Warnings To Republicans And Democrats - No Hope And Listen Liberal

Several weeks ago, checking out the new books at Loussac library, I found these two which seemed to offer political symmetry.

No Hope is subtitled "Why I left the GOP and you should too."  Listen Liberal is subtitled "What Happened To The Party of the People?"

I've read No Hope, but only the first and last chapters of Listen Liberal, so I'll talk about Jimmy Lasalvia's book in this post, and Thomas Frank's in a later post.  Spoiler:  Frank's book seems the much weightier of the two.

Lasalrvia's book is basically his justification, as a gay Republican, for being the gay spokesperson for the Republican Party for as along as did.  Basically, he says he's an economic conservative who's gay and was trying to get the Republicans to be more tolerant of people who weren't straight, white males.  He also felt that by supporting Republicans in a conspicuous way - as a founder and head of GOProud - he would also show Republicans that there were conservative gays and that they should change their gay intolerance and court gay voters.  There are some successes along the way, but in the end he realizes the Republican party was getting worse not better.

I went along with his story for a while, but soon concluded that he was like the skinny kid who who never gets picked.  He wants so bad to be on the Republican team, but, geez, he's gay, no way.  He tries so hard to prove he's a Republican team player - he's for smaller government, less taxes, and he bemoans Obama's failed _(fill in the blank)  policies.  He wants so hard to prove that just because he's gay doesn't mean he's not a good Republican.  He can't understand why they don't get his belief that they need him more than he needs them.

I like Jimmy. He's a decent guy.  He's loyal. He's sincere.  But it takes him forever to get it.  Even when all the other gay organizations are dissing him for defending Republicans, he gamely says, "hey, you have to be a team player."  Team player is his mantra.  You want me to debase myself, ok, I'll do it to prove I'm a team player.  For example:

"Again, I compromised my integrity to uphold the Republican code." (p 133)  

There are successes.  GOProud gets to be a CPAC sponsor, but no senior Republican officials show up for their big dance party, that's supposed to show the world that Republicans can be cool.  And when CPAC gets a new executive director, they cut GOProud out.   GOProud seems to have survived as long as it did mainly because they get a few big donations, like from gay billionaire Peter Thiel.  And Ann Coulter comes to one of their fundraising events.

Throughout the book Lasalvia is swimming up the Republican stream that just has too many barriers.  When the Romney team won't even talk to Lasalvia, he slowly starts to get it.  Despite his belief that the Republicans need him to diversify, they see him as poison and want nothing to do with him.

I wanted to be able to sit down with Laslavia and talk to him.  He tells us he grew up as a military brat and that most people on the bases were pretty conservative.   And in the book, his conservative beliefs tend to boil down to slogans.  I'm guessing, that if he hadn't had to face up to the fact that he was gay, he would have been perfectly happy on the Republican team, even bashing gays.

But he did turn out gay and so he saw this one flaw in the conservative narrative.  Not because he was thinking more deeply, but because it kicked him in the groin.  But when he writes about other Republican positions, it's always superficial talking points.  Things like:

"I focused on Obama's failed record, the poor economy, and the need for Romney's management skills in the White House."

I wanted to say to him, "Jimmy, exactly what was the economy like when Obama took office?  How is it worse now?  Jimmy, you've seen the flaw in the Republican stance against gays, women, and people of color.  Maybe you should examine more deeply their economic positions as well.  You're just spouting slogans.  You need to reexamine everything you believe."

The book offered some behind the scenes snippets of the Republican party - mainly in the arena of gay policies.  It reads fast.  But partly that's because you don't have to think too hard about any of it.


What I've read so far of Listen Liberal is a much deeper analysis of mainstream Democratic thought.  I'll try to do a post on it when I've finished it.  The basic thrust I've picked up so far is this:

Democrats have always been fighting against inequality, for the lower and middle classes getting a fair share of the economy.  That fight has always been about the distribution of money.  That worked when blue jobs that didn't require a high school education could keep people in the middle class.  If money is the first hierarchy that separates the economic classes, today, there's a second hierarchy - the professions - that also separates the classes.  And the Democrats have sided with the educated  against the rest.

OK, that's my take at the moment and it makes a lot of sense.  The Republicans have voiced the concerns of the uneducated - abortion, immigration, guns, the terrorist menace.  But, let me read some more so I can spell out his argument more accurately.

". . . attack, counterattack and never apologize."

The title comes from a Washington Post article describing Roy Cohn as Trump's lawyer and mentor.  For those who don't recognize the name, Cohn was the model for the Angels in America character who personifies evil.  The son of an influential judge, Cohn began young as Sen. Joe McCarthy's aide in the Congressional Red and homosexual witch hunt in the 1950s.  His career goes morally downhill from there, according to the article.

The point of the authors, though, is that he took in Trump and introduced him to the power brokers of New York and Washington DC and taught Trump his basic strategy: attack, counterattack and never apologize.

What we've seen from his tweet torrent, this does seem to be how Trump work.  He certainly hates to apologize.

It's worth reading the whole thing as we try to understand the phenomenon of Trump.

And it seems Cohn's story shares the Orlando shooter's closeted homosexuality.  Well, we don't know if the shooter had any actual gay encounters, but he seems to have been drawn to gay venues.  Cohn apparently was much more active sexually, but he witnessed (even participated in) the career and sometimes life destroying outing of homosexuals with Sen. McCarthy.

One wonders whether the shooter's rampage and Cohn's ruthless pursuit of power were both related to some sort of homophobic self-loathing. And fear of being outed. The article mentions Cohn's portrayal in Angels in America, and when I googled the two together, I got to a series of compelling Youtube excerpts.

Like this one where Cohn's long time doctor tells him he has AIDS and Cohn insists he's not a homosexual and he has liver cancer.  He's more concerned about being exposed as gay (and thus as a member of a group without 'clout') than he is about the terminal diagnosis.  I can't embed the video, but here's the link.

And the Washington Post article is also worth reading.  The authors' book on Trump comes out in August.  Good timing on their part.

[UPDATE July 21, 2016:  here's a follow up post on Cohn I did on June 24 -  "Roy Cohn was one of the most loathsome characters in American history, so why did he have so many influential friends?"]

Orlando Too Much Already

I woke up to NPR trying to talk about a story about which they had only about 20 seconds of facts, yet they kept on for minutes.  And then a few minutes later they returned to repeat their long sparse story. There's got to be a better way for the media to say "This is important" without saying the same few things plus a lot of nothing over and over again.

And how do we respond?  How do we keep on living our lives when we're assaulted by news like this over and over again?  50 people dead.  53 more in the hospital.  People's different internal narratives will lead them to rant about guns, ISIS, the NRA, immigrants, God, gays. About terrorism.  Hate.  To pray for the victims? Does that include the shooter?  To pray for the responders who have to identify bodies and clean up the horror.  For the families, some of whom might only now be finding out their loved one was gay?  Oh dear, the world is so heavy, even as far across the country as I am from Orlando.  And people in Iraq and Afghanistan and Syria deal with this sort of slaughter more regularly.  How do they survive?  My personal experience is that children help us survive.  We must provide for them for the youngest of them are mostly unaware of what has happened and they force us to get back to normal to attend to their needs.

Only time lessens such pain.  But the time between atrocities gets shorter and shorter.  Distractions can make the time go faster.   So let me try to distract.  A little.  The coverage I heard this morning repeated that the police were investigating whether this was terrorism or a hate crime.

I'd like to divert you to a long discussion on whether hate crimes are terrorism I put up September 14, 2012.  It looks at the legal definitions of terrorism and hate crimes and points out inconsistency of some politicians who strongly oppose hate crime legislation (and as cautious as I am about jumping to conclusions, I can't imagine how  shooting up a gay nightclub can't be a hate crime) also strongly support antiterrorism legislation.  It's one of my better posts.  

I'm already imagining reading a Bridge of San Luis Rey type book - though ten times longer - that tells the stories of all the people killed and wounded at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando.

All Genders Restroom

Here's the door to one of the restrooms at the Seattle Aquarium.







We'd been able to book our flight home from LA with a six hour layover in Seattle and we were meeting our daughter and granddaughter at the aquarium.

  We looped around over downtown Seattle and could see the aquarium, but they wouldn't let us out until they landed a few minutes south at the airport.

Since my granddaughter started walking, it's been a minor dilemma when she and I were out together and one of us had to pee.  I obviously couldn't take her into the women's room, but should I take her into the men's room?

If I had to go, there was no choice.  I wasn't going to leave her outside the restroom where I couldn't see her.  She came into the men's room.  And as she got older and knew when she had to go, I still have had to take her into the men's room.

No one got excited.  No one ever made a fuss about her presence in the men's room.  I wasn't totally comfortable.  While I believe in openness and that we should be able to talk about anything that a kid raises, I also feel it important to let her mother be the guide on this.  And we haven't talked about this.  And what if my granddaughter doesn't raise questions, out loud?  But sometimes you have to make a decision on the spot.

I also understand that it's different when an adult male goes into a women's restroom, especially when a woman is alone in the restroom, especially if she's ever been sexually abused.  But that could happen any time, any where.  With or without laws about transgender access to restrooms.

As I see this issue there are several key points.  But the absolutely most important is simply understanding the fluidity of gender.  And for the current situation - what a transgender identity is about.  I'm certainly no expert on this, but I seem to know a lot more than the folks freaking out over transgender rights and bathrooms.

Understanding transgender.    From the moment of birth, we are segregated into boy or girl. Pink or blue.  I wrote about my experiences on this with my granddaughter at the playground two years ago.  We know there is more than black or white, good or bad, open or closed, up or down, smart or dumb, and every other pair of opposites.  There are shades of gray.  A person  can be good at some things and bad at others.  A car can be good at one time and bad at another.  But male or female, to many people, are absolutes.  Penis or no penis.

But it's not that simple.  Every year, about 2000 babies are born with "ambiguous genitals."

Ambiguous genitals refer to the uncertain appearance of a baby's external sexual features. Sometimes a female foetus is born with ovaries but male-like external genitals (female pseudo-hermaphroditism). A male may be born with testicles (which have yet to descend from the pelvis) but with female-like external genitalia (male pseudo-hermaphroditism). Rarely, newborns may even have both ovaries and testicles and ambiguous genitals (true hermaphroditism). In addition, there may be other congenital defects present in these newborns, such as hypospadias in males. This is a condition in which the urethral (urinary) opening is not in its normal position on the tip of a penis but is on the underside.  [From Gender Centre]

So what happens when babies are born with ambiguous genitals?

Approximately 10 times a year in Houston, at the birth of a certain type of baby, a special crisis team at Texas Children's Hospital springs into action. Assembled in 2001, the unusual team includes a psychologist, urologist, geneticist, endocrinologist, and ethicist. Its mission: to counsel parents of infants sometimes referred to as "intersex" babies—that is, babies of indeterminate physical gender. That such a team exists—and that it often counsels deferring surgery for infants who are otherwise healthy—reflects a radical new thinking among doctors about gender identity and outside efforts to shape it. Instead of surgically "fixing" such children to make them (visually, at least) either male or female, a handful of U.S. specialists now argue that such infants should be left alone and eventually be allowed to choose their gender identity. The approach challenges decades of conventional wisdom about what to do with infants whose genitalia don't conform to the "norm." Until very recently, such children were automatically altered with surgery, often with tragic consequences. Each year, about one in 2,000 children is born with ambiguous-looking genitalia.

One in 2000 children a year.  In 2014 there were 3,988,076 babies born in the US, so that comes to just under 2000 babies who weren't physically classifiable as clearly a boy or a girl. One in 2,000 is a tiny fraction of the population, but it's still 2000 people a year.  For Anchorage, assuming a random distribution, with a population of about 300,000, given one in 2000,  there should be 150 transgender folks.  That's a tiny minority.  So it's reasonable that most people don't know anyone who is transgender, especially since it isn't something people tell you when they meet you.  But it's not reasonable to stay ignorant, given the attention in this issue, and to treat these folks poorly.

Given the importance our society attaches to whether someone is male or female - remember, it's the first thing we ask when a new baby is born - being of ambiguous gender has to be one of the most difficult identity issues one can imagine. Especially when everyone assumes that you have to be either a boy or a girl. What do these 2000 people a year have to deal with every day of their lives?

For me, the first serious introduction to these questions came in Jeffrey Eugenides' book Middlesex, which tells three generations of familial history of Calliope Stephanides, a Greek American girl who doesn't feel like a girl.  It won a Pulitzer Prize and I recommend it - not only for what one can learn about intersex people, but because it's a wonderful novel.

Closing Thoughts

We're having this debate about transgender bathrooms because people are ignorant.  That's not a judgmental statement, merely descriptive.  People really don't understand about intersex or transgender or ambiguous genitalia.  They don't understand it because they don't even know it exists. We've been taught that you're either male or female.

Some people are naturally ignorant.  That is they have been taught people are male or female and their life experiences match what they've been taught.  Gays and lesbians have given them some cognitive dissonance, but even gay folk are still identified as male or female.

Some people are willfully ignorant.  They refuse to seek information that challenges what they 'know.'

Some people, in this election year, see this as an issue that could help the Republican Party overcome what looks like a hopeless presidential race for them.  Wedge issues have been a big part of the party's strategy over the years.  For a more academic approach on this click here.  I'm sure there were Republicans clapping with glee when the Obama administration announced it was suing North Carolina.  But I'm guessing there will be a lot of education in the next six months.  Not only on transgender issues, but also on the other aspects of North Carolina's HB 2 which attacks things like minimum wage and the right to sue over employment discrimination.

When my granddaughter had to go potty (her language, not mine) we weren't near the all genders  restroom and I took her into the men's room.  There were stalls as well as urinals.  We used a stall and no one's privacy was disturbed.

[Yes, Feedburner problems continue. I'm reposting what I put up earlier.  Finding a better RSS feed is on my todo list.  Anyone with suggestions let me know.]

State Overreach - Micciche Marriage Bill Would Have State Override Local Decisions

'Federal Overreach' is a conservative pejorative meant to convey the idea that the federal government is meddling with state matters and overriding state autonomy.  During desegregation they used the term 'states' rights' to fight the federal dismantling of Jim Crow in the South.  

Then states' rights was about keeping the status quo that allowed whites to legislate their power over blacks.

Today, federal overreach is often about the power of states to allow development and exploitation of public resources without concern for local wishes or environmental damage.  If there was a real concern for local control by people who know the situation better (as they claim), then the state (and I'm using Alaska here as my example) wouldn't have wiped out the Coastal Zone Management protections that allowed local folks to protect themselves from development that would destroy their way of life.

Often today, federal overreach, at least in Alaska, really means the feds interfere when a state rolls over for corporate interests.  After all, Koch sponsored Sen. Dan Sullivan was one of the folks who first championed the idea of federal overreach in Alaska.  At his confirmation hearings to be attorney general in 2010 he talked about how he would be joining with other attorneys general to fight in court against the Endangered Species  Act and the Outer Continental Shelf Act to protect 'economic opportunity.

This is not to say that there aren't legitimate states' rights issues - as when the federal government tries to nullify strong state laws designed to protect the voting rights and  the health and safety and of state residents.

And now that the Anchorage Assembly has finally passed and gotten a mayor to sign an ordinance that has added lgbt folks to our anti-discrimination law, Micciche has submitted a bill to have the state void a big chunk of it.  He and others just aren't content to give Anchorage the autonomy from the state that they claim the state should have from the feds.

Basically, this bill is to allow people to refuse to marry or provide any services (food, photos, location, flowers, etc.) for a wedding of a same-sex couple.

Principles are a good thing.  But often they are just makeup to hide a the raw exercise of power.

This bill truly has the state fighting what they'd say is federal overreach in approving same sex marriage and then turning around and exercising state overreach to nullify a good chunk of Anchorage's newly amended anti-discrimination ordinance.

SENATE BILL NO. 120

"An Act relating to marriage solemnization."
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF ALASKA:
* Section 1. AS 25.05.261 is amended by adding new subsections to read:
(c) Nothing in this section creates or implies a duty on a person authorized to solemnize a marriage under (a)(1) or (3) of this section to
(1) solemnize a marriage; or
(2) provide services, accommodations, facilities, goods, or privileges for a purpose related to the solemnization, formation, or celebration of a marriage.
(d) A person permitted to solemnize a marriage under (a)(1) or (3) of this section is not subject to criminal or civil liability for refusing to solemnize a marriage or refusing to provide services, accommodations, facilities, goods, or privileges for a purpose related to the solemnization, formation, or celebration of a marriage.
(e) The state or a municipality may not penalize a person who is permitted to solemnize a marriage under (a)(1) or (3) of this section for refusing to solemnize a marriage or refusing to provide services, accommodations, facilities, goods, or municipal contract, grant, or license. privileges for a purpose related to the solemnization, formation, or celebration of a marriage. In this subsection, "penalize" means to take an action affecting a benefit or privilege guaranteed to the person by law, including a tax exemption or state or municipal contract, grant, or license.

The Supreme Court decision on same sex marriage would not require any religious authority to perform a same sex marriage if same-sex marriage were against the tenets of that religion.  So the part about solemnizing a marriage seems moot to me.  However, people who provide commercial services to the public are now required to provide services for a same-sex marriage as they would for any marriage - a Jewish, or Catholic, or Hindu, or Muslim, or a marriage of two Asians, two African-Americans, two Russians, two Koreans,  and any combination of two people from any of those groups.  [UPDATE January 27, 2016:  After reading Micciche's January 24  commentary and rereading the bill and the statute it amends, I see that  commercial businesses are not exempted, but non-profits do seem to be exempted if they are connected to a clergyman who can solemnize a marriage.  I have a call in to Sen. Micciche to clarify some of the other claims he makes in the article about this having nothing to do with same-sex marriage, the Anchorage ordinance, or that "It does not protect anyone refusing services to interracial or special needs marriages."  I don't see anything in his bill that says clergy may refuse based on their religious doctrine.  It just says they can't be held liable for refusing, period.]   And if this law were passed, it would put a kink in things for gay and lesbian folks.  But I suspect only for as long as it would take to get to the state supreme court.

Our legislature has huge fiscal challenges ahead.  This seems a mean-spirited, divisive, and ultimately futile way to spend the little time our legislators have to settle the state's finances so that our children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren can live in a socially and economically and environmentally healthy Alaska.

Revenge Porn, Equal Benefits for Transgender Employees, Vaccinations, Sexual Violence Ed, State Lichen, And Other New California Laws

The LA Times listed a slew of new laws that came into effect today.  Sounds like something like something all major newspapers ought to do.  ADN, you working on the Alaska new laws story?  I can't find a list of new Alaska laws, though there is plenty online about the Alaska's new marijuana law.

Here are some of the new California laws from the LA Times article.  You can see the whole list here.

Here's one that has the potential to impact Alaska, especially if other states copy it:

• The state’s two major public employee pension funds must sell holdings in companies that derive at least half of their revenue from mining coal used to generate electricity by July 1, 2017.

Here's something I talked about in a two posts in November -  So, How About Wrongful Treatment Insurance? and "Fair and Moral Compensation" - A Followup Post.  It's really a token, but at least it's acknowledgement of a moral duty.

• The state will increase compensation for innocent people who are wrongly convicted from $100 for each day behind bars to $140, to reflect inflation.

Here are the others

• Prosecutors are allowed to seek forfeiture of the images and storage devices used in “revenge porn” cases, in which an estranged romantic partner posts nude or sexual pictures of the other person online
• Law enforcement agencies must obtain a search warrant before looking at private emails, text messages and GPS data stored in smartphones, laptops and the cloud
• Requires short-term rental platforms such as Airbnb to alert users that if they are renters, listing their home on the site could violate their lease agreements.
• Companies with state contracts worth at least $100,000 must provide equal benefits to transgender employees.
• Bans concealed weapons on college campuses.
• Crisis pregnancy clinics certified by the state must post notices that California has public programs providing affordable contraception and abortions.
• The word “alien” will be removed from California's labor code to describe those not born in the United States.
• The vaccination law eliminates the ability of parents to waive immunization rules for their children based on personal beliefs. Though the law takes effect on Jan. 1, it allows parents to delay the vaccinations until July 1 if they filled out a request before New Year’s Day. But almost all students will have to show proof of immunization shots for the start of the new school year this fall
• High schools that mandate health courses must provide lessons aimed at preventing sexual violence and the concept that both parties must consent to sexual relations.
• Students are required to take sexual health classes unless their parents object — the classes are now voluntary — and the lessons must include the teaching to be inclusive of different sexual orientations.
• Cheerleaders for professional sports teams are considered employees, not independent contractors, and therefore are eligible to receive a minimum wage, workers' compensation and other benefits.
• Designates lace lichen, commonly known as Spanish moss, as California's official lichen.

One imagines that Texas and California are polar opposites.  JRLawFirm let's us compare a bit.  In some ways it's true.  While California banned concealed weapons on campus, Texas did the opposite.

• Senate Bill No. 11, which will take effect on August 1, amends the Texas Government and Penal Codes to allow handgun license holders, in some circumstances, to carry a concealed handgun on public and private colleges and universities in Texas, as well as other independent institutions of higher learning (does not apply to public junior or community colleges until August 1, 2017).

But in other cases they are moving in the same direction.  Texas also took action against 'revenge porn' and they're requiring a search warrant for cell phone and wireless devices.

• It is now illegal to broadcast or disclose private, intimate, visual material if that material was disclosed without the person’s consent, the material was not expected to be disclosed, the disclosure of the material caused harm, and the disclosure revealed the identity of the person in any matter. This is now actionable in criminal as well as civil court, per State Bill 1135, effective September 1st, 2015.
• Police must now obtain a search warrant in order to search a persons’s cell phone or wireless communication device, per House Bill 1396, which will take effect on September 1st, 2015.

And while California now has an official lichen, Texas now has an official hashtag  - #Texas.  I'm sure there will be a lot more activity involving the hashtag than the lichen.

AIFF 2015: Special Directors' Award and Audience Award Winners UDATED with Pictures

Tan and Toyami at AIFF 2015 Gala Awards

Special Directors award to Shoji Toyami  and Shuichi Tan  of Magic Utopia.  

King Tan, and Toyami

Also involved with the film was King.

This was very much an artistic film with lots of abstract imagery.  A beautiful film that you won't see coming out of Hollywood.












Audience Award

This is one of the most coveted awards because it's the one the audience liked most.

Sharon Shattuck (l) listening to audience member

Winner   -   From This Day Forward

Below is a shot I got of director Sharon Shattuck at the Bear Tooth Tuesday night listening to one of the audience members after the showing of From This Day Forward.


This was a film about a family whose dad comes out as transgender when the kids were fairly young, made by one of the daughters, much later. It was a powerful film.

AIFF 2015: Saturday Preview Part 1 Daytime - Animation, Stink! And Much More

Interesting options today.  New venue - Snow Goose - so be careful you don't go to Bear Tooth by mistake.  No Festival films there today.  *means 'in competition."

So, let's do this by morning and by evening.  Morning first.

This screenshot doesn't link, go here for the links

Made in Alaska Shorts at 11am AK EX Large - See what your fellow Alaskans are producing.  For details and trailers of each film, click here.

Stink! - Is by a  dad trying to figure out the chemicals in his kid's pajamas.  You'll be one of the first  to see this.  11:45am at the SNOW GOOSE


STINK! opens in New York on Black Friday November 27th & Los Angeles on December 4. from NetReturn Entertainment on Vimeo.

A Courtship - documentary about an evangelical Christian who wants an arranged marriage.  1pm AK EX Large

Shorts - Real Life  - If you haven't seen a shorts program, go see these, there are some gems in here. And if you don't like one, then the next one comes up quickly.  But the shorts I've seen have all be worth watching.  2pm Snow Goose   (some are in competition)

Under Construction -    This is the movie to see if you want more information on the people Trump wants to ban from the US.   3pm AK EX Large

"Muslim woman Roya struggling to find herself in the sprawl of urban Bangladesh. Roya performs her last show playing ‘Nandini’—the epitome of Bengali womanhood, the central character of Rabindranath Tagore’s play ‘Red Oleanders.’ She delves into a psychological journey and battles to reconstruct ‘Nandini.’ Roya finds herself under-construction—traveling alone to exert her own desires, wishes and ambitions."

From This Day Forward - Another interesting documentary of political relevance as conservatives try to repeal Anchorage's new civil rights protections for the LGBT community.  This film is made by the daughter of a man who told his family when the kids were young, that he was really a woman.  It was difficult for the family, and the now adult daughter goes back home as a filmmaker to document their story.  Well done.  The filmmaker was here for the Tuesday night showing.   3pm AK EX Large




Very, Semi-Serious - A doc on  cartoons in the New Yorker.   4pm Snow Goose


OK, this gets you to about 4:30.  I'll post the rest of the late afternoon and evening soon.

AIFF2015: From The New Yorker Cartoons, Political Brainwashing, Afghanistan, Mt. Marathon Race, Transgender Dad

There are lots of documentaries at the Anchorage International Film Festival.  I'm still working on a post about the ones in competition.  But just because a film doesn't get into competition, doesn't mean it's not terrific.  Here's a quick look at a few of the docs to show you the breadth of topics covered this year.  Including two very dramatic parental transformations.  In both cases, the filmmakers' dads.  I haven't seen any of them so I can't tell you for sure if they are good.  But even if they aren't great cinema, the topic might be of interest.  And I'm betting they  are all good cinema.

The links will take you to more information about the films including when and where they'll play so you can put them on your calendar now.  The festival begins Friday Dec. 4, 2015.

Very Semi-Serious - New Yorker cartoons	Janey Makes a Play A 90 year old playwright writes and directs her play
No Greater Love An American military chaplain in Afghanistan.	3022 Feet Historic look at Seward's Mt Marathon race.
From This Day Forward  - The filmmaker examines her parents' marriage and how her transgender dad and straight identified mom kept it together	A Courtship  An evangelical Christian arranged marriage
*The Brainwashing of My Dad  Filmmaker examines the forces that helped her Democratic dad transform into "an angry right wing fanatic." "Brainwashing" unravels the plan to shift the country to the Right over thelast 30 years through media manipulation"	Harry and Snowman -  Post WW II Dutchman in US rescues Amish plow horse from glue factoryand soon they win the triple crown of show jumping.

*Note:  Brainwashing is a film in progress and the filmmaker is looking for audience reactions before final editing.

Things Presidential Candidates And Their Handlers Say

An opinion piece in the LA Times pointed out that some US presidential candidates are beginning to explicitly express their previously euphamized prejudices.  After quoting Ben Carson's 'a Muslim shouldn't be president' remark,  Michael Finnegan gets a bizarre response from his campaign manager:

"Carson campaign manager Barry Bennett said the comments were justified because Islam calls for killing gay people (Muslim clerics say that’s untrue), and that’s incompatible with the Constitution (the Constitution says “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States”)."[emphasis added.]

It's not totally clear whether Bennett says that's incompatible or the author.  Presumably it's the author.  But in any case, is he really saying Carson's against an Islamic president because he's concerned about gay people?  Really?

I've looked for Carson previous support of gay anything, but I can't seem to find it.  Is that really the reason thinks a Muslim can't be president? 

From what I can tell online, after Carson said that prison made people gay,  he then apologized and said being gay was not a choice.  For most people going to prison isn't exactly a choice either. 

But if someone links pedophilia and bestiality with being gay, is there any doubt about what his views on gays?

"CARSON: Well, my thoughts are that marriage is between a man and a woman. It's a well-established, fundamental pillar of society and no group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality. It doesn't matter what they are. They don't get to change the definition. So he, it's not something that is against gays, it's against anybody who wants to come along and change the fundamental definitions of pillars of society. It has significant ramifications."

There's a problem in a diverse nation like the United States when people don't get to talk about a wide range of topics with family and friends who disagree with them.  If you only talk about these things with people who agree with you, you're in for a big surprise when you get outside your circle, which presidential candidates eventually have to do.


I was trying to find something about how the brain keeps most people from saying offensive things.  I don't seem to be using the right search words, but I did find this article in Psychology Today that touches on that idea.  It's from someone with an identified mental health issue, but it seems to apply to many politicians.

"At the age of 62, I know that my social and emotional regulation skills are still sometimes lacking. I have a self-righteous streak and think that people need to hear what I have to say. I sometimes feel justified in saying things because I believe them to be true, even if my comments may not be appropriate at the time. My ex-father-in-law used to say to me "Michael you are such a smart and talented guy in many ways, why can't you control your mouth?" I had no answer to this question and felt I had two choices: be an idiot and speak my mind, or shut up. I still occasionally vacillate between the two options and have mixed results."

[UPDATE: I realize that there is some rogue text going through the Carson text (at least on my computer), but it's not there in the html or in the compose mode. It comes from an earlier blog post. If anyone has ideas on how to get rid of it, I'd love to know. Thanks.

OK, got it done.  There was weird code in the post below which I got rid of and so this one is fine now.]]

Brief Notes On: Unintended Consequences, Gay Doritos, Earthquake Prep, And Corporate Personhood

1.  Talking about changes in rules that were supposed to shorten the Republican presidential selection process as reported in the NY Times:

“You’ve got a set of unintended consequences that weren’t planned for,” said Richard F. Hohlt, a Republican donor and Washington lobbyist."

My problem with this is obvious, right?

2.  From SFGate about rainbow colored doritos:

"Doritos are a product marketed to children, so they make the perfect gateway snack to introduce children to the joys of homosexuality," writes Ed Straker of the ironically named American Thinker website. "What business does PepsiCo have pushing homosexuality on our kids?

 While Straker classifies the different colored Doritos – "green are homosexual, the pink are lesbian" – he fails to tell readers how many chips you have to eat in order to turn gay.  Or turn stupid.


3.  LA Times had what looks like a useful  Earthquake preparation quiz.  Other related articles looked more like a Sharper Image Earthquake special catalogue.



4.  Something for liberals to think about in a January/February 2015 Washington Monthly piece: Let Us Now Praise Corporate Persons.   I haven't totally figured out all the implications of what he's arguing or whether there are other fixes that would solve the problems he raises OR whether the Move To Amend people are, as he implies, using an axe to do brain surgery on the constitution. Here are some appetizers for the rest of the article. 

Citizens United was a bad decision; but the cry of “Corporations are not people!” isn’t helping fix the problem—in fact, it’s making it worse.

By Kent Greenfield

"The American left is notoriously fractious. But one belief that unites more than most is this: corporations are not people. .  .

But the attack on corporate personhood is a mistake. And it may, ironically, be playing into the hands of the financial and managerial elite."

He gives some examples of cases where he claims corporate personhood is important.

"In a legal system without corporate personhood, the channel for that outrage [after the Deepwater oil spill]  would be limited to lawsuits and criminal inquiries against individual human beings responsible—managers, workers, and contractors. That’s important, of course. In any legal jurisdiction worth its salt, the search for culpable individuals has to be part of the settling-up of any man-made disaster. But it should not be all. No human being—except, perhaps, Bill Gates—would have enough money to compensate those harmed by a massive disaster like Deepwater Horizon. Because a corporate entity is also on the hook, there’s a chance for something approaching real compensation or real responsibility. Corporate personhood is thus not only a mechanism for the creation of wealth (by encouraging investment), it is also a mechanism for enforcing accountability (by providing a deep pocket to sue)."

Another example he offers is the NY Times and Washington Post using their corporate first amendment rights to publish the Pentagon Papers (classified RAND studies that disputed what the public was being told about the Vietnam war.)

"In 1971, for example, the government sought to stop the New York Times, a for-profit, publicly traded media conglomerate, and the Washington Post, which had gone public as a corporation only a few weeks previously, from publishing the leaked Pentagon Papers. The Supreme Court correctly decided that the newspapers had a First Amendment right to publish. That was one of the most important free speech decisions of the twentieth century. At the time, no one seriously suggested that the correct answer to the constitutional question was that the Times and the Post, as corporations, had no standing to bring a constitutional claim at all. (And for those of you saying to yourselves, “Well, this isn’t a good example, since the newspapers are protected by the First Amendment’s press clause”: the Court has never given any greater substance to the press clause not already covered in the freedom of speech."

 My reaction is that corporations could have some other kind of identity - say as corporations - that has the kinds of protections he says they need, without giving them access to the rights of human beings.  He points out that corporations can't vote (at least not at the ballot box).  He knows a lot more about business law than I do, so I don't know.  Worth reading, if nothing else, to be aware of his arguments and then develop a credible response.  

For Some, Religious Discrimination Means Not Being Able to Impose Their Religious Beliefs On Others

Kim Davis, a Democratic Kentucky County Clerk, was imprisoned for refusing to issue marriage licenses (to any couples) because she believes God's law forbids marriage of same sex couples.

From a public administrative perspective, this would seem to be pretty cut and dried - she's required to carry out the duties of her job and not let her religious beliefs interfere with those duties.  So I've been poking around the internet to find out more about her and her beliefs to figure out why she isn't doing the obvious.

For those in a hurry, here's my preliminary hypothesis:

1.  She's worked in a very closed system - her mom has been her boss for years.
2.  She found Jesus after a life with less than "Christian values' marriage record.  Her actions may be part what her new faith tells her and part a convert's attempt to prove her faith.
3.  She's represented by a radical Christian law non-profit that is probably pushing her to be a martyr and get the law group more attention. 

For an example of #3, here's what Kim Davis' attorney said: 

“Today, for the first time in history, an American citizen has been incarcerated for having the belief of conscience that marriage is the union of one man and one woman,” Mr. Gannam said after a hearing that stretched deep into Thursday afternoon. “And she’s been ordered to stay there until she’s willing to change her mind, until she’s willing to change her conscience about what belief is."

I guess I'd rephrase this.  She's not being incarcerated because of her religious beliefs.  There are lots of people who share the same religious beliefs and they haven't been incarcerated for them.  She's being incarcerated because as the county clerk, she's not performing her legal duties to issue marriage licenses and that non-performance is interfering with the legal rights of people her office is supposed to serve.


What's religious discrimination at work?
Let's be clear about religious discrimination at work.  The US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission tells us that people may not be discriminated against because of their religious beliefs.  If there is a conflict with an employee's religious beliefs and their job duties, the organization should try to make reasonable accommodations.  From the EEOC website:

"Religious Discrimination & Reasonable Accommodation. The law requires an employer or other covered entity to reasonably accommodate an employee's religious beliefs or practices, unless doing so would cause more than a minimal burden on the operations of the employer's business. This means an employer may be required to make reasonable adjustments to the work environment that will allow an employee to practice his or her religion.
Examples of some common religious accommodations include flexible scheduling, voluntary shift substitutions or swaps, job reassignments, and modifications to workplace policies or practices."

So an employer (and this is aimed at all employers, not specifically at governments as employers where the obligation to serve the public is even greater) should attempt to find an accommodation.  In this case, she could, as the court suggested, delegate the task she finds objectionable, to someone else.  There are deputies in the office who are willing to do this.

But since Davis is the head of the office, I can see her thinking that if she lets a deputy issue a license to a same-sex couple, it would be the same as if she were condoning it.  This gets us to the next level of consideration.  Is making an accommodation an undue hardship to the office and the people it serves?  Back to the EEOC website:

"Religious Discrimination & Reasonable Accommodation & Undue Hardship. An employer does not have to accommodate an employee's religious beliefs or practices if doing so would cause undue hardship to the employer. An accommodation may cause undue hardship if it is costly, compromises workplace safety, decreases workplace efficiency, infringes on the rights of other employees, or requires other employees to do more than their share of potentially hazardous or burdensome work."

In the Davis case, it compromises one of the duties of the clerk's office - to issue marriage licenses - and it causes major harm to some members of the public.  Apparently, Davis' way of accommodating her religious beliefs was to stop issuing marriage licenses to anyone.  She's not, in her mind, discriminating because heterosexual couple also are denied marriage licenses.  The court rejected that. 

To turn this around and say that Kim Davis is being discriminated against based on her religious beliefs is understandable only if you believe that Kim Davis has the right to impose her religious beliefs on the people of her county who  have the legal right to wed.

Here's some interesting background I found while trying to understand Davis' reasoning.

1.  Davis has been a deputy county clerk for over 24 years, working under the chief clerk, her mother.
2.  Working for a relative is legal in Kentucky.  
3.  There were some challenges to her salary which was significantly greater than the deputy sheriff and chief judge deputy.  (I didn't see how long these two had been in office compared to Davis.)
4.  She's an Apostolic Christian.
5.  When her mother stepped down, Davis ran and won.  I'd note she beat her Democratic primary opponent by 23 votes, or by less than 1/2 percent.

From The Morehead News:

"The highest staff wage in 2011 – $63,113 – was paid to Bailey’s chief deputy clerk, Kim Davis, who also happens to be her daughter.     Davis is listed at $24.91 hourly for a 40-hour work week and an annual wage of $51,812. She received an additional $11,301 in overtime and other compensation during 2011.     Her rate of pay apparently triggered most of the complaints, The Morehead News has learned from various sources.     Kentucky law permits elected county officials to employ family members and to set their levels of pay. It is a common practice throughout the state."

 She has been married four times to three different men, according to US News and World Report. Wikipedia (which has put most of these references together) describes her marriages this way:

Davis has been married four times to three different husbands. Her second and fourth husbands are the same. The first three marriages ended in divorces in 1994, 2006, and 2008. She is the mother of twins, who were born five months after her divorce from her first husband in 1994. Her third husband is the biological father of her twins, who were adopted by her fourth husband, Joe.

Look, I'm not judging her here.  Love and marriage is hard to figure out, especially when you get married at 18.  We don't know what her circumstances were.  But I suspect this past, which is not the ideal of her new faith, puts some pressure on her to show that she is now truly committed, like standing firm for her idea of God's will in this case. 


She became an Apostolic Christian in 2011.  Their website may help people understand the stand she is taking. 

Apostolic Christian beliefs are rooted in a literal interpretation of the Bible. We believe that the Bible’s teachings are applicable to all times and all cultures.

I'm not sure this is how they mean it, but the words suggest that they believe that everyone should obey the doctrine they believe.  

Their doctrine might also help us understand why a woman who has had a somewhat turbulent married life might now be standing firm with her new beliefs:

We believe salvation is obtained by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. True faith is evidenced by obedience to God's Word, which instructs a soul to do as the Lord Jesus emphatically taught, "Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."¹ The biblical pattern of repentance is observed, which includes godly sorrow² for a past sinful life, confession of sins, restitution for past wrongs, and becoming dead to sin. The wonderful and matchless grace of God is given to those who are humble in heart, along with peace and forgiveness from God.
Following conversion, which is manifested by a new walk of life in Christ, the convert gives a testimony of his or her faith and conversion experience to the congregation. This is followed by water baptism by immersion.³ Baptism symbolizes the burial of the old sinful nature into the death of Christ, and the subsequent rising of a soul out of the baptismal waters as a new creature in Christ Jesus. This is followed by the laying on of hands, whereby a church elder prays over the new member. This prayer acknowledges and entreats the presence of the Holy Spirit in the believer's heart, and consecrates the new child of God into a life of service for him. The new member is thus formally united with the church, which is Christ's body.
Self-denial, separation from sin and unfruitful works, and nonconformity to worldliness are integral parts of the Christian walk of life and they lead to a life of peace and joy." [emphasis added]

 So as a convert to a religion that frowns on her former lifestyle, she could feel strongly compelled to stand firmly by the new teachings of the church.  We'll see whether this ultimately leads to peace and joy. 

The proper action for a government official whose religious beliefs are in conflict with his official duties is to either find an accommodation or resign from the position.  An accommodation was offered - allow others in the office to issue the licenses - and rejected by Davis.  Her key option now is to resign and find a job that is consistent with her religious values.

Another contributing factor may be the legal non-profit - Liberty Counsel - supporting her.  Other clerks in her situation apparently have found resolutions without resorting to lawsuits.    Raw Story reports that another right wing Christian legal non-profit that fights against same-sex marriage, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), has found solutions for their clients.

"Jim Campbell, an ADF lawyer, said his group has not consulted with Liberty Counsel on the Kentucky case and is not representing any county clerk in related litigation. Campbell said he worked with a few employees of county clerk offices outside Kentucky seeking to avoid issuing licenses to same-sex couples based on religion and said those situations were resolved within those offices and had not escalated to a lawsuits."

The RawStory article includes a comparison between the ADF and the Liberty Counsel:

Among those who support gay marriage, Liberty Counsel has a reputation for being more extreme than ADF.
“Liberty Counsel is among the most irresponsible of ‘Religious Right’ organizations,” said Greg Lipper, an attorney at Americans United for Separation of Church and State. “ADF at least tries to fit its legal arguments within existing law; Liberty Counsel openly flouts it.”

 It's hard for anyone to know what is in the heads of people like Liberty Counsel executive director Matthew Staver, a former law professor at the Jerry Falwell founded Liberty University.  To a certain extent, he probably believes his cause is right and just.  But possibly there's also a need to get attention.  Is Kim Davis a perfect client to make this losing case with?  Or is she an imperfect client who finds herself in way over her head?  Her life has been difficult already.  This may not be the best option for her future well being.  Right now she's in jail and Staver isn't.

And so called liberal organizations have also looked for good situations to make their legal and political points.  But this seems such a totally lost cause, so out of step with the law.  

Alaska is now the 30th state to accept Medicaid expansion

An email this afternoon from my Alaska State Rep, Andy Josephson says:

"Today, Alaska Governor Bill Walker announced plans to take advantage of federal funding to expand eligibility for Medicaid in Alaska. This action is supported by the Alaska Independent Democratic Coalition, which made Medicaid expansion a priority during the First Session of the 29th Alaska Legislature. Medicaid expansion comes with tremendous benefits including over a billion dollars in new federal revenue over the next six year, the creation of 4,000 jobs, and $1.2 billion in additional wages and salaries. Studies suggest Medicaid expansion would result in $2.49 billion in increased economic activity across Alaska.

There are multiple legal opinions showing that the Governor has the authority to expand Medicaid. Medicaid expansion is supported by the public and, I believe, a majority of lawmakers but that did not sway the Majority leadership, which refused to allow an up or down vote on the matter. I believe the Governor’s decision is justified based on the merits of the argument and the inaction of the Alaska Legislature. . . ."

The Republican leadership in the House and Senate in Juneau refused to pass this and fortunately Walker has found a way to do this administratively.  They have been and still are wrong on so many issues:  climate change, medicaid expansion, oil taxes, big construction projects, passing budgets that ignored warnings about declining oil revenues year after year, etc, etc. etc.  Influence from major donors/lobbyists (oil and construction particularly) or national far right wing pressure like the Koch's ALEC keep them from getting it right, from making decisions that benefit Alaska in the long term.   One can make micro-level arguments for many of the things they did or didn't do, but the long term evolution of things has proved their blindness to the larger issues.  

I make that fairly sweeping statement in light of this example of the Alaska Republicans who spearheaded the move for a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman and who fought the addition of lgbt folks to Anchorage's anti-discrimination ordinance:

"On Thursday, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission unanimously ruled that sexual orientation discrimination is already illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. As BuzzFeed's Chris Geidner reports, the EEOC's groundbreaking decision effectively declares that employment discrimination against gay, lesbian, and bisexual workers is unlawful in all 50 states."  [From Slate]

I guess the Anchorage ordinance has been effectively amended, at least in employment.  

And in light of Obama's visit to the Federal Correctional Institution El Reno near Oklahoma City to highlight the horrendous outcomes of the simplistic War on Drugs and Three Strikes You're Out programs which gave non-violent drug offenders long prison sentences.  This resulted in (Obama's stats) the US, with 5% of the world's population having 25% of the world's prisoners.  In ripping apart families, huge costs of prisons, and so many lives wasted behind bars.  And the Right's solution of privatizing governmental functions including prisons, meant there was now a new industry with a vested interest in expanding the prison population.  This is also in light of the legalization of marijuana in a number of states - both medical marijuana in many states and recreational marijuana in a few. 

For A Church To Get Kicked Out Of The Southern Baptist Convention They Have To Stop Sending Money Or Approve Of Homosexuality

The original title for this post was:  " Southern Baptists Declaration Of Defiance Perhaps Reflects Fear For Survival."   But as I kept researching this topic, I came to the startling discovery that there are only two conditions for which the Southern Baptist Convention explicitly says they'll cut off a church.  The post leads you to how I got there.  While the original title is, I think, probably accurate, the second title is, to me, more amazing.


For those media who mention the Southern Baptist Convention's (SBC) in Ohio, the attention seems focused on the statements of defiance of the law if the Supreme Court recognizes same-sex marriage this month (not a sure thing, by the way.) 

I saw a brief note in the Alaska Dispatch (here's a similar article from Herald Online because I can't find a link to the ADN article):

"Southern Baptists: We won’t obey gay marriage decision    COLUMBUS Officials with the Southern Baptist Convention on Wednesday issued a statement saying they will reject any ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that affirms same-sex marriage.    “We will not accept, nor adhere to, any legal redefinition of marriage issued by any political or judicial body including the United States Supreme Court,” said the joint statement by SBC President the Rev. Ronnie Floyd as well as past presidents."

My first reaction was puzzlement.  What exactly does this mean?

They will not accept or adhere to . . .   I don't see a Supreme Court decision for same sex marriage requiring them to do anything.   The ruling wouldn't require any Southern Baptist pastor to marry same sex couples.  It would not require Southern Baptists to marry same sex partners.  They could go on believing same-sex marriage and homosexuality are against God's word and they wouldn't have to participate. 

I looked for the whole statement to see if it would enlighten me.  I found it on other websites, but not the SBC's.  I even checked the SBC resolutions webpage.  I did find a website by Denny Burk who says that Mr. Burk was a co-author of the resolution and posts the whole resolution there.  I've also included it at the bottom of this post.

As I looked for the resolution, I found another page about a panel at the convention that discussed how  SBC  churches should minister to gay parishioners

"Christians should not undervalue the effect of love or the Gospel in relating to gays and lesbians, recognizing, however, that faithfulness to the biblical definition of marriage will prove costly, members of a special panel told messengers at the 2015 Southern Baptist Convention. [that's an exact quote]
During the Wednesday afternoon session (June 17), five panelists answered questions from SBC President Ronnie Floyd about how churches and pastors can minister in an American culture that increasingly approves of homosexuality and same-sex marriage." [emphasis added]

A year ago, I attended Jim Minnery's  "Love Your Gay Neighbor." night at Anchorage's East High.

What I heard at the Anchorage meeting last year, and see signs of in this discussion, are concerns about how the SBC can stay relevant in a society that, as they say in the quote above, "increasingly approves of homosexuality and same-sex marriage."  In Anchorage, visiting speakers argued that while the church embraces and attempts to help all other sinners, gays are simply rejected as irredeemable.  [Is this a tacit acknowledgment that they believe gays can't change?]  Instead, they argued, the church should embrace gays the way they do other sinners and help them fight their temptations  This panel at the SBC convention echoed that:

"Matt Carter, lead pastor of Austin Stone Community Church, said the Texas church is attempting "to train the believers who go to our church to pursue [lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender -- LGBT] people with the Gospel in the same way they would pursue anybody with the Gospel."

"We try to help our folks understand: 'These people are not your enemy.' Satan is our enemy. These are people that desperately need the blood and the love of Jesus Christ," Carter told messengers."

What I heard at the panel last year was that there was a need for change, not in the SBC's basic beliefs, but in how they talked about and approached lgbt folks.  I'm taking a leap here, but I'm guessing this statement the media are focused on has something to do with a division in the Convention itself. 

What exactly is a resolution at the Southern Baptist Convention?  From their website:

Resolutions differ from motions in that resolutions are non-binding statements that express the collective opinion of the messengers at a specific SBC annual meeting on a given subject. Covering a wide range of theological, social, and practical topics, resolutions educate our own people about important moral, ethical, and public policy issues; speak to the broader culture about our beliefs; and provide helpful tools for our churches and entities to speak with authority in the public square about the biblical application of timely and timeless matters. All past resolutions can be researched and read in their entirety at www.sbc.net/resolutions.

 In fact, the SBC website says that the SBC really isn't a church.  In their 'About Us' section I found:

"The Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) is not a church. It is a set of ministries supported by a network of cooperating Baptist churches.
These ministries include international and domestic missions, theological education, advocacy for religious liberty, literature production, insurance and retirement services for pastors and other church workers, and the infrastructure necessary to keep these cooperative efforts operational. Specifically, the Convention was created "to provide a general organization of Baptists in the United States and its territories for the promotion of Christian missions at home and abroad and any other objects such as Christian education, benevolent enterprises, and social services which it may deem proper and advisable for the futherance of the Kingdom of God" (SBC Constitution, Article II)."

The page goes on to discuss the level of autonomy of local churches. 

"Baptists have long held the principles of congregational self-governance, self-support, and selfpropagation. Local churches select their own staff, ordain their own ministers, adopt their own budgets, organize their own ministries, hold legal title to their own properties, and establish their own membership requirements. The Southern Baptist Convention does none of these, for it is not a “church” and it has no authority over the churches. In fact, the SBC “does not claim and will never attempt to exercise authority over any other Baptist body” (SBC Constitution, Article IV, emphasis supplied). The Convention does not ordain ministers, assign staff to churches, levy contributions, choose literature, adopt the church calendar, monitor or maintain church membership lists, or assign persons to churches according to place of residence. These are all local church prerogatives.

So, does the resolution have any power over individual churches?   The statement on Freedom and Flexibility continues:

Within the Body of Christ, there is a great diversity of gifts, temperament, taste and experience. Churches benefit from this range of qualities within their own fellowship and across the Convention. Churches learn from and complement each other. This is not a matter of moral or doctrinal compromise. You cannot believe and do just anything and remain a part of the Southern Baptist fellowship. All Baptist bodies have limits. But within those limits, there is room for significant cooperative diversity.  [Emphasis added.]

What are the limits?  In the FAQ section, they seem to tell us in their answer to the question:

"I believe our pastor (or my church) has acted inappropriately. What will the SBC do about it?

Actually, the Southern Baptist Convention is not in a position to take any disciplinary action regarding pastors or churches. Again, because of the autonomy of the local church, each SBC church is responsible before God to set its own policies regarding pastors or problems in the church. Such policies are entirely up to the individual congregation.
According to our constitution, if a church no longer makes a bona fide contribution to the Convention's work, or if it acts to "affirm, approve, or endorse homosexual behavior," it no longer complies with the Constitution of the Southern Baptist Convention and is not permitted to send messengers to the annual meeting. These, however, are the only explicitly stated instances in which the SBC has the prerogative to take action. Failure to remain in "friendly cooperation" would also disqualify a church from sending messengers, and is obviously more of a subjective test.
Most SBC churches would look to their own constitutions and bylaws for the answer to this question, often these documents address this very issue."  [emphasis added.]

Wow, only homosexuality is mentioned here, not even abortion, although it too is mentioned on their position statements page.   (That comes from Article III section 1 of their constitution. )


My guess is that this current statement is aimed more at member churches than the world-at-large.  If the local churches have so much autonomy, and if American attitudes toward homosexuality are changing rapidly, what will happen when local churches decide to accept homosexuality as other churches have done?  Will the SBC lose members and power?

This notion is supported by an article in Ecumenical News, from which I've taken these excerpts:

• With just under 15.5 million members, the Southern Baptist Convention remains the largest Protestant group in the United States. But it has lost about 800,000 members since 2003, when membership peaked at about 16.3 million, Christianity Today reported.
• The number of SBC baptisms has declined in eight of the past 10 years, according to the denomination, The Associated Press reported. In 2014, baptisms declined by more than 5,000 to just over 305,000.
• . . .  a new major survey from the Pew Research Center shows a similar decline for the SBC. In 2007, Pew found that about 6.7 percent of Americans claimed to be Southern Baptists. In 2014, 5.3 percent of Americans were Southern Baptists.
• Pew also found Southern Baptists are aging, with the median age rising from 49 in 2007 to 54 in 2014.

It seems there's some division within the ranks about the cause of the decline (still from the Ecumenical News):

•  "The truth is, we have less people in our churches who are giving less money because we are winning less people to Christ, and we are not training them in the spiritual disciplines of our Lord," [Frank Page, president of the SBC’s Nashville-based executive committee] told Baptist Press.
• Mark Woods wrote in the UK publication Christian Today, "With all due respect to Thom Rainer and Frank Page, it doesn't seem likely that the decline is down to a lack of prayer or effort.  "It may be something rather more fundamental: that the SBC label is associated with a kind of Christianity which is not attractive in the kind of country America is becoming, which is far more socially liberal than many evangelicals are comfortable with."

Thus it seems to me that with this declaration the hardliners on homosexuality are saying that they are still in charge of the SBC.  Others are advocating a softer approach to the lgbt community.  All recognize that their position on homosexuality is less popular with the general population than it was in the past and that this can cost them members, money, and political influence.   But I'm just speculating from the bits and pieces that I'm seeing here and there.  

There is a lot of information on their website.  Here's just one interesting, though not particularly related, tidbit.

The Southern Baptist website lists the number of 'messengers' at the convention in Columbus, Ohio from every state.  Alaska has eight, several states have one (Oregon, Maine, Vermont), and several states (Montana, North Dakota, and Rhode Island) aren't listed at all.  The top three states were host state, Ohio (714 messengers), Tennessee (459), and Kentucky (446).  Guam, Puerto Rico, and Washington DC also sent messengers. 

Here's the resolution posted at  Denny Burk's website.

 

RESOLUTION 5:

ON THE CALL TO PUBLIC WITNESS ON MARRIAGE

WHEREAS, God in His divine wisdom created marriage as the covenanted, conjugal union of one man and one woman (Genesis 2:18– 24; Matthew 19:4–6; Hebrews 13:4); and
WHEREAS, The Baptist Faith & Message (2000) recognizes the biblical definition of marriage as “the uniting of one man and one woman in covenant commitment for a lifetime,” stating further, “It is God’s unique gift to reveal the union between Christ and His church and to provide for the man and the woman in marriage the framework for intimate companionship, the channel of sexual expression according to biblical standards, and the means for procreation of the human race”; and
WHEREAS, God ordains government to promote and honor the public good and recognize what is praiseworthy (Romans 13:3–4); and
WHEREAS, The public good requires defining and defending marriage as the covenanted, conjugal union of one man and one woman; and
WHEREAS, Marriage is by nature a public institution that unites man and woman in the common task of bringing forth children; and
WHEREAS, The Supreme Court of the United States will rule in 2015 on whether states shall be required to grant legal recognition as “marriages” to same-sex partnerships; and
WHEREAS, The redefinition of marriage to include same-sex couples will continue to weaken the institution of the natural family unit and erode the religious liberty and rights of conscience of all who remain faithful to the idea of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife; and
WHEREAS, The Bible calls us to love our neighbors, including those who disagree with us about the definition of marriage and the public good; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Columbus, Ohio, June 16–17, 2015, prayerfully call on the Supreme Court of the United States to uphold the right of the citizens to define marriage as exclusively the union of one man and one woman; and be it further
RESOLVED, That Southern Baptists recognize that no governing institution has the authority to negate or usurp God’s definition of marriage; and be it further
RESOLVED, No matter how the Supreme Court rules, the Southern Baptist Convention reaffirms its unwavering commitment to its doctrinal and public beliefs concerning marriage; and be it further
RESOLVED, That the religious liberty of individual citizens or institutions should not be infringed as a result of believing or living according to the biblical definition of marriage; and be it further
RESOLVED, That the Southern Baptist Convention calls on Southern Baptists and all Christians to stand firm on the Bible’s witness on the purposes of marriage, among which are to unite man and woman as one flesh and to secure the basis for the flourishing of human civilization; and be it finally
RESOLVED, That Southern Baptists love our neighbors and extend respect in Christ’s name to all people, including those who may disagree with us about the definition of marriage and the public good.