Friday, June 09, 2006

This Week: God, gays, Mormons, Iraq and an American Muslim’s fears for her children

This has been the busiest week yet at In This Moment. This week’s featured posts are from Nancy Jane Moore and Pamela K. Taylor.

God is such a good “guy” that he’s taken time off from his busy schedule for a little volunteer work for the Republican Party of Texas. Nancy Jane Moore takes a look at what’s happening in her home state.

Pamela K. Taylor brings us back to Earth with her meditations as a Muslim and a mother on the meaning of the recent arrests of Canadian citizens alleged to be planning terrorist attacks. Pamela talks about her concerns about being unfairly labeled a terrorist and her worry about how to protect her children from people who want them to become terrorists. She writes:

I cannot quite get my mind around what is happening in my community that leads to this kind of violence being seen as acceptable.
Other headlines at In This Moment:

Texas Republicans name God as their chairman

God is the chairman of the Texas Republican Party, according to a report in the Dallas Morning News. Or, at least a speaker at the state GOP convention's prayer breakfast so proclaimed.

When I first read about God the chairman in Molly Ivins's column, I had visions of the Almighty standing for election and wondered who had the nerve to run against Him and whether He really had time to take the Texas Republicans in hand, given all the work involved in being omnipotent. I'm relieved to discover that it's an honorary chairmanship.

The party platform is less amusing. According to the Morning News, it declares "America is a Christian nation" and goes on to say:
We pledge to exert our influence toward a return to the original intent of the First Amendment and dispel the myth of the separation of church and state.
I've actually read the Bill of Rights, and quite a few of the major court cases interpreting it, and I'd say separation of church and state is the at the very heart of the First Amendment. Sounds to me like the Texas Republicans are trying to undermine our democracy.

I was also puzzled by a prayer mentioned in the Morning News article. Presbyterian Pastor Dale Young said:
Lord, your words tell us there's a sign that this nation is under a curse, when the alien who lives among us grows higher and higher and we grow lower and lower.
Try as I might, I can't quite figure out what he means by "the alien who lives among us." Extraterrestrials? Immigrants? Satan? Liberals like me?

Probably liberals like me.

Civil War and Women's Rights in Iraq

NPR's Renee Montagne, on June 8's "Morning Edition," referred to the "pre-civil war" in Iraq while discussing the killing of Abu Musba al-Zarqawi. Over on Informed Comment, Professor Juan Cole has been calling the horror in Iraq a civil war -- without the "pre" -- for some time now.

The Independent for June 8 reports that Iraqi women are losing their secular rights. The article ends on a somber note:

There is a growing fear among educated women, however, that the extreme dangers of daily life will allow the issue of women's oppression to remain unchallenged.

It's very depressing to consider that Iraqi women had greater rights under a dictator than they do after the U.S. invasion. Of course, in the midst of a civil war, everyone's rights are in trouble.

Thursday, June 08, 2006

Religious university doesn’t kick students out for protesting, but does succeed in running them off campus

Following up on an earlier post about religious universities and the thought police…

Brigham Young University has suspended one student and disciplined four others for taking part in a gay-rights protest at the school in April.

Run by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the university did not expel any of the students, which was one of the punishment options available. However, it did succeed in prompting two of them to leave campus.

Matthew Kulisch, one of the local organizers of the Soulforce Equality Ride, and Emil Pohlig are both transferring to the University of Utah.

Kulisch, who is gay, was suspended but the action was put on hold.

"They kicked me out of the university but upon further consideration decided I could stay under certain terms and conditions," Kulisch told the Deseret Morning News.

Kulisch said terms of his withheld suspension included avoidance of all contact with gays.

"That's rather difficult to do because one cannot determine who is a homosexual by looking at them," Kulisch said.

He also would have been required to read talks by Elder David A. Bednar and Elder Boyd K. Packer of the LDS Church's Quorum of the Twelve.

Kulisch and Pohlig said the rulings did little to clear up the vagueness of BYU's policy on gays. BYU does allow gays to enroll but the Honor Code prohibits any gay behavior or advocacy of a gay lifestyle.

The terms provided to Kulisch stated that romantic touching and hugging would not be allowed.

Everything BYU did is legal because it is a private religious school, but it isn't even close to being moral or right.

Missouri may no longer block lesbian from becoming foster parent

[Finally - blogger is letting me post!]

Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon says a bill signed into law this week makes it impossible for the state to challenge a Kansas City lesbian’s application to become a foster parent.

The bill signed by Gov. Matt Blunt repeals “a longstanding Missouri law that essentially criminalized homosexuality.” The Kansas City Star reports:

“The governor’s signature took away the last argument of the state in this case,” said Scott Holste, a spokesman for Nixon.

The ACLU, which is representing the woman, applauded Nixon’s position.

“Every major mainstream child welfare and health organization opposes laws that ban lesbian and gay people from parenting because social science proves that lesbian and gay people are just as capable of being good parents as anyone else, said Lisa Brunner, ACLU of Kansas and Western Missouri cooperating attorney. “Making so many new foster homes available by ending this senseless and illegal ban is wonderful news for the children of Missouri.”

The Kansas City woman won her case against the Missouri Department of Social Services in a district court in February. However, the state appealed. The ACLU noted that the appeal was based on the claim that the “state law banning sexual intimacy between same-sex couples meant that gay and lesbian people were unfit to be foster parents.”

Nixon’s statement that the case is dead would appear to clear the way for the woman to become a foster parent, but a spokesman for the governor called Nixon’s stand “outrageous.”

The case is complicated by the fact that Blunt, a Republican, and Nixon, a Democrat, are both running for governor in 2008.

Stay tuned for further developments.

See also the Yahoo News report on the case.

Father of Marine killed in Iraq sues the Phelps church for picketing at his funeral

The father of a U.S. Marine killed in Iraq is suing the Westover Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas, for picketing his son's funeral. According to the York Daily Record of York, Pa., Albert Snyder filed suit June 5 in federal court in Maryland against Fred Phelps and the church.

Members of the church demonstrated at the funeral of Matthew Snyder, making their usual outrageous and hate-filled claims – well known to In This Moment readers – linking the deaths of soldiers in Iraq to gay rights in the U.S.

However, the Daily Record article also says the mother and sisters of the young man oppose to the suit, saying it will only call attention to the church and its hate-filled message. Snyder's parents -- who are divorced -- have different opinions on what should be done.

It's hard to decide which parent is taking the right course of action in this case. On the one hand, it's easy to see why a man, already suffering over the death of his son, would want to strike out at people who used his funeral as a platform. But it's just as easy to understand why grieving relatives would not want the stress and publicity that a lawsuit can bring, and why they would object to giving these supposedly religious cranks publicity. Plus the lawsuit likely won't go anywhere -- though with luck it will cost the Phelps church a lot of money to get it dismissed.

Since we've written on this subject a lot on In This Moment, I've given it some thought and decided that publicizing the actions of the Phelps church will do more good than harm, even if in the short term they get the attention they crave. The hate-filled message of these so-called Christians (it's hard to believe anyone claiming to follow the path of Jesus Christ has so little compassion) is so repugnant that even those who share their opinion that homosexuality is a terrible sin reject their actions. I think talking about what they've done will make people think more carefully about their own beliefs and how they should treat those who believe differently.

Calling attention to the Phelps crusade for hate will be more effective in the long run than any lawsuits or laws prohibiting demonstrations at funerals. The Baltimore radio station WBAL report on this matter also said Maryland Gov. Robert Ehrlich signed a state law that prohibits demonstrations at funerals if they're likely to cause a fight. I haven't read the statute, but given that description it doesn't sound like a well-drafted law. I suspect it was passed more to show sympathy than to actually do anything constructive.

Wednesday, June 07, 2006

14 European countries are cooperating with the US in the illegal rendition and detention of suspected terrorists

A report presented to the Council of Europe June 7 says 14 European nations have cooperated with the U.S. in the illegal abduction and rendition of persons suspected of involvement in terrorism. According to The Independent, the countries are Britain, Germany, Italy, Sweden, Bosnia, Macedonia, Turkey, Spain, Cyprus, Ireland, Greece, Portugal, Romania, and Poland.

In a press release the Legal Affairs Committee of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly said:
The United States has progressively woven a clandestine “spider’s web” of disappearances, secret detentions and unlawful inter-state transfers – spun with the collaboration or tolerance of Council of Europe member states.
The introductory section of the report is entitled "Are human rights little more than a fairweather option?" and includes these observations:
It is frankly alarming to see the UN Security Council sacrificing essential principles pertaining to fundamental rights in the name of the fight against terrorism. The compilation of so-called “black lists” of individuals and companies suspected of maintaining connections with organisations considered terrorist and the application of the associated sanctions clearly breach every principle of the fundamental right to a fair trial: no specific charges, no right to be heard, no right of appeal, no established procedure for removing one’s name from the list.

A pdf file of the complete report is available here.

If you've been paying attention, this report doesn't really tell you anything you didn't already know, or at least suspect: The United States has been snatching up people it thinks are terrorists and European nations are helping them with the process. Some countries have even set up secret detention camps, according to the report, and most have turned people over to the CIA or other helped in other ways. Only the presence of Sweden on the list shocked me; somehow, I expected better of Sweden.

It's tempting to try not to think about this, or to assume that everyone who has been abducted and sent off to prison camps is so evil we don't care how they're treated. But even if we choose to ignore the fact that our most fundamental principles dictate that even the worst criminals are entitled to due process of law, we all know that mistakes get made. Odds are innocent people are stuck in this Kafkaesque limbo. Further this report -- and the others like it -- includes allegations of torture.

And this is being done by nations that considered themselves highly civilized.

We have to start paying attention, because these actions are being justified as necessary to protect the U.S. and other countries from terrorism. They're being done in our names. Here are several questions we need to be asking ourselves and those in authority:
  • Why can't we give these people a fair trial?
  • Are secret detentions and torture even effective means of obtaining information and keeping us safe?
  • Even if they are effective to some degree -- a matter difficult to determine, since so little is actually known -- do we really want to undermine our basic principles to this extent?
  • Where will this practice stop? After all, since these detentions are illegal in the first place, there's no reason to assume they're limited to members of Al Qaeda.
Maybe it's because my worst nightmares involve being locked up without any means of escape, but detaining people without even a hearing -- much less a good lawyer -- always makes my stomach queasy.

Senate GOP effort to ban gay marriages fails

No one was surprised this morning when the Senate leadership’s push to write a ban on same-sex marriage into the U.S. Constitution lost on a procedural vote. The real question now centers on what impact this ridiculous exercise will have on the country.

My first thoughts are surprise over the fact that the anti-fairness lobby did not pick up the votes they expected to get. I swear that at one point I read that they were expecting as many as seven more votes, but I can’t seem to find the citation for that right now, so that might have been a hallucination.

It does appear, though, that the vote on the amendment was only one vote different then the last time it was run through the Senate. Oh, and when was that? What a shock! It was in 2004 -- the last time we had a national election.

The impact of this vote on the coming election remains to be seen. Stay tuned for further developments.

Meanwhile, for those of us who believe in fairness and equality and in not writing discrimination into any constitution, we have our work cut out for us.

We can win this debate. I suspect that we can even go much farther then simply keeping a marriage ban out of the U.S. Constitution. Public opinion is slowly swinging our way, particularly on the issue of civil unions. Eventually, I suspect we can even win the right for same-sex couples to marry.

We may well win in the courts, although that certainly seems less likely with the conservative majority that is now on the U.S. Supreme Court. However, any court victory will ultimately prove to be empty if we cannot win the support of the majority of voters. To do that, we have to borrow an idea from fundamentalists who won political power by fighting for it precinct by precinct.

We have to do the work on the ground of educating and organizing our neighbors. We can do it. I’ve seen us make a great start at that task here in Kansas. If we can make a good beginning in Kansas, then this kind of organizing is possible anywhere.

Here are early news reports on the vote from the Washington Post and Yahoo.

Here are some early blogger thoughts from AMERICAblog and the Political Animal over at Washington Monthly.

Meanwhile, we get to look forward to the U.S. House going through the same pointless (except in a political way) exercise in July.

Free training this Sunday to teach how to take Kansas back from the religious right

Mainstream Voices of Faith – an organization of moderate and progressive clergy and religious lay people – is holding a free Take Action Workshop Sunday afternoon in Johnson County.

The event is set for 2 to 5 p.m., Sunday, June 11, at Colonial Church, 7039 Mission Rd., Prairie Village, Kan.

The workshop schedule includes sessions on science and religion, peace, human dignity, the economy and practical strategies for clergy and lay leaders.

Here are details on the sessions and presenters.

Peace and Common Security
Ira Harritt, Program Coordinator, American Friends Service Committee
Councilwoman Saundra McFadden-Weaver, Pastor Community Fellowship Church of Jesus Christ

Human Dignity
Rabbi Mark Levin, Temple Beth Torah, Overland Park, Kan.
Rev. Dr. Fran Manson, United Methodist clergy, retired and Community Activist

Science and Religion
Dr. Barbara Lukert, KU Medical Center Endocrinologist
Rev. John Tamilio III, Senior Pastor Colonial Church in Prairie Village, KS

Moral Economy
Susan Letizia, Citizen Hunger and Poverty, MORE2, MO Association For Social Welfare
Rev. Spencer Barrett, Co-chair, Kansas City Interfaith Worker Justice, MO, Pastor Bethel AME Church

Education
Kathy Cook, Executive Director of Kansas Families for Public Education
Rep. Craig C. Bland, Representative MO District 43

For Lay Leaders: Strategies to educate, motivate and impact public policy
Lori Messinger, Assistant Professor in the School of Social Welfare, KU

For Clergy: Strategies to educate, motivate and impact public policy
Bob Harder, United Methodist Minister, Advocate for the Kansas Area United Methodist Church and active with the Kansas Big Tent Coalition

Mainstream Voices of Faith is affiliated with the MAINstream Coalition. You can register for the training at the coalition’s web site. You can also register by calling the coalition’s office 913.649.3326.

By registering, you help Voices of Faith know how many people to expect, but registration is not required.

Broadening our perspective: Pamela K. Taylor joins In This Moment

I am pleased to announce the addition of a new contributing writer to this illustrious blog. Please welcome Pamela K. Taylor!

Pamela writes from the perspective of a mother, fiction and nonfiction writer and Muslim, not to mention the all-important viewpoint she gets from living in Indianapolis, Ind.

Oh wait, I kind of sped by that Muslim thing, didn’t I?

I first met Pamela at a WisCon a few years ago. I have to admit that when I first saw her I was a bit uncertain about how to approach a woman wearing a traditional Islamic head scarf. However, her t-shirt certainly caught my eye. See a recent photo here.

Knowing Pamela, even briefly, has helped me expand my understanding of Islam and made me look squarely at my own assumptions. I am so happy she agreed to join us at In This Moment.

Who is Pamela?

Raised as a bleeding heart liberal with Kantian ethics, socialist politics, feminist sensibilities and a ferocious individualism, Pamela has been a political activist since her college days when she was a participant in the South African Divestment movement at her alma mater, Dartmouth College.

The stunning success of the anti-apartheid movement a few years later convinced her that political activism can indeed change the world, and that a group does not have to be powerful, rich, or even terribly numerous to make a huge change. This optimism has stuck with her throughout her adult life, and colors both her writing and her activism.

It also colors her understanding of her adopted religion, Islam, which she embraced twenty years ago. She has been active in interfaith dialogue for eighteen years, and has worked with various Islamic organizations to improve understanding between the Muslim community and mainstream America.

Pamela is also committed to articulating and promoting a humane, tolerant, and merciful understanding of Islam. She is currently co-Chair of the Progressive Muslim Union, which brings together progressive Muslims to work for social justice and Director of the Islamic Writers Alliance, a professional writers group dedicated to promoting Muslim women writers. She is active with the Network of Spiritual Progressives and Broad Universe.

In her spare time, she raises four kids, two cats and a pony, practices Shorei Goju Ryu karate and writes science fiction.

You can check out her web site at www.pktaylor.com

Home grown terrorism

Before I begin, I’d like to thank Diane for inviting me to participate in this blog. It’s a real honor and I hope that as the weeks and months pass we’ll all learn and grow together. And that we can make a difference in a world that at times seems to have gone mad.

One such madness concerns the unfolding events in Toronto, where seventeen men – fifteen of whom are teenagers or in their early twenties – have been charged with conspiring to carry out terrorist acts in Canada. This news is disturbing for a variety of reasons.

1) It appears that the possibility of a 7/7 type strike on Canadian or American soil is much more likely than many of us had assumed. One of the most disturbing things about the 7/7 train/bus bombing in London was that it was carried out by young men who called Britain home, some of whom were even born in Britain. Similarly, most of the men who were arrested in Canada were second generation.

I cannot quite get my mind around what is happening in my community (the Muslim community) that leads to this kind of violence being seen as acceptable. These men went through public schools. They led decent lives. How did they get to feel so oppressed, or hateful that they deemed a terrorist attack acceptable? How did they get so alienated from their own country that they would deem an attack against their own people/government not only to be ok, but to be necessary? Canada isn't a horrible country, if anything their record of respecting different cultures and embracing them is one of the best in the world.

Has the Muslim community, in our endeavor to keep our children within the fold of Islam, emphasized the beauty of Islam so strongly that our children cannot appreciate anything else? Have we allowed ourselves to devalue other peoples and faiths so much that terrorist strikes that would kill innocents seem ok? Have we over-emphasized their "otherness" (with good intentions) and restricted them from too many cultural activities, so much that it leaves them vulnerable to extremists who are also other, and who also reject that culture? Or is there something completely outside of our parenting that leads to this kind of disaffection?

I know as a parent I teach my children that much is truly wonderful about America (nothing but the truth for my kids!), even though I have grave concerns about the direction the country is headed in terms of the Patriot Act, corporate culture and the invasion of politics by the corporation, and our dismal foreign policy since WWII. We discuss those failings honestly, but we also discuss the strengths of America, and the American people. We have friends of all faiths, as do all my Muslim friends. We discuss religion in a humane and tolerant manner. We participate in American holidays (with joy!) and partake of Western culture. I cannot imagine my children turning out like the 7/7 bombers, but then again, neither did the parents of those bombers.

Even more perplexing, the men and women I grew up with who came from the strictest families have rebelled against the strictures their families imposed, not against the culture their parents were so afraid would corrupt their kids. What happened to those young men who bombed the trains in London? Were their families too strict? Were they too lax? Did they have some profound alienating experience that changed their lives, or was it an insidious, continuous drip of experiences? How can we safeguard our children against the influence of extreme ideologies and the ravages of silent racism?

In the past couple of days, the authorities have alleged that these young men in Canada were radicalized in a relatively short period of time, under the influence of a single, charismatic leader (the lone older person in the group, who, like me, is in his 40s). This is, perhaps, the nightmare of every parent – that their child will end up mesmerized by a cult figure. How can anyone protect against that? You teach critical thinking, and build their self-esteem, but young people are often easily swayed by vehemence and declamations against injustice (real or imagined). And, indeed, we want them to be outraged against injustice so that they’ll take action to make the world a better place, but at the same time we want them to keep their outrage within the bounds of humanity and legality.

It worries me when our government seems to ignore the will of the people (as it seemed to ignore the millions of people who protested against the invasion of Iraq) – when peaceful demonstrations, letter writing, and lobbying fail to produce even acknowledgement, it leaves our communities more open to radicalization.

2) Already there seems to be an assumption of guilt, despite the fact that Canada, like the US, operates on a justice system that presumes innocence, and despite the fact that the three tons of fertilizer were apparently "planted" upon the suspects in a sting operation. I have no idea if the men are innocent or guilty; either way they deserve a fair trial, and not to be tried in the court of public opinion.

I have serious doubts, however, that a fair trial by a jury of their peers is possible. Kind of like OJ. I doubt it would have been possible for him to get a fair trial either. The jury is going to be biased, one way or the other. The mass-media do not help this, as they converge on courtrooms, confer with “expert analysts,” and sensationalize the story (as if it isn’t sensational enough on its own!) because that sort of presentation is good for their bottom line. When fear, ignorance and hatred of Islam is rampant, how fair a trial will a Muslim accused of terrorism get?

3) Whether those men are guilty or innocent, the Muslim community does not deserve to be tarred and feathered for their crimes. Already a mosque in Toronto has been attacked with some 30 windows broken and several cars in the area smashed. I don't know if churches were attacked after Timothy McVeigh's arrest. Maybe they were; and that would have been wrong too. I don't know if windows in Catholic churches were smashed after IRA bombings in London. That, too, would have been wrong.

Muslims in America and in Canada need to feel safe from their neighbors or more youth will become disaffected and vulnerable to extremists. Backlash just pushes more kids over the edge.

Tuesday, June 06, 2006

Activist judges? What activist judges?

Bush says activist judges are the reason we need a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage. This has a lot in common with his statements tying Saddam to September 11: It's a outright lie.

There is no epidemic of activist judges allowing gays to marry. So far, one state supreme court – Massachusetts – has allowed gay marriage. One. A few state trial courts have ruled that laws prohibiting same-sex marriage are unconstitutional. These cases are, obviously, on appeal.

And one federal judge in Nebraska – one – has struck down a state law that prohibited same-sex marriage. Judging by the opinion, the law went much farther than prohibiting gay marriage; it made it impossible for gays to even seek legislation for such things as inheritance rights and domestic partner benefits. This case is now before the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The trouble is, almost no one is challenging Bush's activist judges claim. The New York Times pointed out that it wasn't true in an editorial on June 5. But I haven't seen one news story or heard one radio or TV report that has mentioned the limited number of court opinions on the subject. And no one seems to have asked Bush to be specific.

He's thrown the term around so recklessly that I'm willing to bet a majority of people really believe there are hordes of activist judges out there legalizing gay marriage, just as they believed Saddam was behind September 11. After all, activist judge is a loaded term that implies by its very wording that these judges are doing something wrong.

Bush is using the activist judge lie to promote a federal Constitutional ban on same-sex marriage as a political tool, of course. But the problem presented by this particular lie is broader than either the 2006 elections or the rights of gays to marry: It's part of a concerted right-wing attack on judges.

Every time Bush says activist judges, he is implying that there are a large number of judges – federal and state – out to undermine our democracy by throwing out laws passed by Congress and legislatures. He is conveniently forgetting that judges are a crucial part of our system – that a major part of their role is to balance the executive and legislative branches. This has been a settled issue in this country for more than 200 years – ever since Chief Justice John Marshall wrote the decision in Marbury v. Madison that upheld the right of the Supreme Court to decide whether laws were constitutional.

The truth is, we don't have an activist judge problem in this country. Bush's use of the term is an effort to seriously weaken the judicial branch of government, so he can consolidate even more power in the presidency. This is a very dangerous action that actually can undermine our democracy.

We need to challenge the use of loaded words like "activist judges" at every opportunity so that they do not become accepted as fact. A few editorials are not sufficient, as we can see with other lies promoted by Bush.

By the way, there is an epidemic of state laws and constitutional amendments providing that marriage is "between a man and a woman." NPR has a map of these states. While we here on In This Moment disagree with those laws, they do make it clear that the states are addressing the issue. A federal Constitutional amendment expanding the right of gays to marry would make sense; one rejecting it is clearly unnecessary.

Monday, June 05, 2006

The religious control of US contraceptive policy leads to another unwanted abortion

Sunday's Washington Post had a stunning article (free registration required) explaining how a 42-year-old married mother of two ended up having an abortion because she could not get a timely prescription for Plan B, the "morning-after pill."

The piece is stunning not because the facts are so unusual, but because they are so incredibly ordinary: A woman and her husband -- the sort of busy people who are always juggling family and work responsibilities -- find themselves with an unplanned bit of privacy and somehow they forget to use the diaphragm.

So the woman, who knows pregnancy is trickier in your 40s and who doesn't want another child, tries to get a prescription for Plan B. But her ob-gyn won't give her one. Her internist won't give her one. And the midwives who helped with her last pregnancy won't give her one without an appointment, and they don't have one available. All this for a drug that a panel of medical experts advising the Food and Drug Administration recommended for sale over the counter back in December 2003 -- a recommendation that's been held up ever since because the religious right wants it that way.

In this case, she couldn't get the pill after several tries, decided to hope for the best, and ended up pregnant. Her experience getting an abortion -- an abortion that wouldn't have been necessary if she'd been able to get the pill -- turned out to be even more harrowing. In fact, her description of events -- the mob of protesters outside the clinic, the doctor who was delayed for an hour and a half, her inability to confirm her appointment because the clinic doesn't do that for safety reasons -- gave off echoes of the bad old days when abortion wasn't legal.

Here's what we've come to under this administration: Medical science has developed a safe after-the-fact contraceptive and women can't get their hands on it. In a society that was founded on freedom of religion, responsible grown women -- much less teenage girls -- can't take steps to prevent a pregnancy because some religious extremists are opposed to Plan B.

Let's face it: These religious extremists aren't just opposed to abortion; they're opposed to contraception. They want to make sure nobody -- not even happily married heterosexual couples with children -- has sex for any reason except procreation. They're cramming their religious beliefs about sex down our throats.

What most people want is access to reasonable forms of contraception -- including Plan B -- with abortion available as a last-resort back up, because there is no 100 percent perfect form of birth control. Science and law have provided us with that system, but religious extremists are blocking our access to it.

In a country that treasures freedom of religion as a founding principle, we've ended up with a contraception policy based on the religious beliefs of a narrow minority. The only way to undermine this policy -- outside of voting out the politicians who pander to the religious right -- is to stand up for our right to make our own decisions about our sex lives. It's a right that we can lose if we don't fight to protect it.

As the author of the article says:

And to think that, all these years after Roe v. Wade became the law of the land, this is what our children have to look forward to as they approach their reproductive years.

While the Senate fiddles with gay marriage, America burns

Remember that bit about Emperor Nero playing the fiddle, while the city of Rome burned? A study released today shows that while the U.S. Senate fiddles around with a sham vote to scapegoat me and millions of other Americans, most people aren’t particularly worried about the so-called evil of gay marriage. Even if you only focus on moral issues, voters are far more upset about other, very real problems.

When asked to name the “most serious moral crisis in America today,” only 3 percent cited “abortion and homosexuality.” That isn’t a typo. I said three percent, and they had to throw in abortion to come up with that number.

That is just one of the fascinating results from the study released by The Faith and Progressive Policy Initiative at the Center for American Progress. The Center notes:

American voters are increasingly worried about rising materialism, self-interest, and unethical behavior in our society. They strongly desire a government that focuses on the common good and basic decency and dignity of all Americans.

Among the results:

  • 71% of voters strongly agree that "Americans are becoming too materialistic," including 71% of Democrats, 70% of Independents, and 72% of Republicans. (92% total agree.)
  • 68% of voters strongly agree that the "government should be committed to the common good and put the public’s interest above the privileges of the few." (85% total agree.)
  • 73% of Democrats, 62% of Independents, and 67% of Republicans strongly agree with a common good focus for government. A similar percentage of voters (68%) strongly agree that "government should uphold the basic decency and dignity of all and take greater steps to help the poor and disadvantaged in America." (89% total agree)

For some reasons these issues don’t seem to be on the radar of Republicans, who control every branch of government. (To be fair, many Democrats do little more than pay lip service to these issues.)

Meanwhile, there are a few other issues the Senate might want to consider like, oh say, gas prices, immigration, terrorism and an out-of-control horror called the war in Iraq.

As far as the common good goes...

After the GOP gets done attempting to rile up hatred against me and other gay, bisexual and transgendered citizens, they plan to trot out a vote to repeal the federal estate tax. Paul Krugman has a great column about this at the New York Times. Alas, it’s locked behind the pay-to-read wall of Time Select. Here’s a bit of it.

Any senator who votes to repeal the estate tax, or votes for a "compromise" that goes most of the way toward repeal, is in effect saying that increasing the wealth of people who are already in line to inherit millions or tens of millions is more important than taking care of fellow citizens who need a helping hand.

To understand this point, we need to look at what Congress has been doing lately in the name of deficit reduction.

The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, which was signed in February, consists mainly of cuts to spending on Medicare, Medicaid and education. The Medicaid cuts will have the largest human impact: the Congressional Budget Office estimates that they will cause 65,000 people, mainly children, to lose health insurance, and lead many people who retain insurance to skip needed medical care because they can't afford increased co-payments.

Congressional leaders justified these harsh measures by saying that we have to reduce the budget deficit, and there's no way to do that without inflicting pain.

But those same leaders now propose making the deficit worse by repealing the estate tax. Apparently deficits aren't such a big problem after all, as long as we're running up debts to provide bigger inheritances to wealthy heirs rather than to provide medical care to children.

Sebastian Mallaby also has a great column about this at the Washington Post.

Borrowing from a comment by Krugman, I would like to propose that the estate-tax repeal be called the Save Paris Hilton Some Bucks Bill.

OK blogosphere, feel free to correct me on this if I’m wrong, but didn’t the good folks of Rome get a tad upset with Nero after a while? American voters aren’t fools. Someday soon they are going to wake up.

Call or email your senator now and voice your opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment. More information is here.

Turning American citizens into scapegoats to win elections, or what's really going on in the gay marriage debate

As our not-so-beloved president goes on live TV to campaign against the rights of millions of Americans, Los Angeles Times columnist Ronald Brownstein identifies what's really happening in this week's Senate debate over gay marriage.

This issue isn't morality or marriage, he says. It's the time-honored tradition of turning a group of Americans into scapegoats so that politicians can goad an obsessed group of voters into turning out at the polls. In 2004, that upset minority -- religious radicals -- gave just enough of a boost to push Republicans into the win column.

The key to understanding that the Federal Marriage Amendment is just smoke and mirrors is the fact that the proposed ban on same-sex marriage doesn't have a chance of passing. Brownstein notes:

Now many in Washington believe the essence of politics is provoking confrontations over issues that have little chance of becoming law but a high probability of dividing the country.
...
But like so much else in contemporary politics, the Senate vote isn't designed to produce a law; it's intended to pick a fight. The White House and Senate GOP leadership are betting that a noisy confrontation over gay marriage will encourage turnout this November from conservative voters -- many of whom, polls show, are discouraged over President Bush's second term.
So far this kind of strategy has helped the GOP, but Brownstein thinks it might come with a cost this year.
That strategy may help Republicans in some red states this year. But it could also deepen the image of intolerance hurting the GOP in many white-collar suburbs outside the South.

Call and email your senators now! See here for more information and links.

Taking the Kansas State Board of Education back from the anti-evolution radicals

MAIN*PAC, the committee affiliated with the MAINstream Coalition, has endorsed a slate of Kansas Board of Education candidates to "return moderation and common sense" to the board.

For those few of you who've been off planet recently...

The Kansas state board has made news by working to undermine the teaching of evolution and appointing a right-wing ideologue as the new state education commissioner. Bob Corkins, the new commissioner, has zero experience in education and a history of working against public schools.

Needless to say, more than a few folks in Kansas are a tad upset, which has led to a series of Take Back Kansas rallies around the state. MAIN*PAC and the MAINstream Coalition are among the groups leading a full-court press to elect moderates to the board.

MAIN*PAC has announced that it is endorsing:

DISTRICT 1
Janet Waugh

DISTRICT 3
Harry McDonald
Don Weiss

DISTRICT 5
Sally Cauble
Tim Cruz

DISTRICT 7
Jack Wempe

DISTRICT 9
Kent Runyan
Jana Shaver

For details on the state board races, check out Red State Rabble's rundown of the election. He has a district map and details on the candidates. By the way, Rabble clearly does the best job of covering the struggle over teaching evolution and science in Kansas and around the nation.

Call your senators today and tell them to vote NO on the same-sex marriage ban

The Human Rights Campaign has declared today National Call-In Day and is asking fair-minded Americans to urge their senators to oppose a federal ban on same-sex marriage.

Senate debate starts today on the proposal that would mark the first time discrimination has been amended into the Constitution. The proposed amendment also includes a vaguely worded section that would ban civil unions, domestic partnerships and could even effect unmarried heterosexual couples.

Although the proposal is not expected to pass, it is important to contact your senators and show the level of opposition to the amendment. I would suggest even contacting senators you know are voting yes. Even the most hostile Senate offices keep track of voter sentiment.

To call the Senate, punch in (202) 224 – 3121 and ask to leave a message on your Senators’ voice mail.

HRC suggests that you could leave one of the following messages.

  • I am calling to urge you to vote no on the Federal Marriage Amendment.
  • Throughout American history, the Constitution has been amended to expand and protect the rights and liberties of the American people - it should not be used to single out some Americans for discrimination.
  • The Federal Marriage Amendment would single out GLBT Americans for separate and unequal treatment in the U.S. Constitution, the very document that is supposed to guarantee Americans' equality.
  • Do not write discrimination into the Constitution; vote NO onthe Federal Marriage Amendment.

For more information from HRC, check here.

The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force has information on the issue here.

For my take on this proposal check here.

For a religious perspective on the marriage ban, see here.

For what it feels like to be a lesbian who is continually under attack, see here.