End douchebaggery

h/t to watertiger

--the BB

Smoke the Bigots Out of the Closet

That is the title of Frank Rich's column today in The New York Times.

A funny thing happened after Adm. Mike Mullen called for gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the military: A curious silence befell much of the right. If this were a Sherlock Holmes story, it would be the case of the attack dogs that did not bark.

John McCain, commandeering the spotlight as usual, did fulminate against the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” But the press focus on McCain, the crazy man in Washington’s attic, was misleading. His yapping was an exception, not the rule.

Rich comes through again with a great column. Read it all here.

--the BB

The journey away from religious abuse

The pain came as I began to realize for the first time that I had been using my faith to bring harm to others.
--Brent Childers

Another journey from religious homophobia to support of equal rights. Read it all here.

National Coming Out Day: 11 October 2009

--the BB

Do I live in a backward country?

Here is some news from Albania:

By Benet Koleka

TIRANA (Reuters) - Albania's homosexuals won more than they had hoped for after the government said it planned to allow same-sex marriages despite opposition from religious leaders and politicians.

The proposal put forward by Prime Minister Sali Berisha on Thursday faces a tough fight in parliament.

But should he make good on his plans, Albania would join European Union members The Netherlands, Belgium, and Spain in giving gay couples the same rights as heterosexual couples and would be the first country in the Balkans to do so.

Toujours Dan posts the BBC article with the heading "Al... Albania?"

As Mark Lowen notes in the BBC post:

In a predominantly Muslim country with almost no open homosexual community, the announcement by a conservative PM has taken people by surprise.

And that is an understatement, I'm sure.

As for me living in a backward country, just check out the "birther" movement.

--the BB

"We hold these truths to be self-evident...."

You would not believe, though you may well suspect, that the files on my computer are organized in a vast web of folders, sub-folders, and sub-sub-folders, etc. The main folders I visit under "Documents" are Politics, Blogging, and Mithernalia (where my novels and their supporting documents live). Under "Pictures" there are Politics, Desert Farne (the name I gave to my home in ABQ and the photos I take here), and recent folders of shots taken with my new camera. Plus "Creativity" which has sub-folders for Flags, Maps, and perhaps fifty or so other sub-folders.

With this blog you can see why Politics shows up under both Documents and Pictures. Next to Religious Blogs, Political Blogs is the most populated folder of my browser Favorites also.

In the political folders under both Documents and Pictures are sub-folders labeled "Foundational Documents." This is where I have the texts and graphics of the Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.

All of the above is context to say that I consider these items foundational. I return to them again and again to refresh my memory and vision of what we, as a nation, stand for.

Most estadounidenses can recite this sentence by memory:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

We citizens of the United States consider this central to our self-understanding.

There is a history to the understanding and interpretation of this text, however. By the time the Constitution was framed this text was already being compromised, with slaves given partial value (3/5 of a person is hardly "equal"). Over time that obscenity was repealed. Abigail Adams argued for the equality of women but it was many years later that women were allowed to vote. When, not so very long ago, the Equal Rights Amendment was floated, it failed to gain ratification in enough states. We clearly have not arrived on that one yet.

We have been progressing, but it is slow and partial. We have yet to grow into our own foundational concepts and ideals.

The current healthcare debate includes the issue that in the United States today there are citizens whose "unalienable right" to life is dependent on insurance coverage and the rules and whims of the insurer. People die every day because they are uninsured or underinsured or have insurance but are denied treatment.

If we believe the words of the Declaration of Independence, why are we even debating whether we should have universal coverage?

In the current debate over marriage rights it is quite evident that LGBT citizens, in most (but blessedly no longer all) states and at a federal level have their "unalienable right" to the pursuit of happiness denied because they are excluded from marriage.

So I suppose this means that if I'm queer I am something like 3/5 of a person?

Many people in the United States fail to grasp that equal rights are not "special rights." They are equal rights.

I would like to call this nation forward, asking it to continue growing into its own vision.

The work of the American Revolution and the dream of the United States of America are ongoing processes.

Keep fighting until are free and equal.
This is part of an Independence Day weekend series.

--the BB

This song is being invoked

This song is being invoked a lot recently. I thank Elizabeth Kaeton for making it a refrain.



--the BB

Sorry. Words are good but I'm not hearing the right ones.

I read three newspaper articles and one blog post on Obama's queerfest at the White House tonight. (I'm queer; I get to call it that.)

Two of them mentioned the gratuitously nasty brief defending DOMA that was filed by the Obama DOJ, but none of them focused on it.

Obama acknowledged that he cannot ask us to be patient and that he expects to be held accountable for what he does.

But I did not see anything about him saying - "You know, we really blew it on that brief. I am unhappy with the language and reasoning used in it and I have instructed the Department of Justice to redo it without the offensive portions about incest and pedophilia."

That, frankly, is what I am waiting to hear and see happen. With that, I could hang loose with it taking a while to address the other issues.

But for a now a vile insult remains in this Administration's legal work. It stands unchallenged and uncorrected.

And because of that, nothing else he promised means jack shit as far as I am concerned.

Update: graphic from Pam's House Blend added
--the BB

White House photo ops versus justice

Michelangelo Signorile:

This is pretty outrageous. In the midst of all the anger from LGBT people over the DOMA brief and the inadequate response -- so far -- by the Obama administration, gay lobbyists, executive directors and assorted others who comprise what is identified as the gay leadership apparently have been invited to a party at the White House thrown just for them.

It's another photo-op in which everyone -- the president and the gays -- can look happy and like they're having fun, but more so, it's a way for the White House to wank off the gay leaders a bit while still not delivering. None of them should fall for it -- and that means they should not attend this event -- least of all the Human Rights Campaign. We don't want cocktails for high-paid gay and lesbians lobbyists and executive directors looking to schmooze and feel important. We want action on our rights, and at this point it means DOMA and DADT....

Pam Spaulding:

OK. Who said Congress shouldn't be held accountable? But where does it get its cues from -- the White House. Come on, we're not stupid. We've heard apologists say that Obama's rogue DOJ issued that brief without anyone in the WH knowing. Gee, when Bush was in the White House, we sure nailed the fact that Alberto Gonzales was working hand-in-glove with Dear Leader's constitutional wrecking crew at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. So which is it people? I'm tired of the excuses, and bad ones at that.

John Aravosis:

The biggest betrayal of all? Our leaders are going to the White House to celebrate the 40th anniversary of Stonewall. Irony is not lacking in this White House.

But we got cake! (And a gay band in the parade!)

Until a truly satisfactory retraction of the DOMA insult comes along, I doubt that self-respecting LGBT folk want to even be seen with the White House. They could have fucking done nothing and we could have been patient and understanding, but such an egregious slap in the face is like challenging us to a duel and then expecting us to show up for caviar and champagne and smile for the camera. I don't think so.

Why are we so pissed? Well, it seems some DOJ types went out of their way to be do some really vile arguing in a case.

Holy cow. Obama invoked incest and people marrying children.

The courts have followed this principle, moreover, in relation to the validity of marriages performed in other States. Both the First and Second Restatements of Conflict of Laws recognize that State courts may refuse to give effect to a marriage, or to certain incidents of a marriage, that contravene the forum State's policy. See Restatement (First) of Conflict of Laws § 134; Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 284.5 And the courts have widely held that certain marriages performed elsewhere need not be given effect, because they conflicted with the public policy of the forum. See, e.g., Catalano v. Catalano, 170 A.2d 726, 728-29 (Conn. 1961) (marriage of uncle to niece, "though valid in Italy under its laws, was not valid in Connecticut because it contravened the public policy of th[at] state"); Wilkins v. Zelichowski, 140 A.2d 65, 67-68 (N.J. 1958) (marriage of 16-year-old female held invalid in New Jersey, regardless of validity in Indiana where performed, in light of N.J. policy reflected in statute permitting adult female to secure annulment of her underage marriage); In re Mortenson's Estate, 316 P.2d 1106 (Ariz. 1957) (marriage of first cousins held invalid in Arizona, though lawfully performed in New Mexico, given Arizona policy reflected in statute declaring such marriages "prohibited and void").

Then in the next paragraph, they argue that the incest and child rape cases therefore make DOMA constitutional:

The fact that States have long had the authority to decline to give effect to marriages performed in other States based on the forum State's public policy strongly supports the constitutionality of Congress's exercise of its authority in DOMA.

You can read more thanks to John Aravosis at Americablog - if you can keep your meal down while you read it. I don't need to go further than having our relationships compared to incest and pedophilia. It is a vile comparison and flawed legal reasoning. It should be laughed out of court.

Tony West, James J. Gilligan, and W. Scott Simpson (the last a Bush political holdover) who wrote the brief are, in my opinion, reprehensible scum. I am sure they feel the same about me.

Yes, on this particular topic I am awarding Obama an F! As in "failing grade" or, let's be honest, a huge "FUCK YOU!"

I believe in evaluating policies and actions one by one. I may, and expect to, support the President in many areas while disagreeing and vigorously opposing in others. An all-or-nothing approach is not acceptable. (The blanket condemnations of Bush had, well, a lot to do with the fact that almost everything he touched turned to owlshit - or, more properly, profits for his buddies and disasters for the US and the world.)

I am not going to conclude that Obama is "just like all the others." (Consider where we would be if McCain were president: too horrible to contemplate.) Obama's imperfect. He's flawed. So am I. He can learn and grow. We need to help him learn and grow.



h/t to Pam for the instructive Malcolm X video
--the BB

Why I get grumpy

John Aravosis, bless him, has been all over this like white on rice.

Again, let me reiterate. Top gay lawyers simply wanted to talk with the Obama administration's representatives at the Department of Justice and the Office of Personnel Management (which is not only run by an openly gay man, but has an openly gay general counsel). The gay lawyers wanted to know the details of the administration's reasoning that DOMA precluded health care benefits, among other benefits, to the partners of gay employees. The Obama administration refused.

If the Obama administration were truly interested in helping the gay community get these benefits, they would gladly tell their gay friends what the details of the legal problem is, in hopes that we can all figure out a legal way around it.

But there was no such interest from Team Obama. Either the argument that DOMA precludes these benefits is a lie. Or it's true and for some reason the Obama administration doesn't want to give us these benefits.

[Emphasis mine]

I can understand there being all manner of legal and political obstacles to moving forward. That is the nature of things. It's being treated like shit in the process the that infuriates me.

Mr. President, you can do better.

And we expect you to.

Crumbs and photo-ops and sound bytes are not going to do it.

--the BB

Pride Month

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim June 2009 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month. I call upon the people of the United States to turn back discrimination and prejudice everywhere it exists.

[Emphasis mine]

You may read the entire declaration chez Susan Russell

--the BB

A word of advice to General Convention

Some realities have multiple applications. Let us learn from the past. Separate is not equal. Wait often means never.

Just saying.

h/t to Frank Rich in the NYT (brought to my attention by John Aravosis at Americablog)

--the BB

A response to the "Gathering Storm"

h/t to David at Of Course I Could Be On Vacation

--the BB

The California Supreme Court hears the case tomorrow

Video courtesy of Susan Russell

Susan also informs us that 'Both the Assembly and the Senate considered identical resolutions, which stated that the Legislature "opposes Proposition 8 because it is an improper revision, not an amendment, of the California Constitution."'

Pray for all the minorities of California and for the upholding of fundamental constitutional principles.
--the BB

Jerry Brown explains why Prop 8 should be struck down

California Attorney General (and former Governor) Jerry Brown puts forth an argument that Prop 8 is unconstitutional and draws a parallel with an earlier proposition in 1954 that "would have legalized racial discrimination in the selling or renting of housing. Both the California and U.S. Supreme Courts struck down this proposition, concluding that it amounted to an unconstitutional denial of rights."

He notes:

Fundamental rights in California are recognized and protected by our constitution, which declares in Article I, Section 1 that "all people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights" and "among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy."

...

In 2008, the California Supreme Court was faced with the question of how the values enshrined in Article I apply to same sex marriages. It concluded that the concept of "liberty" includes the right to form the enduring relationship called marriage and that no compelling interest justified denying this right to same sex couples. Just like the right to be free from discrimination in housing, citizens have the right to be free from discrimination in state-granted marriage licenses.

If rights are inalienable, ballot propositions cannot take them away.

Pray for the hearings at the California Supreme Court that begin tomorrow.
--the BB

we're not strategizing; we're really this angry

ChristieKeith has a terrific post up at Daily Kos titled "It's not Obama I'm mad at; it's way too many of you."

You keep telling us we need to reach out and build bridges to the religious right. Do you really think there is any point at all in telling us we need to reach out to homophobes and bigots, to the people who run the churches that abuse our youth and shove us out the doors, that have brainwashed our parents into rejecting us, that tell us they "love" us while they knife us in the hearts with their laws?

Why don't you tell them to reach out to us? We're the ones who have been wronged and harmed, disenfranchised, electro-shocked, had our kids taken away in ugly custody battles, lost our homes when our partner died, been thrown out of the hospital rooms of our lovers, had wills overturned and benefits denied. We're the ones who had our equality thrown up for a popular vote, and whose rights are denied us in the constitutions of 29 states. Telling us to reach out to them is like saying battered women need to reach out to their abusers, or children to the priest who molested them.

You lecture us not to hold this against Obama, but newsflash: at least for me, this has nothing to do with Obama. I knew he was regressive on my rights when I supported him; he always was, as was every viable presidential candidate. I also knew he had some weird idea that his religious beliefs were some valid explanation or even justification for his views on my civil rights. I'd like to see a Democrat get elected who can be for marriage equality and doesn't have to be a devout Christian, but I live in the reality based community and none, absolutely none, of this was any kind of surprise to me. I'm not a sulking scorned supporter who thinks Obama owes me something, and my support for him has not changed.

I think she captures a lot of the pain and anger very well, as well as why this matters.

She also explains why the "reach out, make some compromises, be patient" lectures only intensify the pain and anger. I understand the need for patience in any political struggle but when you are lecturing the victims of oppression to reach out and make compromises it somehow rings a little, well, smug and sanctimonious. Hows about you reach out when I'm swinging a baseball bat at YOUR head? See, it doesn't work too well.

Warren's not swinging baseball bats, you say? No, but he preaches a worldview in which gay-bashing makes sense. And just because he does a lot of really good social ministry does not mean his theology isn't bugfuck twisted. Because of his role in Proposition 8, we not only perceive him as our oppressor, he IS our oppressor.

So don't expect us to be happy, be patient, or shut up.

--the BB

He's still a sex-obsessed asshole

Ken Starr, I mean.

The sponsors of Proposition 8 asked the California Supreme Court on Friday to nullify the marriages of the estimated 18,000 same-sex couples who exchanged vows before voters approved the ballot initiative that outlawed gay unions.

The Yes on 8 campaign filed a brief arguing that because the new law holds that only marriages between a man and a woman are recognized or valid in California, the state can no longer recognize the existing same-sex unions.

"Proposition 8's brevity is matched by its clarity. There are no conditional clauses, exceptions, exemptions or exclusions," reads the brief co-written by Pepperdine University law school dean Kenneth Starr, the former independent counsel who investigated President Bill Clinton....

The measure's backers announced Friday that Starr, a former federal judge and U.S. solicitor general, had signed on as their lead counsel and would argue the cases.

From the Sacramento Bee

And some people think we are overreacting to Rick Warren. I think they fail to grasp that he is part of a much larger whole and that he embodies it for us.

Now, I'm not kicking Obama to the curb over this, but I am ticked. I am in a "wait and see" mode overall. But if I were an Obama fund-raiser, I would not want to be calling me any time in the immediate future.

I would also like to see the media and progressives respond quite firmly whenever anyone pulls out this "marriage has always been between one man and one woman" line by saying, "That's not true." Because it isn't. Not even in the Bible. Perhaps especially not in the Bible. (700 wives and 300 concubines for the man who built the Temple in Jerusalem, for instance.) We need to make it known, as clearly and as loudly as necessary that some things are simply not true.

And granting falsehoods equal time with truth is not fair and balanced; it's stupid, disingenuous, and perpetrates gross harm on public discourse.

Did I mention that Kenneth Starr is a sex-obsessed asshole?

h/t to eugene

No, I'm not gonna get conciliatory here - updated (2x)

The furor (whether in a teapot or not) has reached the stage where Obama's defense of picking Rick Warren makes it into the Google news headlines.

It certainly rages in the comments on my friends' blogs and in some of the major progressive blogs.

Obama said this today:

I am fierce advocate for equality for gay and -- well, let me start by talking about my own views. I think it is no secret that I am a fierce advocate for equality for gay and lesbian Americans. It is something I have been consistent on and something I intend to continue to be consistent on during my presidency.

What I've also said is that it is important for America to come together even though we may have disagreements on certain social issues.

And I would note that a couple of years ago I was invited to Rick Warren's church to speak, despite his awareness that I held views entirely contrary to his when it came to gay and lesbian rights, when it came to issues like abortion.

Nevertheless, I had an opportunity to speak, and that dialog, I think, is a part of what my campaign's been all about, that we're never going to agree on every single issue. What we have to do is create an atmosphere where we can disagree without being disagreeable, and then focus on those things that we hold in common as Americans. So Rick Warren has been invited to speak, Dr. Joseph Lowery -- who has deeply contrasting views to Rick Warren about a whole host of issues -- is also speaking.

I do believe we need a larger perspective and a long-term one. I also believe that winning equal rights is a long, hard struggle that is not accomplished overnight.

I also believe we don't have to take it anymore.

John Aravosis, one of the most outspoken on this issue (he has post after post on it) writes:

It's odd, and therefore telling, that Obama considers all of us equals, yet he only seems to reach out to those who bash gays, and not those who bash blacks, or Jews, or people with disabilities, or any other member of America's civil rights community.

Why is that?

Good question.

I know there is more to Rick Warren than his homophobia and misogyny and overall smarminess. He has actually done some important ministry in areas that need attention. But he still remains a powerful, wealthy bigot who equates gay marriage with incest and pedophilia in moral terms. He also plays loose with the truth (McCain's "cone of silence" in the political sphere or the utterly false assertion that all cultures and all religions have defined marriage as between one man and one woman for the past five thousand years--hasn't he effing read Genesis or 1 Kings?). He put his influence, his face, his imprimatur, and his energy into revoking human rights in my native state.

So why don't we just get some preacher from the KKK (I won't go so far as the Aryan Nation) to give the invocation? Don't we want them to feel welcome at the table too? Will it be nicely balanced if we have prayers from a Holocaust denier AND a female rabbi? Wouldn't that be a nice statement about inclusivity even when people disagree? If you have a rabbi up there too, how could American Jewry find it problematic? Lots of lovely differing voices!

We know that queers are one minority you can still make fun of and kick around (or beat to death in a remote area or urban center).

How do we make that unacceptable?


UPDATE:

The number of reported attacks against LGBT people increased 24 percent in 2007 over 2006, and they were expected to jump in 2008, said Sharon Stapel, executive director of the New York City Anti-Violence Project.
-- Associated Press

h/t pico at Daily Kos

UPDATE 2:

Suicide statistics are significantly higher among gay youth than they are among straight youth. I was lucky; I survived; many gay youth do not. I eventually began to confront what I had been taught to believe about God. The initial spark came when my best friend, and then girlfriend, told me that she didn't believe God hated me. That she believed that if I was gay that God made me that way. Before her, I had never heard anyone who was Christian say they believed that. I didn't know that any Christians existed that didn't believe homosexuality was evil. And though it was a painful process, from that moment on, I began to come to accept my being gay.

But it was hateful teachings from people who preached just like Warren does that planted in me the seeds of fear and hatred that led to me nearly killing myself. That's why Obama's using Warren to pray to God on his behalf for the inauguration ceremony hurts so much. You might not think so because you yourself have never experienced that level of religiously born self-hatred. But I tell you, as one who has directly experienced it, Obama is giving legitimacy to homophobia.

--vacanthook in "The effects of legitimized homophobia."
[Emphasis mine]

--the BB

Special rights? - updated

I had a visit from the blogger at Holy Hell (The News That Frustrates And, Or Scares The Batcrap Out Of Me) who responded to the sidebar item above with comments about Prop 8 and the subsequent protests that include the following:

You, the homosexual, are not any less restricted in marriage than I, the heterosexual am.

You have the same rights in marriage as I do, no more, no less.

You ARE demanding special rights.

I believe this is a major case of missing the point. Those who desire the legal status of marriage are not asking for fewer restrictions in marriage than straights. They are asking for exactly the same rights, no more, no less. BUT THEY DO NOT HAVE THEM. Which is why it is about equal rights and not special rights.

How can one conclude that gays have the same rights in marriage as others when they cannot marry? The middle sentence above flies in the face of the current situation, except in those very few states that allow same-sex couples to marry. In the vast majority of the United States it simply is not true.

Very few (percentage wise) homosexuals have been denied employment, housing or health care because they are homosexual.

Since the passage of proposition 8 church services have been interrupted invaded by condom throwing, cursing, spitting homosexuals.

White powder has been sent to a Mormon church and a Book of Mormon burnt on the stoop of another Mormon church.

Businesses and individuals have been targeted and harassed for their support in terms of monies for prop 8.

When black Americans were fighting for their Civil Rights it was because they actually were being denied rights afforded to every American.

You, the homosexual are not.

I don't know about percentages but I know that I was once denied housing (in West Hollywood, no less) in a "family" apartment building. I do not condone interrupting worship services and I'd like to know how many instances of this have occurred. This sort of thing quickly becomes the matter of urban legend and multiplies. I vehemently disapprove of white powder being sent in the mail, which is a crime.

There is a garbled distinction made between the struggle of African-Americans for civil rights and the LGBT struggle for civil rights. I don't believe in homogenizing oppression and playing the "who suffered the most" game because that sets us all against each other. Dr King said that no one is free until all are free and I am willing to go with that. He has been one of my heroes since I was in high school.

Intriguingly, the writer quotes Malcolm X ("by any means necessary") as a parallel to alleged (and some real) actions by gay protesters and then continues as though Malcolm X in his fiercest period (not to mention the Black Panthers) was not part of it:

You’ll kindly look back into our still fairly recent history and take notice as to how black Americans fought for their Civil Rights in comparison to how the homosexual movement demands their perceived Civil Rights by way of threats and intimidation.

The homosexual movement has conducted itself in a way far more similar to the Klu Klux Klan than to the black American who sought Civil Liberties.

My straight friend, the LGBT movement has not been lynching or shooting, so you might want to back off that analogy. One burning Book of Mormon is not quite a spate of cross burnings on lawns throughout many communities.

And I proudly boycott. I rather remember that being part of the civil rights struggle, the fight on behalf of migrant workers, and attempts to dismantle apartheid. Just saying.

Thanks for stopping by. I just think your understanding both of what has been and what is might be skewed.

Update:

There are some great comments by Rabbi Denise L. Eger at Susan Russell's blog.

--the BB

Takng a courageous stance

Through a diary by Andrew Callahan at Daily Kos I see that a number of Mormons are writing letters, signing petitions, and in some cases formally resigning from the church over the promotion of discrimination through sponsorship of Prop 8.

Check out the blog Signing for Something where you can read this:

Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have been taught, “We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government …” (Doctrine and Covenants 134:9). Recent action taken by the First Presidency in support of a constitutional amendment in the State of California has rallied us to the cause of freedom.

My prayers, support, and gratitude for these brave souls.
--the BB

NO on Prop 8 - you can help defeat it - updated

Learn about Prop 8 here.

Donate to help defeat Prop 8 here.

Consider taking action by looking here.

The proponents of Prop 8, who want to deny same-sex couples the right to marry, have marshaled all their forces and are working very hard to promote it. Not long ago it seemed easily doomed to defeat since most Californians are not fond of discrimination. The efforts of the Mormon Church, the Catholic Church, and other totalitarian religious organizations have made it possible that Prop 8 might pass. We need all the help we can get to defeat it.

I don't live there any more but I tossed my $100 in because it's the state I grew up in, came out in, and fell in love in.

Stop bigotry now.

Thanks.

h/t to Jeff Lieber who compares today's fuss to an earlier generation's fuss over "miscegenation."

[I have known and loved many wonderful people who belong to totalitarian religious organizations. I do not judge individuals by the institution any more than I would lay all the crimes of the Bush administration at the feet of every American.]

UPDATE:
Here's the headline from Americablog:
Out-of-state Mormons pouring millions to defeat gays in California. And they're succeeding.

Here is the beginning of an article from the Associated Press:

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — Mormons are being asked by their church leaders to step up their already considerable efforts to pass a ballot initiative to ban same-sex marriage in California.

Senior elders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints made a televised appeal to members Wednesday night and laid out a week-by-week strategy for boosting Mormon involvement before the Nov. 4 election.

They urged Mormons to man phone banks, distribute campaign materials and intensify voter registration efforts during an hourlong meeting, which was broadcast to church buildings in California, Utah, Hawaii and Idaho.

The Mormon church is part of a coalition of conservative groups backing Proposition 8, which would amend the state constitution to limit marriage to a man and a woman and thereby overturn the California Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage.

"What we're about is the work of the Lord, and he will bless you for your involvement," Elder M. Russell Ballard said during the broadcast.

What a sanctimonious expletive deleted.

I know they're scared shitless that all those cute young Mormon husbands will be seduced into lives of sodomy given half a chance but really, isn't this overkill? Do we need a "Christian" Taliban here in the United States?

--the BB