We're All Related

Catholic Online: Forget Girl Scouts -- True Success Is Standing By Your Man

Today on Catholic Online (catholic.org) there's a pretty funny piece entitled 'Do The Girl Scouts Really Help Girls?'

One need not be a genius to know how this one ends.

I've read it so that you don't have to, but you can enjoy the below nuggets. It is important to note that catholic.org is not a satire site.

"I think our girls might be better prepared for true leadership if they are at home learning to serve their family by doing kind little things like baking cookies, rather than out selling them as little future-activist fund-raisers."

"The end goal of developing character is not to run for office, be a corporate officer, or become famous for discovering cures. That turns you into an object held up for scrutiny based on what you accomplish professionally, and it sets unreasonable expectations. It is anything but feminine."

"...not everyone can be a leader, so instilling this ideology in girls only sets most of them up for unrealistic, false failure, a sense of failure that is not really failure at all."

"Why isn't picking a valiant knight for a husband who dotes on you, provides for you, and admires you for the sacrifices you make to raise your children considered high status?"

"...they might be better prepared for true success if they understand the magnificent importance of standing by your man."

"...we will definitely be foregoing the green uniforms and sashes for something a little more mysterious and lacy - like chapel veils."

There you have it, folks. We should refrain from telling our girls that they can be anything they want. That's boy stuff. Forget Marie Curie, Flannery O'Connor, Condoleezza Rice, Toni Morrison, Henrietta Swan Leavitt, Jane Goodall, Serena Williams, Oprah Winfrey, and Sally Ride. Those ladies should have left that stuff to the men.

Stop telling our girls that they play a part in changing the world. We wouldn't want to set them up for disappointment. Real success comes from knowing their place.

It's a man's world out there, baby.

Or so say the men in the Vatican.

Bryan Fischer: Allowing Gay Parents To Adopt 'Is A Form Of Sexual Abuse'

Via Right Wing Watch:

Bryan Fischer is in top form in today's anti-gay rant in which he declares that allowing gay parents to adopt is a "form of sexual abuse."

Watch:

Religious Morality Is Broken

Something appears to be wrong with religious morality.

If we were to make an assessment from the following recent news headlines, we might say that religious morality is broken:

North Carolina Pastor Sean Harris: Parents Should 'Punch' Their Effeminate Children

'Several dead' and 41 injured in Nigeria as militants attack two Sunday church services

Taliban bombing kills eight in Afghanistan

Faith-healing couple from Okanogan County take plea in son's death

Broken Arrow Woman On Trial For Refusing Medical Care For Dying Son

Pastor calls for death of gays, lesbians

Afghan arsonists seek to enforce truancy from school

Israeli Girl, Bullied By Jewish Ultra-Orthodox Extremists

Florida Pastor Hangs Obama Effigy Outside of Church

Tony Perkins on LGBT Pride Month: Why not 'Adultery Pride Month' or 'Drunkenness Pride Month'?

Fischer: 'It is Altogether Right to Discriminate Against Homosexual Behavior'

While these headlines are associated with a variety of religious figures from a variety of religions in different parts of the world, they have more in common with one another than you might think.

In each case, common sense, compassion, and empathy have been outright rejected in favor of a flawed morality based on religious doctrine. In each instance, religious ideology dictates that the infliction of discrimination, oppression, suffering, or death is validated by the belief that these actions please a supernatural being.

There is something terribly wrong with this type of ideology. It is incompatible with the goal of lessening suffering in the world. It is incompatible with peace. It is incompatible with progress. It is incompatible with a humanity that values the well-being of living things.

The problem here is that holy books say some crazy things -- things that advanced modern societies know better than to embrace. We know that rape, theft, slavery, and murder are not conducive to maintaining a healthy, flourishing society. It does not take a holy book for us to know this.

Philosopher Theodore Schick writes:

According to Divine Command Theory, nothing is right or wrong unless God makes it so. Whatever God says goes. So if God had decreed that adultery was permissible, then adultery would be permissible.

Let's take this line of reasoning to its logical conclusion. If the Divine Command Theory were true, then the Ten Commandments could have gone something like this: "Thou shalt kill everyone you dislike. Thou shalt rape every woman you desire. Thou shalt steal everything you covet. Thou shalt torture innocent children in your spare time. ..." The reason that this is possible is that killing, raping, stealing, and torturing were not wrong before God made them so. Since God is free to establish whatever set of moral principles he chooses, he could just as well have chosen this set as any other.

In other words, human beings have the capacity to discern which religious edicts are ill-advised, inhumane, or antiquated. We do not require another religious edict to tell us this. We simply rely on our sense of compassion and our morality, both of which have evolved over millions of years (and which were evolving long before monotheism took hold.)

The Dalai Lama writes:

Certainly religion has helped millions of people in the past, helps millions today and will continue to help millions in the future. But for all its benefits in offering moral guidance and meaning in life, in today’s secular world religion alone is no longer adequate as a basis for ethics. One reason for this is that many people in the world no longer follow any particular religion. Another reason is that, as the peoples of the world become ever more closely interconnected in an age of globalization and in multicultural societies, ethics based in any one religion would only appeal to some of us; it would not be meaningful for all.

What we need today is an approach to ethics which makes no recourse to religion and can be equally acceptable to those with faith and those without: a secular ethics.

Many say that without religion, we would not know the difference between right and wrong. If a commandment is the only thing keeping us from murdering other people, we humans are a pretty lousy bunch.

As Michael Shermer states, "As a species of social primates, we have evolved a deep sense of right and wrong to accentuate and reward reciprocity and cooperation and to attenuate and punish excessive selfishness and free riding."

Sadly, however, we see stories every single day in the news in which humans use religious ideology to undermine cooperation, to reject reciprocity, and to validate selfishness, oppression, discrimination, and violence.

While it would be unwise (and incorrect) to suggest that all religious morality is inferior to secular morality, or that the above laundry list of religious moral failings is representative of all religious ideology (it isn't), we must accept that it is the religious ideology that which serves to validate the behavior in each example. Those individuals were not incited by reason.

Fundamentalism is the problem. It is the unwavering adherence to Bronze Age religious doctrine that allows hatred to disguised itself as morality.

Theodore Schick:

Fundamentalists correctly perceive that universal moral standards are required for the proper functioning of society. But they erroneously believe that God is the only possible source of such standards. Philosophers as diverse as Plato, Immanuel Kant, John Stuart Mill, George Edward Moore, and John Rawls have demonstrated that it is possible to have a universal morality without God. Contrary to what the fundamentalists would have us believe, then, what our society really needs is not more religion but a richer notion of the nature of morality.

Where, then, you might ask, should we receive our moral code, if we are not to rely on scripture?

Astrophysicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson has a pretty simple way of approaching this problem:

“For me, I am driven by two main philosophies: know more today about the world than I knew yesterday and lessen the suffering of others. You'd be surprised how far that gets you.”

Mr. Rogers Remixed: 'Did You Ever Grow Anything In The Garden Of Your Mind?'

This might just be the best thing ever.

Mister Rogers remixed by Symphony of Science's John Boswell for PBS Digital Studios.

This is the first in a series of PBS icons remixed.


Related Posts:
Where Is Our Fred Rogers?
Additional Symphony of Science Posts

Texas Family Sees Image Of Jesus In Their Disgusting Moldy Shower

A Texas family is the latest to make the local tee vee news (then, as often is the case, national 'odd news' headlines) by claiming to see Jesus' image in their moldy, disgusting shower.

According to KTRK News, "The mold started a couple of months ago while Thomas George, who also lives in the house, was in prison."

"He's just watching over us to make sure nothing wrong happens or I get in trouble and go back," George said. "It gives me inspiration just to do better."

Whatever it takes, George.

One woman who lives in the home here has HIV. Her family says she has been doing better since they discovered that moldy likeness of Jesus in their shower just a few months ago.

Hopefully she doesn't stop taking her meds and die like some other HIV-positive miracle-believers.

Chyanna Richards, who lives in the house, said, "Maybe it means something. Maybe look into yourself and see if you need to change something in your life."

What it means, Chyanna, is that you need to clean your nasty shower.

Watch:

American Idiots: 46% Of Americans Hold Creationist View of Human Origins

If the recent political climate has you feeling that not much has changed in the past 30 years, the latest Gallup poll will come as no surprise.

According to Gallup:

Forty-six percent of Americans believe in the creationist view that God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years. The prevalence of this creationist view of the origin of humans is essentially unchanged from 30 years ago, when Gallup first asked the question.

It's amazing, right? Despite the oceans of data supporting evolution, nearly half of all Americans believe humans were created in their present form. If Gallop had dug a little deeper, we would have learned that these folks believe that men were molded out of dirt, and that women were an afterthought, fashioned from Adam's rib.

Half of all Americans believe that National Geographic, The Smithsonian, The Science Channel, the Discovery Channel, and PBS are all part of a vast secular conspiracy (along with an overwhelming majority of scientists and every major US scientific organization).

Denial is a powerful drug.

We shouldn't be surprised, then, to learn that "the more religious the American, the more likely he or she is to choose the creationist viewpoint."

Two-thirds of Americans who attend religious services weekly choose the creationist alternative, compared with 25% of those who say they seldom or never attend church. The views of Americans who attend almost every week or monthly fall in between those of the other two groups. Still, those who seldom or never attend church are more likely to believe that God guided the evolutionary process than to believe that humans evolved with no input from God.

Now, if I were to ask you whether Republicans or Democrats were more likely to be creationists -- that's a no-brainer, right? Right.

"58% of Republicans believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years."

Now, before you start laughing at the Republicans' ignorance, get this: "39% of independents and 41% of Democrats agree [that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years.]"

We have a serious problem in America. It's a phenomenon unlike anything else in the world.

We are a different animal altogether.

All in all, there is no evidence in this trend of a substantial movement toward a secular viewpoint on human origins.

Most Americans are not scientists, of course, and cannot be expected to understand all of the latest evidence and competing viewpoints on the development of the human species. Still, it would be hard to dispute that most scientists who study humans agree that the species evolved over millions of years, and that relatively few scientists believe that humans began in their current form only 10,000 years ago without the benefit of evolution. Thus, almost half of Americans today hold a belief, at least as measured by this question wording, that is at odds with the preponderance of the scientific literature.

The Bible Belt's Real Threat To Marriage: Divorce

According to a new report from the U.S. Census Bureau, the Bible Belt has a divorce problem:

Of the 14 states reporting divorce rates for men that were much higher than the U.S. average -- ranging from 10.0 to 13.5 per 1,000 -- most were in the South. They included Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Texas.

In contrast, men in the Northeast divorced less than the national average. Five of the nine states that had divorce rates for men significantly below the U.S. average -- ranging from 6.1 to 8.5 -- were the Northeastern states of Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey , New York and Pennsylvania.

The same was true for Southern women. Nine of the 14 states with divorce rates for women above the U.S. average, ranging from 10.7 to 16.2, were in the South. They included Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas and West Virginia.

By comparison, four of the 10 states with below-average divorce rates for women, ranging from 6.0 to 8.9, were in the Northeast: Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania.

Let's take a look at the maps:

It's pretty clear from these maps that the Bible Belt states (and others, to be fair) have a problem staying married.

If I remember correctly, it seems that most folks in these Bible Belt states feel that that they need to ban same-sex marriage in order to protect marriage.

Let's have a look at the status of same-sex marriage in the US (orange and red denotes constitutional amendments banning same-sex civil unions and marriages, respectively):

Looks kinda familiar, right?

Of course, we all know that the Bible Belt is the most religious section of the United States, as detailed in this map depicting US religiosity by state:

Again, looks pretty familiar, right?  Do these highly religious folks not realize that their Bible forbids divorce?

The data is quite telling. While certainly there are many factors to consider when making correlations (i.e. people in the Bible Belt marry at younger ages than their Northern counterparts), this data underscores the blatant hypocrisy associated with much of the Bible Belt's religious, anti-LGBT population.

While their religion dictates that they discriminate against gays and lesbians, they don't seem to care what the Bible has to say about divorce and re-marriage. Or perhaps they choose to believe that the anti-divorce stuff in the Bible belongs in that pile of stuff that we don't follow anymore. But the anti-gay stuff? Totally still relevant.

Funny how they pick and choose based on their own circumstances.

While they claim that the real threat to marriage is allowing same-sex couples to marry, we can clearly see that the real threat to marriage is divorce.

NC Pastor: Pen In All Gays & Lesbians & Wait For Them Die Out

There's a point where religious morality gets so completely twisted that it becomes the epitome of pure evil.

Take North Carolina Pastor Charles Worley of Providence Road Baptist Church in Maiden, NC.

Here's what the minister suggested to his congregation as a way to address the LGBT population:

I figured a way out — a way to get rid of all the lesbians and queers. But I couldn’t get it passed through Congress. Build a great big large fence, 150 or 100 miles long. Put all the lesbians in there. Fly over and drop some food. Do the same thing with the queers and the homosexuals. Have that fence electrified so they can’t get out. Feed ‘em, and– And you know what? In a few years they’ll die out. You know why? They can’t reproduce.

Watch:



Coming on the heels of Amendment One, and hateful remarks by hate-mongering NC pastors Sean Harris and Patrick Wooden, Worley's comments underscore the fact that, despite how far we've come, religious bigotry is alive and well in North Carolina.

That Old Refrain: 'Marriage Is Between A Man And A Woman As Designed By God'

Since Amendment One's passing in North Carolina, I have seen dozens of letters which support my assertion that this vote was all about religion.

A letter in today's News & Observer states:

The passing of Amendment One was a protection of marriage, which God created. Many people are upset with Christians wanting this protection. Marriage is and always was between a man and a woman. Christians get their direction and information from the Holy Bible. God did not leave his creation without direction. When people try to take matters into their own hands (or definitions ) they get themselves into problems. Many want to do just what they want to do. They will not listen to instruction.

Variations of this letter have appeared in countless newspapers across the country to support anti-LGBT sentiment.

These folks can repeat this refrain over and over -- and they certainly have the right to say (and believe) it -- but the fact of the matter is that this refrain is historically wrong, and a terrible basis for legislation.

How is it wrong?

Well, let's break it down:

'Marriage is and always was between a man and a woman'
Sorry, folks, but you are not allowed to start the timeline at the point in history that helps make your case. If you ate a dozen donuts, you can't say you only ate 4 just because you didn't like how the first 6 tasted.

Marriage has absolutely not always been between a man and a woman. Over the course of human history, marriage has been defined as between a man and several women, a man and an adolescent boy (Greece), a man and a man, a woman and a woman, every woman in the community and every man in the community (Oneida Colony, New York, 1848), etc., etc.

The point? Marriage has evolved over time, and will continue to evolve until mankind is extinct. When you say that marriage has always been between a man and a woman, you are, quite simply, lying.

'God created marriage'
Did God create marriage? First of all, which god are you referring to? Aa? Anubis? Bahloo? Ceros? Cronos? Fu Xi? Horus? Kōjin? Mamaragan? Mars? Odin? Ra? Saturn? Sōjōbō? Thoth? Vesta? Wen Zhong? Yama? Zaraqu? Zonget? (I could list hundreds more, but you get the idea.)

Your god no more created marriage than any of these gods created marriage. In fact, we know for a fact that marriage existed prior to the emergence of monotheism. How is it that thousands of years of marriage existed before the emergence of the god that created it?

Humans evolved. Religion evolved. Marriage evolved. Humans will continue to evolve. Religion will continue to evolve. Marriage will continue to evolve. It's pretty simple.

When people such as the above letter writer start explaining that the 'Christian Bible' explains this or that about marriage, it might behoove those people to realize that one of our most important rights as Americans is that we can practice whatever religion we choose (and that includes the right to not practice one at all). I should no more expect your rights to be defined by my religious beliefs than you should expect my rights to be defined by yours.  Freedom of religion does not mean that you are free to restrict the rights of others who do not accept the claims of your religion.

It doesn't matter what the majority of Christians believe. What matters is that each American should not have his or her rights defined by a particular set of religious beliefs.

The refrain is getting old. Please feel free to start framing your argument in secular legislative terms moving forward. (Good luck with that.)

How One Dad Is Moving Forward, After Amendment One

The below guest post was written by Matt Shipman, a science writer and father of three who lives in Raleigh. This is his third contribution to def shepherd. You can follow Matt on Twitter at @ShipLives or connect with him here on Google+.  

I wrote, some time ago, about how becoming a father made me a much stronger advocate for gay rights. As a dad, I spend time with my children every day. I see them running around with their friends. Odds are good that some of these kids I see on the playground will grow up to become gay teens and adults. And I have become increasingly horrified that someday someone would want to hurt any of these youngsters because of their sexual orientation.

That paternal, protective instinct makes me reject anything indicating that someone who is gay is somehow less important than someone who is straight. That extends, of course, to “Amendment One,” which passed overwhelmingly in North Carolina on May 8.

The passage of Amendment One has made a lot of people angry. It’s also made a lot of people, including me, incredibly sad. It will be some time before we can fully determine its impact, and there are many outstanding questions regarding what this will mean not only for same-sex families, but for domestic violence protections and unmarried heterosexual couples. No one – and I mean no one – can have any real idea of how these issues will play out.

There is also a great deal of discussion right now about the potential for legal action against Amendment One. I’m not an attorney, so I won’t prognosticate about that either.

All of this uncertainty can leave one feeling powerless. What can I do? If you’re a parent, there is a great deal you can do.

Make sure your children know that you will love them, no matter what. Teach them, by example, how to treat people with compassion and respect regardless of their sexual orientation. And, for those who can’t remember, going through puberty was excruciating. I can’t imagine what it is like to go through that while also fearing rejection from peers or one’s own family because of who you’re sexually attracted to. The least we can do for our children is let them know that they will always have our love and support. Home should always feel safe.

So that’s what I’ll be working on. Loving my kids. Showing them what it means to treat people with respect. Raising them, I hope, to be strong and honest and kind.

Amendment One has me feeling pretty blue right now. But if we, as parents, get this right, I have high hopes for the future.

Symphony of Science - "We Are Star Dust"

The latest Symphony of Science is "We Are Star Dust," the 15th in the series. It features heavyweights Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Richard Feynman and Lawrence Krauss.

Watch:

Despite Amendment One's Passing, NC Is A Better State Today

Amendment One has passed.

The easy thing to do is to get angry. To take it out on those who voted to enshrine discrimination into our state constitution.

The natural thing to do is to lash out. And with something as important as civil rights, I believe that is a completely valid response. When the citizens of our own state tell us we are less than human, it cuts deep.

I'm not gay. I can't express how it must feel to have the majority decide whether or not I should have the rights they are afforded. I am hyper-empathetic, however, so I like to think I have some idea of how devastating that might be.

There are people who are near and dear to me who will wake up tomorrow morning to a less welcoming North Carolina. They will wake up in a state that not only actively discriminates against them, but has also written discrimination into their mission statement.

There will be children, seniors, women, and heterosexual couples who will be harmed in the coming months and years because people are afraid of change.

As the inevitability of the passing of Amendment One sunk in, I began to feel resentful, angry, sad, embarrassed, and incredibly disappointed. I am sure millions of North Carolinians feel the same. But as the pro-amendment camp celebrates their victory in downtown Raleigh, it's important to remember that, while we suffered a devastating loss, what we accomplished over the past several months should make us all very proud.

The majority of North Carolinians were on the wrong side of history on May 8, 2012. Despite this fact, I have no doubt that North Carolina received an education over the past several months. Many North Carolinians were challenged, many for the very first time, to re-evaluate their views on homosexuality and same-sex marriage. Many who once believed homosexuality was a 'sin' and a 'poor lifestyle choice' now understand that we do not choose our sexual orientation. We also opened a lot of eyes to the cynical nature of politics (not so sure that was a secret), and encouraged them to really think about the potential unintended consequences of their vote. We rediscovered the power of music, art, and the written word to enact change (even if that change is much more gradual than we feel is acceptable).

Most importantly, we reminded people that every voice counts, and that everyone has a unique way to contribute to the cause of social justice. In all my years in North Carolina, I have never seen such an outpouring of creativity, passion, and determination. Despite our defeat at the polls, each of these efforts impacted many lives, changed many minds, and opened many hearts.

No amount of back-patting can make up for the fact that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters have been wronged. I have no words that will lessen the blow. It is a devastating blow that will reverberate for many years to come. This amendment will undoubtedly join the interracial marriage ban amendment of 1875 as one of the ugliest moments in North Carolina history. We will surely lose many of our wonderful friends and fellow citizens to other, more welcoming states, and I can't say I blame them.

What we can say, however, is that we put up one hell of a fight. While just we took a giant step backwards from a legislative perspective, we are actually a better state because of our fight. As odd as it may be to state, North Carolina is a more welcoming, more tolerant state today as a result of our hard work. There are more allies now than there were in September (or that there have ever been in our state's history). There are more people willing to stand up for injustice now than there were in September. There are more churches willing to reach out to (and stand up for) the LGBT population. There are more people willing to risk their community standing, their relationships, or even their employment status, by vocally protesting against religion-based bigotry.

Most importantly, there is an entire generation of young people -- kids, teens, and college students -- who witnessed this injustice firsthand. There is an entire generation of young people, like my own, who cannot believe that gays and lesbians would be denied rights enjoyed by the rest of the population. To them it is as unconscionable as denying marriage rights to interracial couples, or denying women the right to vote.

These young people are the voters, lawmakers, clergy, community leaders, business leaders, and elected officials of tomorrow. While we are devastated by Amendment One's passing, we do know that North Carolina's future is in their hands.

While we can be certain this younger generation will clean up our generation's mess, our part in this fight is not over. We will wake up tomorrow with a heightened sense of purpose and the resolve to pick up the pieces and continue in our fight to make this a better North Carolina for all families.

We shouldn't have to wait, but one thing is very clear. As MLK said, "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice."

Amendment One: 11th Hour Thoughts On Faith, Homosexuality & Choice

These words were originally posted in an online neighborhood forum about Amendment One to address a neighbor who believes homosexuality is a sin and that he could not cast a vote that condoned it, regardless of any unintended consequences of the legislation.



As both sides of the Amendment One debate wrap up their closing arguments, it has become clear that the vote comes down to religion. Mostly, it comes down to religion and the debate over the nature of sexual orientation.

I have been chastised in past posts for my adamant stance that homosexuality is not a choice. Some in the LGBT camp have criticized me (and rightfully so) for making this assertion, since people should be free to choose to be gay if they so wish. I agree wholeheartedly -- it shouldn't be anyone's concern if two consenting adults choose to be intimate with one another. But civil rights causes are a marathon and not a sprint, unfortunately. And the linchpin of the gay marriage debate is indeed the belief held by many religious people that homosexuals have made a conscious choice to live a lifestyle of sin and abomination.

We do not choose our sexual orientations. Our sexual orientations are determined by genetic, hormonal, and environmental factors. The following organizations have issued statements concluding that we do not choose our sexual orientation: American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, National Association of Social Workers, Royal College of Psychiatrists, and American Academy of Pediatrics.

Sexual orientations are not binary. Bisexuality is an actual thing, and not just a phase in college.

Gender is also not binary. If you believe it is, please explain your beliefs to an acquaintance of mine who was born with ambiguous genitalia. Doctors and parents made a choice that she would be a girl. Guess what happened? She grew to only be interested in girls. Whoops. Gender dysphoria is a real thing.

At the time of the Bible, people did indeed believe that gender and sexual orientation were binary, just as they thought epilepsy was demonic possession, and just as they thought the earth was flat and at the center of the universe.

When we gained enough understanding, we realized that the sun was not a god, but rather a hot rock. Then we learned enough to understand that it wasn't a rock at all, but a fiery hot ball of plasma interwoven with magnetic fields.

Please read this article in The Atlantic exploring the nature of gender, and tell me that you believe that the boy in the article made a decision to be the way he is. No amount of church, or whippings, or therapy is going to alter what this boy is in his heart, and nobody should try to change that. To deny him the right to grow up to experience marriage and family is cruel and unusual punishment.

Brandon Simms, age 5

I realize that by pointing to examples of gender dysphoria I am not directly addressing the issue of gay marriage. It's not so different, however. My point is that we are who we are. The fact is that we are not all born as males who will grow up to be attracted to females, or females who will grow up to be attracted to males. Some of us will be born gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender. We are attracted to who we are attracted to. We can't turn that off and pretend. We all can't simply go along with society and ignore who we are at our very core. To do so is to live a lie. To force others to do so is to punish them for their natural born traits.

The Bible, while a great source of morality for many, cannot be looked upon for every bit of moral guidance. We must adjust our morality to consider our modern understandings about biology and the cosmos. If we don't, we will simply continue to live by Bronze Age morals -- and we know what that has done to Afghanistan, where they still practice many of the same laws that we find in the Old Testament. We Americans abhor their enforcement of holy law. We would do well to abhor it in our own country, too.

Good luck with your vote. I just hope that when you cast your vote you will feel comfortable knowing that a FOR vote will be engraved in stone. You may come to change your mind about sexual orientation. Changing a constitutional amendment, however, is not easily done.

If there is any doubt in your heart -- if you feel anything in your heart for those people like my acquaintance or the boy in the above linked Atlantic article, you should understand that by voting FOR, you are harming those people. (You are also harming heterosexual couples, children, seniors, and women -- but we've been through that already.)

If your Bible tells you to harm them anyway, then I am afraid your morality is flawed.

My morality requires that I never do harm to another human being, and that I respect the rights of minorities, and that I don't force others to live by my beliefs.  Is not one of our central roles as human beings to reduce suffering? How can we reconcile this with the denial of rights to our fellow humans based on their natural traits?

Legalizing gay marriage or domestic partnerships does not force someone else's beliefs on you (Remember, they will still be illegal if you vote AGAINST). This is what so many fail to understand. Legalizing domestic partnerships/civil unions/marriage doesn't alter YOUR rights to form a union that aligns with your belief system. Your YES vote tomorrow, however, will definitely alter others' rights. That is unfortunate, and completely at odds with everything that has made America a beacon of freedom.

I fear I will wake up on Wednesday extremely disappointed in my state. But I feel confident that before I die, I will see NC begin to accept all people for who they are, and afford them the same rights, no matter what their natural traits. It is a shame that North Carolina will have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century.

I thought we were beyond this, but I guess we will have another generation of this way of thinking, until we look back and are embarrassed by this legislation the way we are embarrassed by the inter-racial marriage ban amendment of 1875.

The Top 10 Secular Legislative Reasons to Vote For Amendment One

In Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), The Supreme Court's decision stated that the government's action must have a secular legislative purpose.

As voters in NC will be deciding the fate of Amendment One, let's take a look at the ten most compelling secular legislative reasons to vote in favor of the amendment:


1.




2.




3.




4.




5.




6.




7.




8.




9.




10.



Please keep these reasons in mind as you cast your ballot on May 8 to determine whether or not North Carolina will forever restrict the rights of its citizen based on natural traits.

"Bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possesses their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression." - Thomas Jefferson

Voices Against Amendment One Pt. 3

Here's the third installment of 'Voices Against Amendment One' from All Aces Media featuring a collection of voices urging North Carolinians to vote against Amendment One.

The video features a broad spectrum of NC citizens, as well as many influential and well-known artists and musicians with ties to North Carolina, including Danny McBride (Eastbound & Down), Craig Robinson (The Office), Gibby Haynes (Butthole Surfers), Mike Dean (Corrosion of Conformity), Tift Merritt, yours truly, and others.

Don't forget to vote on May 8 (or vote early if you can). Make sure your voice is heard.

AFA: Soup Is Gay Food

Anti-LGBT hate group AFA has been (rather unsuccessfully) urging boycotts of many fine American institutions recently, most notably Home Depot, Target, and Disney, for their support of LGBT equality. If you recall, the AFA are also the group that releases a Naughty & Nice list each Christmastime to remind folks which companies say "Happy Holidays" vs. "Merry Christmas."

Now they've taken on another great American institution, Campbell's soup. They want you to know that soup is gay food.

Via the American Family Association's 'news' site OneNewsNow:

Traditional family groups are disappointed that the Campbell's Soup Company is sponsoring a homosexual event in Philadelphia this week.

The American Family Association of Pennsylvania's Diane Gramley says the company has "tainted its clean-cut image."

"Equality Forum is a homosexual event that glorifies same-sex 'marriage,' is going to have a panel discussion on how homosexuals can adopt, and it also is going to be talking about how the homosexual activists can go into schools to give the message, 'gay is okay,'" Gramley details. The forum is also "working towards getting transgenders into the military" and on how transgendered people can work to be better understood by the public.

ut the AFA of Pennsylvania president says those aspects are contrary to Campbell's image.

"When I think of Campbell's Soup, I think of the Campbell's Soup kids with their advertisement that portrays a pro-family, a family-friendly company, which is what they want to portray to the public," she suggests.

So Gramley is encouraging people nationwide to go the company's website and send a message to company officials urging them to stay neutral in the culture war and not sponsor homosexuality.

Meanwhile, she notes that other companies provide comparable soup products.

Time to buy some Campbells, folks. And while you're at it, write to Campbell's yourself, and let them know you appreciate their stance.

NC Kid-Run Newspaper Pens Editorial Against Amendment One

The children of Greensboro, NC's Lindley Park community have been writing, printing, and distributing their own xerographic newspaper, The Lindley Park Gazette for a few years now. The neighborhood paper is funded by $5 ads bought by neighborhood businesses, and is distributed to over 300 homes and businesses.

The paper isn't just kid's stuff. There's serious stuff in this rag. Lucy Newsom and her staff cover real issues affecting the area, including Amendment One.

A few months ago, I posted a pro-equality editorial by Max Gearhart which ran in the Gazette. Now, with the May 8 vote fast approaching, the paper has published an editorial urging their readers (or perhaps their parents) to vote against the amendment.

This editorial is a collective stance taken by the entire staff of kids who publish the paper. The editorial was published in the May 2 edition of the paper.


Lindley Park Gazette Editorial Against Amendment One
We've spent months making signs, marching, researching and reporting. We have made videos. We write about this in our paper.

The one thing we can not do is vote.

Please vote (for us) against Amendment One.

The North Carolina Same-Sex Marriage Amendment will appear on the May 8, 2012 ballot in the state of North Carolina.

It says: Constitutional amendment to provide that marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State.

Our parents have the opportunity to vote on this. We hope they will vote AGAINST it. And here is why:

Sometimes, as kids, we feel like we are in the minority. Just because we are young. We literally cannot vote. Sometimes we get bullied because we are small. It is not fair for the big guys to beat up on the little guys. It is scary on the playground but it is terrifying when the people who are supposed to protect you are part of the bullying.

Amendment One would write bullying into the NC state constitution.

What if the dominant religion in North Carolina said that all women have to wear burquas or that children can be sold into slavery or told who they have to marry? What if you thought - and of course you would – Hey, that is not cool! Women have rights! Kids need to be protected! But this religion was so popular that it had power to take away rights from those less powerful. To make their beliefs into the LAW. It would feel terrible if you were bullied by your state. That is what this amendment feels like to us. Bullying.

The sad fact is that bullying happens. It happens on the playground and in governments all over the world. We can’t let it happen here in North Carolina.

We understand that most of the religious leaders in North Carolina are speaking out against this as unfair. We know that religion is not the enemy. Most religious leaders see that it is bullying. But there are some leaders in religion and politics and even in the media who have misused their power to BE bullies. To try to write bullying into the CONSTITUTION. To make discrimination part of a document that is supposed to protect ALL of us.

We believe that gay marriage is fine. It is cool with us. But more than that, no matter how you feel about gay people, bullying is never OK. Never. We pledge to stand up for the people who are getting bullied, no matter who they are. We will not let the bullies win on the playground or in our government.

Please VOTE (for us) AGAINST AMENDMENT ONE. 

Voices Against Amendment One, Pt. 2

Here is the second video from All Aces Media featuring a collection of voices urging North Carolinians to vote against Amendment One.

The video features a broad spectrum of NC citizens, as well as many influential and well-known artists and musicians with ties to North Carolina, including Jeff Tweedy (Wilco), Bob Mould (Husker Du), Ian MacKaye (Fugazi, Minor Threat), Laura Ballance (Superchunk, Merge Records), and others.

Don't forget to vote on May 8 (or vote early if you can). Make sure your voice is heard.

Wife Of NC Senator: Amendment One Is Necessary ‘To Protect The Caucasian Race’

Sen. Brunstetter, Caucasian

The Amendment One debate has certainly had its share of crazy, but a story reported by Pam's House Blend really takes the cake.

Chad Nance, a freelance journalist covering the NC election, recorded the wife of NC Sen. Peter Brunstetter saying some ridiculously offensive stuff about Amendment One.

Nance said he recorded a conversation with the woman, whose name is Jodie Brunstetter, on video, and that she confirmed that she used the term “Caucasian” in a discussion about the marriage amendment, but insisted that otherwise her comments had been taken out of context by other poll workers.

…Nance paraphrased the remarks, as told to him by those who were present: “During the conversation, Ms. Brunstetter said her husband was the architect of Amendment 1, and one of the reasons he wrote it was to protect the Caucasian race. She said Caucasians or whites created this country. We wrote the Constitution. This is about protecting the Constitution. There already is a law on the books against same-sex marriage, but this protects the Constitution from activist judges.”

Nance said he recruited a friend, who works for the Coalition to Protect All North Carolina Families, to witness his interview with Jodie Brunstetter. He said Brunstetter reluctantly acknowledged that she had used the term “Caucasian” and then repeated the statement previously attributed to her, but substituted the pronoun “we” for “Caucasian. Nance said Brunstetter insisted there was nothing racial about her remarks, but could not explain why she used the term “Caucasian.”

Holy shitballs, people. This is what we're up against in NC.

When you visit the polls on May 8, I hope you realize that voting for Amendment One is to align yourself with this garbage.