The Justice Chronicles, Volume 34: Fifty Years After Stonewall

Fifty years ago it wasn’t easy to be gay. Everyone assumed every adult was attracted to a person of the opposite sex. Men fell in love with women and women fell in love with men.

Except for some people it was different. Some men fell in love with other men, and some women fell in love with other women. We can argue about what percentage, but it doesn’t matter. What matters is this: how do we treat people with different sexual orientations?

Frankly, fifty years ago most of us didn’t even know about this. But some did and they criminalized not only homosexual behavior, but even homosexuality itself. In many places homosexuality was a crime and in some parts of the world it still is.

In 1969 in New York City gay men and women lived with a secret that prevented them from being open with their family, friends, and coworkers. But they knew there was a place where they could be themselves: the Stonewall Inn in Greenwich Village. There they could connect with other and find love.

But they couldn’t feel entirely safe because they were subjected to police raids. Patrons of the Stonewall Inn grew wearily used to police raids where officers would enter the bar and arrest men dressed as women and others who “looked gay.” But on the night of June 28,1969 something new happened. Patrons of the bar fought back. It led to three days of riots.

In the fifty years later, much has happened. The Stonewall riots empowered gay communities locally, nationally, and globally to demand equal rights. They called us, shamed us, and ultimately persuaded us to understand that they are created by the same God and are called to the same goals: to find love, to live with joy, and build families.

In 2003, in the case of Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court ruled that we can’t legislate against gay sex. Twelve years later they ruled that marriage was legal for all adults, regardless of orientation. I encourage you to read it: Obergenfell v. Hoges.

There’s lots to say about this, but let me say this: those opposed to gay marriage argued that if we allowed gays to be gay they would try to make our children gay. No gay person I know has even wanted to do this and they find this argument deeply offensive. The opponents of gay marriage also argue that if we live in a society that accepts homosexuality God will bring down fire and destruction. Except God hasn’t.

I am straight but not narrow. My gay friends have enlightened (and sometimes challenged) me to understand that they want those things I take for granted. They want to fall in love with someone who loves them. They want to be able to hold hands without being accused to “forcing an agenda.” They want the things I never had to fight to expect.

To those who fought back on June 28, 1969 I say this: Thank you for your courage and thank you for teaching the rest of us that you only want what I never had to demand.

The Election Chronicles 2020 Volume 1: Let the Candidates Line Up

Every four years I follow the election of our next President. As I write this we are 500 days from our next election and I’ve decided it’s time to start the countdown to the election.

In past election cycles I’ve listed candidates from several parties and several people who ran as independents. I’ve given up on that. My quest for fairness and transparencies required that I slog through web pages of nut cases who not only had no chance to win, but also showed all of us that you should always take prescribed medication, even if don’t think you need to.

The election of 2020 will tell us if President Trump should be elected to another term. As an incumbent Republican he faces little opposition. So far his only opposition is Bill Weld, a libertarian from Massachusetts.

On the other hand, Democrats are lining up to oppose him. A little less than a year and half from the election 24 candidates have announced that they are running to defeat him. Twenty of them qualified to debate each other yesterday and today.

I’ve made the executive decision (because, let’s face it: it’s my we page) that I’ll only list the 20 candidates who qualified for the first round of debates. Here they are:

June 6, 1944: Why We Must Never Forget the Longest Day

Seventy five years ago 150,000 soldiers boarded 5,000 ships and 11,000 planes in England and did something incredible: they invaded France despite heavy German fortifications.

World War II began on September 1, 1939 when Germany invaded Poland. England and France then declared war on Germany (the United States entered the war on December 8, 1941). But the Germans were able to march into France and France surrendered on June 22, 1940.

Allied leaders knew they needed to invade France if they had any chance to win the war; the Germans knew that too. While the allies planned the invasion, Germany fortified all the beaches in France on the English Channel. The narrowest part of the English Channel was from Dover, England to Calais, France and Hitler was convinced the allies would land in Calais. On the night of June 5, 1944, Hitler went to bed with instructions not to wake him the next morning.

Unbeknownst to him, while he slept the allies boarded planes and ships. They were young, scared, and determined. When the German soldiers (who were also young, scared, and determined), overlooking the beaches of Normandy, spotted the allied ships we can only imagine their reaction. They opened fire with their machine guns, and by the end of the day 4,413 allied soldiers died but they also knew that they needed reinforcements.

Meanwhile, back in Berlin, Hitler’s generals faced a dilemma. Only Hitler had the authority to send in reinforcements and his generals were too afraid to wake him. When Hitler finally did wake up and was told about the invasion in Normandy, he angrily insisted that this was a diversion and the real invasion was going to be in Calais. By the time Hitler finally accepted that Normandy was the invasion spot, it was too late.

But the invasion wasn’t that easy. The 11,000 planes carried paratroopers whose job it was to land behind enemy lines to block German reinforcements. But they flew at night under less than ideal weather conditions, and many of them landed far from where they intended. It took much longer than expected to form the front line and march toward Germany.

They liberated Paris on August 25, 1944 and Germany surrendered on May 7, 1945.

Seventy five years out it won’t be long until the last survivor of D-Day dies and our only testimonies will be those written or passed down orally. Those of us who were lucky to hear the stories of these surviving soldiers first hand must never take for granted the gift we were given. Those who only know of these stories from what we read must also never forget.

If you wish, you can read my post from five years ago

And if you haven’t seen these two movies, I highly recommend The Longest Day from 1962 and Saving Private Ryan from 1998.

My First Year As An Owner of a Honda Clarity

A year ago today I picked up the keys to my brand new Honda Clarity. My previous car, a Toyota Prius, served me well for 13 years and 270,000 miles, but it was time to move on. The anti-lock brake system in the Prius needed to be replaced and it would have cost more than the car was worth.

I loved driving a hybrid and the Prius regularly gave me 40 to 45 miles per gallon. But it was time to move up to a car that would run on battery power for the first 40 or so miles and then switch to a hybrid. I decided to go with a Honda Clarity.

I give a shout out to the San Diego County Credit Union. I knew I didn’t want to go from dealer to dealer haggling over prices and I had an unsatisfactory experience with Costco. I learned that my credit union would do something amazing: I gave them the specifics of the car I wanted and they called Honda dealerships all over Southern California to get the best price. On finding the best price they had the car delivered to the closest credit unit to my home. They found a Clarity in Riverside, 100 miles away. The dealer drove it down and we drove 3 miles to pick up the car.

A year later I now have 18,481 miles on the car and I love it. I drive for work and while the first 40 miles are all electric, most days I drive more than that and the car switches to a hybrid after the battery is depleted. That said, I average about 120 miles per gallon.

I also love the fact that the car communicates with my iPhone and allows me to listen to podcasts seamlessly. If this is the last car I own, I’ll be happy.

The Justice Chronicles, Volume 33: It’s Time to Change the Discussion on Abortion

On January 22, 1973 the Supreme Court, in the case of Roe v. Wade, ruled 7-2 that the government cannot prohibit a woman from having an abortion. In the history of the 20th Century this decision ranked as one of its most important decisions alongside Brown v. Board of Education.

From day one Roe divided out nation into camps: Those who think abortion murders unborn babies v. those who think a woman’s right to her body is absolute.

If asked where I stand, I will say this: I think every abortion is a missed chance for a new life and it’s a tragedy. But I’ll also say that we live in a society that should value life, all lives and lives at every stage.

From the moment of publication the lines were drawn. Those who supported the opinion called themselves “pro-choice” (and were called “pro abortion” by their opponents). Those who opposed the opinion called themselves “pro-life” (and “anti-choice” by their opponents).

I remember that day and was surprised at how it divided the nation like no other issue since slavery. In the past 46 years I have watched the invective grow stronger and more hateful, and I have seen little in the way of bringing the two groups together and find a common solution.

In the mid 1980s I was a youth minister at a church in Virginia and I attended a conference in Washington D.C. where one speaker spoke about abortion in a way that caught my attention. He was a Catholic priest who periodically met with young women who had an abortion and regretted it. They told him that they had nowhere to go. If they sought help from the pro-choice movement they were told that they shouldn’t regret their decision. If they sought help from the pro-life movement they were told that what they did was unforgivable. He argued that there needs to be a voice that listens to these women and care for them.

But I think we need to move beyond that. I think both sides need to move to a point where it doesn’t matter if abortion is legal or not because we live in a place where all life is precious and abortion is unthinkable. I think we are called to move to a place where life is valued in all its stages: before birth, as children, as adults, and as the elderly. A place where our society ensures that we all have what we need to lead healthy, valued lives.

But here’s my problem: the pro-life proponents generally oppose government programs that provide assistance to young families. We find a bright line from those who oppose abortion and those who oppose government assistance for the poor. Former Massachusetts Representative Barney Frank famously stated this: “The Moral Majority supports legislators who oppose abortions but also oppose child nutrition and day care. From their perspective, life begins at conception and ends at birth.”

I’m not writing this to take sides, but instead to claim all sides need to embrace what late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin called the “seamless garment of life.” He argued that those who oppose abortion and claim to be pro-life should not only oppose abortion but also support the protection and respect of life in all stages. He argued against abortion, but also euthanasia and capital punishment.

It means we should ensure that children born into poverty are valued as much as children born into wealth. They should have as much access to nutrition and care. It means that no child should be denied medical care or vaccinations.

But more than that, being pro-life should challenge us to see men and women (boys and girls) as equals. Many women who seek abortions can speak with authority about how they didn’t fully consent to sex. Some were (frankly) raped by men that they knew and shouldn’t have trusted, often by family members. Others felt pressure to have sex with boyfriends out of a fear of loneliness. Decades ago I had a conversation with a teenage mother who told me that her pregnancy resulted from her boyfriend’s claim to “not like” condemns. When I told her she had the right to demand that he wear a condemn she had no idea what I was talking about.

The best path forward to decrease abortions is clear: make birth control easier to obtain and teach sex education to our children. We can learn a great deal from the Netherlands.

Simply put, if we can teach young men that sex should be a dialogue instead of a demand, and if we can teach young women that they have a voice in the decision to have sex, we will decrease unplanned and unwanted pregnancies.

I’m not arguing that this will be easy. For much of our history as humans we’ve assumed sex was something that men could demand and women needed to regulate. For much of our history women balanced the desire for intimacy with the fear of pregnancy and abandonment. Too many women faced the task of single parenthood out of the inability to choose to claim the power to negotiate.

It takes two people to make a baby. It should take all of us to value that baby without condition. Only then we will be truly pro-life.

The Cult of Martyrs and Schools in the 21st Century

Christians all over the world, in all of our history, have revered martyrs. People of faith, they gave their lives in defense of their faith, or for a greater cause. In John’s Gospel (John 15:12) Jesus tells his disciples that “[n]o one has greater love than this to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.”

Once again, we woke up today to learn about another school shooting, and again in Colorado. I won’t bore you with the details but we’ve learned a great deal since the 1995 shootings at Columbine High School. Virtually every school (from kindergarten to 12th grade) now does active shooter drills and virtually all students, teachers, and other school staff think about what they would do when confronted by an active shooter.

Kendrick Castillo, an 18 year old student (along with several other students) faced that reality and ran toward the shooter. Kendrick was shot and killed. By all accounts he and the others stopped the shooter and prevented more carnage.

Last week, when murder visited the University of North Carolina, Charlotte, Riley Howell also took a bullet to protect others.

Kendrick and Riley gave their lives to save their classmates and we should honor their courage and pray for those whose lives they saved.

But we should also express anger that they needed to do what they did. Columbine High School, Sandy Hook, and countess other schools should be sanctuaries, places of safety. Chabad of Poway and other places of worship should be sanctuaries. We shouldn’t have to teach our children how to respond to active shooters and we shouldn’t have to hire armed security to make our places of prayer and fellowship safe.

If you think I need to be lectured on the 2nd Amendment please don’t waste your breath or my time. Our neighbors and our children shouldn’t be thought of as acceptable collateral damage and your desire to shoot assault weapons shouldn’t be an acceptable alternative when Viagra no longer works.

I pray for Kendrick Castillo and Riley Howell and their families. But I also pray for a place where they could have grown up, married, and raised families who would have benefited from their bravery and integrity.

The Trump Chronicles, Volume 127: My Biggest Fear

I’ve written volumes on how I’m concerned that President Trump is causing real and lasting danger to our nation. Today I read an article on CNN that spells out my biggest fear: what happens if he is defeated in 2020 and refuses to leave the White House?

In a previous post I spoke of his belief that he won the popular vote and he was the victim of voter fraud. Nobody with any knowledge of the election believes it, but he’s been able to convince many of his supporters that he’s right.

So what happens if he loses the 2020 election and makes the same claim of voter fraud? What if he refuses to leave the White House and calls his supporters to come to Washington DC and set up a perimeter around the White House?

The mark of a true democracy turns not on the inauguration of its first president, but its second. It’s worth noting that our first president, George Washington (1732-1799) served two terms and declined to run for a third term. He passed the mantle of the presidency to John Adams (1736-1826).

President Adams served only one term, being defeated in 1800 by his vice president Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826). President Adams, though sorely disappointed, handed the keys to President Jefferson.

In the 219 years since that handoff we’ve seen it replayed countless times. In my lifetime I’ve observed Gerald Ford (1913- 2006) handing the keys to Jimmy Carter (b.1924), Jimmy Carter handing the keys to Ronald Reagan (1911-2004), and finally George H.W. Bush (1924-2018) welcoming Bill Clinton.

It’s never easy to pass these keys to someone who the voters chose over you, but all these men respected the will of the people and they acted with grace and a respect for the office.

I fear that the current occupant of the oval office will not act with either grace or respect. I fear we will find ourselves in a crisis that we used to believe belonged only to lesser nations. I fear that our current president will care nothing for our history, our democracy, and our tradition of peaceful transfer of power. I fear he will declare himself “president for life” that will lead us into chaos.

I pray I’m wrong.

The Justice Chronicles, Volume 32: We Mourn For those in the Chabad Center in Poway

For decades now we’ve learned about terrorism directed at places of worship. For those of us who live in the world of faith it’s been hard. We’ve looked at places of worship as sanctuaries, as places where we can feel safe. In the Middle Ages churches were seen as places of refuge: places where, no matter what you did or who was after you, you could find safety.

In the past few years we’ve witnessed acts of terrorism in Christian churches, Muslim mosques, Jewish synagogues, and other places of worship. This past weekend it came a little close for me. I live in San Diego, about 15 miles from Poway; it’s in my territory for hospice. On the last day of Passover a gunman who had posted antisemitic remarks walked in with an assault rifle. He killed one person and wounded three before being captured.

Any type of religious hatred or bigotry is unacceptable, but antisemitism appears in a league of its own. Jews have been persecuted, going all the way back to Pharaoh, and even today they find their homeland under siege.

I recently heard something that has stayed with me: antisemitism isn’t a disease. It’s not something that comes and goes. Instead it’s like a virus. It’s always there but sometimes it’s dormant. We’re never free from it, and between flareups we can fool ourselves into thinking it gone. But flare up it will, as it did last Saturday.

Our latest example happened, as I said, in nearby Poway. It was the Chabad center. Members of a Chabad center are Orthodox Jews who encourage other Jews to be more observant. They honor the sabbath (sunset Friday to sunset Saturday) by refraining from work of any kind. Their members walk to services and they take their faith seriously.

And they are kind. The Chabad members I’ve known have moved me with their generosity and inclusion. They take life seriously, and in case you haven’t heard this, the one fatality was a 60 year old woman named Lori Gilbert-Kaye who took a bullet that was aimed at her rabbi. She gave her life to save another.

Let us pray that the virus of antisemitism remains dormant for long enough that we can truly eradicate this virus.

Thoughts on Notre Dame Cathedral

Earlier this week we learned to our horror that Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris was on fire. Because of the bravery of the Paris Fire Department, and particularly the actions of Notre Dame’s Chaplain Fr. Jean Marc Fournier it wasn’t as bad as it could have been.

Construction began in 1160 and wasn’t completed until 1260: nobody who began the construction lived to see its completion and nobody who witnessed its completion was born when it was began. In the last 800 years people from all over the world have gathered to worship there. Modern day visitors to Paris know they need to visit three places: Notre Dame, the Eiffel Tower, and the Louvre.

I have to confess that I’ve never been to Paris and I haven’t had the opportunity to visit Notre Dame, but I understand its attraction. My parents and grandparents belonged to Notre Dame de St. Rosary parish, that we all call “Holy Rosary.” My grandmother, Imelda Cazeault (1909-1981) told me about how, as a child, she witnessed the delivery of the bell that was raised into the bell tower.

When she died I was one of her pallbearers and as we carried her into Holy Rosary for the last time, the bell tolled for her (as it did for all funerals). At that moment, in 1981, I found myself carried back to 1915 when she was six years old and watched that same bell hoisted up into the tower. I was also carried back to November 18, 1918 when my father’s parents (recent immigrants from Canada) married.

The sound of the bells became timeless to me. It brought me back to 1915 and 1918, but also to 1931 when my father was baptized, to 1938 when my mother was baptized, and to 1958 when my parents were married. It also brought me back to 1994 when I returned to Holy Rosary as a priest to celebrate my (3rd) first mass and to 1995 when I returned to celebrate the funeral mass for my grandfather (and namesake), Thomas Cazeault (1902-1995).

I write this to illustrate the place Notre Dame de Paris holds in the hearts of Catholics. While Notre Dame de Gardner is more than a century old, Notre Dame de Paris is over 800 years old. Its place in history is clear.

Notre Dame de Paris will rebuild and we will all rejoice. But we should also rejoice that its history will continue well into the future, to Christians who aren’t yet born but will find its place in their lives.

The Trump Chronicles, Volume 126: Thoughts On the Electoral College

Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution outlines the role of the Executive Branch. There we find the Electoral College. When we vote for President we select electors who meet to elect the President.

This allows for the unlikely possibility that the majority of Americans may vote for one candidate while the electors may choose another candidate. But this is exactly what happened in 2000 and 2016. Vice President Al Gore won the popular vote but lost to President George W. Bush in the electoral college in 2000. In 2016 Secretary of State Hilary Clinton also won the popular vote but lost in the electoral college.

Because this happened twice in 16 years, and both times sent a Republican to the White House, some are calling for the end of the electoral college and electing the President on a straight popular vote. Proponents of eliminating the electoral college argue that this unfairly benefits states with smaller populations. States send electors to the electoral college based on the number of Representatives plus Senators. For example New York sends 29 electors because they have 27 members of the House of Representatives and 2 Senators. South Dakota sends 3 electors as they have 1 member of the House of Representatives and 2 Senators. My thanks to Linda Monk in her excellent book The Words We Live By: Your Annotated Guide to the Constitution. She broke down the data and showed that one elector in South Dakota represents 232,000 people while in New York one elector represents 550,000 people.

Candidates for President know this, and the electoral college drives much of where they decide to campaign. I can’t tell you how many of my fellow Californians complain that candidates ignore us, except when they need to fundraise. California sends 55 electors, but it’s a safe state for Democrats and the Republicans see no point in campaigning here. Likewise, Texas sends 38 electors but it’s a “safe” Republican state.

So what states do the candidates care about? That’s actually more complicated than it sounds.

Each Presidential election comprises two parts: getting the nomination and winning the election. And the strategies are different. Most states select their nominees through primaries and they hold both Democratic and Republican primaries on the same day. With the exception of a sitting President running for reelection, most primaries begin with several candidates and the field winnows with each primary. All candidates know that winning early primaries gives them an advantage in popularity and fundraising. This works well for the first three states who hold primaries: Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina.

But once the nominees are chosen, the calculation changes. Now the candidates turn to states with relatively large populations where the numbers of Republicans and Democrats are relatively close: Ohio (18 electors), Florida (29), Pennsylvania (20), Michigan (16), and Wisconsin (10). These five states send only 93 electors out of 538 but they make the difference between victory and defeat.

So what happens if our President was elected only the popular vote? Defenders of the electoral college argue that the candidates would focus only on large population centers: New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Houston (my city of San Diego ranks 8th). Rural areas would be totally ignored.

I’m not certain that’s true. Our campaigns have become so nationalized that all of us see the candidates wherever they are. And speaking for myself, I’m just as happy not to have candidates creating havoc and gridlock when I’m trying to get to work.

I recognize that I would be bombarded with campaign mailers, but does it really matter if my recycling bin is filled at the expense of a recycling bin in Ohio?

And yes, at the end the day we can only eliminate the electoral college by amending the Constitution. It’s a long process. A bill would have to be introduced to Congress and get a 2/3 majority in both houses. Then it goes to the states where 3/4 of the state legislatures would have to approve. Of our 50 states, 38 would have to approve it, meaning that 13 states could block it.

Just some thoughts on a Wednesday evening.