Sins of thy Brethren

In October 2015, a group called The World Congress of Families (WCF) is hosting their conference in Salt Lake City, UT.  The World Congress of Families promotes the “natural family” and opposes gay-rights, including same-sex marriage.  Groups like this are not a new phenomenon.  The National Organization of Marriage is another anti-gay rights organization that has been around for a while (and is more well-known).  What makes the WCF stand-out is that they are so anti-gay that they make the National Organization of Marriage look pro-gay in comparison.  What is even more troubling is that many prominent Mormon, Catholic, and Jewish leaders have leant their names and their time to this far-right organization.

The World Congress of Families

The WCF has been labeled a “hate-group” by the Southern Poverty Law Center.  They have been given that label with good reason.  According to Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign, the WCF and its allies have promoted anti-gay rhetoric on a consistent basis:

Scott Lively, a featured speaker for the WCF, has “proclaimed that LGBT people are responsible for the Holocaust, the Rwandan genocide and the spread of HIV/AIDS.”

Larry Jacobs, managing director of the WCF, thought that Russia’s new (and horrifying) anti-gay law was “a great idea.”  He even went further, and according to Griffin, released a public letter supporting the law.

Sharon Slater, another WCF ally and featured speaker, said in 2010 that "Iran is one of the strongest nations in standing up for family values at the UN."

You heard it right.  Prominent WCF speakers believe that gays caused the Holocaust and that Iran is wonderful because they support the family.  Iran is the same country that will execute gays, but yet, Ms. Slater is fan of their tremendous work in preserving the family.

And not to be out-done is WCF’s communications director, Don Feder.  Feder runs a paranoid, right-wing blog where he declares:

“You just trust Obama, and you go right on trusting him – until they shove you in a cattle car.”  (The insinuation is that Americans will find themselves locked-up in concentration camps because of President Obama).

In another posting, Feder writes:

“Pardon my hate-filled rhetoric, but when exactly did homosexuals become a division of humanity instead of a sorry collection of individuals (connected only by their carnal appetites) caught up in a perverted lifestyle?”

The Spin from Supporters

This organization that supports hate is coming to Salt Lake City.  But, it is coming to Salt Lake with open arms by the conservative think-tank, The Sutherland Institute, which insists that the WCF is a very benign organization.  The Sutherland Institute is trying to spin the WCF into a group that has family-values.  They released a list of participants on their website and wrote:

“...you can decide whether the WCF will be a gathering of ‘extremists’ and ‘very dangerous’ people, or simply will draw extraordinary people of faith and secular accomplishment who are similar in belief and thinking to the majority of Utahns.”

• Sheri Dew, Former second counselor in the General Relief Society Presidency, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
• Elder Russell M. Nelson, Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 
• Elder Dallin H. Oaks, Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; Honorary Member, Board of Directors of the World Congress of Families 
• Elder Erich Kopischke, First Quorum of the Seventy, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
• Cardinal George Pell, Australian cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church
• Rabbi Binyomin Jacobs, Chief Rabbi of the Inter-Provincial Rabbinate in Holland 

According to the Sutherland Institute, WCF cannot be an “extremist” organization because of all the nice religious people that are associated with the group.  I actually think this is quite disturbing.  Sutherland does not dispute what critics like Chad Griffin has accused the organization of doing, trafficking in hate.  In a recent op-ed in the Salt Lake Tribune, Paul Mero, president of the Sutherland Institute, just re-iterates the point that the WCF is an “inclusive” organization.  He does not deal with the actual record of the WCF.  He just spins the group into a lovely gathering of people who are concerned about the family structure.

The Sins of thy Brethren

It is actually quite disgusting that religious leaders would take part in such a dangerous organization.  In fact, some religions relish in the idea of being connected with this group.  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormon Church) released this statement when Salt Lake City was chosen for the site of the WCF conference:

"Although the church wasn’t involved in the decision of the World Congress of Families to come to Salt Lake City we appreciate the efforts of organizations working to strengthen the family and society."

After the public relations nightmare that the Mormon Church found itself in with its support (and funding) of Proposition 8 in California, I am surprised that they would want to encourage a group with such a nefarious history.  Any religion should be ashamed of themselves for doing business with this group.  I say this because do they “appreciate the efforts of organizations” that try to harm an individual’s right to be with the person they love?  Do they “appreciate the efforts of organizations” that helped Russia enact laws that have led to an increase in violence and harassment against Russian LGBT individuals, as Human Rights Watch reports?  Do they “appreciate the efforts” of an organization that has been labeled as a “hate-group?”  Do they “appreciate the efforts of organizations” that have employees that call LGBT people “perverted” and being “a sorry collection of individuals?”   I guess the WCF is doing God’s work in the eyes of the Mormon Church?

I respect any person’s or organization’s right to free speech.  No one’s speech should ever be shut down.  However, the First Amendment does not give a person or organization immunity from their speech.  A person or group must deal with the consequences of their speech.  The consequence in this case is criticism.

Peace-loving religious leaders getting into a partnership with the WCF is exactly the opposite of what religions preach.  I thought religions preached peace, harmony, loving thy neighbors, etc.?  This group seems like the lowest common denominator when it comes to “protecting” the family.  Any religious person or group should be criticized for promoting this organization.  Fine, “protect” the family and children from those gays but to support a group that helped shape anti-gay legislation that has led to violence and harassment makes you just as guilty as the actual perpetrators.  A religious organization can oppose same-sex marriage by not recognizing a same-sex marriage and by not allowing same-sex wedding ceremonies to take place in their places of worship.  Many supporters of same-sex marriage, myself included, want religions to practice their religious freedom.  They have the right to reject same-sex marriage.  I want their rights to be respected, as they should respect my right to marry my partner.  We should respect each other's rights.  Once same-sex marriage is legalized in all 50 states, I will expose any person or group that tries to force religions to perform or recognize same-sex marriages.  There will be no hypocrisy on my part.  The only hypocrisy here lies in the religions and religious leaders that are aligning themselves with such a hateful group.

In my opinion, it is sinful behavior to partner up with such a hateful organization.  Am I wrong?  The WCF is the antithesis of peace, harmony, loving thy enemy, loving thy neighbor.  There should not be any doubt to what the WCF preaches.  For any religion or religious leader to be a part of it is disappointing and downright disgusting.

Some of you may disagree with this analysis.  The Sutherland Institute may disagree with this analysis.  The Mormon Church may disagree with this analysis.  The many other religious leaders and academics that ally with the WCF may disagree with this analysis.  I’d just ask them in regards to the WCF and their support:  What would Jesus do?

The March Towards Equality Continues

What a wild year it has been for marriage equality!  It has been one year since the Supreme Court dealt a blow to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).  Since that ruling last June, we have seen that marriage equality has taken this country by storm.  This graphic from Utah Unites for Marriage sums up the major advances that have taken place:

It has been a pretty amazing ride.  States that people never dreamed about opening up for marriage equality like Utah, Oklahoma, Idaho, and Indiana have seen their same-sex marriage bans fall like dominoes.  This week we saw the first appellate court decision in regards to same-sex marriage since DOMA fell last year.  The decision of Judge Shelby declaring Utah’s same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional was affirmed by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver.  Marriage equality is marching forward.

A few years ago, I would not have dreamed that marriage equality would have taken such a hold in this country.  I knew (and I still know) that marriage equality is inevitable.

To mark the success of marriage equality, I wanted to look back at a post I made to Facebook in June 2012.  It was a post entitled, “It's Not the Chicken I Smell, It's the Red Herring:”

I whipped several people into a frenzy the other day when I suggested that I don't care what Chick-Fil-A and Dan Cathy believes. There were people saying that I was being passive and that I was telling people how to think. With all due respect to my friends, who I love very much, they are falling into the trap that stops debate. Debate needs to continue and debate does need to be loud at times, but I will call out a red herring when I see one. I will continue to fight for pragmatism. 

I know many people think that I am being a wimp when I try to be a pragmatist. I don't consider myself a wimp; in fact, I'm just trying to bring solutions to problems in a different way.  It is because, as you are all aware, the past 12 years of Bush and Obama have just brought about divisiveness and has stopped any sort of progress that our country could have been making. I am sick of it and I am going to try and tackle problems in a logical, methodical way while trying to bring opposing sides together. There are times that I will piss off people on the right and I will piss off people on the left, but so be it. That is how I will know that I am being fair-and-balanced (my apologies to the Fox News Channels for stealing their line, but I am really trying to be fair-and-balanced). It is my opinion that Chick-fil-A is a red herring because it brought nothing new to the debate over gay marriage. It just showed that we are still divided on this issue. It caused Christians to believe that liberals and gay-marriage activists were shoving gay marriage down their throats and vice-versa. This fight brought nothing new to the national dialogue except that it has divided us further. I am sick of the divisiveness, and listen, I am a realist and divisions will always exist but when I see major divisions being caused over a mid-sized restaurant chain then I feel like I need to step in and try to calm the atmosphere. We are talking about a man, whom I do not respect.  However, I do respect his constitutional rights.  Besides, his words will not shape policy in this country.  Why the all firestorm for a man who has no (and will never have) impact on actual policy in this country?

You know what we should be talking about (and debating)?  We should be discussing how the Democrats will be introducing gay marriage into their party platform at this year's Democratic National Convention that will take place in Charlotte in September. This is actual news that will impact actual policy.  This is the first party to introduce the acceptance of gay marriage unto its official party platform. That step the democrats are taking is something that will make a difference, that platform will move more policy than a Dan Cathy and Chick-fil-A. It is a step that pro-gay marriage supporters should cheer. Even the director of the Human Rights Campaign noted that this was a very positive step and that he also believes that the Republicans will have that same policy position someday. I am in agreement with the director of the Human Rights Campaign. I will be positive and I will not be divisive. I do know that gay marriage will be a reality.....soon. The debate will continue and I will stand-up and continue to speak out on this and other issues that I believe are important. However, I will follow the example of a Martin Luther King, JR. and Abraham Lincoln who promoted peace and healing. Both of these great men wanted real change and they started real change, they fought monstrous battles, but they stayed positive and tried to send out a message of peace and tolerance. These men wanted real change and that ended in their assassinations but I will continue to try and fight like these men did, even though I shouldn't even try and compare myself to these two giants in American history, but I will try to follow their lead and fight the battles the need to be fought and leave the red herrings and phony, hate-filled rhetoric behind me.

Amazing progress.  Two years ago we were fighting about Chick-fil-A and Dan Cathy while not concentrating on the fact that a major party was adopting a platform that supported marriage equality.  We got lost in the divisiveness of the debate.  One year ago, we saw DOMA decapitated.  This year we saw marriage equality win court case after court case.  We saw happy same-sex couples being married in Utah, Oregon, Indiana, Michigan, among the other 19 states where same-sex marriage is legal.  We have made amazing progress and we should all feel blessed for what we have accomplished.

I am not saying the rest of the journey will be easy, we could still see some disappointments.  That disappointment could come from the Supreme Court next summer.  That is if they decided to take Utah’s same-sex marriage case up on appeal.  However, I believe that the Supreme Court will eventually validate same-sex marriage.  They will discard the bigotry into the dustbin of the past.  However, if there are legal disappointments to be had, just remember that same-sex marriage is inevitable.  If the marriage equality movement fails in the courts we must stand steadfast and confident.  I can say this without hesitation because 68% of people aged 18-33 (Millennials) support same-sex marriage.  Even if the courts disappoint us, we will be able to count on the younger generation.  This might sound cold, but as the older generations leave this world, the Millennials will take over and they will help bring marriage equality to all 50 states.

So get ready my friends, it will not be long until I can look the man that I love, in the eyes, and say “I do!”  That moment will not come soon enough, but it will come, that is a guarantee!

Further reading:  If you are interested in hearing about me and my partner's marriage journey, I urge you to read this article written by Nancy Leong, Associate Professor at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law.

A Debate of Constitutional Intent

I have a question for all of my readers.  Do you believe if a right is not mentioned in the United States Constitution, then does that mean that perceived right is not protected by the Constitution?  So in other words, because the Constitution does not specify marriage in any capacity, does that mean that marriage (or same-sex marriage) is not a right and that the states can regulate it as it pleases?  On the flip side, does that mean states like California and Massachusetts that do allow same-sex marriage could require churches to perform same-sex marriages, even though some churches would oppose such a thing?  I mean, neither of these examples are explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, so that must mean that there are no Constitutional protections when it comes to marriage or religious dissent.  Do my arguments seem silly?  They should.  But I have heard people argue these positions.  Some people actually believe if something is not explicitly mentioned within the Constitution, then that means there are no protections.  I have heard people mention that marriage is not a constitutional right (even though the United States Supreme Court has stated on fourteen separate occasions that marriage is a civil right protected by the Constitution) so that means states can regulate it and deny same-sex couples the right to marry.  Some people take the Constitution quite literally.  These people are dead wrong.

I will show you that they are wrong through the use of analysis and interpretation of the intent of our Constitutional Founders as they were writing the Constitution.  This is the job that judges face all the time in the Judicial Branch of government.  They must try to come up with decisions based upon intent of the Constitution, which sometimes is not explicit.  It is a tough job, but somebody has to do it.

I am able to decipher intent by reading the House of Representative notes on whether or not they should amend the Constitution to include a Bill of Rights.  (Yes, some people were opposed to a Bill of Rights).

The House began these debates on June 8, 1789 when James Madison rose in front of the House and declared that “this was the day that he had heretofore named for bringing forward amendments to the Constitution.”  

Mr. Madison’s most vocal opponent was James Jackson from Georgia.  He suggested that the debate on constitutional amendments should not move forward.  Mr. Jackson was against the very essence of the proposal.  He asked, “What experience have we had of the good or bad qualities of this Constitution?”  Mr. Jackson continued, “Our Constitution, sir, is like a vessel just launched, and lying at the wharf; she is untried, you can hardly discover any one of her properties.”  Mr. Jackson did not want to even hear Mr. Madison’s proposals because he believed that the ink was not even dry on the Constitution.  The people of the United States had no experience with the document and he wanted to wait until we had the proper experience to know what is and is not working.  Mr. Jackson noted that, “When the propriety of making amendments shall be obvious from experience, I trust there will be virtue enough in my country to make them.”  Mr. Jackson was more than happy to look at amending the Constitution when the United States had more experience in dealing with the Constitution.   I can see where Mr. Jackson is coming from; I believe he is making a good point because at that time our leaders had no idea how or if the Constitution was going to work in principle, so I agree that you need experience with the document to see what is working and what is not.  I also believe Mr. Jackson makes a good argument for how our modern society should view the Constitution.  The Constitution has been in existence for more than 200 years.  Times, technology, attitudes, and modes of travel have changed.  This is why I believe that there is no harm in having a Constitutional Convention (the process that must take place to make changes to the Constitution).  I know many people who believe the Constitution is hanging by a thread and we need to protect it.  However, if it is not working and we could revise it and make it better, why would someone be against that?  I really believe that we should have a Constitutional Convention every so often (every 10 to 20 years) so we can see if we got some things wrong.  We may find that it needs no revisions but I believe that it does not hurt to have a debate on whether there are items in the Constitution that need to be revised or thrown out altogether.

Mr. Madison re-affirmed his position for amending the Constitution.  He made the argument that he had a duty to his constituents to make sure that the House did not “disregard their wishes.”  Madison believed that his constituents were apprehensive about signing on to the Constitution because there were “countrymen who wish to deprive them of liberty.”  Mr. Madison was looking to calm the fears of his constituents because he believed that all power is subject to abuse within the government and that “the powers of the General Government may be guarded against in a more secure manner than is now done.”  Mr. Madison continued on and began to lay out his proposed amendments.   A few of his proposals are as follows:  “First, that there be prefixed to the Constitution a declaration, that all power is originally vested in, and consequently derived from the people.”  He also proposes, “The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.”  Mr. Madison lays out his proposals at length on keeping and bearing arms, the criminal justice system, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and so forth.  He declares that, “The first of these amendments relates to what may be called a bill of rights.”

Madison continued and explained why a bill of rights is necessary.  He stated that some states already have declaration of rights incorporated into their constitutions and that the establishment of the United States government had not repealed those rights.  However, some states did not have bills of rights and others that did were defective and some are “absolutely improper.”  He also made the argument that having a bill of rights would help protect against abuse of power.  Madison believed if a bill of rights is incorporated into the Constitution that, “they (the Executive and Legislative branches) will be naturally led to resist the encroachment upon rights expressly stipulated for in the Constitution by the declaration of rights.”

Mr. Jackson then argued:  "There is a maxim in law, and it will apply to bills of rights, that when you enumerate exceptions, the exceptions operate to exclusion of all circumstances that are omitted; consequently unless you except every right from the grant of power, omitted are inferred to be resigned to the discretion of the Government."

Mr. Jackson was worried that if you incorporate a bill of rights into the Constitution, that will lead the government to assume that if there are rights not written in the Bill of Rights, that it will have the power to assume that it can restrict the rights that are not listed.  He has a good point because there is nothing in the Constitution that guarantees our right to privacy in the United States.  You will hear arguments that government has no business placing cameras out in public or that the government should not be tapping phone calls in the name of security, that it is against our right to privacy.  However, there is no guarantee to the right of privacy in the Constitution.  So the government assumes that it can encroach upon our privacy.  However, with that said, I agree with Madison on this subject.  I would rather there be some expressed rights in the Constitution because that has protected us from more government intrusion, in my opinion.  Take the example of privacy rights and how the government can record and spy on us if they feel like we are a threat and imagine that there was no freedom of speech in the Constitution.  I believe it is probable that the government would curtail our speech in times of crisis.  The government may not want newspapers or individual citizens from posting or publishing political cartoons of the Muslim prophet Muhammad.  We have seen that this causes rioting, violence, anti-Western, and anti-American sentiment in the Middle East.  I believe the government may try to restrict people and news organizations from publishing pictures out of threat of violence towards Americans and American interests.  This is a hypothetical argument but we have seen how the government acts towards us when it comes to privacy and protecting us in this age of terrorism.

From this debate, I think we can deduce that there were some rights our founders wanted written down and agreed upon.  They did not want the government to infringe on some of our basic rights.  That is why debate on the Bill of Rights continued but was agreed upon.  From that point it was sent through the process of ratification by two-thirds of both houses of Congress and three-fourths of the states.  Virginia being the last state needed for ratification, which took place on December 15, 1791.

However, we can also see that they knew they could not identify every inalienable right and write it down in the Constitution.  Just because they could not identify every right it doesn't mean that those other rights do not exist.  Never let anyone try to persuade you about certain rights just because they are not literally written within the Constitution.  Besides, in most cases, other rights can be inferred from amendments that are in the Constitution.  This means that freedom of religion allows a church to practice their beliefs.  That means if they think same-sex marriage is sinful, the Constitution protects them from being forced to perform same-sex weddings.  Also, the Equal Protection and Due Process clause will most likely apply to same-sex marriage.  Equal protection protects citizens by making sure all federal and state laws apply equally to all of its citizens.  In other words, states may be able to regulate marriage, but marriage laws must be executed without any bias or discrimination.

If anyone ever argues that a right (same-sex marriage, religions being forced to perform same-sex marriages) is not guaranteed because those rights are not mentioned within the Constitution, remind them that our ideals and founding documents are a little more complex and nuanced.  It is not black and white.  That is why we have such fierce debates over rights and perceived rights.  The Constitution is not clear on a lot of things and that is why our government has checks and balances built within it.  Issues need to be sorted out as carefully as possible so we do not violate the Constitution.  More importantly, so we do not violate a person’s rights.