Some Not So Random Shots At Pride Fest

We didn't get there until after 3pm.  It was a gray day with some light drizzle, but that had ended by the time we got there.




We found ourselves standing next to the No on Prop 1 booth which was right next to the BP Booth.  That got me thinking about who else had booths.  Here are a few.







The Yes on 1 folks had a booth too, but by the time I got around to getting their picture it was almost 5pm and a lot of booths were already being dismantled.






US House candidate Forrest Dunbar was talking with the operations manager for the Alaska Workers Association, Barbara Sarantitis at the AWA booth.

AWA works with low-paid workers and their newsletter says

"AWA members cooperate year-round in organizing a self-help free-of charge Benefit Program that includes emergency food, cloting, preventive medical care, legal advice, non-emergency dental care . . ."

The Evangelical Lutheran Church of America was there letting people know that LGBT folks were welcome at their church.  I didn't see Jim Minnery and his Love Your Gay Neighbor campaign.

Darrel Hess was staffing the Anchorage Equal Rights Commission and Ombudsman table.

The Anchorage International Film Festival had a booth to promoting the GayLa part of the festival.  Three AIFF heavy weights were at the booth when I got there:  Laura Moscatello, the general manager,  and board members Rich Curtner, and Dean Franklin,  who is also their web manager. 

The National Park Service was there as well. 

Having Daughters Makes Men More Liberal

There are several studies here that support this contention.  The most recent is February 14, 2014 paper, Identifying Judicial Empathy:  Does Having Daughters Cause Judges to Rule for Women's Issues?  by Adam Glynn and Maya Sen.

Abstract

In this paper, we ask whether personal relationships can affect the way that judges decide cases. To do so, we leverage the natural experiment of a child's gender to identify the effect of having daughters on the votes of judges. Using new data on the family lives of U.S. Courts of Appeals judges, we find that, conditional on the number of children a judge has, judges with daughters consistently vote in a more feminist fashion on gender issues than judges who have only sons. This result survives a number of robustness tests and appears to be driven primarily by Republican judges. More broadly, this result demonstrates that personal experiences influence how judges make decisions, and it is the first paper to show that empathy may indeed be a component in how judges decide cases.

This follows a 2008 study,  Daughters and Left-Wing Voting by  Andrew J. Oswald

and Nattavudh Powdthavee

What determines human beings’ political preferences? Using nationally representative longitudinal data, we show that having daughters makes people more likely to vote for left-wing political parties. Having sons leads people to favor right-wing parties. The paper checks that our result is not an artifact of family stopping-rules, discusses the predictions from a simple economic model, and tests for possible reverse causality.

 Oswald and Powdthavee reference two earlier studies.

Warner (1991) and Warner and Steel(1999) study American and Canadian mothers and fathers.  The authors’ key finding is that support for policies designed to address gender equity is greater among parents with daughters. This result emerges particularly strongly for fathers. Because parents invest a significant amount of themselves in their children, the authors argue, the anticipated and actual struggles that offspring face, and the public policies that tackle those, matter to those parents.

In the words of Warner and Steel (1999), “child rearing might provide a mechanism for social change whereby fathers' connection with their daughters undermines ...patriarchy”.

All this comes originally from a link to MetaFilter sent by a close relative.  The comments at MetaFilter offer lots of interesting follow up thoughts, particularly warnings that these are statistical predictions, and, of course, you will be able to find individual cases that don't seem to bear this out.  Someone pointed to Antonin Scalia who has four daughters.  But another pointed out that the study says the prediction doesn't work when there are more than five children. (Wikipedia says Scalia also has five sons.)

This makes sense in that when people know people in other conditions well, they are more likely to sympathize with their situation.  From a Harvard Magazine artilce on How Same-Sex Marriage Came to Be:

"Perhaps the most important was that the proportion of Americans who reported knowing someone gay increased from 25 percent in 1985 to 74 percent in 2000. Knowing gay people strongly predicts support for gay rights; a 2004 study found that 65 percent of those who reported knowing someone gay favored gay marriage or civil unions, versus just 35 percent of those who reported not knowing any gays."

 I couldn't find a citation in the article for the 2000 study, but here are some longitudinal data on the these questions from Gallup.

Food for thought.  Thanks to S

Love Your Gay Neighbor Night At East High - Minnery Tries Out A New Approach

Jim Minnery of the Alaska Family Action which includes the Alaska Family Council was holding a Love Your Gay Neighbor Q&A Friday night at East High and although I was tired, it seemed like something I should attend.  I've already posted a short video of the question and answer to: What should I do if my son says he's gay and wants to bring his partner to a family function?

In 2012 Minnery led a successful campaign to stop GLBT folks from being added to the Anchorage Anti-Discrimination ordinance.

There were two couches, for panelists, and narrator Jim Minnery.

Click to Enlarge A Lot

Panelists (left to right)

Peter Hubbard - pastor and author of Love Into Light:  The Gospel, the Homosexual, and the Church.  (I looked for a different link from the previous post, but couldn't find a better one.)  The book argues for the church to find better ways to deal with GLBT parishioners.

Andrew Walker - Is a policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation and the director of policy studies at the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission.  (Yes, the Heritage Foundation is the place that former Jim DeMint left the US Senate for.  And some think destroyed its credibility.)

Minnery is in the middle.  It gets more interesting though.

Jeff Johnston - who works at Focus on the Family.  He talked about his former gay life and how he got back to the church.  He now is married to a woman, though he doesn't deny he still has same-sex attractions.  The link is a radio interview that - in the beginning - covers much of how he introduced himself last night.  He said he was not ex-gay or gay. 

Melinda Selmys-   She described herself as a lesbian who broke up with her long time girlfriend when she converted to Catholicism.  She is now married to a man, though she still calls herself a lesbian.

Hubbard and Walker both sounded genuinely committed to love and being welcoming to LGBT folks, but also strongly committed to church doctrine.  Johnston seemed like he was still figuring out who he was and I found his generalizing from his personal experience to all gay men problematic, even though he did recognize everyone is not the same.  Selmys sounded the most grounded in a reality that I could recognize.  


Here's my short take on what I heard

Overall, it sounded like a genuine search for a way to change the church's approach to LGBT issues while staying true to 'biblical truth' (a term I heard a lot that night.) 

1.    Homosexuality has been treated as a special class of irredeemable sin by evangelical churches.  While we helped all other sinners struggle to overcome their issues, we assumed that LGBT folks were beyond God's grace and treated them differently.

2.   But homosexuality is no different from other sins.  From the link to a review of Hubbard's book by Tim Challies:

The gospel makes all the difference and the gospel is exactly what Fred Phelps and so many others have thrown away in their misguided, hate-filled attempts to address homosexuality. “If our attitude toward a gay or lesbian person is disgust, we have forgotten the gospel. We need to remember the goodness and lovingkindness that God poured out on us. God should have looked at us and been disgusted. Instead, without condoning our sin, He loved us and saved us. And I want everyone to know that kind of love!”

3.   We must love our kids, yet also tell them the biblical truth.  Hubbard distinguished between family relationships and church discipline.

4.  Homosexuality is still a sin and having gay sex is not condoned.


What Does This All Mean?

I couldn't help wondering what Minnery's motivation was for bringing these people here.  I also was wondering if this meant that he was having second thoughts on his fight against  Proposition 5 [to add LGBT to the Anchorage Anti-Discrimination ordinance] in 2012.

Prop 5
This question came up in the discussion.  My notes are pretty rough, but this is what I have down for Minnery's comments:

Prop 5 was a hornets' nest; it's the reason I'm having this conference.  We hurt a lot of people.
If there was any business that would deny service to LGBT person, I'd be the first to [defend the LGBT right to service] 

I'd note how easily people can use phrases like "I'd be the first . . . "  There are a lot of people who have already been doing that for years and years.  It's a little presumptuous for Minnery to claim he'd be the first here.  Especially since he led to the fight to keep LGBT people off anti-discrimination ordinance.  Though I'd guess that this phrase just popped into Minnery's head and if he had time to think about it, he would agree with me and say he didn't mean it literally. 

There's a little more, he clarified a little.

But it's different for some issues - marriage, adoption - where the law requires [businesses]  to [serve someone in a situation that violates their religious beliefs].  That crosses the line.

He also made some comments - to explain what Prop 5 was - including a description of the tv commercials they made that suggested day care centers and schools would be required to hire transgender people with the implication transgender people were a reater danger to your children than other people.   As he talked about it, I couldn't be certain, but it seemed more like he was talking about something he was proud of than sorry about.

Minnery's Motivation

A little background first:   The advantage of being some place a long time is that you know a lot of people. I talked to Rick Benjamin, the former pastor at Abbot Loop Community Church, at the break.  I'd gotten to know him when I was helping the Anchorage Ethics Board rewrite the Ethics Code.  (Much of the work was undone later by Muni attorneys.)  I had grown to like and respect Rick and met with him after that work was done so I could ask questions I had about evangelicalism.  One of the things he told me was that issues like abortion and gay rights were not big issues in the church when he was growing up and he thought they became big issues because pastors found that when they talked about them, people gave the church a lot of money.  Friday night Rick offered to introduce me to Jim Minnery.  But we couldn't find him.

After the discussion, Minnery was walking up the aisle and so I went up to him and waited for him to finish talking to someone.  Rich Mauer of the Anchorage Daily News came over introduced me to Minnery and we talked for a few minutes.  I asked about his motivation to host this event.  Our culture is changing, he said.  I asked if he meant church culture or overall culture.  Overall.  And he repeated what he'd said about Prop. 5.  It released a hornets' nest and he realized that a lot of people got hurt.   He said, We won, but we didn't really win.  I asked if he was a competitive person.  I was reminded of a dean who told me his son complained that he was too competitive.  The dean then told me that he did see everything as a contest and he played to win.  It explained a lot of things that I hadn't understood before.  I'm not that kind of person.  I care about ideas and issues, but not about winning personally.  I asked Minnery if he was a competitive person and he said, something like, well, sure.  What I meant, I continued, winning was an important part of defeating Prop 5 and his eyes seemed to light up a bit and he said, of course.  I don't want to project anything onto him that isn't there, but I wonder how many people (probably more men than women) fight hard to win, even if the issue isn't that important.  Or if when they get into a contest, even if they realize a victory will do harm, winning is still more important.

I told him I'd felt a little reluctant to talk to him, but I knew I should, and he invited me to contact him to follow up.  So I will put that on my list of things to do.  Because I still have a lot of questions, which I try to describe now.

Why this change?

Let's look at Minnery's comment that culture is changing.  Peter Hubbard's Love Into Light website has a page on how to respond to last year's  same-sex marriage Supreme Court decision.  Hubbard is strongly opposed to same sex marriage:

Every serious sociological study has concluded that a child does best with his natural father and mother. Of course, the presence of a natural father and mother is not always possible, but a society that legalizes same-sex marriage is codifying dysfunction and intentionally dismantling the family. This dismantling paves the way for every kind of sociological malady. As the meaning of marriage is stretched to near meaninglessness, polygamy and incest will eventually be recognized as “marriage.” If marriage is the government’s way of recognizing love, then on what basis can any government declare two or more sincere people unmarriageable? Marriage, friendship and “shacking up” have all been convoluted. No one can explain the legal difference. And children will pay the price for our country’s moral suicide. This makes us sad.

There's a lot to quibble with.  I'd agree that in the ideal world being raised with one's natural parents would be best.  But

• not all natural parents are good parents.  
• people other than birth parents can be better sometimes
• not all birth parents stick around and there are lots of single mom's and a growing number of single dad's who have no choice
• there are often lots of male or female friends and relatives who can be role models for kids being raised by same-sex couples if that's as big an issue as Peter (and Jeff in the discussion) think it is.  I think it's worth talking about, but don't see it as crucial.
• allowing same-sex marriage doesn't automatically open marriage to other configurations - it's still just two people
• while he cites reputable sociological studies on marriage, he ignores reputable psychological and biological studies of homosexuality.  We can cite, he seems to say, science when it supports the bible, but when it doesn't support the bible we reject it.
• same-sex marriage opponents have said they were fine with marriage equivalent arrangements that weren't called marriage.  In that case the quibble is only about the word marriage.  Not about 'codifying dysfunction.' 
• Religions are free to marry or not marry whomever they choose, but I don't see why they should be able to dictate what people not part of their religion can do
• Actually, other religions cannot marry whomever they choose because even though Islam allows for more than one wife, that is illegal in the United States. 

Basically, to deny same-sex marriage on the grounds that kids should be in a perfect natural parent family is to ignore that a lot of families already don't work that way.

But Peter, at least, doesn't ignore that entirely.  In the talk and on his website, he says that the church had already trashed heterosexual marriage.

"We paved the way for gay marriage by watering down the meaning of marriage through our immorality, selfishness and the culture of divorce in our churches."

So Evangelical Christians seem to be facing a dilemma.   Tim Challies, the book reviewer I cited above, is a pastor in Ontario, Canada.  He writes in the review of Hubbard's book:

It seems inevitable that same-sex marriage will soon be legalized across America; it has been the law in Canada for several years now. Meanwhile the acceptance and celebration of homosexuality is becoming a cultural shibboleth, a means of determining who has a voice worth hearing and who does not.

What I hear in this, and other things I read online, is that now that homosexuality is becoming culturally and legally accepted, the evangelical church has to figure out a way to get rid of its gay bashing past. 

Option one is to reinterpret the scriptures and find a way to 'discover' that homosexuality is not a sin.  Perhaps science has supplanted what was known at the time the bible was written down.  They discussed Matthew Vine's book, God and the Gay Christian, which apparently does find ways to make the bible and homosexuality compatible.  Walker pretty much trashed Vine's thinking in the discussion.  (I found a review of Vine's book by Walker here.)

Option two is to treat LGBT folks with love, but not compromise biblical truths.  I understand that approach, because it's like the one I tried to take as a teacher - treat my students with warmth and respect, but still hold them to high academic standards.  But in the church, it still means labeling them as sinners.  We still love you and will help you find God's grace.

They even had one now married (to a woman) formerly gay man and one Lesbian who is now married to a man.   What was that all about?  It seems it was to show that you can stop acting on your same-sex attraction when you have something more meaningful.  I'd note I can believe both their stories - they didn't deny they still had same-sex attractions -  but their path wouldn't work for everyone.  And the panelists acknowledged this.  Some LGBT folks would have to stay single and celibate. 

So, is this because they are remembering their Christian principles of love?  Or simply a way to keep the church relevant in modern America?   I suspect that it's both.  For some people more of one than the other.

Angels Dancing On The Head Of A Pin

I'm amazed as I watch the dedication of people living in 2014 to this book that was written over a span of more than a thousand years starting over 3000 years ago by people who lived in worlds so totally different from our world today.  I also wonder at what it takes to believe in such a book as the literal and absolute moral truth.  I can easily read it as metaphorically telling us morals through stories - like Aesop's Fables or how some Alaska Native cultures use stories to teach proper behavior.

The idea that the literal word of the bible is the ultimate test of right and wrong just doesn't work for me.  With so many different bibles written in so many different languages, how does one even know the literal bible?  Do we take a Hebrew bible?  One written in Aramaic?  Greek?  Latin?  English?  And of these, which translation?  And which interpretation?

And I'm constantly struck by what seem to me to be inconsistencies.  Something like homosexuality is blown up for a time as a particularly egregious sin.  Yet other biblical 'abominations' such as eating shellfish are ignored.  And I don't hear US evangelicals calling for the stoning of adulterers.   Nor do I hear much complaint about violations of the Fourth Commandment.  (Aren't the Ten Commandments the most important laws?)  Do you see any evangelicals railing against businesses that are open on Sunday?

Science seems to be brought in when it supports biblical truth.  Hubbard, in the quote above, cites sociology to support the notion "that a child does best with his natural father and mother."  But what do they do with psychological and biological science on homosexuality that doesn't support their biblical truth? 

I guess for me, it boils down to letting everyone follow their own religious beliefs.  The problem arises when they want to impose those beliefs on others.  Evangelicals shouldn't practice homosexuality or have same-sex marriages.  But they also should NOT impose their beliefs on others.  And when we have conflicts between the religious (or non-religious) beliefs of people, we have to sift through the issues to determine which person is most harmed.  So, if a wedding photographer who doesn't believe in same-sex marriage is asked to photograph a same sex marriage - we have to parse whose rights are more violated.

I didn't have an official photographer at my wedding so I don't personally feel a wedding photographer is critical to getting married.  But for people who believe in the whole big wedding package - including wedding photographers - a wedding without a photographer isn't a wedding.  Such a photographer isn't being asked to perform a wedding or even worse, get married to a same-sex partner.  But I can understand a photographer believing that her photos of a same-sex wedding would be a form of supporting, even promoting, an act she felt was wrong.  But I can also see a same-sex couple - especially one living in a small town where there is only one photographer - feeling they are being discriminated against because of their sexual orientation, no differently than if a restaurant refused service based on that.

Life is full of conflicts and reasonable people can work them out.    In this situation, a photographer ought to be able to suggest other professional photographers who would do the job.  A gay couple would probably not want someone who wasn't supportive to take the photos of their wedding. 

You can see the issues raised Friday night can lead one down countless paths and we could go on and on exploring them.  But I did think it significant that evangelicals now see their harsh treatment of LGBT folks as a liability and are now trying to figure out how to jettison that approach yet stay consistent with their version of biblical truth.

When I talked to Minnery, he'd said that Ethan Berkowitz, on his talk show, asked Minnery if this was "A Gentler, Kinder Bigotry."  I had been thinking, as I sat in the audience, if this was a "gentler, kinder evangelicalism."  If one is committed to the literal word of the bible as one's moral truth, and your reading of that bible leads to an understanding that homosexuality is a sin, then you are stuck with that conclusion.  I respect that, up to the point that your chosen path to the truth begins to harm the lives of other people.  I think that the defeat of Prop 5 caused harm to LGBT people in Anchorage.  Fortunately, most people don't believe that truth should cause them to treat GLBT folks differently than other folks.  But enough do to make LGBT people fearful that they could lose their jobs or find a suitable place to live if they disclose their sexual orientation.  That's a heavy burden to live with every day. 


[UPDATE 10:40pm:  Here's a view of the Saturday meeting in the Valley from Alaska Commons by Julien Jolivette who writes:

". . . I am a baptized Catholic, and made a fervent foray into conservative evangelicalism as a teenager. But I felt that my past did not prepare me for the experience of being a queer agnostic walking into an event titled “Loving My Gay Neighbor' . . .”]

Anti-Gay Rights Ordinance Fighter, Jim Minnery Asks: "What do you do when your child declares himself to be gay and wants to bring his partner to a family gathering?"

The Alaska Family Action hosted a discussion Friday night entitled: Loving My Gay Neighbor.

Jim Minnery is the Anchorage incarnation of the gay equivalent devil after he successfully led two campaigns to stop LGBT folks from being added to Anchorage's anti-discrimination ordinance.  His Alaska Family Council has been tied to the Koch brothers.  And now he's talking about loving his gay neighbors.  I needed to hear this.

I have a lot to write about this, but I want to take my time and think it through - what I saw and what it might mean.

But meanwhile, here's a little video of the answer to a question Jim Minnery posed to the panel.  The main answer comes from Andrew Walker.  Here's a short bio and discussion with Andrew Walker and here are some of his writings that I could find online.





Here's my transcript of the video.  A few parts were hard to hear, but I think this is pretty accurate.

Q:  What do you do when your child declares himself to be gay and wants to bring his partner to a family gathering?


Andrew Walker:  I would say, this is not me saying, “Thus said the Lord . . .” but “Thus said Walker . . .”

I would say there’s no point which you stop loving the child, showing grace to a child  who has rejected the biblical truth of the teachings on these issues. 

If that were my child, off the collar, identifying as same-sex or gay, homosexual, . . .I would do what I could to communicate the biblical truth to that child, to love that child. 

I have a son and a daughter and another on the way, so I could be experiencing this myself.

I would say, out of love, you should allow that child to bring the partner.  In so far as they both want to come, you have the ability to freely express your values  . .

One of my mentors recently told me that he [had] someone in his office and he says, “Hey, my daughter is in a gay marriage and they have a child by artificial insemination and I love my daughter, ??? where I stand.  I love this child who is now my grandchild.  I want to influence that child’s life, but I feel that some in my church don’t want me to be extending so much love supposedly not caring about the the lifestyle situation they’re in.  And my mentor said, “No. Love. Love, grace. Grace and Truth.   Bring them to the house.  Love that child.  Be a model father for that child. So, that’s what I would do in that situation. 

I would be interested in your (Peter’s) comments as well.

Peter Hubbard:  I agree.  We have been asked that questions, at various levels, consistently, in our church.  So with that many people, that size group, you’re going to have a lot of family connections, with a variety of moral choices.  I believe you have to distinguish between church discipline and family relationships. The fact that a wife has a husband who, for whatever reason, is under discipline from the church, doesn’t mean she has nothing to do with her husband.  The same would be true for children, I believe.

 A major issue, as I understand it, for many young gays, is fear of how their families will react to their identifying as gay and this, if you listen to Dan Savage at all, seems to be particularly problematic among fundamentalist families.

So, in one respect, this is a very positive development - love your child first.  And Peter's explicit distinction between family relationships and church discipline.

But, they all see homosexuality through what they call "biblical truth" and that means homosexuality is a still a sin.  A key note in the discussion last night was that homosexuality has been singled out as a special sin for which there is no redemption.  Peter mentioned that while people would publicly share their struggles with a variety of sins - drugs, promiscuity, pornography - he realized no one had every publicly shared their struggle with same sex attraction.  This particularly sin was treated as irredeemable, that homosexuals had been given over by God and were no longer candidates for grace.

He talked about changing that in his church and his book, according to a reviewer Jim Challies, puts the sin of homosexuality in line with all the other sins. 

Hubbard writes as a pastor, as a counselor and as a man deeply marked by the gospel of divine grace extended toward human sin. He insists that the gospel makes all the difference, for before the cross we are all the same, we are all sinners, we are all in desperate need of grace. He says, “We need Spirit-empowered love to move toward those struggling with [same sex attraction] without despising or excusing their sin, because their sin is our sin—our hearts are no different! … My sin always seems reasonable to me, and your sin inexcusable. Left to myself, I can find a way to justify anything I really want, and the choices I make can hurt the people I most love.”

This is just over three minutes of a three hour discussion.  I'll post more soon.

[UPDATE May 12:  Here's the follow up: Love Your Gay Neighbor Night At East High - Minnery Tries Out A New Approach  

Mississippi Is State With Highest Percent of Same-Sex Couples With Kids

I was looking for a good April Fool's story, but I don't think I could beat this real one. 

From a Washington Post story "Helping the black family through gay marriage" came some surprising statistics.

Table From Washington Post

Note:  Nearly all these states have passed constitutional amendments banning same sex marriage, and in some cases, civil unions as well.  Some were overturned by the courts.

Information for the chart below is from Wikipedia.

State	Same Sex Marriage Ban	Same Sex Marriage & Civil Union Ban	Ban Overturned by Court
Mississippi	√
Wyoming
Alaska	√
Arkansas		√
Texas			√
Louisiana		√
Oklahoma			√
Kansas		√
Alabama		√
Montana	√
South Dakota		√
South Carolina		√

The article  mainly focuses on black same sex couples.  It also challenges the belief that gay couples tend to be wealthier than straight couples.  You can read the whole piece here.

As Michigan Judge Allows Gay Marriage, Good To Remember Alaskans Who Sowed Seeds 20 Years Ago

A federal judge struck down Michigan's ban on gay marriage.  As most breathing Americans know, this is just one more in a string of such decisions in states including Utah, Texas, and Kentucky, and following the US Supreme Court decision last year.

In light of this, it's useful to remember that Gene Dugan and Jay Brause, an Anchorage couple then, sued the State of Alaska over this same issue back in 1994.

From Religious Tolerance:

"The plaintiffs asked that the existing Marriage Code be declared unconstitutional because it violates two rights guaranteed by the Alaska constitution: their rights to privacy (their right to be let alone) and their rights of equal protection. Wagstaff pointed out that there are over 100 state statutes that provide rights and protections to married couples which are not available to homosexuals who live together in a permanent partnership. The Alaska Constitution forbids gender-based discrimination, yet is withholding privileges from Brause and Dugan solely because of they are both male."

From Superior Court judge Peter Michalski's ruling:

"It is the duty of the court to do more than merely assume that marriage is only, and must only be, what most are familiar with. In some parts of our nation mere acceptance of the familiar would have left segregation in place. In light of Brause and Dugan's challenge to the constitutionality of the relevant statutes, this court cannot defer to the legislature or familiar notions when addressing this issue." He ruled that "marriage, i.e., the recognition of one's choice of a life partner, is a fundamental right. The state must therefore have a compelling interest that supports its decision to refuse to recognize the exercise of this fundamental right by those who choose same-sex partners rather than opposite-sex partners."

This was not the first such ruling in the US.  Hawaiian courts had also found no reason to ban same-sex marriage.  Thus the last two states admitted into the union, were the first to recognize same sex marriage.  But it wasn't to last.  In Hawaii and in Alaska constitutional amendments limiting marriage to one man and one woman passed and in both states the courts bowed to the new constitutional language.

Alaska's a small state and people tend to know each other.  I've met a lot of people that I write about.  In the case of Brause and Dugan and Judge Michalski, I should say that I know them well enough that I've eaten dinner at their homes.  But that doesn't change the facts that Alaska was on the forefront of attempting to legalize same-sex marriage.  What's different is inside the brains of the American public, including the judges who are ruling. 

In a recent post a commenter challenged my trying to understand the thinking of people with whom I disagree.  This shift in the way people think about same-sex marriage is, for me, evidence that such theoretical speculation pays off.  But, of course, it also needs a lot of other. more action-oriented strategies by many different people. Minds have changed radically in the last 20 years. 

I would note that Jay and Gene couldn't wait for Alaska to change and moved to the UK where they could get married.  And Jay, using the more formal version of his name, Jacob, is a regular and thoughtful commenter on this blog.

I know that each positive court decision helps salve the wounds they received in their battle, which seemed so Quixotic at the time.  They know that their fight in Alaska did help set the groundwork for the victories in recent years.  And it's one of those quirks of life I find so amazing, that they can walk around London (or wherever they happen to be) without anyone knowing the historic role they have played.  But you can read about it in detail at Religious Tolerance.  Judge Michalski is now retired, but he too, can rest easy, knowing that he made a decision back in the dark ages, that would eventually be recognized as the right decision.  And then there's former Sen. Lyda Greene who helped keep Alaska in the dark ages by sponsoring the Constitutional Amendment limiting marriage to one man and one woman.

You can read Judge Michalski's decision here.

Note:  Since I drafted this yesterday and slept on it before posting, 300 couples have married in Michigan before a Federal judge put a stay on further marriages pending appeal. 

UPDATE: Brewer Vetoes Bill - "Substantially motivated by a religious belief, whether or not the exercise is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief."

UPDATE 10:29 pm:  Gov. Brewer vetoed the bill.  She said:

"To the supporters of the legislation, I want you to know that I understand that long-held norms about marriage and family are being challenged as never before. Our society is undergoing many dramatic changes," she said. "However, I sincerely believe that Senate Bill 1062 has the potential to create more problems than it purports to solve. It could divide Arizona in ways we cannot even imagine and no one would ever want.

"Religious liberty is a core American and Arizona value. So is non-discrimination."]  [Thanks JB for heads up in comments.]

 Beginning of Original Post:

"'Exercise of religion' means the PRACTICE OR OBSERVANCE OF RELIGION, INCLUDING THE ability to act or refusal to act in a manner substantially motivated by a religious belief, whether or not the exercise is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief."

That comes from the definition section of Arizona SB 1062 that's just passed the Arizona legislature and is awaiting Gov. Jan Brewer's signature as I write this. 

"Substantially motivated by a religious belief, whether or not the exercise is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief."  

That sounds incredibly broad to me.            

Arizona channel 15 offers  a little more info on the bill.

Here are some questions this raises for me. 

1.  How does one test whether a behavior is motivated by a religious belief or by some other personal feeling?  

Is the person motivated by a strong religious belief or is it merely a personal dislike?  There are so many problematic behaviors listed in holy books of various religions, that one is likely to find a way to interpret the religious text to support something you find repugnant.  In the 1800's abolitionists and slave owners both used the bible to support their positions.


I've just finished reading Tom Kizzia's Pilgrim's Wilderness about the huge family that settled in at Kennecott Mine in Wrangle-St. Elias National Park.  Papa Pilgrim quoted the scriptures to justify beating his children and having sex with his daughter.   Ultimately, the court didn't agree with him, but his daughter was almost 30 years old before he was convicted and people had given Papa Pilgrim the benefit of the doubt on many things because the family was very religious.

How do we know this isn't simply someone using religion to justify their own personal prejudices?  


2.  But why should this stop with gays and lesbians?   

The law, as I understand it, is particularly aimed at allowing people to refuse to serve LGBT folks, in reaction to a photographer who lost a lawsuit after refusing to take wedding pictures of a gay couple. 


There are lots of religious prohibitions in various religious faiths that could potentially give someone an excuse to refuse service to someone.   How about signs like this outside shops?

How does anyone know that someone fits one of these categories?  Some may be obvious by appearance.  Others because of what they tell us or because it's community knowledge.  But others would likely be able to pass as ok. 


In fact, we could add another closely related question:

3.  How do we even know something is a religious belief?
 
What are the beliefs of Christianity? That isn't a facetious question. In the Vatican, among Cardinals of the Catholic church, there are debates about how to interpret and practice their faith.What about other Christian denominations?

I was told by one Babtist preacher that anyone could start a church.  The key factor was that he attracted a congregation that supported him.  If that's the case, then anyone can make up anything and call it a religion.  

To get a sense of the impossibility of all this, just look at Wikipedia's list of the largest Christian denominations (see bottom of post.)  Wikipedia says there are 33,000 different Protestant denominations!


4.  The shopkeeper isn't being asked to perform any forbidden activities, just to do business with people who may have performed an activity, which by their own religious convictions, is allowable, and which by law is allowable.  

People do business and socialize with adulterers and cheats and thieves all the time.  Sometimes they know it, often not.  And as long as they donate lots of money, religious institutions have no trouble embracing them and looking the other way.  Jesus Christ interacted with all folks.  I understand that evangelical faiths are supposed to be out among the unbelievers so they can bring them salvation.  Banning them from their businesses would seem to be against their faith.



These are some of the complications a law like this raises.  In the next post, I will talk about why this and the many anti-gay, anti-abortion, and other hot-button social legislation are all intended to polarize the population, waste of valuable political credibility and time, and distract from the real issues of the economic pillaging of the American middle class.


Wikipedia's List of Christian Denominations

[This list of just Christian groups, which doesn't include all the 30,000 different Protestant denominations, suggests that anyone could find anything in the bible and claim a religious belief to justify anything.  There's almost no provable difference between personal belief and religious belief.]

<sup>Largest denominations in the world
Catholicism - 1.2 billion

A map of Catholicism by population percentage.
Catholic Church - 1,166 million[1]
Latin Church - 1,149 million
Eastern Catholic Churches - 17 million
Alexandrian Rite
Ethiopian Catholic Church - 0.2 million[2]
Coptic Catholic Church - 0.2 million[2]
Antiochene Rite
Maronite Catholic Church - 3.1 million[2]
Syro-Malankara Catholic Church - 0.4 million[2]
Syriac Catholic Church - 0.1 million[2]
Armenian Rite
Armenian Catholic Church - 0.4 million[2]
Chaldean Rite
Syro-Malabar Catholic Church - 3.8 million[2]
Chaldean Catholic Church - 0.4 million[2]
Byzantine Rite
Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church - 4.3 million[2]
Melkite Greek Catholic Church - 1.3 million[2]
Romanian Catholic Church - 0.7 million[2]
Ruthenian Catholic Church - 0.5 million[2]
Hungarian Greek Catholic Church - 0.3 million[2]
Slovak Greek Catholic Church - 0.2 million[2]
Italo-Albanian Catholic Church - 0.1 million[2]
Belarusian Greek Catholic Church - 0.1 million[2]
Georgian Byzantine Catholic Church - 0.01 million[3]
Albanian Byzantine Catholic Church - 0.01 million[2]
Bulgarian Greek Catholic Church - 0.01 million[2]
Croatian Greek Catholic Church - 0.01 million[2]
Greek Byzantine Catholic Church - 0.01 million[2]
Macedonian Greek Catholic Church - 0.01 million[2]
Russian Greek Catholic Church - 0.01 million[2]
Breakaway Catholic Churches - 25 million




This section's factual accuracy is disputed. (November 2012)
Philippine Independent Church - 6 million[4]
Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association - 5 million[5]
Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church - 5 million[6]
Old Catholic Church - 0.6 million
Society of St. Pius X - 0.5 million
Polish National Catholic Church - 0.025 million
Protestantism - 600–800 million




. . . However, the 33,000 Protestant denominations in the world differ vastly to slightly theologically and do not form a single communion.
Historical Protestantism - 331 million
Baptist churches - 100 million[10]
Southern Baptist Convention - 16.3 million[11]
National Baptist Convention, USA, Inc. - 8.5 million[12]
National Baptist Convention of America, Inc. - 3.1 million[12]
Nigerian Baptist Convention - 2.5 million[12]
Progressive National Baptist Convention - 2.5 million[12]
Baptist General Convention of Texas - 2.3 million[12]
Baptist Union of Uganda - 1.5 million[12]
American Baptist Churches USA - 1.4 million[12]
Brazilian Baptist Convention - 1.3 million[12]
Baptist Bible Fellowship International - 1.2 million[13]
Baptist Community of the Congo River - 1 million[12]
National Primitive Baptist Convention of the U.S.A. - 1 million[13]
National Missionary Baptist Convention of America - 1 million
Myanmar Baptist Convention - 0.9 million[12]
Samavesam of Telugu Baptist Churches - 0.8 million[14]
Korea Baptist Convention - 0.8 million[12]
Baptist Convention of Kenya - 0.8 million[12]
Council of Baptist Churches in Northeast India - 0.6 million[15]
Cooperative Baptist Fellowship - 0.5 million[12]
Nagaland Baptist Church Council - 0.5 million[12]
Baptist Convention in Tanzania - 0.5 million[12]
Orissa Evangelical Baptist Crusade - 0.5 million[12]
Baptist General Association of Virginia - 0.5 million[12]
National Baptist Convention (Brazil) - 0.4 million[12]
Church of Christ in Congo–Baptist Community of Congo - 0.4 million[16]
Convention of Philippine Baptist Churches - 0.3[12]
American Baptist Association - 0.3 million[17]
Union of Baptist Churches in Rwanda - 0.3 million[12]
Association of Baptist Churches in Rwanda - 0.3 million[12]
Garo Baptist Convention - 0.2 million[12]
Baptist Community of Western Congo - 0.2 million[12]
Baptist Missionary Association of America - 0.2 million[18]
Conservative Baptist Association of America - 0.2 million[19]
National Association of Free Will Baptists - 0.2 million[20]
Canadian Baptist Ministries - 0.2 million[12]
National Baptist Convention of Mexico - 0.2 million[12]
Manipur Baptist Convention - 0.2 million[12]
Convention of Baptist Churches of the Northern Circars - 0.2 million[12]
Baptist Community in Central Africa - 0.2 million[12]
Baptist Convention of Malawi - 0.2 million[12]
Lutheranism - 75 million[21]
Evangelical Church in Germany - 24.5 million[22]
Church of Sweden - 6.7 million[23]
Evangelical Lutheran Church in Tanzania - 5.6 million[23]
Ethiopian Evangelical Church Mekane Yesus - 5.3 million[23]
United Evangelical Lutheran Churches in India - 4.5 million[24]
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America - 4.5 million[23]
Church of Denmark - 4.5 million[23]
Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland - 4.4 million[23]
Batak Christian Protestant Church - 4.2 million[23]
Church of Norway - 4.0 million[23]
Christian Protestant Church in Indonesia - 3.6 million[23]
Malagasy Lutheran Church - 3.0 million[23]
Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod - 2.5 million[25]
The Lutheran Church of Christ in Nigeria - 1.9 million[23]
Evangelical Lutheran Church of Papua New Guinea - 0.9 million[23]
Evangelical Church of the Lutheran Confession in Brazil - 0.7 million[23]
Evangelical Lutheran Church in Namibia - 0.7 million[23]
Evangelical Lutheran Church in Southern Africa - 0.6 million[23]
Evangelical Lutheran Church in the Republic of Namibia - 0.4 million[23]
Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod - 0.4 million[26]
Evangelical Church of the Augsburg Confession in Slovakia - 0.4 million[23]
The Indonesian Protestant Church - 0.4 million[23]
The Protestant Christian Church - 0.4 million[23]
Evangelical Church of the Augsburg Confession in Austria - 0.3 million[23]
Evangelical Lutheran Church of Cameroon - 0.2 million[23]
Church of Iceland - 0.2 million[23]
Evangelical Lutheran Church of Brazil - 0.2 million[27]
Simalungun Protestant Christian Church - 0.2 million[23]
Evangelical Lutheran Church in Zimbabwe - 0.2 million[23]
Evangelical Lutheran Church of Latvia - 0.2 million[23]
Evangelical-Lutheran Church in Hungary - 0.2 million[23]
Protestant Church of Augsburg Confession of Alsace and Lorraine - 0.2 million[23]
The Lutheran Council of Great Britain - 0.2 million[23]
Estonian Evangelical Lutheran Church - 0.2 million[23]
Methodism - 75 million
United Methodist Church - 12 million[28]
African Methodist Episcopal Church - 2.5 million[29]
Methodist Church Nigeria - 2 million[30]
Church of the Nazarene - 2 million[31]
Methodist Church of Southern Africa - 1.7 million[32]
Korean Methodist Church - 1.5 million[33]
African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church - 1.5 million[34]
The Salvation Army - 1.4 million [35]
United Methodist Church of Ivory Coast - 1 million[36]
Free Methodist Church - 0.9 million[37]
Christian Methodist Episcopal Church - 0.9 million[38]
Methodist Church Ghana - 0.8 million[39]
Methodist Church in India - 0.6 million[40]
Methodist Church in Kenya - 0.5 million[41]
Wesleyan Church - 0.4 million[42]
Evangelical Free Church of America - 0.4 million[43]
Methodist Church of Great Britain - 0.3 million[44]
Methodist Church in Brazil - 0.2 million[45]
Reformed churches - 75 million
Presbyterianism - 40 million
Presbyterian Church of East Africa - 4.0 million[46]
Presbyterian Church of Africa - 3.4 million[47]
United Church of Canada - 2.8 million[48]
Church of Christ in Congo–Presbyterian Community of Congo - 2.5 million[49]
Presbyterian Church of Korea - 2.4 million[50]
Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) - 1.8 million[51]
Presbyterian Church of Cameroon - 1.8 million[52]
Church of Central Africa, Presbyterian - 1.3 million[53]
Church of Scotland - 1.1 million[54]
Presbyterian Church of the Sudan - 1.0 million[55]
Presbyterian Church in Cameroon - 0.7 million[56]
Presbyterian Church of Brazil - 0.7 million [57]
Evangelical Presbyterian Church, Ghana - 0.6 million[58]
United Church of Christ in the Philippines - 0.5 million[59]
Presbyterian Church of Nigeria - 0.5 million[60]
Uniting Presbyterian Church in Southern Africa - 0.5 million[61]
Presbyterian Church of Pakistan - 0.4 million[62]
Presbyterian Church in Ireland - 0.3 million
Uniting Church in Australia - 0.3 million[63]
Presbyterian Church in America - 0.3 million[64]
Presbyterian Church of Korea - 0.3 million[65]
Presbyterian Church in Rwanda - 0.3 million[66]
Presbyterian Church in Taiwan - 0.3 million[67]
Continental Reformed churches - 30 million
Church of Jesus Christ in Madagascar - 3.5 million[68]
United Church of Zambia - 3.0 million[69]
Protestant Church in the Netherlands - 2.5 million[70]
Swiss Reformed Church - 2.4 million[71]
Evangelical Church of Cameroon - 2.0 million[72]
Protestant Evangelical Church in Timor - 2.0 million[73]
Dutch Reformed Church - 1.1 million
Christian Evangelical Church in Minahasa - 0.7 million[74]
United Church in Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands - 0.6 million[75]
Protestant Church in Western Indonesia - 0.6 million[76]
Evangelical Christian Church in Tanah Papua - 0.6 million[77]
Protestant Church in the Moluccas - 0.6 million[78]
Reformed Church in Hungary - 0.6 million[79]
Reformed Church in Romania - 0.6 million[80]
Uniting Reformed Church in Southern Africa - 0.5 million[81]
Toraja Church - 0.4 million[82]
Reformed Church of France - 0.4 million[83]
Lesotho Evangelical Church - 0.3 million[84]
Evangelical Christian Church in Halmahera - 0.3 million[85]
Christian Church of Sumba - 0.3 million[86]
Karo Batak Protestant Church - 0.3 million[87]
Reformed Church in America - 0.3 million[88]
Christian Reformed Church in North America - 0.3 million[89]
Christian Reformed Church of Nigeria - 0.3 million[90]
Reformed Church in Zambia - 0.3 million[91]
Kalimantan Evangelical Church - 0.2 million[92]
Javanese Christian Churches - 0.2 million[93]
Indonesia Christian Church - 0.2 million[94]
Church of Christ in the Sudan Among the Tiv - 0.2 million[95]
Church of Lippe - 0.2 million[96]
Evangelical Church of Congo - 0.2 million[97]
Evangelical Church of Gabon - 0.2 million[98]
Christian Evangelical Church of Sangihe Talaud - 0.2 million[99]
Central Sulawesi Christian Church - 0.2 million[100]
Evangelical Reformed Church in Bavaria and Northwestern Germany - 0.2 million[101]
Congregationalism - 5 million
United Church of Christ - 1.2 million[102]
Evangelical Congregational Church in Angola - 0.9 million[103]
United Congregational Church of Southern Africa - 0.5 million[104]
Anabaptism and Free churches - 5 million
Schwarzenau Brethren/German Baptist groups - 1.5 million[105]
Mennonites - 1.5 million
Plymouth Brethren - 1 million[106]
Moravians - 0.7 million[107]
Amish - 0.25 million
Hutterites - 0.05 million
Quakers (Religious Society of Friends) - 0.4 million
Modern Protestantism - 429 million
Pentecostalism - 279 million[108]
Assemblies of God - 65 million[109]
Fangcheng Fellowship - 12 million
International Circle of Faith - 11 million[110]
China Gospel Fellowship - 10 million
Church of God (Cleveland, Tennessee) - 9 million
International Church of the Foursquare Gospel - 8 million
Church of God in Christ - 6.5 million[111]
Apostolic Church - 6 million
Jesus is Lord Church - 6 million
International Pentecostal Holiness Church - 4 million
United Pentecostal Church International - 4 million
The Pentecostal Mission - 2.5 million
Christian Congregation of Brazil - 2.5 million
True Jesus Church - 2.5 million
Church of Pentecost - 2.1 million
Universal Church of the Kingdom of God - 2 million
Pentecostal Assemblies of the World - 1.5 million
Apostolic Faith Mission of South Africa - 1.2 million
Church of God of Prophecy - 1.5 million
Association of Pentecostal Churches of Rwanda - 1 million
God is Love Pentecostal Church - 0.8 million
Nondenominational evangelicalism - 80 million
Calvary Chapel - 25 million
Born Again Movement - 20 million
Association of Vineyard Churches - 15 million
Christian and Missionary Alliance - 4 million[112]
True Jesus Church - 2.5 million
Church of God (Anderson, Indiana) - 1.2 million
African initiated Protestant churches - 40 million
Zion Christian Church - 15 million
Eternal Sacred Order of Cherubim and Seraphim - 10 million
Kimbanguist Church - 5.5 million
Church of the Lord (Aladura) - 3.6 million[113]
Council of African Instituted Churches - 3 million[114]
Church of Christ Light of the Holy Spirit - 1.4 million[115]
African Church of the Holy Spirit - 0.7 million[116]
African Israel Church Nineveh - 0.5 million[117]
Seventh-day Adventist Church - 17 million
Restoration Movement - 7 million
Churches of Christ - 5 million
Christian churches and churches of Christ - 1.1 million[13]
Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) - 0.7 million[118]
Oneness Pentecostalism - 6 million
United Pentecostal Church International - 4 million
Pentecostal Assemblies of the World - 1.5 million
Eastern Orthodoxy - 225–300 million


A map of Eastern Orthodoxy by population percentage.
The most common estimates of the number of Orthodox Christians worldwide is approximately 225–300 million.[119] There are also a number of autonomous Orthodox churches, that account for no more than 12 million and are united in communion with the rest of the Eastern Orthodox church, plus some not universally recognized churches and Orthodox splinter groups.
Autocephalous churches - 240 million
Russian Orthodox Church - 150 million
Romanian Orthodox Church - 23 million
Serbian Orthodox Church - 11.5 million
Church of Greece - 11 million
Bulgarian Orthodox Church - 10 million
Georgian Orthodox Church - 3.5 million
Greek Orthodox Church of Constantinople - 3.5 million
Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch - 2.5 million
Greek Orthodox Church of Alexandria - 1.5 million
Orthodox Church in America - 1.2 million
Polish Orthodox Church - 1 million
Albanian Orthodox Church - 0.8 million
Church of Cyprus - 0.7 million
Greek Orthodox Church of Jerusalem - 0.14 million
Czech and Slovak Orthodox Church - 0.07 million
Autonomous churches - 12 million
Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) - 7.2 million[120]
Moldovan Orthodox Church - 3.2 million
Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia - 1.25 million
Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia - 0.62 million
Orthodox Ohrid Archbishopric - 0.34 million[citation needed]
Estonian Orthodox Church - 0.3 million
Patriarchal Exarchate in Western Europe - 0.15 million
Finnish Orthodox Church - 0.08 million
Chinese Orthodox Church - 0.03 million
Japanese Orthodox Church - 0.02 million
Latvian Orthodox Church - 0.02 million
Non-universally recognized churches - 11 million
Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Kyiv Patriarchate) - 5.5 million[120]
Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church - 3.8 million
Belarusian Autocephalous Orthodox Church - 2.4 million
Macedonian Orthodox Church - 2 million
Orthodox Church of Greece (Holy Synod in Resistance) - 0.75 million
Old Calendar Romanian Orthodox Church - 0.50 million
Old Calendar Bulgarian Orthodox Church - 0.45 million
Orthodox Church in Italy - 0.12 million
Montenegrin Orthodox Church - 0.05 million
Other separated Orthodox groups - 10 million
Old Believers - 5.5 million
Greek Old Calendarists - 0.86 million
True Orthodox Church - 0.85 million
Oriental Orthodoxy - 86 million


A map of Oriental Orthodoxy by population percentage.
Autocephalous churches in communion
Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church - 48 million[121]
Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria - 15.5 million
Armenian Apostolic Church - 8 million
Syriac Orthodox Church - 6.6 million[122][123][124]
Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo Church - 2.5 million
Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church - 2 million[125]
Armenian Orthodox Church of Cilicia - 1.5 million
Autonomous churches in communion
Jacobite Syrian Christian Church - 1.2 million[126]
Armenian Patriarchate of Constantinople - 0.42 million
Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem - 0.34 million
French Coptic Orthodox Church - 0.01 million
British Orthodox Church - 0.01 million
Churches not in communion
Mar Thoma Syrian Church - 1.1 million[127]
Malabar Independent Syrian Church - 0.06 million
Anglicanism - 85 million
Anglican Communion - 80 million[128]
Church of England - 25.0 million[129]
Church of Nigeria - 18.0 million[130]
Church of Uganda - 8.1 million[131]
Anglican Church of Kenya - 5.0 million[132]
Episcopal Church of Sudan - 4.5 million[133]
Church of South India - 4 million[134]
Anglican Church of Australia - 3.9 million[135]
Anglican Church of Southern Africa - 2.3 million[136]
Episcopal Church in the United States - 2.1 million[137]
Anglican Church of Tanzania - 2.0 million[138]
Anglican Church of Canada - 2.0 million[139]
Church of North India - 1.5 million[140]
Anglican Church of Rwanda - 1.0 million[141]
Church of the Province of Central Africa - 0.9 million[142]
Anglican Church of Burundi - 0.8 million[143]
Church in the Province of the West Indies - 0.8 million[144]
Church of the Province of the Indian Ocean - 0.5 million[145]
Church of Christ in Congo–Anglican Community of Congo - 0.5 million[146]
Church of Pakistan - 0.5 million[147]
Church of Ireland - 0.4 million[148]
Church of the Province of West Africa - 0.3 million[149]
Church of the Province of Melanesia - 0.2 million[150]
Continuing Anglican movement and independent Anglican churches - 1.5 million
Traditional Anglican Communion - 0.4 million[151]
Church of England in South Africa - 0.1 million[152]
Restorationism - 44 million
Latter Day Saint movement - 15.2 million
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormonism) - 15 million[153]
Community of Christ - 0.2 million[154]
Iglesia ni Cristo - 10 million[155][156]
New Apostolic Church - 10 million[157]
Jehovah's Witnesses - 7.65 million [158][159]
La Luz del Mundo - between 1 and 7 million
Church of Christ, Scientist - 0.4 million
Friends of Man - 0.07 million
Christadelphians - 0.06 million
Chinese-originated churches – 10 million
All of these groups have origins in the Lord's Recovery movement associated with Watchman Nee and Witness Lee. The Shouters are an offshoot of the Local Churches considered a dangerous sect by the Chinese government; due to the extremely decentralized nature of both groups, there is controversy over which house churches should be actually considered part of each. Eastern Lightning, which is in turn an offshoot of The Shouters, is very hierarchical (in contrast to its predecessors) and teaches that Christ has already returned as a woman named Lightning Deng.
Local Churches – between 1 and 10 million
Eastern Lightning – 1 million
The Shouters – unknown, probably less than 1 million
Church of the East - 0.6 million
Assyrian Church of the East - 0.5 million
Ancient Church of the East - 0.1 million
Unitarian Universalism - 0.6 million
Note: Unitarian Universalism, which counts 0.6 million adherents,[160] developed out of Christian traditions but no longer identifies as a Christian denomination.
Unitarian Universalist Association - 0.2 million[161]</sup>[Having trouble with feed burner again, this post wasn't showing up on other blogrolls, so trying a repost without the links to see if that was the problem. UPDATE:  taking out the links seems to have solved the problem.  You can find the links at Wikipedia.]

AIFF 2013: Tuesday, From Mozambigue to Taiwan And Some Alaska Winter Surfing

We took a friend to see Hank and Asha because it's so good.  We were going to see two docs and then get her home and then to the Bear Tooth.  We had to make some adjustments.  We saw the first film, The Guide which was a feel good film about a young man whose ambition is to be a tour guide at the Gorongosa National Park.  He's clearly very bright and a favorite of the foreigners working to develop the park.  We get to see him guide E.O. Wilson, the great biologist and ant expert.  The exchange between the 82 year old scientist and the young man is wonderful to watch. 

Our friend had gone in with us and the film ended just in time for Hank and Asha and we skipped out and watched Hank and Anna for the second time.  I was surprise to see James and Julia, the film makers there since they'd told me they were flying out before this showing.  (I put up video of the film makers in an earlier post.)  It turned out their flight was delayed due to weather in Chicago, so they got to answer questions after the film.  It's really a feel good film.  You can put it on your Netflix list, it's due out in April. 

Then to the Bear Tooth for the Taiwan and Gay-la movie Will You Still Love Me Tomorrow?  A fine movie about a guy who's been married nine years but it turns out he was actively gay before he got married and thought he could leave it behind.  But someone comes into his life.  It was very nicely done.  Unfortunately, it doesn't play again. 

And then back for the 9:45 by-popular-demand Alaska Sessions:  Surfing The Last Frontier.  This is an unexpected little jewel as they go by boat from Sitka to Homer for a month in the winter finding places to surf.  It breaks all the ice-box stereotypes of Alaska and the old body surfer in me could sit and watch them ride the waves all night.  A little less hyping Alaska would have made it a better film.  There's no need to tell people that Alaska is actually livable. 

Note:  The iPhone app apparently gave some people the wrong time for Hank and Asha and there's a chance - since the little theater was totally full - that another showing will be arranged, maybe Saturday.  Stay posted.  This is definitely worth seeing. 

Excuse the typos please.  These late night showings are killing me. 

The Atheist "Coming Out" Movement

I'd seen a clip of Wolf Blitzer asking a tornado victim if she thanked the lord that she had survived and she replied,  after a pause, "Actually, I'm an atheist."

"Wow", I thought." I've never seen that on television before." But I didn't really get how significant it was until I saw this woman, Rebecca Vitsmun, talking about the experience of coming out on national television in early November.

In the first eight minutes or so of the video she gives her account of escaping from the path of the storm with her young child.  Then she talks about how she had never told her family she was an atheist and that the question from Blitzer, forced her to come out as an atheist. (I've cued the video - see previous post on how to do that - to start about where she begins talking about the Blitzer interview.)

Atheist rally billed as 'coming out' moment for nonbelievers

"I realized, I'm about to do this.  He got me. I'm busted.  My mom didn't know.  My family didn't know.  My in-laws didn't know.  Nobody knew.  I've been hiding this for over a decade. I wasn't out yet.  He put me in a place where you either have to be honest with yourself, right now, or you have to lie.  I wasn't about to lie. .  . You hear me trying to get it out. . . I'm actually an atheist.  I just laughed.  There's no way he saw that coming . . ."

[This is a reasonably close, but not exact, transcript I made.]

I'd never thought about atheists having to 'come out' in the same sense that gays would.  But it makes sense, particularly if someone's in a religious family where atheists are considered the enemy. 

But it seems that the Blitzer interview hit a nerve.  On national television, instead of a  stock answer to Blitzer's perfunctory question,  Vitsmun told him the truth, "I'm actually an atheist."

My first thought was, "Did she really say that?"  My second thought was, "They didn't cut that out?"

It was a watershed television moment.    And then I started noticing this use of 'coming out' by atheists in other places.

I think something is happening here that may be significant in the United States.  We've all tried to be respectful of people's religions, but some religious groups haven't been respectful back.  Some have taken advantage of the First Amendment protections of religion and people's genuine attempts to respect others' religious beliefs, to abuse others under the guise of religion.  I think that people, more than just a few, are going to start standing up to religions that try to impose their beliefs on everyone else.

Here are some more examples of atheists connected with the term "coming out."


NBC News about atheists in the military:

"If the Fort Bragg group succeeds, it will be overseen by the Chaplain Corps. That might seem contradictory for a group defined by its lack of belief, but it means MASH's [Military Atheists and Secular Humanists] literature would be available along with Bibles and Qurans. It could raise funds on base and, its members say, they could feel more comfortable approaching chaplains for help with personal problems. Recognition would also be an official sign that not believing in God is acceptable, something members say is lacking now.
"They call it 'coming out of the atheist closet,'" Griffith said. "There are people who won't say anything to anyone outside of their own close-knit group. They don't want Grandma to find out, or whoever. People feel like they have to lie about it.'" (emphasis added)

New York Times article about clergy who stop believing:

All he had ever wanted was to be a comfort and a support to the people he grew up with, but now a divide stood between him and them. He could no longer hide his disbelief. He walked into the bathroom and stared at himself in the mirror. “I remember thinking, Who on this planet has any idea what I’m going through?” DeWitt told me.

As his wife slept, he fumbled through the darkness for his laptop. After a few quick searches with the terms “pastor” and “atheist,” he discovered that a cottage industry of atheist outreach groups had grown up in the past few years. Within days, he joined an online network called the Clergy Project, created for clerics who no longer believe in God and want to communicate anonymously through a secure Web site. .  .

Atheists, he discovered, were starting to reach out to one another not just in the urban North but also in states across the South and West, in the kinds of places­ DeWitt had spent much of his career as a traveling preacher. After a few months he took to the road again, this time as the newest of a new breed of celebrity, the atheist convert. They have their own apostles (Bertrand Russell, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens) and their own language, a glossary borrowed from Alcoholics Anonymous, the Bible and gay liberation (you always “come out” of the atheist closet).  (emphasis added)

Student Body President at Christian College:

Many students at Northwest Christian University, in Oregon, knew that their student-body president was an atheist. But when the news—and some misunderstandings—spread after Eric Fromm explained his beliefs to a classroom of freshmen, he decided to “come out” in the student newspaper.  (emphasis added)

Another article that may interest readers that I came across while writing this is a 2012 interview in the LA Times with atheist Nate Phelps one of the 13 children of Westboro Baptist Church's Fred Phelps who pickets veteran funerals and is an outspoken hater of gays. Fred Phelps is clearly one of the more extreme cases of using the First Amendment protection for religion to abuse others.

70 Years Ago, Jehovah's Witness Case Set Precedent To Overturn Prop 8

In 1935 Billy Gobitis and his sister, both Jehovah's Witnesses, refused to pledge allegiance to the flag in school because to do so would violate the second commandment forbidding idol worship.  Despite explaining the reason for his refusal in writing, the school board stood its ground.

"The Gobitis family was physically attacked and their family grocery store was boycotted. This caused great financial strain as the family faced the cost of sending the two children to private school. Their father sued on behalf of the children, saying the district’s policy violated his children’s religious freedom." [from The Bill of Rights Institute]

By 1940 the school pledge was before the Supreme Court which ruled in Minersville School District v. Gobitis   8-1 in favor of the school district.   

From the History Net:

The Court rejected the Witnesses' claim, holding that the secular interests of the school district in fostering patriotism were paramount. In the majority opinion, written during the same month that France fell to the Nazis, Felix Frankfurter wrote: "National unity is the basis of national security." The plaintiffs, said Frankfurter, were free to "fight out the wise use of legislative authority in the forum of public opinion and before legislative assemblies."

As the US was being drawn into World War II, refusing to pledge was seen by many as traitorous and individual Jehovah's witnesses were beaten and their houses of worship were attacked in various parts of the country.  The ACLU (which argued the next case before the Supreme Court) estimated that 1500 people were assaulted in 335 separate incidents. (Also from the History Net link.) Words like assault tend mask the fact that people's heads were smashed, blood spurted, and people were terrorized.  This happened in Kennebunk, Maine (the home of Tom's of Maine) as well as Baltimore and Illinois, among other places.

Ironically,  the History Net points out:

. . . in Nazi Germany, no group was too small to escape the eye of new chancellor Adolf Hitler, who banned the Witnesses after they refused to show their fealty to him with the mandatory "Heil Hitler" raised-arm salute. (Many Witnesses would later perish in his death camps. [emphasis added]

But a mere three years later - in 1943 - the Supreme Court, in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, reversed itself on the same issue.  Jehovah's Witness school children again refused to pledge allegiance to the flag and sued when they were expelled.  From the ACLU website:

"The Board of Education on January 9, 1942, adopted a resolution... ordering that the salute to the flag become 'a regular part of the program of activities in the public schools,' that all teachers and pupils 'shall be required to participate in the salute honoring the Nation represented by the Flag...
Failure to conform is 'insubordination' dealt with by expulsion. Readmission is denied by statute until compliance. Meanwhile the expelled child is 'unlawfully absent' and may be proceeded against as a delinquent. His parents or guardians are liable to prosecution, and if convicted are subject to fine not exceeding $50 and jail term not exceeding thirty days.

Appellees... brought suit in the United States District Court for themselves and others similarly situated asking its injunction to restrain enforcement of these laws and regulations against Jehovah's Witnesses... The Board of Education moved to dismiss the complaint [which alleged] that the law and regulations are an unconstitutional denial of religious freedom, and of freedom of speech, and are invalid under the 'due process' and 'equal protection' clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. The cause was submitted on the pleadings to a District Court of three judges. It restrained enforcement as to the plaintiffs and those of that class." 

The Board of Education appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court which affirmed the judgment of the District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia.

This time round, the Court had the history of violent of attacks on Jehovah's Witnesses following the 1940 decision plus the US was now involved in World War II. 

The Court's decision this time was a complete reversal.  From Oyez:

In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court overruled its decision in Minersville School District v. Gobitis and held that compelling public schoolchildren to salute the flag was unconstitutional. The Court found that such a salute was a form of utterance and was a means of communicating ideas. "Compulsory unification of opinion," the Court held, was doomed to failure and was antithetical to First Amendment values. Writing for the majority, Justice Jackson argued that "[i]f there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein."

 And the relationship to Prop. 8?

A key argument for keeping Prop. 8 was that the majority of voters of California had cast ballots in favor of the banning gay marriage.  This was the will of the majority.

From Joel P. Engardio in USA Today:

When Justice [Robert] Jackson [in 1943] got the chance to reverse the 1940 ruling, he tackled the ballot box notion head-on. He wrote that the "very purpose" of the Bill of Rights was to protect some issues from the volatility of politics and "place them beyond the reach of majorities."

"One's right to life, liberty and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly," Jackson said, "may not be submitted to vote." [emphasis added]

 Engardio goes on to show the link to Prop. 8.

"Fundamental rights," Jackson wrote in 1943 and Judge Walker quoted in 2010, "depend on the outcome of no elections."

Note:  While  reading for this I learned that President Eisenhower,  who signed the law adding 'under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954, grew up in a Jehovah's Witness household, though he later became a Presbyterian.  Jehovah's Witnesses oppose war and their members do not participate in war.  Eisenhower not only joined the military, he became the Supreme Allied Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force (SHAEF),  until the end of the war in Europe in May1945. [Wikipedia]

Scalia: "That is jaw-dropping. It is an assertion of judicial supremacy over the people’s Representatives."

After quickly looking at Scalia's dissent in today's case, I was ready to jump all over him for the apparent contradiction between his dissent today in the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and his position in yesterday's Voting Rights Act (VRA) decision.

He writes, with passion:

"This case is about power in several respects. It is about the power of our people to govern themselves, and the power of this Court to pronounce the law. Today’s opinion aggrandizes the latter, with the predictable consequence of diminishing the former. We have no power to decide this case. And even if we did, we have no power under the Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted legislation. The Court’s errors on both points spring forth from the same diseased root: an exalted conception of the role of this institution in America. .  ."

Then he goes on a little later to say the Majority is saying it has the power to decide the case "because if we did not, then our “primary role in determining the constitutionality of a law” (at least one that “has inflicted real injury on a plaintiff ”) would 'become only secondary to the President’s.'  .   .”

"That is jaw-dropping. It is an assertion of judicial supremacy over the people’s Representatives. It is an assertion of judicial su- premacy over the people’s Representatives in Congress and the Executive. It envisions a Supreme Court standing (or rather enthroned) at the apex of government, empowered to decide all constitutional questions, always and everywhere “primary” in its role." [emphasis added]

My reaction was that Scalia's comment is jaw-dropping.  Just yesterday the Court ruled Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional.  The Voting Rights Act passed 98-0 in the US Senate and 390-33 in the House.  Yet Scalia, who mocks today's majority for overturning a section of the 1998  Defense of Marriage Act, had voted to invalidate the 2006 overwhelming decision of the Congress in passing the Voting Rights Act.  There's nothing in the opinion that worries about the Supreme Court overstepping its power.  Instead there is a plaintiff (Shelby County) with a record of curtailing the voting rights of Blacks, compared to today's case where the surviving spouse had to pay a huge tax on her inheritance from her partner of over 30 years, simply because her legal spouse was not a man.

Later in his dissent, Scalia cites James Madison's Federalist Papers comments on separation of powers and from that concludes:

"For this reason we are quite forbidden to say what the law is whenever (as today’s opinion asserts) “‘an Act of Congress is alleged to conflict with the Constitution.’” Ante, at 12. We can do so only when that allegation will determine the outcome of a lawsuit, and is contradicted by the other party. The “judicial Power” is not, as the majority believes, the power “‘to say what the law is,’” ibid., giving the Supreme Court the 'primary role in determining the constitutionality of laws.'”  

He then chides the majority for perhaps thinking they were bound by the constitutions of foreign countries

"In other words, declaring the compatibility of state or federal laws with the Constitution is not only not the “primary role” of this Court, it is not a separate, free-standing role at all. We perform that role incidentally—by accident, as it were—when that is necessary to resolve the dispute before us. Then, and only then, does it become “‘the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.’”

I didn't quite understand what he was saying here, but as I read on, it becomes clear that he is making a distinction between cases  in which the Court must make a decision between two competing claims and this case, in which both the plaintiff and the government (the original defendant) now agree.  And where the plaintiff already got relief in the lower court.  In this case, he's arguing, the Court's purpose is not to adjudicate a disagreement, but to declare DOMA unconstitutional, which the appeal court had done already in the Second Circuit, and now the Supreme Court is doing nationally.

"Windsor’s injury was cured by the judgment in her favor. And while, in ordi- nary circumstances, the United States is injured by a directive to pay a tax refund, this suit is far from ordinary. Whatever injury the United States has suffered will surely not be redressed by the action that it, as a litigant, asks us to take. The final sentence of the Solicitor General’s brief on the merits reads: “For the foregoing reasons, the judg- ment of the court of appeals should be affirmed.” Brief for United States (merits) 54 (emphasis added). That will not cure the Government’s injury, but carve it into stone. One Cite as: 570 U. S. ____ (2013) 5 SCALIA, J., dissenting could spend many fruitless afternoons ransacking our library for any other petitioner’s brief seeking an affir- mance of the judgment against it.1 What the petitioner United States asks us to do in the case before us is exactly what the respondent Windsor asks us to do: not to provide relief from the judgment below but to say that that judg- ment was correct. And the same was true in the Court of Appeals: Neither party sought to undo the judgment for Windsor, and so that court should have dismissed the appeal (just as we should dismiss) for lack of jurisdiction. Since both parties agreed with the judgment of the Dis- trict Court for the Southern District of New York, the suit should have ended there. The further proceedings have been a contrivance, having no object in mind except to ele- vate a District Court judgment that has no precedential effect in other courts, to one that has precedential effect throughout the Second Circuit, and then (in this Court) precedential effect throughout the United States."

As I understand this case, the US government chose NOT to appeal the Appeals Court decision.  Instead, Congressional Republicans took on that task.  Perhaps the appropriate action, given Scalia's line of reasoning, would have been for the Supreme Court to not ever hear this case, or, if they did, to reject it, as they did with the Perry case on Prop. 8, because the party bringing the case didn't have standing.

But it does seem that the Republicans who brought the case were the ones asking the Court to overturn the lower court decision and to say that same-sex marriage is NOT guaranteed by the Constitution.  So, if the Court declined to hear the case, it would, de facto, agree with the lower court that DOMA wasn't constitutional.  But only in the Second Circuit.  That would mean the issue would still be unsettled in the rest of the United States.

It is ironic that it was the Republicans who brought the case and were trying to overturn the lower court decision and Scalia says the case has no business at the Supreme Court.  One wonders if Kennedy had not agreed with the liberal side of the court on this case whether Scalia would have had a problem overturning the lower court decision.  If so, that would make all this legal smokescreen for his personal emotional aversion to homosexuality.

As I suggested the other day when reporting his comments at the North Carolina Bar Association, perhaps the passion he exhibited there reflected that he had lost his argument in the Court and so he was repeating his argument to the North Carolina lawyers.  It seems that was the case.  I also wondered how genuine his anguish over being the 'moral arbiter' was.  I still think that's a role he doesn't mind playing.  It's losing on a decision he has strong personally feelings about that bothers him, I suspect.