Why Don't We Give Romney a Break for High School Pranks

(From Wikipedia)

Reading the Washington Post piece on Mitt Romney and his days at Cranbrook, I felt like I was reading the past mistakes of a high school kid. Yes, it's a cruel, cruel thing what Romney did to John Lauber and it should make Romney feel embarrassed, as it made everyone else involved feel according to WaPo. There was also the "Atta girl" comments Romney shouted when Gary Hummel, a closeted gay student, would speak up in class at Cranbrook. Both unsavory things to do, for sure, but in the context of an all-boys private high school in 1960s, unfortunately not all that surprising.

Romney certainly made mistakes in high school - as we all did. But the upside of mistakes is that it is sometimes the best way to learn. Look at Barack Obama. He did cocaine in his younger days and came out to say that it was one of the greatest moral failures in his life. It was a mistake that he made, has been able to recognize and move on from.

So it is with Romney. He made a mistake and he owned up to it—wait, what? He claimed to not remember it and offered a conditional apology? So he didn't actually apologize for the incident, but for all of his "hijinks" and only if he "hurt anyone by virtue of that"? That doesn't really sound like an apology.

That's okay though, because even if Romney picked on people he thought might be gay, at least he fights for equal rights for all Americans - gay or straight - today. What? He doesn't? He wants gay couples to not enjoy the same rights to marriage as straight couples? And tries to justify it by using history, claiming that his homophobic religion has nothing to do with his decision? That doesn't sound very believable.

So even from all of the talk of how prestigious Cranbrook is and how hard he studied, it seems as if Mitt Romney learned little from his time there.

Obama Comes Out in Support of Same Sex Marriage

Obama announcing his support of marriage equality
(jasonlefkowitz.net)

The optimist in me wants to commend Obama for such a brave stance in the fight for marriage equality. But anyone who knows me and/or follows politics knows that there is not much optimism left when it comes to anything a presidential administration does. So the cynic in me wins. And the cynic in me thinks, what took so damn long?

Obama's stance is hardly courageous or brave. He is a liberal Democrat (at least he is seen as one) and most liberal Democrats support marriage equality. The trend of American support for gay marriage has been an upward one, and new polling shows moderates and independents, a key demographic that the next president needs to win in November, support it in greater numbers than the rest of the population.

If Obama is alienating anyone, it is the homophobic liberal, which is a rare breed. If someone believes strongly enough that gays should be not allowed to marry and would not vote for a candidate because of that, chances are they weren't voting for the black guy with the immigrant father who's rumored to be a Muslim born in Kenya come November anyway.

Additionally, let's not forget that Obama has not had some sudden change of heart. He was pressured politically to do this because his vice president was not stuck in some evolutionary process when it comes to civil rights. If Biden doesn't speak his mind on Meet the Press this weekend, chances are Obama stays silent.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

And we can't forget about that 1996 survey Obama took as a candidate for state senator in Illinois, in which he stated, "“I favor legalizing same-sex marriages,and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages." Since then he came out against gay marriage and said that he was evolving on it. The theory of evolution, unlike Obama, is progressive and not a circular process. When one holds a policy position, switches it, and then switches back we call that flip-flopping, not evolution (otherwise Mitt Romney is the gold standard of evolution.)

And finally, there is the annoying habit of Obama to say one thing and not follow through. An eloquent poet by the name of DMX once said, "Talk is cheap..." He's right. Obama's been disappointing for progressives and a presser coming out in favor of gay marriage a day late and a dollar short does little to shore that up. In fact, it could prove just how political—as opposed to principled—Obama has become.

So what will come of Obama's vocal support of marriage equality? Probably nothing, considering Obama supports the ability of states to decide their own marriage laws and 30 states have voted for bans, with zero voting for marriage equality. Even if Obama had promised marriage equality, all you have to do is take a gander at Executive Order 13492 to understand how bankable that would be. So while words are one thing, I'd like to see some action from the administration.

Why I Won't Be Donating to Salvation Army This Year, or Any Year for That Matter

Salvation Army logo (Wikipedia)

Most folks who know me know that I am not a very fashion-forward individual; I recently traded my baggy jeans, t-shirts and sweatshirt look for a slightly less-baggy jeans, polo/button-down and sweater style. This left me with a lot of clothes that I no longer wanted and I rounded them all up and looked to donate them.

The first charity most people think of in a situation like this is the Salvation Army, and I was no different. However, being a conscientious donor, I wanted to make sure that my unwanted clothing would be going to a charity whose ideology closely matched mine. Boy, was I disappointed.

I consider myself center-left when it comes to politics (I can hear my entire family laughing right now as they compare me to some pinko commie). So when I saw the following quote on abortion I was taken aback:

The Salvation Army deplores society's ready acceptance of abortion, which reflects insufficient concern for vulnerable persons, including the unborn. (Psalms 82:3-4)

But hey, abortion is one of those things that is very divisive (as the Salvation Army's use of "deplore" indicates) and later in the position statement the SA says that even if someone had obtained an abortion they're not going to shun them and treat them like some pariah. So maybe I could look past this. Maybe.

Then I see a section labeled "Homosexuality." Not gay marriage, not equal rights for gays, but simply the state of being a homosexual. Now while I may be able to look past someone's anti-choice views, I simply will not yield when it comes to equal rights for all persons–gay or straight.

The second paragraph in the mission statement starts out benignly enough:

Sexual attraction to the same sex is a matter of profound complexity. Whatever the causes may be, attempts to deny its reality or to marginalize those of a same-sex orientation have not been helpful. The Salvation Army does not consider same-sex orientation blameworthy in itself. Homosexual conduct, like heterosexual conduct, requires individual responsibility and must be guided by the light of scriptural teaching.

Wow, I thought, a relatively enlightened view from an organization clearly so guided by religious doctrine. But then the next paragraph hit me:

Scripture forbids sexual intimacy between members of the same sex. The Salvation Army believes, therefore, that Christians whose sexual orientation is primarily or exclusively same-sex are called upon to embrace celibacy as a way of life. There is no scriptural support for same-sex unions as equal to, or as an alternative to, heterosexual marriage.

So, according to the Salvation Army, it's quite alright to be gay, but you can't actually physically express it or marry. I don't know what's worse: a group vehemently opposed to homosexuality or a group that tries to toe a middle line while trying to claim some non-existent moral high ground.

The next position statement is titled "Human Equality," which already is starting off on a hypocritical foot. In it, the Salvation Army states:

All Salvation Army social welfare services are provided on a non-discriminatory basis; such services shall be equally available to all persons on the basis of need and capacity to benefit from the service.

Yet in 2001 the organization lobbied the Bush Administration for an exemption from anti-discrimination laws based on sexual orientation. Their anti-gay stance was enough for me to avoid their incessant bell-ringers; their two-faced hypocrisy pushed me to write this post.

So what can you, as a person who embraces liberty and equality, do? One, obviously, is to avoid the Salvation Army at all costs. Don't shop at their stores, don't give to their charities. Tell your friends and family to do the same.

Secondly, seek out a more equality-friendly charity. I've found that Goodwill has no religious affiliation and are well represented in the New York/New Jersey area. If there's no Goodwill near you, here is a list of either non-religious charities or charities that cater to certain non-religious issues.

If the convenience of simply dropping your change is a game-breaker, just keep your change and deposit it into a Coinstar machine. When done you can choose to donate to a non-profit like the Red Cross or UNICEF.

In other words, the Salvation Army is not the only charity out there. There are plenty of organizations unwilling to discriminate who are more deserving of your donations. Make sure your charity reaches all needy persons equally, regardless of immutable characteristics like sexuality.

Former Bush Aide Comes Out, Earth Still Spins on Axis

Perusing the news this morning I was trying to think of something that I cared even less about than the recent "coming out" of former George W. Bush aide Ken Mehlman. I searched and searched for something I thought was more insignificant to no avail. Many say that Mehlman's involvement in Bush's re-election campaign in 2004 (involvement is a soft word for it, he ran the re-election campaign) shows that he is a hypocrite.

Here's why I don't completely buy the hypocrite argument (I can be swayed on this one). To begin with, it's politics; nearly everybody is a hypocrite. His job was to get Bush elected, which he did. If that means having Bush condemn gay marriage, then so be it. Who knows, Mehlman may have possibly argued with W. over the issue. Unless someone is their own employer, very rarely do employees agree with every thing that their boss/company does. Mehlman could have seen other facets of Bush's agenda as more important than gay marriage. Or he could be a total hypocrite, I simply don't know.

California's Proposition 8 Overturned

As I expected, California's Proposition 8 was shot down in a California federal court yesterday because it violated the Equal Protection clause laid out in the Fourteenth Amendment. To be frank, it is simply unconscionable to allow one group to marry (straight folk) and deny that same legal right to another group (gay folk.) I often compare the legal arguments against gay marriage to the legal arguments against interracial marriage: both have no legs to stand on in today's society (or any society, for that matter.)

Obama's Choice of Warren Calls for Look at Gay Rights in America

Since Barack Obama announced his choice of Reverend Rick Warren (the same man who hosted the Saddleback Forum early on in the campaign) to give the invocation at his inauguration in January I decided to take a look at gay rights in America. Many gays and people on the left cried foul, given Warren's conservative social views - specifically his anti-gay marriage stance (he was a staunch supporter of Prop 8 in California). While Warren certainly holds views that those on the left do not, his choice should not be that surprising to those who have followed Obama's stance on the issues. Obama never has been a proponent of gay marriage, so his choice of Warren should not be "shocking" to anyone. He supports civil unions for same-sex couples, but marriage itself is a thing he would like to leave up to religion and to the states. Obama is not in favor of banning same-sex marriage, but he certainly is not fighting for its practice. Obama does make good points on gay marriage - points I will be making in this post - but he will not go as far to say that gays have the same right as straights when it comes to matrimony.

Many people point to religion to say that gay marriage is wrong, immoral, or sinful. They point to things like Sodom and Gomorrah and the biblical laws that seemingly ban homosexuality. That's fine, but I bet these same people would decry against the backwardness of things like Islamic extremists enforcing harsh, out-of-date Sharia law in Middle Eastern communities and the treatment of women, etc. How is invoking a book older than the religion of Islam itself to deny a right to a group of people that much different than Islamic fundamentalists using Quranic/Hadith law to deny rights to a group of people? Has humanity not changed drastically since the days of the Bible? Do these same folks who invoke the Bible argue for the relationship between man and wife as laid out in Genesis 3:16 (that the husband will "rule over" the wife)? There are plenty of biblical laws that would make no sense in today's society; we cannot just pick and choose the ones we want to justify things we do not agree with.

Others point to the societal ills that will abound if we allow gays to marry. To begin with, they say that the "sanctity" of marriage will be destroyed, the whole concept will become meaningless. Seriously? How does allowing two people of the same sex to marry ruin any part of marriage? I would say folks like Newt Gingrich, Vito Fossella, Larry Craig, Tim Mahoney, David Vitter, Eliot Spitzer (the list goes on and on) ruin the sanctity of marriage. Why is it legal to cheat on your wife, but not for two gays to get married? The other hypocrisy of gays ruining marriage is the divorce rate in this country. We often hear that 50% of American marriages end in divorce. From what I can glean, this is a misleading statement, but the divorce rate in this country seems to be somewhere between 30-40%. Now I may be old-fashioned, but I thought that marriage was a "death do us part" deal, not a "til I decided you changed or did not become as successful as I thought or just get sick of you" thing. The logic behind allowing people to leave a marriage being okay but allowing other people to enter a marriage being wrong is mind-boggling. So again I pose this question: Why is it legal to break a martial promise/bond/covenant/whatever you want to call it, but not for two gays to get married?

It seems that America as a whole has a problem with homosexuality. This is a country that had sodomy laws up until 2003 when the Supreme Court struck down such legislation as unconstitutional. If you are openly gay, you are not allowed to serve this country in its armed forces. There is no federal legislation outlawing discrimination based on sexual orientation, which leaves that matter up to the states. This means that in any state that does not have anti-discrimination laws based on sexual orientation, it is legal to not hire someone or purposely discriminate against someone based solely on their sexual orientation. And, as a good friend of mine pointed out to me recently, the United States refused to back or sign a United Nations resolution decriminalizing homosexuality. The only other nations to not sign the resolution were Russia, China, the Catholic Church, and members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. In the context of human rights, not exactly the best company to be in.

So back to the original point about Obama and Warren - why is it that surprising? Obama touted the fact that he could work across the aisle, and Warren is pretty socially conservative (something Obama is not). They both agree that gays should not expressly be allowed to marry, but beyond that they have little agreements. Barack Obama, in my opinion, did not do anything that outrageous - he chose a reverend who is quite influential and will help him bridge the gap between social conservatives and his future administration. This is Obama making good on a promise to work with a diverse group of people. Not everyone is going to agree with everything he does, but, as long as he is not overtly hypocritical, moronic, or plunges this country into unnecessary wars, that's just politics.

Photos - Obama and Warren (Washington Post), Larry Craig, a symbol of hypocritical homophobia (Wikipedia)