Watching Kitty's "marriage" inspired me to post some of my favorite satirical videos from the past few years parodying the complete lack of logic and total injustice in banning gay marriage. (see also my earlier blog posts on my thoughts on the issue HERE)
1. The Onion covers a new law would nullify marriages of an est 2.4 mil couples currently living in silent resentment or seething hatred:
2. The 2010 California Marriage Protection Act: Safeguarding Marriage from the Evils of Divorce
Taking hypocrisy to task
Creator John Marcotte jokingly describes himself as "a firm believer in traditional family values. He currently opposes government-funded death panels, Obama talking to children and MSNBC's entire prime-time line-up."
In reality, John is a devout Christian, and happily married father of two who created this site to lampoon California's gay marriage ban out of his concern as a Christian, not in spite of it. Making these videos for his site ( http://rescuemarriage.org/ ) he says, "It is truly a blessing from God when your wife can walk in on you watching an Internet video and it actually moves you further from divorce, rather than closer to it." (more on his story HERE, as NPR's original post is no longer available).
3. Stephen Colbert creates his own Anti-Gay Marriage Ad (and it's fabulous)
My Personal Favorite: Louis CK on Gay Marriage ("watch my cereal")
"I find this physically repulsive but I just want to win the argument."
[NOTE: Before watching you should be aware that in the mythical state of Canada (where Santa & Celine live) gay marriage is currently legal. *Oh and don't watch with kids in the room.]
This blog post contains an excerpt from something I posted back in March. I'm reposting it because there is cause to celebrate today. 11 years after his death, the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Bill that was fought so hard for has been approved by Congress and today signed by the president and sealed in law.
I cannot overstate the importance of this moment. This is the first time ANY federal equality measure protecting LGBT rights has become law. The very first time.
However, in stating this there cannot only be celebration but an effort to talk about why this was necessary in the first place. For example on NPR even, people are asking questions about why you need additional laws for already illegal crimes.
Example: "We have laws already that protect everyone. Is murdering someone who is a black gay women worse than murdering a white man? If people want to be treated equal then the laws should be equal."
Questions like these at first seem logical when you think of sin (or wrongdoing if you like) as purely individual. However, sin isn't just an action that is personal, but it can also be systemic. This systemic injustice is at the heart of what makes a hate crime so dangerous. So here we go...
Larry (Lawrence King), 15, had said publicly that he was gay, classmates said, enduring harassment from a group of schoolmates, including the 14-year-old boy, Brandon, charged in his death. Larry asked Brandon to be his valentine and the following day the 14-yr-old came to school and shot Larry in the head.
“God knit Larry together and made him wonderfully complex,” the Rev. Dan Birchfield of Westminster Presbyterian Church told the crowd as he stood in front of a large photograph of the victim. “Larry was a masterpiece.” 'Why we can't wait'
Your vote this year has the power to save lives and will affect millions of homosexual people in this country. This is why the Matthew Shepard Act matters, and why a position against it as a Christian is not just debatable but unconscionable...
Hate crimes differ from conventional crime because they are not directed simply at an individual, but are meant to cause fear and intimidation in an entire group or class of people. All violent crimes are reprehensible, but hate crimes require additional emphasis in the justice system because they target a whole group and not just the individual victim. A violent hate crime is intended to "send a message" that an individual and "their kind" will not be tolerated, many times leaving the victim and others in their group feeling isolated, vulnerable and unprotected. Our justice system should then be able to "send a message" right back that there are not "less than human" unprotected members of society.
The Supreme Court ruled that, "bias-motivated crimes are more likely to provoke retaliatory crimes, inflict distinct emotional harms on their victims, and incite community unrest." And stated that, "When the core of a person's identity is attacked, the degradation and dehumanization is especially severe, and additional emotional and physiological problems are likely to result. Society then, in turn, can suffer from the disempowerment of a group of people."
If that all seems too heady, here's the more practical component. Hate crime legislation gives federal authorities greater ability to engage in crime investigations that local authorities choose not to pursue, and allow courts to consider and present motive in cases in which it previously went unheard. It supports appeals from cases dismissed due to local bias or foul-play. There are countless cases of crimes against individuals dismissed or lessened due to bias. Take the Jena 6 story right now. Without hate crime legislation, it is often harder for victims to have recourse when justice isn't served. This is not only sensible but completely necessary and it should undoubtedly apply to sexual orientation considering that 20% of hate crimes apply to it.
The church is moving forward in many of the arenas in which it has exercised poor judgment. The Catholic church recently unveiled its list of "social" sins declaring that the individual not only sins against him/herself but also systemically against portions of society in a globalized world. Even the leaders of the Southern Baptist Convention recently stated that on Global Warming that if it didn't change its stance that it would be disregarded as "uncaring, reckless, and ill-informed johnny-come-lately's just as it had during segregation and slavery and that the poor would be the first to suffer. But despite all of this understanding of implication, nearly everyone, even progressive Christian ethics groups like Sojourners are steering clear of "the gay issue" in America. Why? Why can Christian America love anyone except for their gay neighbor (or mexican one for that matter). Why do Christians in America so hate gays? Christians have to step up on this even if they don't agree with homosexuals. The Bible, both Old and New Testaments, demands care for the "other," and declares the ramifications for those who don't. Regardless of an individual's views on the issues, the church has to be out front on human rights abuses. Are murder, violence and abuse ever acceptable toward anyone? Even more fundamental: Is Love Conditional? These shouldn't be questions the church is allowing to go unanswered. You can't play neutral on this one and come out clean.
"I join the oppressors of those I choose to ignore, and that's not just murder, it's suicide."
“America's war on terror has indeed tested our resolve. We've pushed the limits of our own principles. From warrantless wiretapping, to building a prison outside of our own legal jurisdiction, to not releasing photos depicting our treatment of detainees, to the treatment of detainees itself. ‘Every asset we have must be used all in the service of keeping American safe.’ Is there any line we still will not cross? ....Awww, that's the line! ---- So it was ok to waterboard a guy over 80 times but God forbid the guy who could understand what that prick was saying has a boyfriend.”
Imagine your neighbors being targeted and arrested without cause, simply because they are Latino. Then, imagine undocumented immigrants being paraded in shackles across town to publicly humiliate them in front of media cameras. Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Arizona’s Maricopa County creates dehumanizing scenes like these on a regular basis.
According to The Arizona Republic, Sheriff Arpaio's track record includes immigration sweeps that target anyone “guilty of looking Latino,” entering private homes without warrants, taking mothers from their children during traffic stops, and parading shackled detainees in front of the news media.
Arpaio calls himself “America’s toughest sheriff,” but not only are his practices of racial profiling discriminatory, they are downright ineffective. As a result of his obsessive focus on the Latino population, his county has more than 40,000 outstanding felony warrants, and 911 response times have worsened, making his county a less safe place for all people.
Think abuses in Maricopa County are only a local concern? Think again. Sheriff Arpaio illustrates the dangerous consequences of our broken national immigration system. Since U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement cannot effectively enforce our current laws, it gives authority—and your federal taxpayer dollars—to local officials. Some local agencies use this power responsibly; others, like Sheriff Arpaio, do not.
Sheriff Arpaio once said, “Do you think I’m going to report to the federal government? I don’t report to them. If they don’t like the contract, they can close it up.” Couldn’t agree with his suggestion more, but ending his contract is not enough: a deeper investigation is in order.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "They're probably the greatest threat to America going down I know of."
So what's America's greatest threat? The weakest economy in 80 years? Widespread layoffs, bank collapses, meltdown in the auto industry and a housing crisis?
Not according to Utah State Sen. Chris Buttars. In a recent interview obtained by HRC, he says America's greatest threat is the LGBT community. He goes on to call lesbian and gay relationships "abominations" and claims LGBT people lack morals. Watch now >>
In the interview, Sen. Buttars calls LGBT people "the meanest buggers I've ever seen" – this kind of rhetoric creates an atmosphere of hatred that incites violence against LGBT Americans.
Here are a few more lowlights from Buttars' rant:
LGBT people "are destroying the Constitution."
Their "number one goal is to proselytize to youth" and use schools as "a recruiting station."
Thanks to them we are, "moving toward a society that has no morals."
They will "destroy the foundation of American society... In my mind, it is the beginning of the end."
What's more, Sen. Buttars also takes clear pride in saying he's "killed" every piece of pro-equality legislation in Utah for eight years.
Want to find out how people have voted in your state or district? Go to this interactive map at the Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law’s Poverty Scorecard to find out how your representatives voted. Bet you can guess, but in case your imagination is lacking here's TN's to the right. How anyone with any speck of decency could vote against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, I'll never understand.
Of course in each of these instances they're all Republicans. All this party knows is how to alienate, discriminate, and harm what they consider as "the other." Whether it's immigrants or gays or the poor, time and time again the leadership on all levels, state, local, and federal we continue to see this kind of bigotry and xenophobia, fearmongering and divisive speech serving as fodder for the least of our nature going so far as to result in physical and psychological violence, systemic injustice and widespread rights violations against those on the outside of power.
For Jesus and the prophets before, true righteousness consisted of deeds of love, mercy and justice, especially to the most vulnerable. This had slipped from the center of tradition in Jesus’s day and the focus from the Pharisees was on ritual purity of which Jesus had very little interest. Jesus said our righteousness must go beyond theirs and made a huge emphasis on expanding our circle of love to include strangers and even enemies. This was the true standard of holiness: to practice communal hospitality, so that the burden is shared within the body of Christ rather than being carried by one individual, to help our brothers and sisters in need, not to divide one as “stranger” or “other", to love God, our neighbor as ourselves, Do Justice, Love Mercy, Walk Humbly with God. The Republican party, the party of the 'older brother' from the Prodigal story knows nothing of these things. And the cooption of religion in this country under their moniker is perhaps one of the greatest scams ever committed. To use Sen. Buttars's own language:
"They're probably the greatest threat to America going down I know of."
31"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'
37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'
40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'
41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'
44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'
45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'
46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." [Matthew 25:31-46]
Can beliefs change when presented with contrasting evidence? Or does one further cement their beliefs in light of irreconcilable ideas? Psychologist Leon Festinger theorized, tested and documented the disturbing rationalizations we make as humans to support our beliefs. In his 1957 MIT study, "A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance" Festinger noticed that under certain conditions there can be a psycological opposition of irreconcilable ideas. In other words, people will adjust their beliefs to fit a behavior - instead of changing their behavior to fit one's beliefs (which is the sequence conventionally assumed and furthermore that is more common, that is that it is our default).
Here's a stunning modern day example of dissonance no less dramatic than Festinger's subjects in the 50's. The outcomes and quotes from this episode of the FX series, 30 Days, are telling in which a wife and mother who is a strong proponent of the traditional family unit will have her beliefs challenged when she agrees to spend 30 days with the new face of alternative parenting:
In contrast another episode of the same show with the same belief system under review displays what happens when the subject undergoes a revision instead of a cementing rationalization in the face of contrary evidence:
"What allowed Isaac Newton to exchange the palm of god for gravity, or Columbus to come away with a curved rimless world? Throughout all of history there have been examples of people who, instead of clapping their hands over their ears, pushed into dissonance, willing to hear what might emerge. Who knows what new shapes of faith might emerge from a willingness to withhold rationalization for real revision?" - Lauren Slater (Opening Skinner's Box)
...Us. We...Normal People." - Michael Savage Not them. Not the other. Not the stranger, the outcast, the sinner. Not the least of these. Or as Savage calls them, the "vermin."
On the February 26 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, after playing an audio clip of the beginning of singer Melissa Etheridge's acceptance speech at the Academy Awards in which she thanked her wife and four children, Michael Savage said: "I don't like a woman married to a woman raising children. It makes me want to puke. ... I want to vomit when I hear it. I think it's child abuse."
"27God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; 28 God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, 29 so that no human being might boast in the presence of God." [1 Cor. 1]
Fear of 'the other' has rational roots in our physical nature. Ancient tribes seeking to survive needed to define and protect their religious, national, and cultural identity. The Israelites, for example, had been slaves in Egypt; they had wandered in the desert, subject to attacks from other tribes, starvation, and infectious diseases. They needed cohesiveness, separateness, and order in every aspect of their lives. Failure to form a tight-knit community could threaten their long-term survival.
Furthermore, connecting this example to the issue at hand, concern of productivity and separateness was made even more pertinent due to the exile of the Israelites at the time of their formulation. Since procreation was so vital to ancient Israel's survival, regulations that governed sexual relations in the biblical world were primarily intended to further biological productivity in all biblical periods, in view of the scarcity of population, demands created by the agricultural life-style, and the high mortality rate of women and children.
All of that to say, we are NOT there anymore. But even for ancient Israel, the command in the Torah was still one of love - love of God and love of the neighbor, love of the stranger. A perspective of justice with concern for the stranger is at the heart of the Torah, and God's judgment came when Israel strayed from this ethic. For the Christian the Torah is personified in Jesus, and there is no doubt that Jesus abolished the idea of the other and separateness under his banner. The poor and the outcast are closer to the Kingdom of God than the rich, the popular, the self-righteous, the Pharisee.
The message continues to be in every generation that certain people can be taken as less than full human beings. The same folks that have a fear or hatred of homosexuals are afraid of the angry black man, afraid of the immigrant, afraid of the Muslim, they're just afraid.
18There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love. 19We love because he first loved us. 20If anyone says, "I love God," yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen. 21And he has given us this command: Whoever loves God must also love his brother. [1 John 4]
That anyone calling themselves Christians ever got co-opted with right-wing hatemongerers like Savage or any of these other personalities is beyond me. There is no way to advocate the kinds of things they do and understand the gospel. The gospel that says,
"7Let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. 9This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. 10This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. 11Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. 12No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us. 13We know that we live in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit. 14And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world. 15If anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in him and he in God. 16And so we know and rely on the love God has for us. God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him. 17In this way, love is made complete among us.
The Savage Nation reaches more than 8 to 10 million listeners each week, according to Talkers Magazine, making it the third most-listened-to talk radio show in the nation, behind only The Rush Limbaugh Show and The Sean Hannity Show. Savage declares himself to be "To the right of Rush and to the left of God."
Galileo was persecuted for revealing what we now know to be the truth regarding Earth’s place in our solar system. Today, the issue is homosexuality, and the persecution is not of one man but of millions. Will Christian leaders once again be on the wrong side of history?
What if Christian leaders are wrong about homosexuality? I suppose, much as a newspaper maintains its credibility by setting the record straight, church leaders would need to do the same:
Correction: Despite what you might have read, heard or been taught throughout your churchgoing life, homosexuality is, in fact, determined at birth and is not to be condemned by God's followers.
Based on a few recent headlines, we won't be seeing that admission anytime soon.
Last week, U.S. Roman Catholic bishops took the position that homosexual attractions are "disordered" and that gays should live closeted lives of chastity. At the same time, North Carolina's Baptist State Convention was preparing to investigate churches that are too gay-friendly. Even the more liberal Presbyterian Church (USA) had been planning to put a minister on trial for conducting a marriage ceremony for two women before the charges were dismissed on a technicality. All this brings me back to the question: What if we're wrong?
Religion's only real commodity, after all, is its moral authority. Lose that, and we lose our credibility. Lose credibility, and we might as well close up shop.
It's happened to Christianity before, most famously when we dug in our heels over Galileo's challenge to the biblical view that the Earth, rather than the sun, was at the center of our solar system. You know the story. Galileo was persecuted for what turned out to be incontrovertibly true. For many, especially in the scientific community, Christianity never recovered.
This time, Christianity is in danger of squandering its moral authority by continuing its pattern of discrimination against gays and lesbians in the face of mounting scientific evidence that sexual orientation has little or nothing to do with choice. To the contrary, whether sexual orientation arises as a result of the mother's hormones or the child's brain structure or DNA, it is almost certainly an accident of birth. The point is this: Without choice, there can be no moral culpability.
Answer in Scriptures
So, why are so many church leaders (not to mention Orthodox Jewish and Muslim leaders) persisting in their view that homosexuality is wrong despite a growing stream of scientific evidence that is likely to become a torrent in the coming years? The answer is found in Leviticus 18. "You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination."
As a former "the Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it" kind of guy, I am sympathetic with any Christian who accepts the Bible at face value. But here's the catch. Leviticus is filled with laws imposing the death penalty for everything from eating catfish to sassing your parents. If you accept one as the absolute, unequivocal word of God, you must accept them all.
For many of gay America's loudest critics, the results are unthinkable. First, no more football. At least not without gloves. Handling a pig skin is an abomination. Second, no more Saturday games even if you can get a new ball. Violating the Sabbath is a capital offense according to Leviticus. For the over-40 crowd, approaching the altar of God with a defect in your sight is taboo, but you'll have plenty of company because those menstruating or with disabilities are also barred.
The truth is that mainstream religion has moved beyond animal sacrifice, slavery and the host of primitive rituals described in Leviticus centuries ago. Selectively hanging onto these ancient proscriptions for gays and lesbians exclusively is unfair according to anybody's standard of ethics. We lawyers call it "selective enforcement," and in civil affairs it's illegal.
A better reading of Scripture starts with the book of Genesis and the grand pronouncement about the world God created and all those who dwelled in it. "And, the Lord saw that it was good." If God created us and if everything he created is good, how can a gay person be guilty of being anything more than what God created him or her to be?
Turning to the New Testament, the writings of the Apostle Paul at first lend credence to the notion that homosexuality is a sin, until you consider that Paul most likely is referring to the Roman practice of pederasty, a form of pedophilia common in the ancient world. Successful older men often took boys into their homes as concubines, lovers or sexual slaves. Today, such sexual exploitation of minors is no longer tolerated. The point is that the sort of long-term, committed, same-sex relationships that are being debated today are not addressed in the New Testament. It distorts the biblical witness to apply verses written in one historical context (i.e. sexual exploitation of children) to contemporary situations between two monogamous partners of the same sex. Sexual promiscuity is condemned by the Bible whether it's between gays or straights. Sexual fidelity is not.
What would Jesus do?
For those who have lingering doubts, dust off your Bibles and take a few hours to reacquaint yourself with the teachings of Jesus. You won't find a single reference to homosexuality. There are teachings on money, lust, revenge, divorce, fasting and a thousand other subjects, but there is nothing on homosexuality. Strange, don't you think, if being gay were such a moral threat?
On the other hand, Jesus spent a lot of time talking about how we should treat others. First, he made clear it is not our role to judge. It is God's. ("Judge not lest you be judged." Matthew 7:1) And, second, he commanded us to love other people as we love ourselves.
So, I ask you. Would you want to be discriminated against? Would you want to lose your job, housing or benefits because of something over which you had no control? Better yet, would you like it if society told you that you couldn't visit your lifelong partner in the hospital or file a claim on his behalf if he were murdered?
The suffering that gay and lesbian people have endured at the hands of religion is incalculable, but they can look expectantly to the future for vindication. Scientific facts, after all, are a stubborn thing. Even our religious beliefs must finally yield to them as the church in its battle with Galileo ultimately realized. But for religion, the future might be ominous. Watching the growing conflict between medical science and religion over homosexuality is like watching a train wreck from a distance. You can see it coming for miles and sense the inevitable conclusion, but you're powerless to stop it. The more church leaders dig in their heels, the worse it's likely to be.
Oliver "Buzz" Thomas is a Baptist minister and author of an upcoming book, 10 Things Your Minister Wants to Tell You (But Can't Because He Needs the Job).
This post is going to be a collection of this month's stories of gross persecution of homosexuals. This all started this week with Sally Kern and her statements this week. Regardless of your stance on homosexuality, these positions & actions in the following media items are unacceptable and terrifying. The following stories are the end result of legislators like Kern that would move us to a fundamentalist-fascist theocracy. You see it with Ultra Orthodox Jews, with Islamo-fascist Muslims, and many theocrats in America would move us in this direction. I can't get over how disgusting this type of religious bastardization is. We're sadly almost desensitized to statements like Kern's when coming from fundamentalist pastors like Falwell, Swaggert, Dobson, or Hagee but that has to stop and it must be taken seriously because real life people are listening to them and it is bleeding into real life action. Thanks to Kern we can hear what some of the people we've elected to be our voice actually believe. Oklahoma and the rest of America regardless of your stance should send a message to Kern and others like her and remove her from office. This is unacceptable. In your government:
[please forgive the cheesy photo slideshow attached to the video and just listen to the audio]
In a private address to supporters, Oklahoma State Representative, Sally Kern talks about how 'The Gays' are indoctrinating our children at age two, and are "the biggest threat our nation has, even more so than terrorism or Islam." Oh and also gayness is a cancer that spreads just like life-threatening toe cancer.
Kern also has advocated as a Rep in the past for an advisory board to ban books in school libraries that teach other faiths, are positive towards homosexuality, or teach evolution and the scientific method. Nice. Crazy-Ass Kern is Texas university-educated and married to a Baptist minister in OK City. Go figure. Terrorism is alive and well in Oklahoma and this time it's not in the form of an explosion at a government building but in the rhetoric of one of its own governors.
"Every thinking citizen of this country should write to Rep. Chris Benge, Speaker of the House for the Oklahoma House of Representatives asking for censure of this terrorist. Free speech is not a license to incite hate and violence, and sadly that is what this ugly oration is all about. Today, in regions all over this country where ignorant people actually accept these stupid lies as having some basis in fact, school-aged boys and girls who may appear a little more feminine or masculine than Sally thinks is appropriate are going to be terrorized by peers who listen to this crap because their parents listen to this crap. And that's just for starters. This type of terrorism is the genesis of all hate crimes from name calling to murder.
George Bush may have had one thing right. The war on terror begins at home. But instead of profiling innocent Americans simply because of their ethnic background, maybe we should start profiling elected officials who make speeches without any academic or factual merit as a means to exploit and manipulate their uneducated constituents. If Oklahoma is where the wind comes sweeping down the plain, perhaps a big gust will sweep Sally Kern out of office and to a place where she can no longer promote hate, violence and bigotry." -kirk snyder
An 19-year old Iranian who dared identify as gay nervously awaits a court ruling that he says could lead to his execution. “Mehdi” was studying English in Britain, when he says he learned his boyfriend back in Tehran had been arrested, charged with sodomy and hanged in 2006. But before the boyfriend was killed, Mehdi says, authorities forced his partner to name past lovers. Days later, Mehdi’s family claims, Iranian police showed up at their Tehran family home with an arrest warrant. In an asylum claim submitted to Britain’s Home Office, Medhi said if he returns to Iran, he too would be executed.
Britain’s Home Office didn’t buy it. It turned him down – then Mehdi fled for Canada before British officials could deport him to Tehran. But he was stopped by border police in Germany and sent to the Netherlands.
He now sits in a Dutch detention center, where he waits for a judge to decide whether to grant him asylum, or carry out a British extradition request to send him to the U.K.
The British Home Office says it does not believe that homosexuals in Iran are routinely persecuted purely because of their sexuality.
Human rights groups say otherwise, citing that Iran's record is particularly shocking, having executed possibly thousands of gay men since the Islamic revolution. And in these cases Iranian controlled media reports fabricate official charges to reduce any public sympathy for the accused or to mask the killings.
In your backyard:
Nathan Feldman, 30, said Slavic protesters have shoved him and spit on him at gay-pride events. Feldman said he lost his job at a jewelry store after a Ukrainian co-worker discovered he was gay and lied to get him fired. That wasn't all. A vandal scrawled graffiti on a trash dumpster outside his apartment: "Nathan Feldman, Die for AIDS."
Satender Singh, 26, One punch was all it took. One punch to forever divide. One punch to kill a young man.
On a hot summer afternoon along a placid lakefront in the Sacramento suburbs, Satender Singh had come with a group of fellow Fijians to celebrate his promotion at an AT&T call center. Three married couples and Singh, a lighthearted 26-year-old, drank and hooted and danced a crazy conga line to East Indian music.
An innocent outing? Not in the eyes of the Russian family a few picnic tables away.
Andrey Vusik, 29, fresh from morning church services with his young children in tow, stared with disgust as Singh danced and hugged the other men while their wives giggled. To the Russian, Singh seemed rude and inappropriate, a gay man putting on an outrageous public display.
Angry stares led to an afternoon of traded insults. As the long day slid toward dusk, the tall Russian immigrant approached with a friend to demand an apology. Singh refused. Vusik threw a single punch.
Singh's head smacked into a concrete walkway. The joyful young man with the musical laugh died four days later of brain injuries.
Now, half a year after that angry Sunday afternoon at Lake Natoma, 15 miles east of the state Capitol, the case remains anything but resolved.
State Sen. Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) said in a newspaper opinion piece that "radical fundamentalists" have pinned a bull's-eye on the gay community. "Tragically now, the threat of violence has become reality, as manifested in this murder."
A recent Southern Poverty Law Center report said many of the region's most vocal Slavic activists are followers of an international anti-gay group called Watchmen on the Walls. Formed just a few years ago, the group has established a potent presence among Slavic evangelicals in the U.S. and abroad.
Using battle-tinged rhetoric, the Watchmen have called for evangelicals to step aggressively into the political realm to fight what they see as a gay agenda threatening the traditional family.
Larry (Lawrence King), 15, had said publicly that he was gay, classmates said, enduring harassment from a group of schoolmates, including the 14-year-old boy, Brandon, charged in his death. Larry asked Brandon to be his valentine and the following day the 14-yr-old came to school and shot Larry in the head.
“God knit Larry together and made him wonderfully complex,” the Rev. Dan Birchfield of Westminster Presbyterian Church told the crowd as he stood in front of a large photograph of the victim. “Larry was a masterpiece.”
'Why we can't wait'
Your vote this year has the power to save lives and will affect millions of homosexual people in this country. This is why the Matthew Shepard Act matters, and why a position against it as a Christian is not just debatable but unconscionable...
Hate crimes differ from conventional crime because they are not directed simply at an individual, but are meant to cause fear and intimidation in an entire group or class of people. All violent crimes are reprehensible, but hate crimes require additional emphasis in the justice system because they target a whole group and not just the individual victim. A violent hate crime is intended to "send a message" that an individual and "their kind" will not be tolerated, many times leaving the victim and others in their group feeling isolated, vulnerable and unprotected. Our justice system should then be able to "send a message" right back that there are not "less than human" unprotected members of society.
The Supreme Court ruled that, "bias-motivated crimes are more likely to provoke retaliatory crimes, inflict distinct emotional harms on their victims, and incite community unrest." And stated that, "When the core of a person's identity is attacked, the degradation and dehumanization is especially severe, and additional emotional and physiological problems are likely to result. Society then, in turn, can suffer from the disempowerment of a group of people."
If that all seems too heady, here's the more practical component. Hate crime legislation gives federal authorities greater ability to engage in crime investigations that local authorities choose not to pursue, and allow courts to consider and present motive in cases in which it previously went unheard. It supports appeals from cases dismissed due to local bias or foul-play. There are countless cases of crimes against individuals dismissed or lessened due to bias. Take the Jena 6 story right now. Without hate crime legislation, it is often harder for victims to have recourse when justice isn't served. This is not only sensible but completely necessary and it should undoubtedly apply to sexual orientation considering that 20% of hate crimes apply to it.
The church is moving forward in many of the arenas in which it has exercised poor judgment. The Catholic church recently unveiled its list of "social" sins declaring that the individual not only sins against him/herself but also systemically against portions of society in a globalized world. Even the leaders of the Southern Baptist Convention recently stated that on Global Warming that if it didn't change its stance that it would be disregarded as "uncaring, reckless, and ill-informed johnny-come-lately's just as it had during segregation and slavery and that the poor would be the first to suffer. But despite all of this understanding of implication, nearly everyone, even progressive Christian ethics groups like Sojourners are steering clear of "the gay issue" in America. Why? Why can Christian America love anyone except for their gay neighbor (or mexican one for that matter). Why do Christians in America so hate gays? Christians have to step up on this even if they don't agree with homosexuals. The Bible, both Old and New Testaments, demands care for the "other," and declares the ramifications for those who don't. Regardless of an individual's views on the issues, the church has to be out front on human rights abuses. Are murder, violence and abuse ever acceptable toward anyone? Even more fundamental: Is Love Conditional? These shouldn't be a question the church is allowing to go unanswered. You can't play neutral on this one and come out clean.
"I join the oppressors of those I choose to ignore, and that's not just murder, it's suicide."
Pat Robertson's endorsement of Rudy Giuliani for president is simply astonishing. Robertson - the television preacher who founded the 700 Club and once ran for president himself - has made opposition to abortion and same sex marriage his political north star and has been a relentless champion of traditional marriage and family values.
Remember Robertson's merciless attacks on President Bill Clinton's lapses of sexual morality with Monica Lewinsky? Or his comments about how the 9/11 attacks were the result of America's tolerance for homosexuals and abortion?
Now Robertson is for Rudy, a thrice married adulterous husband, who is estranged from his own children and is both pro-choice and pro-gay rights. According to Pat Robertson's twisted moral logic, forgiving the social conservative shortcomings of Republicans is a Christian virtue, so long as the same virtue is never applied to Democrats. But Pat thinks Rudy can beat Hillary, and Pat really cares about winning for the Republicans.
What exactly goes on in Pat Robertson's head has puzzled many of us for a long time. This endorsement ranks as one of the most unprincipled in recent political memory. Maybe principles never mattered much to Pat Robertson after all. Perhaps the pro-business economic conservatism of the Republican Party was always more important to the televangelist than saving unborn lives. Robertson's longstanding support of murderous Liberian dictator Charles Taylor and his diamond investments thanks to Zairian dictator Mobutu Sese Seko speak louder than words when it comes to Robertson's ethic of life. And that's not to mention the more than $400 million Robertson's empire made when he sold his International Family Network to Rupert Murdoch, after building it on tax deductible contributions of thousands of CBN donors, many of modest means. He has been putting profits over principles for years.
Richard Land, spokesman for the Southern Baptist Convention, has taken a more consistent position. Land has clearly said that he won't support Giuliani if he becomes the Republican nominee, explaining in a recent Newsweek interview, "I'm not willing or able to violate my moral conscience. It would be like asking an African American to choose between Strom Thurmond and George Wallace, or asking Abe Lincoln to vote for a pro-slavery candidate. I personally can't do it." Land predicts that many social conservatives will just sit out this election if the Republicans decide to run Rudy. That's called standing for principle.
Pat Robertson clearly has taken another position. His endorsement of Rudy Giuliani will seem to many to be unprincipled hypocrisy.
Checks and Balances Restored. Monologue ended. Bush left impotent. Rummy resigns. Haggard ousted [or outed...either way he won't be whispering in the president's ear any longer]. Foley exposed. Delay politically dead. Santorum 'santorumed' [haha, thanks chris]. Incumbents relieved of their "duties". House and Senate with a Democratic majority. The world breathes and trepidly hopes the new guys are maybe just a little better the old ones, and that K-Fed and Rummy find each other. John Bolton, you're next.
