Prop 8: not what I'd call pro-family

Somebody please help me figure this out. If religious conservatives are "pro-family" and "pro-marriage," why would they want to prevent two people that love each other and are committed to each other from getting married and forming a family? It makes no sense. Gays and lesbians aren't going anywhere. They will continue to live among us. Let's stick up for ALL families and make sure that Californians don't take away their right to marry. If you feel so inclined, please donate to No on 8. If you live in California, get out this weekend and help make sure that people know what's on the line.

And here's the best ad the campaign has made yet. Samuel L. Jackson narrates:



Just one more Prop 8-related thing. Fifty-nine law professors in California have signed a statement that tells the truth about what Prop 8 means for religious groups and for families. Check it out. Excerpts from that statement:

Proposition 8, on the ballot this November, proposes a constitutional amendment that would eliminate the right to marry that same-sex couples in California currently possess. We recognize that people of integrity can differ in their views of the meaning of marriage. But people who want to take the right to marry away from same-sex couples should not rely on misleading claims about the current state of the law or about what Proposition 8 will do. As professors who teach and write about constitutional law, family law, and related subjects, we emphasize the following basic points. First, Proposition 8 would change existing California law and would require the state to discriminate against gay men and lesbians. Proposition 8 would forbid government officials from according gay men and lesbians a fundamental right they now enjoy and that all other adults in California will continue to enjoy: the right to marry a person of their choice.

Second, the claim that Proposition 8 is necessary to protect the tax exemptions of churches that refuse to solemnize or recognize marriages between same-sex couples is also false. As the Supreme Court of California made clear in its decision in the Marriage Cases, “affording same-sex couples the opportunity to obtain the designation of marriage will not impinge upon the religious freedom of any religious organization, official, or any other person; no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs.”

Third, the claim that Proposition 8 is necessary to prevent public schools from teaching issues relating to marriage by same-sex couples to children whose parents oppose that instruction is false. Existing California law already provides parents with an absolute right to review all materials provided as part of a school’s comprehensive sexual health education program and to have their children excused from participation.

That's the truth, folks. Let's protect marriage equality.

Interconnectedness

I just came across this surprisingly well-made video:


Obama '08 - Vote For Hope from MC Yogi on Vimeo.

I know there are a lot of these kind of videos out there, and I'm usually not all that impressed (though, this one is pretty good). But I liked this one a lot.

Yeah, it's a bit corny, and I know it's become really easy to be cynical about our government and especially about our President. Look, I don't think that Obama has magic powers or is going to dramatically alter the course of our nation or our planet. But I do believe he's the right person for the job right now, and that with our help, he can make our great country a little greater. I think Obama just gets it.

There's a lot of hope out there right now and a lot of excitement. Give in to it. Vote for the Senator from Illinois next Tuesday.

Nasty in North Carolina, Part 2

Earlier today I discussed a sleazy attack ad Elizabeth Dole is running in the North Carolina Senate race against Kay Hagan. The ad tries to connect Hagan to a PAC called Godless Americans and even possibly suggests that Hagan is an atheist herself.

Well, Hagan's not taking that crap. She's filing a defamation lawsuit against Dole's campaign. And recent polls have her winning! She's also up with a response ad:



I think it's great that Hagan is taking a stand. Dole's ad was lame and misleading.

But it's a bit unsettling to watch a political candidate declare her belief in God as if it's a prerequisite for public office. Hagan has every right to defend herself and to set the record straight. And I know it's not her job (and might cost her her job!) to set the record straight about atheists and agnostics. But I get tired of the suggestion that atheists and agnostics are somehow morally unfit for public life and for public trust.

Nasty in North Carolina

Incumbent Republican Senator Elizabeth Dole from North Carolina is getting attention for running a particularly nasty and deceitful ad about her Democratic challenger Kay Hagan. Hagan had attended a Democratic fundraiser at the home of a founder of Godless Americans Political Action Committee. The event was not connected to the PAC, nor does Hagan support the aims of the PAC, based on what she's said. But Dole's ad basically suggests that Hagan sympathizes with the PAC and even suggests that Hagan is an atheist herself. That's the whole ad. Seriously.

I need to sort through some of this stuff, so bear with me. First of all, as two major newspapers in North Carolina have pointed out, the ad is pretty sleazy and misleading. Hagan has called for Dole to remove the ad, I think with good reason. It's just flat-out wrong.

Second, the ad is based on the assumption that North Carolinians shouldn't or won't vote for an atheist, which might be true. But this has no place in a campaign! A candidate's belief in God or lack thereof is completely irrelevant!

Finally, Hagan has emphatically insisted that she does not support the Godless Americans PAC and that she is a believing Presbyterian. Fair enough. Obama has had to repeatedly assert his Christianity in response to claims that he is Muslim. But I went to the PAC's website, and this is not some freaky, radical, anti-American organization. From their website:

GAMPAC endorses candidates for public office who support the First Amendment separation of church and state; defend equal rights and protections for our nation's godless Americans; inform our community of the voting records of their elected representatives on issues of concern; and support our goal of having "a place at the table" in formulating public policy.

In addition, GAMPAC will facilitate the training and development of those godless Americans seeking to bring their organizations talents to the field of electoral politics.

Now, granted, "godless Americans" doesn't sound all that great to most religious Americans and probably doesn't help their cause a whole lot. It sounds a bit in-your-face to me. But their goals sound pretty reasonable, and highly pertinent given the sleaziness of Dole's ad. I would actually put their goals in line with the ACLU's goals. The PAC does not seem anti-religious in any way. They merely seek to protect the separation of church and state, and to support atheist candidates and atheists' civil liberties.

I've pointed this out before, but a study from a couple years ago found that atheists are the least trusted group in American society, according to a survey done by University of Minnesota sociologists. Ugh.

UPDATE 1: See my follow-up post on this.

UPDATE 2: A reader and friend of mine comments that he agrees with everything in my post but my contention that the Godless Americans PAC is not anti-religious. I've got to disagree with him. Yes, it depends on how you define "anti-religious." But the Godless Americans PAC does not call for the eradication of religion in the United States. It calls for strong separation of church and state, and it works to get a place at the discussion table for non-believers, as my friend points out. It supports non-believer candidates. And I think this is great. That study by Univ. of Minnesota scholars points to a real distrust of atheists in our country, and I think I can accurately say that atheists are no less moral, no less American, and no less trustworthy than anyone else.

Obama's "infomercial"

In case you missed it:



UPDATE (10/30/08): A TNR blogger sums it up:

It also makes for quite the contrast. McCain is talking about socialism and Ayers, while Obama has stripped his rhetoric of any hint of ideology. And where McCain often seems on the verging of ripping out someone’s gullet these days, Obama struck a convincingly empathetic tone.

Bill Clinton at Penn State today

I saw Bill Clinton speak on the Penn State campus today. It was cool. He's a great speaker. He didn't mention McCain or Palin once. But he laid out a pretty strong case for Obama, particularly on the economy, restoring our standing and reputation around the world, and making health care affordable and available for everyone.

Two things really stuck out to me. First, Clinton said that the choice of a running mate is the first "Presidential decision" that a candidate makes. Since Obama will be busy for a while dealing with the economic crisis, Clinton says his choice of Biden is that much more important. Biden, well experienced in foreign affairs, will be ready to help in that area and be a leader. McCain's running mate? Not so much.

The second thing that impressed me was Clinton's description of Obama's reaction to the economic crisis. Clinton said that when everything started to happen, Obama called him and Hillary, as well as many other people for advice. He quietly and calmly gathered information and showed a sincere desire to understand the situation and do what's right.

Everybody, we need to make sure Obama gets elected next week. Talk to your friends and family, donate a few bucks to his campaign, volunteer next Tuesday - whatever you can do.

UPDATE: Here's some local coverage of the event. From the Centre Daily Times:

Clinton delivered a 22-minute speech Wednesday afternoon before about 1,500 people — mostly Penn State students — in Rec Hall, where Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin held a rally the night before that drew about 7,000.

The former president’s campaign appearance lacked the pom-poms, thunder sticks, live country music performance and high-inflection applause lines that punctuated the Palin rally.

But he laid out a reasoned argument for Americans, after their long job interviews with the candidates, to hire a “decider in chief” who will grow the economy from the bottom up, not from the top down, and who will bring U.S. troops home from Iraq and rebuild the military.

Without mentioning either Sen. John McCain, of Arizona, or Alaska Gov. Palin, Clinton said Obama’s choice of Sen. Joe Biden, of Delaware, as his running mate now looks especially wise.

Obama the socialist? Not so much

I guess it was inevitable. McCain and Palin have called him just about everything else. They're latest stunt is claiming that Obama's entire economic plan revolves around redistributing wealth. Palin calls it "experimenting with socialism" and stokes fears and resentment over the prospect of a "radical" President stealing your hard-earned money and giving it to people that don't deserve it.

It's all part of a larger effort by a campaign devoid of integrity and substance to portray Obama as too radical, too risky, and too un-American to elect as President. The problem is, they're just dead wrong. Ask the actual Socialist candidate for President, Brian Moore, who appeared on Colbert's show. Obama's no socialist. Not even close. And the American people aren't buying it, either: likely voters favor Obama over McCain on taxes by 14 percent.

Wealth redistribution is a fact of life in the United States. Under a Republican administration, every year my wife and I have recieved a tax refund that has absolutely dwarfed the amount we actually paid in taxes. And check out this video that shows how disingenuous McCain is about the whole thing:



Palin herself comes from a state where wealth redistribution is the norm:

The state that she governs has no income or sales tax. Instead, it imposes huge levies on the oil companies that lease its oil fields. The proceeds finance the government’s activities and enable it to issue a four-figure annual check to every man, woman, and child in the state. One of the reasons Palin has been a popular governor is that she added an extra twelve hundred dollars to this year’s check, bringing the per-person total to $3,269. A few weeks before she was nominated for Vice-President, she told a visiting journalist—Philip Gourevitch, of this magazine—that "we’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs."

Obama handled the whole socialist nonsense pretty well today:



The truth is that Obama's tax plan would given 95% of Americans a tax cut, and those making over $250,000 would have to pay a bit more. That sounds pretty fair to me, and like a good way to help the middle class.

Religious freedom, same-sex marriage, and Proposition 8

A large part of the Christian Right's framing of same-sex marriage debate has to do with religious freedom (for more on the concept of framing, see this). Supporters of Prop 8 in California base their case for banning same-sex marriage in part on the belief that same-sex marriage would infringe upon their religious freedoms. A widely circulated email that I've seen illustrates this point. Supporters of Prop 8 claim that their children would be taught at school to accept same-sex marriage as normal, contrary to their religious beliefs. They claim that churches could be forced to perform same-sex marriages and could be sued for hate speech if they condemn homosexuality and same-sex marriage. These are just a few examples. They also point to Catholic Charity's cessation of its adoption services in Massachusetts due to their refusal to comply with non-discrimination laws and adopt to gay and lesbian couples.

The use of this religious freedom frame is really interesting. I think it suggests a couple things. First, that the Religious Right no longer feels like a morality frame is working. Remember Moral Majority in the 1980s? It was based on the assumption that a majority of Americans shared a moral consensus of sorts and opposed homosexuality, among other things. Since then, however, Americans ' attitudes toward homosexuality have liberalized significantly, and birth cohort differences are tremendous. The most recent birth cohorts are much more liberal in their attitudes than earlier cohorts. And while most Americans have problems with homosexuality, most support gays and lesbians' civil rights. Also, civil unions for gays and lesbians exist in several states, and same-sex marriage is now legal in three states (CA, CT, and MA).

Increasingly, I believe that religious conservatives are feeling increasingly marginalized as 1) Americans attitudes become more favorable toward gays and lesbians, 2) institutions are becoming increasingly accommodating toward gays and lesbians, and 3) the media is largely favorable toward gays and lesbians.

I believe that the use of this religious freedom frame is evidence of that growing sense of marginalization. Religious conservatives feel increasingly that they are actually a persecuted, marginalized minority. Now, I believe that part of this is a genuine sense of frustration and fear, and part of it is really just framing efforts, or "spin." And I think the religious freedom frame is somewhat brilliant. They are now the victims that deserve special protection from discrimination. Does that sound familiar? That's basically the frame that originated in the Civil Rights Movement. I think it's potentially brilliant because 1) it is likely highly effective at mobilizing individuals and religious groups, including congregations, that sympathize with the movement's goals, and 2) it resonates with the deep and abiding importance Americans place on religious freedom.

However, I think it is problematic for several reasons. First, claims of dangers to religious freedoms if same-sex marriage is allowed are grossly overstated and mostly amount to fear mongering. Ironically, those very religious freedoms that opponents of same-sex marriage enjoy would largely protect them from what they fear. It is very, very difficult for me to imagine churches being forced to perform same-sex marriages or being sued for "hate speech." Freedom of religion and freedom of speech I think would see to that. In fact, I believe that those freedoms are so important that I would fight to protect them for religious groups whose beliefs I wholeheartedly disagree with.

Second, while the gay rights movement has largely used a secular, civil rights-oriented frame, some religious groups in the U.S. see marriage equality as a religious and moral issue, as well. Unitarian Universalists have supported same-sex marriage for decades based on the belief that all humans have worth and dignity and should be treated equally and fairly. Other religious groups, including Jews, some liberal Protestants (most notably the United Church of Christ), and others, feel the same way and routinely perform same-sex marriages or civil unions. What about their religious freedoms? What about the religious freedoms of gays and lesbians that see their unions as sacred and God-given? The religious freedom argument cuts both ways. (Here's a list of religious organizations that are formally and officially against Prop 8 in California.)

Obviously, I support same-sex marriage and feel that they are many, many compelling reasons why it should be legal, and must be legal in order for us to have a just, fair, and compassionate society. But most of those arguments won't mean much to people that believe homosexuality is wrong and marriage is ordained of God for a man and woman. I recognize that those beliefs are powerful and difficult to change.

However, I have recently seen some interesting arguments that conservatives should hear out. Tom Campbell, a five-term Republican congressman says Prop 8 is bad because 1) it goes against Republicans' belief in limited government, and 2) it's bad for business in California. Jonathan Rauch argues that same-sex marriage should work for conservatives because encouraging gays to marry is just good for everybody, especially gay and lesbian-headed families:

Those who worry about the example gays would set by marrying should be much more worried about the example gays are already setting by not marrying. In getting this backward the advocates of ABM [note from me: Rauch is referring to "anything but marriage," i.e., civil unions and domestic partnerships] make a mistake that is both ironic and sad. At a time when marriage needs all the support and participation it can get, homosexuals are pleading to move beyond cohabitation. We want the licenses, the vows, the rings, the honeymoons, the anniversaries, the benefits, and, yes, the responsibilities and the routines. And who is telling us to just shack up instead? Self-styled friends of matrimony. Someday conservatives will look back and wonder why they undermined marriage in an effort to keep homosexuals out.

Ironically, supporting civil unions (and not everybody on the Right is for civil unions - Mormons are probably more friendly to it than more right-wing evangelical groups) amounts to encouraging cohabitation and extra-marital sex. That's pretty messed up for folks that don't like cohabitation and extra-marital sex, isn't it?

Finally, I'd just encourage people to hear both sides. Check out what the No on 8 campaign has to say about those claims about religious freedom. And check out this piece written by an active Mormon that debunks myths that supporters of Prop 8 are using. It's concerned solely with legal issues and sticks to the facts.

Ouch

From Jonathan Chait at TNR:

Upon seeing that a McCain advisor called Sarah Palin a "whack job," I was momentarily filled with a renewed sense of admiration for McCain, remembering that he does have moderates around him who are clear-eyed about the nutty elements of their own party. Then I remembered that Palin is on McCain's ticket.

Incidentally, Palin is going to be holding a rally here on the Penn State campus tonight. I think I'll pass.

But I will be seeing Bill Clinton tomorrow afternoon.

Gay credentials

Gay credentials. You know, people show them right before they express their opposition to marriage equality or other gay rights. I hear it all the time. "I have gay friends" or "I have a gay neighbor" or something like that. The best credentials involve knowledge of a gay or lesbian that actually opposes marriage equality (yeah, I've actually heard that one).

Obviously, I'm talking about the tendency for people to preface their anti-gay sentiments with some reference to a gay friend, relative, or neighbor that they know. I call them gay credentials. I think it serves a couple purposes. First, it is meant to preempt any sort of comeback like "well, do you even know a single gay person?" Second, it is meant to give the impression that the speaker, you know, the person flashing their gay credentials, isn't some hate-filled, homophobic bigot. It's as if to say "see, I can talk to gay people and even be friends with them! I just can't allow them to have the same rights that I enjoy."

I'm a bit skeptical about the relationship someone like this is touting. Obviously, it wasn't enough to convince the person that gays and lesbians don't just have some "agenda" or "lifestyle." It wasn't enough to help that person see that gays and lesbians are just like you and I and deserve to be able to get married just like you and I.

I suppose I'm being a bit of a punk. I don't doubt that some of these people do in fact have some meaningful relationship with a gay or lesbian person. After all, I have positive relationships with people that have beliefs I disagree with wholeheartedly. But I'm not out fighting to use the constitution as a weapon against these people.

I continue to strongly support same-sex marriage. I do have friends that are gay or lesbian (see, my gay credentials!). And I think they're wonderful, caring people that deserve every right and privilege and blessing that I enjoy, including marriage.

By the way, I'm pro-family, too. I'm for ALL families where there's love and commitment. I'm not so sure Prop 8 in California (which would take away gays' right to marry) is pro-family. Millions and millions of dollars and thousands of volunteer hours will have been spent to keep loving, committed couples from getting married. Dollars and hours that could have spent helping ALL families get stronger and better.

If you support marriage equality, please donate to No on 8. If you live in California, get out there and volunteer. Speak up and speak out.

Two things I learned last Sunday at church in Louisville

Every time I travel, I look up the nearest UU church and attend a service. Well, all three times I've had a chance. But it's becoming a fun tradition. When we went to Williamsburg, VA over the summer I attended the Williamsburg Unitarian Unversalists congregation. When I was in Boston in August for a conference, I attended a service at the Arlington Street Church.

Last Sunday I was in Louisville, KY for a conference. Luckily, there was a UU church a short walk from my hotel. I made it to the sunday service at the First Unitarian Church. I got there pretty early and spoke with a woman that was welcoming people at the door. We talked about the beautiful church. From their website:

Our historic church, constructed in 1871, is reminiscent of English country churches built in the gothic tradition. After the 1985 fire which gutted the building, we rebuilt it to maintain as much as possible of the original church by keeping the outside stone walls, gables, and gothic arches. However, we incorporated contemporary elements of light, openness, and flexibility into the new design. We connected the main building to the Victorian Italianate house next door, purchased in the 1970s, which resulted in an interesting mix of old and new for our long-time downtown setting.

We talked about the congregation and about Unitarian Universalism in a place like Kentucky. It was great. The service was beautiful and I left with a smile on my face.

I learned two things from my visit to First Unitarian Church. First, when I walked in the church, I felt like I was home. I felt like I already knew the people. Growing up in the Mormon church, I always heard the saying "the church is the same everywhere." I thought maybe that was kind of a unique thing to Mormonism. As a sociologist, I can think of some reasons why this is the case in Mormonism, and some reasons why it might be the case in Unitarian Universalism. In Mormonism, the church is highly centralized and run from the top down, which tends to make congregations highly uniform. In addition, a distinct sub-culture is nurtured and reproduced where ever the church goes. In Unitarian Universalism, I think it's a "market niche" thing. Unitarian Universalism is a small religion that serves a small slice of the population. And, I think it is distinct enough that there is a bit of a unique subculture that is nurtured, too. At any rate, it felt good. I know that part of it is learning the language, the customs, the songs, and all that stuff. It's comforting to go somewhere new and fit in right away.

The second thing I learned is the reason why people go to church. But before I tell you what that is, let me back up a bit. I had just attended a conference for the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion. It's a professional society for sociologists, political scientists, and psychologists that study religion. So, all weekend I'd been listening to in-depth, complex, and often highly technical studies of religion. And I absolutely love it! And I think it's important work. But when the service at the UU church started, and the organ played, I just melted. I was enveloped in the warmth of the moment. I felt the spirit, or the divine, or whatever you want to call it. And I realized that people go to church because it just feels good. It makes you want to be better. It makes you appreciate what you have. Yeah, there are all those complicated reasons that social scientists study, and I'm one of those social scientists. But I learned in a tangible way why people continue to be drawn to religion.

Religion says more about humans than about God

From a friend in an online forum I participate in:

Religion, in general, says SO MUCH MORE about Man than it does about God. That, in and of itself, is a wonderful thing. In fact, by recognizing that fact it is probable that "God" emerges. But when you don't recognize that fact, all you have is blindness and idolatry.

What a great insight. All of the work, energy, aspiration, creativity, and longing that produce what we call "religion" ultimately tell us more about us humans than about God. After thousands of years of religion, we're left with countless conceptions of God, the divine, an afterlife, the meaning of life, and all the other big questions. But it's still worth the effort, and our continued effort says something about us.

Failure to recognize the diversity of religious expression and the fact that religions are products of social collaboration rooted in particular historical and cultural conditions results in "blindness and idolatry" as my friend pointed out.

From an early voter in Kansas (warning: involves terrorist fist jab!)

A cool story from an early voter in Kansas:

I voted today. I'm a 33 year old, white criminal defense lawyer in southwest Kansas. The early voting is at the courthouse. I arrive to find 12 old white people occupying all the voting machines. I wait. A machine opens up. The 80 something white male who had been using the machine is now up at the front table asking if he can vote again. The lady running the table says "no, one person, one vote." He replies, "well, I just want to make sure we don't have some terrorist running the country."

This obviously catches my attention so I look at the old man. Our eyes meet. He points a bony finger at me and says, "Don't let it happen." Thinking this old man could one day kill someone and need my services, I don't say anything and proceed to vote.

As I'm leaving the voting room, the young black janitor is in the hallway in front of the room with his cleaning cart. "Did you do the right thing?" he asks me. "You know it." I say and we exchange a terrorist fist jab.

That last sentence is obviously a reference to this.

It's about time someone said it. Thank you, Colin Powell.

I was particularly impressed by this excerpt from Colin Powell's endorsement of Barack Obama:

I'm also troubled by, not what Sen. McCain says, but what members of the party say, and it is permitted to be said such things as: "Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim." Well, the correct answer is: he is not a Muslim. He's a Christian. He's always been a Christian.

But the really right answer is: What if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer is: No, that's not America. Is there something wrong with some 7-year-old Muslim-American kid believing he or she can be President?

Yet I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion: he's a Muslim, and he might be associated with terrorists. This is not the way we should be doing it in America.

Thank you, Colin Powell. Your words about Muslim Americans were ultimately more important than your endorsement of Senator Obama.

It's sickening and saddening to see how "Muslim" has become a political "smear." A bad word. A word to describe someone that supposedly is un-American or even anti-American, just because of their faith.

Obama has had to fight this "smear." It's fair to point out that he is, in fact, Christian. But we need to go further. We need to ask "so what if he were Muslim?" That should in no way be any sort of disqualification for holding public office.

We have millions of Muslim Americans in our great nation. They're just like you and I. They love this country. They love our freedoms. They love their families. They work hard. They try to be good citizens. They try to live their religion. Just like you and I do.

The demonization of Muslim Americans has to stop. We have to stop it.

More from Glenn Greenwald:

A major enabling factor in convincing the population to support unnecessary and brutal wars -- and to perceive the "need" for endless expansions of federal surveillance and other police powers -- is the demonization of large groups of people both inside and out of the country. The Right's ongoing, intense obsession with demonizing Muslims and Arabs is, for that reason, not only repulsive but also quite destructive. The core of the Republican Party has degenerated into the unrestrained id of its worst impulses, and it was good to see Powell specifically cite (and condemn) those elements as a principal reason why he is turning away from the party he has served for so long, and instead supporting the Democratic nominee.

No on 8, "Mac vs. PC"-style

I came across a pretty awesome set of YouTube videos today. Mimicking the style of the famous Apple commercials featuring a "Mac" and a "PC," these videos encourage people to vote No on Prop 8 in a common sense, reasonable, and funny way. They're worth a watch.

I just want to remind everyone that recent polls have Prop 8 winning in California. Prop 8 would take away same-sex couples' right to marry and write discrimination into the California state constitution.

I know this is a tough issue for Mormons that might feel torn on the issue. Unfortunately, there is a growing sense that Prop 8 is a Mormon-funded, Mormon-backed effort. This is unfortunate. Mormons have a variety of political affiliations and beliefs. Many have gay friends or loved ones. I think there are real reasons for Mormons (or anyone, for that matter) to hesitate before pulling the lever for Prop 8 or donating to the Yes on 8 campaign. Here are a couple resources:

Mormons for Marriage

How has the Yes on 8 campaign affected Mormons?

Again, I plead with those who support same-sex marriage and believe that individuals should have the right to marry the person they love to support the No on 8 campaign. It's critical that we stick up for gay and lesbian couples that want to enjoy the benefits of marriage and who want to work through the struggles of marriage.

I think this pretty much sums it up:

Segregation and poverty

Racial residential segregation and poverty. Two things most Americans would rather not think about. And do you hear either presidential candidate talking much about them? I sure don't. But they're real and ongoing problems. And they're related.

A variety of forces have combined to make racial residential segregation an enduring feature of American society. Scholars continue to wrestle with the issue and try to make sense of it. What causes it? What enables it to persist? What effects does it have? The answers are not simple, but we've figured out some things. Blacks continue to be the most highly segregated racial minority group today. Hispanics and Asians are segregated, but to a lesser extent (though, during the 1990s, both groups saw an increase in segregation). I'm going to focus mostly on blacks in the post.

Some regions of the country are worse than others; metropolitan areas in the midwest and northeast have the highest levels. The creation of segregation was deliberate on the part of whites. Individuals, communities, and government sought to ensure that the growing, urban black population was relegated to poorer, less desirable areas in which to live. Today, while laws have improved and discrimination lessened somewhat, blacks still face formidable challenges. Discrimination, whites' residential preferences, and other factors continue to make it difficult for blacks to overcome the effects of segregation. Blacks are less able than other racial groups to translate socio-economic gains into better living conditions.

Income and wealth inequality between whites and blacks is real and ongoing. And a lot of it probably has to do with racial residential segregation. Low-income, mostly-black neighborhoods have worse schools, less jobs, and poorer residential conditions. Their residents have poorer health and feel less safe. Segregation leads to areas of concentrated poverty. Segregation perpetuates and reinforces racial inequality.

I don't have any big solutions. No one does. But I feel like knowing about it, talking about it, and giving it the attention it deserves is something I can do. We must work toward a fairer, more integrated, more just society - no matter how overwhelming the job seems.

Crunch time for Prop 8 in California - let's do our part!

Some alarming new survey data indicates a bit of a reversal in public opinion about Prop 8 in California, after some earlier reports that its supporters were facing an uphill battle:

Earlier polls had shown Proposition 8, which would eradicate the right for same-sex couples to marry in California, trailing by about 5 percentage points. This week, a Lake Research poll paid for by the campaign of 1,051 likely voters showed the proposition winning, with 47 percent saying they supported the measure and 43 percent saying no. The polling period was Sept. 29-Oct. 2. That finding is reinforced by a SurveyUSA poll of 670 likely voters showing the proposition winning 47 percent to 42 percent. That poll was taken Saturday and Sunday.

Why the reversal in public opinion? The polling agency notes surprisingly strong support for Prop 8 among young voters (c'mon, really, young Californians?). Leaders on the No on 8 side cite their big fundraising disadvantage and the onslaught of advertising on the Yes on 8 side, as well as complacency among gay rights supporters.

Make no mistake - these ads are misleading, as are the major talking points for supporters of Prop 8, stoking fears about religious freedom.

The saddest part? The heavy involvement of the Mormon church. From what I understand, Mormon donations, a lot of which are from out of state, are allowing the Yes on 8 side to spend humongous amounts of money on advertising and other activities. Almost half of their money is coming from Mormons. Even No on 8 leaders are acknowledging this. The church's latest move was to air a videotaped conference at California wards and church universities like BYU, encouraging young people to use all the technological tools at their fingertips to support Prop 8.

The church has even set up a new website "Preserving the Divine Institution of Marriage" aimed at youth, encouraging them to use their blogs, their Facebook profiles, and other tools to get behind Prop 8. They can even download a Prop 8 widget. There's a video of California youth proudly talking about their involvement in the campaign (I couldn't even finish watching it). There's a list of five things the church wants youth to know about Prop 8. Interestingly, two of them are basically aimed to reducing cognitive dissonance and/or calming fears that Prop 8 amounts to unfair treatment or discrimination. Not to worry, however, since "We can love someone while still maintaining and advocating our standards and beliefs" and "In California, the law provides for marriage-related benefits to be given to civil unions and domestic partnerships. Proposition 8 does not diminish these benefits." Well, phew! I can help get discrimination and homophobia enshrined in the state constitution without feeling guilty!

I'm sad, frustrated, and concerned. Sad because the church that I grew up in and spent years studying, defending, and supporting has decided to spend countless hours and dollars siding with evangelical Protestants to prevent loving couples from enjoying the benefits and recognition of marriage. There are so many things wrong with this, and despite the church's assertion that it is necessary, there are reasons to believe that this could just be bad for the church in the end. I'm frustrated the church is targeting its youth, attempting to mobilize them against gay marriage, probably alienating them from friends and colleagues in the process.

Finally, I'm concerned. I'm concerned that we'll miss a chance as a society to send a clear, strong message that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters should be entitled to all the benefits that we heterosexuals enjoy, and that we will stand with them on the side of love and family. Yes, these are my family values. That a family is made of people that love and support one another, and that gays and lesbians can do that just as well as anybody else.

But I'm worried that we progressives are too complacent. We aren't donating as much to No on 8 as we should. We're not speaking out about this as much as we should. We're just not doing enough. And it's showing in the polls and in fundraising. And while I celebrate the recent decision by the Connecticut Supreme Court, I fear that that might make us more complacent and only embolden supporters of Prop 8 even more.

So, please, please, please consider donating to the No on 8 campaign. As soon as I found about these polling data, I donated for the first time. If you live in California, speak up and get involved. Volunteer for No on 8. Let's make sure that love and family prevail.

Praying for a miracle

From the invocation at a McCain speech this morning:

I also would also pray, Lord, that your reputation is involved in all that happens between now and November, because there are millions of people around this world praying to their god--whether it's Hindu, Buddha, Allah--that his opponent wins, for a variety of reasons. And Lord, I pray that you will guard your own reputation, because they're going to think that their God is bigger than you, if that happens. So I pray that you will step forward and honor your own name with all that happens between now and election day.

Disgusting. On so many levels. And what's been lost in all the accounts of this I've read is the fact that "Hindu" isn't even a god, it's a word to describe an adherent of Hinduism. What an idiot.

And never mind the fact that Obama is Christian!

It's looking like they're going to need some divine intervention to win this election, based on how things stand today.

Sarah Palin right here in Happy Valley??

My wife spent the day today at a festival at a local fruit farm. She makes a variety of crafts and she had a booth set up to sell stuff. Anyway, I took the kids this morning to see mom and buy cider and hang out for a while. Soon after we got home, my wife called to tell me that she thought Sarah Palin had stopped by the festival! The fruit farm is just outside of State College. I immediately checked the candidates' schedules to see if it was even possible. Sure enough, this morning she was in Johnstown, a town southeast of Pittsburgh, and tonight she was to do the ceremonial puck drop at a Flyers game in Philly. So, it was definitely possible (State College is right in the middle of the state). Sure enough, it did end up being Palin. My wife didn't go see her but she talked to several people afterward that had met her and even shaken her hand.

My wife made me proud when she said she wished she had an Obama shirt or something on. I knew she planned to vote for Obama, but go Carrie! She said she had to pretend to care when people told her how special it was to meet her. I just wanted her out of my county.

She did make it Philly, and apparently she was heartily booed as she went on the ice. I love Pennsylvania.