Perry v. Schwarzenegger: What Does It All Mean?

It has been done, something that no person on either side of the gay marriage debate was expecting. A federal constitutional challenge on issues surrounding gay marriage. In the past couple months, I've noticed that a lot of people really do not understand what this trial was about and what questions were actually being decided by the judge. I think a discussion of that would be in order because it really is an interesting challenge.

A little background: In November of 2008 Proposition 8 was passed in California which amended the state's constitution limiting the word "marriage" to the traditional definition of one man and one woman. This came after, and thus overturned, an earlier holding from the California Supreme Court declaring that limiting marriage to one man and one woman was unconstitutional (under CA's constitution).

There were many problems with the proposition 8 campaign. One was described by Dale Carpenter, a Constitutional Law scholar and professor at the University of Minnesota. http://www.indegayforum.org/news/show/31740.html He wrote an article describing the issues of changing California's constitution. California law allows two different ways to change its constitution. One is through an amendment process, which simply requires a majority vote from the people. The other is called a revision, requiring a 2/3 majority from both houses of the state's legislature before introducing it to the public vote. The latter process is more difficult because of the extra legislative hurdle. Thus, it is said that the revisionary process is reserved for issues of great constitutional change (I am not using legal terms or quotes from the court, but rather describing this generally), whereas the amendment process is used for changes of less import.

What followed the passage of Prop 8 was a major legal battle about whether the change to the constitution was proper under California law. As most people already know, the California Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the Constitution's amendment was valid and Prop 8 would stand. Much of the battle was whether Prop 8 should have gone through the amendment process, or the more rigorous revision process. Although I am not sure of the actual holding, I believe the court decided that the marriage change was indeed an amendment.

Then came the unlikely team of Theodore Olson and David Boies to challenge the passage of Prop 8 under the federal Constitution. It is an interesting fact to note that these two lawyers, who are fighting together on the plaintiffs' side, were once adversaries in the famous Bush v. Gore case. Olson was President Bush's lawyer.

The plaintiffs' complaint stated, very simply, that the passage of Prop 8 violated the plaintiffs' (and more broadly, gays and lesbians in general) Equal Protection and Due Process rights guaranteed under the 5th and 14th Amendments of the Federal Constitution. For most people, the previous statement means practically nothing. The words carry some weight and they resonate in one's ears, but their meaning is unknown.

To understand why Due Process and Equal Protection were violated, it would help to have a brief discussion about the passage of Prop 8 and what happened in those months before November 2008.

It is well-known that a large source of opposition to gay marriage comes from religious groups in America. In particular, Christian religions have a poignantly difficult time with the extension of marriage to same-sex couples. It is alleged that Christian religions had a great deal of influence regarding the pro-Prop 8 ads that were shown to voters, although the extent to which they had control is a topic that is often debated. However, much of the pro-Prop 8 literature and media advertising had a religious tone to it. Sometimes those tones were subtle. Often times they were not. Several of the ads painted gay and lesbians as quasi criminals, bad people from whom mothers and fathers should keep their children away. It is this kind of advertising that gave rise to the Perry case.

Basically what Olson and Boies argued was that pro-Prop 8 groups (particularly religions) used outdated, harmful ideas of gays and lesbians in their advertising, generally slandering them, in order to win the Prop 8 vote. They're basically asserting "you fought dirty and that's not fair." They are alleging that the use of these tactics violated the Plaintiffs' Due Process and Equal Protection rights. It is not the fact that Prop 8 simply passed that violated rights (although I think there is an argument for that), it's that the passage of Prop 8 was passed in the way it was. The argument is that a state can pass a constitutional amendment, but it has to be passed by their own rules and not in a way that is repugnant to the system.

The court made a point of looking at evidence regarding the advertisements for Prop 8 and heard testimony from expert witnesses from sociological and psychological fields describing the negative effects gays and lesbians have felt because of such discrimination represented in the ads. The court was determining what was in those ads, and if that content was indeed harmful and incorrect.

On the defendants' side, the argument was that Prop 8 was properly enacted by a majority vote of the relevant public. If it's what the people want, this is what the people should have, even if they might be wrong. Further, they argued that this is not an issue for resolution under Constitutional law. If the court to makes a judgment against Prop 8, it's a substitution of the court's will for the people's, which it is not supposed to do. Lastly, the CA government contends that it is not homophobic. It has one of the most extensive legal regimes of any state for same-sex couples' rights. They are simply asking, "just leave marriage alone."

One should also note that a similar case came before the United States Supreme Court in 1996. Romer v. Evans regarded an amendment to the Colorado constitution that declared gays, lesbians, and bisexuals as non-suspect classes for purposes of rights discrimination. This basically meant that no law could be drafted to afford special protection to gays and lesbians as are enjoyed by cultural minority groups in our country. The Court struck the amendment down, finding no rational basis that connected the law to its stated purpose. This was one of the rare times that the Court held the law in question failed the rational basis test. The reasoning of the Court was simple. You can't gang up on an unpopular group of people and makes laws discriminating against them just because you don't like them.

The decision of the Court mentioned above certainly is not without criticism, which was well-voiced by Justice Scalia's dissenting opinion. In his mind, this was simply a majority vote based on general public morals with which the federal judiciary does not normally involve itself. He further stated that no rights were being taken away from the GLB community, but rather the rights of that group of people needed to go through the legislative process. This is a constant battle between the conservative and liberal sides of the bench.

The difference between the two laws in Perry and Romer is subtle. Romer dealt with a blanket exclusion of gay rights from achieving redress through the courts. Perry dealt with a single right. Further, the right to marry, although fundamental, has always had the man-woman ideal attached to it. Thus, Perry may not turn so much on whether the discrimination of gays is wrong, but, rather, whether the right in question is really something that belongs to the gay and lesbian community.

One final note: I was one of those gay people that was in the dissenting camp. When I heard about Perry, I wasn't exactly thrilled. Although I am gay, I am firm believer in the democratic system and that rights not addressed under the Constitution should not receive Constitutional scrutiny. That's not to say that if Perry had a good outcome I'd be upset. I am a firm supporter of gay marriage, and not solely because I am gay. Actually, my being gay has relatively little to do with my want for gay marriage. Marriage is a good thing, it makes people better, it gives them responsibility, companionship, it's sex with a person that you trust and with whom you feel safe, it's better financially, etc. (marriage can also suck too, of course). Yes, marriage does generally bring about kids, but honestly, who cares. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. If marriage does good for the gay and lesbian community, even if it slightly damages the institution of marriage for heterosexuals and their kids, I am perfectly fine with that and I think heterosexuals, religious or otherwise could live with that.

Bad Journalism

This is yet another entry regarding homosexuality and the ongoing debate. I know my blog was supposed to contain a greater variety of topics, but I am apparently stuck on this one. So yes, bear with me once again.

This topic isn't something that came to me recently and I am sure it isn't new to anyone with a brain. This entry's aim is to acknowledge the problem that occurs on both sides of a debate: the problem of bad journalism leading to misinformation.

I was reading one of the Catholic Online articles (I want people to know that I have stopped my consistent visits to the publication, mostly due to what I write about in this note). I was upset. My angst was not due to the arguments the author was making. It was from the comments that people made following the article. The content of the article was not really controversial. What people were saying most definitely was.

The following is an excerpt from what I read:

As one of our people here has pointed out to me.

Same Sex attraction has been put on the "disorder" list again yet the Same Sex Community is in denial of this.
Doesnt this also say that maybe it wouldnt be a good idea to marry since it is not in the same league as one man one women marriage?
We do meet same sex folks at the website: Courage Apostolate.
We do love you and we do learn from this sight.
Maybe you should take a look at this sight?

The Courage website does not encourage anything.
I suggest you look at this website.

You will not succeed in your endeavors.
Why is it the same sex community is so defensive of the possibility that they might be wrong about this because they are disordered after all?

Just a suggestion on my part.

Here is another comment from that same person:

What I gather being Same Sex is still considered a disorder.

How come they sugarcoat this fact?
So the question hasnt been answered yet. Therefore marriage equality isnt even on par with marriage.
I hope someday we get the real facts on the issue of same sex attraction medically and scientifically someday.
Right now we dont have real clear answers other than those found at Courage Apostolate.
Also Father John Harvey wrote an excellent book The Catholic Church clear answers to difficult questions.
I think its been helpful to me understanding our brothers and sisters who suffer this dilemma or disorder.

The comments above are from a woman whose writings I've seen before. I actually like her a lot, and she seems to have an interest in obtaining the truth, and not just the Catholic truth. However, her search for truth is enveloped by the teachings of the Catholic Church. She had written that she believed homosexuality to be a disorder, because everything she had read on the subject pointed in that direction. She does usually end her posts by saying that she wanted to hear other ideas, except not in the ones above.

First off, if everything this woman is reading is declaring homosexuality a raging disorder, then she is obviously not reading EVERYTHING. A person would have to be sheltered to a great extreme to not realize there are other pieces of literature out there that view homosexuality in a completely different way. Perhaps some of these people are THAT sheltered that they really cannot comprehend that. However, I do not believe this particular woman, and most people in general are that removed from society's grasp that they are not able to hear or read other viewpoints. Basically, what it comes down to, in my opinion, is biased selection and willful blindness towards these other viewpoints and facts.

This is where I find myself to be most contemptuous of the Catholic Online and other religious publications. They are dealing out opinions as facts, they are lacking in their research and they are making biased, unsubstantiated conclusions without looking at other facts.

As an aside, I want to make it clear that I do not stoop to entertain the whole homosexuality-as-disorder debate. I think it is old, fatigued, and has been proven over and over again to be false. It might not be the norm to be gay, but abnormality does not equal disorder. Honestly, whenever I encounter a person who asserts something like that (I rarely do, because I think that viewpoint is really that dead), I tell them that I can't argue against a point that is not worthy of debate, that is so unsubstantiated and so carelessly projected. If a person really believes something so ridiculous, they are beyond the ability to have a reasoned discussion on the matter. Why? Because their facts are whacked.

However, unfortunately, there are those rare few (they all seem to flock to Catholic Online) that continuously assert these ridiculous positions that have no basis in science or fact. Yes, they have basis in their religion, but religion can never really be unbiased, especially a religion as old and as poorly moderated as the Catholic Church.

What shocks me is that people are so quick to support their conclusions with what I see as factually shaky support. What shocks me even more is that these people are finding words out there, published words, that make these edgy and ridiculous statements.

This is what gets me. I understand that people have a a desire to learn and discover new information. This day in age, there is literature out there that supports any viewpoint and it is easily disseminated via the internet. Of course, anytime a piece of literature is read for information's sake, one must ask the question: how reliable is this?

I took it upon myself to do a little research into what this woman was saying. In all honesty, I was a little concerned because I hadn't read any scientific studies regarding homosexuality and I was fearful that maybe this woman was right. Maybe they did put homosexuality back on the so-called "disorder list." My research showed no such shift. From what I know, the APA is still the major psychological organization that most doctors and therapists follow. I don't know how that works exactly, because I know there are other academic and professional publications out there.

From what I can tell the above commentator was horribly confused. After reading some of the stuff on her cited websites, I was also confused. She gets her information from the website of the Courage Apostolate (CA from here on) which is an organization with Vatican recognition and also the National Assoc. for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH).

CA is not considered, and it does not consider itself, a reparative therapy group. From what I can tell, and from what I have heard from other people there is no "changing" gays and lesbians into heterosexual. Further, I have read elsewhere that the Catholic Church does consider homosexuality to be changeable to a certain degree (it should be noted, however, that this is in part due to the fact that CA does not believe in using the terms "gay" or "lesbian" or "homosexual" because they denote a certain permanence. They use the phrase "person with homosexual attraction." This interesting use of terminology prevents them from being a reparative therapy group because they can't change straight a person that was never gay or lesbian). Personally I do not have any personal problems with the CA simply because its a church sponsored organization basing its instruction on church teachings. They do not tout suspect statistics and studies as scientific fact, at least not on the website, and they do acknowledge that homosexuality is a deep-seated trait of a person that sometimes cannot be quelled. They use the word "sometimes" which I do not personally like, but basically its a group that trying to get its members to cope with being homosexual and live a celibate life. They are not trying to change them into heterosexuals (it should be noted that this is something that groups affiliated with the Mormon Church of Latter Day Saints claim to do, a claim that I think is despicable, immoral, and irresponsible given the importance of marriage in our society and to Christian churches).

NARTH, on the other hand, is a group with which I have major problems. It claims itself to be a secular organization devoid of religious or biblical persuasion or bias. It holds that homosexuality is a disorder, it should be re-categorized as such, and, with treatment, it can be changed. First off, NARTH's scholarship and research generally has a religious undertone, despite its claims of secularism. One of its leaders testified in a gay adoption case in Arkansas. The judge in that case stated on the record that his opinion was highly suspect and could not be trusted due to his obvious bias against homosexuality demonstrated though his obvious religiousity. Secondly, NARTH is in complete opposition to the medical/scientific community at large. There seems to be a great deal of professional and societal opposition to what NARTH advocates.

I've had some run-ins with NARTH-related research and studies. My former employer and instructor, Professor Teresa Collett, sometimes cited their studies in her articles. Maggie Gallagher, and major presence in the Traditional Marriage Movement and the leader of National Org. for Marriage (NOM) also cites NARTH's studies. NARTH is certainly not some crazy, radical group on the sidelines. It does have a professional following. Although the psychiatric community at large generally avoids them as a person would an embarrassing cousin or uncle, it is not a group that is largely ignored. However, just because they aren't ignored doesn't mean they have any scientific credibility in the community.

Going back to the comment and this woman's dependence on these two bastions of anti-homosexual rhetoric, what I read was vastly different from what this woman actually put in her comments. In no place did either website state that homosexuality is now, again, considered a disorder. NARTH certainly suggests that it should and it cites studies and research that support that conclusion. CA is a little different though. The CA describes homosexuality as an "objective disorder" a phrase the website openly declares a philosophical term, meaning homosexuality does not comport with morality. The website acknowledges the fact that psychology understands homosexuality, but that their view is different.

The paragraph where the above was stated was a little murky and confusing. Yes, its words did ultimately say that the psychological community at large does not consider homosexuality a disorder, but it said it in a confusing way:

At Courage, we choose not to label people according to an inclination which, although psychologically understandable, is still objectively disordered.

I find this statement particularly misleading. There is a big difference between a medical or mental disorder and a "disorder" that exists because it goes against a certain part of morality (a religious morality at that). The term "objectively disordered" is not really isolated nor described in a way that separates it from its medical uses. I would have been fine had the CA went and said "although the psychological community and its standards state otherwise, we believe homosexuality to be that of an 'objective disorder,' which is not the same as a disorder listed under a medical or scientific treatise." However, they didn't say this. What bothers me is that this woman who read this somehow translated that to mean the American medical community at large has declared homosexuality a disorder. Of course, the CA did not actually go and say such things, but the language was highly suspect and unclear.

The above situation is what I call "bad journalism." Published material that invokes a controversial debate should put its statements in a context. Quite frankly, I think its a little appalling that CA is using the word "disorder" when what they are describing is not a disorder, technically speaking, but rather something that does not comport to the Christian faith. Yeah, they qualified the word with "objective," however, what does that actually mean to people with lower education levels or to people who are looking up this information with the sole purpose of trying to prove homosexuality is a medical disorder? It apparently meant nothing this the woman who posted those comments and most likely not a lot to other people who read it. The term "disorder" is being used as a term of art, like a person calling someone or something "retarded." Although I would like to say that the woman who commented is an idiot and she was stupid for her interpretation, I do not actually believe that. I've actually had discourse with her through our comments and she is actually a really nice gal and she generally seems interested in her truth-seeking endeavors. Of course, based on her writing I have to admit she does not seem to have the greatest comprehension level (she does say some really weird things that come out of nowhere). In no way, however, do I think she's incompetent.

Part of what bothers me about this is that it seems like intentional misdirection for the purpose of proving a point. I will completely admit that homosexual rights activists do the same thing all the time. It is unlikely you are ever going to go to HRC or UCLA and find a study that tends to prove homosexuality is a disorder. More analogous would be finding a pro-gay website that featured kind words about Christian religion members, or at least an unbiased portrayal. I see it all the time on blogs and in in the comments of liberal gay rights articles. Liberals are constantly calling the marriage traditionalists "bigots" or "bible thumping jerks" or whatever else. I do think this is very improper. However, I feel like the conservative side of this debate tends to do it a lot more than the left. In particular, I feel like the conservative side of the debate tends to push out these slanted, insulting viewpoints and sees it as fair play simply because its clouded in religion; they must because it's God's demand. People may disagree, but I really find the words on the CA website to be conveniently unclear and inarticulate and I get the feeling that it might be intentional. How can reputable organizations and the people that make up them publish such garbage?

Why Don't Devout Catholics Do What They Should?

I am ticked . . .

I follow the Catholic Online articles and often comment on them. My purpose in doing this is not to trash-talk the Catholic faith, intentionally stir-up controversy (although I do not think that necessarily a bad thing) or boost my ego. The truth is, I find the debate between conservative Catholicism and the secular population very interesting. I enjoy tossing around different ideas simply for the sake of intellectual enrichment. My purpose is not to degrade any religious beliefs, or even argue against the validity of Church teaching. Indeed, I myself am a Catholic and do follow its teachings generally. However, I do not like the blind adherence to religious principles exhibited by so many on the site. Further, I think blind faith without test and tribulation leads to a very uninformed zombie.

The Catholic Online, I've gathered, does not appreciate this quality in me. In the past several weeks, I have tried to post numerous comments on their boards. For sure, most of them extend my disagreement with the rigid Catholic teaching exhibited on the site. As most people know, I am not what I would consider a "devout" Catholic, in the generally accepted meaning of that word. Thus, I have great disagreement with people on the board. Further, I just graduated from law school, I don't really like discussing problems and issues that end up in useless agreement. That's boring. It's so much more fun to turn heads.

Of the comments I've tried to post on the board (I believe there were 5 or 6), only one was posted, and it was an addendum to a larger comment I had posted earlier (that never made it up) so it didn't make much sense. The board has its "disclaimer" that states any harassing comments or false representations of the teachings of the magesterium will not be posted. Personally, I don't think my comments fall into this category. I can certainly get heated up and will often write from the heart, especially regarding issues that mean something personal to me. I will flat out say, none of my comments harass, and none of them misrepresent established Church teaching. Indeed, most of my comments do not even touch on Church teachings simply because I do not know enough about them where I would feel comfortable writing on them.

My comments are nothing more than opinion, occasionally littered with relevant facts. Yet the moderators of these boards seem to think they are inappropriate. I have e-mailed Catholic online twice and even tried to call them in an effort to figure out why my thoughts are being rejected. Nobody on their end wants to discuss it.

This is where I get infuriated. If the Catholic Online wants to be some kind of "praise Jesus" site with no discussion whatsoever and everybody agreeing with one another, I think that's fine. However, that is not what they make themselves out to be. In their disclaimer they say they allow robust discussion. Well that is apparently not true, at least not in my case. Apparently, they do not like any kind of adverse thought antithetical to Church teaching. My question to them is "why?" I am not conceited, I do not think I am going to write some fabulous argument countering the authors' words that is going to change the faith of others on the board. I suppose it could happen, but that's probably unlikely.

What bothers me about this is it is simply bad form in argument. A debater cannot pick and choose which of its opponent's arguments it's going to defend against, and then slyly ignore the other hard ones.

For example, I was reading an article about gay marriage and the writer stated within that homosexuals engage in dangerous sex practices. I do not disagree, there are many gay men (and women) out there that practice unsafe sex. For sure, in my comment I did not dispute his assertion. However, I felt it necessary to clarify that homosexual men are not the only group of people that engage in dangerous sex. Heterosexuals are equally, if not more, guilty.

Now, obviously I wasn't in an actual debate with the writer of the article. However, I do think it appropriate to make comments like that, pointing out false assumptions that people are making, as in a debate. Basically, what this website is doing is allowing its writers to assert these horribly suspect opinions and statements of fact, but blocking a dissenter's ability to write out corrections. This is very bad.

I found this interesting. While talking to one of the representatives of Catholic Online on the phone, he told me that their publication was larger than the New York Times. This very well could be true. However, one thing I wanted to say to him is that I could never imagine the New York Times, a renowned journalistic publication not allowing some form of correction, i.e. letters to the editor. The Catholic Online might be a large publication, but it is not a paradigm of journalistic integrity and objectivity, and certainly not in the same echelon as the NYT. I literally almost laughed out loud when the guy said that.

A larger question looms however. Why is this conservative publication so afraid of valid comments that oppose statements in its articles to the point that their haphazardly censoring what ever "feels" bad? Honestly, I do not actually know. I think there is a concern for other readers. They are obviously reaching out to the Catholic conservative audience and I suppose they may lose more and more readers if people are reading posted comments that offend their beliefs, thinking it is the website condoning what these people are writing. I think it could also be the whole, "Crap, this guy's writing some good stuff that puts us Catholics in our place, we shouldn't let this out." This is even worse because the editors are assuming that their readers are a bunch of idiots and cannot defend the Church's stances against criticism. Having been in contact with Catholics all my life, I realized very early on that it isn't hard to stump them when it comes to contradiction in teaching. It has happened to me when defending the Catholic faith against criticisms I do not like.

My personal opinion is that the Church is filled with bad debaters. Part of the problem is that followers of the Church see it as having this infallible authority, and the Church makes itself out to be just that. Justice Jackson once said of the United States Supreme Court: "We are not final because we are infallible, but we are fallible because we are final." This concept doesn't exist in the Catholic Church. There is no "we might be wrong." The Church basically closes itself off to public debate, at least from within the Catholic community. Indeed, if you question, you cease to be a Catholic. I've seen this happen many times. It scares me. One, because the Catholic Church is basically leading itself unprepared into a very important debate, and two, it makes the Church look like a bunch of idiots.

If the Church really wants to start being a practical and important part of the debate on Catholic issues, it has got to step out of the strict authoritarian role and it needs to venture out in to the land of secular law. It has to understand that its teaching and rules only apply to those who choose to follow them. The Church has no armies or police to enforce its rules, its only power over people on earth is stating "you will not inherit the kingdom of God." I am not saying that this is not an effective mechanism, indeed, a lot of people do keep strict adherence to Church teachings for that very reason. However, it doesn't really work against those who don't believe it. Thus, I think the Church needs to start making its way into the secular debate, and giving more substantive arguments than "the bible says so." Yeah, the bible does say it, but the bible is simply not relevant authority to a lot, and a growing number, of people.

This is what bothered me a few months back regarding the abortion debate I was having with people on those boards. People kept saying, abortion is murder, murder is bad, it should not be allowed. Well yes, that is one way to look at it, but then secularists (who do not follow biblical teachings as closely) say it falls outside the definition of murder, because murder is the intentional killing of a human person and that doesn't include an embryo or fetus. Then the religious argument goes all to hell because religious arguments do not work in a secular debate. At some point, you have to stop saying "God hates abortion" and start making some other claim.

I do want to mention that I think the religious argument is a valid and important argument to assert in debates concerning public morality. However, it cannot be the only source of argument, especially not in a system that makes use of far more secular views than Catholic/Christian views. It concerns me that devout Catholics wont go out and venture beyond their religious identity. And it certainly doesn't work to keep ignoring secular arguments, good arguments, simply because they're not religious. This is what Catholic Online is doing and it makes the Catholic Church look like a very weak opponent in the debate. I think they should rethink who and why they censor.

General Thought on Gay Marriage and the Catholic Church

I was reading an article in the Catholic Online bulletin this morning about how a gay Catholic church is "queering" the Rosary prayer. First off, I have no significant bias towards either side in the debate. I can understand why the Church would be upset; although I am not a huge prayer junkie, I guess I wouldn't want some of the most fundamental prayers of Christianity being changed haphazardly to suit a single person's faith. On the other hand, well, who cares?Let them do it.

What bothered me were the verbal attacks uttered by commentators. Things like "they should be excommunicated" and "they are not Catholics" were flying around the board. Now, I have no problem with members of my religion disagreeing with others. However, I do have great issues with lay-members of the faith making decisions as to who is and who is not a Catholic, or a good-enough one.

First off, a person is a Catholic, or they're not. There are unCatholic actions and practices, but there are not unCatholic Catholics. That doesn't make any sense. It's like saying someone who disagrees with executive or legislative action is unAmerican. No, being American is just that, it describes an origin, what country you associate as your "place."

Second, what actually makes one Catholic better than the other? I may not be the most devout Catholic, going to Church, praying daily, supporting Catholic movements. However, I still am a Catholic. I mean I was baptized, had my first communion, confirmed into the Catholic church. Is someone a better Catholic if they have more education in the religion? If that's the case, me and most of my high school friends are the best Catholics in the world. My personal view is a Catholic is a person with acceptance into the Church via the rites of passage who implements a significant amount of the religious beliefs and their education (wherever it comes from) into most of their daily life. Of course I think the stupid people writing comments on these articles and the bozos that write them are Catholics too, although I do sometimes question their implementation of the Catholic faith into their daily lives. Being a jerk is not a Catholic virtue last I checked.

This doesn't necessarily have to mean anything, it's just something I have been thinking about the past couple weeks and it was on my mind this morning. I just think it so terribly wrong and tacky to go around demanding ouster from the Church and calling people unCatholic. It's not anybody's decision to make. So please, if you ever hear someone say something along those lines, give them a piece of your mind.

The second issue I wanted to discuss was an article I read regarding President Obama's "National Family Day." The pres issued a proclamation claiming some day (don't remember what, I probably missed it) where he wanted all families to come together and be together. In the executive order was very broad, encompassing all families, whether it's a mom and a dad and kids, homosexual parents (WHAT!?!?!?!?! ISH!!!!!!!!!!), single parents, guardians, etc. It included every family known to man.

Well, once again I was reading a Catholic Online article and some wretched writer, Kathleen Gilbert, wrote a bulletin sort-of-thing about "National Family Day." In the article, she ingeniously stated the obvious: Obama's interpretation of "family" includes GAYS!!!!!! Although the author never really said anything pejorative regarding gays or those families, it was obvious what she was pointing out: "Lookout Catholics, these gay families and their gay kids are coming." However, one thing she conveniently forgot to include was that there are more families than just those headed by homosexuals that are in opposition to Catholic teaching. Quite frankly, I've been reading all these Catholic articles about how the best family structure is the traditional family. So really, the Church should probably have issue with every family included, except one. But no, this ingenious, faithful Catholic woman . . . who writes . . . she only saw the gay thing.

OK, here's my point, Obama's inclusion of all families also includes those slutty little girls that get knocked up at 17 and the baby's daddy hits the road. It includes families separated by divorce. It includes pseudo-traditional families where the parents live together but aren't married. These are things that also go against Catholic teaching, yet this Gilbert woman completely forgot to mention that.

Actually, I wrote a rather scathing letter to her via her listed e-mail address to tell her that her mistake tended to showed a particular animus towards gays. To sit there and complain that gays and their marriages are immoral because of scripture, but then completely disregard those other things that are also in opposition tends to show that she is focusing on gay families simply because she doesn't like them, her personal preference (notice how I said "tends to show," there could be something else that could get her off the hook). It has nothing to do with scripture, it has nothing to do with morality, it has nothing to do with family. All it is is two men or two women shacking up and adopting kids.

By the way, I gave the author my full name and e-mail address in my letter to her in case she wanted to discuss it or give me a rebuttal. This was only yesterday, so perhaps she has not had the time to get back to me. But, I think it's probably going to go unanswered.

Further, I tried to post a comment similar to the one above on the board following the article. It was never posted. I tried once again, it, too, was also never posted. I wrote a stearn but kind e-mail to customer service at Catholic Online. Nothing. Are they just sick of me, or did I call their author on her egregious mistake and they're embarassed? Of course I don't know for sure . . . but I do.

Parental Rights v Gay Rights? Not Quite . . .

A couple weeks ago I was having a discussion with some of the usual commentators on the Catholic Online website. The discussion related to an article regarding the push for GLBT education in Alameda School District public schools in California. The bishop who wrote the article condemned the school district's efforts, claiming that it was indoctrinating homosexual education into the young students' minds. Something noteworthy about the efforts of the school district was that there was no parental override, meaning parents could not get their children out of this teaching. Thus, any student in the Alameda school district had to go through GLBT sensitivity schooling.

Obviously, the readers and commentators on the article were utterly furious. In all honesty, I do not think their worries were without merit. I do have issues with children being forced to learn certain things without parental approval. However, I am also a major proponent of separation of state and church, especially in schooling. Obviously as a gay man I side with the school district, but my reasons for siding with have less to do with my own homosexuality and more to do with that fact that I just do not believe this is an issue where children are learning something anti-Catholic/Christian without parental consent. I do think there needs to be far greater sensitivity instruction in schools because schools are becoming more diverse in general.

I think a description of what the efforts of the Alameda school district is actually doing is in order. First off, I do not see this as an effort on the part of the district to "indoctrinate" homosexuality into the minds of young children. Quite frankly, I think the word "indoctrinate" is something that religious conservatives and culturally unsympathetic people throw out in an effort to create fear. Indeed, the vast majority of people commenting on the afore-mentioned article are probably those types of people that think homosexuality can still be taught. There were some comments that included statements saying such things. These people most likely see the efforts of the schools not as a way to alleviate prejudice, but as a way to get kids to accept and be ok with homosexuality, if not become homosexual.

Funny enough, when I first read this article, it was when my aunt who lives and teaches in California was visiting us in Minnesota. Now, my aunt is in the Burbank district, so her school would not be subject to the Alameda initiatives. I spoke with her and asked her opinion on the article. As soon as I finished telling her about the Alameda efforts, she jumped in immediately and said it was desperately needed. Although she never gave me any specific examples, she made it very clear that she had seen some terrible behavior in some of her students, especially when it came to cultural sensitivity. As soon as I finished with her, I went immediately to my laptop and wrote out my comment concerning the article. Of course, I included what my aunt had to say on the matter.

After I posted my comment on the board, I received a slew of responses over the next few days that I found rather insulting. One woman accused me of being a "paid representative" for the gay community who was purposefully infiltrating the Catholic website with secular, demonic garbage. Another woman accused another less devout poster as being anti-Catholic, telling her "Shame on you."

I believe that these people and the deacon who wrote the article are creating a religious issue where one does not exist. This is not an issue of whether the gay agenda is improperly impinging on the rights of parents to teach their children that homosexuality is morally unacceptable. Something that those people seem to forget, or maybe they do not even realize, is that there is a lot of hostility in schools among different groups of children. Children nowadays have a larger vocabulary than what we did as children. My aunt has heard small children, some no older than five years old, calling other children sluts, whores, gays, queers, racial slurs and other pejorative words. This is something that is incredible. I didn't know any of those words existed when I was that young and I did not learn of their existence until much older.

What this type of education is trying to do is get kids to be nice to one another and alleviate this type of name-calling that creates a hostile and uncomfortable environment in schools. The fact that children this age are going around insulting each other with words that would make even a sailor blush is remarkable. This is going beyond what people would call an immature, schoolyard taunt. We all remember the days of being called a doody head. However, I never recall being called a slut, a whore, or a fag by my middle school or even by my high school peers. Not only do these words create a hostile environment in schools, but these children are learning words that will ultimately damage their life and turn them into bullies if they continue to think this type of conversation is publicly acceptable.

I think the Alameda initiative is really just trying to get kids to realize that this type of name-calling is not only wrong, but it hurts people and it is not acceptable conversation in the public sphere. For religious groups to go around saying that this type of tolerance training in schools is impinging on parents' God-given and Constitutionally given rights to educate their children is completely ridiculous. To equate education that tries to keep kids from calling each other gay or queer or dyke-y with "indoctrination" of homosexuality against parents' wishes is irresponsible. Indeed, to turn this into an issue of religious right is laughable. Parents do not have a Constitutional right to keeping their kids in schools where those children are making a hostile environment for others.

One thing I mentioned earlier was that in addition to creating hostile environments in public schools, these children are learning language use that could be detrimental to their success and futures. Let me give an example. In the past decade, the legal field has become furiously interested in the gay rights debate. Indeed, the ABA has stated that all ABA approved law schools must have GLBT non-discriminatory clauses in their admissions statements, even if the state has no laws requiring such protection. Further, firms all across America have begun to take great interest in creating diverse workforces that include GLBT (mostly G and L) lawyers. Although I do not know for sure, the ABA actually may require firms to have some sort of non-discrimination policy for GLBT individuals. Needless to say, the legal profession is not a good choice for homophobes.

If these children continue thinking that using the word "gay" in public discourse is acceptable, they most certainly would not be last very long in the American legal field. Of course I assume that anyone who thinks that such usage of words is appropriate would even be in law school. Most of my law school classmates (actually all of them I think) knew it was inappropriate to call people naughty words. However, only a few years ago did University of Michigan Law School graduate, Ann Coulter call John Edwards a faggot on the national morning news.

Of course, by going through life's experiences, most children will probably learn at some point in their life that such talk is not a good thing. However, I still think it is a good idea to instruct kids on how to be sensitive and nice to one another. Just because they will eventually learn to be tolerant does not mean we should ignore telling them that at a young age.