Did I like the Obama interview just because he sounded like a Unitarian?

Joe Carter thinks so:

Obama is not a orthodox Christian. He may call himself a "Christian" in the same way that some Unitarians use the term to refer to themselves. But his beliefs do not seem to be in line with the historic definition.

I knew there was a reason I liked what Obama had to say in that interview.

One thing that all this has reminded me of is the fact that some Christians feel like they get to decide who is really Christian and who isn't. Rob Dreher at beliefnet feels like he gets to decide:

The question, obviously, is "what does he mean by Christian?" If he cannot affirm the , or the earlier Apostles Creed, then I can't agree that he's a Christian. Words mean things. But see, this is what it means to live in a postmodern culture that doesn't take religion seriously, but is still "religious." People think you can make this stuff up as you go along, and that nobody has the right to define authoritatively what any of it means. It's the Church of Christianity without Christ.

At least some Christians are being somewhat reasonable about the whole thing:

I think the conversation will be healthier and more productive if no one starts it by denying the other the status of Christian.

Amen to that.

Linell Cady thinks that Obama's kind of faith is probably more common than we realize:

Obama offers a different trajectory; it is not your “old time religion” with claims to exclusive truth or absolute certitude; it is not a form of religion that positions itself against the secular world as its antagonist and antithesis. It is a form of religiosity that refuses the binary of religion and secularism which has privatized and depoliticized religion and set up a sharp opposition between faith and reason. It is a form of religiosity that draws more eclectically upon multiple traditions, in negotiation with the broader political and social world. This form has more purchase among Americans than we have been led to believe in the face of the conservative religious ascendency and its media monopoly of recent years.

That sounds pretty good to me. But what would I know, I'm just a Unitarian.

Maybe we should be praying for Obama:

Although I already pray for Obama (as the Bible commands me to do) I now realize that I also need to pray for his eternal soul and not just that he be an effective leader of our nation. I also pray that he will find a spiritual leader who will help lead him to a true knowledge of Christ.

Unbelievable.

The Mormon Church, the gay rights movement, and Prop 8

All of my recent posts about Prop 8 and the Mormon church have been getting a lot of visits the last few weeks, and I even got an angry comment the other day. I just thought I'd say exactly where I stand on all this right now.

I grew up Mormon. I was active in the church until just a couple years ago. I've blogged before about why I felt I had to leave and how I am not bitter toward the church. I even consider myself a friend and sometimes defender of the church. But the church's involvement in the Yes on 8 campaign in California really tested all that. At first I was concerned and frustrated. After Prop 8 won I was angry. For many days. I'm not angry anymore - just sad and now anxious to help the situation get rectified. I'm excited about the surge of activism and support for same-sex marriage all over the country.

Let me be clear about this. I think it's unfortunate that the Mormon church has become the target of so much anger and frustration. Mormons are certainly not solely to blame for Prop 8's success. They are an easy and identifiable target, and public opinion is already mixed about Mormons and their faith. It's important to remember that many other organizations supported, funded, and volunteered for Prop 8. And, ultimately, it was California voters that decided to eliminate gays and lesbians' right to marry.

I also understand what Mormons believe is at stake here. I disagree with them, but I understand. Their commitment to marriage and family is deep. They truly believe that God ordained marriage for a man and a woman and that that bond will last for eternity. Same-sex marriage just doesn't compute in their theology. Homosexuality is wrong. I understand that these sincere, deeply held beliefs lead Mormons to oppose same-sex marriage. But what I don't get is why they feel that civil marriages between two homosexuals threatens their marriages or society at large. In the eternal scheme of things, these marriages should mean nothing to Mormons.

I would think that three things might make Mormons or other religious or social conservatives to pause and question their opposition to same-sex marriage: 1) the amount of evidence suggesting that homosexuality is normal and immutable and that same-sex parents are just as good as anybody else, 2) the fact that we ought to be encouraging marriage and family where ever and whenever we can, and 3) the fact that we need to approach even our most deeply held religious beliefs with some caution and humility and be careful not to impose those beliefs on others.

Anyway, back to Prop 8 and the church. The church did use its infrastructure and its authority to mobilize thousands and thousands of members in California and elsewhere to support a controversial campaign that was uncommon in that it sought to eliminate existing rights. The church and its members ought to expect a backlash from that. Did they think that gays, lesbians, and their friends and allies would quietly submit to inequality and that people all over the country would suddenly forget about the fact that the Mormon church threw its weight behind the campaign that won? I agree with Andrew Sullivan here:

The LDS church has every right to lobby for the public law to reflect their religious truths, and if the majority of others agree, there is not much a minority of gay people can do about it. But the LDS church cannot then expect to be above criticism and exposure and some harsh words.

The church's recent press releases have been almost laughable in their feigned innocence and calls for civility and immunity from persecution. They are playing the victim card after helping to strip rights away from loving, committed couples. And does a protest in front of a Mormon temple really constitute persecution? Honestly? I may be unaware of events that constitute real persecution, and if there have been such events, I am sad and disappointed. But my sense is that what they're complaining about is mostly stuff that they should have expected. Fair or not, there is a perception that the church really helped Prop 8 pass.

But enough about the Mormon church. I'm not angry at it anymore. Just sad. I agree with many others that have called for any anti-Mormonism to stop. It's counterproductive and there's just too much else to do. The movement for same-sex marriage must build strong ties to churches and people of faith. Research on public opinion has shown that Americans are torn when it comes to same-sex marriage. They are conflicted. People of faith that support marriage equality need to speak up. The gay rights movement needs to strengthen its ties to its religious supporters. Blaming Mormons is not what needs to happen.

And while it's tempting to want the courts to fix this again, I'm with Sullivan here again:

My own view is that [Prop 8] should stand, and the court should decline to reverse it. We lost. They won in a fair fight. No whining. With one caveat. Those civil marriage licenses already issued should not be revoked. I find the retroactive voiding of marriage licenses at once legally suspect and humanly cruel.

Our political campaigns can be better and stronger. Here is a nice analysis of the No on 8 campaign and how it could have been better.

Bottom line is that I support marriage equality and I think the future looks hopeful. Especially if we do it the right way.

The best music you may have never heard of

I love music. I always have. And I'm always on the hunt for something interesting, moving, soul-feeding and mind-enriching. In case there's anyone out there like me, I thought I'd share some gems from my own collection.

I listen to a lot of stuff, but here's what generally dominates iTunes on my laptop while I work away at school:

1. Ray LaMontagne

I first heard him on the soundtrack for The Last Kiss (which I've never actually seen, but I saw that Zach Braff picked the music for it, and the Garden State soundtrack is one my favorites). Anyway, his song "Hold You in My Arms" is on that soundtrack and I loved it the first time I heard it so I went out and bought the two albums he had out at the time.

LaMontagne has released three albums: Trouble, Till the Sun Turns Black, and Gossip in the Grain, which just came out last month. Like all good artists, he's evolved and changed over time. Gossip in the Grain is probably the most ambitious and the most varied in style and instrumentation. If I had to use one word to describe him, I'd say "soul." His music and his raspy, passionate voice just radiate soul. I guess he'd be considered a folk artist. But you get bits of blues, country, jazz - a bit of everything. Bottom line is that if you want your soul to sing, let it sing with Ray. I think his first and third albums are the strongest, but the second's not too shabby, either.

2. Iron & Wine

Iron & Wine is the stage and recording name of folk singer-songwriter Sam Beam. I found him via that Garden State soundtrack, too. Beam has definitely developed and evolved a lot, too. His earlier stuff is really reminiscent of Nick Drake, if that means anything to you. Kind of bedroom folk, I guess. Really soft and acoustic. But his most recent album, The Shepherd's Dog, definitely surprised me when I got it. There's a lot going on that I didn't expect. It's pretty creative and there's a lot more instrumentation (a lot of slide guitar, too). But everytime I listen to it I like it more.

I had the pleasure of seeing him in concert near Pittsburgh earlier this year. Very cool.

3. Flogging Molly

Celtic punk. Need I say more? Seriously, though, these guys are great. It's just hard Irish music, complete with plenty of fiddle, bagpipes, electric and acoustic guitar, and drinking songs.

While I'm on the subject of Celtic music, let me put in a few more plugs. The Tannahill Weavers are an incredible, more traditional Scottish folk group. Very classy, very awesome. The Chieftains are great, too. A couple fun groups that I've actually seen in concert are Gaelic Storm and the Canadian group Tartan Terrors.

4. Punch Brothers

I'd throw in Nickle Creek here, too. The Punch Brothers grew out of a solo album recorded by mandolin virtuoso Chris Thile, who also played for the now defunct Nickle Creek. Anyway, I guess the collaboration for Thile's solo album went so well that they decided to form a group. My wife and I saw them in concert last week and it was incredible. I guess you could consider them progressive bluegrass. Think of it like this - it's like bluegrass meets Bach. I'm not kidding. It's musically rich and complex, and often experimental. Thile composed a four-part suite called "The Blind Leaving the Blind" that they debuted at Carnegie Hall. Again, I'm not kidding. And you get to hear Chris Thile sing, which is always great. Some of their stuff is more straight-up fun bluegrass, too. These guys rock. And lucky for us, they have plans for another album.

5. Johnny Flynn

Flynn is a folk rock singer-songwriter from London. He recently released an album called A Larum. It's kind of hard to describe. Mostly, it's just fun and interesting. You can hear a lot of American influence, but it definitely sounds British somehow. It's kind of twangy even sometimes.

6. The Shins and Coldplay

This two groups are obviously quite well-known, but still quite fabulous. Good stuff. If you haven't heard Coldplay's new album (Viva La Vida) yet, do yourself a favor and go buy it. It's much less cautious and predictable than the classic A Rush of Blood to the Head.

Well, that's it. Now go ye forth and listen.

Excerpts from a 2004 Obama interview on religion

Obama's 2006 speech on religion and politics was fantastic and I've blogged about it before. But I just came across a 2004 Obama interview with columnist Cathleen Falsani. Apparently, this is the first time the interview has been published in its entirety. It's entirely about Obama's religious beliefs and values. And it's very, very good. It's just another reminder of how awesome it is that we elected this guy.

What really struck me as I read the interview was how much Obama's religious beliefs resonate with me and mirror my own in many ways. In fact, so much of what he says in this interview is really in harmony with what I believe most Unitarian Universalists believe about the value of religion and the role it should play in society.

Enjoy. But go read the whole thing.

I retain from my childhood and my experiences growing up a suspicion of dogma. And I'm not somebody who is always comfortable with language that implies I've got a monopoly on the truth, or that my faith is automatically transferable to others.

I'm a big believer in tolerance. I think that religion at it's best comes with a big dose of doubt. I'm suspicious of too much certainty in the pursuit of understanding just because I think people are limited in their understanding.

Alongside my own deep personal faith, I am a follower, as well, of our civic religion. I am a big believer in the separation of church and state. I am a big believer in our constitutional structure. I mean, I'm a law professor at the University of Chicago teaching constitutional law. I am a great admirer of our founding charter, and its resolve to prevent theocracies from forming, and its resolve to prevent disruptive strains of fundamentalism from taking root ion this country.

As I said before, in my own public policy, I'm very suspicious of religious certainty expressing itself in politics.

Now, that's different form a belief that values have to inform our public policy. I think it's perfectly consistent to say that I want my government to be operating for all faiths and all peoples, including atheists and agnostics, while also insisting that there are values tha tinform my politics that are appropriate to talk about.

A standard line in my stump speech during this campaign is that my politics are informed by a belief that we're all connected. That if there's a child on the South Side of Chicago that can't read, that makes a difference in my life even if it's not my own child. If there's a senior citizen in downstate Illinois that's struggling to pay for their medicine and having to chose between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer even if it's not my grandparent. And if there's an Arab American family that's being rounded up by John Ashcroft without the benefit of due process, that threatens my civil liberties.

I can give religious expression to that. I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper, we are all children of God. Or I can express it in secular terms. But the basic premise remains the same. I think sometimes Democrats have made the mistake of shying away from a conversation about values for fear that they sacrifice the important value of tolerance. And I don't think those two things are mutually exclusive.

I find it hard to believe that my God would consign four-fifths of the world to hell.

I can't imagine that my God would allow some little Hindu kid in India who never interacts with the Christian faith to somehow burn for all eternity.

That's just not part of my religious makeup.

FALSANI:
Do you believe in heaven?

OBAMA:
Do I believe in the harps and clouds and wings?

FALSANI:
A place spiritually you go to after you die?

OBAMA:
What I believe in is that if I live my life as well as I can, that I will be rewarded. I don't presume to have knowledge of what happens after I die. But I feel very strongly that whether the reward is in the here and now or in the hereafter, the aligning myself to my faith and my values is a good thing.

When I tuck in my daughters at night and I feel like I've been a good father to them, and I see in them that I am transferring values that I got from my mother and that they're kind people and that they're honest people, and they're curious people, that's a little piece of heaven.

FALSANI:
Do you believe in sin?

OBAMA:
Yes.

FALSANI:
What is sin?

OBAMA:
Being out of alignment with my values.

FALSANI:
What happens if you have sin in your life?

OBAMA:
I think it's the same thing as the question about heaven. In the same way that if I'm true to myself and my faith that that is its own reward, when I'm not true to it, it's its own punishment.

This is why we work for marriage equality

The first same-sex couple in Connecticut to get a marriage license. The picture says it all. Let's make sure that everyone can marry the person they love.

Mixing it up in the White House

Just another reminder of how historic and awesome last week's election was:


(Via Patrick Moberg)

Bitter gun-clingers?

I wish I were making this up. I just read an article reporting that gun sales last week were up significantly from last year this time. The reason? Obama and a Democratic Congress. You know, the ones that want to take away your guns. I guess folks want to stock up, particularly on the "civilian version of the military's M-16." Awesome!

Remember this?

And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

Well, listen to this:

"It's a fact that the liberal Democrats that now control all three branches of our government do not like guns. They want us out of business," Connecticut resident Scott Hoffman said. "They don't want the average American to have a right to defend themselves."

And New Hampshire gun owner Lloyd Clement said, "I think there's going to be an attack to some degree on the gun owners."

I guess the same thing happened when Clinton got elected, so Obama shouldn't take it personally, I guess.

So, go stock up before those liberal, elitist, effeminate Democrats take away your guns!!

Keith Olbermann on Prop 8 and same-sex marriage

Last night Keith Olbermann delivered a "Special Comment" on the recent victory of Proposition 8 in California and the issue of same-sex marriage in general. It's quite good and in typical Olbermann fashion, quite impassioned. It's mostly directed at those that voted for Prop 8 or oppose marriage equality in general. But Olbermann speaks not angrily but compassionately and sincerely, and, of course, from the heart. It's worth a watch:

What supporters of marriage equality should do now

Andrew Sullivan has some good advice:

I totally understand the anger, hurt and pain now roiling the gay community and our families, especially in California. But it's important to keep our heads. I've been in the middle of this fight for two decades. It's important to remember that we have never had this level of public support for marriage equality before. In eight years in California alone, the majority in favor of banning marriage equality has gone from 61 to 52 percent.

The next generation overwhelmingly backs the right to marry, and there is no sign of cultural reversal, even if we have suffered some electoral set-backs. If Obama has taught us anything, it is to keep our eyes on the prize, and not always to react impulsively to hatred, bigotry or simple ignorance by exaggerating its power over us. We are winning. We lost this one, by an excruciatingly small margin. But the whole point of this movement is education in support of toleration.

And some more:

My advice to the marriage movement: educate, speak, reach out. Stop the litigating. Resist the impulse to revel in victimhood. It may be justified and I certainly know how it feels, but it doesn't change any minds. That's what we have to re-focus on. And that's the only reason we have had the success we have had. Patience, diligence, charity: these are what a civil rights movement needs to stand for.

Good advice indeed. The ACLU and others have already filed a lawsuit claiming that Prop 8 was unconstitutional and too major of a change to bring about by a ballot measure requiring a simple majority. I can't comment on the chances this has. But I think that the best long-term strategy is the one that Andrew Sullivan has repeatedly emphasized in the quotes above.

I think it's important to look at the No on 8 campaign and try to learn from it. Sullivan and others have been critical of its "closeted" strategy:

Conventional wisdom maintains that the hide-the-gays strategy was good politics, but a) it insulted voters' intelligence on an issue that was not hard to understand b) it seemed desperate c) it suggested that gay marriage is, in fact, something to be ashamed of instead of an extension of normal family life and, of course, d) it didn't work. The political and cultural reality is that either people think it's OK for gays to get married, or they don't. And if they don't, they think this kind of discrimination is good--and completely different from the bad kind of discrimination. Besides, when you say the issue is "discrimination" and equate traditional limits on marriage to (now-illegal) racist practices, traditionalists can claim, without seeming crazy, the next step will be to outlaw even private, religiously based limits on marriage. Isn't that what we do with discrimination?

Ideally, we would persuade skeptics that gay marriage is good. But, at the very least, we need to persuade them that it's not bad. A lot of people are still in the muddled middle on this issue. They just need more evidence and more experience. As hard as it may seem right now, gay families need to be more, not less, public about their lives.

I, too, was struck by the complete absence of gay and lesbians couples from No on 8 ads. In fact, their ads rarely even mentioned same-sex marriage. I can only imagine that this strategy was reflected in other campaign efforts, as well, like phone banking, canvassing, and so on. It does seem like good politics on the surface, but it does reinforce the idea that there's something scary and different about same-sex marriage. This has to be corrected.

Johnny California has some good observations about the No on 8 campaign, as well. First, he says that the anti-Mormon campaign is counterproductive and has to stop. I agree. Second, he argues that 1) there needs to be a unified message, 2) we need to use the Democratic Party infrastructure better, 3) we have to work with rather than against religion, and 4) we need a better "ground game." The whole post is worth a read.

Blaming African Americans has to stop. Now. Yes, exit polls suggest that they voted no at a much higher clip than other racial and ethnic groups. But they made up only 10% of the electorate and Prop 8 would have passed without them. We have work to do with African Americans, and maybe it starts with African American churches. I don't know. But the racist stuff has to stop.

Finally, we just need to keep listening to the voices of those most affected:

As someone who just recently married his partner I felt last night's result personally. Despite all the rationalizations I can make, it is in fact hard to look at my fellow citizens today knowing that a majority of them that showed up to vote voted to prohibit my partner and me from enjoying the same legal approval for our relationship that they take for granted. All I can do is be grateful for Obama's victory and the long-term promise of national healing it represents.

We can do this. We can fight for marriage equality in the right way.

Why I care so much about Prop 8

Boy, I just realized that Prop 8 has completely taken over my blog as of late. I am absolutely heartsick over the passage of Prop 8 on Tuesday. I am crushed. And as I was thinking about it tonight, I realized that there are two simple reasons why:

1. I believe in the inherent worth and dignity of every person. I don't know why some people are gay. It doesn't really matter why. I don't think people choose it. But they should be able to choose who they share their life with, and that choice, like mine, should be entitled to the legal and social benefits of marriage. I believe that we all benefit when our society is fair and when everyone is treated equally. Family and marriage are good for everybody, and we need to support them whenever we can.

2. I believe that religion can and should be a positive force in society. Religion is powerful. It can motivate us to do amazing things. But it needs to be used wisely, and never to hurt or to damage. I'm sad that the church I grew up in and loved for so long decided to use its power and influence to help take away the right of my gay and lesbian brothers and sisters to marry. I'm sad that it joined forces with groups that despise it and supported a campaign that I feel misled and deceived. I no longer attend that church, but I still want it to be a force for good. I feel like it missed the mark on this one.

I hate that Prop 8 has caused so much hurt and misunderstanding. I've spent the last couple hours reading blogs on both sides of the issue. There is truly so much anger, misunderstanding, and pain. I just don't even know how to respond to it.

The Prop 8 backlash and the Mormon Church

By the end of the Prop 8 campaign in California, there was a growing perception that the Yes on 8 campaign was largely Mormon-funded and Mormon-led. Fair or not, this was the perception and indeed it became the so-called conventional wisdom. It is true that a substantial amount of money raised by the campaign came from Mormon donors. It is also true that the church mobilized congregations in California and, for a time, in Utah to make phone calls and volunteer for the campaign. However, there were obviously many other groups affiliated with the Yes on 8 campaign, and donors were from all different religious backgrounds. Even more obvious is that it took 52% of Californians to actually vote for Prop 8 for it to pass. Mormons couldn't pull that off on their own.

Well, Prop 8 passed, eliminating the right of gays and lesbians to marry, and there appears to be a significant backlash now against the church. How long it will last is unclear. What this means for the church is unclear. Like I said - fair or not, there is a perception that the church was instrumental in the success of Prop 8. And people are mad. Really mad.

Protests outside the Salt Lake City temple and Los Angeles temple are either planned or have occured. Police have been standing guard on the lawn of the LA temple. I've read angry blog posts asking readers to boycott Mormon-owned businesses. I've read some pretty angry stuff. And there's a particularly nasty ad showing Mormon missionaries going into a lesbian couple's home and destroying their marriage certificate.

What's not getting on the news are the quieter voices of gays and lesbians that aren't out there protesting but just expressing the pain and their sadness that their fellow Calfornians would deem their relationships to be second-class. I've tried to put some of those voices on my blog in recent days.

People inside the church are hurting, too. I have many Mormon friends that are disappointed and confused. The church they love and support chose to engage in a nasty campaign to eliminate rights.

Is the church now reaping what it's sown? Will there be public sympathy for the church and a backlash against supporters of same-sex marriage? Or will public opinion turn on Mormons? Time will tell. Emotions will certainly die down somewhat, but I suspect that there will be some long-term effects.

This whole thing sucks. It just sucks that this ever happened. I just hate to see police outside the LA temple. And I know so many goodhearted members of the church. I hate to see the way Mormons are been portrayed by some.

Unfortunately, the temple protests and boycotts and whatever else aren't going to change Mormons' hearts and minds. You have to understand that this is precisely the sort of thing that feeds into the Mormon "us vs. them" mentality and just reinforces the idea that it's Mormons up against a wicked world that doesn't heed God's counsel. Mormons sort of thrive on persecution. It's in their history and it's almost a matter of pride.

Obviously, I don't like that there are guards at the LA temple, and that there are some seriously angry people out there. The church has become something of a scapegoat. Like I said, there were other religious groups behind Prop 8, and obviously it was the California electorate that ultimately passed Prop 8.

But can you blame folks were being angry? Can you? The fact is that a Utah-based church mobilized its members to support and fund a ballot initiative in another state that took away existing civil rights. See why that might upset people?

This whole thing just sucks. Seriously. Do you think maybe someone at that big building in downtown SLC might be regretting this just a little bit right now?

On the issue of public opinion toward the church, it seems that those that would be sympathetic to the church and its new-found persecution are folks that don't like the church much to begin with (i.e., evangelical Protestants), so I don't know how much inroads the church will make there. But mainline Protestants and moderate Catholics, as well as more secular and generally well-educated liberals will be pretty turned off by the church's involvement in this. Yes, there may be of these folks that oppose same-sex marriage, but they probably don't think we should be doing things like Prop 8 to stop it. I think this is really significant. I've actually seen survey data (from Pew) that shows that mainline Protestants and the non-religious have more favorable attitudes toward Mormons than evangelicals do, and these are precisely the folks that would be turned off by the church's involvement in Prop 8. In some people's minds, the church might go from that church with that neat choir and an admirable lifestyle to that anti-gay church that helped take away gays' right to marry.

That's why I say think it will be kind of polarizing. Some people will identify with the Mormon church on this and kind of rally to their support, but I think that it will turn off a lot of people. Opposition to same-sex marriage isn't universal in the U.S., and most Americans support strong civil liberties and protections for gays and lesbians.

Finally, I think one Mormon blogger has some really spot-on points about some of the longer-term consequences for the church because of its involvement in Prop 8. It's worth a read. Though, I should mention that his second consequence is borders on the ridiculous. But his other two seem quite accurate. And it's not a positive outlook.

All in all, I'm just sad for everybody. Nobody won on Tuesday.

Tired of being "a political and spiritual football"

Are those that supported Prop 8 in California listening to the voices of those most affected by it? I hope they will stop to listen and try to understand, because there are stories of pain and sadness coming out in the wake of a shameful effort to target a specific group of people and take away their right to marry. I was moved today by a piece written by Candace Chellew-Hodge, the founder and editor of Whosoever, an online magazine for GLBT Christians. Some excerpts:

While many Americans are celebrating a groundbreaking first, the election of an African American president, I find my mood tempered by another history-making moment at the ballot box—the denial of marriage equality to gay and lesbian citizens in Arizona, Florida, and California.

It must be unprecedented for so many states to put the civil rights of other citizens on the ballot to be voted up or down like special sales taxes or zoning decisions. It must be nice to be in such a spot of special privilege in this country that you believe it's fitting for you to have the power to say what another human being can do with their lives—how they can live it and who they can live it with.

As a lesbian, I wouldn't know that place of privilege. I don't get to vote on whether or not another group of people can arrange their lives as they see fit and expect the government to respect their wishes.

As a Christian, who happens to be a lesbian, the harm done to the community that I love is devastating. So many gay and lesbian people forsake God and end up filling their spiritual void with dangerous addictions. They've been told that God hates them and will never love them unless they "change" and "turn from their sin." I certainly cannot blame them when they walk away from God and the church because of the actions of mean, ruthless, and graceless people who claim the title of Christian. But I mourn for the spiritual fulfillment, love, and community they forsake when they do.

I'm tired of my life being used as a political and spiritual football—debated and voted on like I'm some theoretical entity. I have a life—one that includes a relationship that is just as worthy as those who claim to be living God's "gold standard" for relationships. If yet there is any shred of hope it will be that an Obama administration will choose two or three Supreme Court justices who will overturn these constitutional amendments in a Loving v. Virginia style challenge. Until then, it only changes through education, by coming out and living our lives out loud and proud—something I encourage all my gay and lesbian brothers and sisters to do.

As Soulforce founder and author Mel White told Larry King many years ago, "Once people find out we're just as boring as they are, we'll win our rights." I am fighting for the right to be just as boring, and just as legally protected, as a heterosexual—for better or for worse.

Sadness

The excitement and hope I felt last night was tempered significantly by early indications that Proposition 8 in California was likely to pass. While there are still some votes to count, it appears as if Prop 8 will indeed win. The passage of Prop 8 represents an unprecedented and shameful act that eliminates the right of gays and lesbians to marry the person they love and start a supportive, nurturing, and fulfilling family life with the legal and social recognition that any other marriage enjoys.

I woke up this morning with a heavy heart. But my sadness turned to anger as I thought about how a campaign supported by the church I grew up in lied and misled for months and months leading up to election day. It was a shameful campaign led by groups that claim to live the teachings of Jesus Christ. It was run with a friendly-sounding but false claim that it was not anti-gay but pro-marriage.

I continue to read the reactions of gay and lesbian Californians that feel hurt and betrayed and frustrated. They have partners that they love. Many of them have children that they love. Californians yesterday decided that those families don't matter and that those marriages are second-class. I think many Californians that voted yes on Prop 8 truly don't realize the pain they're causing. I think many feel torn and conflicted, and voted yes out of deeply held religious beliefs. I can respect that even though I disagree. I think many do know what they're doing and just don't care, which makes me angry.

I will continue to work with my gay and lesbian brothers and sisters and anyone else to ensure that they are treated fairly and equally, and that someday they will have the right to marry just like I do. There's a lot of work to do:

If we had won this, this civil rights battle would be all but over. Now, it isn't. So we get back to work, arguing, talking. speaking, debating, writing, blogging, and struggling to change more minds. The hope for equality can never be extinguished, however hard our opponents try. And in the unlikely history of America, there has never been anything false about hope.

Hope

It's been a crazy last couple days. Watching the election results come in last night was a blast. Obama did even better than I thought he would. President Obama! I could totally get used to that. Electing Obama to be our next President was a step in the right direction for several reasons. First:

There are all sorts of reasons to view last night's events as an extremely positive development, including the fact that it was a truly crushing repudiation of the right-wing faction that has dominated the Republican Party for the last two decades. The GOP is very close to being nothing more than a broken regional party, confined almost entirely to the Deep South and a few small, scattered states in the Midwest, and entirely uncompetitive in huge swaths of the country.

If you think that last sentence is an overstatement, check this out. Second:

In this election, Obama proudly stood up for progressive values and the superiority of progressive policies; John McCain, in return, denounced him as a socialist, a redistributor. And the American people rendered their verdict.

Obama's victory marks a major realignment in American politics. His seven point win in the popular vote and amassing of at least 349 electoral votes sends a clear signal that Americans are ready for more responsible government, wiser use of our military, a fairer tax system, a serious investment in clean energy and a green economy, greater attention to growing inequality, equal access to health care, restoration of our standing around the world, and a President that won't ignore the constitution and the civil liberties it promises.

It's exciting, folks.

Finally, from Katrina Vanden Heuvel, editor of my favorite publication:

Obama's election marks a remarkable moment in our country's history--a milestone in America's scarred racial landscape and a victory for the forces of decency, diversity and tolerance. As our editorial board member Roger Wilkins reminded us on the eve of the election, Obama's win "doesn't turn a switch that eradicates our whole national history and culture." But "win or lose, Obama has already made this a better country, made your children's future better."

After years of playing defense, it is time to unshackle our imaginations, build coalitions and craft creative strategies that will move, persuade and push President Obama and a new Congress to seize the mandate they have been offered.

What a great night.

Go vote!!!

It feels like Christmas, doesn't it? I waited in line almost two hours this morning to vote. It was cold and I was late for class. But it was so worth it.

Enjoy this parody of the famous "Yes we can" video (in case you need a little motivation):

Last minute Prop 8 stuff: Steve Young, Obama, and the LA Times

I continue to follow Prop 8 very closely. It appears to be virtually tied, and it's anybody's guess what will happen. News that quarterback great and Mormon Steve Young had No on 8 signs at his house and that his wife had donated money to the campaign was big over the weekend. The family has clarified their position on the issue now. It appears that Young's wife is the one primarily behind the signs and the donation (I guess she has a gay brother, too) and that Steve himself is sticking to his long-time commitment to stay out of politics. At any rate, imagine all the interesting conservations in Mormon churches yesterday!

When blogger Andrew Sullivan picked up on all this, he said that Prop 8 "has exposed a lot of bigotry among the Mormon leadership, but it has also shown how many tolerant, decent, secular Mormons there are as well." What? Only secular Mormons are tolerant and decent? First of all, I know many active, religious Mormons that oppose Prop 8, and even the ones I know that support it are decent and generally tolerant. So, while I usually like your blog, Mr. Sullivan, that post sucked.

The Yes on 8 campaign has been trying to use Obama as support for their cause. Obama is on record as personally opposing same-sex marriage, but opposing constitutional amendments to ban it. But the Yes on 8 side left out that last part and focused on the first part. Obama responded to a question about Prop 8 in an MTV interview recently:

MTV Shows

And the No on 8 side has a pretty strong new ad running:



Finally, the LA Times has a powerful editorial encouraging Californians to vote no on 8. It debunks several arguments the Yes on 8 campaign has used, including the one about Catholic Charities in Boston:

Take the story of Catholic Charities. The service arm of the Roman Catholic Church closed its adoption program in Massachusetts not because of the state's gay marriage law but because of a gay anti-discrimination law passed many years earlier. In fact, the charity had voluntarily placed older foster children in gay and lesbian households -- among those most willing to take hard-to-place children -- until the church hierarchy was alerted and demanded that adoptions conform to the church's religious teaching, which was in conflict with state law. The Proposition 8 campaign, funded in large part by Mormons who were urged to do so by their church, does not mention that the Mormon church's adoption arm in Massachusetts is still operating, even though it does not place children in gay and lesbian households.

How can this be? It's a matter of public accountability, not infringement on religion. Catholic Charities acted as a state contractor, receiving state and federal money to find homes for special-needs children who were wards of the state, and it faced the loss of public funding if it did not comply with the anti-discrimination law. In contrast, LDS (for Latter-day Saints) Family Services runs a private adoption service without public funding. Its work, and its ability to follow its religious teachings, have not been altered.

Also addressed is the field trip to a teacher's wedding, and churches being "forced" to marry gays. It ends thus:

Religions and their believers are free to define marriage as they please; they are free to consider homosexuality a sin. But they are not free to impose their definitions of morality on the state. Proposition 8 proponents know this, which is why they have misdirected the debate with highly colored illusions about homosexuals trying to take away the rights of religious Californians. Since May, when the state Supreme Court overturned a proposed ban on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional, more than 16,000 devoted gay and lesbian couples have celebrated the creation of stable, loving households, of equal legal stature with other households. Their happiness in no way diminishes the rights or happiness of others.

Californians must cast a clear eye on Proposition 8's real intentions. It seeks to change the state Constitution in a rare and terrible way, to impose a single moral belief on everyone and to deprive a targeted group of people of civil rights that are now guaranteed. This is something that no Californian, of any religious belief, should accept. Vote no to the bigotry of Proposition 8.

If you live in California, please vote no on 8! And if you know someone that lives in California, ask them how they plan to vote, and help them understand why Prop 8 is wrong.

Did McCain concede on SNL?

James Fallows thinks so. And I had a curiously similar feeling when I was watching it (it was pretty funny, by the way). Fallows on last Saturday's SNL:

But no candidate who thought he had a prayer of winning would have appeared on this show.

For a candidate coming from behind, every second of the final week of the campaign is like a second in cardiac-surgery operating theater, with absolutely no room for fooling around or wasting time, money, or effort that could be used to sway that last crucial vote. (Think: the last days of Gore-Bush in 2000.)

For a candidate who thinks he's ahead, and might actually become president, inevitably there's a tone of new seriousness right at the end: What we've been working for years is within our grasp, let's not screw this up, and let's be sobered by how different the world is going to look in a few days.

So if McCain really thought he had a chance of catching up, he wouldn't have wasted time on an audience that might repair his reputation among liberals and journalists but does him no good with the crucial swing votes. And if he thought he were secretly ahead, he wouldn't comport himself this way. He would be more like the stiff character we saw in the debates.

Great TV! But also an unmistakable message.

A (little) glimpse into Obama's mind

I just finished reading a really interesting and thoughtful article written by the NYT's Jeff Zeleny. He interviewed several people close to Obama and I think he might also be riding on Obama's plane right now. He tries to kind of paint a picture of what might be going through Obama's mind in the last days of this long campaign. It's really worth a read. Some excerpts:

His world is awash in powerful, conflicting emotions: the realization, presumably, that he may be about to become president; the huge optimism that he has unleashed, evident in the crowds he is drawing (and something he has told aides worries him a bit, given the expectations set for him); the weighty thinking he is gradually giving to how he would staff a government and deal with a transition in such a difficult time. All of this is taking place as a woman who played a large role in raising him, his grandmother, is approaching death.

“ ‘What if I disappoint people?’ ” Valerie Jarrett, a close friend and adviser, recalled Mr. Obama asking at several points throughout the campaign. “That’s what gives him the energy to keep getting up every day.”

If there is a feeling of nostalgia surrounding the Obama campaign in these final hours before the election, it does not seem to be coming from the candidate himself. He is eager to be finished campaigning, several of his friends said, and for months has been immersing himself in the work of the presidency, well before he knows if it will ever be his.

He spends far less time on the telephone these days making political calls to local Democratic chairmen. His call list now includes officials in Washington, including Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr., with whom he spoke several times a day for weeks about the government rescue plan. And he is in frequent conversations with Congressional leaders over how to proceed should he win on Tuesday.

And probably the best part:

One of the greatest frustrations of his candidacy — being away from his wife, Michelle, and his two daughters, Malia and Sasha — will come to an end, win or lose. When his plane touched down on Saturday afternoon in Pueblo, Colo., his step carried an extra lilt. It was not because of the place that he finds himself in the closing moments of his campaign, but because his two daughters were standing on the breezy tarmac waiting to be scooped up by their father.

Liberal anxiety

Do any of you do this sort of thing:

Richard Schrader, a senior staff member for a national environmental organization, lives in Amherst, Mass., where politics start liberal and traipse left. He is fairly liberal, but his neighbors worry that he does not worry nearly enough. “They wake up, drink that pot of coffee and hit the polling Web sites,” Mr. Schrader said. “Too much good news has to be a lie.”

Recently he sat down with a friend who was sweating about Minnesota.

“Minnesota?” Mr. Schrader told his friend. “What, are you kidding me? Obama’s up 14 points there.”

The friend shook his head sadly. Take off seven points for hidden racial animus. Subtract another five for polling error. It is down to two points, and that is within the margin of error in sampling, and that could mean Mr. Obama might be behind.

“It was perversely impressive,” Mr. Schrader said.

Another friend worries that every undecided voter will break for Mr. McCain, the Republican nominee. Mr. Schrader said, “I told him: ‘O.K., that will be the first time that has ever happened in American history, but sure.’ ”

The part about whittling down a 14-point lead to nothing was particularly impressive.

There are two possibilities for us on Wednesday. Either we wake up with a bounce in our steps and feel compelled to pinch ourselves in order to make sure it's really true, or we just won't feel like getting up at all.

I prefer the former.

Nana nana boo boo!

From the NYT yesterday:

John McCain! Not Hussein!” So goes the latest popular chant on the campaign trail with Gov. Sarah Palin, demonstrated at a morning rally in central Florida.

Ms. Palin was midway through her stump speech when a group of supporters began shouting it in unison, drowned out a few seconds later as Ms. Palin talked over them.

A similar chant, “Vote McCain, not Hussein,” was heard at a campaign event for Ms. Palin in Williamsport, Pa., earlier this week.

Senator Barack Obama’s middle name is Hussein, a fact that some of his opponents say proves that he is a Muslim. Mr. Obama is, in fact, a Christian.

And from Salon:

Introduced by Cindy McCain (the McCains' daughter Meghan was also onstage), South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham played to the crowd of firearms enthusiasts, "The deer are glad you're here!" (Har! Dead deer!) Graham also had great fun at the expense of "the most liberal senator in the United States Senate," giving someone in the crowd the chance to yell, "He's more liberal than the socialists!" Graham then poked at "Joe the Biden," whom he called "the gift that keeps on giving."

By the time McCain began speaking, the crowd was good and riled, booing every time Obama's name was mentioned, and letting out random cries of "Obama sucks" and "He's a socialist!

Nana nana boo boo!

You think anyone at these rallies ever stops and thinks how ridiculous all this sounds?

If only it were immature name-calling, however:

It was hard to believe he was actually saying it, but the words were really coming out of his mouth. Arlen Specter's, that is, at an afternoon rally for John McCain in Perkasie, Pa., a small town north of Philadelphia. Specter, the senior senator from Pennsylvania, was talking about his "sense" that Election Day in his state was going to be a rude awakening for Democrats, despite weeks of polls showing Republicans lagging far behind in this former swing state. That's when he let loose with his reason for optimism:

There are a "couple of hidden factors" in this election, said Specter. "The first is that people answer pollsters one way, but in the secrecy of the ballot booth, vote the other way."

Yes. That is what he said, to a chorus of hopeful affirmation. Arlen Specter was openly -- in public, into a microphone -- crossing his fingers, and hoping for racism.

It's unclear whether that's what Specter actually means, but he does seem to be referring to the "Bradley Effect," according to which support for black candidates is overestimated in polls due to social desirability, and then lower on election day. But still, that's pretty lame.