For Memorial Day, 2009: The Lesson of the Four Chaplains, 1943

When I was child, my father, a World War II Navy veteran, taught me the story of the four chaplains of the USAT Dorchester.

I thought of the four chaplains during the presidential election when I listened to former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell explain why he endorsed Barack Obama for President of the United States.

In stating why he could not support the candidacy of John McCain, Powell referred to the death of U.S. Army Corporal Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, a 20 year old from Manahawkin, N.J., who was killed in Iraq and to a photograph he had seen of the soldier’s mother pressing her head against his gravestone at Arlington National Cemetery.

The headstone was engraved with the soldier’s name, his military awards (the Purple Heart and Bronze Star), and the Muslim symbol of the crescent and star.

As the New York Times observed, “Powell mentioned Mr. Khan’s death to underscore why he was deeply troubled by Republican personal attacks on Mr. Obama, especially false intimations that he was Muslim. Mr. Obama is a lifelong Christian, not a Muslim, he said. But, he added, ‘The really right answer is, what if he is?’ ‘Is there something wrong with being Muslim in this country? No, that’s not America,’ he said. ‘Now, we have got to stop polarizing ourselves in this way.’ Mr. Powell said that he had heard senior members of the Republican Party ‘drop this suggestion that he [Obama] is a Muslim and he might be associated with terrorists.’ ‘Now, John McCain is as nondiscriminatory as anyone I know. But I’m troubled about the fact that within the party we have these kinds of expressions.’”

General Powell probably thought, too, of the four chaplains of the USAT Dorchester.

On the night of February 3, 1943,United States Army Transport ship Dorchester was en route from Newfoundland to England via Greenland, when it was hit by torpedoes from a German submarine.

The Dorchester listed sharply to starboard and began to sink almost immediately into the icy water.  The ship was overcrowded and there were insufficient lifeboats or lifejackets for the 904 men on board.

As the Dorchester sank, the  ship’s four U.S. Army chaplains aided the wounded, helped get the men into lifeboats and then gave up their own lifejackets when the supply ran out.

A survivor later explained:

“As I swam away from the ship, I looked back. The flares had lighted everything. The bow came up high and she slid under. The last thing I saw, the four chaplains were up there praying for the safety of the men. They had done everything they could. I did not see them again. They themselves did not have a chance without their life jackets.”

As the ship went down, survivors in nearby lifeboats could see the four chaplains – their arms linked and braced against the slanting deck. Their voices could also be heard offering prayers.

Twenty-seven minutes after the torpedoes hit, the Dorchester was gone.

The four U.S. Army chaplains were:

Lt. George L. Fox, age 42, Methodist.
Lt. Alexander D. Goode, age 32, Jewish.
Lt. John P. Washington, age 34, Roman Catholic.
Lt. Clark V. Poling, age 32, Reformed Church in America.

According to the Four Chaplains Memorial Foundation, the lesson of their sacrifice is “unity without uniformity” and “selfless service to humanity without regard to race, creed, ethnicity, or religious beliefs.”

My father had a simpler lesson to teach me:  We are all Americans.

In a speech on in Fayetteville, North Carolina, near Fort Bragg, Barack Obama said that “The men and women from Fayetteville and all across America who serve in our battlefields may be Democrats or Republicans or independents, but they have fought together and bled together and some died together under the same proud flag, They have not served a red America or a blue America. They have served the United States of America.”

(This post was originally published, in a slightly different form, on October 19, 2008.)

Shout the Good News! Rick Warren’s Conversion

When accessing the political apologetics of evangelicals, it is tempting to deal with them on their own terms and question whether their contrition is perfect and sincere enough to remove the stain that their sins have placed on their souls.

In Christian terms, forgiveness for sin requires a deep and sincere change of heart accompanied by sorrow for the wrong committed, and not merely regret for its consequences or an external manifestation of repentance.  You can’t cleanse the soul of sin with an insincere, superficial, or merely pragmatic apology.

In those terms, perhaps Pastor Rick Warren’s statement on the Larry King Show that he is “not an anti-gay or anti-gay marriage activist. Never have been, never will be” fails to meet the requirements for forgiveness and his apology for having misspoken on this issue (as he now claims) should be dismissed as insincere.

If I were fighting evangelical fire with evangelical fire, perhaps I’d say that Rick Warren’s contrition for his anti-gay and anti-gay marriage statements is inadequate and that he still deserves to be damned to progressive Hell.

But I am not an evangelical, and, frankly, I don’t think that the status of Rick Warren’s soul is any of my business.

For that reason, I would approach Rick Warren’s statements on Larry King about gay marriage from a different – and more secular — perspective.

I would note that as the leader of one of the largest evangelical churches in the nation, Rick Warren’s claim that he has “Never…been, never will be” an activist opponent of gay marriage is strikingly good political news for progressives, especially in California where the Prop 8 debate is far from over.

I would note, too, that Rick Warren’s mea culpa could not come at a better time – when the Republican Party, both nationally and in Warren’s home territory of Orange County – is desperately searching for traction in its losing battle against progressives, Democrats, and President Obama.  At the least, Warren is giving a clear signal to Republicans who think they can reverse the political tide by turning politics into a culture war, that he is not going to fight on their side.

Instead, Pastor Rick makes clear that, for him, the social gospel (the fight against AIDS in particular, but also fighting poverty and climate change, and ending the genocide in Darfur) is more important than social conservative issues like gay marriage.

That’s very bad news for Republicans.

So I would celebrate the Good News of Pastor Rick Warren’s awakening – and welcome him with love and open arms.

Iowa’s Same Sex Marriage Decision: What it Says and What it Means

In 1998, the Iowa legislature, capitulating to a well-funded national campaign against gay marriage, amended the state’s marriage statute to define marriage as a union between only a man and a woman.

Today, in a stunning, courageous, and powerfully written decision, the Iowa Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the state’s anti-gay marriage statute is invalid because it violates the equal protection clause of the state constitution.

The Court’s decision in Varnum v. Brien (2009) is enormously significant not only because it allows same sex couples to marry in Iowa, but also because it so clearly, cogently, and conscientiously dismantles and destroys each and every one of the arguments that the anti-gay forces have made – and continue to make — against sex same marriage.

The Court described the plaintiffs as “six same-sex couples who live in committed relationships. Each maintains a hope of getting married one day, an aspiration shared by many throughout Iowa.”  According to the Court, these plaintiffs – “Like all Iowans” – are people who “prize their liberties and live within the borders of this state with the expectation that their rights will be maintained and protected,” but are different from other Iowans in being “sexually and romantically attracted to members of their own sex.”  These six couples, the Court observed, “seek to declare the marriage statute unconstitutional so they can obtain the array of benefits of marriage enjoyed by heterosexual couples, protect themselves and their children, and demonstrate to one another and to society their mutual commitment.”

The Court first asserted and defended its right and obligation to rule on the constitutionality of the anti-gay marriage statute.  Among the “basic principles essential to our form of government,” the Court explained, is that the state constitution “defines certain individual rights upon which the government may not infringe” including the right to equal protection of the law.  Citing the foundational United States Supreme Court case establishing judicial review of the constitutionality of federal statutes — Marbury v. Madison (1803) — the Iowa Supreme Court insisted that its “responsibility to determine if the law enacted by the legislative branch and enforced by the executive branch violates the Iowa Constitution” includes the obligation to “protect the supremacy of the constitution as a means of protecting our republican form of government and our freedoms.”

Certain fundamental rights, including the right to the equal protection of the law, are beyond “the vicissitudes of political controversy” and “beyond the reach of majorities and officials” to limit or deny.  Accordingly, the Court has the responsibility “to protect constitutional rights of individuals from legislative enactments that have denied those rights, even when the rights have not yet been broadly accepted, were at one time unimagined, or challenge a deeply ingrained practice or law viewed to be impervious to the passage of time.”

Turning to the equal protection question, the Court first noted that “equal protection can only be defined by the standards of each generation… So, today, this court again faces an important issue that hinges on our definition of equal protection. This issue comes to us with the same importance as our landmark cases of the past. The same-sex-marriage debate waged in this case is part of a strong national dialogue5 centered on fundamental, deep-seated, traditional institution that has excluded, by state action, a particular class of Iowans. This class of people asks a simple and direct question: How can a state premised on the constitutional principle equal protection justify exclusion of a class of Iowans from civil marriage?”

The proper equal protection question is not, according to the Court, whether the classifications made by the law are applied equally; instead the law itself must be equal: “In other words, to truly ensure equality before the law, the equal protection guarantee requires that laws treat all those who are similarly situated with respect to the purposes of the law alike.”

The Court noted that “courts apply a heightened level of scrutiny under equal protection analysis when reasons exist to suspect ‘prejudice against discrete and insular minorities . . . which tends seriously to curtail the operation of those political processes ordinarily to be relied upon to protect minorities.”  Looking at the history of discrimination and prejudice against gay and lesbian people, the irrelevancy of sexual orientation to an individual’s ability to contribute to society, the immutability of an individual’s sexual orientation, and the historical political powerless of gays and lesbians, the Court determined that a “heightened scrutiny” standard should be applied to gauge the impact of the anti-gay marriage statute on same sex couples.

Nevertheless, the Court found that the anti-gay marriage statute did not pass constitutional muster even under an “intermediate scrutiny” standard because it is not “substantially related to an important governmental objective.”

The Court first emphatically rejected the claims that permitting same sex couples would undermine the institution of marriage or would harm the state’s children.

While noting the “superficial appeal” of the argument that same-sex marriage ban promotes the ‘integrity of traditional marriage’ by ‘maintaining the historical and traditional marriage norm [as] one between a man and a woman,” the Court found this claim to be circular: “When a certain tradition is used as both the governmental objective and the classification to further that objective, the equal protection analysis is transformed into the circular question of whether the classification accomplishes the governmental objective, which objective is to maintain the classification. In other words, the equal protection clause is converted into a ‘barren form of words’ when ‘discrimination . . . is made an end in itself’.”

The Court next unequivocally held that “scientific research has repudiated the commonly assumed notion that children need opposite-sex parents or biological parents to grow into well-adjusted adults.”  The Court also found that, in regard to protecting children, the anti-gay marriage is both under and over-inclusive: “The civil marriage statute is under-inclusive because it does not exclude from marriage other groups of parents—such as child abusers, sexual predators, parents neglecting to provide child support, and violent felons—that are undeniably less than optimal parents. Such under-inclusion tends to demonstrate that the sexual-orientation-based classification is grounded in prejudice or “overbroad generalizations about the different talents, capacities, or preferences” of gay and lesbian people, rather than having a substantial relationship to some important objective. … The ban on same-sex marriage is substantially over-inclusive because not all same-sex couples choose to raise children.”

The Court also found that “If the statute was truly about the best interest of children, some benefit to children derived from the ban on same-sex civil marriages would be observable. Yet, the germane analysis does not show how the best interests of children of gay and lesbian parents, who are denied an environment supported by the benefits of marriage under the statute, are served by the ban. Likewise, the exclusion of gays and lesbians from marriage does not benefit the interests of those children of heterosexual parents, who are able to enjoy the environment supported by marriage with or without the inclusion of same-sex couples.”

The Court next rejected the claim that prohibiting same sex couples from marrying would advance the legitimate governmental objective of promoting procreation: “the sole conceivable avenue by which exclusion of gay and lesbian people from civil marriage could promote more procreation is if the unavailability of civil marriage for same-sex partners caused homosexual individuals to ‘become’ heterosexual in order to procreate within the present traditional institution of civil marriage. The briefs, the record, our research, and common sense do not suggest such an outcome. Even if possibly true, the link between exclusion of gay and lesbian people from marriage and increased procreation is far too tenuous to withstand heightened scrutiny. Specifically, the statute is significantly under-inclusive with respect to the objective of increasing procreation because it does not include a variety of groups that do not procreate for reasons such as age, physical disability, or choice. In other words, the classification is not substantially related to the asserted legislative purpose.”

The Court also rejected the claims that prohibiting same sex marriage promoted stability in opposite-sex relationships — “While the institution of civil marriage likely encourages stability in opposite-sex relationships, we must evaluate whether excluding gay and lesbian people from civil marriage encourages stability in opposite sex relationships. The County offers no reasons that it does, and we can find none. The stability of opposite-sex relationships is an important governmental interest, but the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage is not substantially related to that objective” – and that prohibiting same sex marriage would conserve state resources – “Excluding any group from civil marriage — African-Americans, illegitimates, aliens, even red-haired individuals—would conserve state resources in an equally “rational” way. Yet, such classifications so obviously offend our society’s collective sense of equality that courts have not hesitated to provide added protections against such inequalities.”

Based on these findings, the Court concluded that none of the purported objectives of the ban on same sex marriage “were furthered in a substantial way by the exclusion of same-sex couples from civil marriage.”

Strikingly, and courageously, the Court then addressed the real basis for the same sex marriage ban – religious opposition to homosexuality: “While unexpressed, religious sentiment most likely motivates many, if not most, opponents of same-sex civil marriage and perhaps even shapes the views of those people who may accept gay and lesbian unions but find the notion of same-sex marriage unsettling… Whether expressly or impliedly, much of society rejects same-sex marriage due to sincere, deeply ingrained — even fundamental — religious belief. Yet, such views are not the only religious views of marriage… other equally sincere groups and people in Iowa and around the nation have strong religious views that yield the opposite conclusion… Our constitution does not permit any branch of government to resolve these types of religious debates and entrusts to courts the task of ensuring government avoids them… civil marriage must be judged under our constitutional standards of equal protection and not under religious doctrines or the religious views of individuals. This approach does not disrespect or denigrate the religious views of many Iowans who may strongly believe in marriage as a dual-gender union, but considers, as we must, only the constitutional rights of all people, as expressed by the promise of equal protection for all. We are not permitted to do less and would damage our constitution immeasurably by trying to do more.”

The Iowa decision can not be as readily overturned as the California Supreme Court’s similar decision in the Marriage Cases was overturned by Prop 8.

Unlike California, where the state constitution can almost immediately be amended by a simple majority vote in a ballot measure, the Iowa constitution can be amended only when majorities in both the state House and Senate in two consecutive general assemblies approve an amendment, and then the amendment is approved by a majority of voters in the next general election. Since each general assembly lasts for two years, the earliest that a proposed amendment overturning the Court’s decision could reach voters is November 2012.

It is also notable that in reaching its conclusions, the Iowa Supreme Court extensively cited and relied on the California Supreme Court decision in the Marriage Cases.

Let us hope that the California Supreme Court, which is now considering whether  Prop 8 can take away the fundamental right of gay and lesbian people to marry, carefully reads the Iowa decision.

Prop 8: What’s Really at Stake for the California Supreme Court

In addition to the continuing validity of same sex marriage, the Prop 8 case before the California Supreme will decide an issue has not been directly address by the parties or the Court.

The primary legal issue at tomorrow’s hearing before the California Supreme Court on Prop 8 is the narrow and extremely arcane question whether Prop 8 is an amendment to the state constitution or a revision of the state constitution.

John Marshall, Chief Justice of the United States

An amendment to the state constitution may be placed on the ballot by either a two-thirds vote in the state legislature or signatures equal to 8% of the votes cast in the last gubernatorial election.

In contrast, a revision of the state constitution requires both the approval of two-thirds of the legislature and a majority of voters.

In other words, while the voters in California have the right to amend their constitution by a simple majority vote through the use of ballot propositions, any revision of the constitution’s ‘underlying principles” requires a far more deliberate and complex process involving a two-thirds vote of the legislature followed by the submission of such proposed changes either directly to the voters or to a constitutional convention.

Prop 8 was never endorsed by two-thirds of the legislature.

Accordingly, if it is an amendment to the constitution, it is legally valid; if it is a revision of the constitution, then it is not.

There is little or no case law or commentary to help the Court decide whether Prop 8 is a (valid) amendment or an (invalid) revision.

The pro-Prop 8 lawyers will argue that the proposition changes only a small part of the constitution that applies only to a small group of people, and is therefore merely an amendment and hence valid.

The anti-Prop 8 lawyers will argue that because the proposition attempts to negate a fundamental right, it is a substantial revision of the entire constitution and hence invalid.

But appellate cases – and especially high profile and controversial appellate cases — are rarely decided on such narrow and arcane questions of law, even though lawyers and judges must pretend that they are.

Such cases are decided on the basis of the judges’ assessments of their consequences, and not merely the direct consequences to the litigants.

What’s really at stake in the Prop 8 case is the power and prestige of the California Supreme Court itself.

Prop 8 aims to overturn the California Supreme Court’s decision in The Marriage Cases (2008), where the Court held that “the substantive right of two adults who share a loving relationship to join together to establish an officially recognized family of their own — and, if the couple chooses, to raise children within that family — constitutes a vitally important attribute of the fundamental interest in liberty and personal autonomy that the California Constitution secures to all persons for the benefit of both the individual and society,” and that “in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples.”

If this decision of the California Supreme Court, based on what it described as a “fundamental constitutional right,” can be overturned by a simple majority of voters in a ballot proposition, then the purportedly “fundamental” state constitution carries no more weight than a simple statute — and arguably even less weight, since a statute requires either the approval of a majority of the legislature and the signature of the governor or a two-thirds vote of the legislature.

And since appellate judges see themselves first and foremost as guardians of the constitution, if the constitution is diminished, then the judges are correspondingly diminished as well.

In our national history, the United States Supreme Court had little prestige until Chief Justice John Marshall declared in Marbury v. Madison (1819) that the Court, as the ultimate interpreter of the constitution, had the power to invalidate legislation as contrary to the constitution as — in the words of Article VI — “the supreme Law of the Land.”  John Jay, the first Chief Justice, had resigned in 1795 and declined reappointment in 1800 because, in Jay’s words, the Court lacked “the energy, weight, and dignity which are essential to its affording due support to the national government.”

If the California Supreme Court fails to invalidate Prop 8, it will be declaring itself similarly to lack “the energy, weight, and dignity” that is essential for it to be a coequal branch of government.

UPDATE:

In a stunning, powerful, and courageous decision, the Iowa Supreme Court, citing the California Supreme Court’s decision in the Marriage Cases, holds that its state’s ban on same sex marriage violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution.

(Bring Them) Home for Christmas

One of the most popular Christmas songs is I’ll Be Home for Christmas, but few recall that the song is about war and the sadness of soldiers away from home.

Recorded in 1943 by Bing Crosby, during the darkest days of the Second World War, the song became the most popular Christmas song for American soldiers, sailors, and marines serving overseas. 

This Christmas, whenever I’ve heard the lyrics:

“I’ll be home for Christmas.
You can count on me.
Please have snow and mistletoe
And presents under the tree.
Christmas Eve will find me
Where the love-light gleams.
I’ll be home for Christmas
If only in my dreams”

I think about the American soldiers, sailors, and marines now serving in the war zones of Iraq and Afghanistan, and about their families missing them on Christmas morning.

I also think about the more than 4,000 American service men and women who won’t ever be coming home for Christmas.

I’m sure, like the rest of us, President-elect Obama has heard I’ll Be Home for Christmas countless times this season.

I hope he hears what I hear.

Merry Christmas (Peace on Earth).

Prop 8 Backlash (Part 2): How the Mormon Church Silences Opposition

It is not safe to be a Mormon who disagrees with the anti-gay political activism of the Church of Latter Day Saints.

When I wrote a blog post on the backlash against the LDS Church because of its activist role and financial support for California’s anti-gay marriage Proposition 8, I received numerous responses from Mormons who said that they were afraid to speak out against the LDS Church’s anti-gay activism.

Many said that they were opposed to the LDS Church’s position on gay rights, but could not make their opposition public for fear of attacks on themselves and their families. 

If their opposition to the church, and their support for gay rights, became known, “in Mormonland [it] could get me in a lot of trouble.”

Especially troubling to Mormons who disagree with the LDS Church’s position on gay rights are threats to their families if they dare to make their disagreement public.

One Mormon wrote: “as you may have perceived, the Mormon Church is highly centralized/organized and church members are easy to trace via computer records. Church members are free to say anything we like privately (of course), but once our critical opinions become public, we are setting ourselves up for estrangement and possible excommunication.”

“For those of us who have long been at odds with the church on issues of racism, homophobia, and sexism, this is no longer much of a threat. However we restrain ourselves out of consideration for family members who believe that excommunication means that we will no longer be together as an extended family in the hereafter.”

“Mormon authorities achieve [suppression of opposition] through the threat of disfellowshipment (a lesser form of shunning) or excommunication.  Several of my acquaintances have been excommunicated for comments that became public, so I know from experience that this is not an empty form of retribution.”

At a time when supporters of Proposition 8 and the anti-gay activism of the LDS Church are now hypocritically accusing anti-Prop 8 supporters of bigotry, more should be known about how the LDS Church silences opposition within the LDS community.

If you are a member of the LDS Church, or have LDS family members, and are opposed to the official LDS anti-gay theology and activism, please comment, anonymously or using a pseudonym if you think it is necessary.

Prop 8 Backlash: Time for a New Mormon Revelation

It’s time for a new Mormon revelation.

The decision by the leadership of the Mormons (the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or the LDS Church) to ask its members to fund California’s anti-same sex marriage Proposition 8 will prove to have been a very bad idea – for the Mormons – at least in the short run.

1851 Lithograph of Joseph Smith's body being mutilated.

No religious group has been more hated, persecuted, and subjected to mob violence in America than the Mormons.  Throughout the 19th and well into the 20th century, Mormons were beaten, burned, shot, and lynched because of their religious beliefs.

Even today, Mormons remain a target of intense religious prejudice, particularly among evangelical Christians.  A 2007 study by Vanderbilt University that researched possible public reaction to a presidential run by Mitt Romney (a Mormon) concluded that political bias against Mormons is significantly more intense than bias against either African Americans or women.

As Amy Sullivan pointed out in the Washington Monthly, “Evangelical Christians consider Mormonism a threat in a way that Catholicism and even Judaism are not. The LDS Church, they charge, has perverted Christian teachings to create a false religion. … Southern Baptists have been particularly vocal about labeling the LDS Church a ‘cult.’  [A] speaker at the denomination’s summit on Mormonism declared that Utah was ‘a stronghold of Satan’.”

The primary reasons that people gave (and still give) for hating Mormons are (1) that the Mormons practice group marriage and would therefore destroy the structure of the family, and (2) that the Mormons want to create a theocracy and would impose both their religious beliefs and their church leadership on everyone else.

Given this history, and continuing vilification, you might expect the Mormons to be accepting of the religious beliefs and practices of others, especially in regard to marriage and family issues.

But that isn’t the Mormon style.

The Mormon character was fashioned in a deeply hostile environment, and they have repeatedly shown that they have the courage of their convictions, even when these convictions put them in opposition to the majority.

For that reason, my guess is that the initial reaction of the LDS Church to the boycotts and outrage caused by their active support for Prop 8 (which I think took them by surprise) will lead them, in the short run, to dig in and hold their ground.

But I also think that this entrenchment will come at a great social and economic cost to the LDS Church and its members.  For many years, the LDS Church has been an active force in the anti-gay movement, most notably in regard to its sponsorship of the Boy Scouts of America, but these activities have mostly been below the media radar and opposition has been directed at the Scouts, not the LDS Church itself.

Now that will change.

Gay and lesbian groups and their allies will challenge the Mormons everywhere, no doubt tapping into pre-existing anti-Mormon prejudice.  Democratic members of the LDS Church, such as Senator Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and newly elected Senator Tom Udall (D-N.M.) will be called upon to publicly separate themselves from their Church on these issues or risk being marginalized within the Democratic Party.

And the Prop 8 boycott, if sustained, can have a serious impact on businesses owned by Mormons, such as the Marriott hotel chain, on the careers of LDS members, and even on the economy of the State of Utah.

On the other hand, the Mormons do have a history of changing their minds – and their theology – under significant public pressure – most famously when they abandoned their theologically based practice of polygamy (or plural marriage) in 1890 in order to save their property and secure Utah statehood (granted in 1896).

Because the LDS Church believes in continuing divine revelation, its leaders can adapt their theology to meet contemporary needs by announcing that God has spoken to them and commanded them to change their doctrine.

Thus, in 1890, when faced with tremendous opposition in the U.S. Congress to Utah statehood and the imminent seizure of LDS assets because of polygamy, LDS president Wilford Woodruff (himself a polygamist) published a “Manifesto” announcing that God had told him that polygamy was no longer part of the Lord’s plan.

“The Lord has told me to ask the Latter-day Saints a question,” Woodruff wrote. “The question is this: Which is the wisest course for the Latter-day Saints to pursue — to continue to attempt to practice plural marriage, with the laws of the nation against it and the opposition of sixty millions of people, and at the cost of the confiscation and loss of all the Temples, and the stopping of all the ordinances therein, both for the living and the dead, and the imprisonment of the First Presidency and Twelve and the heads of families in the Church, and the confiscation of personal property of the people (all of which of themselves would stop the practice); or, after doing and suffering what we have through our adherence to this principle to cease the practice and submit to the law, and through doing so leave the Prophets, Apostles and fathers at home, so that they can instruct the people and attend to the duties of the Church, and also leave the Temples in the hands of the Saints, so that they can attend to the ordinances of the Gospel, both for the living and the dead?”

According to Woodruff, while he would “have let all the temples go out of our hands; I should have gone to prison myself, and let every other man go there, had not the God of heaven commanded me to do what I did do; and when the hour came that I was commanded to do that, it was all clear to me. I went before the Lord, and I wrote what the Lord told me to write…”

What God commanded Woodruff to write was an end to the official theology and practice of polygamy, satisfying both the worldly needs of the Church and the demands of the larger social order.

More recently, the civil rights movement and the changed national consensus on racial prejudice against African-Americans caused a similar need for a new Mormon revelation.

The LDS Church had long treated black people as theologically inferior (based on their interpretation of  passages in the Book of Mormon that described black people as “cursed’ by God).  While the LDS Church did not deny membership to black people, it barred black men from ordination in the priesthood (a requirement for all other Mormon men and a necessity for salvation), and declared that black people were prohibited from the rituals of Endowment (a kind of confirmation necessary for participation in the temple and Church) and celestial marriage.

Protest against Mormon anti-African American policy at Colorado State University (1970)

During the 1960s and 1970s, this racial aspect of LDS theology came under increasing attack (with sometimes violent protests against the participation of Brigham Young University in sports events with public institutions) and eventually became an enormous embarrassment to the Church, not least in its efforts to convert new members in countries (such as Brazil) with large African heritage populations.

As had been the case with polygamy, the problem of the conflicting demands of theology and public relations was solved by a divine revelation to the president of the LDS Church.

In 1978, LDS president Spencer W. Kimball and other elders received a revelation that God “has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood, with power to exercise its divine authority, and enjoy with his loved ones every blessing that flows there from, including the blessings of the temple. Accordingly, all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color.” Church elders later declared “The Spirit of the Lord rested upon us all; we felt something akin to what happened on the day of Pentecost and at the Kirtland Temple. From the midst of eternity, the voice of God, conveyed by the power of the Spirit, spoke to his prophet. The message was that the time had now come to offer the fullness of the everlasting gospel, including celestial marriage, and the priesthood, and the blessings of the temple, to all men, without reference to race or color, solely on the basis of personal worthiness. And we all heard the same voice, received the same message, and became personal witnesses that the word received was the mind and will and voice of the Lord.”

Another revelation will eventually come to the president and elders of the LDS Church – perhaps to current LDS president Thomas Spencer Monson — regarding its opposition to same sex marriage (and its opposition to allowing gay members of the Boy Scouts).  In the meantime, we should do all we can to hasten this revelation by continuing to apply both social and economic pressure on the LDS Church and its members.

We’ll be doing the Lord’s work.

Why Prop 8 Won’t End California’s Same Sex Marriages

For many progressive voters in California, the election results were bitter-sweet.  While Barack Obama cruised to victory here, the state’s voters also endorsed the elimination of the recently won right of gay and lesbian couples to marry.

The most recent election results show that voters appear to have have endorsed California’s Proposition 8 — changing the state Constitution to require that “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California” — by 5,376,424 (52%) to 4,870,010 (48%) with 99% of the precincts reporting.

Officials have already halted issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples and stopped performing same sex marriages.  California’s right-wing social conservatives, evangelicals, and anti-gay crusaders are celebrating. 

I believe that they’re celebrating too soon.

I would advise the supporters of Prop 8 to temper their celebration until the California Supreme Court rules on whether the fundamental right to marry can be eliminated for same sex couples through the proposition process.

My expectation is that the Supreme Court will find Prop 8 to be invalid and that California’s recognition of same sex marriage will stand.

Even before the election, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Lambda Legal Defense Fund and the National Center for Lesbian Rights filed a writ petition in the California Supreme Court urging the Court to invalidate Proposition 8 if it passes.

The argument is that “Proposition 8 denies the fundamental right to marry to a minority group based on a suspect classification … deemed to be suspect under the equal protection guarantee of the California Constitution … [and that] Proposition 8 constitutes an attempted revision of [the] state Constitution, rather than an amendment, and therefore is invalid because it was not enacted through the process required for a revision…”

While the voters in California have the right to amend their Constitution by majority vote through the use of ballot propositions, any revision of the Constitution’s ‘underlying principles” requires a far more deliberate and complex process involving a two-thirds vote of the legislature followed by the submission of such proposed changes directly to the voters or to a constitutional convention.

The ACLU, the Lambda Legal Defense Fund and the National Center for Lesbian Rights argue that Prop 8’s changes to the Constitution are fundamental in nature, impacting the fundamental rights of a minority, and can not be made by a simple majority vote on a ballot proposition.

I expect that the California Supreme Court will first issue a stay of Prop 8’s implementation, and then hear and decide the case quickly.

I also expect that the Court will rule, by the same 4-3 vote as in the Marriage Cases, that Prop 8 is invalid.

My prediction is that the Court will issue a long and scholarly opinion, authored by Chief Justice Ronald M. George (a Republican, appointed by Governor Pete Wilson, who also authored the Court’s opinion in the Marriage Cases), centered on the statement of former Chief Justice Roger Traynor that if a Constitution “is to retain respect it must be free from popular whim and caprice which would make of it a mere statute.”

California’s same sex marriage will stand.

Obama and the Jews

In a previous post — The Great Schlep: Why Do Jews Demean Jews? — I argued that Sarah Silverman’s video The Great Schlep both demeaned Jews and falsely assumed that older Jews are more conservative than their grandchildren or less likely to support Barack Obama.

Now a recent Gallup poll proves that I was right about older Jews’ support for Obama.

From Gallup.com:

“Obama Winning Over Jewish Vote”

“PRINCETON, NJ — Jewish voters nationwide have grown increasingly comfortable with voting for Barack Obama for president since the Illinois senator secured the Democratic nomination in June. They now favor Obama over John McCain by more than 3 to 1, 74% to 22%.”

“Support for Obama among all registered voters was fairly stable from June through September, but then rose sharply in October — in apparent reaction to the U.S. economic crisis. By contrast, support for Obama among Jewish voters has expanded more gradually, from the low 60% range in June and July to 66% in August, 69% in September, and 74% today.”

“The current proportion of U.S. Jews backing Obama is identical to the level of support the Democratic ticket of John Kerry and John Edwards received in the 2004 presidential election (74%). It is only slightly lower than what Al Gore and Joe Lieberman received in 2000 (80%) — when the first Jewish American appeared on the presidential ticket of a major party.”

“Recent support for Obama is a bit higher among older Jews than among Jews younger than 55. According to combined Gallup Poll Daily tracking data from Sept. 1 through Oct. 21, an average of 74% of Jews aged 55 and older supported Obama for president across this period, compared with about two-thirds of younger Jews.”

“The Obama/Biden ticket is poised to perform about on par with other recent Democratic presidential tickets when it comes to support from American Jewish voters.”

So much for the false idea behind The Great Schlep — that older Jews are conservative and that Sarah Silverman and her army of youngsters are needed to teach their grandparents progessive politics.

Stand Up for Your (Gay Friend’s) Rights

My friend Winter Miller wrote this piece for the Boston Globe. 

I’m reposting it here with her permission.

IT SURE was nice to see Barack Obama stand up for Roe v. Wade in the presidential debates. It would also have been nice if he’d stood up for gay marriage. But no one mentioned gay marriage in any of the presidential debates and, what’s more, Obama doesn’t support gay marriage.

As this election unfolds, I’m trying to figure out whom I’m most angered by, Obama or all the straight people I know who haven’t stood up for gay rights. If the majority doesn’t clamor for change, then politicians have no reason to go out on a limb.

As a gay woman, it is unlikely I would need access to abortion. Still, I believe all women regardless of age, income, or circumstance should have a right to choose abortion.

The only mention of gay marriage this debate season was between Senator Joseph Biden and Governor Sarah Palin. I listened as Biden called for same sex unions with the same rights as marriage, a proposition that unfailingly rings of separate but equal. Like most liberals, you probably thought, gosh, gays are accepted now, this is progress.

Let me get this straight: My biracial candidate wants to drink from different water fountains? I looked down at my Obama T-shirt and wondered if I had the heart to go campaign for him.

Those of you who have gay friends, we appreciate your friendship; in fact, nothing says friendship like standing up for us in the face of bigoted adversity. Where is the outrage? Should I be mollified that Ellen DeGeneres’s wedding made the cover of People magazine, as did Clay Aiken’s declaration of gayness? Should I cheer when my email home page pops up a sighting of Lindsay Lohan with her girlfriend? I cheer all right; I think about all the isolated teenagers who are less likely to commit suicide or be ostracized when they see examples of cultural acceptance.

We have seen that public opinion shifts with greater nuance; that the gay lifestyle isn’t so much a hedonistic orgiastic cult as “Leave it to Beaver” where June and June swap wearing the apron and Ward and Ward take turns dropping Wally and Beaver at football and soccer.

Last month, a poll in the Washington Post showed 55 percent of California voters opposed an initiative banning a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, while only 38 percent favored the ban. In a recent Time magazine poll, 72 percent said if a presidential candidate held a position on gay marriage different from their own they’d still consider voting for him, compared with 22 percent who said they wouldn’t vote for him. The same poll showed a tie over opinions about gay and lesbians marrying and receiving the same legal rights as heterosexuals. The tide is turning. Gay marriage is a civil distinction. Whether a particular house of worship chooses to support it is a faith-by-faith decision.

Clearly, the battle is to be fought not at the federal level, but state by state. Three states have legalized gay marriage; Massachusetts was the pioneer in 2004, followed by California in 2008, and Connecticut last week. In Vermont, New Jersey, and New Hampshire, civil unions are recognized. There are domestic partner laws permitting partial benefits found in civil unions in Oregon, Hawaii, Maine, and Washington.

The must-do list is long: gay rights, hate-crime deterrents, universal healthcare, equal access to equally good schools, and more – in short, all the things each of us would want for our families, especially when we find ourselves holding the short end of the stick.

The next time you see your gay friend/relative/neighbor, think about the rights you were born into and the rights of others for which you’ve fought. Ask yourself if you can go beyond your comfort zone to advocate for the right for all of us, regardless of gender, race, sexuality, ability, or religion, to pursue and achieve liberty and happiness.

I don’t know if I will choose to marry, just as I never knew if I would choose an abortion, but our convictions mean the most when they include those beyond ourselves.

Winter Miller is author of the plays In Darfur and The Penetration Play.