And now, landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org officially endorses Barack Obama for president. We do not do this because we are liberals — well, some of us lean a little further left on certain issues than others — or because we have bought into Mr. Obama’s rhetoric any more than we did John McCain’s. Rather, it was our esteemed candidates’ choices of vice presidential running mates that primarily caused us to come to this conclusion.

Mr. Obama’s selection, Senator Joe Biden, may never set the world on fire, but he’s moderate, and appears to understand foreign relations and how the US economy and government work. Meanwhile, Mr. McCain’s pick, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, is attractive, and charismatic, but seems to be clue-free when it comes to even the basics of foreign relations, economics, and how the government works and it is frightening to contemplate her sitting one 72 year-old man’s heartbeat away from the presidency.

Of course, we do not presume to tell others for whom they should vote, only that they should vote, but we do kindly ask everyone out there to please vote “NO” on any and all so-called “Marriage Protection” initiatives or amendments that limit the civil rights of gay and lesbian people, because these kinds of measures — in addition to being just plain backward and oppressive — degrade the meaning of marriage, and reduce the concept of family to a set of demographics.

To treat marriage as if it is nothing more than a license for two people to have sex and reproduce (as if one is required in the first place) diminishes the idea that loving commitment, trust, loyalty, mutual respect and cooperation are the basic moral values that are essential to maintaining successful marriages and building strong families. If we keep prioritizing the basic biological function of procreation as a value in marriage, we will eventually lose sight of how the moral values commitment, trust, loyalty, mutual respect and cooperation help married couples and their children to better deal with the challenges of family life in the modern world.

Defining families according to a conventional model of demographic composition is especially cynical in these days when families are perceived by so many as being in a state of decay. The suggestion that the foundations of successful marriages and strong families are biological connections and specific configurations of people demeans the true purpose of families and diminishes the value of the bonds of love, commitment, trust and loyalty that are the most significant factors needed to keep families stable and healthy. The recognition of a diversity of family configurations will strengthen these worthwhile family values because moral emphasis of marriage will shift from a clinical demographic prescription to a model in which people make serious commitments to work toward meaningful and purposeful relationships.

The notion that children are better off being raised in a home with a mother and a father (or the equivalent) distracts us from the fact that biology and demographics have never been guaranteed to provide a good and loving home for children. Effective childrearing requires a moral character that is not relevant to genetics or statistical designs. Children learn about how a good marriage works by seeing two loving people treating one another with consideration and respect and doing their level best to communicate and cooperate with one another (especially as this pertains to productive conflict resolution), not by merely observing an example of traditional gender identification within a specific demography.

When family composition and gender roles are seen as a priority over the coping skills that are conducive to productive human interactions and relationships there is a danger that children will get the mistaken impression that the foundations of successful marriages and strong families are simple and automatic as long as the demographic and biological requirements are in place, which devalues the importance of the moral character they must develop in order to someday have successful marriages and strong families of their own.

In the midst of the media coverage and ongoing investigations regarding the Mark Foley scandal — during which several key Republicans have been questioned about what they knew and when they knew about the disgraced former Congressman who sent sexually explicit internet messages to young, male Congressional pages — the GOP has been revealed to be far more “gay-friendly” than religious conservatives have previously been lead to believe.

A number of social conservatives, who have been loyally voting Republican in the hope that the GOP will work to preserve America’s moral fabric and fiber, have been shocked and surprised to learn that several key people in their beloved political party (Jim Kolbe, a Republican congressman from Arizona; Jeff Trandahl, the House clerk in charge of the page program; and Kirk Fordham, Mr. Foley’s chief of staff, to name just three.) are openly gay.

The revelation that there are more than just a few “token” gay Republican staffers on Capitol Hill has shaken Christian conservatives, who feel that homosexuality — which the Bible tells them, in Leviticus 18:22, is an “abomination” — should not be so openly accepted in the party that is supposed to be championing the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would enshrine, in the Constitution, the exclusive definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Former Congressman Foley resigned from the House of Representatives on September 29 after the messages he sent to the pages were made public. Mr. Foley has since confessed that he is gay; disclosed that he is an alcoholic with behavioral problems, and divulged that he was molested by a priest when he was an adolescent.

Gay-Friendliness in Protocol

The Religious Right was fittingly vexed by remarks made by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice at the swearing-in ceremony of Ambassador Mark Dybul, the new U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator.

As First Lady Laura Bush looked on, Dr. Dybul was sworn in by Secretary Rice on October 10, while his partner, Jason Claire, held the Bible. However, what was most disturbing to the sensibilities of religious conservatives was that both State Department Deputy Chief of Protocol, Raymond Martinez, and Secretary Rice recognized Mr. Claire’s mother as Dr. Dybul’s “mother-in-law.”

Peter Sprigg, vice president for policy at the Family Research Council, said the secretary’s comments were “profoundly offensive” and fly in the face of the Bush administration’s endorsement of the Federal Marriage Amendment.

“We have to face the fact that putting a homosexual in charge of AIDS policy is a bit like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse,” said Mr. Sprigg. “But even beyond that, the deferential treatment that was given not only to him but his partner and his partner’s family by the Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is very distressing.”

Mr. Sprigg said that, in light of the Mark Foley scandal, “it’s inexplicable that a conservative administration would do such things.”

After reading many news stories about Mr. Foley, in which the number of gay staffers on the Republican payroll have been discussed, the “pro-family” movement is starting to wonder about the party’s lack of action on conservative social issues.

FRC President Tony Perkins said that one of the questions that needs to be asked is: “Has the social agenda of the GOP been stalled by homosexual members or staffers?”

The ongoing Foley investigation and Secretary Rice’s perceived faux pas at Dr. Dybul’s swearing-in ceremony are revealing the politically awkward fact that some GOP leaders are practicing a sort of tolerance that other Republicans have not conveyed on the campaign trail — and lending credence to the charges made in a new book by David Kuo, the former second-in-command of the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, about how the White House has used conservative Christians for their votes, but has consistently given them nothing in return.

In the book, Tempting Faith: An Inside Story of Political Seduction, released on October 16, Mr. Kuo wrote that, in the office of presidential political strategist Karl Rove, some of the nation’s most prominent religious leaders were known as “the nuts.”

“National Christian leaders received hugs and smiles in person and then were dismissed behind their backs and described as ‘ridiculous,’ ‘out of control,’ and just plain ‘goofy,’” Mr. Kuo writes.

Mr. Kuo also alleges that then-White House political affairs director Ken Mehlman knowingly participated in a plan to use the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, as well as the taxpayers’ money, for ostensibly “nonpartisan” events that were actually intended to mobilize religious voters in 20 targeted races — 19 of those 20 races were won by Republicans.

Where’s the Love?

It is widely believed that Republicans owe their 2004 election victories to the Religious Right, whose highly motivated “values voters” went to the polls, in droves, to vote for anti-gay-marriage measures in 11 swing states — and to cast their ballots for GOP candidates while they were at it.

However, the Republicans Party blatantly neglects the issues that are most important to its largest voting bloc. The GOP leadership talks mostly about terrorism and economics while paying just enough lip service to social issues to ensure that evangelicals will campaign and vote for Republican candidates.

The controversial events of the last year, especially those that have occurred in the past few weeks, have begun to cause the GOP’s carefully constructed image as the party of “family values” to crack and crumble to the point where an increasing number of religious conservative voters are beginning to suspect that they’ve been duped by Republican platitudes.

Greg Cain, in an October 17 Chattanoogan.com article entitled, It Is Time For Christians To Leave The Republican Party - And Replies writes that, “Jesus wasn’t riding an elephant into town.”

Mr. Cain then goes on to suggest that, “it is time to build an ark. It is time to leave the Republican Party.”

It has become increasingly apparent to Mr. Cain that the core values of the Republican Party are not Tennessean or Christian values. “The Mark Foley Branch of the Log Cabin Republicans has seen to that,” he wrote.

An Opportunity for Redemption?

On October 25, New Jersey’s Supreme Court ruled that homosexuals are entitled to the same rights as heterosexuals, but left it up to lawmakers to either rewrite the state’s marriage laws to include same-sex couples, or to create a new system of civil unions for them.

Before the decision was handed down, conservative Christian groups were meeting with far less success in trying to motivate their supporters with the issue of same-sex marriage than they had during the 2004 election cycle.

Focus on the Family founder Dr. James C. Dobson held “Stand for the Family” rallies in three cities, but the turnout was much lower than anticipated, with only 3,000 people attending a Pittsburg rally that was held in a 17,000-seat arena. The next two rallies had to be moved from stadium-sized venues to smaller auditoriums, and the tickets, which had been on sale for $7, were given away.

Now the leaders of the Religious Right are holding out hope that the 4 to 3 court ruling will re-energize disillusioned and battle-weary social conservatives in the 10 days before the November 7 midterm elections, especially in those eight states that have constitutional amendments against same-sex marriage on their ballots — five are currently expected to pass; in Idaho, Virginia, South Carolina, South Dakota and Tennessee, while three appear close; in Colorado, Arizona and Wisconsin.

Dr. Richard Land, head of the public policy arm of the Southern Baptist Convention said, “Pro-traditional-marriage organizations ought to give a distinguished service award to the New Jersey Supreme Court.”

Republican Congressional candidates who are in competitive races in conservative states and districts are likely grateful to have something with which to re-energize their religious conservative base, but the GOP itself has lately met with disapproval from an increasing number of those fickle moderates, who are quite displeased with the progress of the war in Iraq, worried about the stability of our economy, and disturbed by the state of our health care system.

Those masses of moderates — a 54%-65% majority, depending upon which poll one consults — also think “civil unions” for same-sex couples are a reasonable compromise (they can have the civil rights, as long as they don’t get to use the word “marriage”), and place the issue very low upon their lists of priorities when deciding their votes — and they, of course, greatly outnumber the Religious Right.

The GOP’s balancing act, in which it tries to please its evangelical base while, at the same time, trying to avoid offending the sensibilities of moderates, is not as easy today as it was in 2004, when the war in Iraq was still popular.

Republicans who are in close races in moderate districts and states are likely to ignore the subject of same-sex marriage and/or civil unions as they face constituencies that don’t like the way things are going in Iraq, are afraid that the economy will not improve, and are concerned about the high cost of health care.

Turn to God

Maybe it’s time for the good people of the Religious Right to get out of this sinful business known as “politics,” and to acknowledge, once and for all, that the GOP is not ever going to create the sort of Heaven on Earth that it keeps promising, but has failed to even marginally deliver to the earnest, hard-working bloc of people who helped to elect them because they were lead to believe that a Republican government would work to alleviate the temptation of humankind’s ungodly perversions, vices, and weaknesses.

The Scriptures say: “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.” (Matthew 7:15)

The trouble with a government of the people, by the people, and for the people is that it is ultimately comprised of our fellow sinners whose mortal flesh is just as susceptible to temptation as anybody else’s.

On Tuesday, September 6, 2005, California lawmakers became the first in the United States to approve a bill recognizing same-sex marriages. Assembly Bill (AB) 849, “The Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act,” authored by California Assemblyman Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) passed 41-35. The California Senate approved it 21-15 last week. The bill, which makes the law defining marriage gender-neutral (gender was not placed into California’s marriage laws until 1977), does not require any church or other religious organization to recognize or perform same-sex marriages.

The bill will now go to California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger who has until October 6, 2005, to either sign or veto the bill or to simply allow it go into effect without his signature. Governor Schwarzenegger, who has expressed acceptance of same-sex marriage, has signaled that he will veto it, saying that this is an issue that should be decided by the courts.

The Governor’s spokeswoman, Margita Thompson said, “The people spoke when they passed Proposition 22. The issue subsequently went to the courts. The governor believes the courts are the correct venue for this decision to be made. He will uphold whatever decision the court renders.”

A case testing the legality of a ban on same-sex marriages is headed for the state Supreme Court. The state appellate court is now considering appeals of a lower court ruling, which overturned the California laws that banned the civil recognition of same-sex marriages.

Mr. Leno characterized the recognition of same-sex marriage as the most significant civil rights issue of the 21st century and said that he is optimistic about Governor Schwarzenegger’s open-mindedness.

“I believe this is a governor who at his core is a libertarian on issues of social matters,” Mr. Leno said, “and that he is very fair-minded. I think he also takes the longer, rather than shorter, view of history.” Mr. Leno also noted a recent poll by the Public Policy Institute of California, which showed that Californians are evenly split, 46% to 46%, on the issue of same-sex marriage.

“Do what we know is in our hearts,” said Mr. Leno in a debate on the bill, “Make sure all California families will have the same protection under the law.”

The measure was approved after three Assembly members, Tom Umberg (D-Anaheim), Gloria Negrete-McLeod (D-Chino) and Simon Salinas (D-Salinas), changed their minds after having abstained on a similar proposal that failed in June by 4 votes. Assemblyman Mervyn Dymally (D-Compton), who was not present for the June vote, also helped the bill to pass.

“This is one of those times when history looks upon us to see where we are,” Mr. Umberg said. “Ten years from now, there are a handful of issues that history will record where we stood, and this is one of those issues. History will record whether we pushed a bit, took the lead to encourage tolerance, to encourage equality to encourage fairness,” he said.

Ms. Negrete-McLeod also said that she regretted her June abstention, saying that she was convinced by the words of the Declaration of Independence that demanded “justice for all.”.

Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality California, a backer of the bill said that Tuesday’s vote showed that gay rights advocates have “turned the corner on the issue of marriage equality for lesbian and gay couples.”

“As the debate today shows, love conquers fear, principle conquers politics and equality conquers injustice, and the governor can now secure his legacy as a true leader by signing this bill,” Mr. Kors said.

The bill’s supporters compared the legislation to civil rights campaigns to eradicate slavery and secure the right to vote for women.

Opponents of the civil recognition of same-sex marriage have vowed to go to court if the bill becomes law, saying it violates the spirit of Proposition 22, a 2000 ballot initiative that prohibits California from recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states or countries. Proposition 22, which California Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer deemed unconstitutional earlier this year, is not actually impacted by AB 849.

Those who disapprove of marriage equality for gay and lesbian people are also trying to qualify initiatives for the 2006 ballot, one that would amend California’s state Constitution to ban the recognition of same-sex marriages and another that would roll back some of the rights gained by same-sex couples who register as “domestic partners.”

Randy Thomasson, president of the Campaign for Children and Families (but apparently only children and families that organization finds acceptable) said, “The only word I can see here is prostitution. Instead of obeying the voters and the Constitution, the Democratic politicians have prostituted themselves to the homosexual marriage agenda. It’s not gay, it’s bad.”

In a September 6 press release, Mr. Thomasson said, “Schwarzenegger can’t afford to sign the ‘gay marriage license’ bill, He’ll actually become a hero to the majority of Californians when he vetoes it. The ‘Terminator’ should announce without delay that this bill is dead meat.”

“I think it’s a sad day. I think the people of California want us to do the business of jobs, the economy, education, illegal immigration, and today we had to spend several hours talking about an issue that the voters decided back five years ago, that marriage should be between a man and a woman … I think it shows how out of touch the legislature is,” said Assemblywoman Sharon Runner (R-Lancaster).

Assemblyman Jay La Suer (R-a San Diego) said, “You are not leading, you have gone astray. History will record that you betrayed your constituents, and their moral and ethical values.” –

“The institution of marriage transcends political fads. We are talking about an institution that has been defined for thousands of years … and we are being asked to engage in a great social experiment,” Assemblyman Ray Haynes (R-Murrieta) said.

“It’s not about civil rights or personal rights, it’s about acceptance. They want to be accepted as normal. They are not normal,” insisted Assemblyman Dennis Mountjoy (R-Monrovia), who also said, “We damage the moral fabric of our society, that’s what’s damaged here.”

The opponents of the civil recognition of same-sex marriage do not want this issue characterized as one of civil and human rights because it is an issue of civil and human rights.

Who do they think they’re fooling and how long do they expect them to stay fooled? After all, equality is not the same thing as acceptance and nobody can objectively define that ambiguous social concept some people call “normal.”

Aren’t oppression and bigotry damaging to the moral fabric of our society?

Is it ethical to create a second class of citizenship?

Is it prudent to think of equal protection under the law as a “social experiment?”

And, the current most important question: Will Governor Schwarzenegger place equality over injustice and principle above politics?

Some gay and lesbian people seem to feel that their somewhat ambiguous social and cultural status requires them to tread lightly, unpresumptuously defending the validity of their families and values while humbly requesting the recognition of their basic human and civil rights. And this attitude is quite understandable in members of an oppressed minority that has been legally marginalized, demonized by political propaganda and religious dogma and victimized by hateful people who think that their anti-homosexual prejudices are justified by religious and cultural traditions. However, the people who should be on the defensive are those who support DOMAs and other oppressive policies like the Federal Marriage Amendment, for the tenability of their collective positions rests solely upon the vast majority’s uneasiness with regard to homosexuality — either as it pertains to others or to its own tendencies and temptations.

Advocates of gay rights who are also members of the recognized majority of heterosexuals feel no such obligation to exercise political humility, which leaves us free to go on the offensive and demand that same-sex marriage be recognized as a civil and human right. And the case in favor of those demands is an excellent one filled with pragmatic arguments that are guaranteed to leave the bigoted and homophobic self-described “protectors” and “defenders” of marriage positively speechless — or at least flailing about, muttering passages from The Book of Leviticus as they desperately rummage through their well-worn talking points playbook of red herrings, straw men and slippery slopes in vain attempts to re-gain the upper hand they never really had, save for the vast majority’s discomfort with regard to the natural variations of human sexuality.

However, going on the offensive and making demands for human and civil rights that should already be recognized in a free and secular society does not address how the legal recognition of same-sex marriage is imperative to defending its meaningfulness as a social institution and how the redefinition of marriage is essential to protecting it from the unavoidable implications of changing cultural mores with regard to the significance of gender in contemporary marriage and society.

Family Values

To treat marriage as if it is nothing more than a license for two people to have sex and reproduce (as if one is required in the first place) diminishes the idea that loving commitment, trust, loyalty, mutual respect and cooperation are the basic moral values that are essential to maintaining successful marriages and building strong families. If we keep prioritizing the basic biological function of procreation as a value in marriage, we will eventually lose sight of how the moral values commitment, trust, loyalty, mutual respect and cooperation help married couples and their children to better deal with the challenges of family life in the modern world.

Defining families according to a conventional model of demographic composition is especially cynical in these days when families are perceived by so many as being in a state of decay. The suggestion that the foundations of successful marriages and strong families are biological connections and specific configurations of people demeans the true purpose of families and diminishes the value of the bonds of love, commitment, trust and loyalty that are the most significant factors needed to keep families stable and healthy. The recognition of a diversity of family configurations will strengthen these worthwhile family values because moral emphasis of marriage will shift from a clinical demographic prescription to a model in which people make serious commitments to work toward meaningful and purposeful relationships.

The notion that children are better off being raised in a home with a mother and a father (or the equivalent) distracts us from the fact that biology and demographics have never been guaranteed to provide a good and loving home for children. Effective childrearing requires a moral character that is not relevant to genetics or statistical designs. Children learn about how a good marriage works by seeing two loving people treating one another with consideration and respect and doing their level best to communicate and cooperate with one another (especially as this pertains to productive conflict resolution), not by merely observing an example of traditional gender identification within a specific demography.

When family composition and gender roles are seen as a priority over the coping skills that are conducive to productive human interactions and relationships there is a danger that children will get the mistaken impression that the foundations of successful marriages and strong families are simple and automatic as long as the demographic and biological requirements are in place, which devalues the importance of the moral character they must develop in order to someday have successful marriages and strong families of their own.

The “Culture War” is a Bad Influence upon our Children

We should all be worried about how the children will be affected by the adults battling with one another over sexual and gender issues rather than getting together on the practical issues in order to help make a better world for children and families.

The combative climate of a “culture war” over the recognition of same-sex marriage is not only politically divisive but also diverts attention away from the practical problems and goals of families in today’s society. The controversies surrounding family demographics, gender roles and sexual orientation keep traditional and non-traditional families from the realizing that they have more commonalities than differences when it comes to the challenges and objectives of people who hope to have successful marriages and strong families in these uncertain times.

Issues such as family finances, insurance, taxes and parents’ work schedules affect all families, despite their individual configurations. And all good parents, notwithstanding their marital status or other personal circumstances, are concerned about their children’s safety and health care and how extra-curricular activities, youth sports and the entertainment industry might negatively or positively affect their children. There are over 1000 federal and state laws regarding the protections, benefits, responsibilities and obligations of marriage and all manner of families should be working together to ensure that our state and federal marriage legislation protects the basic, pragmatic interests of families and children.

Averting the Grave Threats to Marriage in 21st Century Society

In these tumultuous days of casual sexual relationships, no-fault and “quickie” divorces and cavalier attitudes toward marital fidelity, the institution of marriage is under siege from the continuing shifts in social and cultural mores of the last half-century. As a result, these changes in our modern society could cause marriage to become obsolete, which is a grave threat to the basic foundations of society and civilization itself.

Since there has never been a practical way to turn back the tide of social change, we must now reinvent marriage to preserve its viability as an institution that brings people together in love, commitment, loyalty, trust, mutual respect and cooperation to form the essential building blocks of civilized society known as families. In order to strengthen the social institutions of marriage and family, we must expand their definitions to include more people so that we can prevent the moral values that make successful marriages and strong families from being lost and forgotten in the midst of the pointless battles of a senseless culture war over the relatively trivial issues of sexual orientation and gender identification.

The gender roles and sexual preferences of loving people who possess the moral values and courage to actually want to make a real commitment in these confusing days of moral turbulence should be the least of our worries. In fact, such people — be they gay or straight — should be applauded for their fortitude and encouraged in their committed and loving relationships no matter the conventionality of the demographic configuration they believe will be most conducive to the success of their marriages and the strength of their families.