The Coming War: Arizona Was Only A Skirmish

It's My RELIGION, Stupid!

Religion has held a place in America's political and emotional landscape far greater than in most countries in recent history: the reverence paid to all things religious has been so resolute, so fierce, that whenever religion enters an arena, it is taken for granted that religion will gain the upper hand.* 

Religion in America has always gotten special privileges. Tax exemption is one, of course, but it has always been given the privilege to discriminate: it rarely has to "put up with" anything. After all, telling religion that it MUST do something is akin to ordering around God. Religion may be God's representative, but Americans have a tendency to equate the two instead. 

Perhaps that's why the relatively small fracas in Arizona caught the attention of the American public: in an article titled Arizona on Steriods, Think Progress wonders if the Supreme Court will make the ultimate decision on discrimination:

Unfortunately, Arizona is far from the only state where lawmakers are contemplating bills that would give the government, private businesses, and others the a license to discriminate under the guise of “religious liberty.” As Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards wrote yesterday, “this didn’t start with Arizona, and it won’t end with Arizona.”
Freedom To Discriminate

For years, the gay rights movement has described itself as one of civil rights, with a great many people (especially African Americans) aghast at the idea that the two were ever alike. The situation in Arizona, however, gave more credence to the gay-rights-as-civil-rights meme than the Christian Right imagined: in other words, while crying for "religious freedom", it had to admit to another freedom it already had - the freedom to discriminate. Rich Lowry of the National Review stated as much (see below): Arizona SB 1062 was simply attempting to define a form of discrimination that was already on the books, and it was clearly aimed at discrimination against gays. It's undoing was it's broad terminology - so broad that it could be used to discriminate against anyone else for any number of reasons as long as providing the service or goods to someone was "against my religion." Gays were not only grouped in with unwed mothers and prostitutes, they were lost in a vast sea of people one's religion might not abide: discrimination is limited only to the thousands of doctrinal variants. 

The Coming War

The weapons used in any war depend upon who you are attacking, and the weapons of choice by the Christian Right will be the Bible and the Constitution, both used in the legislatures and the courts. To some, this might seem an unfair advantage, given America's reverence for religion: the enemy seems only to have the Constitution. But there is another weapon - totally ethical - which now eludes the Christian Right: America's conscience, it's sense of fairness. 

The strategy of the Christian Right in terms of it's newly found cry of  "religious freedom" will be to pitch each battle individually in each state, just as it has in its front on abortion. The battles will be won easily in states like Alabama and Mississippi, but expect blood to be shed in other states.

Bloodshed

The coming war may seem to some to be bloodless, a battle for the rights of bakers to refuse to make wedding cakes for gay couples. Indeed, this is how the Right is portraying the whole confrontation: "We insist on our religious freedom to discriminate. Just go to another bakery!" This, however, is but a pretense: the implications and ramifications are far reaching and the Right can see victory on other fronts: discrimination can seep into the very fabric of America while under the guise of religion. 

And the Christian Right is still a formidable adversary - formidable to inflict wounds into gay rights, pro choice and other progressive movements. Spurred on by its own wounds from federal court reversals, the Christian Right feels that it is fighting for its life. 

... and it's "freedom."






*Case in point: the title "Reverend". The title is legal in over 28 states, giving the title holder the authority to perform marriages and conduct funerals regardless of which institution (if any) bestowed it on the holder. Yes, it's the reason I am able to call myself (legally), "Rev. Dan". To me, it is not only a statement of faith and commitment to the basic truths of Christianity, but also an acknowledgement of my studies in today's  theologies. But while I consider my right to it as legitimate as anyone else's, there are others who take umbrage and consider it an offense to the clergy. 

The Perfect Puppet: Brand New Pope, Same Old Papacy. Benedict Gets His Way.

 Emeritus Rules

There will be no talk of liberation theology.

There will be no talk of human rights.

There will be no talk of women as clergy.

There will be no talk of transparency. 

Change is slow in Catholicism, but with the election of Jorge Bergoglio, the papacy, is at a standstill: there will be no transparency, no change in the direction that Benedict set forth: the new pope will simply be an adjunct of the old pope and the papacy is doomed to become an anachronism in a time when it could become a force for change. It sounds hopeless because it is hopeless: only a drastic shift in direction regarding issues such as women in the clergy, gay rights, celibacy, Vatican finances, and child sexual abuse could help the papacy survive in the 21st century. 

The Smokescreen Of  Differences

The Vatican is, however, eager to point out that Francis could not be more different than Benedict: The first pope from the Americas, the first pope to be Jesuit, the first Francis. He was a scientist, not a theologian. He was the most "pastoral" of prelates, stressing evangelism rather than simply adhering to doctrine. And his no-frills lifestyle will certainly eschew the Prada shoes, striking fear in the hearts of some cardinals who are used to the trappings of Catholicism's upper eschelons. And the Vatican needs a facelift - badly. And who cares if it's only superficial? Whether or not he extends that frugality and that "pastoral goodness" to the Vatican financial empire, however, remains to be seen. 

Waiting in the wings

Since Bergoglio received the second most votes in the conclave that chose Ratzinger, it is evident that the cardinals are sticking with the same ideologies ... and to Ratzinger's lead. Conspiracy theorists might conjecture that Bergoglio has known for quite some time that he would be pope after Ratzinger. Ratzinger certainly appointed enough cardinals to cement the deal. And Ratzinger might have considered Bergoglio's age and health: better get him into the papacy now, while he can reign for the number of years required to keep the ubiquitous of cover-ups and secrecy sustained. Ratzinger's conservatism needed time to regroup and strengthen itself, and it got that time with Bergoglio. 

Piety Or Pretense?

While Bergoglio has often chided fellow prelates as being "Pharisees" - people who congratulate themselves while condemning others - his noted work in the slums and with the poor is at odds with the lack of political stance he might have taken against the dictators of Argentina. He admits to not adhering to liberation theology, an ideology that gives backbone to work with the poor and pure altruism. And while he cites Jesus' dining with outcasts and prostitutes, his views of homosexuality (especially in terms of gay adoption) led Argentinian President Christian Fernandez to compare his tone to "medieval times and The Inquisition." 

Sound like anyone we know?

The Most Positive Response - The Right Wing Has It

The Christian Right is thrilled: the status quo of the Vatican on issues of abortion, contraception and gay rights has been kept and it can breathe a sigh of relief. Mike Huckabee, Tony Perkins, Bryan Fischer and Pat Robertson can take heart that the Vatican is firmly in their corner on their issues. "Fie To The Liberal Demonspawn" is what they needed to counter the shift in attitudes, some coming from Catholics themselves. And while some sects and preachers have abused Catholicism (remember John Hagee's "whore of Babylon" sentiment?), they rejoice at having allies: numbers dwindling, they have no choice. 

And when inheriting Ratzinger's woes and scandals, Bergoglio might also look to allies from the big CR.

NOM's List Of Boycotts Will EXPLODE!: 75 (Republican!) Politicians And 278 Corporations, Organizations and Municipalities File Amicus Briefs Supporting Gay Marriage

Not one, but two bombshell amicus briefs supporting same-sex marriage (against California Prop 8) and the overturn of DOMA were filed this last week and the amount of prominent politicians, statesmen, corporations and non-profit organizations is staggering: over 350! 

       WASHINGTON — Dozens of prominent Republicans — including top advisers to former President George W. Bush, four former governors and two members of Congress — have signed a legal brief arguing that gay people have a constitutional right to marry, a position that amounts to a direct challenge to Speaker John A. Boehner and reflects the civil war in the party since the November election.“We are trying to say to the court that we are judicial and political conservatives, and it is consistent with our values and philosophy for you to overturn Proposition 8” - Ken Mehlman.

As of Monday, the list was 75 strong. Among them:

Meg Whitman, former Prop 8 supporter and candidate for governor of California
Stephen J. Hadley, a Bush national security advisor
Carlos Guteirrez, commerce secretary to Bush
David Stockman, Ronald Regan's first budget director
Deborah Pryce, former House Republican leader
John Huntsman, former Republican Primary Presidential Candidate
Ken Mehlman, former Republican National Committee Chairman
...and three former Republican governors (Whitman - NJ, Weld and Swift - MA)


Afterwards, an amicus brief requesting the overturn of DOMA (Defense Of Marriage Act) was handed to SCOTUS, with signing corporations, organizations and municipalities chiming in for marriage equality. Below is a partial list of the corporations, showing the diversity as well as size (partial A-Z):


A - Adobe Systems, Amazon.com, Apple, Inc.
B - Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Boston Medical Center, Corp.
C- CBS Corporation, Citigroup, Credit Suisse Securities
D - Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Deustche Bank, AG
E - EBay, Inc. Eldercare, Inc.
F - Facebook, Inc., 500BC
G - The Goldman Sachs Group, Google, Inc.
H - Homeward Pet Adoption Center, Horizon Air Industries
I - Intel Corp., Intuit, Inc.
J - Jet Blue Airways, Johnson & Johnson
K - Kimpton Hotel and Restuarant Group, Kinzer Real Estate
L - Levi Strauss & Co., Liberty Mutual Group, Inc.
M - Mars, Inc. Microsoft Corporation, The McGraw-Hill Companies
N - New York Life Insurance Company, NIKE
O - Oracle America, Orbitz Worldwide
P - Pfizer, Inc. Puma Spring Vineyards
Q - Qualcomm, Inc.
R - Ray Holley Communications, Resource Systems Group, Inc.
S - Silicon Valley Progressive Faith Community, Starbucks Corporation
T - Total Home Improvement, Inc. Twitter, Inc.
U - U.S. Balloon Company, Unigo, LLC
V - Viacom, Inc. Vulcan, Inc.
W - Walt Disney Company, Wasserman Media Group,
X - Zerox Corporation
Z - Zynga, Inc.

Also: 41 law firms, 16 professional organizations, and 19 municipalities

NOM de Plume

The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) has often stated that it is not really anti-gay or homophobic, but the disingenuous statements are rendered moot when considering the vehemence with which they attack any corporation or politician going against their views: consider their international boycott of Starbucks and Google (inciting foreign headquarters to be boycott with anti-gay ads). The organization has even come up with "enemies lists" of politicians who support same-sex marriage.





You Gotta Have Amici

NOM also filed its own amicus briefs with SCOTUS, along with Family Research Council and - wait for the shock - Westboro Baptist Church. And while the last is certainly not the kind of group one wants to ever associate with, NOM may need all the help it can get.
Amicus Curiae briefs, (or Friend-Of-The-Court briefs) can carry weight in influencing courts: they can be the conscience of the courts, in fact, because they expound on far-reaching implications of the court's decision. The corporations represented in amici briefs present a picture of what some of corporate America believe. And since Citizens United, courts themselves must consider corporations to have a voice in determining equal rights. In fact, most of the 75 politicians who signed on for the Prop 8 amicus brief cited their support of Citizens United. Irony knows no bounds.

Battle Of The Briefs - It Goes Deeper Than You Think

Whatever the outcome of the decisions, the resulting opinions will carry weight for future court cases, and it is no secret that Supreme Court Justices do not entirely write their own opinions. Their law clerks do:

Slate:
       "While justices are responsible for the substance of their opinions in each case, their clerks usually do the majority of the writing. These clerks follow a code of secrecy about the process of writing each opinion.After oral arguments and the initial vote, the senior justice for the majority opinion chooses a judge (who may be himself or another justice) to be responsible for writing the opinion. Unless this judge is Justice Antonin Scalia, who has often taken on the task of writing opinions himself, the judge will then usually select one of his or her clerks to take the first crack at drafting the opinion. The judge will then discuss with the clerk what the opinion should say and may provide a detailed outline or just a few rough notes. Each justice is allowed to have up to four clerks—bright young law graduates, usually from Ivy League schools and often in their mid-to-late-20s—with the exception of the chief justice, who gets to have five.

So amicus briefs could, in fact, influence more than just SCOTUS, but their clerks as well. And don't forget, even dissenting opinions carry legal weight and are cited in subsequent cases: every jot and tittle written by the clerks can influence future cases.

Upshot: the decisions - assenting or dissenting - will have teeth for a good time to come. These cases may count as some of the most important civil rights cases in the nation's history.

Rainbow Scouts? Maybe.

We'll see...

UNDER PRESSURE, BOY SCOUTS MAY EASE NO-GAYS POLICY