Category Archives: Thinking

Tom's New Free Homily Service

Posted on by
1

As some of you know I’ve been writing this personal blog for almost 10 years now. It’s been fun, but lately I’ve been wanting to branch out into another area.

I left the world of Catholic priesthood 16 years ago, and there’s much I don’t miss, but I do miss preaching. Good preaching is hard work, but when it’s done well it’s a joy. Frankly I’ve lately been getting bored with what I’m hearing and I often found myself sitting in the pew thinking I could do better.

Challenge accepted. Last month I opened a blog post here; you can also access it by clicking on the link on the left titled “Tom’s Homilies.” I’d like to get a wider readership and that’s why I’m posting this. If you wish (and only if you wish) I can send you a copy of what I’ve written each week.

If this is something you’re interested in, please let me know. You can email me at thomas.allain@icloud.com and I’ll anonymously include you in this list.

Just a few things about this:

• This is just for my own creative need to get something out. I’m not pointing fingers at anyone and there’s no hidden agenda. Mostly I want to get back into a world I miss.
• If you don’t want to receive it, you honestly won’t hurt my feelings. Just delete this email and I promise I won’t be keeping score.
• I try to do this a week in advance. A friend of mine suggested this because people who belong to a bible study or small church community may want to use this material in their discussions.
• I follow the Catholic lectionary; I understand that other Christian faiths follow much the same calendar. If you wonder why I’m choosing the readings I choose, it’s because I’m not the one who chose.
• If you are writing a homily, please understand that none of this is copyrighted. Feel free to use what you read (though it would be nice to credit me).
• Catholic Sunday homilies generally run about 8 to 10 minutes and that translates for me to be about 1500 words. The homilies I’ve done so far are shorter than that as I retrain my “homily muscles.” I expect to get up to the 1500 word range.
• Finally, as I’ve gone through my list I’ve thought of a number of people for whom I don’t have email addresses. If you think of someone who might be interested, by all means forward this email. A preacher preaches to everyone who shows up, and I have no desire to control my audience.

Lions, Tiger, and Bears: If This Isn't On Your Bucket List You Have Only Yourself to Blame

Posted on by
Reply

Last year Nancy was at a charity auction and placed the highest bid for an overnight at an animal rescue facility called Lions, Tigers, and Bears. Because of schedules we were not able to plan the overnight until earlier this month. It was amazing.

Nancy and I went with her sister Mary Kay and Mary Kay’s husband Chuck. The facility is located about 40 miles from us in Japatul Valley and we drove out there on Thursday afternoon. It’s a sanctuary for exotic animals who need a place to live. Sadly there is a demand in our country for ownership of animals who have no business being owned in substandard conditions. This facility was born in 2002: two Bengal Tigers in Texas were being neglected by their owner. He was persuaded to donate them to this facility. Once here, the female was found to be pregnant and she gave birth to two cubs on November 8, 2002.

Since then they have opened their doors to other exotic animals, and to us. They aren’t a zoo: they don’t buy, sell, trade, or breed animals. Their sole purpose is to rescue animals that have found their way to places where they can’t be cared for: roadside zoos, stupid rich people, and (let’s face it) stupid poor people. Also, some carnivores unwittingly intrude into suburban neighborhoods and would be killed. This facility will take them in and provide an excellent life for the rest of their lives.

We were there from Thursday night to Friday morning, and it was an enchanting experience. When we arrived we were greeted by Tina who enthusiastically showed us around the grounds and provided us the background and history of the exhibits. We knew we would be impressed by the animals, but we didn’t expect to be impressed with the place we were going to stay (Mary Kay asked us if we needed to bring sleeping bags). Our accommodations rivaled the best of any bed and breakfast. We were pampered well beyond our expectations.

Early Friday morning I woke up and walked around the exhibits. Conga, one of the leopards, saw me before I saw her and jumped in my direction. I wasn’t in any danger as there were two fences between us, but that was not my first thought. Advantage: Conga.

If you care about the plight of these magnificent animals, if you care about the welfare and future of lions, tigers, and bears, or if you just want to spend a night in a magical place, do not let this experience you by. Call now.

The Justice Chronicles Volume 12: Marriage Gets More Inclusive

Posted on by
Reply

Last month the Supreme Court handed down decisions on United States v. Windsor (DOMA) and Hollingsworth v. Perry (Proposition 8). They covered different issues and made different claims, but both opened up marriage to gay couples.

This shouldn’t surprise readers of my writing, but I was disappointed with much of the news coverage. Most of what I saw from the major networks held up the decisions to “who won, who lost” and missed the reasoning behind the decisions. I was interested in this and also which justices landed on which side.

The DOMA case was 5-4; Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion and was joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Justices Roberts, Scalia, and Alito wrote dissents; Justice Thomas joined the dissents of Justices Scalia and Alito.

DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act) was passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton in 1996. Basically it mandated that the federal government not recognize gay marriage even if the marriage is legal where it was performed. That meant gay couples who legally married were not eligible for such things as joint filing of income taxes, survivor benefits for Social Security, etc. The lawsuit was brought by the widow of a lesbian marriage; because their marriage was not recognized by the federal government the surviving member owed $363,053 in probate taxes. If not for DOMA she would not have owed anything (you automatically get all your spouse’s assets tax free when he or she dies). She claimed that the federal government must recognize all valid marriages, not just heterosexual ones. She was also able to show that DOMA caused her harm to the tune of $363,053.

The majority of the court (led by Justice Kennedy) argued that since states issue marriage licenses the federal government can’t decide which marriages are valid and which aren’t. Different states have different rules about who can marry (e.g. minimum age) and the federal government recognizes any marriage the state recognizes. DOMA puts homosexual marriages in a different case for no good reason

The dissents argue a few points. Justice Scalia argues that the court should never have taken the case (it’s a fairly technical point that he makes well). Most of the rest are what we’ve come to expect: that traditional (opposite sex) marriages are the norm because only they can produce children. They also decry the demonization they have suffered: opponents of same sex marriage are right only because they are demonized as homophobes and bigots.

In a sense they have a point: they are homophobes and bigots. The justices who dissented argue several points that make no sense and weak arguments: “this decision refutes the will of the majority,” “this decision goes beyond what everyone used to assume about marriage,” “this decision allows people to love one another in a way that offends me,” etc.

Simply put, this allows adults to marry each other. Granted, homosexual marriages cannot produce children but neither can marriages of heterosexual couples where the woman is post-menopausal or where one (or both) have been sterilized. We, who are heterosexual, cannot ban marriages that we find gross and icky. Marriages in the this country haven’t been homosexual, but in many states marriages weren’t biracial until 1967 (Loving v. Virginia).

The Proposition 8 case was more interesting in the lineup. The 5 person majority consisted of Justice Roberts (who wrote the opinion) and was joined by Justices Scalia, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan. Justice Kennedy wrote the dissent and was joined by Justices Thomas, Alito, and Sotomayer.

The Court ruled that they weren’t going to rule on the merits of the Prop 8 case because the defendants had no standing (they had no right to bring the case). The case originated with several gay couples who wanted to marry but were prevented by Prop 8; they filed suit against the state of California. In the first round the court ruled for the plaintiffs, and the state of California decided not to appeal. Supporters of Prop 8 stepped in as defendants, claiming that they had standing because they were the ones who collected the signatures for the ballot initiative. The Court ruled that they may have had standing during the process of putting the measure on the ballot, but once it passed, only the state of California could defend the proposition.

This was a mixed result for supporters of gay marriage. While this will allow gay marriages in California once again, it does not affect laws in other states. Many of us wanted the Court to go further and rule that Prop 8 is unconstitutional because the states don’t have the right to ban gay marriage. They wanted a gay version of Loving v. Virginia.

What next? Proponents of gay marriage have 2 routes: they can bring suit in a state that currently bans gay marriage, or they can start working on the state legislature level to pass laws that allow gay marriage. I’m guessing that groups will try both, and I suspect that the days of homophobia in marriage are numbered.

The Justice Chronicles Volume 11: Thoughts on Edward Snowden, The NSA, and the 4th Amendment

Posted on by
Reply

Earlier this month Edward Snowden, an employee of Booz Allen Hamilton leaked information that the National Security Agency has been collecting phone records of US citizens. It’s been a huge story and awakened a debate on privacy, security, and the 4th Amendment.

Unfortunately any story that hits the 24 hour news cycle loses all nuance and much its accuracy; we should begin with a few of the facts of the case. Here is what I’ve gleaned:

The NSA (National Security Agency) is tasked with protecting our nation and citizens from people and organizations who wish to harm us. They are secret by nature and work in the shadows; most of us don’t know what they do. The information age, global connectedness, and the internet has led to an explosion in both the ability to harm us and the ability of the agency to find out what they are doing. The NSA has worked hard to collect information, not only by people who mean us harm, but information that we might need later.

Earlier this month Edward Snowden leaked to the media the fact that the NSA is collecting phone records of nearly every call made here. If you think about all the calls you’ve made in the last month, multiplied by the 314,000,000 people who live here, it’s a large number. To be clear, they haven’t been listening in on every (or any) conversation. They’ve been collecting the data on the calls that we’ve made: not what we’ve said but who we’ve called and how long we’ve talked. They can’t access any of this information without a warrant from something called the “Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court” (FISA).

Edward Snowden is in legal trouble because the Obama administration claims that by leaking this information he has committed espionage, normally defined as giving aid and comfort to the enemy. In other words, by telling us that the NSA is collecting this information we are “tipping our hand” and allowing our enemies to find other ways to harm us. This is the part I’m finding troubling.

I have to confess a bias here: I look at the 4th Amendment the way the NRA looks at the 2nd Amendment. The 4th Amendment says this:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

When this amendment was written there was a limited ability to search and seize. That ability has dramatically changed with technology. For example, in the 19th Century the invention of the telegraph and telephone allowed for private communications to travel from one place to another. The courts could have easily found that the 4th Amendment applied only to the physical limits of houses, papers, and effects, but it didn’t. Law enforcement still needs a search warrant to tap telephone calls.

But what about now? What limits do we have on tracking our cell phone calls, emails, or social media platforms? Are we in the 19th Century where your telephone is part of your house or the 21st Century where even your trip to 7 Eleven is videotaped?

In my role as a hospice chaplain I am in public view a good part of the day. My 2006 Toyota Prius has an “event data recorder” that records (among other things) my speed, steering, and whether or not I’m wearing my seatbelt. Since I have a GPS my location is also recorded. Several of my patients live in gated communities or other places that have video surveillance. Most of the places where I stop for lunch or a soda also videotape. Anytime I get cash out of at ATM or use my credit card, that is recorded. During all this time I’m either alone or with people who don’t know me, and I carry with me the presumption of privacy.

But is that presumption is false? The government has the ability (though the court system) to look at all of this information. If all this tracking comes under the same eyes, my life would not be far off from Winston Smith in 1984 by George Orwell.

I think we can all agree that there needs to be limits on what can be revealed on us, but conversations about these limits needs to be public.

This is the point where I find myself in agreement with Mr. Snowden. We cannot have a dialogue about the limits of the 4th Amendment if we don’t know what the rules are. President Obama wants to prosecute him, claiming that revealing this information tips off our enemies about what kind of information they gather.

This type of argument is not new. When the Bush administration was trying to convince us that we needed to go to war against Iraq, they claimed we knew the location and existence of weapons of mass destruction. How did the administration know this? They couldn’t tell us because that information would tip the hand. Later, when we all learned that these weapons didn’t exist, many of us believed that they didn’t show us the evidence because they simply didn’t have it. Had we known the evidence either didn’t exist, or was unreliable, we would not have favored going to war.

Most people don’t feel as strongly about the 4th Amendment as I do. There is often the presumption that if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear, and government surveillance in the interest of catching bad guys is always allowed. I disagree, and I believe the framers of the Constitution did too. They knew this amendment would make prosecution of criminals more difficult (as do jury trials and the prohibition to compel someone to testify against himself), but they thought it was worth it. So do I.

My Field Trip to Washington DC

Posted on by
Reply

Each year Nancy and I travel to her Pedriatic Convention the first week of May. She goes to meetings while I get to play and explore. It works for me. This year the convention was in our Nation’s Capital.

Going to Washington is always a return trip for me as I grew up just south of there in Woodbridge, Virginia. I didn’t fully appreciate this at the time, but school field trips to the Smithsonian Institution, the Capitol, and the National Zoo (which is part of the Smithsonian) were things I could take for granted. Only as an adult did I realize that most people paid to enter museums.

We stayed at a hotel that was close to several landmarks. Not only the Capitol and National Mall, but also Ford’s Theatre. It’s not an exaggeration to say that I walked my shoes off.

No matter how many times I walk these streets, I am moved. The role of governing this country is not for the feint of heart but it is honest. Nancy and I were able to get into the Senate gallery to watch the debate on taxing internet purchases. It wasn’t what most Americans expect: most of the Senators walked by the counter and gave a “thumbs up” or “thumbs down” while everyone else was congregated in small group discussions. It’s not exactly Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.

But it’s transparent. Any one of us can find out how our senator voted and we can vote against him (or her) in the next election. They can’t do this in Cuba or North Korea.

In the last few decades it’s become fashionable to see our government as the enemy and the taxes we pay as extortion but it’s not true. We pay our taxes to take for granted the freedoms we don’t think about. As I walked around Washington I was struck by the buildings I passed: the Department of Agriculture makes sure the food I eat is safe. The Justice Department ensures that my rights are as protected as the wealthiest of us. And the Library of Congress and National Archives makes sure the most valuable our most valuable documents will be preserved. It’s worth it.

I’m grateful to our Founders and I’m also proud of all the men and women who have worked as government employees since. They have preserved and protected our history and values; ironically they have also preserved the right of malcontents to criticize their existence.

I know they don’t recognize this, but I do. Thank you.

Boston Strong and Proud

Posted on by
Reply

A few weeks ago I went to see one of my hospice patients. It was an ordinary visit, and the fact that she had the TV on wasn’t much of an issue: she often mutes the TV when I see her. That day the mute TV caught our attention. I hadn’t paid much attention to the fact that the Boston Marathon and Patriot’s Day was April 15th.

Now I’ll never forget it. On that day, in that place, two men decided to strike a blow. Tamerian and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev planted two bombs that exploded about 3:00 PM at Copley Place, the finish line of the marathon. The bombs were intended to kill as many people as possible and were scheduled when the largest number of runners were crossing the finish line. On one level it worked: the bombs killed Martin Richard, Krystle Campbell, and Lingzi Lu. A few days later Sean Collier died in the line of duty during their capture.

No doubt the brothers thought this would bring Boston to its knees. Clearly they didn’t fully understand Boston. It’s a tough city: it was here that the Sons of Liberty started. They survived the Boston Massacre and the closing of Boston Harbor after the Tea Party.

I lived in Watertown in the early 1980s and I can tell you that no attack can do what they intended to do. The people of Boston are more resilient than anyone can imagine; they are stronger than anyone can imagine; they are more stubborn than anyone can imagine.

Of the two suspects, one is dead and the other is in custody. We are going to understand what happened and why, and we are going to judge the remaining suspect. We are going to move forward.

Boston will go on. Terrorism will not.

Thoughts at the End of the Conclave

Posted on by
Reply

It is, perhaps, funny that I’m writing my thoughts on the end of the conclave a week after the conclave actually ended. I’ll be more timely after I retire.

Last week at this time many of us were glued to our electronic devices. I was at a meeting at work and I got word shortly before noon that we had white smoke. It was a long hour or so before I heard the name Jorge Marion Bergoglio of Buenos Aires (who I had never heard of). My first reaction was hopeful that a non-European was chosen.

I continue that hope. When the Cardinals entered the conclave I was more than a little concerned because all 115 of them had been chosen by either Pope John Paul II or Pope Benedict XVI and I feared that they would choose yet another leader who was well liked by that group but not well suited for the job. I was also concerned that they would choose someone who would continue to reinforce fortress walls at the expense of the people of God.

The election of Pope Francis has calmed many of my fears. By all accounts this week he is determined to bring a renewed sense of simplicity and preferential option for the poor. I was impressed that he took the bus with the rest of the Cardinals back to his hotel to pay his hotel bill. I wonder if the airline will refund his plane ticket back to Buenos Aires.

As someone born in Georgetown Hospital (a Jesuit hospital) and educated at Boston College I’m fairly fluent in Jesuit. I’ve had countless discussions with dozens of Jesuits on a host of subjects. I’ve always been impressed with their emphasis on education and reason; I haven’t always agreed with their conclusions but I’ve always felt that I was heard and respected and more often than not I’ve learned something from the discussion.

I’m also encouraged by his choice to be named Pope Francis. There is no way around the knowledge that he chose his name after Francis of Assisi (1182-1226) who left an easy life and chose poverty as a spiritual value. In his life before last week, Cardinal Bergoglio did the same: he eschewed a palace and chose an apartment. He declined a limo and rode the bus to work. He dressed simply. All this points to an understanding of the world through the eyes of the poor and marginalized.

I hope this continues. This is no secret for readers of this blog, but I believe the Church needs to update its teaching on birth control and celibacy. The prohibition on artificial birth control may make sense among elderly celibate men, but among the poor it enslaves families (and primarily women) to children who overwhelm available resources. It’s easy to claim that married men should respect their wives in matters of sexuality, but allowing women control over their fertility is the only realistic way to make this happen.

In terms of celibacy, I’ll eagerly confess my bias here. Sixteen years ago I found myself a Catholic priest who loved being a priest but no longer felt called to (or capable of) celibacy. I left active ministry not because I didn’t like being a priest, but because I couldn’t imagine a God centered life without Nancy. I still can’t.

My name is legion. The shortage of priests lands directly on the demand that priests be celibate males. This has little or no impact on the number of priests in the Vatican but it dramatically impacts most of the rest of the world. Simply put, the sacraments that are reserved to priests (Eucharist, Reconciliation, and Anointing) are denied to large areas of the faithful who feel the priest shortage most acutely. In other words, the Church is choosing celibacy over the sacraments.

Francis is getting some pushback from the LGBT community who is unhappy that he has opposed gay marriage. To be fair, none of 115 Cardinals would have progressed this issue. The dragon of discrimination is difficult to slay; hopefully Francis will elect the Cardinal who will succeed him and slay this homophobic dragon.

In the meantime I remain hopeful that Pope Francis will carry on the prophetic word of his namesake.

Thoughts on the Beginning of the Conclave

Posted on by
Reply

Not only has this been an interesting winter for me with San Diego Hospice, it’s also been an interesting winter for the Catholic Church.

On February 11, 2013 Pope Benedict XVI announced he would resign his position on February 28th. It’s not entirely without precedent but it hasn’t happened since 1415. In that year Gregory XII resigned to end a schism where three different men claimed to be Pope. We have to go back to 1294 and Celestine IV to find the last pope to resign for personal reasons. Celestine was, in his heart, a monk who was not suited for the job; he spent the last two years of his life living as a hermit.

There are some parallels to Benedict. He was elected in 2005 shortly after the death of John Paul II and was, frankly, not ever well suited to the job. Benedict is a scholar and theologian, not an administrator or the public face of the Church. It doesn’t take much to see how these last 8 years have taken a toll on him.

It’s also been devastating to his health. We have learned that he had a pacemaker and had gone blind in one eye. His increased weakness and decreased stamina prevented travel and made day to day administration virtually impossible. I believe he made the responsible decision to pass the torch. I’ve always been concerned about the possibility of a pope’s resignation out of fear that a good but unpopular pope would be pressured to resign. On the other hand we’ve seen in the last century that it’s possible to be very sick, and even nonresponsive, for a long period of time. In 2006 Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon suffered a massive stroke and has not been able to effectively communicate since. Since there is procedure for replacing a prime minster but not a pope this would have been unprecedented had it happened to Benedict.

And so the Church moves on. On Tuesday the eligible Cardinals will enter the Sistine Chapel and choose the next pope. There are lots of people making predictions, but I was so completely wrong last time that I won’t try again. What should we look for in the next pope? That consensus is easy:

  • He needs to be an able administrator. Never before has the Roman Curia been so faithful to Jesus’ command of Matthew 6:3 that we not let our right hand know what the left is doing. The highest offices of the Church operate like silos don’t know what the other offices are doing, let alone cooperate. No organization works well if the oarsmen are not rowing in the same direction.
  • He needs clean hands on the issue of pedophilia. The scandal has enveloped the Church in the US, and to a lesser extent Canada and Europe and healing can’t happen if its leader has a history of covering up. Think it’s not that bad? One of the cardinals of the conclave, Roger Mahoney is my exhibit A. In a story in last month’s Los Angeles Times it was reported that Fr. Jose Ugarte sexually abused a boy and then prayed the prayer of absolution (given by a priest at the end of the sacrament of confession). He was sanctioned by Mahoney, not for the abuse of the victim, but for the abuse of the sacrament.
  • He needs to be someone who embraces the 21st Century. Both John Paul and Benedict came of age in the middle of the 20th Century during the Nazi occupation of central Europe and this dramatically informed their view of the Church in the world. Much as their countries (Poland and Germany) were under siege by evil forces in the 1940s, they saw the Church under attack for the rest of their lives. Unfortunately they often saw the attackers as fellow Catholics in search of a progressive understanding of the Church in the world. The Church will live its best future with a leader who embraces the creative spirit of the Holy Spirit and take seriously the Vatican II document on the Church in the Modern World (Gaudium et Spes). This is perhaps the best argument for looking beyond Europe for the next pope.

The College of Cardinals needs and deserves our prayers.

An Odd Twist in the Gay Marriage Debate

Posted on by
Reply

This March 26th the Supreme Court will hear arguments in two cases on the issue of gay marriage: Hollingsworth v. Perry and United States v. Windsor. The two cases bring different issues to the Court but both deal with the issue of gay marriage.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear these cases; lower courts in both cases ruled in favor of gay marriage and if the court had not taken the cases it would have cleared the way for gay marriage.

Opponents of gay marriage have consistently argued that marriage has been, is, and always should be between one man and one woman. A group called Protect Marriage outlines these views.

A few days ago they appeared to change tactics; I say “appeared” because I’m still scratching my head over this. You can read the article in Sunday’s Los Angeles Times, and a follow up article in today’s paper.

As far as I can tell, this is what happened: Both cases put government in the role of defendant (the state of California in Hollingsworth v. Perry and the federal government in United States v. Windsor) and in both cases the governments refused to defend the laws. Several groups have taken that role, including a group of Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives. This group hired a former Solicitor General under President Bush, Paul D. Clement, to argue on their behalf.

He filed an argument that said this (my interpretation): Heterosexual unmarried couples live with the possibility of an unexpected pregnancy. Children do better when raised in a home with two parents, and societal pressure for the couple to get married (known colloquially as a “shotgun marriage”) benefits everyone. Homosexual marriage has no possibility of an unexpected pregnancy. Therefore, if we allow gays to marry, we turn marriage from “have to” to “want to.” This will remove the pressure on a heterosexual pregnant couple to get married, and they won’t. This will harm society as children raised by one parent don’t do as well as children raised by two parents.

I can only hope I’m reading it wrong.

President Obama's Second Term: Grateful We Made It

Posted on by
Reply

Once again Nancy and I were on the road to Yosemite during the inauguration. It meant we heard most of it on the radio and missed the visuals. That’s OK: the oratory was more than enough. Even the president’s strongest opponents must admit he’s a brilliant and articulate speaker.

Some of the highlights for me:

  • The fact that he was reelected. The Republican Party and several incredibly wealthy people spent obscene amounts of money to defeat him, and yet our votes could not be bought or intimidated.
  • While the crowds were not nearly as large as they were four years ago it speaks volumes that nearly a million people showed up.
  • And now for some quotes: “[W]e, the people, understand that our country cannot succeed when a shrinking few do very well and a growing many barely make it.”
  • “The commitments we make to each other through Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security, these things do not sap our initiative. They strengthen us. They do not make us a nation of takers. They free us to take the risks that make this country great.”
  • “Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law, for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal, as well.”
  • The elegant symmetry that we celebrated this on the day we celebrate Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.

The part of his speech that I found the most moving and surprising was his words on our gay brothers and sisters. He and I have both been prodded in our support of gay marriage by brave gay men and women who cared about us enough to challenge our prejudices. Now we both support for them what we have been blessed to take for granted for us.

Though not quoted directly in this speech, President Obama has often quoted Dr. King’s “fierce urgency of now.” Dr. King used it initially in his opposition to the war in Vietnam but it’s a quote for the ages. It counters the argument that while what you want may be valid, we’re not ready for it. If it’s right, it’s right now. It is that time for full gay equality.

The Republican response was as expected as it was tiresome. They claim that he did not reach out to those who did not vote for the president. This after their candidate claimed it was not his job to care about people who don’t support him. This after his predecessor George W. Bush famously said on his reelection: “I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it. It is my style.”

My advice to the president is this: Take off the gloves. The Republicans took the gloves off the day you announced you were running for president and all your attempts to negotiate with them were fruitless because they never intended to negotiate with you. The debt ceiling, gun control, the promises we’ve made to our veterans and the elderly: they never had any intention of working for a solution. All they ever wanted was your defeat and they failed at that. In the last 20 years there have been 6 presidential elections and they received the majority of the votes in one of them.