who served in Judge Advocate General Corps for 10 years and also did a stint in the Reagan White House, said he’d look into it. He thought it could be resolved with a few phone calls.

But as he probed, he began to see evidence of what seemed to be U.S.-sanctioned proseltyzation not only at the academy, but throughout the Air Force and in all branches of the military. Locally, he said he’s event received complaints from Travis Air Force Base, though he would not detail them.

Now the Military Religious Freedom Foundation has been in contact with more than 7,500 active-duty military members with similar complaints. Weinstein estimates that “96 percent” of those complaints come from other Christians.

“We’re at war, with the fundamentalist Christians pitted against the nonfundamentalist Christian brothers and sisters,” he says. “This is a national security threat internally every bit as much as that which is now challenging our country externally by a resurgent Taliban and al Qaida.”

The threat isn’t just to individual service members’ ability to practice their chosen faith - or nonfaith, as in the case of an avowed atheist whose opportunity for a promotional interview was rescinded, allegedly because he declined to participate in Christian prayers, according to a lawsuit recently filed by the foundation.

And it’s not just that “combat troops refusing to accept their commanders’ biblical world view are sent on more dangerous assignments,” or that “commanders are censoring movies,” so that troops are having trouble obtaining “Lord of the Rings” or Harry Potter DVDs, as Weinstein has been told by service members.

So much for the claim that atheists and other religious minorities aren’t actually put in harm’s way by the discrimination they experience.

The threat to national security comes when American Humvees are “driven through Iraqi cities playing, in Arabic, Rick Warren’s “The Purpose Driven Life,” or when company commanders are allowed to hand out tracts in Iraq depicting Christians going to heaven and Muslims going to hell, as alleged by a soldier who contacted Weinstein. Such actions serve to fuel the belief in Muslim countries that they are engaged in another holy war, and that this time, the Christian crusade is being led by the U.S. military.

But I thought they hated us for our freedoms. It couldn’t possibly have anything to do with the hostile religious behavior of the occupying forces. (Of course when Christian missionaries behave in similar ways and face violent backlash they call it “persecution” rather than face the reality that antagonistic behavior has repercussions.)

Needless to say, the US Military has far to go in bringing its Evangelical strain under control and making the environment safe and equal for people of all beliefs and non-beliefs. Fortunately the MRFF seems to be launching a formidable counterattack on the religious bullies. It will be worth keeping an eye on the situation to see how it pans out.

 

Yes, they stink for endless reasons, such as the way they’re anti-union, pay their employees sub-par wages , peddle cheesy Chinese goods,put whole towns out of business through sleazy business practices, etc. But that’s not the topic of this post; Debbie Shank is.

Debbie Shank breaks down in tears every time she’s told that her 18-year-old son, Jeremy, was killed in Iraq.

The 52-year-old mother of three attended her son’s funeral, but she continues to ask how he’s doing. When her family reminds her that he’s dead, she weeps as if hearing the news for the first time.

Shank suffered severe brain damage after a traffic accident nearly eight years ago that robbed her of much of her short-term memory and left her in a wheelchair and living in a nursing home.

It was the beginning of a series of battles — both personal and legal — that loomed for Shank and her family. One of their biggest was with Wal-Mart’s health plan.

Eight years ago, Shank was stocking shelves for the retail giant and signed up for Wal-Mart’s health and benefits plan.

Two years after the accident, Shank and her husband, Jim, were awarded about $1 million in a lawsuit against the trucking company involved in the crash. After legal fees were paid, $417,000 was placed in a trust to pay for Debbie Shank’s long-term care.

Wal-Mart had paid out about $470,000 for Shank’s medical expenses and later sued for the same amount. However, the court ruled it can only recoup what is left in the family’s trust.

The Shanks didn’t notice in the fine print of Wal-Mart’s health plan policy that the company has the right to recoup medical expenses if an employee collects damages in a lawsuit.

The family’s attorney, Maurice Graham, said he informed Wal-Mart about the settlement and believed the Shanks would be allowed to keep the money.

 

 

“We assumed after three years, they [Wal-Mart] had made a decision to let Debbie Shank use this money for what it was intended to,” Graham said.

…..

In 2007, the retail giant reported net sales in the third quarter of $90 billion.

…..

The family’s situation is so dire that last year Jim Shank divorced Debbie, so she could receive more money from Medicaid.

Jim Shank, 54, is recovering from prostate cancer, works two jobs and struggles to pay the bills. He’s afraid he won’t be able to send their youngest son to college and pay for his and Debbie’s care.

“Who needs the money more? A disabled lady in a wheelchair with no future, whatsoever, or does Wal-Mart need $90 billion, plus $200,000?” he asked.

…..

 

Of course after all of the negative media publicity Wal-Mart changed its mind and decided it wouldn’t be such a good idea to exploit Deborah Shank to recoup their health insurance payout. The power of the press was on the victim’s side this time and Deborah Shank will be able to keep her small settlement (which is, from what I’ve read, barely over $400,000 after legal expenses and other fees).

 

When it comes to laws designed to protect certain groups of people, laws that protect religious people are good, while laws that protect LGBT people are bad. At least in the eyes of religious people. The worst thing is that they don’t see the inherent disconnect and bigotry in fighting against laws that protect us while supporting similar laws that protect them. Take this, for example.

ACLU Urges House Committee to Fix Flawed Workplace Religious Freedom Act (2/12/2008)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: (202) 675-2312, media@dcaclu.org

Washington, DC – The American Civil Liberties Union today called on the Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions subcommittee of the House Education & Labor Committee to fix the flawed Workplace Religious Freedom Act (WRFA). As written in the 110th Congress, the legislation threatens the personal and civil rights of religious and racial minorities, women, LGBT individuals, and persons seeking reproductive health care.

The stated goal of the Workplace Religious Freedom Act is to revise and strengthen existing requirements on employers to accommodate the religious practices of their employees. However, the current language may have a much broader impact than intended, permitting employees to claim that they do not have to comply with state or local civil rights laws.

The current WRFA would strengthen the hand of police officers who want to pick and choose who they will protect, as well as emergency health care workers and mental health counselors who could abandon patients because their care conflicts with the worker’s religious beliefs. This legislation would make it significantly harder to get health or safety information or services. Employees would be even more likely to claim that their religion prohibits them from providing contraceptive care or HIV prevention counseling – even if the employer has no one else to provide those services. In most cases, the courts have correctly rejected these claims. The current WRFA language, however, is designed to protect these individual’s dangerous actions.

Said Christopher Anders, senior legislative counsel with the ACLU Washington Legislative Office: “The Workplace Religious Freedom Act would allow employees, for the first time since the Civil Rights Act of 1967, to use civil rights as a weapon against others. Passing this bill without the needed fixes will jeopardize not only our rights, but also our public safety and access to health care. Civil rights protections are meant to be a shield, not a sword.

“Congress can, and should, pass legislation tightly focused on strengthening federal requirements that employers accommodate workplace scheduling changes so employees can observe religious holidays, or permit them to wear religious clothing, beards or hairstyles. These two areas account for nearly three-fourths of all the religious accommodation claims rejected by federal courts in the past 25 years. A narrowly tailored bill could address these issues without any of the completely avoidable harm the WRFA could cause if passed as written.”

It seems that legislation that is vague and allows for personal bigotries to cause discrimination and harm to others, such as LGBTs, atheists and people who are not of the same faith of the practitioner, is acceptable to some. Yet many people are fighting against ENDA, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, claiming that it would violate their “deeply held religious beliefs” and force them to hire LGBT people against the tenets of their religion. Strange they continue to think their rights (to arbitrarily discriminate in the name of their chosen religion) are so much more important than ours (to have equal Human and Civil Rights) .

I don’t by any means support discrimination against people who are religious. At the same time people cannot think they can use their religious beliefs to discriminate against others. Rights must be provided equally and fairly, or else our nation is a failure.

More than once when a L, G, B and/or T individual has stated that they are or are not voting for a particular politician because of his/her stance on some LGBT policy the cry goes out, “How can you be such a One Issue Voter?”. Of course it’s usually the case that the individual is not voting solely because of the politician’s stance on the LGBT policy, but also because of other issues as well and is mentioning only the LGBT issue at the time. But, that aside, it’s important for everybody to realize that LGBT concerns are in no way “one issue”, so voting based on them can in no way make a person a “One Issue Voter”. Allow me to break it down for you.

 
Marriage

 
Marriage in and of itself is not one issue as it provides couples so many rights and carries so many responsibilities. It also affects any children the couples may have, thereby having broader scope than just the couple themselves. However it is largely unavailable to same-sex couples.

 

Same-sex couples are currently allowed to legally marry in only one state, Massachusetts. Although they are granted the same rights and benefits as other married couples under state law, they are not granted any of the more than 1100 rights and responsibilities granted to married couples by the federal government. Furthermore, their marriages are not recognized as legal outside of MA, so if they travel to another state or move their rights are in jeopardy.

 

Five states, CA, CT, NH, NJ, and VT, offer Civil Unions/Domestic Partnerships for same-sex couples. These unions offer ostensibly identical benefits and obligations to those of civil marriage in their states, but again none of the federal benefits of marriage. However it has been discovered repeatedly that the DPs/CUs fall short of their promises as they don’t actually provide the benefits they are supposed to. Employers, agencies, families and others have worked to avoid providing benefits to same-sex couples under DPs/CUs claiming that they’re not obligated to do so as the unions are not marriages. Hence the need for same-sex couples to have federally recognized legal marriage rather than the Colored Only drinking fountain of the 21st century known as DPs/CUs.

 
Four states (HI, ME, OR and WA) and DC offer DPs/CUs that offer portions of the rights enjoyed by married couples in their regions. Again, these unions are fraught with the same limitations as the others, in that they’re dependent upon others to comply with their stipulations and many try to get around them since they are not marriages.

 

Twenty six states have constitutional amendments that ban same-sex marriage outright, marking the first time in history that amendments have been used to write discrimination into constitutions. Forty three states have statutes restricting marriage to unions between a man and a woman including a number of the states that have DPs/CUs. (Some states have both a statute and a constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriage).

 
For same-sex couples who cannot marry or enter into a DP/CU, they can engage the services of a lawyer and draw up a number of documents to try to ensure that they have particular rights and privileges that opposite-sex couples would normally have. However this is often a very costly and difficult process , and may be contested by any number of people in various situations. For example it is not uncommon for one partner to be denied the right to see the other or make decisions for the other in a hospital even with Power of Attorney. When a partner dies their relatives may contest their will, making it impossible for the surviving partner to collect benefits left to them. These are just a few of the many examples of the indignities same-sex couples deal with by virtue of the fact that they are treated as second-class citizens and refused the right to marry.

 

Adoption

 
Adoption is another way that LGBT individuals are often denied the rights their straight peers are afforded. Ten states and DC allow “second parent adoption”, the process by which a partner in a same-sex couple can adopt his/her partner’s biological child without terminating the parental rights of the biological parent.

 

Single-parent adoption by individuals who are gay is outlawed in Florida, though they are allowed to be foster parents. Utah law forbids cohabiting, non-married couples to adopt, and likewise prohibits same-sex marriage thereby effectively outlawing adoption by any unmarried couples regardless of sexual orientation. That’s just one of many state and local laws that harm straight people in the process of engaging in bias against LGBT individuals.

 

However even if the child is the biological child of an LGBT parent, there are potential difficulties. While there is substantial, legitimate, peer-studied research to indicate LGBT parents are every bit as effective and fit as other parents, they must face constant criticism and bigotry. However opponents have used faulty, distorted and outright fabricated research to make the claim that children raised by LGBT parents are at risk in various ways. Furthermore the biases of judges, social-service workers and others who make decisions about child custody can result in children being taken away from their LGBT parents based not on the actual fitness of the parent, but on their sexual orientation/gender identity.

 

Housing

 
GLBT individuals can legally be denied housing based on their sexual orientation/gender identity in most states. To date there are approximately thirteen states and numerous cities that ban housing discrimination based on sexual orientation and some include gender identity. However there is currently no federal law that does so. Therefore GLBT individuals do not have the same protections under the law in this area that other Americans currently do.

 
Employment

 
Thanks to President Bill Clinton, federal civilian LGBT employees enjoy protection from discrimination. But private-sector LGBTs are not so lucky. While twenty states, DC and 140 cities have banned discrimination against employees based on sexual orientation (some including gender identity) others still allow employers to fire, or refuse to hire, people for being LGBT. And, of course, even where anti-discrimination laws exist religious organizations and employers run by religious organizations are exempt from them.

 

ENDA, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, would ban discrimination against LGBT people on a nationwide basis. After numerous attempts it went through both the House and the Senate last Autumn, albeit without protections for Transgender individuals. It seems that the bigots couldn’t be convinced that they were worthy of such protections so they were dropped from the bill. It sits now in limbo, waiting for President Bush to sign or, more likely, to veto it.

 

Hate-Crimes Protection

 
32 states and DC have statutes that provide stronger penalties for those who engage in bias motivated crimes against people based on sexual orientation. 11 have protections for people based on gender identity. Only 16 are required, however, to collect statistics on these crimes, allowing for much valuable data to be lost.

 

Currently no federal legislation exists for prosecution or data collection of bias motivated crimes against LGBT people. In 2007 the Matthew Shepard Act, named for the young gay man brutally murdered in 1998, was introduced to Congress. The bill made it through the Senate, but not the House. LGBT people remain without federal hate-crimes protection and will do so indefinitely.

 

Military Service

 
On a personal level I have no interest in serving in the military. I detest the idea of killing anybody except as a last resort in self-defense. I abhor war and am a conscientious objector. Furthermore I can’t fathom why any LGBT person would put his or her life on the line to serve a country that can’t be bothered to give him/her the same rights and protections as all other citizens. Nonetheless I accept that there are indeed many LGBT individuals who wish to proudly serve in the military and are prevented from doing so by discriminatory legislation.

 

Previously the military simply banned gay/bisexual people from serving. When Bill Clinton took office in 1993 he had promised to allow gay people to serve openly. The resultant backlash from military leaders and the right-wing forced him to implement a compromise, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, more commonly known as DADT. Gays could ostensibly serve in the military as long as they didn’t disclose their orientation, and the military couldn’t ask. While meant as a compromise, the policy has since led to more problems than it solved as it became very much a witch-hunt.

 

Between 1994 and 2005 there were 11,082 service-members discharged under DADT at a cost of approximately $200 million to the United States. Myriad polls have shown that the public favors allowing gay people to serve openly. Nonetheless military leaders remain staunchly in favor of DADT and it has been upheld in federal court five times.

 
In Conclusion

 
Marriage, employment, housing, partner benefits, health care decisions, inheritance rights, our families, hate-crimes protection, military service and so much more. Far from being “one issue”, these far reaching issues affect every aspect of our lives, and some can even put our lives in the balance.

 

So please realize that we are never “one issue voters”, even if it appears that we are. Things are much more complex and substantial than they seem on the surface.

 

 

Addendum: A comment has arrived. Tyler says:

 

I rant, you articulate. Very well done.

 

Thank you very much, Tyler. Actually on my blogs I articulate. Elsewhere I’m much more prone to ranting. Thanks again for stopping by.

 

Most Americans have noticed that a presidential campaign is underway. All but one candidate is Christian, with the remaining candidate being a devout Mormon. We have been inundated with speeches and, dare I say, sermons from the candidates professing how deep and abiding their faith is. Particularly from the GOP side the candidates sound more like they’re running for preacher than president. Candidates visit churches frequently while on the campaign trail to stroke the egos of congregations and stump for votes.

Barack Obama, for example, has bent over backwards to woo Christian evangelicals to vote for him. Particularly in light of accusations that he is a Muslim owing to his middle name (Hussein) and Muslim lineage he has been hawking the fact that he is very much a Christian. The latest in his “Vote for me because I’m a really, really, really good Christian just like you are” campaign is this:

The brochure being handed out in South Carolina shows a picture of the candidate with his hands together and eyes closed. In large letters, it reads “ANSWERING THE CALL.”

Inside, voters learn of a candidate who was “CALLED TO CHRIST” and even larger letters is a “COMMITTED CHRISTIAN” and is quoted saying, “I believe in the power of prayer.”

Barack Obama’s campaign in South Carolina is targeting black voters, and one of the ways he’s doing it is appealing to a connection based on shared religious faith. Obama, a Christian who attends a United Church of Christ congregation in Chicago, has talked about his faith in Iowa and other states, as well, but his campaign literature is particularly focused on his religion here, where he depicts himself, in one picture, before a pulpit, and, in another, praying with an African American man.

Whoa. He sounds really super Christiany. I guess I’ll just have to vote for him.

Hillary Clinton does her share as well. In November she proudly announced that she had the backing of 60 pastors. Apparently the endorsements of clergy are better than laypersons because clergy would never do or say anything unethical, you know. Clinton also felt it necessary to advertise her church attendance. See, going to church is important, but other people knowing you go is critical. How else will they know you’re a Good Christian?

John Edwards, too, wants you to know how central his faith is to his life, and therefore how it will guide his presidency. He went on CBN in November to attest to his faithiness:

Edwards: Well, my faith is hugely important to every aspect of my life and it has been for a long time. I’m not going to lie to people. I was born and raised in the Southern Baptist church, baptized when I was young. I went to church on Sunday morning, Sunday night, Wednesday night. It was the center of our lives. My father was the deacon in the Baptist church.

…..

I lost my son 1996 — and then of course more recently Elizabeth’s development of cancer and recurrence of her cancer. The truth is I don’t know how I could have ever gotten through these struggles plus the day-to-day stresses of being a candidate for president without my relationship with the Lord. It’s hugely important in every part of my life

The GOP candidates are not only trying to out-Christian one another (even Romney), they’re making infinite promises as to how they’ll impose RRRW Christian morality on all of Amurka–whether the rest of us like it or not. Says Mittens:

I support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Marriage is fundamentally an institution about the development and nurturing of children. Every child deserves a mom and a dad. We must recognize the traditional union of a man and a woman as the bedrock of the family in our society. If our courts are determined to undermine this principle, then we have no choice but to defend it through a constitutional amendment.I support an amendment to prevent activist judges from misreading the Constitution to force same-sex marriage on any state.

I oppose civil unions between same sex partners. Government should encourage the formation of families and the nurturing of children, and I believe that this is best accomplished with a mom and a dad. Every child deserves a mother and a father.

Then there’s John McCain, who hits several of the right buttons–if you’re a RRRWer, that is.

Watching Beliefnet’s exclusive John McCain video, God-o-Meter finds it perplexing that the Arizona senator has long been a scourge of the Religious Right. After all, McCain told Beliefnet that the “Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation,” that he’s in talks with his pastor about undergoing a full-immersion baptism to become a full-blown evangelical, and that the prospect a Muslim presidential candidate makes him queasy because he wants someone who shares a “solid grounding in my faith.” That certainly checks some big boxes on the Christian Right’s presidential prerequisite list. (Not to mention that it offers a stark contrast to some of former Christian Right golden boy Fred Thompson’s recent stumbles on matters religious.)

Of course he’s small potatoes compared to Mike Huckabee, the Baptist Preacher turned Arkansas Governor turned presidential candidate.

“[Some of my opponents] do not want to change the Constitution, but I believe it’s a lot easier to change the constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that’s what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than try to change God’s standards,” Huckabee said, referring to the need for a constitutional human life amendment and an amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

Can you say Dominionist ? I knew you could!

 

So we have the candidates jumping through hoops, speechifying, sermonizing, wearing their belief on their sleeves and doing everything in their power to prove to the faithful that they’re the right believer for the job. But the job is the presidency of the United States, not pastor, reverend, priest or pope. So why is there so much emphasis on religion? What ever happened to “There shall be no religious test for public office”? And why do candidates not only spend so much time visiting churches, but feel compelled to, lest they “lose” the religious vote? Are religious people that needy and fragile. Do they really need that much pandering and ego-stroking? What is this insane need they have for people to tell them their beliefs are right, true and good? And why do politicians–particularly the GOPers–always have to promise the nation will be run according to the RRRW Christians rules to make them happy? Never mind; I already know the answer to those questions.

I’ll make it easy for you, candidates. You don’t need to give me flowery speeches or monologues about your faith. I don’t want to hear about your fabulous gay friend or the one who is the most ethical person you know–and she’s even an atheist. I don’t need to be validated by you nor do you need to be validated by me . I don’t want any form of song and dance. Save the pandering for the believers.

All I want for myself is equal human and civil rights. ENDA, Marriage Equality, the Hate Crimes Act. Enforce Separation of Church and State, “no religious test for public office” and equal-access laws. I don’t think that’s too much to ask. You’ll also save a lot of time, effort and money on the campaign trail.

 

Now what I want for everyone else–that’s going to take a bit more time, effort and money.