It Just Doesn't Pay to be Homophobic Anymore

Posted on by
Reply

You can probably guess my bias from the title of this blog, but I’ve been following 2 current issues with great interest: Proposition 8 and “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (the current policy on gays serving in the US military).” It appears to me that equal rights for the gay population is only a matter of time.

Proposition 8 was a ballot measure here in California to amend the state constitution to prohibit same sex marriage. There is some background to this: in March of 2000 California voted to prohibit same sex marriage by state law with Propsition 22. This law was overturned on May 15, 2008 by the California Supreme Court who ruled 4-3 that Prop 22 is unconstitutional.

People who oppose gay marriage then decided that the best way to combat this was to pass another proposition that amends the state constitution. After all, the constitution can’t be unconstitutional. Backed by big bucks from the Church of Latter Day Saints (the Mormons) and the Knights of Columbus, Proposition 8 passed with 52.3% of the vote. Supporters thought they were done.

They weren’t. On May 26, 2009 the California Supreme Court determined that Proposition 8 was constitutional, but opponents of Prop 8 then went to federal court on January 11, 2009, arguing that Prop 8 is unconstitutional of the Federal Constitution. The plaintiffs, Kristen Kelly and Sandra Steir, filed because they were denied a marriage license. The defendant was Governor Arnold Schwartzenegger by virtue of being governor. In a funny twist, neither Governor Schwartzenegger nor Attorney General Jerry Brown chose to actively defend Prop 8. Instead, the defense of Prop 8 fell to a group called Protect Marriage.

The case came before Judge John Walker. This appeared to be good news for the defendants as he ruled in a previous case that “Gay Olympics” was a copyright violation against the U.S. Olympic Committee and they had to change their name to the Gay Games. He had also been appointed to the bench by President George H.W. Bush. On August 4, 2010 Judge Walker surprised most of us by finding for the plaintiffs, deciding that Proposition 8 is a violation of the 14th Amendment. It’s now on appeal but it’s funny to see that all the people who liked John Walker before his decision have now decided that he’s gay (since he’s never been married) and the decision has no merit. Sounds like sour grapes to me.

Meanwhile, in the military, they are still trying to decide what to do with men and women who are willing to fight and die for our freedom who happen to be gay. When President Clinton was running in 1992 there was pressure from the gay community to remove the ban on gays serving in the military. During the campaign he essentially promised to repeal the ban. Alas, once in office he faced more opposition than he expected and he bowed to that pressure. In 1993 Congress passed a bill called “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” and President Clinton signed it. Simply put, it legislated that nobody is allowed to ask if a service member is gay, and a gay servicemember is required to keep his/her orientation a secret. If (s)he says or does anything to indicate his/her gay orientation, (s)he can be immediately discharged from the service. Since passage 14,000 servicemembers have been discharged for being gay. In the gay community, DADT (Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell) has been seen as open season on the gay population.

With the election of Barack Obama in 2008, the debate began again. As I write this the bill to repeal DADT is moving through Congress. The House has already voted to repeal it, and it’s stuck in the Senate. It’s interesting to see what’s being said. My most interesting person is Senator John McCain. At first blush you’d think he’d be the “go to” guy on this issue given his background. He graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy and was a pilot during Vietnam. He was shot down and spent 5 1/2 years as a POW in North Vietnam. If ever there was a case where a group needed unit cohesion, it would be here. He has opposed DADT and it was easy to do this when the the leaders of the military opposed it. In fact, in 1986 he said this: “The day that the leadership of the military comes to me and says, ‘Senator, we ought to change the policy,’ then I think we ought to consider seriously changing it.”

He probably never expected this to happen, but it has. On December 2, 2010 the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen said this:

My personal views on this issue remain unchanged. I am convinced that repeal of the law governing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is the right thing to do. Back in February, when I testified to this sentiment, I also said that I believed the men and women of the Armed Forces could accommodate such a change. But I did not know it for a fact. Now, I do.
And so what was my personal opinion is now my professional opinion. Repeal of the law will not prove an unacceptable risk to military readiness. Unit cohesion will not suffer if our units are well-led. And families will not encourage their loved ones to leave the service in droves.

He made this statement against the backdrop of a study released by the Pentagon on November 30, 2010. The survey reviewed the beliefs of 115,000 active duty members of the military and 44,200 military spouses. About 70% of them indicated they had no problem with the idea of allowing gays to serve. Those in uniform lead those out of uniform: only 58% of all Americans favor this. Interestingly, the majority of both groups favor repealing DADT. And the 115,000? Well, 69% report that they have already worked with a gay servicemember and 92% of them said it had a positive impact or no impact on their working relationship.

So here we are: the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff all support the repeal of DADT. And Senator McCain? He has abandoned his previous statement and now says: “This was a political promise made by an inexperienced president or candidate for presidency.” At no point does he admit he abandoned his earlier promise. Then again, he’s the guy who ran with Sarah Palin.

Of the people who still oppose DADT, they all pretty much respect Barry Goldwater who said this in 1993:

After more than 50 years in the military and politics, I am still amazed to see how upset people can get over nothing. Lifting the ban on gays in the military isn’t exactly nothing – but it’s pretty damned close

Everyone knows that gays have served honorably in the military since at least the time of Julius Caesar. They’ll still be serving long after we’re all dead and buried. That should not surprise anyone.

But most Americans should be shocked to know that while the country’s economy is going down the tubes, the military has wasted half a billion dollars over the past decade chasing down gays and running them out of the armed services.

It’s no great secret that military studies have proved again and again that there’s no valid reason for keeping the ban on gays. Some thought gays were crazy, but then found that wasn’t true. Then they decided that gays were a security risk, but again the Department of Defense decided that wasn’t so. In fact, one study by the Navy in 1956 that was never made public found gays to be good security risks. Even Larry Korb, President Reagan’s man in charge of implementing the Pentagon ban on gays, now admits that it was a dumb idea. No wonder my friend Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense under President Bush, called it “a bit of an old chestnut”

When the facts lead to one conclusion, I say it’s time to act – not to hide. The country and the military know that eventually the ban will be lifted. The only remaining questions are how much muck we will all be dragged through, and how many brave Americans like Tom Paniccia and Margarethe Cammermeyer will have their lives and careers destroyed in a senseless attempt to stall the inevitable.

Some in congress think I’m wrong. They say we absolutely must continue to discriminate, or all hell will break loose. Who knows? (they say) perhaps our soldiers may even take up arms against each other.

Well, that’s just stupid.

Years ago I was a lieutenant in charge of an all-black unit. Military leaders at the time believed that blacks lacked leadership potential, period. That seems ridiculous now – as it should. Now each and every man and woman who serves this nation takes orders from a black man, our own Gen. Colin Powell.

Nobody thought that blacks or women could ever be integrated into the military. Many thought that an all-volunteer force could never protect our national interest. Well, it has and despite those who feared the worst – I among them – we are still the best and will continue to be.

The point is that decisions are always a lot easier to make in hindsight, but we seldom have that luxury. That’s why the future of our country depends on leadership, and that’s what we need now.

I served in the armed forces. I have flown more than 150 of the best fighter planes and bombers this country manufactured. I founded the Arizona National Guard. I chaired the Senate Armed Services Committee. And I think it’s high time to pull the curtains on this charade of policy.

What should undermine our readiness would be a compromise policy, like “don’t ask, don’t tell.” That compromise doesn’t deal with the issue, it tries to hide it.

We have wasted enough precious time, money and talent trying to persecute and pretend. It’s time to stop burying our heads in the sand and denying reality for the sake of politics. It’s time to deal with this straight on and be done with it. It’s time to get on with more important business.

The conservative movement, to which I subscribe, has as one of its basic tenets the belief that government should stay out of people’s private lives. Government governs best when it governs least, and stays out of the impossible task of legislating morality. But legislating someone’s version of morality is exactly what we do by perpetuating discrimination against gays.

When you get down to it no American able to serve should be allowed – much less given an excuse – to not serve his or her country. We need all our talent.

If I were in the Senate today I would rise on the Senate floor in support of our commander in chief. He may be a Democrat, but he happens to be right on this question.

Thank you Senator Goldwater (or, as your license plate said, AuH20).

Oh, and by the say, my favorite quotation from the report is this:

As one special operations force warfighter told us, ‘We have a gay guy (in the unit). He’s big, he’s mean, and he kills lots of bad guys. No one cared that he was gay,’

Nowhere have I found a quotation that said: “I served with a homosexual and it hurt us as a unit.” Let me know if you have.

Welcome to San Diego (Where Even Santa Claus Shakes You Down)

Posted on by
Reply

Santa's shaking you down
On Saturday Nancy and I went down to Balboa Park for the annual celebration of December Nights. While there we saw this sign. It’s a Christmas tradition that young children sit on Santa’s lap, but most of us don’t remember paying for this joy. But then again, I didn’t spend my Santa years in San Diego.

It’s a new, cynical, and expensive world. At least here in San Diego

Is the Pope Becoming Pastoral?

Posted on by
Reply

Last week we read some surprising news coming out of the Vatican: there might be some movement on the condom front (sorry, I couldn’t resist). Pope Benedict XVI, in the course of speaking with a German journalist, seemed to indicate that there are times when the use of a condom is permissible.

Peter Seewald interviewed the Pope in anticipation of publishing a book: Light of the World: The Pope, the World and Signs of the Times. They had collaborated on two previous books: The Ratzinger Report and Salt of the Earth. In the course of the interviews the Pope indicated that there may be times when it is permissible for someone to use a condom. He illustrated this by talking about a male prostitute who is HIV positive. He wishes to change his life but isn’t ready yet, and he doesn’t wish to spread the virus any further. The Pope feels that in this case it would be permissible for him to use a condom as a way of not spreading the virus while he continues to reform his life.

This has caused a great deal of confusion in the Catholic world given the historic (and histrionic) view toward condoms and other forms of birth control. Before we learned about AIDS and the role of HIV, condoms were almost exclusively used as birth control for heterosexual couples. Since the Catholic Church condemns all forms of birth control, condom use was always prohibited. In the 1980s gay men began to use condoms as a way to prevent the spread of AIDS, and it widened to include any couple who wished to practice “safe sex.” Unfortunately many groups (the Vatican included) responded to this by incorrectly claiming that condoms aren’t effective in stopping the virus. As recently as March, 2009 the Pope claimed that condoms could “aggravate” the spread of AIDS.

So what gives? The Catholic blogosphere is on fire with the question: “Has the Catholic Church changed its teaching?” The Vatican has gone to great lengths to claim it hasn’t, and in the final analysis, they’re right.

But it’s more complicated than that.

The Catholic Church still prohibits artificial birth control among married couples and any sexual activity among unmarried couples. Since the Catholic Church doesn’t recognize gay marriage, this includes all gay couples. The change has been not one of doctrine or teaching, but pastoral application.

In the past the Church has appeared (at least to me) to draw a bright line between acceptable and unacceptable behavior. Simply put, if you are committing a sin you need to stop. If you are practicing birth control or cheating your employees, there is no middle ground: stop and stop now. The Pope’s remarks appear to acknowledge that in the struggle to change our behavior, we sometimes need to take intermediate steps. I applaud this step and encourage the Pope to continue doing what he’s doing.

I mentioned earlier that this has created some activity in the Catholic blogosphere. Several writers are getting it right, but many are getting it wrong. My favorite is a string on the Catholic Answers forum.

My final word on this (and I get the final word because it’s my blog) is my hope that this increased interest in pastoral applications will lead the Pope and the Vatican to examine again some of their doctrines. The birth control stuff doesn’t bother me because most Catholic couples already cheerfully ignore this anyway. But I do hope that this leads to a sense of conversion (an intermediate step, if you will) to look again at Church stands that discriminate against women, homosexuals, and other members of our Church. We’ll see.

Decision 2010: It's going to be a long night

Posted on by
Reply

6:00PM Pacific Time, 9:00PM Eastern Time, 0200 GMT: It’s time for my semi-annual night to follow the national elections. We’re halfway through the 1st Barack Obama administration. Historically a new President looses seats in the election two years into his first term. The smart money today is that the Democratic Party will lose control of the House and may lose control of the Senate.

Before I begin, let me say (by way of my soapbox) that I write this as a grateful American. If you look at our world, we are blessed to live in a country that allows us to vote for our leaders. It’s pretty amazing that I can criticize and even make fun of those in government and nobody can arrest or prosecute me.

And now, onto the races. Here in California we had two huge races that are probably all but decided. The race for governor to replace Arnold Schwarzenegger has been headlines for months, but it appears from recent polling that Jerry Brown will beat Meg Whitman by a considerable number. It appears that many California voters are not thrilled for another Brown administration (he was governor from 1975-1983) but don’t like the fact that Meg has spent over $150,000,000 of her own money in an attempt to buy the election.

The headlines in this election center around the Tea Party. The party stands for “Taxed Enough Already” and believes that the Republican Party has abandoned its platform of lower taxes and smaller government. So far tonight it’s been mixed. In Kentucky it appears that Rand Paul won the Senate seat. He’s famous for questioning the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which ended segregation. Paul believes that if you own a business you should be able to hire or do business with anyone you choose, and the government cannot force you into a decision.

On the other hand, the Tea Party candidate in Delaware, Christine O’Donnell, lost big. Also, in New York Carl Palodino has lost. He’s famous for promising to take a baseball bat to (state capital) Albany. I guess New Yorkers prefer bats in the hands of the Yankees and Mets.

7:30PM Pacific Time, 10:30PM Eastern Time, 0330 GMT: CNN is projecting that the Republicans will take back the House of Representatives. If that’s true, it will be a repeat of 1994 when the Democrats lost the House led by Newt Gingrich. It appears that the American people once again like divided government.

The House basically runs on majority rule: There are 435 members and anytime you get 217 votes, the bill passes. But that’s the easiest part of this. The Senate is made up of 100 members, and they also run on majority rule, but not as easily. If there is a bill being debated, any Senator can filibuster (that is, get up to speak and not yield that position). If that happens the Senator cannot be removed from the microphone without a vote of “cloture.” Cloture means that 60 Senators vote to end the debate, or in other words, 41 Senators can block any legislation. Famously, South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond filibustered on August 29, 1957 for 24 hours and 18 minutes to oppose the 1957 Civil Rights Act.

If a bill gets a majority vote in the House, has the support of at least 60 Senators, it then goes to the President who can sign or veto the bill. If the President vetoes the bill, then a 2/3 majority of both chambers (291 House members and 67 Senators) must vote to override the veto.

Clearly the framers of the Constitution wished to make change difficult. It’s been 223 years since the Constitution was ratified and this electorate appears to agree with them. More to come: the polls close here in California in a few minutes.

8:00PM Pacific Time, 11:00PM Eastern Time, 0400 GMT: The polls have just closed here in California, and based on exit polls it appears that Jerry Brown has defeated Meg Whitman and Barbara Boxer has defeated Carly Fiorina. I’m always mistrustful of exit polls, and I refuse to participate in them, but I hope they’re right. I’ve never been a fan of wealthy people running for office based on their checkbooks and the belief that anyone can govern. The reality is that there really is a skill set for public servants and the fact that you can (or can’t, in the case of Carly) run a company doesn’t make you competent for office.

9:00PM Pacific Time, 12:00AM Eastern Time, 0500 GMT: As of a few minutes ago, CNN projected that Barbara Boxer will be re-elected to the Senate and that means that the Democrats will retain a majority. As I’ve stated, a party needs more than a 60-40 majority to control the Senate, and in that sense it doesn’t make all that much difference, but as a Californian I’m happy to see Barbara continue to represent us.

The surprise for me is Nevada. Harry Reid has been fighting for his life, and as I write this, he’s ahead 52% to 44% with 59% of the districts reporting. That’s a bigger lead than I expected. Nobody is predicting this race yet, and the night is long ahead, but I’m pleased to see Harry so far ahead.

It’s now 9:12PM and CNN has projected Jerry Brown the new governor. As I said, I’m not crazy about Jerry, but I’m relieved that it’s not Meg. I’m not impressed with her EBay experience, and I’m really not impressed that she’s running on the same platform as Arnold Schwarzenegger (“I have no idea how to do this job, so vote for me.”).

It’s now 9:40 and CNN is projecting Harry Reid as the winner in the Nevada Senate race. I know he’s a polarizing figure, but I’m glad he won.

10:00PM Pacific Time, 1:00AM Eastern Time, 0600 GMT: The night is winding down and it looks like it’s going to be a good night for the Republican Party. John Boehner will probably be House Speaker in January, though Harry Reid will remain the Senate Majority Leader. This means the Democrats have the Presidency and the Senate and the Republicans have the House. I only hope that this helps the groups work together.

Here in California, the story is often as much about ballot propositions as anything else. I think it’s a flaw in the state Constitution, but it’s fairly easy to put a proposition on the ballot. It appears that Prop 19 will go down (it allows us to grow and smoke marijuana) and I’m happy about that. I don’t expect to know much more about the other propositions until morning.

Good night for now.

The Money Chronicles, Volume 3: Great Moments at the Cash Register

Posted on by

I ran a simple errand today: I needed to get a wallet and drove to my local department store. I expected to pay about $30 and get something that will last a few years. As I walked up to the Macy’s at the University Town Center I saw there was a table near the entrance. Fortunately it wasn’t someone looking for my support for a candidate or ballot measure: it was the Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure and they were collecting money to end breast cancer. I cheerfully gave them $5.00 and I was given a coupon that I could use at the store. Here is a copy of the coupon:

Macy's Coupon


I know it’s hard to read, but bear with me (I’m sure there was no intent to make it confusing). The coupon grants discounts of 10%, 20%, or 25% depending on what you buy. I intended to buy a man’s wallet. The discount would be 25% if it was a “single regular, sale or clearance fashion item for the entire family including accessories, plus selections for your home.” The discount would be 20% if I’m buying a “sale & clearance and select regular priced women’s [sic], men’s [sic] and kids’ apparel and accessories, fine and fashion jewelry, frames, bed & bath items, housewares, luggage, and china.” The 10% discount appears to apply only for “all sale & clearance and select regular-priced furniture, mattresses, area rugs, electrics and electronics.” Any idea where my wallet fits? Me neither.

I walked into the store and found the mens’ wallet display. There were three tables: one table announced that everything on the table is on sale for 20% off. The second table had a sign that all wallets there were 30% off. The third table had a sign that was covered up. You make the call. As you might expect, my first question was whether I could combine the two discounts: the sale price on the wallet and the coupon. I found a suitable wallet (manufactured by Geoffrey Beane if that matters to you). The list price was $36, the upper level of what I wanted to pay. But wait: it’s on the 30% off table and I have a coupon for either 20% or 25%. How much is the wallet now? Good question. The first salesperson I asked read the coupon and said that I have to have a Macy’s credit card to use the coupon. I asked where he sees that on the coupon and he called another salesperson over. This person seemed to think I could combine the two, but he wasn’t sure (that’s what the cash register was for). We walked over to the cash register and he suggested that I apply for a Macy’s credit card which would give me an additional 25% off of this purchase. That would have been fun, but I declined. At this point I’m still not sure what I’m going to pay.

OK, drum roll: the 2nd salesperson rang me up and the total price was $21.92. I can’t complain, and I bought the wallet. Now, here’s the question: how did it go from $36 to $21.92? I started writing the Money Chronicles because of experiences like this. We’re often bombarded by offers of discounts and sales, and more often than not we have no idea how much we’re going to pay. The 30% off table looked enticing, and being able to save an additional 10%, 20%, or 25% sounded even better. But neither I nor the cashier knew how much I would be charged until the cash register told us.

One thing I knew right away was that I wouldn’t get 55% off (30% plus 25%). But let’s start with the 30%. The list price of the wallet was $36.00 and 30% of that is $10.80. Subtract the $10.80 and the wallet should be $25.20. So far so good. Now for the second part: it appears that my wallet is catagorized as “sale & clearance and select regular priced women’s [sic], men’s [sic] and kids’ apparel and accessories, fine and fashion jewelry, frames, bed & bath items, housewares, luggage, and china” as I was given the 20% discount. I guess the wallet is an accessory. Too bad it doesn’t qualify as “for the entire family” as I would have gotten 25% off. In any case, I got 20% off the $25.20. That’s $5.04, bringing the total down to $20.16. Add the 8.75% sales tax of $1.76 and it brings the total to $21.92.

In the end, I was discounted $14.08, which was 39%. But I wonder how many people would have thought I’d have gotten 50% off (30% plus 20%). Each discount made the next one less valuable, and I have to wonder this: if I had applied for a Macy’s credit card, where would that discount have come? I’m guessing it would have been after the 30% and before the 20%. That being the case, it would have gone like this: Start with $36.00, minus the 30% ($25.20). Now take the credit card 25% ($6.30) and that gets me down to $18.90. Now the 20% coupon gives me another $3.78 off, bringing the total down to $15.12. Add on sales tax and we’re back up to $16.44. It gives me a new credit card with (likely) a high interest rate, and it would have saved me $5.48. Doing the math makes it seem less valuable.

The Justice Chronicles, Volume 4: Are We Ready To Go Backwards In Our Compassion?

Posted on by
Reply


This image may be a strange way to start a blog on justice, but bear with me. This is the death certificate of Joseph Arthur Calixte Lizotte in Greenfield, New Hampshire. For the record he’s my 7th cousin twice removed, though I doubt I would have ever met or heard of him had he lived. The death certificate is hard to read, but he died in 1915 at 16 months of cholera (that he had for 3 days) and malnutrition (that he had for his entire life).

I came across this death certificate about 10 years ago when I was doing genealogy research and was struck and saddened by the fact that someone could die (at least partly) from malnutrition here in the United States. Simply put, the programs that would have saved him wouldn’t exist until 20 years later when the country was in the middle of a depression.

As I look over the political landscape today I worry that we may be headed back to those days. The Great Depression lasted only a decade but framed much of the 20th Century. Talk to nearly anyone who lived through those years and he will tell you that it was when people came together to help each other. It was also a time when our nation began to reflect on common values. Led by President Franklin Roosevelt (1882-1945) we developed programs to support the elderly (Social Security), the poor (Welfare, later known as Aid to Families with Dependent Children), and the unemployed (Works Progress Administration, Civilian Conservation Corps, and others). In later years help was expanded to include the hungry (Food Stamps). By the 1960s we began to provide health care to the elderly and the poor (Medicare and Medicaid).

Though far from complete, these programs ensured that most of the basic needs of most of us are provided. If my distant cousin had been born in 1934 instead of 1914 he likely would not have spent his entire life suffering from malnutrition. Because of progress made in plumbing and cleanliness he probably wouldn’t have even developed cholera, but if he did he would have had an 80% chance of surviving it (see the CDC for more information). All these programs were funded through the taxes we paid, and we paid them because they reflected our values.

Fast forward to today. I’m not sure we still share those values; as I read the political landscape, the only real value I see is that I should not be inconvenienced or charged for anything that will benefit anyone other than me. If you’re running for office, the fastest road to defeat lies in not promising to cut taxes. It’s become fashionable to claim that government does too much and is too costly. Meanwhile, on ground level, our schools, fire departments, libraries and infrastructure are crumbling. We are laying off teachers while school attendance continues to rise.

We’re also making it harder to access services. In 2008 here in San Diego, only 29% of those eligible for food stamps actually received them. Why not? These answers are always complicated but I don’t think anyone can deny that the process of applying is difficult and humiliating. Fortunately there has been some publicity around this and more hungry people are accessing food stamps, but the number is still too low.

This will ensure I can never run for office on any level, but I think we need to be willing to pay for what we value and be frank that we are all invested in good schools and full stomachs. We, as a whole, need to be compassionate not just with our minds but also with our wallets. We need to live in a society where nobody dies (even in part) of malnutrition.

And Then There Were Three

Posted on by
Reply

On September 8th I got the word I knew was coming, but didn’t want to hear: Uncle Ed passed away quietly at 8:17 a.m. He was 88 years old and had been battling cancer for several years. I’m grateful that he was well cared for by Gardner VNA Hospice and his family.

Uncle Ed is my father’s oldest brother and is one of Tom Brokaw’s The Greatest Generation. He was 7 years old when the stock market crashed and when he was 16 he dropped out of school to join the Civilian Conservation Corps where he went to Wyoming. I’m not sure of the details, but most boys/men who joined the CCC did so because their families couldn’t afford to feed them. He also spent some time with the Works Progress Administration. His next chapter was determined by the outbreak of World War II. He served in North Africa and Italy. By the way, he was right handed and had a bad right eye. The army didn’t want him because he couldn’t sight a rifle. He taught himself to shoot left handed so he could sight the rifle through his good eye and qualified to join the army. As one who grew up in the shadow of Vietnam, this always amazed me.

Coming home after the war he didn’t have a high school diploma but went immediately to work. He did that until he was 65 when he retired. Like most men of his generation he married, had 2 children, and bought a house. He cared for his parents, joined the VFW, the Gardner Deer Club and Holy Rosary Church.

He was also very good to me. I didn’t travel back for his funeral because of what he did for his country, but what he did for me. When I lived in Boston I used Gardner as a weekend escape. There wasn’t a time that I was in Gardner when he and Aunt Eva didn’t make a place for me at dinner, including Thanksgiving 1980 (the first one where I wasn’t with my family).

With Uncle Ed’s death, the original 7 children are down to 3. The first of them was Uncle Tonto (his name was Andrew but nobody called him that). He died accidentally in 1964 when he was 36.

This picture was taken in 1982. On the bottom are Uncle Norman and my grandmother. The top row (from left to right) are Uncle Joe, Aunt Jeanne, Aunt Freda, my father, and Uncle Ed.

The remaining three are here: Uncle Norman, Aunt Jeanne, and my father.

Note to the remaining three: stay healthy; I don’t want to do this again for a while.

How Do Christians Not Recognize Each Other?

Posted on by
Reply

Years ago I directed a religious education (aka CCD, Sunday School) program at All Saints Catholic Church. Each summer we ran a Vacation Bible School and the song I remember most from that time was They Will Know We Are Christians By Our Love. That seems a long time ago.

Beginning in the 1980s groups like the Moral Majority and the 700 Club formed as a way of gathering Christians and affecting national politics. Unfortunately it backfired and did little more than politicize religion. Amazingly in 1980, when Ronald Reagan defeated Jimmy Carter, the Moral Majority announced that a “real” Christian would now occupy the White House, ignoring the fact that Jimmy Carter was a deeply spiritual man while Ronald Reagan thought little about religion.

This segment of the population who have clearly announced they own Christianity, Jesus Christ, the Bible, and decide who is saved, have found new life in the election of Barack Obama. They have been incredibly successful in convincing a segment of the American population that he isn’t really a Christian, but is secretly a Muslim. In a previous post I connected this with the “Nat Turner” strategy that “those people” (ie, African Americans) don’t love America and are looking for opportunities to harm us.

Glenn Beck is the latest opportunist. He has a show on Fox News and this past weekend he held a rally in Washington D.C. Surprisingly he admitted that President Obama is a Christian, but then announced he doesn’t recognize President Obama’s Christianity. There’s some symmetry to that as I don’t recognize Glenn Beck’s Christianity.

Mr. Beck insists that President Obama’s Christianity is rooted in liberation theology and that is not what God intended (cue surprised look from Moses). Apparently Mr. Beck finds God on Pharaoh’s side. Because, as we all know, if the slaves are freed, it will increase unemployment and kill jobs.

As for me and my house, I agree with President Obama that Jesus stood for certain things: Am I my brother’s keeper? (Genesis 4:9), whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me (Matthew 25:40), and the last shall be first (Matthew 20:16).

I’ll be interested in Glenn’s list.

Perry v. Schwarzenegger: The New Front on Civil Rights

Posted on by
Reply

It’s been a good day for civil rights. This afternoon Federal Judge Vaughn Walker ruled in the case of Perry v. Schwarzenegger that California’s ban on gay marriage violates the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Judge Walker (who was appointed by President George H.W. Bush) ruled that Proposition 8, passed in 2008 by 52% of California voters, is unconstitutional.

This has been an incredibly polarizing issue for a long time, and the fight is far from over, but the progression is obvious. The supporters of Prop 8 have already promised to appeal, and there is a stay in place to prevent more gay marriages until the appeals process is over. I have to confess that I’m praying that no higher court chooses to take this case, but it’s probably not going to be that easy.

Already Prop 8’s supporters are arguing that since 52% of California’s voters supported it, one judge who “subverts the will of the people” is wrong. The problem with that argument is that is sounds so good. It is not, alas, Constitutional. The Framers of the Constitution put in several checks to make sure that the U.S. would be a democracy that is not ruled simply by the will of the majority. If they had wanted to do this, there would be no need for the Senate, the Supreme Court, or the Presidency. If the current majority of the people of the U.S. want something, then a simple vote of the House of Representatives should be enough to achieve that. Checks and Balances were written into the Constitution to make sure that we would not be hostage to the tyranny of the majority.

My best argument for this is the history of marriage. Proponents of Prop 8 claim that marriage has always been seen as a union of one man and one woman. That’s incredibly not true. Even in the Bible marriage is often seen as between one man and as many women as he can afford. King Solomon (who was given the gift of wisdom) is said in 1 Kings to have 700 wives and 300 concubines. Nobody is arguing for that now, but it lends credibility to the belief that “one man and one woman” isn’t as old as Adam and Eve.

Even in the last century marriage wasn’t seen as the union of one man and one woman. Until 1967, at least in the Commonwealth of Virginia, marriage was defined as the union of one man and one woman of the same race. In that year the Supreme Court ruled against Virginia in the case of Loving v. Virginia deciding that prohibitions on interracial marriages were unconstitutional.

So what about the “will of the majority?” Well, it’s a funny thing. You can read this at the Gallup organization but at this point 76% of Americans support marriages between people of different races. That sounds pretty progressive to me. But wait… it hasn’t always been that way. In 1958 (the year Richard Loving married Mildred Jeter) only 4% of Americans supported their marriage. By the time the Supreme Court decided they could be married, their support increased to 20%. The majority of Americans wouldn’t approve of their marriage until after 1983. I’ll argue that public opinion didn’t swing their way until more and more people met, interacted with, and befriended interracial couples and recognized that their fears were unfounded.

My prediction, hope, and prayer is that as more and more of us meet gay married couples, homophobia is going to go the way of racial intolerance. In the meantime, I applaud Judge Vaughn Walker.

The Justice Chronicles, Volume 3: Is Justice Devolving into Just Us?

Posted on by
Reply

In February of this year I started the Justice Chronicles, and talked about it in a religious context. Now I wish to talk about it in terms of how we govern ourselves. Hard to imagine an issue that is more polarizing than religion, but this may be it.

When someone in the government talks about justice it’s virtually always in the context of law enforcement: Protect me from the bad people and get rid of them if you can’t protect me. But it seems to me that justice ought to be much more. When we talk about justice in the public forum, why can’t we see it in the context of what we value as a society?

When I did marriage preparation I used to say this to the couple: Show me your checkbook and the last several months of your credit card statements and I’ll tell you what you really value. In other words, if I know where your money goes, I know what you think is important. We can use the same thing when we look at the budgets of the nation, state, and locality. You can look on a page at Wikipedia to see a pie chart of the 2010 US Federal Budget. The top categories are Social Security (19.63%), Department of Defense (18.74%), Unemployment/Welfare/Other Mandatory Spending (16.13%), and Medicare (12.79%).

So how are we doing? At first blush, not bad. Nearly 3/4 of the federal budget (73.24%) are these four categories, and three of them (Social Security, Unemployment, and Medicare) provide direct services to people in need: the elderly, the poor, and the sick. The other category protects us from outside forces that wish us ill.

But on the other hand, you can see how these four categories are weighted toward those who can advocate for themselves. I’m headed toward the Social Security/Medicare population at what seems like light speed, but it’s also true that the elderly vote in large numbers. They are essentially the exclusive recipients of Social Security and Medicare.

In 1961, in his farewell address, Dwight D. Eisenhower warned of the emergence of the Military Industrial Complex. He was, in this case, a prophet. No one, myself included, begrudges the brave men and women in uniform whatever they need to stay safe and come home. But the past 50 years we have been littered with stories of the military denouncing a weapons system, a jet, or a missile as unnecessary only to be overruled by a member of Congress who doesn’t want to lose the federal funds to pay for a factory in his/her district. We are owed efficiency from the Department of Defense every bit as much as the Department of Health and Human Services.

Finally, and this is my most salient point, is the status of our children in the federal budget. Where do we find them? Well, 8.19% of the budget is devoted to Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. Medicaid was designed in the 1960s as health insurance for the poorest among us. It is certainly that, but it is not necessarily weighted toward children. The fastest growing segment are elderly folk who need someone to pay for their stay in a skilled nursing facility (also known as a SNF or a nursing home).

Children, alas, are often looked at as an expense for the rest of us. That’s wrong. We need to look at our children (and I’m speaking globally as I have no children myself) not as an expense, but as the ultimate investment in our future. Study after study has shown that the more resources we give our children, the better off our society will be. But year after year we find that our schools are grossly underfunded, the people who care for our children the worst paid, and we don’t want to invest anything in children we don’t like (e.g. those who were born in other countries and came to the U.S. to contribute to an economy that will provide a sustainable standard of living). One of the charities I support, that you can find on the left side of this page, is Donor’s Choice. It’s a site where you can contribute directly to schools and classrooms who have needs that aren’t covered by their local school districts. I’m grateful for the opportunity to help, but I’m angry that these teachers need to go begging. Take a look and don’t be shocked by what you see.

Finally, the worst way we fail our children lies in the way we care for their health. Seniors, virtually all of them, have universal health care. If you are 62 or over and are here legally you are virtually guaranteed that you will be taken care of. Until then you’re pretty much on your own. If you’re a child and your parents are either wealthy, middle class, or destitute, you’re in good shape (either because your parents can afford health insurance or because you’re eligible for Medicaid). If your parents are working poor, or if they are employed by a company that does not provide health insurance, you’re pretty much counting on not getting sick. Your primary health provider is the emergency room where your parents are presented with a bill they can’t pay. If that happens everyone loses: the hospital doesn’t get their money and your parents file for bankruptcy because they can’t hope to pay the bill.

And there’s more. Here in San Diego we don’t have enough money to staff all of our fire stations and that has led to a policy of not staffing certain stations at certain times (called a “brown out”). Last Tuesday Station 44 in nearby Mira Mesa was out of service. When there was a call in that neighborhood, Station 38 responded. That was fine, until the family of 2 year old Bentley Do called 911 because Bentley was chocking on a gumball. The Do family lives a block away from Station 38. Because Station 38 was responding to a call that Station 44 should have taken care of, there was no station available to care for Bentley. When a station from farther away finally responded, it was too late. Two year old Bentley Do died.

There is a ballot measure in November that will raise the sales tax in San Diego by 0.5% (if you spend $100 on taxable items, your tax will increase by 50 cents). Fire and police protection will directly benefit from this. Yesterday the San Diego Union Tribune carried this letter to the editor from J.R. Bolger of Tierrasanta:

The death of young Bentley Do is cause for every San Diegan to grieve for and with his family. But my grief turns to outrage when your paper and its ilk use this tragic accident as a campaign issue in a drive to pass a sales tax increase! Your front-page headline (“Tragedy renews sales-tax debate” July 23) is yellow journalism at its finest and William Randolf Hearst must be smiling down on you.

It’s hard to live in San Diego and care about children. I pray that the family of Bentley Do is heartened by the fact that if this tax increase fails, Mr. Bolger of Tierrasanta won’t have to pay an extra 50 cents on a $100 purchase.

This just in: As I was writing this post the San Diego City Council decided not to pass the sales tax resolution. It’s a good day if you don’t want to spend the 50 cents, and a bad day if you need emergency services.