It was a sticky June evening in this small, sleepy, Southern town. People were gathering on the lawn in the garden behind a church carrying food, lawn chairs, picnic blankets, coolers, playing cornhole, and watching their children run on the playground. Everything seemed perfectly ordinary, except for the four loud protesters carrying signs and loudly shouting bible verses and hurling insults at those who came in.
You see, despite appearances, this was not an ordinary church picnic at all, this was Shelby, North Carolina's first ever gay pride event, organized and hosted by the Episcopal Church of the Redeemer. In the seventeen plus years I had lived and practiced law in this town that sometimes seems like it is stuck in 1950 both in appearance and attitude, I had never seen a more diverse group of individuals gather in one place. Gay, straight, all races, ages, economic backgrounds, Christian, atheist, pagan, all gathering and celebrating simply being able to be themselves. One thing that really struck me in that huge crowd of over 300 people gathering on a church lawn was that everyone was smiling, hugging, holding hands, and simply enjoying themselves. The feeling of joy and celebration was universal, the only bad feelings or negativity were coming from the four lonely protesters tying to disrupt the party to no avail.
This celebration came on the heels of decades of fear and discrimination, and more immediately after a week of intense debate on social media, in the comments section of the local paper, and in the pulpits of local churches. The comments ranged from the typical (and theologically suspect) "Love the sinner, hate the sin" kind of nonsense, to "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve," to more troubling and offensive statements such as "God ain't run out of AIDS yet." The attacks went from attacking gays and lesbians to fanning out attacking women and calling the supporters of the event baby killers. The one theme that seemed to run through most of the attacks, however, was that it was wrong for a Christian church to be sponsoring a program like this because to celebrate and accept the LGBT community was to go against God.
One local pastor went so far as to publish a long, ranting screed criticizing our church and our Rector, along with the local paper for publishing a story about the event. He went through the usual who's who hit list of Bible verses, always taken alone, to demonstrate his belief that homosexuality was wrong in the eyes of God. He further went on to attack the Episcopal Church, our Rector, our parish, our finances, and the way we carry out our ministries. Seriously. He seemed somewhat unhinged as he ranted and raged about how 80% of the county voters had approved of the State constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage, so why were we having this event?
Although I know that not all of his church approves of his actions during the week, it is notable that two of the four protesters at the event were from his church. It is also notable that while all of this was happening, I received vaguely threatening letters along with religious tracts attacking same sex marriage at my office, two gay members of my church had their house vandalized with homophobic threats painted on their door, and the church was deluged with threatening e-mails and letters throughout the week. Take the protesting soldiers funerals out of the equation, and there is really little difference between the beliefs being put forth by this pastor, and those agreeing with him and acting on his behalf, and the Westboro Baptist Church.
When we first met for a planning session that was called by our Rector saying she wanted to organize a Gay Pride event for Shelby, North Carolina, I was expecting a demonstration, or a parade, or something in your face. Having been an activist in one issue or another all of my adult life, rallies or demonstrations are something that is in my blood, and confrontation is something I know moves issues forward. I have to admit that when she announced to the group of about 25 organizers that the plan was for a picnic, I was a little disappointed and thought it was a little hokey.
I could not have expected that something so innocent and so un-confrontational as a picnic, could create such controversy. It was only after experiencing the apoplectic reaction of the religious conservatives in town and seeing the pure love and joy shared by all of those in attendance, did I realize how perfect and ingenious the idea to have a picnic was. For the public at large, it created the incredibly absurd picture of a group that was so rabid in their opposition to the LGBT community that they would actually picket a church picnic. But more importantly, for those in attendance, whether they were gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, or straight allies, it gave them a safe place where they could be themselves without fear of disapproval, without fear of retribution, without fear, period. The power and strength that came from that was truly something that I am glad I was able to be a part of.
But more importantly for us as a church, it was a way to experience and live our faith in a deeper and more direct way. This was not a safe thing for us to do as a church. We could have gone about attending our Sunday services, and doing our ministries, writing our checks, and felt pretty good about ourselves that we were inclusive and open. But, in this event, we put our beliefs of openness, inclusiveness, hospitality, and above all LOVE into practice. We stood up to the critics and the naysayers and said we will not be cowed by your insults and your threats and your criticisms. We are people of faith and we are going to make a stand for what we believe even if you look down on us for doing so.
I was raised in a Roman Catholic church that was unbelievably liberal in its message and its practices. My pastor growing up had marched with Dr. King in Selma, and never shied away from a fight because he was afraid to ruffle feathers. So, after he left our parish I was left with a church which had over the years moved away from his type of Liberation Theology to a much more conservative theology with little emphasis on social justice, and much more emphasis on morality, especially sexual morality. I became more and more dismayed as I searched for a church which shared my views and shared what I felt was the true message of Christianity -- that we are to love one another as Christ loved us and our neighbor as ourselves.
It wasn't until the issue of Amendment One came to the forefront that I found what I had been searching for my whole life. Seeing that there was one (and only one) church that was speaking out against the proposed amendment to our state constitution banning same sex marriage and civil unions, I decided to check out what they had to offer. What I found was the only church of which I had ever been a part, that was actually practicing the message that I had always found in the Bible, that radical love and revolutionary acceptance that for me was the whole point of Christ's message.
In the years since, I have become much more spiritual, much more religious, and I can say with confidence a generally better person. I attend services almost every week, I am involved in my parish's leadership, my family is involved in various ministries in the church, and my child is being raised to actively know and love God in an atmosphere that teaches her that she is an equal and equally valuable part of our church family as is everyone regardless of their gender, race, sexual orientation, economic standing, or age.
So, what say you who lobbed insults and vicious attacks on social media, or who stood outside our picnic and insulted people as they arrived and left the event (my wife on leaving asked my just turned five year-old daughter to close her eyes and plug her ears so she wouldn't have to hear the insults being shouted at her)? How is it that God could use the LGBT community to speak to me and bring me back into God's fold and God's house if he hates gays and lesbians and considers them unworthy of God's love and acceptance? How could God speak to me through their struggle if what you are saying is true? How could I be healed of my anger, disappointment and emptiness,by the welcoming call of lesbians and gays to come back to God's house, if God did not love each of God's creation equally? And how is it that God could act through us to organize an event where all of those in attendance were able to share God's house with joy, love, and laughter while those outside claiming to work in God's name were so angry and sad?
The Sunday following the picnic, our early service was marred by protesters who came onto church property yelling through bullhorns trying to disrupt our service. They were asked to leave and eventually did after the intervention of local law enforcement. They left graffiti on our sidewalk demanding that we repent of our beliefs or else we would burn in hell. After the conclusion of the later service, several of those attending the service cleaned the graffiti from the sidewalk. After clearing away all the hateful language, they left one word untouched. The only word that mattered.
"LOVE"
Monday, June 30, 2014
Tuesday, January 21, 2014
Death by Journalism
I'm going to tell you a story. You may have seen in mentioned in your circles, or maybe caught a stray mention of it while catching up on news on the net. But most likely, it has flown under your radar, as its subject is not one that would normally make the evening news or mainstream newspaper readership. It is the story of all things a journalist's investigation into the claims made of the makers of a putter. Yes, a putter. A golf club. But because of the complete ignorance and unrecognized privilege of the author and his editors, specifically, and the complete and utter lack of value that society places on one segment of our society, this seemingly innocuous subject led directly to the death of the club's designer.
The story was written by Caleb Hannan (@calebhannan) for the pseudo-news ESPN imprint Grantland. It was entitled "Dr. V's Magical Putter." The link to the story is here, and I encourage you to read the story, not to give Grantland any further undeserved clicks for this horrible excuse for journalism, but just so you can get a sense of how Hannan portrays himself as somehow the hero of this story and how little the revelations made about Essay Anne Vanderbilt, which led to her suicide, had to do with the actual story, and how completely unnecessary they were.
To cut to the chase, Essay Anne Vanderbilt was a transgender woman. She was biologically born with male reproductive organs, but was unquestionably a woman. She lived with her female partner, a retired securities analyst with Bank of America, and together they invented the putter that was initially the subject of the article.
There were several legitimate topics of the investigation (why any purported news organization would grant eight months to a reporter to investigate a putter is beyond my understanding, but it's their publication). It appeared that Dr. V as Vanderbilt was known, had allegedly falsified her academic and professional credentials, and that her claims as to the efficacy of the putter were questionable. Fair enough.
However, the bombshell of the piece was that Dr. V was transgender, or as Hannan puts it "was born a boy." This was portrayed by Hannan as just another "lie" that Vanderbilt told. Not only had she made up her degrees and experience, but get this -- she's not even a "real" woman, guys!
Not only did Hannan make it known to Vanderbilt, who had repeatedly insisted that she and her personal life not be the subject of the story, that the focus remain on the putter, but he told one of Vanderbilt's investors that she was transgender.
Hannan reports this fact in his story, and then claims, again making himself the main subject of the story, how difficult it is to "eulogize" the subject of your story.
There is no doubt that Hannan's overly aggressive tactics in reporting this story and revealing a very personal fact that Vanderbilt had chosen to keep private, as is her right, led directly to her suicide. Why Grantland would choose to run the story, revealing her private personal facts to the world posthumously and further smearing her name is a question that I still can't quite answer. Bill Simmons the creator of Grantland tries to offer an explanation here. But, this explanation, really more of a CYA from Disney's legal department than an article, really doesn't answer that.
As I read the story, then followed much of the outrage that was filling up my twitter feed over the weekend, I found myself having a palpable visceral reaction to the story. I became filled with anger and outrage and was on multiple occasions nearly brought to tears reading the reactions and stories from transgender men and women across the world.
I asked myself why this was happening. Why was something that had so little to do with me causing me such consternation. I know that I get outraged whenever I see an injustice (it's the '70s Catholic upbringing I guess -- Liberation Theology and all). But, what was it about this that was effecting me so deeply.
When I took time to analyze what was going on, what I feel really affected me and caused me to feel this great outrage was the fact that the author of the piece and his editors simply never took the time to think of Vanderbilt as a human being. And, in addition, this is the theme that was coming over and over as I read the stories of trans brothers and sisters across the internet. That we, as a society, somehow fail to recognize that they are human. That somehow by being born trans, they are somehow automatically thought of as less.
Why do we place such value on our gender? We all know the stories of boys on the playground belittling their classmates with taunts of "faggot" and "sissy" on the playground, and these terms have become less and less acceptable as the success of the gay and lesbian rights movement has grown. But, if you ask any boy or man what the worst insult that they could have, if they are honest, it isn't "fag," it's actually to be called a woman or a girl. We see coaches intimidate and antagonize their teams by calling them "ladies" or "girls." We see fraternity hazing rituals in which pledges are forced to dress in women's clothing. We all laugh and giggle at "Womenless Beauty Pageants" where high ranking men in the community demean themselves by dressing up in women's clothing and makeup in order to raise money for a charity.
Even in the gay community, there is often tremendous discrimination against transgender men and women. Much like the LGBT acronym, the T is often at most an afterthought, grudgingly accepted as part of the overall movement, but rarely, if ever, the focus. Even in gay rights publications and websites you will see transgender jokes and insults accepted as if they are the norm, and comments sections full of vitriol against transgender people, similar to the attacks you see on twitter and in mainstream publications against women who dare to speak out.
All of this, again, comes back to thinking of trans people as somehow less than whole, less than deserving of the same rights and acceptance that all of us have by mere fact of being born. The fact is that Dr. V and the rest of the transgender community were born how they are. Their struggles in dealing not only with the spectrum of sexuality (to whom they are attracted) but with their very gender (who they are) are monumental and deserve not the derision and dismissal that they often provoke, but instead deserve deep respect, acceptance, and understanding.
Dr. V and many other transgender men and women get nothing of this. Just like in Hannan's article, the fact that someone lives the gender that they are rather than the biological anatomy with which they were born is seen as a lie, or a fraud, or even treason against their sex. All of this is ludicrous. It is a disease, a mental illness from which our society suffers, much like any other hatred of others different from what society considers the "norm".
It is my hope that this horrific story will be a chance for many of us to stand up and start fighting back against the burdens that our society places on transgender men and women. Perhaps this will be the spark for many of us, who have remained silent on transgender issues to speak more forcefully about them, to educate, to learn, to show more respect. Because until we do, and until all of us start seeing transgender men and women as equal human beings worthy of the same respect and rights as any of us, we will see many, many more endings like Dr. V's.
And we can't afford that.
The story was written by Caleb Hannan (@calebhannan) for the pseudo-news ESPN imprint Grantland. It was entitled "Dr. V's Magical Putter." The link to the story is here, and I encourage you to read the story, not to give Grantland any further undeserved clicks for this horrible excuse for journalism, but just so you can get a sense of how Hannan portrays himself as somehow the hero of this story and how little the revelations made about Essay Anne Vanderbilt, which led to her suicide, had to do with the actual story, and how completely unnecessary they were.
To cut to the chase, Essay Anne Vanderbilt was a transgender woman. She was biologically born with male reproductive organs, but was unquestionably a woman. She lived with her female partner, a retired securities analyst with Bank of America, and together they invented the putter that was initially the subject of the article.
There were several legitimate topics of the investigation (why any purported news organization would grant eight months to a reporter to investigate a putter is beyond my understanding, but it's their publication). It appeared that Dr. V as Vanderbilt was known, had allegedly falsified her academic and professional credentials, and that her claims as to the efficacy of the putter were questionable. Fair enough.
However, the bombshell of the piece was that Dr. V was transgender, or as Hannan puts it "was born a boy." This was portrayed by Hannan as just another "lie" that Vanderbilt told. Not only had she made up her degrees and experience, but get this -- she's not even a "real" woman, guys!
Not only did Hannan make it known to Vanderbilt, who had repeatedly insisted that she and her personal life not be the subject of the story, that the focus remain on the putter, but he told one of Vanderbilt's investors that she was transgender.
Hannan reports this fact in his story, and then claims, again making himself the main subject of the story, how difficult it is to "eulogize" the subject of your story.
There is no doubt that Hannan's overly aggressive tactics in reporting this story and revealing a very personal fact that Vanderbilt had chosen to keep private, as is her right, led directly to her suicide. Why Grantland would choose to run the story, revealing her private personal facts to the world posthumously and further smearing her name is a question that I still can't quite answer. Bill Simmons the creator of Grantland tries to offer an explanation here. But, this explanation, really more of a CYA from Disney's legal department than an article, really doesn't answer that.
As I read the story, then followed much of the outrage that was filling up my twitter feed over the weekend, I found myself having a palpable visceral reaction to the story. I became filled with anger and outrage and was on multiple occasions nearly brought to tears reading the reactions and stories from transgender men and women across the world.
I asked myself why this was happening. Why was something that had so little to do with me causing me such consternation. I know that I get outraged whenever I see an injustice (it's the '70s Catholic upbringing I guess -- Liberation Theology and all). But, what was it about this that was effecting me so deeply.
When I took time to analyze what was going on, what I feel really affected me and caused me to feel this great outrage was the fact that the author of the piece and his editors simply never took the time to think of Vanderbilt as a human being. And, in addition, this is the theme that was coming over and over as I read the stories of trans brothers and sisters across the internet. That we, as a society, somehow fail to recognize that they are human. That somehow by being born trans, they are somehow automatically thought of as less.
Why do we place such value on our gender? We all know the stories of boys on the playground belittling their classmates with taunts of "faggot" and "sissy" on the playground, and these terms have become less and less acceptable as the success of the gay and lesbian rights movement has grown. But, if you ask any boy or man what the worst insult that they could have, if they are honest, it isn't "fag," it's actually to be called a woman or a girl. We see coaches intimidate and antagonize their teams by calling them "ladies" or "girls." We see fraternity hazing rituals in which pledges are forced to dress in women's clothing. We all laugh and giggle at "Womenless Beauty Pageants" where high ranking men in the community demean themselves by dressing up in women's clothing and makeup in order to raise money for a charity.
Even in the gay community, there is often tremendous discrimination against transgender men and women. Much like the LGBT acronym, the T is often at most an afterthought, grudgingly accepted as part of the overall movement, but rarely, if ever, the focus. Even in gay rights publications and websites you will see transgender jokes and insults accepted as if they are the norm, and comments sections full of vitriol against transgender people, similar to the attacks you see on twitter and in mainstream publications against women who dare to speak out.
All of this, again, comes back to thinking of trans people as somehow less than whole, less than deserving of the same rights and acceptance that all of us have by mere fact of being born. The fact is that Dr. V and the rest of the transgender community were born how they are. Their struggles in dealing not only with the spectrum of sexuality (to whom they are attracted) but with their very gender (who they are) are monumental and deserve not the derision and dismissal that they often provoke, but instead deserve deep respect, acceptance, and understanding.
Dr. V and many other transgender men and women get nothing of this. Just like in Hannan's article, the fact that someone lives the gender that they are rather than the biological anatomy with which they were born is seen as a lie, or a fraud, or even treason against their sex. All of this is ludicrous. It is a disease, a mental illness from which our society suffers, much like any other hatred of others different from what society considers the "norm".
It is my hope that this horrific story will be a chance for many of us to stand up and start fighting back against the burdens that our society places on transgender men and women. Perhaps this will be the spark for many of us, who have remained silent on transgender issues to speak more forcefully about them, to educate, to learn, to show more respect. Because until we do, and until all of us start seeing transgender men and women as equal human beings worthy of the same respect and rights as any of us, we will see many, many more endings like Dr. V's.
And we can't afford that.
Friday, September 20, 2013
Business
Hey, there's a great new attorney opening an office in Shelby, NC. You should go check him out and hire him for all of your legal needs. I highly recommend him.
He also needed me to put this image on the web so he can add it to his email since he hasn't set up his own website yet.
He also needed me to put this image on the web so he can add it to his email since he hasn't set up his own website yet.
Wednesday, August 14, 2013
Tom Friedman Lives In a Parallel Universe
I know, I know. It has become somewhat of a sport to mock the endless illogical musings of the New York Times's favorite intellectual bullshit artist, Tom Friedman. Matt Taibbi has perfected the art, actually. For example see his Ultimate Tom Friedman Porn Title contest , which had a surprise winner.
Friedman has become so bad, with each week's column being more illogical, vacuous, and non-sensical, that I actually at one point started to doubt that Tom Friedman actually existed. It appeared that he was simply an algorithm which spit out words and pithy phrases and arranged them into a column twice weekly.
But today's article took the whole Friedman experience to an entirely new level. His column about Edward Snowden and Vladamir Putin's chance to make a second impression ("You only get one chance to make a second impression" starts the column in a typical Friedmanesque turn of phrase) is so full of factual errors and illogical conclusions that the only explanation I can come up with is that Tom Friedman lives in a parallel universe not accessible to the rest of us. You can read the article here if you must. However, I will dissect the second paragraph (just one paragraph) to show how different these parallel universes are. (I have to confess that after reading the second paragraph of the article my brain exploded rendering me incapable of taking in any more of the article).
Friedman has become so bad, with each week's column being more illogical, vacuous, and non-sensical, that I actually at one point started to doubt that Tom Friedman actually existed. It appeared that he was simply an algorithm which spit out words and pithy phrases and arranged them into a column twice weekly.
But today's article took the whole Friedman experience to an entirely new level. His column about Edward Snowden and Vladamir Putin's chance to make a second impression ("You only get one chance to make a second impression" starts the column in a typical Friedmanesque turn of phrase) is so full of factual errors and illogical conclusions that the only explanation I can come up with is that Tom Friedman lives in a parallel universe not accessible to the rest of us. You can read the article here if you must. However, I will dissect the second paragraph (just one paragraph) to show how different these parallel universes are. (I have to confess that after reading the second paragraph of the article my brain exploded rendering me incapable of taking in any more of the article).
First sentence.
"Considering the breadth of reforms that President Obama is now proposing to prevent privacy abuses in intelligence gathering, in the wake of Snowden's disclosures, Snowden deserves a chance to make a second impression -- that he truly is a whistle-blower, not a traitor."
Whew! That first sentence is a whopper. I won't try to diagram it due to lack of space and out of respect to the English language, but I'm going to have to take the sentence apart just to analyse the myriad of untruths it contains.
First off, Friedman suggests that the reforms that Obama proposed are actually significant. I'm sure that there are many who share the Friedman Universe who would agree with him. For instance, fellow NYT columnist David Brooks would likely provide a sympathetic ear to this argument. However, outside of this Bizzarro Friedmanverse, or MSNBC, you would be hard pressed to find anyone who agrees that Obama's proposals are more than window dressing. For instance, perhaps Friedman could have read the editorial published immediately after the President's speech by his own newspaper which assailed the proposals as "tinkering around the edges of the nation's abusive surveillance programs."
This leads to another incredibly frustrating thing that I have noticed. It seems that for the rabid loyalist Obama followers (I didn't call them Obamabots) for the President to say something is the same as the President doing something. This, of course, to anyone who has been conscious for the last five years is the opposite of reality. In fact, it has gotten to the point where if President Obama says something, you can rest assured that he is going to do the complete opposite (perhaps this is why he is so admiring of Larry Summers, but I digress).
The very idea that the President has proposed reforms that will prevent privacy abuses in intelligence gathering ignores the fact that it was the President who ordered the abuses in the first place. It's not like this happened by accident. It's not that the President didn't know this was going on. His Justice Department developed this plan, the President included these proposals in the reauthorization of the Patriot Act and the FISA Amendments Act. He is the one who came up with the damn program, and now you are lauding him for trying to prevent the abuses that he caused?
OK. Deep breath. Next phrase.
Friedman slips in the phrase "in the wake of Snowden's disclosures." So I guess somewhere in the ether of the Friedmanverse there is some acknowledgement that Snowden deserves some credit for bringing about these wide-ranging (look at their breadth) reforms being proposed. However, this is completely blown away by the fact that he then says he "deserves chance to make a second impression -- that he truly is a whistleblower, not a traitor."
I assume by all of this second impression theme that Snowden's first impession on Friedman was not a good one. Apparently his first impression on Friedman was that Snowden was a traitor. This, despite the fact that his disclosures have led to the wonderful reforms that will protect all of our privacy. Apparently in the Friedmanverse, informing Americans that their government is collecting data on every phone call you make, every e-mail you send, and everywhere you go on the internet, means that you are a traitor. But, Friedman's a good guy and he'll give you a second chance to show you live up to the dictates of the Friedmanverse.
Next sentence.
"The fact is, he dumped his data and fled to countries that are hostile to us and to the very principles he espoused."
I didn't think it was possible to outdo the first sentence. However Tom Friedman never ducks from a challenge and he met this one with gusto. Whereas the first sentence was merely intellectually, if not factually, dishonest, the second sentence simply wrings the neck of logic until logic is left lying on the floor, unconscious with its last death rattle slowly escaping its body.
Apparently in the Friedmanverse, a fact is a fact simply if Friedman states it is a fact. Glenn Greenwald took issue with this "fact" in a tweet this morning, stating:
"Glenn Greenwald @ggreenwald
Greenwald's mistake is thinking that "facts" as we define them have anything to do with "facts" in the Friedmanverse. To Friedman, apparently carefully selecting documents that prove the mass surveillance of millions upon millions of Americans by their own government without probable cause or due process to two carefully selected reporters and doing so in such a way that these files were protected from being received by anyone other than those two carefully selected reporters is the definition of "dumping data."
Now, here is where logic really takes leave in the Friedmanverse. Friedman then says that Snowden fled to countries that are hostile to us and to the very principles he espoused. Let's think about that a second. Snowden as is well known fled to Hong Kong, which is in the People's Republic of China, and then to Russia where he was forced to remain by the fact that the U.S. revoked his passport and threatened every country which was offering Snowden safe haven (it is probable that Snowden was on his way to Ecuador when he stopped in Russia, but was unable to continue his journey due to the U.S. government's actions).
Friedman states that these countries are hostile to the U.S. and to the very principles he espoused. Let's think about that for a minute. There's no doubt that Russia and China are two of the world's "bad guys." They treat their people badly, their policies both domestically and internationally are in opposition to ours, and they support some of the world's worst groups. So, ok. Russia and China are bad. But, there is also no irony in the Friedmanverse. Because if there was, it would become clear rather quickly that saying that these countries, which allowed Snowden to remain free from the United States government and granted him political asylum were not actually acting in a way that was hostile to the principles Snowden espoused. The country that was seeking to arrest and imprison Snowden was actually the one that was acting against these principles.
Next sentence.
"To make a second impression, Snowden would need to come home, make his case and face his accusers."
OK. A quick aside. Does anyone else get tickled in the fact that Tom Friedman actually has thought about how Snowden's action personally affected him? I mean really. It seems that Snowden's worst crime in the Friedmanverse was that he made a bad first impression on Tom Friedman. In the Friedmanverse, this makes Tom Friedman the benevolent dictator around whom the thanks of his grateful devotees lavish their thanks and praise. However, in the real universe this makes him the single biggest narcissist who has ever lived.
But in this sentence, Friedman picks up a theme that has played out endlessly among Democratic political operatives, and almost every MSNBC host. That in order to qualify as a whistleblower, Snowden should have to come back to the United States, be arrested, if he is not rendered to another country to be tortured, kept in solitary confinement, put on trial eventually, and sentenced to life in prison. Or perhaps he should just be droned. Here is MSNBC weekend host Melissa Harris-Perry's over the top open letter to Edward Snowden making the same point.
The fact that this theme has been discounted by meta whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg and civil rights hero extraordinaire John Lewis , doesn't seem to make this argument go away, even when those making the argument use Daniel Ellsberg and John Lewis to make their argument. But moreover, the argument engages in a logical fallacy -- that in order to be a true whistleblower, Snowden has to come back and serve a lengthy prison sentence to pay for his "crimes." This is the exact opposite of what a whistleblower should have to do. This is why we have whistleblower protections, to encourage people who are in Snowden's position who see crimes being committed by their employers to come forward and disclose these crimes without the fear of prosecution.
Next sentence.
"It would mean risking a lengthy jail term, but also trusting the fair-mindedness of the American people, who, I believe, will not allow an authentic whistle-blower to be unfairly punished."
This is where my head exploded. I mean seriously. I didn't know Friedman was a comedian. I don't know. Perhaps he's just trolling us. I mean, really?
There is no explanation for this sentence other than Friedman actually lives in a parallel universe where the sky is green and the grass is pink. Because if he lived in this universe, especially being as intelligent and aware of current issues as he's always reminding us that he is, he would know that we are currently conducting a trial of Private Bradley Manning, an Army enlisted soldier who leaked a huge amount of classified cables to the website Wiki Leaks who in turn subsequently published many of these diplomatic cables, and other documents including videos which exposed alleged war crimes being committed by American servicemen. Manning was kept naked in solitary confinement for months on end, was subjected to horrific treatment prior to his trial and still faces up to 90 years in prison for the crimes for which he has been convicted. He would know of Thomas Drake, another NSA employee who actually did go through "proper channels" in exposing the illegal warrantless wiretapping program that was being conducted, only to have every avenue shut down until he finally exposed the program to journalists only to be prosecuted under the Espionage Act, before the government's case literally fell apart during trial. He would know John Kiriakou, the only CIA employee to go to prison in connection to the torture program conducted by that agency, not because he conducted any torture himself, but because he confirmed the name of an agent who did conduct torture. He would know that the Obama administration has prosecuted four times the number of people under the Espionage Act that every administration before him combined.
But in the Friedmanverse, none of this matters. In this parallel universe known only to Tom Friedman and a few others, Americans would not sit back and allow a whistle-blower to be mistreated by their government. The fact is, that with pompous blowhards like Tom Friedman cheering them on, the American people have done this time, after time, after time, after time again.
The Friedmanverse is a scary place. Just catching a glimpse of it in this one paragraph of one column has been a horror show. I certainly wouldn't want to spend any time there myself. Unless, of course, I was Tom Friedman.
"Considering the breadth of reforms that President Obama is now proposing to prevent privacy abuses in intelligence gathering, in the wake of Snowden's disclosures, Snowden deserves a chance to make a second impression -- that he truly is a whistle-blower, not a traitor."
Whew! That first sentence is a whopper. I won't try to diagram it due to lack of space and out of respect to the English language, but I'm going to have to take the sentence apart just to analyse the myriad of untruths it contains.
First off, Friedman suggests that the reforms that Obama proposed are actually significant. I'm sure that there are many who share the Friedman Universe who would agree with him. For instance, fellow NYT columnist David Brooks would likely provide a sympathetic ear to this argument. However, outside of this Bizzarro Friedmanverse, or MSNBC, you would be hard pressed to find anyone who agrees that Obama's proposals are more than window dressing. For instance, perhaps Friedman could have read the editorial published immediately after the President's speech by his own newspaper which assailed the proposals as "tinkering around the edges of the nation's abusive surveillance programs."
This leads to another incredibly frustrating thing that I have noticed. It seems that for the rabid loyalist Obama followers (I didn't call them Obamabots) for the President to say something is the same as the President doing something. This, of course, to anyone who has been conscious for the last five years is the opposite of reality. In fact, it has gotten to the point where if President Obama says something, you can rest assured that he is going to do the complete opposite (perhaps this is why he is so admiring of Larry Summers, but I digress).
The very idea that the President has proposed reforms that will prevent privacy abuses in intelligence gathering ignores the fact that it was the President who ordered the abuses in the first place. It's not like this happened by accident. It's not that the President didn't know this was going on. His Justice Department developed this plan, the President included these proposals in the reauthorization of the Patriot Act and the FISA Amendments Act. He is the one who came up with the damn program, and now you are lauding him for trying to prevent the abuses that he caused?
OK. Deep breath. Next phrase.
Friedman slips in the phrase "in the wake of Snowden's disclosures." So I guess somewhere in the ether of the Friedmanverse there is some acknowledgement that Snowden deserves some credit for bringing about these wide-ranging (look at their breadth) reforms being proposed. However, this is completely blown away by the fact that he then says he "deserves chance to make a second impression -- that he truly is a whistleblower, not a traitor."
I assume by all of this second impression theme that Snowden's first impession on Friedman was not a good one. Apparently his first impression on Friedman was that Snowden was a traitor. This, despite the fact that his disclosures have led to the wonderful reforms that will protect all of our privacy. Apparently in the Friedmanverse, informing Americans that their government is collecting data on every phone call you make, every e-mail you send, and everywhere you go on the internet, means that you are a traitor. But, Friedman's a good guy and he'll give you a second chance to show you live up to the dictates of the Friedmanverse.
Next sentence.
"The fact is, he dumped his data and fled to countries that are hostile to us and to the very principles he espoused."
I didn't think it was possible to outdo the first sentence. However Tom Friedman never ducks from a challenge and he met this one with gusto. Whereas the first sentence was merely intellectually, if not factually, dishonest, the second sentence simply wrings the neck of logic until logic is left lying on the floor, unconscious with its last death rattle slowly escaping its body.
Apparently in the Friedmanverse, a fact is a fact simply if Friedman states it is a fact. Glenn Greenwald took issue with this "fact" in a tweet this morning, stating:
"Glenn Greenwald @ggreenwald
Tom Friedman says of Snowden: "The fact is, he dumped his data" - when did this "fact" happen?"
Greenwald's mistake is thinking that "facts" as we define them have anything to do with "facts" in the Friedmanverse. To Friedman, apparently carefully selecting documents that prove the mass surveillance of millions upon millions of Americans by their own government without probable cause or due process to two carefully selected reporters and doing so in such a way that these files were protected from being received by anyone other than those two carefully selected reporters is the definition of "dumping data."
Now, here is where logic really takes leave in the Friedmanverse. Friedman then says that Snowden fled to countries that are hostile to us and to the very principles he espoused. Let's think about that a second. Snowden as is well known fled to Hong Kong, which is in the People's Republic of China, and then to Russia where he was forced to remain by the fact that the U.S. revoked his passport and threatened every country which was offering Snowden safe haven (it is probable that Snowden was on his way to Ecuador when he stopped in Russia, but was unable to continue his journey due to the U.S. government's actions).
Friedman states that these countries are hostile to the U.S. and to the very principles he espoused. Let's think about that for a minute. There's no doubt that Russia and China are two of the world's "bad guys." They treat their people badly, their policies both domestically and internationally are in opposition to ours, and they support some of the world's worst groups. So, ok. Russia and China are bad. But, there is also no irony in the Friedmanverse. Because if there was, it would become clear rather quickly that saying that these countries, which allowed Snowden to remain free from the United States government and granted him political asylum were not actually acting in a way that was hostile to the principles Snowden espoused. The country that was seeking to arrest and imprison Snowden was actually the one that was acting against these principles.
Next sentence.
"To make a second impression, Snowden would need to come home, make his case and face his accusers."
OK. A quick aside. Does anyone else get tickled in the fact that Tom Friedman actually has thought about how Snowden's action personally affected him? I mean really. It seems that Snowden's worst crime in the Friedmanverse was that he made a bad first impression on Tom Friedman. In the Friedmanverse, this makes Tom Friedman the benevolent dictator around whom the thanks of his grateful devotees lavish their thanks and praise. However, in the real universe this makes him the single biggest narcissist who has ever lived.
But in this sentence, Friedman picks up a theme that has played out endlessly among Democratic political operatives, and almost every MSNBC host. That in order to qualify as a whistleblower, Snowden should have to come back to the United States, be arrested, if he is not rendered to another country to be tortured, kept in solitary confinement, put on trial eventually, and sentenced to life in prison. Or perhaps he should just be droned. Here is MSNBC weekend host Melissa Harris-Perry's over the top open letter to Edward Snowden making the same point.
The fact that this theme has been discounted by meta whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg and civil rights hero extraordinaire John Lewis , doesn't seem to make this argument go away, even when those making the argument use Daniel Ellsberg and John Lewis to make their argument. But moreover, the argument engages in a logical fallacy -- that in order to be a true whistleblower, Snowden has to come back and serve a lengthy prison sentence to pay for his "crimes." This is the exact opposite of what a whistleblower should have to do. This is why we have whistleblower protections, to encourage people who are in Snowden's position who see crimes being committed by their employers to come forward and disclose these crimes without the fear of prosecution.
Next sentence.
"It would mean risking a lengthy jail term, but also trusting the fair-mindedness of the American people, who, I believe, will not allow an authentic whistle-blower to be unfairly punished."
This is where my head exploded. I mean seriously. I didn't know Friedman was a comedian. I don't know. Perhaps he's just trolling us. I mean, really?
There is no explanation for this sentence other than Friedman actually lives in a parallel universe where the sky is green and the grass is pink. Because if he lived in this universe, especially being as intelligent and aware of current issues as he's always reminding us that he is, he would know that we are currently conducting a trial of Private Bradley Manning, an Army enlisted soldier who leaked a huge amount of classified cables to the website Wiki Leaks who in turn subsequently published many of these diplomatic cables, and other documents including videos which exposed alleged war crimes being committed by American servicemen. Manning was kept naked in solitary confinement for months on end, was subjected to horrific treatment prior to his trial and still faces up to 90 years in prison for the crimes for which he has been convicted. He would know of Thomas Drake, another NSA employee who actually did go through "proper channels" in exposing the illegal warrantless wiretapping program that was being conducted, only to have every avenue shut down until he finally exposed the program to journalists only to be prosecuted under the Espionage Act, before the government's case literally fell apart during trial. He would know John Kiriakou, the only CIA employee to go to prison in connection to the torture program conducted by that agency, not because he conducted any torture himself, but because he confirmed the name of an agent who did conduct torture. He would know that the Obama administration has prosecuted four times the number of people under the Espionage Act that every administration before him combined.
But in the Friedmanverse, none of this matters. In this parallel universe known only to Tom Friedman and a few others, Americans would not sit back and allow a whistle-blower to be mistreated by their government. The fact is, that with pompous blowhards like Tom Friedman cheering them on, the American people have done this time, after time, after time, after time again.
The Friedmanverse is a scary place. Just catching a glimpse of it in this one paragraph of one column has been a horror show. I certainly wouldn't want to spend any time there myself. Unless, of course, I was Tom Friedman.
Monday, July 22, 2013
Legislature Seeks to Ban Arabic Numerals
In its ongoing fight against creeping Sharia law, and the influences of Islam, the state legislature today introduced a bill to ban Arabic numerals in the state's schools. Citing citizen complaints and the fear of the growing influence the imposition of such foreign teachings, bill sponsors said they will continue fighting to rid our schools of all Islamic teachings.
"I never would have thought that our teachers would have been taken in by such an insidious plot as the use of foreign, Islamic, Arabic numerals," bill sponsor Willie Bob Peckerwood said. "It's a slippery slope. First you introduce Arabic numerals, then you move on to Arabic language, before you know it our children are bowing five times a day to Mecca and reading from the Q'aran."
Peckerwood was surprised to find that all of the state's schools were already using Arabic numerals in their math classes, as well as several other classes. "I don't know how this got by us," he continued, "They already snuck in these God forsaken foreign influences trying to turn our children against us. We're behind in this fight, but we are catching up fast."
The bill is expected to receive bipartisan support in the legislature as members of both parties are lining up to get on the record as opposing anything that would be seen as supporting terror or being Anti-American.
Legislator Nancy Goodkind, usually seen as Peckerwood's political nemesis, joined in with praise for Peckerwood's bill. "When I first heard of this bill, I couldn't believe that our schools would be dumb enough to use Arabic numerals. But once I found out that Arabic numerals were already being found throughout our schools, I was quick to join on to support this bill and protect our children. Why can't we use the good old American numbers we all grew up with?" Goodkind added.
Early polls show that the measure is widely popular with the electorate with over 80% supporting the ban.
The bill is expected to sail through committee and could be up for a vote among the entire legislature within the week. There is no comment from the Governor's office as to whether the Governor will sign the measure or not. However, sources say that it would be hard to oppose such a popular measure.
"I never would have thought that our teachers would have been taken in by such an insidious plot as the use of foreign, Islamic, Arabic numerals," bill sponsor Willie Bob Peckerwood said. "It's a slippery slope. First you introduce Arabic numerals, then you move on to Arabic language, before you know it our children are bowing five times a day to Mecca and reading from the Q'aran."
Peckerwood was surprised to find that all of the state's schools were already using Arabic numerals in their math classes, as well as several other classes. "I don't know how this got by us," he continued, "They already snuck in these God forsaken foreign influences trying to turn our children against us. We're behind in this fight, but we are catching up fast."
The bill is expected to receive bipartisan support in the legislature as members of both parties are lining up to get on the record as opposing anything that would be seen as supporting terror or being Anti-American.
Legislator Nancy Goodkind, usually seen as Peckerwood's political nemesis, joined in with praise for Peckerwood's bill. "When I first heard of this bill, I couldn't believe that our schools would be dumb enough to use Arabic numerals. But once I found out that Arabic numerals were already being found throughout our schools, I was quick to join on to support this bill and protect our children. Why can't we use the good old American numbers we all grew up with?" Goodkind added.
Early polls show that the measure is widely popular with the electorate with over 80% supporting the ban.
The bill is expected to sail through committee and could be up for a vote among the entire legislature within the week. There is no comment from the Governor's office as to whether the Governor will sign the measure or not. However, sources say that it would be hard to oppose such a popular measure.
Monday, July 15, 2013
What George Zimmerman Tells Us About Ourselves
"Which one of these three, do you think, was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?" He said, "The one who showed him mercy." Jesus said to him, "Go and do likewise." - Luke 10: 36-37 (New Revised Standard Bible)
Every once in a while events happen that can best be explained, to me anyway, as happening only by God's Providence. That is why, I believe, that across this nation on the morning after the verdict in the George Zimmerman trial that millions of Americans attending their church services had as their Gospel reading the parable of the Good Samaritan.
We are all familiar with the story of the man beset by robbers and left bloodied and for dead, who is passed by both a Priest and a Levite who offer him no help. It is only the lowly Samaritan who saves the man, treats his wounds and cares for him until well. Jesus offers this as an example to a inquisitive lawyer (imagine that!) as to living the law of God to love one's neighbor as one's self.
It struck me as particularly poignant that this would be the Gospel lesson on the day after the conclusion of such a bitterly divisive and inflammatory trial. Throughout the night and into the morning, our airwaves were full of pundits offering opinions about the not guilty verdict, social media was exploding with outrage from those who understandably felt Zimmerman should be punished for killing an unarmed black minor, and less understandable celebrations for those who were rooting him on (whatever you feel about the evidence, celebrating the death of a child will never make sense to me).
My first reaction following the verdict, which to me personally was a disappointment because of what the case said about the state of our society and our laws, was to turn to prayer. I immediately opened the electronic kindle version of the Book of Common Prayer that I keep on my iPhone. During what has become my spiritual reawakening in the just more than a year I have spent in the Episcopal Church, the Book of Common Prayer has been an indispensable guide for faith and living. I looked for a prayer which would encapsulate my feelings and address the fears I had of violence that could come from this. Here's what I found:
Grant, O God, that your holy and life-giving Spirit may so move every human heart and especially the hearts of the people of this land, that barriers which divide us may crumble, suspicions disappear, and hatreds cease; that our divisions being healed, we may live in justice and peace; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. - Book of Common Prayer, p. 823
I prayed this prayer silently to myself, and shared it with my friends on social media. I prayed then for the family of Trayvon Martin whose life was once again shattered, I prayed for the family of George Zimmerman and for George Zimmerman himself, that his heart, hardened for whatever reason, could know peace and love and that his life could turn to one of serving his fellow man.
The next morning what struck me the most as I listened to the words of the Gospel read by my Deacon at Holy Eucharist, was how we as a society treat our neighbor. We are falling far short of living the law, not of self-defense or stand your ground, but the law which Christ gave for us. The law that the lawyer could recite as the key to eternal life -- "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind, and love your neighbor as yourself."
Whatever your view of what transpired on the night Trayvon Martin was killed, love was certainly lacking. Love does not treat its neighbor with suspicion because of the color of his skin or the way that he is dressed. Love does not meet an encounter between strangers with violence and rage. Love does not refer to its neighbors with racial epithets and insults. Love does not take a life.
There has been plenty said of the actions of both George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin on that fateful night, and there will be plenty more as our collective rage justifies more outrage, insult, and pain from all sides. But what there hasn't been talked about very much is what George Zimmerman tells us about ourselves.
From the little that is known about that night, what it appears that George Zimmerman did was to see a tall, young, black-skinned man, wearing a hooded sweatshirt, and based on his experience, prejudices, and beliefs, and the totality of the situation saw him as a threat. He felt so threatened that he called 9-1-1 and reported this suspicious person. He followed him, armed, and ready to use deadly force if it became necessary. And finally, for whatever reason, ended up in a physical confrontation during which he said he feared for his life, and shot and killed the young man.
At his trial on charges of Second Degree Murder, Zimmerman claimed self defense. The jury found him not guilty under this theory. And if we want to look at it objectively, the jury upheld the law in Florida as it is written.
But how many of us who condemn the actions of George Zimmerman excuse or even celebrate similar actions when they are taken on our behalf by our own government. Did George Zimmerman do anything different than our President, through his policy of drone warfare does every day? It is known that through "signature strikes" that American drone pilots target individuals based on circumstances that include their location, their sex, their clothing, etc. Isn't this exactly what George Zimmerman did that night in Florida? Our government brands these individuals based only on these external factors as "militants" even though, just like Zimmerman, they don't even know who the individual they are targeting is, or anything about their intentions. Just like Zimmerman, we Americans justify these actions through arguments of self defense and the prevention of harm to others.
I was struck by the words of an Arab American who tweeted Friday night, echoing or parodying the words of our President about Trayvon Martin, "If I had a son, he would look like Abdulrahman Awlaki" referring to the 16-year-old American citizen who was killed in a U.S. drone strike in Yemen two weeks after his father, also an American citizen, was killed similarly in a U.S. drone strike.
The fact of the matter is, that we as a nation, are failing to live up to the beliefs that a vast majority of us claim. We are failing to live up to the teachings of Jesus Christ. And despite the claims of the so-called Christians of our land, many of whom were all over social media this weekend fomenting the fires of hatred, it is not because of gays, or prayer in public schools, or the posting of the Ten Commandments in public squares, or whether we say "Merry Christmas" that our nation is failing to live up to our collective Faith. It is due to the lack of Love and the treatment of our neighbor.
As long as we accept policies and laws which result in the death of our fellow human beings without justification and without reason, we are failing to live up to the law that our Savior has given us. As long as we treat others with suspicion and disgust, we go against God's law. As long as we justify hatred, discrimination, and persecution based on race, religion, status, gender, sexual orientation, or difference, we fail as Christians.
In fact, as long as we do so, we can collectively say that we all are George Zimmerman.
Every once in a while events happen that can best be explained, to me anyway, as happening only by God's Providence. That is why, I believe, that across this nation on the morning after the verdict in the George Zimmerman trial that millions of Americans attending their church services had as their Gospel reading the parable of the Good Samaritan.
We are all familiar with the story of the man beset by robbers and left bloodied and for dead, who is passed by both a Priest and a Levite who offer him no help. It is only the lowly Samaritan who saves the man, treats his wounds and cares for him until well. Jesus offers this as an example to a inquisitive lawyer (imagine that!) as to living the law of God to love one's neighbor as one's self.
It struck me as particularly poignant that this would be the Gospel lesson on the day after the conclusion of such a bitterly divisive and inflammatory trial. Throughout the night and into the morning, our airwaves were full of pundits offering opinions about the not guilty verdict, social media was exploding with outrage from those who understandably felt Zimmerman should be punished for killing an unarmed black minor, and less understandable celebrations for those who were rooting him on (whatever you feel about the evidence, celebrating the death of a child will never make sense to me).
My first reaction following the verdict, which to me personally was a disappointment because of what the case said about the state of our society and our laws, was to turn to prayer. I immediately opened the electronic kindle version of the Book of Common Prayer that I keep on my iPhone. During what has become my spiritual reawakening in the just more than a year I have spent in the Episcopal Church, the Book of Common Prayer has been an indispensable guide for faith and living. I looked for a prayer which would encapsulate my feelings and address the fears I had of violence that could come from this. Here's what I found:
Grant, O God, that your holy and life-giving Spirit may so move every human heart and especially the hearts of the people of this land, that barriers which divide us may crumble, suspicions disappear, and hatreds cease; that our divisions being healed, we may live in justice and peace; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. - Book of Common Prayer, p. 823
I prayed this prayer silently to myself, and shared it with my friends on social media. I prayed then for the family of Trayvon Martin whose life was once again shattered, I prayed for the family of George Zimmerman and for George Zimmerman himself, that his heart, hardened for whatever reason, could know peace and love and that his life could turn to one of serving his fellow man.
The next morning what struck me the most as I listened to the words of the Gospel read by my Deacon at Holy Eucharist, was how we as a society treat our neighbor. We are falling far short of living the law, not of self-defense or stand your ground, but the law which Christ gave for us. The law that the lawyer could recite as the key to eternal life -- "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind, and love your neighbor as yourself."
Whatever your view of what transpired on the night Trayvon Martin was killed, love was certainly lacking. Love does not treat its neighbor with suspicion because of the color of his skin or the way that he is dressed. Love does not meet an encounter between strangers with violence and rage. Love does not refer to its neighbors with racial epithets and insults. Love does not take a life.
There has been plenty said of the actions of both George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin on that fateful night, and there will be plenty more as our collective rage justifies more outrage, insult, and pain from all sides. But what there hasn't been talked about very much is what George Zimmerman tells us about ourselves.
From the little that is known about that night, what it appears that George Zimmerman did was to see a tall, young, black-skinned man, wearing a hooded sweatshirt, and based on his experience, prejudices, and beliefs, and the totality of the situation saw him as a threat. He felt so threatened that he called 9-1-1 and reported this suspicious person. He followed him, armed, and ready to use deadly force if it became necessary. And finally, for whatever reason, ended up in a physical confrontation during which he said he feared for his life, and shot and killed the young man.
At his trial on charges of Second Degree Murder, Zimmerman claimed self defense. The jury found him not guilty under this theory. And if we want to look at it objectively, the jury upheld the law in Florida as it is written.
But how many of us who condemn the actions of George Zimmerman excuse or even celebrate similar actions when they are taken on our behalf by our own government. Did George Zimmerman do anything different than our President, through his policy of drone warfare does every day? It is known that through "signature strikes" that American drone pilots target individuals based on circumstances that include their location, their sex, their clothing, etc. Isn't this exactly what George Zimmerman did that night in Florida? Our government brands these individuals based only on these external factors as "militants" even though, just like Zimmerman, they don't even know who the individual they are targeting is, or anything about their intentions. Just like Zimmerman, we Americans justify these actions through arguments of self defense and the prevention of harm to others.
I was struck by the words of an Arab American who tweeted Friday night, echoing or parodying the words of our President about Trayvon Martin, "If I had a son, he would look like Abdulrahman Awlaki" referring to the 16-year-old American citizen who was killed in a U.S. drone strike in Yemen two weeks after his father, also an American citizen, was killed similarly in a U.S. drone strike.
The fact of the matter is, that we as a nation, are failing to live up to the beliefs that a vast majority of us claim. We are failing to live up to the teachings of Jesus Christ. And despite the claims of the so-called Christians of our land, many of whom were all over social media this weekend fomenting the fires of hatred, it is not because of gays, or prayer in public schools, or the posting of the Ten Commandments in public squares, or whether we say "Merry Christmas" that our nation is failing to live up to our collective Faith. It is due to the lack of Love and the treatment of our neighbor.
As long as we accept policies and laws which result in the death of our fellow human beings without justification and without reason, we are failing to live up to the law that our Savior has given us. As long as we treat others with suspicion and disgust, we go against God's law. As long as we justify hatred, discrimination, and persecution based on race, religion, status, gender, sexual orientation, or difference, we fail as Christians.
In fact, as long as we do so, we can collectively say that we all are George Zimmerman.
Thursday, July 11, 2013
Heroic Stands on Same Sex Marriage Could Hold Back Legalization
Stands like that of Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane are courageous symbols for elected officials to take as the nation struggles ever so slowly to reach complete marriage equality nationwide. However, such heroic stands may actually end up delaying the ultimate nationwide recognition of same sex marriage.
In the recent Supreme Court decisions on the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and California's voter initiative banning same sex marriage, Proposition 8, the issue of standing came up in both cases. In both the DOMA case and the Proposition 8 case, the normal appellants (the parties who were sued and lost the case at the trial level) refused to file appeals of their losses. In DOMA, this was the Attorney General Eric Holder, and in Proposition 8 it was the State of California represented by Attorney General Kamela Harris. Both of these decisions were historic and incredibly unusual in that it almost never happens that a representative of the sued party decides part way through the proceedings that the law they are charged with upholding is unconstitutional and therefore refuse to defend it.
In the two cases, different groups rose to the occasion to appeal the lower court decisions and thereby defend the laws as written. In DOMA, Congressional Republicans hired their own counsel and filed the appeal on behalf of the United States. In the Prop 8 case, it was citizens groups which had organized turnout and worked to get the amendment on the ballot in California. In each case, the outcome was different. In the DOMA case the Court found that the appellants had standing to appeal, while in the Prop 8 case the court found that the appellants did not.
Standing, or the right to bring an appeal, was a hard fought issue in both cases. If the court had reached a different consensus on the issue of standing in the DOMA case, and the lower court rulings were left in place, what would have happened was that we would have been left with a mish mash of lower court rulings, some upholding the constitutionality of DOMA and some not, leaving the issue unresolved.
But, what is more interesting is had the State of California decided to pursue the appeal in the Proposition 8 case, in which the court found that citizens groups had no standing to appeal challenges to the Constitutionality of a state statute, there would have been no issue of standing at all. California certainly had the right to defend its own laws against constitutional challenge. That would have forced the court to address the constitutionality of state bans on same sex marriage on the basis of violations of the guarantees of equal protection under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Looking at the court's holding on DOMA, finding that it did in fact violate the Fifth Amendment's guarantee to equal protection on a Federal level, it is more than likely that the Court would have found that California's Proposition 8 also violated the imposition of this guarantee on the states, making same sex marriage legal nationwide.
There could be, depending on your point of view, arguments made that this was a fortunate decision on the part of the State of California not to defend this law. Because it allowed the court to move incrementally, essentially punting the decision on the application of the Constitutional issues on state law to a later date when the Supreme Court decision would have time to catch up to public opinion, some would argue that it is overall a good thing for the proponents of marriage equality and the nation as a whole. Some could also argue that the standing issue may have also prevented the court from striking down the 9th circuit's opinion finding Prop 8 unconstitutional, which would have been a big loss for the proponents of marriage equality.
However, at some point, a state is going to have to defend such Constitutional challenge in order for there to be a definitive answer on the application of these rights nationwide. By not defending the lawsuit brought against the State of Pennsylvania, the state Attorney General risks having at best a similar outcome to that of Proposition 8 -- a District Court decision which cannot be appealed due to the lack of standing of anyone to appeal it. This is great for folks in Pennsylvania, but doesn't really push the issue forward.
This also brings up another issue as it relates to the function of the law as a whole. Very often attorneys are faced with the question, "How can you defend someone like that?" or "How can you defend someone you know is guilty?" Spending many years as a criminal defense attorney, I am very familiar with those questions and I understand completely the answers. The fact is that our system of justice only works in both sides in an adversarial system are represented zealously and to the full extent of the law. Any failure to do so, results in legal error and injustice. For instance, if a criminal defense attorney were to fail to put forth all of the defenses that his or her client is due because he or she has come to the conclusion that the defendant is guilty or should be put away, not only should that attorney lose their license, but the case will almost certainly be overturned on appeal (and should be), and the defendant who would have otherwise been convicted will likely walk free. The only way to ensure a conviction is to put forth every defense to which the defendant is entitled and make sure that the State proves their case against the Defendant. I know that sounds counter-intuitive, but that is the way the law works in an adversarial system such as ours.
In the same way, the only way that the ultimate question in marriage equality -- the issue of whether the Court's holding that the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection, also applies through the Fourteenth Amendment to the states -- will make it before the Supreme Court is for the states to defend their laws vigorously and to the full extent of the law. I would go so far to say that it is the duty of the state and federal Attorneys General to do so. By acting in the role that should be reserved for the appellate judges, rather than in the role for which they were elected or appointed (to defend and enforce the laws of their state or country) they are showing an amazing lack of confidence in the integrity of the judicial system, and actually holding back the cause in which they claim belief.
In the recent Supreme Court decisions on the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and California's voter initiative banning same sex marriage, Proposition 8, the issue of standing came up in both cases. In both the DOMA case and the Proposition 8 case, the normal appellants (the parties who were sued and lost the case at the trial level) refused to file appeals of their losses. In DOMA, this was the Attorney General Eric Holder, and in Proposition 8 it was the State of California represented by Attorney General Kamela Harris. Both of these decisions were historic and incredibly unusual in that it almost never happens that a representative of the sued party decides part way through the proceedings that the law they are charged with upholding is unconstitutional and therefore refuse to defend it.
In the two cases, different groups rose to the occasion to appeal the lower court decisions and thereby defend the laws as written. In DOMA, Congressional Republicans hired their own counsel and filed the appeal on behalf of the United States. In the Prop 8 case, it was citizens groups which had organized turnout and worked to get the amendment on the ballot in California. In each case, the outcome was different. In the DOMA case the Court found that the appellants had standing to appeal, while in the Prop 8 case the court found that the appellants did not.
Standing, or the right to bring an appeal, was a hard fought issue in both cases. If the court had reached a different consensus on the issue of standing in the DOMA case, and the lower court rulings were left in place, what would have happened was that we would have been left with a mish mash of lower court rulings, some upholding the constitutionality of DOMA and some not, leaving the issue unresolved.
But, what is more interesting is had the State of California decided to pursue the appeal in the Proposition 8 case, in which the court found that citizens groups had no standing to appeal challenges to the Constitutionality of a state statute, there would have been no issue of standing at all. California certainly had the right to defend its own laws against constitutional challenge. That would have forced the court to address the constitutionality of state bans on same sex marriage on the basis of violations of the guarantees of equal protection under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Looking at the court's holding on DOMA, finding that it did in fact violate the Fifth Amendment's guarantee to equal protection on a Federal level, it is more than likely that the Court would have found that California's Proposition 8 also violated the imposition of this guarantee on the states, making same sex marriage legal nationwide.
There could be, depending on your point of view, arguments made that this was a fortunate decision on the part of the State of California not to defend this law. Because it allowed the court to move incrementally, essentially punting the decision on the application of the Constitutional issues on state law to a later date when the Supreme Court decision would have time to catch up to public opinion, some would argue that it is overall a good thing for the proponents of marriage equality and the nation as a whole. Some could also argue that the standing issue may have also prevented the court from striking down the 9th circuit's opinion finding Prop 8 unconstitutional, which would have been a big loss for the proponents of marriage equality.
However, at some point, a state is going to have to defend such Constitutional challenge in order for there to be a definitive answer on the application of these rights nationwide. By not defending the lawsuit brought against the State of Pennsylvania, the state Attorney General risks having at best a similar outcome to that of Proposition 8 -- a District Court decision which cannot be appealed due to the lack of standing of anyone to appeal it. This is great for folks in Pennsylvania, but doesn't really push the issue forward.
This also brings up another issue as it relates to the function of the law as a whole. Very often attorneys are faced with the question, "How can you defend someone like that?" or "How can you defend someone you know is guilty?" Spending many years as a criminal defense attorney, I am very familiar with those questions and I understand completely the answers. The fact is that our system of justice only works in both sides in an adversarial system are represented zealously and to the full extent of the law. Any failure to do so, results in legal error and injustice. For instance, if a criminal defense attorney were to fail to put forth all of the defenses that his or her client is due because he or she has come to the conclusion that the defendant is guilty or should be put away, not only should that attorney lose their license, but the case will almost certainly be overturned on appeal (and should be), and the defendant who would have otherwise been convicted will likely walk free. The only way to ensure a conviction is to put forth every defense to which the defendant is entitled and make sure that the State proves their case against the Defendant. I know that sounds counter-intuitive, but that is the way the law works in an adversarial system such as ours.
In the same way, the only way that the ultimate question in marriage equality -- the issue of whether the Court's holding that the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection, also applies through the Fourteenth Amendment to the states -- will make it before the Supreme Court is for the states to defend their laws vigorously and to the full extent of the law. I would go so far to say that it is the duty of the state and federal Attorneys General to do so. By acting in the role that should be reserved for the appellate judges, rather than in the role for which they were elected or appointed (to defend and enforce the laws of their state or country) they are showing an amazing lack of confidence in the integrity of the judicial system, and actually holding back the cause in which they claim belief.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)