Largest Lutheran Denomination Votes to Ordain Non-celibate Gays and Lesbians

Another moment of note for gays and American Christianity:

After an emotional debate over the authority of Scripture and the limits of biblical inclusiveness, leaders of the country’s largest Lutheran denomination voted Friday to allow gay men and lesbians in committed relationships to serve as members of the clergy.

The vote made the denomination, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the latest mainline Protestant church to permit such ordinations, contributing to a halting sense of momentum on the issue within liberal Protestantism.

By a vote of 559 to 451, delegates to the denomination’s national assembly in Minneapolis approved a resolution declaring that the church would find a way for people in “publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous same-gender relationships” to serve as official ministers. (The church already allows celibate gay men and lesbians to become members of the clergy.)

Conservatives members of the church reacted in the same manner as conservative members of the Episcopal church, with threats to leave the denomination:

“I think we have stepped beyond what the word of God allows,” said the Rev. Rebecca M. M. Heber of Heathrow, Fla., who said she was going to reconsider her membership.

Conservative dissenters said they saw various options, including leaving for another Lutheran denomination or creating their own unified body.

[...]

Before the vote but sensing its outcome, the Rev. Timothy Housholder of Cottage Grove, Minn., introduced himself as a rostered pastor in the church, “at least for a few more hours,” implying that he would leave the denomination and eliciting a gasp from some audience members.

“Here I stand, broken and mournful, because of this assembly and her actions,” Mr. Housholder said.

Of course they will cite to the Bible, and to non-orthodox interpretations of it as their justification for talk of leaving, but of course non-orthodoxy doesn't seem to be a huge issue until it involves gays and gay rights. I'm bound to offend someone with this comparison but to me, that argument seems vaguely reminiscent to arguments that the Civil War was really about "states' rights."

Saturday Morning Round-Up

1. A story in yesterday's Washington Post reveals that the Obama administration is considering drafting an executive order asserting the President's authority to detain terrorist suspects indefinitely without any judicial process. The White House denies that a draft order exists (via John Cole) thought there is no denial that they are considering such a move. I found this quote from the Post article to be particularly odd:

"...one administration official suggested that the White House is already trying to build support for an order. "Civil liberties groups have encouraged the administration, that if a prolonged detention system were to be sought, to do it through executive order," the official said.

First of all, I would like this official to find me one civil liberties group that has argued for such a thing. Perhaps what he/she meant is that they'd rather have an executive order than a Bush-like assertion of authority that merely cites the Constitution, but there's essentially no difference between the two approaches legally. Also, they are arguing that such an order would permit them to get Congress' acquiescence in the closing of Guantanamo, an effort stymied by the various Democratic and Republican bed-wetters on the Hill. Which basically would amount to Obama saying to Congress "I double-pledge to hold terrorists forever if you will please let me shut down Guantanamo." But it seems to me like sending them Bermuda an the South Pacific was working out alright.

2. Gays and Lesbiasn are-rightly-angered as well at the Obama administration's shuffling approach towards gay rights. Don't Ask, Don't Tell, remains in place, the Obama DOJ is arguing before the courts to retain DOMA, and Obama's decision to extend federal benefits to domestic partners was praised until advocates realized that those benefits didn't include health care (doubly ironic, considering the President's present political battle over a national health care plan.) Arnold King, while not citing specifically to the administration's approach to gay rights, makes the point that the Obama administration has many agendas, but appears satisfied to half-ass meeting their goals on any of them.

3. For some conservative Christians, Sanford's weeping and rending of garments is enough for them to get over his infidelity and bizarre behavior. I'm sure the fact that he's a Republican politician has absolutely no bearing on their attitudes. But stories like this make it clear that for all of Sanford's talk, he was determined to continuing playing his own staff, his own state, and especially his own wife, until he got caught. Politically connected religious leaders and politicians may be quick to forgive, but other conservatives? Not so much.

4. Bob Herbert takes a look at the economy and calls a spade (a jobless recovery) a spade (no recovery at all.)

5. The Iranian government appears to be gaining the upper-hand against the protesters, though it also seems clear that the massive protests have revealed divisions in the leadership that may indicate long-term change.

6. Upon the news of Michael Jackson's death, I found myself wondering what condition his estate was in and upon whom would fall the unfortunate task of trying to sort it out. It appears he had at least one will, though no one knows it's contents yet. I predict there will be a gargantuan battle over his estate given the value still attached to his name and his music and the massive debt attached to much of his property, but I doubt it will interest the public as much as Anna Nicole Smith's highly publicized probate did, what with the absence of a childhood custody dispute. There can be no doubt though of Jackson's status as a mega-star, as the reaction to his death was almost more than the internet could bear.

7. You might've missed this news, but Wednesday the United States pulled off a shocking upset and defeated the number one team in the world 2-0 to advance to the final game of the Confederations Cup. Spain is praised for their ability to possess the ball, and it was expected that the U.S. would entrench upon defense and wait for their opportunities to counter. Instead, Spain committed uncharacteristic errors as the U.S. went with a strategy of heavily pressuring the ball and looking for quick counters, and remaining incredibly well-organized (and frankly, a little lucky) on defense. The strategy paid off with huge dividends; quick movement up the field led to a goal by Jozy Altidore, and a Spanish turnover led to a goal by Clint Dempsey. Altidore (after keeper Brad Guzan) was clearly man of the match. No telling if his outstanding play makes him the future of American soccer or another Eddie Johnson, but American soccer fans will take what they can get. The United States plays Brazil tomorrow, a team they already lost to in the first round, but against whom they might have a better chance if they play as decisively as they did against Spain.

8. I thought this article about Grandparents University at UNT was interesting. Grandparents and their grand-children apparently spend a weekend at the school's dorm and taking classes together, in a program designed to give young teenagers and tweeners a taste of college life, and some bonding time with their grand-parents.

UPDATE: Spencer Ackerman finds at least one civil libertarian to whom the Obama administration official might be referring with the above quote from the Post story; Kate Martin of the Center for National Security Studies:

Martin thinks that established law holds that the administration doesn't require any additional legal authorization to hold anyone captured on the battlefields of Afghanistan without charge until the end of hostilities -- that comes from the September 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force, as does dispensation for the 9/11 plotters -- but would need to charge or release any detainee picked up outside either Afghanistan or Iraq. Martin thinks the reported executive order might be the only thing standing in the way of an even broader congressional effort of the sort seen in the war supplemental that Daphne critiqued yesterday. Martin has expressed her organization's longstanding perspective on detainee matters to the administration's detentions task force.

So Martin supports it, but only to the extent that something from Congress might be worse. Given the way Congress has handled the possible closing of Gitmo this may be true, though I happen to think that Congress should be forced to craft an indefinite detention policy if that's what they want in exchange for closing Gitmo.

Glenn Greenwald has more though, as I've pointed out once before, he has a tendency to criticize the "many defenders" of Obama on various issues where Obama replicates Bush doctrines, without actually linking to or naming any of these defenders. Greenwald is a very thorough blogger, which is why I don't understand why he so eagerly reaches for the "some say" approach to blogging.

Friday Round-Up

Some reading for your Friday afternoon:

1. Ayatollah Khamenei escalates the rhetoric and says opposition leaders will be responsible for "bloodshed and chaos" if the protests continue (a possibility that members of hard-line militias may seek to ensure becomes a reality.) He denies that Iran's election was rigged, though he's contradicted by what evidence is available. Roger Cohen lauds the protesters, and says Obama should be more firmly on their side. I disagree. I think Obama has struck the proper tone of concern and and caution. Were it not for our history of meddling in Iran's internal affairs, I might think otherwise.

2. More details on Obama's new financial regulations plan. Changes no doubt, but maybe not the sweeping kind that we need, according to Paul Krugman. The bad news on the economy in general has slowed, but Martin Wolf says we shouldn't be too hasty about thinking we're out of the woods yet. Certainly some (like small businesses) are having a very rough time of it.

3. Check for flying pigs outside your window, because today Ken Starr has come out in support of of Sonia Sotomayor.

4. John Shalikashvilli, chairman of the Joint Chief of Staffs under Clinton, says that arguments against gays in the military are poorly reasoned and insupportable.

5. Egypt shocked Italy 1-0 in Confederations Cup play yesterday, a result that perhaps shouldn't be so surprising given their play against Brazil. Fortunately for the U.S. this means that a win against Egypt tomorrow means the US will make it out of the first round. Unfortunately, the fact that Egypt is playing so well against the giants makes such a victory highly unlikely.

6. Today is Juneteenth round these parts, a celebration of the day that slaves were liberated in Texas.

Wednesday Morning Reading

Some things for you to ponder this morning:

1. A senior cleric in Iran comes out against the election results. But were they rigged? Critics say yes.

2. Some analysis of Netanyahu's announcement that Israel would consider recognition of a Palestinian state. A step forward, but still balking on other important considerations like settlement expansion.

3. A Presidential election and some new laws, but the end result is the same; you can't trust the NSA not to spy on the American people.

4. Speaking of intelligence agencies, the CIA is fighting the release of it's own internal reports regarding interrogations of "high-value" detainees. Obviously, there's something in embarrassing in them.

5. Speaking of detainees, here are some people who don't wet their pants at the thought of being responsible for them.

6. Obama will announce that the federal government will extend benefits to the domestic partners, including same-sex partners and spouses, of federal employees.

7. The Obama administration is proposing regulatory changes that will broaden government oversight of banks and the financial markets.

8. And lastly, another great column of David Leonhardt at the New York Times. This time he takes on the scare word "rationing" and explains how health care is already rationed ineffeciently and unfairly everyday in America.

Time to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

As the nation commemorates the 65th anniversary of D-Day and those who gave their lives to defend us, it is time we stood up for those who are now willing to make the same sacrifice if asked but are forced to deny their own nature to do so. It is nothing less than shameful that gay and lesbian members of the military must still adhere to the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy or risk being kicked out, which has done nothing but cost us valuable people at a time of need. But unlike in 1993 when this policy was first instituted, this is no longer a controversial issue. The vast majority of Americans favor allowing gays to serve openly - even a majority of conservatives.

Now President Obama promised to get this stupid policy repealed during his campaign and, interestingly, the Republican Congressman he just appointed to be Secretary of the Army also favors a repeal. Could this be a clever move to build political support in Congress? Let's hope so.

New Hampshire to be sixth state to legalize same-sex marriage

Making Dick Cheney happy and living up to its "Live Free or Die" motto, the New Hampshire legislature once again approved a bill legalizing same-sex marriages in the state with a minor altercation to get the approval of Gov. Lynch. He will be signing it into law later this afternoon.

Setbacks

The California Supreme Court upheld by a 6-1 vote the Prop. 8 ban on same-sex marriage in the state, although it did not invalidate the marriages of approximately 18,000 gay couples who married before the law took effect. Gay rights activists argued that the initiative revised the California Constitution's equal protection clause to such a dramatic degree that it first needed the Legislature's approval. Now they will likely try to get the issue back on the ballot to reverse the ban, so all hope is not lost.

After initially passing it, a bill granting same-sex marriage rights in New Hampshire stalled in the legislature after Gov. Lynch sent it back, indicating he would only sign it if certain protections were added for religious groups who did not want to take part in same-sex ceremonies. Hopefully these differences will be resolved since obviously overall support is there.

Meanwhile, Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives are introducting legislation to "define marriage as between a man and woman" in the District of Columbia. I doubt it will even come to a vote though.

Gay diplomats to receive equal benefits soon

The State Department is ending its policy of withholding benefits from the families of gay diplomats:

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton will soon announce that gay American diplomats will be given benefits similar to those that their heterosexual counterparts enjoy, U.S. officials said Saturday.

In a notice to be sent soon to State Department employees, Clinton says regulations that denied same-sex couples and their families the same rights and privileges that straight diplomats enjoyed are "unfair and must end," as they harm U.S. diplomacy.

"Providing training, medical care and other benefits to domestic partners promote the cohesiveness, safety and effectiveness of our posts abroad," she says in the message, a copy of which was obtained by The Associated Press.

"It will also help the department attract and retain personnel in a competitive environment where domestic partner benefits and allowances are increasingly the norm for world-class employers," she says.

"At bottom, the department will provide these benefits for both opposite-sex and same-sex domestic partners because it is the right thing to do," Clinton says.

Good news. Now if we can just get the administration to move more swiftly on ending the military's ridiculous "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

Highlighting Professionalism in the U.S. Military

Now I don't link to these stories to bag on the military, so much as I link to them to bag on the right-winger Christians and bigots in the military. Item #1:

After posting his resume on online job site CareerBuilder.com, Corey Andrew was contacted by an army recruiter about a job.

The email exchange between Andrew and the recruiter, Sergeant Marcia Ramode, quickly turned hostile when Andrew revealed that he was a homosexual.

"You are definitely unqualified," wrote Ramode. "Now take you gay self [sic] back to someplace else we do not tolerate gay people like you in any part of the military."

"Her response was appalling," Andrew told CNN.

The email exchange grew more heated, with Ramode suggesting that Andrew should, "go back to Africa and do your gay voodoo limbo tango and wango dance."

One reprimand, coming up. And then there are these yahoos:

Al Jazeera has posted a video alleging to show American soldiers trying to proselytize in Afghanistan -- which would be a clear violation of the military code and, potentially, the U.S. Constitution. More from Crooks and Liars here.

[...]

The video shows, among other things, a prayer circle of evangelical soldiers discussing how and whether to distribute a set of bibles in Afghanistan. If the soldiers ended up doing it, that would be a clear violation of military rules and a great way to earn enmity in a crucial corner of the world. But the video doesn't show that. Rather, what it shows is the soldiers talking about whether such behavior would be kosher or not, acknowledging clearly that proselytizing is wrong. One of them wonders aloud whether it's OK to distribute the bibles as "gifts" as a way of getting around the rules, and the prayer leader quickly cuts him off, saying "Alright, let's talk about it. What do you think?" The video shows no conclusion being reached.

One moment that is slightly greater cause for concern (but not necessarily damning) shows Afghanistan's chief of chaplains -- Lt. Col. Gary Hensley -- telling a congregation of military personnel that every Christian is commissioned to be a "witness" that "hunts people for Jesus...get the hound of heaven after 'em so we get 'em in the Kingdom...That's what we do, that's our business!" To those not in the know, this is boilerplate evangelical rhetoric that's to be expected in such a service. The problem is that for soldiers, it's not clear who exactly they should be trying to convert.

So, draw your own conclusions, but let's just say there are many, many Christians who don't see any problem with invading a predominantly Muslim country and then trying to hand out Bibles and convert people.

Maine = Marriage Equality

Maine became the 5th state in the union to legalize same-sex marriage after Gov. Baldacci changed his previous position:

“In the past, I opposed gay marriage while supporting the idea of civil unions,” Governor Baldacci said. “I have come to believe that this is a question of fairness and of equal protection under the law, and that a civil union is not equal to civil marriage.”

“Article I in the Maine Constitution states that ‘no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor be denied the equal protection of the laws, nor be denied the enjoyment of that person’s civil rights or be discriminated against.’”

“This new law does not force any religion to recognize a marriage that falls outside of its beliefs. It does not require the church to perform any ceremony with which it disagrees. Instead, it reaffirms the separation of Church and State,” Governor Baldacci said.

“It guarantees that Maine citizens will be treated equally under Maine’s civil marriage laws, and that is the responsibility of government.”

Well done. Let's hope New Hampshire's governor follows suit soon.

In other news, the District of Columbia voted to recognize same-sex marriages from the states. Since it is subject to Congress, Speaker Pelosi put out a statement saying they should stay out of the issue.

"Dignity in Death"

Adam's post yesterday illustrated the incredible progress that gay marriage has made in our country in only the last several years. In that vein, this moving personal story illlustrates the ordinariness-but incredible importance-of gay marriage. I think it's worth reposting in full:

On March 24, I came home after work and found my husband, Peter Dubuque, dead from an unexpected accident. We have been together almost fifteen years and, because we live in Massachusetts, married for four-and-a-half years. In the aftermath of unexpected death, the surviving spouse faces a jumble of legal responsibilities, emotional reactions, and practical considerations. At 42, I never expected to have to plan a memorial service for the 39-year-old love of my life. I am very fortunate to have a strong national and local network of love and support from friends and family. These past few weeks would have been impossible without them.

In 2004 in Massachusetts (as there had been previously in Vermont when it legislated civil unions), opponents of marriage equality predicted social disaster. The destruction of our social fabric never materialized, of course; each argument was merely an rhetorical arrow in a quiver of hateful obstructions. What was surprising, however, is how marriage equality in Massachusetts has quickly blended into the social landscape. Despite a few feeble and ineffectual protests from the extreme right, it has become a non-issue here.

Just how far marriage equality has become a regular component of society here has been made clear to me while interacting with people I didn't know. What was once unheard of is now commonplace and, frankly, ordinary.

In 1994, I was arrested, handcuffed, and spent the night in jail for dancing with another man in suburban Chicago. (Not kissing, not even touching : just dancing.) But on March 24, 2009, the EMTs, police officers, and detectives on the accident scene were extremely professional, respectful, and courteous.

Shortly after Vermont legalized civil unions, debated raged whether newspapers across the country would accept or refuse to acknowledge such partnerships; now many more highly visible newspapers routinely do. The gracious funeral home operators treated me the same as they would any grieving spouse.

Referring to my husband as my husband doesn't raise eyebrows or result in scorn or sarcasm, whereas when referring to him as my partner ten years ago carried the risk of bad service, indifference, or outright hostility. Customer service representatives at places like banks respect the terminology, whereas once we might have sheepishly referred offhand to our partner. (It was perhaps only six or seven years ago when introducing Peter as my partner, sometimes people would assume I met business partner, even when the context would indicate otherwise.) Twelve years ago something as simple as explaining to utility companies that two people weren't roommates but partners could be construed as being "in your face." Flash forward to the young associate at the Apple store who helped me with Peter's iPhone. Sexual orientation was irrelevant as he expressed sincere condolences for my loss.

Ten, even five years ago, people in my situation in Massachusetts would have faced prejudicial treatment in some of these interactions--in addition to having to deal with protracted legal issues because of being denied the right to be married--simply because marriage equality was an unknown, often feared, and that fear was exploited by our opponents for political gain. Coming of age in a time when AIDS felled so many so quickly, I was aware of far too many horrible, heart-wrenching stories in which the surviving partner was completely shut out and cast aside by next of kin. Now, we are legally next of kin. For all the wonderful things that marriage equality does for the living, it maintains our dignity in death.

So, when the wonderful news from Iowa and Vermont broke, I felt happy. I know Peter would have been overjoyed, and knowing how happy it would have made him made me elated as well. I am so happy that soon in Iowa and Vermont, the idea of two women or two men joined in marriage will be an unremarkable event.

Iowa and Vermont are, however, only the third and fourth state of fifty. We must stop letting those who oppose marriage equality frame the debate. The objections they raise are smokescreens that mask not only their hypocrisy, but also sidetrack our focus. We will win when we focus on equality.

The legal right to have been married to Peter that was so important in our lifetime, has turned out to be equally important in death. I am thankful for the all of the couples, lawyers, advocates, and judges who have put so much energy into this struggle over the past many years, and to those who continue to do so until the goal of federally recognized marriage equality is met.

It's hard for me to imagine the pain of having your loved one die, and then being shut out by family and friends who either disapprove of you or disapprove of your lifestyle. I'm glad to know that this man didn't have to endure such treatment, but the same cannot be said of gay couples in most of the country. This is why marriage equality is so important; as much for what it means after death as in during life.

Progress Towards Marriage Equality

Just four and half years ago, same-sex marriage bans were approved in all 11 states where a referendum was on the ballot, incited by a state supreme court ruling that made it legal in Massachusetts. More were passed over the next few years (Texas followed in 2005), and same-sex marriage in California was even overturned by voters just this passed November.

But there seems to be momentum this year in the other direction. Same-sex marriage became legal in Iowa via court ruling, but no legislation was introduced to overturn it. In Vermont, the legislature became the first in the nation to approve same-sex marriage themselves. Similiar legislation has been introduced in New York and Maine and has a decent shot at passage.

A public hearing on allowing gay marriage in Maine has opened with a standing ovation for the bill's sponsor.

Sen. Dennis Damon received a roar of approval at a crowded hearing Wednesday when he said the time has come to recognize same-sex marriages.

He says his proposal "recognizes the worth of every man and woman among us." It is backed by 60 co-sponsors.

Gov. Paterson introduced the legislation in New York and Maine Gov. John Baldacci, who previous opposed it, now says he's keeping an open mind. Gay rights activists have set a goal of establishing same-sex marriage in all six New England states by 2012. They're already halfway there (Vermont, Massachusetts, and Connecticut, whose state legislature will soon codify into law the court ruling making same-sex marriage legal).

Of course, progress is clearly regional for now. The "red" states have banned same-sex marriage with firm majorities (even there, generational differences in attitude on this issue will eventually lead to their repeal). But, the midwestern state of Iowa does not seem to have the same fervent reaction. The ban in California will eventually be overturned, and the neighboring Northwest will follow in the Northeast's footsteps. In any case, who could have imagined this even just a few years ago?

UPDATE: A new Quinnipiac poll shows a plurality of New Jersey voters back same-sex marriage rights.

UPDATE II: National support for same-sex marriage grows.

Thursday Morning Links

There's a lot of interesting stuff to read this morning.

1. More troubling violence in Iraq, as sixteen Iraqi soldiers die in a suicide attack in Anbar province.

2. This is very interesting; George Mitchell, U.S. Middle East envoy, is in Israel today. The Christian Science Monitor reports that the Obama administration will communicate to Israel that they intend to link the issue of Iran's nuclear program to illegal Israeli settlements. As in, if Israel wants help with Iran, they're going to have to make concessions on settlement activity. That message probably won't go over very well.

3. More on the "truce" with the Taliban in Swat: unsurprisingly, militants who pledged to surrender their arms...aren't.

4. Science news: researchers report setbacks in their explorations of the genetic underpinnings of many inherited diseases. Apparently, it's impossible to link some common conditions (like Schizophrenia) to one or two genetic markers. Scientists suspect that interactions between a countless number of genes can produce or make people vulnerable to disease, making it considerably more difficult to predict the possibility of disease in certain individuals, as well as fashion targeted treatments. Also, Nicholas Kristof (who's had some great columns recently) writes about recent research showing that the IQ's of poor children living in chaotic households suffers, and has suggestions for what we can do about that. And lastly, the "last voyage" of an astronaut whose job has been to tend the Hubble Space telescope, a scientific achievement that has made incalculable contributions to our understanding of the universe.

5. Jonathan Capehart dismisses the tired arguments for intolerance that underpin opposition to allowing gays to serve openly in the military.

6. Legislation that would create a new University of North Texas law school in Dallas passes the Texas Senate, but could face stiff opposition in the House. Despite the downturn in the legal market, I'm not entirely opposed to the idea. North Texas could use a less expensive public law school, and unless we really are in the Great Depression II, the economy should improve in time for the first graduates of the school. Still, it seems like a difficult time to ask for money to produce lawyers who right now couldn't find jobs.

7. John Madden to retire after thirty years in the booth. Madden's an easy target for ridicule, but I've always liked his earnestness and his understanding of the game. Clearly the guy loves football, and has always done a good job of explaining the game to football amateurs like myself. He'll be missed.

8. Bonus music review: the new Metric album "Fantasies" came out on Tuesday. It's good. The hooks are catchier, the themes are gloomier, and song structure is tighter. I especially like the darker and fuzzier synth sounds, which give the album a somewhat more ambient feel. On other Metric albums I've found there's usually 2-3 good songs and a lot of filler. Not so here; all the songs are keepers. Anyway buy it, or listen to it here.

Conservatives Can't Be Trusted With The Constitution

Because, as Jack Balkin makes clear, they apparently don't really understand it.

Wednesday Morning Links

1. Gay marriage activists hope the Vermont legislature's decision to legalize gay marriage will provide impetus to other states to do the same. This is true at least in D.C., which voted to recognize gay marriages in other states. On the other side of the world though in Iraq, gays and lesbians find that their lives are endangered because of their sexuality.

2. Small towns, suckered by investment bankers who sold them risky municipal bond derivatives.

3. Peru's Ex-President Alberto Fujimora is convicted and sentenced to twenty-five years in prison for human rights abuses that occurred during the war against Maoist rebels Shining Path.

4. More details on the prosecutorial misconduct that undid the Ted Stevens prosecution. And McClatchy has another article on Judge Emmett Sullivan, who has "declared war" on what he sees to be a rising tide of government prosecutorial secrecy, incompetence and malfeasance.

5. Texas Republican lawmakers find themselves at odds with Gov. Rick Perry over a number of issues beyond stimulus funding. Texas Republicans are apparently not as receptive to marching orders as Congressional Republicans were during the Bush administration.

6. Former Australian government officials and academics applaud Obama's commitment to rid the world of nuclear weapons.
Anne Applebaum says there are other more important priorities that Obama should focus on, but it seems to me that getting rid of nuclear weapons never seems to be worthwhile until somebody's threatening to use one. Why wait until we reach that point?

7. Michael Gerson, being a moron again, characterizes Obama as "the most polarizing President" in history. In fact, Obama is a broadly popular President among Americans, and is most vociferously opposed by a loud minority contingent of right-wing lunatics and Republicans who think the key to electoral victory is saying no to everything Obama proposes.

8. Al Franken emerges victorious in the re-count, but Coleman signals further appeals are on the way.

9. Student loan defaults are surging, which may increase calls for a student loan "bailout."

10. American intelligence officials warn that the United States' electrical grid has been infiltrated by hackers from China and Russia who may be looking to launch cyber attacks against the United States infrastructure in the event of military conflict. I remember a 2003 Frontline special warning of this very thing, a warning that appears to be coming true.

Funny

John Cole offers us the "sweet tears" of Tony Perkins and the Family Research Council, who are lamenting the decline and fall of mankind as evidenced by the decision of Vermont legistlators to let consenting adults marry each other.

Friday Links

For your edification:

1. Via Volokh, Congress takes on the issue of cyber security.

2. A federal judge rules that some detainees being held at Bagram in Afghanistan can challenge their detention in court.

3. Social Security is clogged with a backlog of disability cases. In my law school's legal clinic, I was very bluntly informed by the senior attorneys working there that the Social Security Administration always denies an initial application for disability, regardless of the merits. And that they will fight tooth and nail to deny benefits to all but those who are most clearly disabled (such as with blindness, paralysis, loss of limb, etc.) The SSA's role should be to to fairly dispense entitlement benefits, but they seem to regard themselves as the government's moneysavers.

4. Speaking of government malfeasance, immigrants die in custody and not only does nobody care, but nobody even bothers to report it. I understand the need to enforce immigration laws in our country, but we treat detained immigrants worse than we treat terrorist being held at Guantanamo Bay.

5. The Iowa Supreme Court unanimously strikes down the state's ban on gay marriage finding that it violates the Iowa State Constitution forbidding . According to Maggie Gallagher, teenagers will now begin fornicating left and right (more than they already do, I presume.)

6. Photographs from the day Martin Luther King Jr. died.

7. The U.S. Men's soccer team beat Trinidad and Tobago the other night, 3-0. The score probably should've been worse for T&T, who looked out of sync and discombobulated all night. All three goals came from the feet of Jozy Altidore, who's put in two phenomenal performances for the national team. But nobody should declare him the great American hope yet, as we've seen this sort of thing before (Eddie Johnson, anyone?)

8. The Mavericks cling to the hope that they can grab the 7th seed and avoid a first round match-up against L.A. They're getting a little help from Utah, but they need to win out to have a chance.

Slavery Split Churches Too

Andrew Sullivan and Damon Linker both have excellent posts on Rod Dreher and Christian opposition to gay marriage, and homosexuality in general. I recommend reading both in full. I only have on minor point to add, and it's in regards to this statement that Dreher makes:

Sex, especially homosexuality, is a big deal because how one comes down on those related questions has a lot to do with how you view the authority of Scripture and Tradition. There's a reason why the churches today are breaking apart over homosexuality, and it has to do with the plain fact that there can be no compromise on this issue, as it goes to the heart of how believers understand ourselves, our relationship to God, and to the nature of truth. This stuff matters. It matters a lot.

Linker deals with Dreher's retreat to Biblical literalism (in sum: why do Christians retreat to the Bible only when it suits their argument?) but Dreher misses something else. The struggle for gay rights is frequently paralleled to the African-American struggle for civil rights, for obvious reasons. But the civil rights movement, starting before even the Civil War, also had the effect of dividing American churches against themselves. Just like today, church-goers of all denominations in the 19th and 20th centuries believed that there could be "no compromise" on the issue of slavery and civil rights. Southern church-goers frequently cited to the Bible as a defense of slavery. But how many arguments between denominations do we hear about the correctness of civil rights, or slavery now? Not only was there eventually compromise on these issues, the anti-slavery and pro-civil rights forces won. There is simply no argument about these issues in mainstream churches anymore, and that despite the fact that at one point in time, a substantial number of Christians in America believed that the Bible offered literal support for racist slavery. 

Rod Dreher is right that the issue of homosexuality divides churches because of intense feelings on both sides. But Dreher's citing to the divison of churches over the issue of homosexuality is not the compelling evidence of the importance of the issue that he thinks it is.  And he's wrong to say that no compromise is possible. In fact, it's quite easy to predict that the gay rights movement will track the civil rights movement in this manner too. It's just not that likely that, one hundred years from now, Christians of all denominations will be arguing over what the Bible thinks of homosexuality. And that's what I think people like Dreher fear the most.

Idiot

I sent this story of a horrific murder in East Texas to Nat-Wu and Adam over the weekend, both of whom reacted to the story by saying "that's one of the worst things I've ever read." Which was pretty much what I thought when I read it too. Well, via John Cole and Andrew Sullivan, it seems that Rod Dreher had a different reaction to a minor part of the story:

...the killings aren't what shocked me about this story. What got me was this: This is a tiny East Texas town -- and there's a bisexual culture in one of them, among the teenagers? WTF? What do I not get about teenage life these days? What do I not get about the cultural air kids breathe?

I am so not going to give my children over to this culture, if I can help it. So not going to do it.But that's what the Caffeys thought to, I guess.

This is the same guy who referred to some of his fellow conservatives as "mongoloids", so we already know that typer's remorse is an issue for Dreher. Then Dreher goes on to update his post to clarify that-gosh no-he doesn't think murders were the result of the family daughter being bisexual:

I'm not saying bisexuals killed that family.Good grief. It's obvious that the murderers include the daughter and her boyfriend. The bisexuality thing was a mere aside that I found more startling than the murders, given the small-town culture where this crime took place.

Dreher's really going out of his way to make sure you know that a "culture of bisexuality" is more "startling" than the fact that nearly an entire family was murdered. Dreher points out the venue-East Texas-more than once, and that's for good reason. Given how backwards, homophobic and repressive the air can be in East Texas then it's no wonder that he's "shocked" and "startled" not only that anybody might manage to be gay, but that several people might manage to be gay AND hang out with each other. He disapproves of this of course, the implication of course being that approves of an environment being so repressive that gay kids can't possibly hang out with each other. His opinion on an environment in which a child can arrange the murder of almost her entire family goes unregistered.

Anyway Dreher meant to air only the typical conservative disapproval of the homosexual "lifestyle", but what he really revealed was the continuing and unabated intolerance practiced by social conservatives. To him and his ilk horrific murders of families are run-of-the-mill, everyday events that "just happen" these days, but a bisexual "culture" at a high school is what prompts him to grab his keyboard and rail against the moral collapse of our society that must be railed against and that our children must be defended from. Such is conservatism these days; nary a blink at violence, but the thought of two girls kissing gives them the willies. And people like him wonder why people like us don't take him or any of his ilk seriously? What an ass.

Suit Attacks DOMA

Last year I commented on Glenn Greenwald's proposal that Congressional Democrats should move to repeal Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, which bars couples in same-sex marriages from receiving the same benefits from the federal government that opposite-sex couples do. Today same-sex couples in Massachusetts, where gay marriage is legal, will file suit in the hopes that the federal courts will do what Congressional Democrats so far have not:

The suit, to be filed in Federal District Court in Boston, does not challenge a separate provision of the act that says states do not have to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. Information about the suit is posted on the advocacy group's web site.

While the Government Accountability Office has identified more than 1,100 federal statutory provisions in which marital status is a factor in rights and benefits, the suit focuses narrowly on equal protection as applied to Social Security, federal income tax, federal employees and retirees, and the issuance of passports.

“We picked programs every American can relate to,” Ms. Bonauto said.

The plaintiffs in the suit include eight couples and three widowers, all of whom were married in Massachusetts after the state began allowing same-sex marriages in 2004. All have applied for federal benefits, Ms. Bonauto said, but have been denied because the federal government does not recognize their marriages.

Some of the plaintiffs are federal employees who cannot share their health benefits with spouses; others cannot file taxes jointly or are receiving less generous Social Security retirement benefits.

The widowers include Dean Hara, the spouse of former Representative Gerry E. Studds. After Mr. Studds died in 2006, Mr. Hara, 51, was denied his Congressional pension and other benefits normally extended to surviving spouses of federal employees.

Another married couple, Melba Abreu and Beatrice Hernandez, estimate they would have saved about $20,000 in federal income tax over the past few years if they had been able to file jointly.

“In our case, the core of our American dream has always been for Melba and I to provide for one another,” said Ms. Hernandez, 47, of Boston. “This presents a real threat to that, when we take a good hard look at our future years.”

These couples are callously and arbitrarily denied benefits that same-sex couples are entitled to, but this suit has a chance of ending this form of legalized discrimination:

Erwin Chemerinsky, a constitutional law scholar and dean of the law school at the University of California, Irvine, said that the case seemed strong but that victory was not certain.

“I think that under established equal protection law, they have strong claims,” Mr. Chemerinsky said. “But it does raise issues that courts haven’t dealt with before, so that makes it more difficult to predict what the courts will do.”

This news doesn't mean that we shouldn't continue to press Congressional Democrats on this issue. Lawsuits are slow and uncertain, and it could be years before this suit is resolved even if it meets with some success at the district or appellate level. Congress can be slow as well, but Congress can put an end to this discrimination with one bill, in one day.