By Kit-Bacon Gressitt

There’s a big old brouhaha about Arizona’s new anti-illegal alien law, effortlessly passed by the state legislature and signed into law by Governor Jan Brewer on 23 April. The law relies on police officer discretion to determine if there is reasonable suspicion (this exists in the ethereal zone between a hunch and the cold, hard circumstances of probable cause) that someone stopped for, say, a traffic violation or for loitering in low-end attire in a high-end neighborhood, is in the United States illegally. (There are some additional provisions that, all told, make the law some rather fascist reading.) Critics say such street-level discretion inevitably leads to racial profiling, something we abhor in this great nation of ours — unless it’s the other guy being profiled, the guy whose looks we don’t like.

Along with other Constitution-loving patriots, I must take issue with Senate Bill 1070, and having various family members who’ve dabbling with undocumented immigrant status, starting back in the Seventeenth Century and continuing into the not too distant Twentieth, is a darn good motivator. Given that heritage, my kiddo and I figured the only sane response to Arizona’s los jefés locos (that’s illegal-alien Spanish for “xenophobic crazies in charge of Arizona”) is to go for the illegal-alien look and head to the Grand Canyon State so we can be stopped by the local gendarmes (that’s illegal-alien French for “police”) and get arrested for failure to carry legal documentation of our status — “Heil, Ausländer! Zeigen Sie mir Ihre Papiere, du Juden!” (that’s illegal-alien Nazi for “Yo, aliens! Show me your papers, you Jews!”). Then we can make a big old stink about the racist law that will lead to its being overturned, and we can shuffle home to sunny Southern California to watch our favorite novellas.

So, we figured, we just have to look like aliens, which shouldn’t be too difficult for us. We’re used to looking different, what with Katie’s genetic olio and the dominant sub-culture in Fallbrook, where my liberal lapel pins serve as bull’s-eyes for right-wingers. And, upon exploring various closets and drawers, we came up with a pretty good option: a very nice, very simple illegal-alien French look — beret and faux fishing shirt (“faux,” that’s also one of those illegal-alien words). Katie modeled the look for us, and it seemed a tidy little snapshot of an alien.

Hmmm, but maybe too tidy? Too pretty? Too appealing to members of the white supremacy? And, although our fearless leaders felt compelled in a moment of pique to rename their fries, Americans really like French stuff — their fashions, their food and wine, their kisses — we even co-opted their Eiffel Tower for Las Vegas! So, nope, we decided we can’t rely on a French facade to get us stopped and tossed in the hoosegow (yet another illegal-alien word, from the Spanish juzgado, court).

Instead, we thought, a more practical, less sexy approach might be more likely to produce the arrest we’re after — which led us to Canadians! They’re much easier — all we need is earflaps and a six-pack of Moosehead, eh?

But rats! We realized we could be too easily mistaken for someone from Washington, Minnesota, upstate New York, any of the northern states. And even though they’re just not quite as cool as Americans, we still like the Canadians. So, no, this will never do. Double rats!

We were getting a little frustrated, and we did briefly consider an ET mask, but we really didn’t want to make a mockery of our campaign to bring down what amounts to a Down With Brown People Law, oh no, no, no. But wait! Down With Brown? Down with Brown!

In a flash of inspiration, we got it: Surely there is no better way to demand the attention of Arizona’s law enforcement officers seeking illegal aliens than to show up in brown face — brown face! — it’s perfect! ¡Perfecto! Parfait! Perfekt! Eh?

Yep, brown skin, sullen glare, gang sign — definitely illegal-alien material. We’d stumbled on the perfectly malevolent mask of the bandido, the savage Mexican criminal hell-bent on sucking up our social services and spewing out babies into constitutionally protected citizenship (unless Rep. Duncan D. Hunter, CD-52, successfully “clarifies” the Fourteenth Amendment and sends the U.S.-born offspring of illegal aliens packing with their mamis and papis).

In the meantime, it’s off to Arizona we go, and we encourage all brown-loving people to join us. We can caravan, do on-the-road civil disobedience training, print leaflets in the back of a psychedelic van and get high on silkscreen cleaner fluid, sing Bob Dylan and Woody Guthrie, and do a little strategic planning for the subsequent round of protests, when Arizona spins its next bit of xenophobia — legislation to ban the burqa. At least that look will be a lot easier to emulate.

©2010 Kit-Bacon Gressitt

By Kit-Bacon Gressitt

Many moons ago, I was the token feminist columnist for what was essentially a libertarian newspaper, and the boys were pretty accommodating. They let me serve on their editorial board, write their editorials, even edit their editorial page — sans title, of course, because I was, after all, a damn liberal. And a damn willful girl. Their fessing up to the job I was doing — despite its being only until they could find another nice boy who’d work for bad coffee and book review copies (Smoking, Drinking & Screwing was one of my favorite acquisitions) — wouldn’t have been good for the paper’s conservative image or for all the publisher’s boy-centric golf outings and cocktail hours in local sports team owners’ boxes.

Regardless, I had a hell of a good time: Some readers loved me, some hated me, some wanted me dead. Most interesting, though, of all the reactions I received was the rumor that wended its way to the newsroom one sizzling summer day as I was bemoaning a divorce — that I had left a “perfectly good little husband” to become a lesbian.

Not the stuff of front page news, but this tidbit did explain a lot at the time: the men who scurried away from my provocative path; the puffy-sleeved, calico-covered Bible-toting women who shrinkingly avoided eye contact, apparently for fear of exposure to the abject horror of pure female sexuality.

Nonetheless, I considered that homosexuality might become me, and I wrote about the rumor in a column, rolling this new persona around my mind’s tongue and relishing the unique flavors it might lend my life.

No longer would my social flirtations be perceived as platonic banter with the strong women who intrigued me. Instead, they would be known as the front they were for my lust for female flesh. I could graduate from the Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays contingent to join the Dykes on Bikes at the next Gay Pride Parade.

I wrote of the supposed need to pin a warning to my chest when visiting my daughter’s elementary school — Mind Your Children — because hearsay dictated my primary purpose in life would be to convert them all to the homosexual lifestyle, my own daughter, the first protégé on my list.

Of course those readers who had previously informed me of the vigils they held, praying to their loving God to forgive me the error of my liberal ways and redirect me to a heavenly path, would instead shun me for the abomination I surely had become in the eyes of that very same God. (Amazing how a little shift in orientation can affect the Almighty. Kind of fickle for a deity though, eh?)

Despite my pending condemnation to Hell’s fires for the sexually perverse, this new role did bear with it some unexpected pleasures, not the least of which was the power to cast fear in the hearts of entrenched conservative homophobes. I anticipated the delicious moment when I would lean in just a little too close to tell my tight-sphinctered Assemblymember that I thought I might like to put my lips on women’s lips, if you know what I mean. Thank you for that image, Sweet Baby Jeeeesus!

All told, I was pleased with the possibilities this intended slur brought me, although I refused to declare affiliation with any orientation. Still, I embraced the suggestion proudly and lovingly — along with all the guys and gals it included as targets of its assault. Because, as my mother taught me, it’s better to be looked over than overlooked — no matter if it’s with loathing. But even more interesting than the rumor itself was that the topic of my sexual orientation didn’t end there, oh no.

It’s human nature, I suppose. People hear what they want to hear, read what they want to read, and when the writer offers ambiguity — for the sake of a lesson, in hope of enlightenment emerging from confusion — many a reader is adamant in his or her certainty that a thing is, in fact, so or not so.

And, so, it turns out there were those who read my column and celebrated my coming out as though that made me more of a sister to them. There were those who demanded clarification of my ambiguity, praying for affirmation of the worst so they could put stamps on their appropriately outraged letters to the editor. And there were those who jumped right in and reviled me for revealing such a despicable, profane intimacy in a “family” newspaper, from which, by the way, I should be promptly fired — for being openly gay.

It was quite an array of interpretations, yet I was adamant that one’s sexual orientation didn’t matter, at least until foreplay reared its head. But lo those many moons ago, the message that reverberated back to me was that it still did: They asked, I refused to tell, and they were pissed. They wanted to know, straights and gays alike. It was a good lesson, for me at least.

Today, the reaction would likely be different; actually, I suspect the rumor would never get started. And that’s progress, albeit inadequate progress, because still we allow sexual orientation to define and divide us, and I wonder when we will live in a world in which parents of gays and lesbians do not have to group together for support or offer that support to young people whose own parents have rejected them. I wonder when we will live in a world where mothers and fathers are regarded for their ability to nurture, no matter their sexuality. A world where homosexuals approach the altar just as straight couples, still gnashing their teeth over seating charts and with legal marriage licenses in figurative hand. A world where politicians accept and salute the gays in our military — serving with honor, distinction and dedication — and acknowledge they have the right to do so honestly.

As for me, though, I’m still not telling — and I won’t until we’ve learned to stop asking. I’m willful like that.

©2010 Kit-Bacon Gressitt

Writers

Want to submit your work to Excuse Me, I’m Writing for the sheer joy of having an audience? Email your original fiction, creative nonfiction and poetry — 2,000 words maximum — in an MS Word document or in RTF to kb@kbgressitt.com. If we publish your work, you hold all rights, including bragging.

By Kit-Bacon Gressitt

Outside your local grocery store, a fellow wearing a bedraggled Santa Claus hat stands by a folding table festooned with political slogans. As he fumbles five or six clipboards, you’re thinking you wouldn’t want him dating your daughter, and then he thrusts a clipboard into your path.

“Wanna sign this initiative petition to protect local voter control?” he asks. “Or how about stopping sexual predators? Or religious freedom — do you support religious freedom? Just sign here.”

Religious freedom is a little iffy these days, with all the folks who demand it for themselves while they condemn the rest of us to sizzle in hell in perpetuity. So you look a little closer and read that what the initiative would actually do is exempt Bible-based speech from California’s current hate speech restrictions. This means all those charmers from Kansas’ Westboro Baptist Church, who haunt military funerals and communities across the country with signs that read “Thank God for Dead Soldiers,” “God Hates Jews” and “God Hates Fags,” could incite violence in California with their epithets — sans repercussions.

“Well, now, that’s misleading,” you say, “and gross.” But the petitioner is busy pushing a clipboard at someone else.

So you take a look at the petition for stopping sexual predators. Those bastards sure need to be stopped — with extreme prejudice. Problem is, you start reading it and discover the sexual predator language is a front for the next in a long line of failed biennial attempts to force parental notification of abortion on pregnant teens and their healthcare providers.

“You know, you should be calling this what it is, a parental notification proposal.”

“Huh?” he replies dully.

You decide you wouldn’t even want him dating your worst enemy’s daughter. Nonetheless, you check out the local voter control initiative, because you suspect you and your fellow bucolic burg dwellers couldn’t do any worse than the state legislature. You ask the dullard how local control will be accomplished.

He says, “Uh, it’s complicated. Er, I don’t know, and I have to keep moving — I get paid by the signature.”

“If it’s such a good idea, can’t we get volunteers to collect signatures — Fallbrook volunteers from among Fallbrook voters?” you ask. “And how can you represent something you don’t understand?”

Now you’re a little suspicious, so you ask who’s paying him to gather signatures, who’s funding the campaigns, and he says, “They don’t tell us that stuff.”

“Well, I have a right to know, don’t I?” you mutter as he ignores you to body block the next shopper before he makes it to the grocery store door.

And this is much of what’s wrong with California’s initiative process.

The grassroots citizen initiative was adopted in 1911 in response to the common perception that rail and land barons controlled the state legislature, neglecting the needs and will of the citizenry. The California Constitution defines the electors’ right to propose and vote on constitutional amendments or statutes, bypassing the state legislature and going directly to a vote of the people. “Direct democracy” it’s called, and though it’s a highly valued concept, it has degenerated to a big business that caters to moneyed special- and single-interest groups (often from outside of California), whose proposals range from the cynically ridiculous to the ridiculously complex. In a recent interview, former State Senator Lucy Killea, who worked on an unsuccessful initiative reform effort while in office in the 1990s, explained why reform is so important.

“It’s become commercialized. You’re not getting people voting for an initiative because they want it or because they’re informed on the issue, but because there’s a young man at the grocery store with a whole list of things. Some of these people will have eight or nine different measures — some of them even opposing each other. It’s really too bad. It’s become a business for people; they treat it as a business. It’s the buying of votes.”

To Killea’s point, the examples reflected above are actual initiatives: the Local Voter Control and Government Accountability Act — enjoy reading its 10 pages of statutese; the Parental Notification, Child and Teen Safety, and Stop Predators Act, the introductory letter for which is signed by a John Smith without an address, a probable cover for Jim Holman, publisher of the San Diego Reader, who just can’t leave it alone; and the Religious Freedom Act, intended to “secure and perpetuate the blessings of Almighty God for the people of California.” You can read more about this initiative’s sponsors at YesJesusIsLord.org.

These initiatives are only three of a whopping 91 submitted to date to the California Attorney General’s Office for 2010 elections. Of the 91, four have qualified for the June or November 2010 ballots by acquiring the necessary number of valid signatures, four failed to qualify, three were withdrawn, 37 are in circulation, and the rest are pending.

In the meantime, those initiatives primarily funded by something other than grassroots supporters have incurred costs that are making money for members of the initiative campaign elite, commonly known as the “Initiative Industrial Complex” — political and campaign consultants, attorneys, list brokers, and firms that specialize in petition signature gathering, media, polling, public relations and direct mail. Most often, only those initiatives wrung through the complex actually make it to the ballot — the others don’t have the money to pay for such success.

But wouldn’t it be nice if success actually looked like volunteers — from California — who believe in the issues they’re promoting; independent judicial review of proposed initiatives — to weed out the idiotic, hateful and deceitful initiatives; online petition signing — to cut out at least some of the Initiative Industrial Complex money grubbers; and full disclosure of initiatives’ sponsors and contributors.

Until that vision is achieved, beware what you sign.

Although, as luck would have it, there is an initiative-reform initiative coming to your grocery store soon, the “Grass Roots Initiative Reform Act.” But if that one’s too esoteric for you, you could always consider the 2010 California Marriage Protection Act. It’s not another Prop. 8 diatribe against gay marriage; it is writer John Marcotte’s satirical response to the proposition. He has jumped into the “protect marriage” revival tent by proposing to “safeguard marriage from the evils of divorce.”

Marcotte’s campaign website is laugh-out-loud funny — but yet another scream for initiative reform.

Love,
K-B

©2009 Kit-Bacon Gressitt

(Westboro Baptist Church image via a Creative Commons license. Marriage graphic courtesy of RescueMarriage.org.)

By Kit-Bacon Gressitt

On November 20, a group of self-described “prominent Christian clergy, ministry leaders and scholars” held a press conference to announce their new manifesto, the “Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience.”

The manifesto was written by Chuck Colson, founder of Prison Fellowship Ministries and one of the folks convicted of misbehavior related to the Watergate caper; Dr. Robert George, on leave from Princeton University’s James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions and National Organization for Marriage board chairman, and Dr. Timothy George, dean of Beeson Divinity School at Samford University.

Why did the fellows write the thing? Well, this is interesting. When Colson appeared on former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee’s Fox News show to promote the declaration, Huckabee asked a similar question: “Why do we need something that sort of defines the line in the sand for people of Christendom?”

Colson replied, “Everybody blames the Christians for starting the culture wars. That’s not true, Governor. What really happened is the liberals started to say we are going to take away rights which we’ve had since the founding of this nation, rights which are intrinsic to what makes a good society and a just society, rights which are vital to our Christian faith.”

Yikes. This is also interesting because I’m a liberal, but if I were trying to take away Christians’ rights, none of my siblings would speak to me. Hmmm.

Colson went on to say: “We released a document which is remarkable because it is signed by 150 leaders from the Orthodox church, the Roman Catholic Church and from leaders of the evangelical world, all of us saying three things: We want to affirm the sanctity of human life. … The second thing is the sanctity of the family because the family is the basic building block of any good society historically, and the third thing is, if you continue to assault the family, continue to assault life, continue to assault our liberties, we will ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar’s, but under no circumstances render to Caesar what is God’s.”

At first I wasn’t sure what Colson was talking about, and it occurred to me that garnering the support of only 150 of the thousands of Christian leaders in the country really isn’t worth a press conference.

But then Huckabee, who was practically squirming out of his seat (was it excitement or an enlarged prostate?), compared the document to one of Christianity’s more momentous — and divisive — occasions: “I can’t remember of anything this significant happening in my lifetime! In fact I’m thinking the posting of the 95 theses on the door at Wittenberg by Martin Luther may be the equivalent, where the community of faith says, ‘This is it. We make a stand.’ This is a bold stand, but what’s unique about this [is] Catholics, Evangelicals, Orthodox coming together. They normally can’t get together for a cup of coffee!”

It’s nice to know Huckabee has a sense of humor, but if you actually read the document, you realize that Colson’s language in the interview is code. What the declaration actually says is that his group is anti-abortion and anti-same-sex marriage (Colson refers to homosexuals as “people with that disorder”), and they want to be able to say and do whatever they believe is in keeping with their faith, regardless of the law and the consequences — although they indicate they are willing to suffer the consequences of their actions if there are any. This is old news, but they are darn adamant: “We will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriage or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family.”

Yep, old news — and my understanding of the U.S. Constitution is that these folks already have the rights they are demanding and no one’s trying to take them away. Of course, if you don’t want to perform an abortion or dispense birth control, it would be wise not to accept a job with those responsibilities. And if you own commercial property that is rented to the public for special events such as weddings, expect to be held to the same standards as any other commercial property owner — even if you are a church. But other than that, you can practice your faith as you see fit and you can certainly declare most anything you want.

So, why the 4,700-word prayer for deliverance from evil’s with which they are not afflicted — a preemptive attack, paranoia, everyone else is holding press conferences for non-news idiocy, so why not?

I dunno, but it is kind of interesting, although I would never have heard of the manifesto had I not been on the email lists of several extremist groups that keep me much better informed than is comfortable. As of one week post-press conference, a Google News search of the declaration produced less than 200 hits, but a Web search produced 697,000. And the declaration’s promoters, who are asking “believers and non-believers” to lend their names to the electronic document, have managed to reel in 180,000 signatures — not stupendous, but not bad. However, I am embarrassed to admit that one of the signatures is mine — using the pseudonym “Ido Notagree.” I wonder if they’ll condemn me to hell for this? Or maybe they’ll take a kinder approach and just pray for my wanton soul, which would be okay, as I figure I can use all the prayers I can get. I don’t care whose invisible friend hears them.

Love,
K-B

The Preamble and the Declaration are below, but beware the Preamble: The fellows’ take on Christianity’s history is an adept whitewashing of the church and its faithfuls’ atrocities, tyrannies, denials of religious liberty to non-Christians and the wrong kind of Christians, and rejections of the sanctity of life — with a single-phrase nod: “While fully acknowledging the imperfections and shortcomings of Christian institutions and communities in all ages…” Regardless, you might consider checking out the whole enchilada.

Preamble

Christians are heirs of a 2,000-year tradition of proclaiming God’s word, seeking justice in our societies, resisting tyranny, and reaching out with compassion to the poor, oppressed and suffering.

While fully acknowledging the imperfections and shortcomings of Christian institutions and communities in all ages, we claim the heritage of those Christians who defended innocent life by rescuing discarded babies from trash heaps in Roman cities and publicly denouncing the Empire’s sanctioning of infanticide. We remember with reverence those believers who sacrificed their lives by remaining in Roman cities to tend the sick and dying during the plagues, and who died bravely in the coliseums rather than deny their Lord.

After the barbarian tribes overran Europe, Christian monasteries preserved not only the Bible but also the literature and art of Western culture. It was Christians who combated the evil of slavery: Papal edicts in the 16^th and 17^th centuries decried the practice of slavery and first excommunicated anyone involved in the slave trade; evangelical Christians in England, led by John Wesley and William Wilberforce, put an end to the slave trade in that country. Christians under Wilberforce’s leadership also formed hundreds of societies for helping the poor, the imprisoned, and child laborers chained to machines.

In Europe, Christians challenged the divine claims of kings and successfully fought to establish the rule of law and balance of governmental powers, which made modern democracy possible. And in America, Christian women stood at the vanguard of the suffrage movement. The great civil rights crusades of the 1950s and 60s were led by Christians claiming the Scriptures and asserting the glory of the image of God in every human being regardless of race, religion, age or class.

This same devotion to human dignity has led Christians in the last decade to work to end the dehumanizing scourge of human trafficking and sexual slavery, bring compassionate care to AIDS sufferers in Africa, and assist in a myriad of other human rights causes – from providing clean water in developing nations to providing homes for tens of thousands of children orphaned by war, disease and gender discrimination.

Like those who have gone before us in the faith, Christians today are called to proclaim the Gospel of costly grace, to protect the intrinsic dignity of the human person and to stand for the common good. In being true to its own calling, the call to discipleship, the church through service to others can make a profound contribution to the public good.

Declaration

We, as Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical Christians, have gathered, beginning in New York on September 28, 2009, to make the following declaration, which we sign as individuals, not on behalf of our organizations, but speaking to and from our communities. We act together in obedience to the one true God, the triune God of holiness and love, who has laid total claim on our lives and by that claim calls us with believers in all ages and all nations to seek and defend the good of all who bear his image. We set forth this declaration in light of the truth that is grounded in Holy Scripture, in natural human reason (which is itself, in our view, the gift of a beneficent God), and in the very nature of the human person. We call upon all people of goodwill, believers and non-believers alike, to consider carefully and reflect critically on the issues we here address as we, with St. Paul, commend this appeal to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God.

While the whole scope of Christian moral concern, including a special concern for the poor and vulnerable, claims our attention, we are especially troubled that in our nation today the lives of the unborn, the disabled, and the elderly are severely threatened; that the institution of marriage, already buffeted by promiscuity, infidelity and divorce, is in jeopardy of being redefined to accommodate fashionable ideologies; that freedom of religion and the rights of conscience are gravely jeopardized by those who would use the instruments of coercion to compel persons of faith to compromise their deepest convictions.

Because the sanctity of human life, the dignity of marriage as a union of husband and wife, and the freedom of conscience and religion are foundational principles of justice and the common good, we are compelled by our Christian faith to speak and act in their defense. In this declaration we affirm: 1) the profound, inherent, and equal dignity of every human being as a creature fashioned in the very image of God, possessing inherent rights of equal dignity and life; 2) marriage as a conjugal union of man and woman, ordained by God from the creation, and historically understood by believers and non-believers alike, to be the most basic institution in society and; 3) religious liberty, which is grounded in the character of God, the example of Christ, and the inherent freedom and dignity of human beings created in the divine image.

We are Christians who have joined together across historic lines of ecclesial differences to affirm our right — and, more importantly, to embrace our obligation — to speak and act in defense of these truths. We pledge to each other, and to our fellow believers, that no power on earth, be it cultural or political, will intimidate us into silence or acquiescence. It is our duty to proclaim the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in its fullness, both in season and out of season. May God help us not to fail in that duty.

Read more here.

By Kit-Bacon Gressitt

My kid hates her new cell phone. I know better than to suggest gratitude for having any phone at all: Life is different now — cell phones are a human right.

What my dear, darling daughter doesn’t know is that Verizon, our previous provider and purveyor of her preferred way-cool phone, is evil and Working Assets’ CREDO Mobile is not. I recently chose to pay for a minimally lesser phone and receive the benefits of a socially conscious corporation that gives to progressive nonprofits, rather than to make my monthly payments to a company that gives to political expediency. Verizon’s 2008 contributions list reads like a wingtipped lobbyist’s Blackberry address book. CREDO’s list reads like the bumper of a ’68 VW bus.

I like this; my kid will come to appreciate it; and, in the meantime, I can count on CREDO to march stalwartly at the forefront of issues near and dear to my heart. For example, Verizon, T-Mobile and AT&T would never dare lead a campaign to send coat hangers to the 20 pro-choice Democrats who voted last week for Representative Bart Stupak’s anti-choice, anti-abortion amendment to the House of Representatives healthcare bill.

CREDO would and is — because the Stupak amendment would prohibit healthcare insurance companies that participate in the bill’s proposed insurance exchange from covering abortion services. This is a huge, honking, infuriating step back for women’s reproductive rights — and an unacceptable one. Nonetheless, the 20 purportedly pro-choice Democrats voted to attach the amendment to the bill.

Damn them, bastards all — and I don’t refer to their parentage but, rather, to their appendages: Every one of those mothers has a penis, and every one of them needs his head examined. Just look at them, starting with California Representative Joe Baca. He received a 100 percent pro-choice rating from Planned Parenthood, yet he voted for Stupak’s assault on women’s rights. Is he nuts?

So now what do we do?

Well, I like CREDO’s approach:

In a backroom deal brokered to get the votes necessary to pass the House health care bill, one amendment was allowed an up-or-down vote on the floor. That amendment, the Stupak amendment — which passed on a vote of 240 to 194 — is the most serious assault on abortion rights in a generation.

What’s more, according to FiveThirtyEight.com, 20 of the 64 Democrats who joined Republicans to pass the measure are nominally pro-choice. …

Why did pro-choice Democrats vote to approve the Stupak amendment? We’re telling these 20 Democrats — all men — to reconsider their vote and urge Congressional leadership to do everything they can to ensure the health care bill that comes out of committee does not take us back to an era of coat hangers and back alley abortions.

Sign our petition and we’ll send a coat hanger to the 20 formerly pro-choice Democrats who voted to take away women’s rights. …

These 20 formerly pro-choice Democrats need to hear that it is NOT ok to throw women under the bus when it comes to passing health care.

My kid is too young to truly understand all it has taken to win and protect reproductive rights; sadly, she is now poised to learn — and to live with the specter of self-administered, coat-hanger abortions. So my thanks to CREDO for its bold response to the House of Representatives’ disregard for women, a response that will surely elicit some attacks.

In the meantime, I’m going to entertain my own little malevolent thoughts about the turncoat 20: Having their heads examined is too kind. A good head shrinking is more like it — and National Geographic has just the thing!

Love,
K-B

Rep. Joe Baca’s shrunken head — best viewed with your audio on

Vote No on 1 — Protect Marriage Equality in Maine

Brian S. Brown, Executive Director

National Organization for Marriage

20 Nassau Street, Suite 242

Princeton, NJ 08542

bbrown@nationformarriage.org

Dear Mr. Brown,

Please leave us alone. We in Maine are fiercely independent folk, and most of us believe in a participatory democracy. We attend town hall meetings, yell at one another with gusto, and come out hugging. We run our towns and our churches that way (if only the rest of our country would follow suit) and we produce such oddball phenomena as a Republican senator who votes for healthcare reform. (We are so proud of her) We individually wrestle with, and think through issues independent of party lines, the politics we grew up with, or what Joe down the road thinks.

I sat in a class of ministry students the other night, in which the planned topic of conversation, once again, was tabled, because current events issues once again, seemed more important. Once again, we discussed, at a well-imformed and learned level, and in a very loving atmosphere, the topic of legal marriage in our state of Maine. As we near the election, it is, of course, on our minds more and more. We had all listened to and participated in discussions in the workplace, at the dinner table and in the post office. We had all read editorials, Scripture, and poorly written emails. We had all prayed. We had all decided how to vote. A lot of us had already voted by absentee ballot.We all agreed that this is a critically important issue. We did NOT agree on how to vote; in fact, we were split about 50/50. We did, however, agree that we would like national organizations to (forgive me) BUTT OUT!!!

Please, Mr. Brown, leave us alone!

Sincerely,

Hunt Gressitt

Blue Hill, Maine

Mainer and WWII veteran Philip Spooner speaks for marriage equality

Support the No on 1 campaign at Protect Maine Equality.

A Gem from Keith Olbermann

Keith’s Worst Person in the World is probably for friendly audiences only — but it is darn satisfying. Thanks to Mamma Kim for sharing!

Equality California’s Win Marriage Back TV Ad Campaign

MAMMA, Middle-Aged Mothers for Marriage Equality, says sit your anti-same sex marriage friends down with a warm cookie and a cold glass of milk, and show them these videos. Then have a nice chat.

Michael and Javier

Frances and Cynthia

Ruben and Hector

From Faith In America

The Tradition and Sanctity of the Right to Marriage

“Traditional marriage” … “sanctity of marriage” … “protecting marriage.”

The next time you hear these phrases think code language – words or phrases that are used to conceal a hidden meaning or motive.

The motive of those who use these phrases is quite clear – they want to punish gay and lesbian citizens by denying not only their human dignity but their individual pursuit of happiness.

And why do they want to do that? Because their religious perspective is such that they see homosexuality as a sin, an abomination before God and therefore seeing a twisted moral appropriateness in rejecting, condemning and even discriminating against a minority group of Americans.

Some will even go as far as saying their opposition to marriage equality has nothing to with religion. That’s hardly the truth.

Everyone knows it’s all about religion — or certain church teaching to be more precise. All we have to do is take a look at the millions of dollars that the anti-gay religious establishment is pouring into Maine. It’s why those same anti-gay religious established have tried to organize North Carolina churches in support of writing discrimination into that state’s constitution.

There’s a reason why these anti-gay religious groups do not want you to think they are using your religion to oppose gay and lesbian citizens having the right to marry. It’s because religion has been misused many times in the past to deny minority groups their human dignity and equality and every time society in the end has rejected such religion-based bigotry and prejudice as wrong and morally corrupt.

And that really speaks to the crux of the anti-gay religious and political opposition to marriage equality for gay and lesbian citizens — forcing a majoritarian religious perspective on the lives of all Americans and using church teaching to look down on a particular segment of the population.

Fair-minded Americans, particularly those within faith communities, know how wrong that is.

People within faith communities understand this perhaps better than some because they are reminded every Sunday or Saturday as they sit among their Protestant, Catholic, Mormon, Muslim or Jewish peers. They understand the reason they are allowed to practice their various different forms of religious worship is because we do not live under a government that forces any particular religious belief on its citizens.

Societies have tried that before and some still do. When was the last time you met someone who wants to go live in countries ruled through theocracy.

The father of what we know as Protestantism today was Martin Luther, who challenged the majority position in his day that one state-sanctioned religious perspective should be forced upon all. Luther was not that far behind America’s founders who went to great lengths to make sure our Constitution clearly forbade the establishment of one religion over another.

History is full of examples of when majorities tried to use church teaching to justify treating others in hurtful and unkind ways.

Church teaching was used to mistreat African-Americans by promoting the notion that the Bible justified colonial and post-colonial slavery; it was used to justify saying different races should not marry; and it used to justify treating women as inferior.

And today, church teaching is again being used to look upon gay and lesbian individuals as unworthy and unequal and to deny them the human dignity of traversing life’s journey with a soulmate of their choosing.

The longest surviving tradition of marriage is having the freedom to experience life with a partner of your choosing. That is the sanctity of marriage. And it is that right which we as a society must protect.

But first, we have to make sure everyone is allowed to enjoy that right.

Learn more:

Whom God Hath Joined Together an essay by Bill Sinkford

Marriage: Who, What and Why? a sermon by Rev. Mark Gallagher

©2009 Faith In America

Repeal Prop. 8 in 2010 or 2012?

California advocates and pundits are deep in debate over when to attempt to repeal California Prop. 8, in 2010 or 2012. The anti-same-sex marriage initiative passed in November 2008 with 52.3 percent of the vote. Then the California Supreme Court heard a challenge to the measure.  And, while the Court was making its unhappy decision to uphold California’s gay marriage ban, Iowa, Maine and Vermont said go for it. Go figure.

So, now we need to determine a strategy for returning the right to Californians, and it’s proving a challenge despite other states’ success. The following links will take you to a variety of news coverage and opinion about when to pursue equal marriage rights for same-sex couples in California.

While MAMMA believes Prop. 8 was hit with the stupid stick, we also encourage the kiddies to measure twice, cut once.

2010? 2012? The Fight in California Continues

By Amita Parashar, Advocate.com
27 July 2009

Prop. 8 Opponents Mull 2010 Campaign

By Nathan Black, The Christian Post
28 July 2009

Repeal Prop 8 Leadership Summit: The Expert Point of View

By Karen Ocamb, The Bilerico Project
28 July 2009

Gays squabble over Prop 8 repeal debate

By Seth Hemmerlgarn, Bay Area Reporter
30 July 2009

Advisers urge foes of Prop. 8 not to rush

By John Marelius, San Diego Union-Tribune
03 August 2009

Repeal Prop. 8 in 2010

By Love Honor Cherish