Gratitude as Platitude

Jesus, Joseph and Mary, don't you just hate the editorial writers and bloggers who have a deep-seated urge to tell you all the things they are grateful for this time of year?

As Jerry down the road says, "That ain't gonna happen here ..."

But for those of you who simply can't make it through Thanksgiving without stuffing your face with platitudes, I offer [up] two, chosen at random, from today's Thanksgiving columns:

A Thanksgiving Toast

I'm Thankful for a Whole Lot on Thanksgiving

Political Fodder

Canada's Conservative Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, is being pressured by both the Christian right and GLBT groups to put same-sex marriage in Canada to an up-or-down vote.

The Christian right, which was largely absent during the national debate over extending marriage rights to same-sex couples in Canada, has, with considerable help from American evangelicals such as Jerry Falwell and James Dobson, galvanized around the issue.

Prime Minister Harper, an evangelical Christian, promised during the campaign that his government would take up the issue of same-sex marriage.

Harper has now scheduled a vote on the issue, sort of -- not a vote on same-sex marriage, which he knows he would lose, but a vote on the question of whether or not the government should revisit the issue of same-sex marriage, which he will also lose but which will not enrage Canada's religious right quite as much as an up-or-down vote on same-sex marriage itself.

Harper appears to see the vote on the vote as a way to appease the religious right without losing moderate voters who want to avoid the issue.

Meanwhile, a large GLBT group in Quebec, where Harper is about as popular as the dog in the manger, is pushing Harper for a vote on same-sex marriage, not a vote on the vote. The group, although it is not saying it, knows that a vote on the issue, rather than a vote on the vote, would embarrass Harper and cost him support from moderates.

Not to be outdone by Canada's Prime Minister, Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, who wants to be President so bad he can taste it, reversed course this week and said Sunday he would file a legal action this week asking a justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to direct the Secretary of State to place the a proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage on the ballot if lawmakers don't vote directly on the question January 2, the final day of the legislative session.

The legislature, meeting in Constitutional Convention, voted recently to recess until January 2 without taking a vote.

On the one hand, Romney's chance of success in court is thought to be subminimal. On the other hand, Romney's chance of success in the Republican primiaries would less than subminimal if he sat on his hands and didn't make a political show. It was an easy choice, I imagine.

Ain't life grand.

Unintended Consequences

The November election in Wisconsin did not, to put it mildly, turn out the way I thought it might in September 2005. In September 2005, I thought that voters, even the "values" voters, were getting sick and tired of the "faggot, faggot" game.

I was wrong, as we all know.

Whipped up by Christian Right preachers and the ever-reliable Catholic bishops, Wisconsin's "values" voters turned out in force and kicked our asses big time, passing the anti-marriage amendment by a higher margin than most "conservative" states. Worse yet, Wisconsin's anti-marriage amendment is a "nuclear option" amendment, which bans civil unions, domestic partnerships and may well spread its fallout onto employee domestic partnership benefits, trusts and estates law, domestic violence law and other areas.

Julaine Appling, who opined last year that "“I think we've been extremely tolerant in allowing [homosexuals] to live wherever they choose ..."”, is puffy-proud of the vote, and justly so. Julaine played her Christian cards close to her chest in public during the two year march toward the vote, and stayed "on message" (... its not about individiual rights or individual marriages, its about protecting the institution of marriage ...) throughout the campaign. Julaine proved herself to be a master politician.

Julaine announced shortly after the election that the next target in her campaign to "protect marriage" is no-fault divorce, and I will be curious to see how that works out for her, given that her political base, born-again Christians, have the highest divorce and remarriage rate in the country. I think that the issue is a non-starter for her, but we'll see. Julaine needs to do something with the FRI now that the homosexual menace has been contained, or the FRI will wither and die on the vine.

Future success or failure aside, though, on November 7 the voters gave Julaine her enduring legacy. Being the prime architect of the anti-marriage amendment is not something I'd tout on my tombstone, but Julaine is a product of Georgia and Bob Jones University, so she no doubt feels differently about it than I do. Whatever else she does in the life remaining to her, she will go down in history as the author and architect of the anti-marriage amendment. A fitting legacy, to be sure, whatever you may think of the amendment itself.

The Republican Party in Wisconsin, which passed the amendment in two legislative sessions in a cynical attempt to "energize the base", did not fare as well as Julaine. In fact, the Republican Party bombed statewide.

It is not as if the Republican Party didn't try. Republican legislators sent two red-meat referenda to Wisconsin voters -- the anti-marriage amendment and a non-binding referendum on the death penalty -- and spent the better part of two legislative sessions passing a number of measures that were not intended to become law -- concealed carry laws, freezes on local government property taxes, and so on. The Republicans counted on Democrat Governor Jim Doyle to veto the measures -- he did -- so that the Republican Party could "build a record" for the base but not deal with the consequences of actual laws.

In the end it all failed. The Republicans lost all but one of the statewide races, two congressional seats, the State Senate, and held the Assembly by the narrowest of margins. In fact, the only race the Republicans won was the Attorney General's race, and that by a margin so small as to trigger a recount. It turned out, apparently, that there was a spillover from the death-penalty enthusiasts to a "law and order" Republican Attorney General. But that was it. Failure everywhere else.

In the end, Republican bogus legislation didn't do them in -- the anti-marriage amendment did.

The exit polls strongly -- I'd say conclusively -- suggest that the anti-marriage amendment ended up turning out a lot of social conservatives who voted Democrat, and that made the difference for Governor Doyle and the Democrat slate statewide.

The Catholic Bishops and the evangelical churches worked hard to turn the amendment into a referendum on "gay marriage" -- it was not -- and turned out a large number of working-class voters, black and white, to vote against gay marriage. And turn out, they did. In droves. Wisconsin had a record turnout for an off-year election.

The only problem was that about a third of the voters who turned out to support the amendment also voted Democrat, which is what working-class voters almost always do. Over a third of Doyle's votes, for example, came from voters who voted for the anti-marriage amendment.

The Republicans lost big in Wisconsin, and the Republicans have no one to blame but themselves. As Pogo used to say, "We have met the enemy, and he is us."

So what does the future hold for in Wisconsin?

The dust is still settling.

We will, certainly, face a long struggle in the courts to figure out what "subtantially similar legal status" means for unmarried couples, straight and gay. We will, in addition, face a hard and protracted battle over domestic partner benefits, insurance and other issues, many of them revolving around the University of Wisconsin, which is the only Big Ten school not offering domestic partner benefits to faculty and staff. We will, without doubt, face a much tougher road gaining equality under the law for gays and lesbians than we otherwise would have -- my guess is that Wisconsin will have to wait, now, on the US Supreme Court decision ten or twenty years into the future before this amendment is wiped away. And we will, no doubt, struggle with our now-undeserved image as a state that is socially progressive.

But, thanks to John Gard and the Republican Party, things are not going to be as bad in Wisconsin as they have been in other states which passed amendments in 2004. Democrats control the State Senate and the Governor's office, and that will effectively block social conservative efforts to ban gay and lesbian adoption and foster care and otherwise roll back the clock, as has happened in other states.

Those of us who fought the anti-marriage amendment over the last year or two warned that the amendment would have unintended consequences. It turns out we were right, as the Republican Party in Wisconsin just found out.

No wonder Julaine Appling is talking about straight folks these days.

But let me offer a word of caution to my debating partner of late.

Divorce and remarriage among "values" voters -- the fact that the folks who talk the most about "God's plan for marriage" pay the least attention to what Jesus actually taught about marriage when it comes to their personal lives -- has always been the elephant in the room of the same-sex marriage debate.

Now that the diverson of same-sex marriage is off the table, Julaine may well get a pie in her face.

But nonetheless, it is good to see Julaine talking about "protecting marriage" with straight folks who can actually get married and do something about the sorry state of marriage -- feckless couplings, rampant divorce, broken homes, children born out of wedlock, and so on.

It is about time that somebody talked to the breeders about the mess they've made for themselves and their children. And it is about time that the breeders took on a little responsibility for cleaning up the mess, instead of yapping and yapping about the homosexual menace. As Pogo used to say ...

So, Julaine, you go gal. You are finally talking about a real issue.

Temper Tantrums in Massachusetts

The Massachusetts legislature, sitting in Constitutional Convention, voted 109-87 to recess before taking up a proposed amendment to the state constitution that would limit the legal definition of marriage to the union of one man and one woman.

Lawmakers voted to adjourn the session until January 2, the last official day of the session. The vote almost certainly killed any chance that the measure would appear on the 2008 statewide ballot, because the vote must occur during this legislative session in order for the initiative to appear on the ballot in 2008.

Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, who is leveraging his fierce opposition to gay and lesbian equality to gain support from the Christian right in his bid for the Presidency, acted predictably, accusing lawmakers of denying the public a chance to vote on an amendment.


Kris Mineau, Drama Queen

Less predictable, but more entertaining, was the temper-tantrum thrown by Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute.

"This is the Constitution of Massachusetts. The constitution says that this Legislature has the obligation to take final action on our amendment. They just trashed it," Mineau said, throwing the constitution to the ground.

The Boston Globe did not record whether Mineau stamped his queeny little slippers.

Chutzpah

In a letter to Israel's Foreign Ministry, the Vatican urged authorities to withdraw permission for tomorrow's gay pride parade in Jerusalem:

"The Holy See has reiterated on many occasions that the right to freedom of expression, sanctioned by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is subject to just limits, in particular when the exercise of this right would offend the religious sentiments of believers. It is clear that the gay parade scheduled to take place in Jerusalem will prove offensive to the great majority of Jews, Muslims and Christians, given the sacred character of the City of Jerusalem."

Tough.

Marley's Chains

Wisconsin joined the ranks of Alabama and 25 other states last night, passing a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

In fact, Wisconsin went farther than Alabama did, because Wisconsin's amendment, unlike Alabama's, also bans civil unions and other "substantially similar ... legal status".

In time, the amendment will become an embarrassment to Wisconsin, just as Alabama's school segregation amendment is an embarassment, now, to Alabama.

The school segregation amendment was invalidated by Brown v. Board in 1954, but it sits in Alabama's constitution like Marley's chains, 52 years later, and unlike Scrooge, Alabama is unable to chart a different course. The most recent attempt to repeal the school segregation amendment, in 2004, failed.

Amendments based on fear and prejudice, once passed, are almost impossible to take back.

So it will be with Wisconsin's marriage amendment.

In time, the US Supreme Court will invalidate Wisconsin's amendment, like all the others enacted around the country in the last two years, but the amendment will sit in our constitution, an unpleasant and embarrassing reminder of the fear and prejudice of our time.

Julaine Appling of Wisconsin's Family Research Institute had this to say today: "We've done the right thing. History will record Wisconsin's actions with pride and integrity."

Julaine Appling, a product of the segregated South and Bob Jones University, of all people, should know how hollow her words will ring in the light of history.

Sauk County

A couple of dozen folks in Sauk County put in a lot of effort to defeat the amendment.

I can't say that our efforts paid off, in terms of the statewide vote, but I can say that Sauk did much better than other rural Wisconsin counties.

The amendment was defeated (63% against) only in Dane County, the home of the University of Wisconsin.

The amendment margins were lower (55-57% in favor as opposed to the statewide average of 59%) in several counties with a relatively high urban population -- Milwaukee, Rock, Eau Claire and LaCrosse counties.

But in the rural areas, the margins in favor of the amendment were typically in the 65-70% range.

Sauk did much better, coming in at 57%, lower than the statewide average, and on par with the "urban" counties. I think that we led the rural counties, statewide.

So I can say that our efforts were not wasted, in terms of Sauk County.

In another sense, too, our efforts paid off.

When three of us met last January to discuss the amendment and begin figuring out what to do in Sauk County, we discussed the level of fear in our county.

We wondered, frankly, whether the gays and lesbians in the county would step up to the plate, come out and fight.

We now know.

Gays and lesbians all over the county came out and joined the fray, writing letters to the local newspapers, talking to their neighbors, distributing leaflets in their businesses, and joining the fight in any number of ways.

The fight will go on in Wisconsin. In the long run, the amendment sowed the seeds of progress.

Exit Polls: Republican, Religious and Old

The CBS exit polls showed that most voters who identified themselves as "Democrat" voted against (35% for, 65% against) the amendment, while voters who identified themselves as "Republican" voted overwhelmingly for the amendment (84% for, 16% against). Independents were split, 50/50.

In addition to party identification, two factors -- increasing age and the frequency with which a voter attended religious services -- had very high correlation to a vote in favor of the amendment.

Other factors -- income and so on -- seemed to make little difference.

Arizona remains true ...

Arizona turned down an anti-marriage amendment last night, the first state in the union to do so.

I am delighted, and particularly so because Arizona was the home of Barry Goldwater, who represented a constitutional conservatism that I have long admired.

It is particularly fitting, I think, to quote him this morning:

"Gays and lesbians are a part of every American family. They should not be shortchanged in their efforts to better their lives and serve their communities. As President Clinton likes to say, “if you work hard and play by the rules, you’ll be rewarded” and not with a pink slip just for being gay.

It’s time America realized that there was no gay exemption in the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in the Declaration of Independence. Discrimination against gays — or anybody else — is contrary to each of these founding principles.

Some will try to paint this as a liberal or religious issue. I am a conservative Republican, but I believe in democracy and the separation of church and state. The conservative movement is founded on the simple tenet that people have the right to live life as they please, as long as they don’t hurt anyone else in the process. No one has ever shown me how being gay or lesbian harms anyone else. Even the 1992 Republican platform affirms the principle that “bigotry has no place in our society.

I am proud that the Republican Party has always stood for individual rights and liberties. The positive role of limited government has always been the defense of these fundamental principles. Our party has led the way in the fight for freedom and a free market economy, a society where competition and the Constitution matter—and sexual orientation shouldn’t.

Now some in our ranks want to extinguish this torch. The radical right has nearly ruined our party. Its members do not care enough about the Constitution, and they are the ones making all the noise. The party faithful must not let it happen. Anybody who cares about real moral values understands that this isn’t about granting special rights—it’s about protecting basic rights."

Barry Goldwater is dead, and the radical right controls the Repulican Party. But the principles he stood for live on in Arizona.

John Gard's [political] body lies ...

John Gard, the late Speaker of the the Wisconsin Assembly, and the Republican legislative architect of Wisconsin's marriage amendment, lost his bid for the House of Representatives from the 8th Congressional District.

The 8th District congressional seat was vacated by Republican Mark Green, who lost his bid for Governor last night. The seat, which is in the Green Bay area, was considered "safe" for John Gard, which is why he ran.

I can't say I'm unhappy about the result ...

God has a wicked sense of humor, sometimes.

The Great Commandments

Catholics in Sauk County heard two messages yesterday at mass.

The first was yesterday's reading from the Gospel, Mark 12:28-34: "One of the scribes came near and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, he asked him, ‘Which commandment is the first of all?’ Jesus answered, ‘The first is, “Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one; you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.” The second is this, “You shall love your neighbour as yourself.” There is no other commandment greater than these.’ Then the scribe said to him, ‘You are right, Teacher; you have truly said that “he is one, and besides him there is no other”; and “to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the strength”, and “to love one’s neighbour as oneself” — this is much more important than all whole burnt-offerings and sacrifices.’ When Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said to him, ‘You are not far from the kingdom of God.’ After that no one dared to ask him any question."

The second was yesterday's homily, a fourteen-minute recorded message from Bishop Robert Morlino. Morlino warned priests in a letter published by the diocese that any verbal or nonverbal expression of disagreement with him before or after the playing of the tape "will have to be considered by myself as an act of disobedience, which could have serious consequences."

Bishop Morlino noted that legislatures in a number of states have granted gays and lesbians civil unions, domestic partnerships or other legal protections similar to marriage, and warned: "There is no right to redefine marriage, and if we admit that there is such a right, then that causes the collapse of the family, and that causes the collapse of society in due time,"

Morlino went on to address arguments that the second sentence of the amendment is likely to have serious, unintended consequences for unmarried couples, straight and gay alike: "I am tired of reading that in the local newspapers. The nicest thing I can say about that in church is that it's bologna."

Ah, the Great Commandments.

The irony was, no doubt, unintended.

A Deceiver and a Liar

Reverend Ted Haggard's letter to the congregation at New Life Church is, for anyone familiar with 12-Step spirituality, a textbook example of the principle that "You are only as sick as your secrets ..."

The core of the letter:

I am guilty of sexual immorality, and I take responsibility for the entire problem.

I am a deceiver and a liar. There is a part of my life that is so repulsive and dark that I've been warring against it all of my adult life.

For extended periods of time, I would enjoy victory and rejoice in freedom. Then, from time to time, the dirt that I thought was gone would resurface, and I would find myself thinking thoughts and experiencing desires that were contrary to everything I believe and teach.

Through the years, I've sought assistance in a variety of ways, with none of them proving to be effective in me. Then, because of pride, I began deceiving those I love the most because I didn't want to hurt or disappoint them.

The public person I was wasn't a lie; it was just incomplete. When I stopped communicating about my problems, the darkness increased and finally dominated me. As a result, I did things that were contrary to everything I believe."

Haggard's letter is, however, also a textbook example of of the internalized, culture-induced self-loathing which many gay and lesbian fundamentalist Christians must overcome in order to come to grips with their sexual orientation.

Haggard has yet to come to terms with the abusive nature of "Christian love" as taught by the many preachers on the Christian right, which promulgates the message that being gay or lesbian is "repulsive and dark", and with his own role in promulgating that abuse. In time, I hope that Haggard will come to understand the harm he has done to himself and the young gays and lesbians who heard his message of "Christian love" and internalized it. His letter reveals, unwittingly perhaps, the harm he has done to himself. His letter does not address the harm done to gays and lesbians by the culture in which he has been a major actor.

I don't know how Haggard's personal journey will turn out. He has disgraced himself, and he remains, obviously, at war with himself. He has a long way to go in terms of self-understanding and self-acceptance. His statement suggests that he has tried "Christian therapy" to rid himself of his sexual orientation, without success. It will be a long time before Haggard is comfortable in his own skin, I'd wager.

The issues raised by Haggard's "downfall", however, go well beyond his personal journey. However this turns out for Haggard, I hope that young gays and lesbians living under the thumb of the twisted, anti-gay culture that Haggard participated in creating and spreading will find a way to come to grips with their sexual orientation more quickly, and less painfully, than Haggard.

Haggard was, indeed, "a deceiver and a liar". In more ways than he now knows.

Gay Marriage

I found this in a local newspaper:

"Gay Marriage. Like yours. Except without the fight about the toilet seat."

It is a bit long for a bumper sticker, but it is funny.

Religion, Spirituality and Haggard

We are working our way through the script, now.

Pastor Ted Haggard, president of the 30 million-member National Association of Evangelicals and founder and senior pastor of the 14,000-member New Life Church in Colorado Springs, handmaiden of James Dobson as a political anchor of the Christian right's drive to ban same-sex marriage, became mired in a gay sex and drug scandal yesterday.

Haggard's and Dobson's first reaction was entirely predictable.

Haggard bluffed, claiming in an interview with Denver's Channel 9 News investigative reporter that he didn't know his accuser, had never had a "gay relationship" and never used drugs.

Dobson roared out from under his rock to attack the media: "It is unconscionable that the legitimate news media would report a rumor like this based on nothing but one man's accusation. Ted Haggard is a friend of mine and it appears someone is trying to damage his reputation as a way of influencing the outcome of Tuesday's election -- especially the vote on Colorado's marriage-protection amendment -- which Ted strongly supports. He has shown a great deal of grace under these unfortunate circumstances, quickly turning this matter over to his church for an independent investigation. That is a testament to the character I have seen him exhibit over and over again through the years."

Haggard released a statement that he placed himself on administrative leave "pending investigation, spiritual counsel, and a decision by the church's board of overseers" the next morning.

Then the facade started to crumble.

Haggard's accuser, Mike Jones, a Denver "escort", provided two voice messages to Channel 9, and Channel 9 provided the transcripts after having the transcripts verified by a nationally known voice recognition expert, Richard Sanders:

August 4, 2006 2:18 pm: "Hi Mike, this is Art. Hey, I was just calling to see if we could get any more. Either $100 or $200 supply. And I could pick it up really anytime I could get it tomorrow or we could wait till next week sometime and so I also wanted to get your address. I could send you some money for inventory but thatÂ’s probably not working, so if you have it then go ahead and get what you can and I may buzz up there later today, but I doubt your schedule would allow that unless you have some in the house. Okay, II'llll check in with you later. Thanks a lot, bye."

August 4, 2006 5:10 pm: "Hi Mike this is Art, I am here in Denver and sorry that I missed you. But as I said, if you want to go ahead and get the stuff, then that would be great. And I'll get it sometime next week or the week after or whenever. I will call, though, you early next week to uh, see what's most convenient for you. Okay? Thanks a lot. Bye."

In turn, Reverend Ross Parsley, who is serving as Acting Senior Pastor of New Life, affirmed in an e-mail to the New Life congregation that Haggard confessed, at least in part: "It is important for you to know that he confessed to the overseers that some of the accusations against him are true."

Haggard admits, apparently, to buying meth and getting a massage from Jones, but not to having sex with him, as Jones alleges.

The situation is under investigation by an independent panel of leaders from four outside churches. The leaders are from Colorado Springs, Larkspur, Westminster -- all in Colorado -- and Louisiana. The panel's role is to decide if Haggard will be exonerated, released from his duties or restored to his pastorship.

And Dobson, thankfully, is silent, at least momentarily.

Still to come -- later today and tomorrow, no doubt -- are the Rush Lindbaugh and Matt Drudge attacks on gays and lesbians, platitudes from the President and other Republican politicians, hand-wringing from evangelical leaders and long-term "administrative leave" and rehab for Haggard, all amidst endless chatter on CNN and MSNBC about the "political fallout" from the scandal.

And eventually, I suppose, the independent panel will issue a report of some sort, with recommendations. Right now, nobody -- except Haggard and his accuser -- know for sure what is true and what is false about the allegations. The truth is likely to emerge messy, grudging admission after grudging admission, and in the end, it will probably come down to one's word against the other, and people will believe what they want to believe about the sex.

In short, I don't know how it will land, other than that I know it will land painfully. The script will play out, as it must, and we will all know eventually.

Haggard is probably finished, of course, based on his admissions to date. It is unlikely that the National Association of Evangelicals will want him as their spokesman or that the White House will want to continue their cozy relationship with "Pastor Ted".

The question remains of what will happen to his ministries. New Life may go the route of Jimmy Swaggart's ministry, which sank beneath the waves after he confessed to a fondness for prostitutes, or Jim Bakker's ministry, which was taken over by other evangelicals and plundered after Bakker got caught with his hands in the cookie jar. or it may continue in diminshed form. A problem with evangelical ministries is that they tend to be very focused on a particular pastor, and seldom survive the pastor's removal. New Life is looking down that barrel.

But however this turns out for Haggard and New Life, I know that this scandal, whatever is true or false about the particulars of the accusations and admissions, demonstrates a tragedy, and a tragedy that extends far beyond Haggard, his wife and his five children, and New Life. It extends to all the men and women that Haggard and his kind dupe in the name of Christ.

Haggard is a paradigm of superstars of the Christian right (Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, James Dobson) who have been empowered by people that are unable to face their fears, people who need a spiritual exoskeleton -- a simplistic, "all the answers you need are found in the Bible" approach to life -- and external demons -- formerly Jews and Communists, more recently gays and lesbians -- because they cannot confront own limitations and failures.

And the lost folk, in turn, conjure up visions of well-financed and secretive "agendas" and fall upon the external demons of the hour.

Many observers of the Chistian right have noted that the overheated rhetoric about gays and lesbians we are hearing of late mimics earlier rhetoric about Jews and Communists. I need not reiterate.

But I note that the battle against equality under the law for gays and lesbians is an exercise in misdirection. Marriage will not be protected by keeping gays and lesbians from marrying. The number of gays and lesbians born to straight couples will not decrease by driving gays and lesbians back into the closet. Gays and lesbians in large numbers will continue to raise children, whether or not civil unions or civil marriages are available. And so on.

Robin Whitespear, a friend of mine in Chicago, often says that "Religion is for people who are afraid of going to hell; spirituality is for people who have been there."

Religion often focuses on identifying and eradicating external demons; spirituality focuses on identifying and correcting internal demons. Fighting external demons accomplishes nothing. Recognition of our common humanity -- our common flawed humanity -- and spending our time cleaning up our own lives, accomplishes everything.

Like so many on the Christian right, Haggard was a sworn foe of same-sex marriage, claiming that to extend marriage to gays and lesbians would erode the foundations of our civilization.

A wiser course, I think, is that of a local pastor, John Torgerson, who is opposed to same-sex marriage but noted in a recent letter to the editor: "If we as Christians tell the Jesus story loudly in our marriages, we won't have to worry about look-alike marriages."

Use Faith, Reason ...

The following guest opinion column, by Rabbi Jonathan Biatch of Temple Beth El in Madison, appeared in this morning's Wisconsin State Journal:

Bishop Robert Morlino hopes that Catholics in Wisconsin and, we can only assume since he made his letter public, the rest of us will use "reason alone" to determine a vote on the constitutional ban on civil unions and gay marriage.

In a world where faith is lacking in so many places, I believe that people of faith need to make statements that speak from both their religious faith and their power of reason.

So what do my faith and reason tell me about the relationship of two people who love one another?

That both heterosexuality and homosexuality are normal conditions of being human on this planet; that we should support both straight and gay people who are in search of monogamous, loving, and growth-enhancing emotional relationships; and that we should find ways to have all people fulfilled in their search for human connections with one another.

What do my faith and reason tell me about the effects that this constitutional amendment will have upon established families in Wisconsin?

That the passage of this amendment has the potential to destroy the delicate legal and contractual arrangements that both gay and straight Wisconsinites in unmarried households have created to protect themselves and their children; that we should promote efforts to establish and maintain stability for all families in Wisconsin, through improving health care, lessening the effects of poverty, and ensuring higher employment rates; that civil unions or marriage between gay individuals will not destroy our society or its family structure; and that we all need to move beyond fear of homosexuals to a place of acceptance of each member of the human family.

What do my faith and reason tell me about applying ancient biblical prohibitions to contemporary social situations?

That scriptural prohibitions are decidedly contextual, and refer to specific incidents of our ancient past; that we have - as a society - already discarded the biblical guidelines regarding stoning recalcitrant children, burning witches, and condoning slavery - all on the basis of reason; and that our present-day legal system, whatever its basis, must protect the rights of all citizens, not simply those in the heterosexual majority.

As a person of faith, I will vote against the constitutional amendment because my faith and my reason tell me it is the right thing to do. A vote to affirm the amendment will hurt real families and real people, and a vote to affirm the amendment will further intolerance of homosexuals, and will cause prejudice to increase.

Both of these are realities that my faith and my reason can confirm for me.

Please join me, therefore, in voting "No" on the civil union and gay marriage ban.

Republican Dollars

Wisconsin's "Vote Yes for Marriage" flurry of last-minute ads in support of the amendment are being paid for by the Coalition for America's Families, a group run by Steve King, the former chairman of the Wisconsin Republican Party. The Coalition gave "Vote Yes" $385,000.

"Vote Yes" parlayed the "David and Goliath" fiction for months in Wisconsin -- the myth that "Vote Yes" was operating on a shoestring while Fair Wisconsin, depending on the hard work and dedication of embattled Christians. "Vote Yes" carried the fiction to the point of reporting just over $5,000 -- yes, $5,000 -- in its interim campaign finance report, while somehow printing and distributing slick, professional pro-amendment brochures and CD's all over the state.

Well, fiction is finally coming to an end. But you can see why it was important to maintain the fiction as long as possible.

Coalition for America’s Families is a thinly disquised Republican front organization that has been running ads attacking Democratic Governor Jim Doyle for more than one year.

The Coalition made the donation to "Vote Yes for Marriage" on October 26, according to records filed the next day with the state Elections Board. "Vote Yes" for Marriage in turn booked at least $266,000 in television advertisements in the Milwaukee and Green Bay markets to try to sway voters in favor of a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage.

The real story behind the "David and Goliath" myth? The Republicans, in trouble on just about every other front, are now tossing in a fistful of dollars in a last-minute attempt to energize the base.

That's what the amendment has been about since the beginning -- using gay and lesbian families as political fodder to drive a Republican turnout.

The Slippery Slope

Kay James, who is the editor of the Wisconsin Dells Events, writes "Kay's Comments", a personal opinion column.

Today, Kay talks about the amendment from a Christian perspective:

On Nov. 7, voters will go to the polls to decide whether or not Wisconsin should ban same-sex marriage. I pray that Wisconsin residents will demonstrate again that they are righteous people and vote against this amendment.

I am against passage of this amendment, but I have hesitated to write about my position. The members of the church I belong to will not be happy with this stance. I hope they and other Christians will listen.

Many who favor this amendment will question why I use the word pray and righteous in speaking against this amendment. They may interpret the only righteous course as one of voting for this amendment. I disagree. I believe Christians should not vote for laws that condone discrimination even against a group the Bible condemns.

The Bible speaks against homosexuality and from that many Christians believe they should vote for this amendment. The argument is that amendment is needed to protect marriage and the family.

While many of today's Christians wrap themselves in praise of the family, Jesus told his followers to leave their families behind. And, the New Testament doesn't exactly give marriage a ringing endorsement. Paul in Corinthians 7 speaks in favor of marriage only as an alternative to "fornication."

In Hebrews, marriage is called honorable, but the same passage does not call on Christians to enforce punishments against those who violate marriage rules. Instead, "God will judge." God does not need state laws in order to judge. He is capable of doing that himself.

Christians should look to their own conduct and not force their morality on others. A pastor can stand in the pulpit and preach that gay marriage and adultery are wrong. The pastor can tell a gay couple they cannot be married in the church, but he should not have the backing of the state in enforcing that.

Forcing morality on others never works. All to often, governments have used such laws to punish groups that people defined as lesser beings because members do not agree with the majority. It has happened before when Christians and others stood by when laws were passed that gave governments the power to discriminate. We need only remember World War II.

After World War II, Lutheran pastor Martin Niemoller wrote, "They came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up for me."

Niemoller was writing about Hitler and the Nazis. As a Lutheran pastor, he first endorsed the Nazis, but then preached against them. He spent years in the concentration camps, but survived.

The groups are different today, but will Niemoller's poem be rewritten to say, "They came first for the homosexuals, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a homosexual...?"

Russia is another example. I read a two-book series by Soviet writer, Anatoli Rybakov, "Children of the Arbat" that chronicles the lives of young people growing up in Moscow during the 1920s. Those were the years when Stalin came to power and carried out his policies that killed millions and sent millions more into prison in Siberia. People kept quiet from fear that the same would happen to them.

This amendment does not make homosexuality illegal, but if the government can deny rights under some circumstances, the next step may be to deny more.

The amendment also denies benefits to a couple not in a legally sanctioned marriage. That will include a man and woman who live together.

I see this amendment as a step in the direction of that proverbial slippery slope that can carry us to a time when the government will control private lives and punish accordingly. The time to speak is now, and vote no before they come for you and no one is left to speak.

Kay Lapp James is editor of the Dells Events. This column represents her personal view and not that of the newspaper.

"... this very bad idea"

The Wisconsin Dells Events started November's letters to the editor with this thoughtful argument from a local resident, Bill Brown:

I am writing to oppose the Constitutional amendment that will be on the November ballot, which opposes gay marriage and other things.

The proposed amendment is a bad idea that will have negative consequences for both gay and not gay persons. It will do two things: ban gay marriage, which is already banned by state law, and have other negative consequences for both gay and not gay people.

Gretchen Viney is an attorney in Baraboo — one of over 300 legal experts in Wisconsin who have spoken out against the amendment. She is also a professor and scholar at the University of Wisconsin Law School. Professor Viney was recently quoted in the Baraboo News Republic as follows: "It's a misnomer to say it's a gay marriage ban. What it is is a legal rights ban…if all they wanted to do was prohibit gay marriage, they only needed the first sentence. I think it's a pretty good bet that what they meant is you can't recognize that relationship in any legal way." She went on to state for the newspaper, and confirmed in communication with me, that the amendment's ambiguity will permit court challenges to providing domestic partner benefits for both opposite sex and gay partners or "…the right for non-married couples to hospital visits or estate planning privileges…" Viney is also a wife, mother, and active member of a mainline church.

According to the 2000 Census, over 110,000 opposite-sex couples live in Wisconsin, and thousands of these are seniors in committed relationships—people who have never married or chosen not to remarry after the death of a spouse. Because of this amendment, these people, in addition to gay people, will be vulnerable in the case of wills, health care, and other end of life decisions. The state of Ohio banned recognition of unmarried couples, under words similar to this proposal. Ohio judges dismissed domestic violence cases involving unmarried man-woman couples because the victims were not married to the alleged abusers. For this and other reasons, the Wisconsin Coalition Against Domestic Violence is against the proposed ban.

The amendment's negative consequence for business is another reason for opposition. The ban would brand Wisconsin as hostile to diversity. That this is significant is reflected in the fact that over half of the Fortune 500 companies offer domestic partner insurance — these companies treat gay people fairly. It could also affect tourism: the city of Cincinnati lost about $45 million in business after passing anti-gay measures, as groups cancelled or removed conventions to other cities.

The organizations and people who oppose the proposed amendment are numerous and representative of the core of society, not the fringes. Consider the following, from a longer list of organizations opposing: Wisconsin Council on Children and Families, Wisconsin Education Association, Coalition of Wisconsin Aging Groups, Wisconsin Association of Marriage and Family Therapists, AFL-CIO of Wisconsin, Wisconsin Medical Society, and Wisconsin Coalition against Domestic Violence. Persons against such amendments include, for example, former Wisconsin Gov. Drefus, New York Times columnist David Brooks, and Lou Dobbs, CNN commentator — conservatives and Republicans!

Many faith communities have come out against the ban, including three regional synods of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, three presbyteries, and the United Methodist conference. In addition, clergy and leaders from Jewish, United Church of Christ, Unitarian Universalist, and many other religious communities are working against the amendment.

Some charge that gay marriage harms families and heterosexual marriage. There is no proof that this happens. There is not one scientific study to support this contention. People who are heterosexual rarely enter homosexual relationships. This proposal will do nothing to solve this imagined problem. Rather, it will harm a large group of gay and straight people, for no good reason.

If this amendment is passed, what will the next one require: that we are Constitutionally banned from renting rooms to unmarried heterosexual couples? Few thing should be put into constitutions, and this proposal is one that should not be included.

If you are against gay marriage, then don't enter into a gay marriage. You cannot enter into a gay marriage in Wisconsin in any event, because gay marriage is against the law. Think of the your 100,000 fellow Wisconsin citizens, mostly mixed sex couples, who will be negatively affected if this proposal passes. Consider the large number of organizations and people who have concluded, after much thought, that this should not pass. And please vote "No" on this very bad idea.

Bill Brown, Wisconsin Dells

Telling the Jesus Story, but vote no ...

John Torgerson, the Associate Pastor of the local Worldwide Church of God congregation, published this letter in the Wisconsin Dells Events today, as well:

What is the Wisconsin marriage amendment really about? The two most frequent responses that I have heard to this question are that it's about family or it's about religion.

Yes, the historic understanding of marriage in our nation is based on the Christian religion. But the Christian public responses to this amendment have focused exclusively on sin lists.

Living by lists is not what Christianity is all about. It is about Jesus. Jesus, as God is human form, did not leave us "new-improved" lists. Instead, he left us only his story, written by others in the four Gospels.

He claimed to be the "bread of life," which indicates that his impact on our life is daily and is more substantial than life lived by lists. Even those not very familiar with Christianity know that there is supposed to be something special about "believing in Jesus."

For me, "believing in Jesus" means "telling the Jesus story" in my relationships.

As I look back a century at my ancestry, there were inspiring stories of unconditional love that told the Jesus story. There are also stories of abandonment of children and abuse — definitely not the Jesus story. There have been times when I told the Jesus story to my children, and times when I didn't. There have always been families with problems. But in the Jesus story there is freedom and help to recognize flaws that may go back generations, and begin anew.

Briefly, here is how I view the current family-religious "hot button" issues: Living together outside of marriage does not tell the Jesus story because that is a story of conditional love, and the Jesus story is one of unconditional love.

Abortion as a means of fixing a mistake does not tell the Jesus story because Jesus fixed our mistakes for us by his death on the cross.

Living out gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transsexual desires does not tell the Jesus story because he created us, and he expressly stated that we were created male and female.

As a citizen of this state I have the right to support laws that reflect my views on those issues. Therefore, I do support the first part of the marriage amendment that attempts to prevent judges from re-interpreting the words "husband and wife".

The second part of the amendment says, "A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state." To me this statement is "identical or substantially similar" to escalating a territorial war, where benefits and privileges granted to married people are the territory. I don't see the Jesus story in that kind of response. I don't see most Christians responding that way to their own children when they have lived together before marriage or born children out of wedlock. Many seem to be worried about encouraging look-alike marriages. If we as Christians tell the Jesus story loudly in our marriages, we won't have to worry about look-alike marriages. I am voting no on the amendment.

John Torgerson,
Wisconsin Dells

John is a former teacher at Wisconsin Dells High School, and well known in the community. John and I have been talking and corresponding privately about the amendment for a couple of months now, and I think that his response to the amendment, told from a different perspective from mine, is thoughtful.