From radioactive clergy to media inquisitions, religion was a hot topic in this year’s race to the White House, according to editors of Church and State Magazine.

The role of religion in the presidential campaign tops the 2008 “Top Ten” list of top church-state stories, according to the editors of Church & State. The monthly magazine published by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, is the nation’s only news periodical devoted exclusively to the intersection of religion and government.

Said Church & State publisher Barry W. Lynn, “It was a wild and crazy year. To tell you the truth, I’m glad it’s coming to a close. I’m hopeful 2009 will be a lot better.”

After studying the past 12 months of news, the editors selected the following 10 stories as the most important and most interesting church-state developments for the year.

1.  The Role of Religion in the Presidential Campaign: Not since 1960 when John F. Kennedy the first Roman Catholic president was elected, has religion played such a large role in a presidential campaign. News media representatives grilled candidates on what sins they had committed and what their favorite Bible verses were. Barack Obama fought false rumors that he is secretly a Muslim, and Mitt Romney’s Mormonism became a controversial topic. Candidates were held accountable for the incendiary comments of their pastors and their clergy supporters, such as the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and TV preacher John Hagee. Many observers thought the whole thing was an unholy mess, especially in a nation that separates religion and government.

2. The Resurgence of the Religious Right: While pundits and progressives have proclaimed the demise of the Religious Right, the fundamentalist political movement remained extraordinarily powerful. Republican John McCain found it necessary to name evangelical Sarah Palin as his running mate to mollify the GOP’s restive religious base, and Religious Right forces rammed through bans on same-sex marriage in California, Florida and Arizona. Moderate evangelical Richard Cizik was forced out as government affairs representative at the National Association of Evangelicals after coming under fire from Religious Right forces.

3.  The Battle Over Gay Marriage: Bans on same-sex marriage were approved in California, Florida and Arizona with conservative religious forces leading the drive. California’s approval of Proposition 8, with massive funding from members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, was particularly contentious. The Mormons, joined by the Roman Catholic hierarchy and evangelical Protestant congregations, were successful in passing a constitutional amendment that takes away the right of same-sex couples to marry and reflects church doctrine in civil law. The issue now moves back to the state Supreme Court.

4.  The Ascendancy of Rick Warren: Once known primarily as a mega-church pastor and best-selling author (The Purpose Driven Life), the Rev. Rick Warren has rapidly moved into position as the nation’s most prominent preacher, despite right-wing views on reproductive freedom, gay rights and church-state separation. Warren, a Southern Baptist who heads Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, Calif., is viewed by progressives as Jerry Falwell in a Hawaiian shirt with an ace PR team. After hosting a presidential debate stacked toward John McCain and being asked to give the invocation at Barack Obama’s inauguration, many think Warren seems destined to be the new Billy Graham.

5.  Religious Right Influence at Justice Department: Religious Right influence at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) was exposed this year. According to an internal DOJ investigation reported in the media in July, senior aides in the department used religious and political criteria to hire staff members for non-political positions. Monica Goodling, a top adviser to the attorney general, checked to see if job applicants were “pro-God in public life” and held right-wing views on abortion, homosexuality and other issues. (Goodling is a graduate of TV preacher Pat Robertson’s Regent University.) DOJ also posted a legally dubious memorandum this year insisting that the federal government may give grants to “faith-based” social service agencies that discriminate in hiring, even if Congress has explicitly banned such bias.

6. Battles Over Creationism in Public Schools: New battles have erupted over the teaching of evolution in public schools. Blocked by the courts from teaching fundamentalist religious concepts directly in biology classes, Religious Right forces are trying a backdoor strategy. They are demanding that schools teach the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution, a euphemism for creationist ideas. Over the heated objections of educators, scientists and civil liberties activists, the Louisiana legislature approved an “academic freedom” law encouraging such instruction in the state’s schools. Now the Texas State Board of Education is debating a similar proposal as part of its 10-year review of science standards.

7. Church Politicking Plot: The Religious Right’s dream of building a fundamentalist church-based political machine took a big step forward in 2008 when more than 30 pastors used their pulpits to endorse Republican political candidates. They acted at the behest of the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), a wealthy Religious Right legal outfit that wants to challenge the federal tax law ban on partisan politicking by tax-exempt groups. The ADF, which was founded by TV preachers and other religious broadcasters, hopes the Internal Revenue Service will revoke participating churches’ tax exemptions leading to a court showdown.

8.  Defeat of Jeb Bush Referenda: Florida Gov. Jeb Bush saw his school voucher subsidies for religious and other private schools overturned by the state Supreme Court in 2006. Undeterred, the now former governor’s allies on an obscure tax commission engineered two measures onto the November 2008 ballot that would have repealed the state constitution’s ban on public funding of religion as well as diluted its provision for a strong system of public schools. To Bush’s dismay, the state Supreme Court on Sept. 3 struck the referenda from the ballot, derailing the scheme.

9.  Blocking of ‘Christian’ License Plate: The South Carolina legislature unanimously approved a special “Christian” license plate featuring a bright yellow cross, a stained-glass church window and the words “I Believe.” Backed by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, four local clergy and two minority faith groups challenged the government favoritism toward one faith. On Dec. 11, a federal district court blocked issuance of the plates. The judge’s action may forestall similar sectarian plates under consideration in other states.

10.  The Christmas Wars: It has become an annual holiday tradition Religious Right groups and their allies in the right-wing media launch a yearly crusade to stop the alleged secularization of Christmas and to pressure government to include Christian symbols in the holiday mix. They rail against stores’ use of the term “Happy Holidays” and insist that advertisements say “Merry Christmas” instead. This year, much of the attention focused on a Washington State battle where an atheist Winter Solstice sign was positioned near a Christian Nativity scene in the state capital. Fox News pundit Bill O’Reilly and an array of Religious Right scolds lambasted Gov. Christine Gregoire for allowing the anti-religious sentiment. Ironically, credit for the atheist display actually should go to the Alliance Defense Fund, a Religious Right legal group that sued Gregoire last year, insisting that the Capitol is an open forum where a Nativity scene (and all other forms of speech) must be allowed.

About the Source: Americans United is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom.

This year’s election was indeed a bittersweet moment for those of us who supported President-Elect Obama and also gay marriage. While Obama was elected to be the 44th president of the United States, all three of the proposed constitutional amendments in Florida, Arizona, and California passed, even with slim margins.

I am keenly aware of what these election results actually mean. For me, there are two things: First, that voters were willing to write discrimination into their states’ constitution. Second, that gay marriage supporters spent a lot of money and time in trying to reach the wrong people.

One of the most frustrating consistencies in the gay marriage debate is in just how little discussion really occurs. No one really talks about their views on same-sex nuptials, unless they know they’re in safe territory to voice their opinion. Pastors tell their flock that gay marriage will lead to the downfall of society, and nearly everyone in their congregation will nod their heads and “amen” without ever once questioning whether such an absurd statement is actually true. On the flip side, pro-gay activists and politicians will opine on their positive views on gay marriage to their own crowds, whether they’re in campaign rallies or poetry readings.

As a result, the topic echoes through the empty halls filled with nodding heads at every turn. Very few minds are changed, and even fewer people are actually presented with both sides of this very complex discussion.

Proposition 8, the ballot initiative that California voters supported by a slim margin to write discrimination in to that state’s constitution, should never have passed. I, too, mistakenly thought that it wouldn’t get the needed votes. Like most people on the pro-gay marriage side of the coin, I never took into consideration the fact that the same group that helped to elect Barack Obama as our 44th president would also vote against gay marriage overwhelmingly.

While it was the Mormon church that put forth a huge chunk of the cash to sell the amendment to California voters (stop for a minute and ponder the hypocrisy of this fact alone), it was the African-American community vote that handed down this crushing defeat. This fact wasn’t lost on the gay community in California, either. Protests have been both vitriolic and angry toward the Mormon church, but the most hateful rhetoric has been hurled at blacks.

Rod 2.0 reported on some of the outrageous scapegoating by some gay protesters:

Geoffrey, a student at UCLA and regular Rod 2.0 reader, joined the massive protest outside the Temple of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Westwood. Geoffrey was called the n-word at least twice.

It was like being at a klan rally except the klansmen were wearing Abercrombie polos and Birkenstocks. YOU NIGGER, one man shouted at men. If your people want to call me a FAGGOT, I will call you a nigger. Someone else said same thing to me on the next block near the temple…me and my friend were walking, he is also gay but Korean, and a young WeHo clone said after last night the niggers better not come to West Hollywood if they knew what was BEST for them.

The article also tells of how black gay men (who were carrying NO ON PROP 8 signs were also accosted and subjected to racial abuse.

I suppose I should be shocked at such abject hate and bigotry, but then again, I’m not. I absolutely condemn this act of scapegoating the black community. Never before has there been such a clear opportunity for us to make some inroads for our cause, and never before has that opportunity been completely destroyed by the stupidity of some idiotic gay protesters and bigoted attacks against blacks. They had a chance to overcome, instead they chose to sink to the sewer of hate.

They’re rightfully angry. This was the first time where gay marriage was actually revoked. Conservatives say it’s a “moral” issue. But what the hell is moral about stripping rights from people? What the hell is so amoral about two consenting adults who make a lifetime commitment to each other?

But, I digress.

Wayne Besen of Truth Wins Out pointed out that this isn’t matter of race as some would like it to be. Education, Besen says, is the primary factor that drives a person’s vote on gay marriage:

Think of it this way. 57 percent of white people with a college education voted No on Prop. 8. Yet, 58 percent of white people with no college voted yes on 8. In other words, uneducated urban black people vote very much like uneducated rural white people.

Uneducated people – black, white and Hispanic – often derive their power from physical strength. They perceive being gay as weak and antithetical to real manhood. By voicing support for gay rights, they lose status and often fear rivals may perceive them as gay. The easiest way to gain status is dissing faggots. I see this attitude all the time in Brooklyn – in the gym and on the basketball court, where I often play. (Not the best sample, I realize this)

Meanwhile, educated people of all races gain power by outsmarting opponents – not beating them up. This creates a safe space to support gay rights and not lose social status. (Unfortunately, the fact that the conservative black church is a central organizing point for politics makes even educated blacks less likely to vote for gay rights. But, this is secondary to education levels.)

There comes a point in every election where fingers are pointed to lay the blame for failure. The GOP has been attempting to point their collective fingers at Governor Sarah Palin for their loss this year. And like the Republican party, many of us in the GLBT community are blind to the reality of our own failures – on so many levels.

Just as the Republicans are blinded to the reality that they are completely out of touch with society, those of us who are pro-gay marriage are often blinded to the reality that we are out of touch with the reality that it’s still okay to hate gay people. In many circles (including some of Besen’s examples of uneducated groups), the use of the word “faggot” is perfectly acceptable.

We have been out of touch with the reality that churches have the most influence on a huge segment of our population, and the anti-gay venom that’s spewed across pulpits all across the country has not diminished. Parishioners everywhere will nod their heads as they’re told that God destroyed Sodom because of homosexuality, and never once read for themselves what really happened.

They’ll say “amen” when they’re told that Romans chapter 1 is an outright condemnation of gay relationships, and never stop to look at the context of that chapter, which is actually discussing the evils of idolatry.

But this isn’t a debate over Christianity and gay rights. At some point, there has to be a conversation over simple fairness. The notion that “majority rules” has brought out the very clear reality that there is indeed a “tyranny of the majority,” and we should be mindful of the dangers of such oppression.

In his piece, Besen gives four major suggestions in how we should continue this discussion. One is particularly important:

We must also have substantive discussion with the African American community – as many of you have suggested. But, until we raise education levels, there is only so much we can do to win support of urban blacks – or rural whites. In other words, scholarships for urban blacks and rural whites are as effective as spending money on education specifically about gay rights. Keep this in mind.

Education is indeed an effective way to reach those who are opposed to gay marriage. However, it’s a little too nebulous a concept without a little down-to-earth common sense, which comes in the form of a commentary by Keith Olbermann, the MSNBC anchor that conservatives love to hate. His latest piece is on gay marriage. His most powerful point is the fact that the US has “re-defined marriage” quite regularly, and that it is a good thing:

I keep hearing this term “re-defining” marriage. If this country hadn’t re-defined marriage, black people still couldn’t marry white people. Sixteen states had laws on the books which made that illegal in 1967. 1967.

The parents of the President-Elect of the United States couldn’t have married in nearly one third of the states of the country their son grew up to lead. But it’s worse than that. If this country had not “re-defined” marriage, some black people still couldn’t marry black people. It is one of the most overlooked and cruelest parts of our sad story of slavery. Marriages were not legally recognized, if the people were slaves. Since slaves were property, they could not legally be husband and wife, or mother and child. Their marriage vows were different: not “Until Death, Do You Part,” but “Until Death or Distance, Do You Part.” Marriages among slaves were not legally recognized.

You know, just like marriages today in California are not legally recognized, if the people are gay.

And uncountable in our history are the number of men and women, forced by society into marrying the opposite sex, in sham marriages, or marriages of convenience, or just marriages of not knowing, centuries of men and women who have lived their lives in shame and unhappiness, and who have, through a lie to themselves or others, broken countless other lives, of spouses and children, all because we said a man couldn’t marry another man, or a woman couldn’t marry another woman. The sanctity of marriage.

How many marriages like that have there been and how on earth do they increase the “sanctity” of marriage rather than render the term, meaningless?

Olbermann’s commentary is thankfully not a voice in the wilderness, and more Americans are coming to realize that marriage between two consenting adults is never a bad thing.

No matter how we reach out, the most critical solution is for us to reach out and to have solid, genuine discussions on the merits of same-sex marriage. We’ve learned how dangerous it is to assume anything, now we must learn how to scale a mountain of ignorance.

We can’t avoid it any longer.

Below is the full commentary by Keith Olbermann. It’s worth a look:

With the new “Letter from 2012 in Obama’s America” that has been released by Focus on the Family Action, an activist wing of Dr. James Dobson’s rightwing organization, we’re reminded of just how hateful such groups are when faced with the prospect of losing an election. I’ve often said that this election is literally between hope and fear, and I’ve never been more convinced of that than I am right now. With just over a week to go, the “fear” camp is pulling out all the stops.

Since it was released to the public last Wednesday, the now-infamous letter has stroked the breast of fear like no other document in recent months. The letter’s writer is unidentified (after all, who’d want to actually put their name to such garbage?). It is nothing more than one “horrible” example of “liberal policies gone wrong” after another.

It shouldn’t be any surprise to anyone that the first three paragraphs of the actual “results” of an Obama presidency point to the very core of Reich-wing fear: national gay marriage and gay men serving as scoutmasters. The very possibility of these two things is so frightening that they must be the first to rattle the cage. First on the list of possible liberal-stacked supreme court rulings would be the legalization of gay marriage:

President Obama repeated his declaration that he personally was against same-sex “marriage”, but he told the nation there was nothing he could do.  The Supreme Court had ruled, and it was now the law of the land. The president asked the nation to support the decision.

The most far-reaching transformation of American society came from the Supreme Court’s stunning affirmation, in early 2010, that homosexual “marriage” was a “constitutional” right that had to be respected by all 50 states because laws barring same-sex “marriage” violated the Equal Protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. Suddenly, homosexual “marriage” was the law of the land in all 50 states, and no state legislature, no state Supreme Court, no state Constitutional amendment, not even Congress, had any power to change it. The Supreme Court had ruled, and the discussion was over….

…After that decision, many other policies changed, and several previous Supreme Court
cases were reversed rather quickly — raising the question, “Is America still the land of the free?”

(1) Boy Scouts: “The land of the free”? The Boy Scouts no longer exist as an organization. They chose to disband rather than be forced to obey the Supreme Court decision that they would have to hire homosexual scoutmasters and allow them to sleep in tents with young boys.

I rolled my eyes at the gay marriage “prophecy,” but they damn near popped out of my sockets when I saw the Boy Scout scoutmaster bit. Once I managed to keep myself from vomiting, I had to consider just what the hell it was suggesting. Of course, this ignores the reality that every major medical and psychiatric organization understands that gay men are not interested in boys. But hey, it makes for great fear-inducing politics.

Then there comes the simple reality that according to Boy Scout policy, even heterosexual men are not allowed to sleep in the same tents with boys that aren’t their own children. But no, we can’t be interjecting fact into this little romp of hate now, can we? The fact of the matter is that with just this one major glaring falsehood, it throws the entire document into question, and reveals its true, purely evil intent (isn’t it interesting that these people are the only ones who obsess about that kind of thing?).

Once I got through the next two-and-a-half pages of pure anti-gay venom (Gays in the military! Gay adoption! Gay weddings! Preachers can’t speak out against homosexuality!), it then launched into a classic tactic of telling readers that they might not be able to meet with their churches on school campuses, and horror of horrors, schoolkids won’t be able to have a “See You at the Pole” event.

Does this letter writer seriously think that the First Amendment would be tossed aside that easily? It even paints the tale that church ministries would no longer be allowed on college campuses. As if! This is Chicken Little at her best, really.

Then on to abortion. Nurses wouldn’t be able to refuse to give abortions anymore. No more conscientious objection. Out the door with you! Oh, and of course the “Partial Birth Abortion” ban would be overturned! Babies would be mutilated on sight! Once more, the taste of vomit entered my mouth. It’s this kind of hyperbole that would make anyone ill. Well, maybe that’s the point.

Pornography would go onto store shelves everywhere in plain sight! Guns are finally banned! Home schooling is severely restricted! The Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling!

But wait, theeeeeeeeere’s more!

Now onto the really scary parts. The writer tells of how three cities in the US were bombed. “The entire country is fearful,” they say. And the seemingly-benign Obama might vow that he would in each  “pursue and arrest and prosecute those responsible,” with no results. All of this would be after the American pullout (that even President Bush now supports), which would result in Al Qaeda declaring our “defeat.” Blah, blah, blah.

Russia invades Georgia, Poland, and nearly retakes all of their other former USSR territory! US trades with Cuba and Venezuela! Cuban cigars for everyone!

Then finally, the real bombshell:

Israel: “The home of the brave”? In mid-2010, Iran launched a nuclear bomb that exploded in the middle of Tel Aviv, destroying much of that city. They then demanded that Israel cede huge amounts of territory to the Palestinians, and after an anguished all-night Cabinet meeting, Israel’s prime minister agreed.  Israel is reduced to a much smaller country, hardly able to defend itself, and its future remains uncertain. President Obama said he abhorred what Iran had done and he hoped the U.N. would unanimously condemn this crime against humanity. He also declared that the U.S. would be part of any international peacekeeping force if authorized by the U.N., but the Muslim nations in the U.N. have so far prevented any action.

Make no mistake about this one. This is what evangelicals and fundamentalists fear more than anything, because it would signal events of apocalyptic proportions. Never mind the fact that Israel would kick the living Shiite out of any invading country — nuclear or not. They’ve done it before, and they’ll do it again when provoked.

This isn’t even remotely close to Obama’s or even US policy. But then, we can’t tell the truth now, can we? We must spread fear! But on this note, wouldn’t people who actually believe this tripe -  want the world to end? I’m still scratching my head on this one. Even that’s not the end of this letter…

Union thugs will rule the workplace! Taxes wipe out businesses! Democrats celebrate $7/gallon gasoline prices! Power shortage! Talk Radio goes bland! Conservative talk show hosts get kicked off the air! Christian bookstores forced to remove all anti-gay books!

Bush officials are fired, bankrupt, and prosecuted! (Wow, really? Good!)

Among its final paragraphs was one last ditch effort to chastise Christians:

“Christians didn’t take time to find out who Barack Obama was when they voted for him. Why did they risk our nation’s future on him? It was a mistake that changed the course of history.

The message here is simple: Change is bad. Change is scary. Be afraid of change. Change will make you poor. Don’t change. Jesus hates change. He likes dollars.

Seriously, this entire letter is one psychotic fear-based rant after another, and is intended to do nothing but drive fear. Yet Jesus Himself said clearly, “Fear not!”

Dobson should be ashamed of himself for even allowing this letter to see the light of day. It’s not Christian, it’s not family-oriented, and it’s certainly not an accurate picture of what would happen if Obama becomes President.

It’s this kind of poison that will strike a chord of desperation in order to keep their well-fleeced flock properly submissive. After all, isn’t that just what any good propaganda does?

A final point: while the apparent need for tin-foil hats would surely drive Reynolds Wrap profits into the stratosphere, it’s interesting to see what this letter is all about. Terrorism gets a mere two paragraphs. Homosexuals get nearly three full pages.

Now we know what really makes Dobson and his ilk stay awake at night. And it’s not terrorism.

Here’s the actual letter – but don’t read it on a full stomach.

The often-fiery debate of gay marriage isn’t back by accident either. After dual court wins in California and Connecticut, gay couples have two more states in which they can exchange vows. Those same rulings, however, have brought with them the extra baggage of rage and irrational paranoia — usually from those to whom the issue should matter the least.

Let me say one thing perfectly clear. Senator Obama, Senator McCain, Senator Biden, and Governor Palin — I am not your pet little issue that you can pull out of your political backsides just so you can score with your base. Yes, I’m gay. Yes I would very much like to be able to marry my incredible partner one day. But I have no intention of sitting idly by while you and your campaigns use me and millions of other gay and lesbian people across the country for your little pet issues.

These groups do not apparently believe that we’re human beings with real lives, dreams, and issues. It’s not about fairness, equality, or even “the family.” It’s about votes. You’ve found this nifty little visceral issue that strikes a chord with your base — either conservative or liberal — and you’re hoping that they’ll come to the voting booths in droves.

Well, silly me, I’ve already voted since Tennessee has early voting. Now, thanks to this backhanded assault on same-sex couples everywhere, I’m almost wishing that I hadn’t voted for any major party candidate.

If this electioneering slither wasn’t already obvious with the vice presidential debate, it’s in full slimy swing now. Senator Biden made an appearance on “Ellen,” this week, proudly declaring that he’d vote “no” on Proposition 8, the California referendum that would ban gay marriage once and for all. Governor Palin turned right around and paid an “exclusive” visit to CBN, the “news” organization run by Pat “Katrina was caused by homosexuals” Robertson himself. Naturally, she reiterated her support for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would ban gay marriage.

None of this should impress anyone, nor should it be a surprise to anyone. For those who somehow haven’t figured this out, this is nothing more than pandering to their base. Look up the etymology of the word “base” and you’ll realize that this is clearly reaching for the lowest common denominator in both parties.

For one group, it’s a zombie-walking daze that demands that “marriage is man and woman.” For the other, it’s a catatonic cry of “marry mary and mary” no matter what. There’s little discussion, little recourse, and almost no comprehension between either group of the very real issues that those of us who are gay are sick of dodging the arrows that you think are going toward each other. Here’s a tip: those attacks you’re hurling at the “liberals” and “conservatives” about the gay marriage issue? Yeah. They miss. They hit us.

Every. Single. Time.

If you politicians and fellow activists want to actually make some real PROGRESS on the gay marriage discussion, why don’t you turn around and stop preaching to your own choirs? Frankly, they’re tired of hearing it, and we’re tired of looking at your posterior.

It’s all a game. One group goes to court. The other goes to the public. “Activist Judges!” “Majority rules!” Has anyone, even for a brief moment, thought of actually having a discussion on the issue and possibly find some common ground? Or are we so determined to win with the gavel or the ballot box, that nothing else matters?

Gay marriage isn’t even about the people who want to get married anymore. It’s just a pet issue — it’s a pet to conservatives who use it to rally their troops, and it’s a pet to liberals who use it to show how ridiculous conservatives are. The cycle goes on and on.

In the middle of it all, we gay couples — whether we’re married legally or not — are just sick to death of being your little political pets.

To those of you who insist that we’re going to “destroy the sanctity of marriage,” I ask you one simple question: HOW? How the hell does the committed relationship of MAYBE six percent of the population affect you in any way? Because if my relationship affects yours, then honey — your relationship has much bigger problems than me.

And to those of you who just want to parade gay couples like some badge of honor on how “proud” you are to have gay friends, and will fight, blah, blah, blah — give it a rest. If you want to impress me, then invite my partner and me over for dinner. Otherwise, you can pin that badge on my gluteus maximus, right along with your lips.

It’s really simple. Those of us who happen to be gay are literally being slapped around over and over just so the political parties or organizations can get a little more funding, and raise a little more money so they can keep doing what they’re doing, and so they can continue their little mantra of hate/love for gay people.

We are not an issue. We are not your pet divas. We’re not your enemy, your pals, or your targets. We are your brothers, mothers, fathers, sisters, uncles, aunts, nieces, and nephews. We’re your teachers, your employees, your tenants, your landlords, your artists, and doctors. We’re your lawyers, firefighters, postal workers, and your cooks. We’re your servers, managers, and your construction workers. We’re your neighbors.

We’re not hiding anymore, and more and more of us are coming out because living a lie just isn’t okay.

Now would you just leave us the hell alone?

In that debate, Moderator Gwen Ifill asked Senator Biden if he supported “as they do in Alaska, granting same-sex benefits to couples.” His answer was a resounding, “absolutely.” He further said that under an Obama administration, there would be no distinction between same-sex couples and heterosexual couples. When pressed on whether he supported gay marriage, he said no.

Palin’s response was, well, pathetic. It was the same kind of yammering she gave Katie Couric on the topic only a day before that she has “dear friends” who were gay and that she would “tolerate” and “be tolerant” of same-sex couples. Never mind the fact that she’s said before that she believes that sexual orientation is a choice that can be “prayed away.”

Let me say this clearly. I don’t care how much of a pit bull she thinks she is. Sarah, you and your “tolerance” can bite me. We don’t need “tolerance.” We don’t even need assurances that “contracts can be signed.” What we really need is protection — from people just like you.

Tolerance indeed. The last thing we need is a vice president who doesn’t even have the guts to even talk clearly about same-sex couples. She’s no barracuda. More like a betta. That’s a teensy little fish that’s all frills and fight, and wouldn’t even be a proper snack for a cat.

But, I digress.

This only illustrates the simple reality – both parties are the same on paper. Democrats are often long on promises, but short on delivery. Bill Clinton’s promise to allow gays to serve in the military collapsed into the single worst policy in US military history: Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. This would allow gays to serve as long as they don’t act gay or disclose their sexual orientation.

Obama has promised to rescind the policy and let gays serve. McCain promised to take advice from his generals (most of whom are as homophobic as their grunts). But would either actually sign any law that would grant gays to serve their country with honor? Well, I’m not going to hold my breath.

As I’ve said before, the big issue in 2004 and 2006 was gay marriage. States all around the country have clamored to pass anti-gay marriage amendments because they all know what Biden said: that the constitution allows for same-sex marriage. This is why bigoted reich-wing groups like the American Family Association are so adamant to get these atrocities passed – not because they’re afraid of “activist judges,” but because they know the Constitution (darn that pesky fourteenth amendment!) guarantees equal protection under the law. So their only hope is to write discrimination into a document that is at its core — liberty.

Many of my fellow gay activists are angry that none of the Presidential or Vice Presidential candidates openly supports gay marriage. Truthfully, I’m okay with this. Because of this, it actually takes the candy of anti-gay bigotry out of the mouths of the already-sugar high right wing nuts who are salivating to have their pet issue back on the lips and ballots of the American people. Too bad. Maybe they’ll boycott themselves one day.

In fact, two of the three states that have constitutional amendments on the ballot, Florida and California, are likely to reject those amendments. The third, Arizona, already has rejected it once. It’s not the driving issue of the day. Thank God.

Let me say this, though. The United States of America, as a whole, is not ready for gay marriage. This isn’t an issue that’s going to go away overnight, and it’s not going to be solved with a simple presidential proclamation. As time goes on, we’ll see more and more states pass laws allowing for civil unions and domestic partnerships. If we’re EVER to see gay marriage in all 50 states, then it will be through education, understanding, and something far more than tolerance: patience. Americans are slow to change, and we’re slow to look beyond ourselves. But that’s what it’s going to take.

If we’re ever to see marriage, we’ve got to have a full set of protections in place first. Why the hell are we blathering about marriage, when in many states – including Tennessee – we don’t even have basic protections in housing and employment? What good is it to be able to marry when there aren’t even hate-crime laws in place across most of the country — including in Wyoming, where Matthew Shepard was killed ten years ago? There’s not even a hate crime law in place at the federal level!

Seriously, folks – let’s not get into the idea that we have to have this pie in the sky when we don’t even have the key ingredients needed for that pie? When even Alaska has a meager domestic partnership policy in place – mandated by its supreme court, it’s clear that we have a long way to go. That policy is still in flux, and several attempts have been made to nullify the court’s ruling. As a my friend Michael Rowe says, Quel surprise! “Tolerance,” indeed.

So we only got one question in the Veep debate. And it was about gay marriage. The two candidates even agreed on it. “Okay, let’s move on,” Ifill said. What an excellent idea.

As posted on Skipping to the Piccolo

In the article, Egelko outlines how George and three other California Supreme Court justices pulled from another marriage quality issue from history, interracial marriage:

George’s same-sex ruling relied heavily on the court’s 1948 decision on interracial marriage, written by a renowned liberal, Justice Roger Traynor. No other state’s court had ever recognized a constitutional right for interracial couples to marry, and the U.S. Supreme Court did not do so until 1967.

A lesson from that case, George said in the interview, was that laws denying “certain basic rights could not be justified just because of history and tradition.”

He recalled a trip with his parents to the still-segregated South as a teenager, when he was shocked to see whites-only signs on drinking fountains and restroom doors.

“It sensitized me to the fact there are minorities of all sorts of types who can be victimized by the majority,” George said. Protecting vulnerable minorities, he said, is “one of the purposes of the courts and of our Constitution.”

When I read the above paragraph, I had to stop and consider just what Justice George was really saying. Quite simply, he said that the Constitution guarantees protection for vulnerable minorities. This in itself is a hotly debated point, especially in regard to immigrants and sexual orientation.

When the California decision was announced, conservatives immediately decried “activist judges” who “defied the people.” Well, this is exactly what was said when Justice Anthony Kennedy’s decision was handed down in the landmark Lawrence v Texas decision. that struck down all of the sodomy laws in the US. They were “activist judges” (interestingly, both Kennedy and George were appointed by Republicans).

Both men and their respective majorities in their courts knew a simple fact: Sometimes, the people are wrong. The people were wrong to separate blacks and whites in the South. The people were wrong to deny basic civil rights. The people were wrong to pass laws banning the private sex lives of adults, and they were wrong to pass a resolution in California to ban same-sex marriage.

I heard a phrase not too long ago that illustrated this better than anything: the Constitution is a way to protect against the Tyranny of the Majority. I’ll define this phrase: oppressive rule by majority, where the minority has little or no rights.

This is a phrase that isn’t used very often, but when it is used, it’s profound. Alexander Hamilton warned against allowing this kind of “majority rules no matter what” mindset, and was one of a few men who knew just what the dangers were of a pure democracy. In fact, the dangers of a tyrannical majority were so clear to our framers, that they designed our constitution for a republic, not a democracy.

That’s right. The United States of America is not a democracy. It never has been. It is, quite simply, a republic. It is, however, a republic which includes a great many democratic elements, which is why there’s such a balance.

I won’t bore anyone with an extended civics lesson, but our government has three branches: executive, legislative, and judiciary. As most Americans know, the executive branch of the Federal government is headed by the President and his cabinet. The legislative branch includes both houses of Congress (the Senate and the House of Representatives). The judiciary branch has the Supreme Court at its highest level.

These three branches offer a brilliant level of checks and balances which has been the “great experiment” in world affairs, and has been an effective system since the Constitution was adopted back in 1787. It’s been amended only 27 times since then, most notably with the Bill of Rights in 1791, which includes the all-important First Amendment.

Even before the First Amendment, the Constitution did a great job of protecting against the Tyranny of the Majority, but most Americans felt like it needed to be crystal clear about individual rights. After all, what minority is smaller than the individual?

Just for fun, I’ll ask people to name at least three of the five protections of the First Amendment. Most people can name one or two. Three is a stretch. VERY few can name all five:

• Freedom of Religion
  (Individual religious expression & a ban on state-sponsored religion)
• Freedom of Speech
• Freedom of the Press
• Right to peaceably assemble
• Right to petition the government

The first amendment is one of the most powerful and is easily the most important in the entire document, especially when in regards to the tyranny of the majority. The simple reality is this: the majority, while they might have the most numbers, might not always have the high moral or legal ground. In other words, the majority isn’t always right!

We learned this better than ever during the civil rights movement. Here’s a simple truth: civil rights would never have come if not for a handful of judges who took the law in their own hands. A lot of conservatives are quick to point out how the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed by a majority vote in Congress, so the will of the people can pass laws like this, they claim. However, that historic act would never have been passed if segregation hadn’t already been struck down by the Supreme Court with its historic Brown v Board of Education decision in 1954.

The only exception to this would be the Women’s Suffrage movement, which passed by legislative vote and popular vote, to be added to the constitution in 1919. However, I’m not really sure if women would be considered a “minority” by this definition. Repressed, yes. Minority, no. Especially today, where there are actually more girls born than boys.

So what kind of minorities might be oppressed? In the US alone, there are countless religious minorities (anything other than Christian), ethnic groups, national origin, racial minorities (especially African and Latino Americans), those with disabilities, and sexual orientation and gender identity.

It’s that last one that draws the most heated debate today, with the argument that a person’s sexual behavior is their own choice, and should not be allowed as a minority. Unfortunately, this argument overlooks the reality that a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity isn’t a “behavior,” it’s something much deeper, and is in many cases not a choice at all.

Other arguments against listing sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of protected minorities is that a person’s sexual orientation isn’t identifiable outwardly. A gay or lesbian person can’t be identified by their appearance like an African-American or a Latino-American can. While this is true, it leaves out one major point: A person’s religion is unquestionably a choice, and is guaranteed protections by the Constitution. Why shouldn’t a person’s sexual orientation – which may NOT be a choice – be included in these simple protections?

It’s this kind of argument that our constitution and government was formed to dismiss, with an effort to stifle a growth of a tyrannical majority. Our framers knew than as we know now that power corrupts. When a majority—of any kind—has power, then it can be corrupted.

Thankfully there are heroic men like California Chief Justice Ronald George and US Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy who are willing to put an end to this kind of tyranny by declaring that all minorities are indeed equal, and should be treated as such.

Previously published on Skipping to the Piccolo.

SACRAMENTO— In a ruling delivered today by the California Supreme Court, Proposition 22, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman, was deemed to be unconstitutional. The 4-3 decision was delivered today at 10:00 AM PST.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Ronald M. George said:

“…in light of the conclusions we reach concerning the constitutional questions brought to us for resolution, we determine that the language of section 300 limiting the designation of marriage to a union “between a man and a woman” is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute, and that the remaining statutory language must be understood as making the designation of marriage available both to opposite-sex and same-sex couples.”

The full text of the decision and its dissents can be read here.

In 2000, we were met with a very interesting choice for President of the United States. The Clinton administration was coming to a close with Vice President Al Gore emerging as the heir-apparent. Gore was everything that Clinton was not, apparently. Gore was from Tennessee (he had a home in Carthage), he was a successful senator, and now had a bird’s-eye view of the Federal government as Vice President of the United States.

Alas, Gore also had the appearance of being a stodgy dullard with no personality whatsoever. Further, Americans weren’t too sure about electing yet another member of the Executive branch that might have been a part of “Monicagate” (or is that “Lewinskygate?”). Gore was perceived as an “evil” liberal, and talk radio show hosts had a field day with his lack of charisma.

Enter the popular governor of Texas, the only Republican who could have unseated the equally-popular Democrat, the late Anne Richards. George W. Bush was well-liked, had a sense of southern charm, and loved to wink at audiences. He instantly rose to stardom as the Republican nominee for President in the 2000 election. His message of “compassionate conservatism” won the hearts of the media as well as voters. He won my vote as well.

The 2000 election became the longest Presidential election since the 1824 election, the last time the son of an American president ran against a popular Democrat from Tennessee. In that election the race was so close, that John Q. Adams made a controversial agreement with opposing candidate John Calhoun. In the end, Congress had to vote, and Adams was selected.

The endless recounts of the Florida votes frustrated all Americans and gave the media a limitless supply of photo opportunities (remember the shot of that guy with the magnifying glass as he carefully inspected for hanging chads?). In the end, the Supreme Court of the United States stepped in and put a stop to it. Gore finally conceded, and George W. Bush became the 43rd President of the United States.

Since then, President Bush was met with the devastating attacks of September 11th, 2001. The whole world was both shocked and awed at the destruction of the World Trade Center, and the attack at the Pentagon. Nearly 3,000 people lost their lives that day. It was an event that not only shaped the way we would travel from that point on, but it shaped the Bush presidency as well.

Since then, “Terror” became a clear enemy. It was no longer left to law enforcement. The FBI wasn’t doing enough. We had to declare war. And we did. When it became apparent that Taliban-controlled Afghanistan was also harboring Al-Qaeda, they were first in the sights of the President. The bombing began on a Sunday morning, on October 7th.

For a time, most Americans were behind the President. Patriotic fever was everywhere. It was less than a month after the fateful attacks which crippled our economy, and the Stars and Stripes were everywhere to be seen. If it were red, white, and blue, it sold like hotcakes. People fixed flags to their cars, their homes, their clothes, and their front yard. Full-sized flags were attached to pickup trucks and motorcycles everywhere. It was a resurgence of national pride and patriotism like we hadn’t seen since World War II.

Patriotic Fever was, alas, temporary. Like everything in American society, life went on. The flags began to fade, and our daily lives once again took over. Congress quietly passed the Patriot Act. President Bush started looking toward another target: Iraq.

There was an element of Patriotic Fever that didn’t go away, however. It was the kind of “patriotism” that would instantly label any critic of the President as “un-American” or even “traitorous.” This was a dark side of patriotism that would only grow darker. Immigrants everywhere began to be viewed with suspicion. First, it started with people of Arab descent. Whether they were from the Middle East or India, people with dark skin and funny accents were even more ostracized than ever before.

The War in Iraq started in 2003 with an invasion based on faulty information that there were weapons of mass destruction in the country that was already crippled by war in the early 1990s. Since then, there hasn’t been a single WMD found. Only a few empty canisters that once held chemical weapons have been located. Saddam’s two sadistic sons, Uday and Qusay, were killed in a firefight with the 101st Airborne in Mosul in July of that year. Saddam Hussein himself was later apprehended and imprisoned.

Once again, the country had reason to celebrate. We casually dismissed the atrocities at the Abu Ghraib prison. We ignored the detainees at Guantanamo Bay. We ignored the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. After all, the President said these were enemy combatants. Among the hundreds of military prisoners there, only one was tried, and he gave a guilty plea.

According to the Human Rights Watch:

The federal courts in the United States have proven far better equipped to try terrorists than military commissions. In the past five-and-a half years, the federal courts have successfully convicted hundreds for terrorist offenses, including dozens for terrorist acts committed abroad. By comparison, the military commissions have secured just one conviction – by guilty plea. That was Australian David Hicks, who received a nine-month sentence that he is serving at home.

People have been detained without charge, and without representation. The rule of law is thrown out the window, and due process is denied.

In the meantime, President Bush had other battles to fight. He banned genetic research using any new fetal tissue, research that could lead to effective treatment or even a cure of diseases like Parkinson’s or Alzheimer’s disease. Indeed, it was too close to the abortion issue. Aborted pregnancies would be completely discarded instead of put to possible good use.

Also, Bush called for a Constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. By this time, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court had handed down its ruling which mandated legal gay marriage, which began on May 17th of 2004. As expected, the issue polarized Americans against each other. Twenty-five states have since passed constitutional amendments to ban same-sex marriage. Other states have passed laws granting civil unions to same-sex couples, while other states and municipalities have passed domestic partnerships.

The Patriotic Fever wasn’t over yet. Our distaste for immigrants has added Latin-Americans to the list of those of whom we are suspicious. President Bush has done little to quell this growing xenophobia, even though is own nephew is half Cuban. There’s been a lot of talk about how the 14 Million “illegal immigrants” are wrecking the country.

Bush’s response has been to sign a law that builds a 500-mile wall between the United States and Mexico. Passport requirements have been tightened (to the point that it’s actually causing problems—passport applications have exceeded the workload of INS officials). Bush has been completely irresponsible in his actions, by actually encouraging this growing xenophobia. Mexicans, Cubans, and other Hispanics are all treated by native Americans with growing contempt.

This contempt has grown to the point that life-long native Hispanic Americans are often asked for their “green card.” Here in Clarksville, one woman was asked for her green card when she applied for her driver’s license renewal. She explained that she was born in Puerto Rico, an American territory. She brought back her birth certificate. The employee again asked for her green card. Naturally, she was incensed. She was born a citizen, and had no need for one.

Similar demands for “green cards” have popped up throughout the country, with growing frequency. The President has a responsibility to ALL Americans, and he has failed in that responsibility toward our Hispanic citizens. This is “patriotic fever” at its worst, and it’s only getting darker. Hispanics, Arabs, and gays are all on the “un-American” list, and the list is getting longer.

Our President has been a divider, not a uniter. He has polarized our country against each other, and has done so during a time of war; an unjust war. More than 3500 American men and women have been killed in Iraq. Most Americans are critical of the war, and rightfully so. His approval rate has remained low, and now even many soldiers wonder why they’re still in Iraq.

In a final blow to the Constitution, President Bush has signed a new National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive which effectively suspends the Constitutional separation of powers in the event of a “national emergency.” This new Directive revokes a directive from then-President Clinton which mandates a continuation of operations and a continuation of government under their rightful authorities. Bush’s directive is succinct in its application: All government will continue with himself as “leader.” One clause says this clearly:

The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government.

Even conservative columnists are critical of this new directive. An article in the right-leaning World Net Daily website says:

“Catastrophic emergency” is loosely defined as “any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions.”

Conservative activist Jerome Corsi is a little more blunt:

Translated into layman’s terms, when the president determines a national emergency has occurred, the president can declare to the office of the presidency powers usually assumed by dictators to direct any and all government and business activities until the emergency is declared over.

“King” George has clearly sacrificed the good of the country for his own agenda. The United States of America was founded to escape from tyranny. It’s tragic that while the country celebrates the anniversary of the signing of our Declaration of Independence, we are forced to deal with a much more subtle, but no less prevalent, form of tyranny which is much closer to home.

It’s tyranny that says that we should not criticize our government, we shouldn’t question our president, and we shouldn’t ever protest. Tyranny is a systemic belief that we should always do as we’re told, and never, ever, even ask why. The government knows best, and we should comply.

No, my friends. The government does NOT know best. The Fatherland has no place in our pantheon of liberty, and the more we sink into the darkness of xenophobic and homophobic attitudes, the deeper we’ll sink into a quagmire of tyranny where freedom is once again the fleeting hope of subversives and where democracy becomes the doctrine of rebels.

President Bush, I voted for you in 2000. I sincerely regret that vote, and I’m not entirely convinced that it would have mattered if I didn’t. You will indeed have much to answer for one day. I just hope that day is sooner, rather than later.

A live debate will air on NewsChannel 5+ (cable channel 50) on Tuesday, Oct. 24 at 7 p.m.  between Randy Tarkington, campaign manager of Vote No on One and David Fowler, president of the Family Action Council of Tennessee.

Chris Clark will moderate the debate, which will air as part of Openline. The show will reair on Tuesday at 10 p.m. and Wednesday at 11 a.m. Click here for the rest of the article.

We met for the first time 9 years ago, and up until a year ago, we dated off and on. Last year, we decided to get serious. Not being able to get married worries us because we aren’t getting the same legal rights as everyone else. We can’t have the same insurance, and if something were to happen to either of us, a life insurance policy wouldn’t be able to help the other. We won’t be able to see each other in the hospital if something serious happens, and without a ton of legal documents and fees, we won’t be able to make decisions for the other if we need to.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Visit the Vote no on 1 Tennessee website for more information.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Visit the Vote no on 1 Tennessee website for more information.

Click here to view the embedded video.

On our 10th anniversary we decided it was past time to get as much paperwork done as was available. The healthcare power of attorney, the living wills, the wills, etc. It was about 2 years after that one of us ended up in a hospital and the other had to carry papers around and was asked to show them each night to regain the permission to stay.

On our 15th anniversary, we decided to combine our last names and went through the process of standing in front of a judge, standing in line at the social security office for new cards, going through the process at our jobs. It was a strange way to celebrate.

However, just recently when the other one of us had to go into the hospital for a couple of days, having the same last name did help! Although they thought she was my sister!

This amendment writes discrimination into the state constitution. There is already a law on the books that keep us from a civil marriage. This is just unfortunate hate speech. Tennesseans can rise above this shame by voting NO on 1.

Read more about Nancy & Joan’s story on CNN.com.

“I was truly saddened to hear of your post on how you feel that this will “open Pandora’s Box.”

To amend the wording to state “one person and one person” would not change any stipulations on how many persons, which family members, or which species could marry. It would simply change the gender of the two persons marrying.

I have yet to see anyone running off to Canada in order to marry his or her daughter. Or, for that matter, anyone jetting across the pond to Spain to marry their beloved cat, Mr. Whiskers. It doesn’t make any logical sense that you would draw the conclusion of same-sex marriage leading to anything of the nature suggested in your post.

This amendment will discriminate against people in every aspect of Clarksville’s community. Let’s ponder that only since a Supreme Court decision in 1967 have mixed race couples been able to marry anywhere in the country. That’s right, 1967. Forty years ago my partner’s sister would not have been able to marry her husband. Maybe whoever reads this wouldn’t have been able to marry their sweetheart.

Generally, everyone realizes and agrees that discrimination based on ethnicity is wrong. Why is sexual orientation or gender identity any different? Where will we be in the next 40 years? I think that perhaps we’ll be looking back on this issue in forty years. How will our children perceive our response? How will our grandchildren perceive this? Will they think that we were completely prejudiced?

What if one day, your grandchild comes to you and tells you they are gay; will you be able to look them in the eyes and tell them that they don’t have the same rights as you? Can you honestly tell them that they deserve less than you? Can you explain to them why you voted their dreams away? I encourage each of you to search for your own answers.

Don’t listen to the lines that politicians will feed you. Have you ever met a completely honest public official that was able to see past his or her own re-election?

The issue is not whether you believe homosexuality or bisexuality is right or wrong. The issue is about whether you think it’s right to legally discriminate against someone based on religious beliefs. Do what is right. Do it for equality. Make a decision that you’ll be able to proudly tell your grandchildren about one day.”

Below is the original referenced text:

“This November, Tennesseans have the opportunity and responsibility to uphold marriage as being one man and one woman.

This thousands of years old tradition is the foundation of society for a reason. If we allow same-sex marriage, we open a Pandora’s Box that we can never close again.

If we open the door to man-man or woman-woman marriage, we cannot legally “discriminate” against a man marrying three women, or five men, or 23 people. We couldn’t “discriminate” on the basis of age or relationship either. A man can marry his children and sexually exploit them legally. We would not be allowed to criticize or prosecute pedophiles.

Illegal aliens would also be a thing of the past. One person could go to the border and marry a truckload of people and make them legal immigrant spouses. After all, who are we to judge his “love” for them? Please vote in support of traditional one man and one woman marriage on Nov. 7.”

BETH SABEL

Clarksville 37043

For more information on this subject, visit http://votenoon1tn.com/

This November, we have been given the choice of whether or not we’re going to change the Tennessee constitution to define marriage as being an “historical institution between one man and one woman.” Or, at least, that’s what it seems to be on the surface. But what is it really? It’s discrimination, pure and simple. But is it right for Tennessee?

Marisa Richmond of the Tennessee Equality Project’s Vote No on 1 campaign spent some time with us here in Clarksville to discuss the coming election, and specifically, the proposed amendment to the state’s constitution. Richmond has met with groups in all of the major cities to help with the finer points of organizing a grass-roots effort to turn the tide in the onslaught against gay and lesbian families nationwide.

Her initial claims were staggering. “We are clearly within striking distance of winning,” she said. After eighteen states have overwhelmingly passed similar amendments, equality-minded activist have seen a difference in opinions in polls across the state and nationwide. She explained that the Zogby poll indicates that a majority of democrats, young voters, and African-Americans do not support changing the constitution.

“This is the first time we’ve seen these kind of numbers in any state,” she said. “And it’s not even September yet.” The polls in addition with endorsements from The Tennessean and The Chattanooga Times have given a boost to all of us who are equality-minded. She pointed out that Governor Bredesen said that the “no” vote would be no more than five or ten percent. She also said with a broad smile, “We’ve already tripled that estimate.”

As I listened, I realized that we have a real chance to turn back the tide of hate and ignorance that we’ve seen against gay and lesbian families across the country. Richmond said that South Dakota is already showing clear signs of being able to defeat their proposed anti-gay amendment, and a victory was possible in another state. “But,” she said, “if we were to win Tennessee, a southern state, it would send shock waves throughout the whole country.”

She’s right. Nothing would send such a clear message than to have Tennessee voters reject this unfair constitutional amendment that would actually remove rights that are already in place. “What rights?” you might ask. Let’s be clear. The United States Constitution guarantees equal protection for all citizens under the law. Conservatives have seen this as well, which is why they’re using this as a wedge issue and are using gay and lesbian families as cannon fodder.

The reality is that their rhetoric about “activist judges” and “militant homosexual activists” is nothing more than language that’s used to incite raw emotion that will drive voters to the polls. As much as I encourage people to vote, it’s regrettable that so many for the amendment without understanding how much it will affect their families—it will do much more than “keep them gay people from marrying.” It will create an entire group of second-class citizens and even promote one religious view over another.

But it does not have to happen that way. As I said, we have a real chance to draw a line in the sand and say, ‘thus far and no more.’ In fact, a group of sixteen religious leaders in Memphis have joined a growing number of clergy from many faith traditions across the state to oppose the amendment. “Although we have differing opinions on rights for same-sex couples,” they said, “we believe the Tennessee Marriage Amendment reflects a fundamental disregard for individual civil rights and ignores differences among our state’s many religious traditions. It should be rejected.”

The good news is that it CAN be rejected. But we need your help to do it. If you believe that this amendment would enshrine discrimination into the state’s constitution, then contact the Vote No on 1 campaign today. Their website is http://votenoon1tn.com. There’s plenty more you can do. And yes, it CAN make a difference:

If you’re gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender… be out. The more that your friends and family members see that we are, in fact, the people they’ll be voting against, it just might give them pause.

• If you’re straight and have GLBT friends and family members, talk with them. Ask them how they feel about this amendment.
• Better yet, talk with the rest of your family and friends that aren’t gay. Tell them why you’re going to vote “no.”
• Yard signs, bumper stickers, t-shirts and other materials are available from the Vote No on 1 campaign. Display them prominently.

But what if you’re undecided? According to polls, as many as ten percent of the people who will vote have not yet decided on how they stand on this issue. And you know what? That’s okay. You don’t have to make a decision. There’s just a couple of points to consider:

• A “no” vote isn’t a vote for “gay rights.” It’s simply a vote to not change the constitution. Quite simply, you don’t have to be pro-gay to understand that this amendment is a bad idea.
• If you’re still undecided, then vote for the Governor and then abstain on the Amendment vote. It might actually help us out a little.

Let me explain about the undecided strategy. Tennessee’s Constitution requires any amendment’s “yes” vote to be 50% of the total number of votes cast in the Governor’s race. For example, if 1,400,000 total votes are cast for Governor, then the “yes” votes for the amendment must be 700,001 or higher. So even if the percentage is 75% to 25%, if that 75% number isn’t greater than 700,001, it doesn’t pass. So, being undecided isn’t a bad thing at all.

Recently, a co-worker of mine said to me, “David, I’ve been undecided on the gay marriage issue for a while,” she said. “I’m not undecided anymore.” I asked her what changed her mind. She said that her daughter who lives in California had a friend whose partner died before his time. He was forbidden from his own partner’s funeral because the family did not approve of their relationship—discarded as if he were a piece of junk mail. “I’m firmly on your side now,” she told me.

It’s stories like this one that will make a difference. More and more, people realize that the “gay marriage” debate is nothing more than a distraction from more critical issues in our state and country. It’s a great and tragic irony that while the TennCare debacle continues its meltdown, one of the hottest issues is whether or not my partner and I can be legally married.

There’s still a lot of work to do, but there is definitely a light at the end of the tunnel. Better still, it’s a rainbow.

Related posts:

•  “Just what are they “protecting?” - Posted on Clarksville Online, June 8, 2006
• “Arguing for Gay Marriage” - Published in The Leaf-Chronicle, July 25, 2004

Judges exist to protect your constitutionally guarantied liberties.

Lets say, we as a country amend our Constitution to say gays can’t marry. Who and what is next.

When the they came for the communists, I remained silent; I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats, I remained silent; I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists, I did not speak out;I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews, I did not speak out; I was not a Jew.

When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out.

If you let them take the rights from one of us, you risk eventually them coming for your rights. Fight against this abuse of the constitution, because sooner or later it might be you they come for.