Another charge is that allowing the full civil rights of marriage to same-sex couples will impinge on the religious freedom of those who view it as immoral and they will not be able to speak against what they see as sinful actions or sinful people. Looking at what is currently legal and what free speech allows religious leaders to preach against, this would not seem to be the case. The sale and consumption of alcohol is legal in all states, but the virtues of abstaining can be preached from the pulpit. People are allowed to cohabit, and even adopt children as an unwed couple, but the sinfulness of living an impure lifestyle can still be preached with passion in front of the congregation. If looking at these examples was not enough for people to realize that what is allowed by law can still be condemned by speech in church, the California Supreme Court decision of May 15, 2008 (which allowed the marriages to take place), specifically states as follows regarding religious denominations:

Affording same-sex couples the opportunity to obtain the designation of marriage will not impinge upon the religious freedom of any religious organization, official, or any other person; no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs. (Cal. Const., art. I & 4.) — in re MARRIAGE CASES, S147999, page 117.

Although untrue, those in favor of Proposition 8 seek to portray this as an epic battle of Church v. State (I’m not exaggerating. Chuck Colson called it “Armageddon” last week, but the fact is that churches are not all in favor of this change to the constitution. Twenty-three congregations paid to take out an ad in the San Jose Mercury News urging a vote against Proposition 8. Members of the LDS church have set up a website voicing their opposition, and Professor Morris Thurston, a prominent LDS scholar published an essay combating the lies that same-sex marriage would interfere with religious freedom or education. Members of the Seventh-Day Adventist church, where I hold my membership, have also set up an a site explaining why they view a vote of “No” on Proposition 8 as important to religious freedom and separation of church and state.

Similar to the reasoning of Adventists Against Proposition 8, EVERYONE, gay or straight, religious or otherwise, should be scared of Proposition 8 for setting a president of trampling the few and setting up a tyranny of the majority. A lawyer in Virginia writes,

With Proposition 8, we see religious extremists seeking to impose their anti-gay religious views on the civil laws of the State of California (as well as in Florida and Arizona under the initiatives on the ballot in those states) and overturn a ruling of the California Supreme Court. This flies in the face of how government is supposed to work in this country and will set a precedent where an unrestrained majority can subjugate minority groups. The so-called “separation of powers” devised by the framers of the United States Constitution – and emulated in the state constitutions – was designed to do one primary thing: to prevent the majority from ruling with an iron fist and trampling on the rights of minorities. This reasoning was based on the framers’ experience under the British monarchy where minorities, be they religious or otherwise, had suffered often at the hands of the majority. Thus the framers deliberately avoided giving any branch of the government too much power.

Among the powers given to the Federal Judiciary are: the power to try federal cases and interpret the laws of the nation in those cases; the power to declare any law or executive act unconstitutional. Under state law, the respective state supreme courts perform a similar function. In In Re Marriage Cases, the California Supreme Court recognized the inherent and unchangeable nature of sexual orientation which justifies treatment of LGBT citizens as a minority. The California Supreme Court then properly held that discrimination against same sex couples was unconstitutional.

Proposition 8 is both wrong in terms of seeking to abrogate the proper functioning of the role of the judiciary and in terms of pretending that gays are not a minority who deserve equal treatment under the civil laws. Worse yet, Proposition 8 is an attempt to impose religious beliefs on other citizens and represents behavior akin to the Taliban and other Islamic extremists.

Most of the people reading this note aren’t residents of California, so why am I writing this? Because, as you may have heard, this will affect the whole nation one way or the other. The voting will either allow same-sex couples legal marriage rights and those who oppose the right to voice dissent, or take away those rights and establish a precedent of unprotected majority rule. Both sides know what is at stake. “No on Proposition 8″ has been seeking funding to continue airing ads, and “Yes on 8″ and its supporters have donations pouring in from out of state by the millions and are holding rallies at mega-churches to reach large populations. Yesterday, with only 4 days left in the campaign, the “No on 8″ website was hacked so people couldn’t make online donations.

If you’re not in California to vote, what can you do? Donate! Donate your time. If you’re in California, take the time this weekend to talk to your friends and neighbors about the implications of amending the State Constitution. If you’re out of state, you can volunteer to call voters. Donate your money. Besides word of mouth, the ONLY reason people are hearing two sides to this argument is the donations that are keeping ads on the air opposed to Prop 8. The LDS church has been in the news for weeks for organizing its members nationwide to donate millions, and they’re only one congregation. Not everyone has read Professor Thurston’s essay, most won’t. It’s the TV ads that they’ll see, and those are paid for by the thousands of donors to the “No On 8″ campaign. Even college students like myself can donate $5 or $10. Whether you can give your time, money, or both, visit http://www.noonprop8.com/ to contribute.

If you’ve read this till the end, give yourself a pat on the back. There are articles detailing the arguments about Prop 8′s affect on education, freedom of speech, or ability of churches to make their own decisions regarding the matter. I tried to cover all topics here, and hopefully gave a good overview.

Whether you reside in California or not, whether you’re gay, straight, religious, or an atheist, this will affect you. I’ve made it clear where I stand, and if any of this has moved you, I ask you to help make sure that Proposition 8 goes down in flames.

~Kenneth

** Kenneth wrote this letter as a member of a democratic society who sees a potential abuse of power by the majority if Prop 8 passes, not from the perspective of someone who wants to get married but can’t, because “I’d still be writing this if I was straight.”

My family has a strong history of being involved in politics. My late grandfather was a journalist and wrote a series of newspaper articles with an obvious political agenda, like the need for conservation. For several years my grandmother worked for the Democratic Party at the North Dakota legislature, and since starting her own small business has drafted bills affecting her company and convinced legislators to pass them. I remember listening, wide-eyed and admiring, to her revel in a particularly sweet victory. She had swung a close vote in the House to her favor by going to the restaurant where the majority party (Republicans) met after-hours and forced them to talk to her about her bill before they could use the restrooms. It was particularly sweet because in passing her bill, she had thwarted a political nemesis as well. I remember talking to my father during the Dole/Clinton election and urging him to vote for Clinton, probably because my mother had off and on expressed disdain for Republicans. He listened to me, but refused to tell me who he voted for on principle, which was my first introduction to the importance of voter confidentiality. (I remember thinking, “What, he won’t tell me? I can’t do anything illegal with that information – I’m eight.”) When I was a bit older my mother would take me to political movies and rallies, like a gun-control rally at the Capitol.

Until I sat down to write this, I did not realize how much politics was a part of my childhood. I am sure my parents, especially my mother, had talks with me about politics, though I cannot remember particular conversations that created my liberal bias. Certainly I am liberal because my mother is. I think my father felt that political choices should be discussed as my sister and I grew older. It always seemed natural to think “liberal” things throughout my growing up, so my mother’s influence was probably conveyed to me not through any one conversation, but through many small comments.

My mother has a somewhat traditional take on politics: she is defined by a Democratic lean, though it is possible that a Republican could sway her if the conservatives made a strong case. As far as I can tell, she has a respect for other, non-Democratic liberals (much less so for conservatives, whom she rightly regards as supporting policies opposite to her values), but she doesn’t seem to be swayed into voting for third parties. She tends to trust that an idea in the Democratic platform will be sound, while Republicans have to prove that their ideas are better. My mother taught me that, above all, politics matters because the government acts out the social values of its members. She is the reason I tend to heavily weigh social issues over economic ones.

My father is a moderate now, but to define his political stance in the past is difficult, as he is somewhat of a moving target. Based upon the comments that both my parents made about him in the past, he was certainly more conservative when he was younger, and less thoughtful than he is now. As I have grown up and become more of his intellectual equal, he has delighted in talking to me about political issues. It seems that our conversations were/are partly a way to teach me about persuasive argument and critical thinking, and partly a way to supplement his ideas with my unique perspective. These conversations were crucial to the development of my thoughts on political debate: I see opposition for opposition’s sake as exhausting and counter-productive. My father taught me to seek understanding and respectful discourse even on passionate issues – which is partly why I am so taken aback when people show a willingness to close their ears and assume the worst about their opponents.

My stepmother and I have never discussed politics. Perhaps this is because throughout my childhood she had to walk the line between parental authority and domestic harmony, and because she knew that to argue with my mother’s opinions via me was a bad plan. My father reports that she is conservative, particularly Republican, but I do not know what that means for her.

Despite all this, I still see myself as a rather independent political being. I cannot explain my political opinions at all in the context of my parents. Take my feminism: like my liberalism, I cannot remember a time before I thought about gender roles and the fact that women clearly seemed to have a disadvantage. I am without a doubt the most radical member of my family on women’s rights, nearly entirely due to my own initiative. Certainly my mother has had feminist values most of her life; part of the reason my parents divorced was a fundamental disagreement about the gender roles and functions each of them played in the household. (This is not to imply that my father does not support a woman’s right to work and so forth, but I think that he is one of those folks who did not realize the extent of the limitations on women until he watched his daughters grow.) But I have since moved far beyond both my parents in the level of exploration and critical consideration of feminist thought.

Another characteristic of mine that seems to be fully self-formed is my commitment to civic engagement. My parents may have planted to seeds of it – voting is good, helping others is good – but I do not recall them discussing, say, the value of volunteering with me before I started doing it. One of the earliest things I did was to volunteer at a nursing home once a week, playing BINGO with the residents. While my parents lavished praise on me and made it clear how much they admired me for doing so, I don’t recall them suggesting that I start it. The impression that my ideas about how to be a good citizen are mine alone is reinforced by looking at my sister, who volunteers, but not at the level that I do. Based on her behavior, she seems to see community involvement as less inherently fun and worthwhile than I do. However, I cannot say what her opinions are on civic engagement, since that’s not something we often talk about.

So how much am I politically like my parents?

The best way to answer that is not by parsing out all the differences and similarities on issues (which I chalk up to personal style more than anything) but in the general ways I think. I have a bias toward liberals, like my mother, but before I vote I carefully consider how well each candidate represents me, as my moderate father would. Like my mother, I think certain issues like education reform and healthcare are incredibly important. But like my father, I think that considering what the role of government should be according to the Constitution is important as well. I think I’ve taken that a step farther, though, by also deeply caring about transparency; rather than the government watchdogs that declare everything is all right if taxes are low and government small, what is most important to me is the quality of the government, not the extent of its activities. Still, that we could agree on the same methods but have different policy stances indicates that there is a large degree of my own personality behind my political choices. And that independence, too, seems like something my parents have given me.

Part 2 of our conversation with Reverend Bill Bichsel continues where we left off.  We discuss the upcoming election, the future of American warfare, abortion, activism and the Tacoma Catholic Worker.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Download Mp3

Photo credit www.thenewstribune.com

An photo of the "Obama 4" taken by a Renton resident

This October 31st was more than just candy and costumes for neighborhood homes in Renton, WA. As children rang doorbells for treats, a gang of Halloween terrorists dressed in Barack Obama masks created utter mayhem by asking instead, for unity and promising socialized medicine.

“I couldn’t believe it,” says Ann Victor, a mother of three. “I opened the door expecting to find a bunch of cute princesses or zombies, and there were four Muslims promising me coverage on my dental. What a horror!”

The terrorists, or Obama 4, as has been coined by the Renton Police, are alleged to have trick or treated at over five-thousand homes, demanding treats or threatening candy-givers with lower taxes and pulling out of the Iraq war.

Thomas Putnam’s son Jerry, age 6, was answering the door with treats when the Obama 4 approached. “They spoke to him elegantly and talked about better education and caring for one another rather than catering to corporate interest,” says Thomas, “No child should have to grow up in a world where people bring goodwill onto others. That’s domestic terrorism!”

Obama mask used by the terrorists

The Renton police have been stumped as to who might be involved with the terrorist attack.  “We considered possibilities in the John McCain campaign,” says Police Chief Ken Sharp, “But universal healthcare coverage and ending futile wars is something the McCain campaign would never force onto others.”

John McCain issued a statement soon after the attacks, denouncing the actions of terrorists. “My condolences go to the families and victims of these brutal, distasteful and dishonorable attacks,” says McCain, “This gives further evidence, my friends, that an American under Barack Obama is an America filled with hate, terrorism, and decent family men.  I’m for tricks, not terrorism!”

The Obama campaign refused to comment, dismissing the acts as “just some silly kids playing around.”

A warrant for the arrest of the Obama 4 has been put out by the Renton Police Department, though none have been made.

This week’s best of the internet:

Apparently humans reach the pinnacle of their brain power at 39.

Have you ever heard of the band Tally Hall? Well they do sketch comedy now, and it ain’t half bad. Check it.

Amazing. 109 yr old daughter of a former slave votes Obama.

And this has to be the dumbest shit I’ve ever heard.

Did it seem like all of the Presidential debate were exactly the same? That’s because they were.

For those of you who have been living under a rock… on Mars… with your fingers in your ears… going ‘lalalalalalalalalala’…

Okay, maybe you have been under a rock. Here’s a recap: So, Joe the Plumber is this guy who went up to Barack Obama in front of some cameras and said he was planning on buying a plumbing business that makes 250k-280k a year, and wanted to ask Obama about his tax policy. Obama laid out why his plan was better, saying that by significantly cutting taxes for the people making less than a quarter million a year, it would help increase the number of customers, and added that he’s not increasing taxes that much, it’s just 3% more on what’s made over 250k. So if Joe the plumber is thinking about buying this business and making lets say $270,000 a year before taxes, he’s apparently unwilling to buy the business and make only $269,400 before those same taxes. Does this remind anyone else of when the House Republicans wouldn’t pass the 700 billion dollar bailout bill without an additional 150 billion in earmarks? But Joe rose to national attention when John McCain decided to make his entire campaign “vote for me, I will make life better for Joe the Plumber… not the 95% of you who make less than 250k a year, but just Joe the Plumber” and mentioned him 21 times in the third presidential debate.

Here’s why Joe the Plumber is an absolute waste of our attention:

1- Joe’s real name is Samuel Joe Wurzlebacher, that’s right he’s not even telling the truth about his own name. He introduced himself as “Hi there, Joe Wurzelbacher” to Barack Obama, yes, three words in and he started lying. I know this seems like a harsh judgment, but keep reading and you’ll be amazed at just how little he says is true. I shall also be referring to him as Sam, and/or Sam the Liar, because I know a lot of good people named Joe, and I don’t want to sully the name further than Sam already has.

2- Sam doesn’t have a plumbing license. There is a law that says if the company takes credit for it, he can plumb using the companies license. I find this to be odd that he’s identifying himself by something he can’t do alone. It’d be like if he were single and we were referring to him as Joe the Procreator, that doesn’t work for non-asexual entities, and “plumber” doesn’t work for non-licensed anyone.

I think I shall start to call him Sam the Masturbator, because while it is a very graphic nickname, it’s the only work he’s allowed to do with pipes without someone else vouching for him first.

3- Sam owes $1,200 in back taxes because he doesn’t like to pay the full amount. Sam, if you haven’t paid the taxes you already owe, I think you need to shut the fuck up with your criticism of the guy who’s offering you about $2,000 extra dollars of tax relief (between the tax cuts and the emergency energy rebate.) Hey maybe you can use some of that money to pay off your back taxes, because believe it or not, paying taxes IS patriotic. You are paying for the government, without taxes there would be ludicrously expensive postal service, a toll for EVERY road you drive on, and uh, NO military, I think that last one is kind of the tipping point for even the right (most of the right) wingers.

4- Sam owes $727.90 in Mesa, Arizona for running a red light and not having insurance on his vehicle. Are you fucking kidding me? I was going to tell you to go to Hell with your $800 left over dollars, but I think you should actually go to Mesa with it, they probably need the money since McCain sure as hell won’t give them any earmarks.

5- Sam’s driver’s license has been suspended in Arizona, and he is not supposed to have one in Ohio while his Arizona license isn’t valid. We already knew you couldn’t drive because of your time in Arizona, but to know that legally you should not be able to drive just makes this all the funnier. You shouldn’t be driving or plumbing, but then again you shouldn’t be speaking on a national stage either for that matter, so I guess I can’t really criticize you for these. It’s like yelling at a kid for leaving the T.V. on while he set fire to the house with a can of gas.

6- Sam makes $40,000 a year, which means Obama would give him EIGHT times the tax cuts that McCain is offering ($892 vs $113). You say you don’t want to vote for Obama because he would tax you more. So basing your vote for McCain on the tax policy is what we call masochism, Sam. You have learned the facts and decided that you don’t really need an extra $779 a year, when earlier the difference between $270,000 and $269,400 a year before taxes was a deal-breaker for you. I think we all need to ask ourselves why we would listen to someone who is this stupid.

7- The business Sam is thinking of buying only makes well under $100,000 a year, and Sam doesn’t have any immediate intention to buy it. I’ve been combing through your comments with both hands and a flashlight, I think I’m more likely to find Osama bin Laden in your house making his beard out of the hair you shave off your head than you being honest and truthful.

8- Sam said he was an undecided voter. He’s actually one of the McCain surrogates now. How real common man of you Sam the Opportunist. Sam even agreed that Obama “would mean certain death for Israel” despite not being able to mention a single stance of Obama’s relative to Israel when asked. ON FOX NEWS. Sam the Bullshit Artist, when even FOX calls you out as a right wing wacko, you know you’ve lost your fucking mind.

9- As I said, Sam said he was an undecided voter. HE IS NOT ALLOWED TO VOTE IN THIS ELECTION! The G.O.P. instituted an exact match rule in Ohio that says their information and yours must match to the letter, and someone misspelled Wurzelbacher (this is probably how he got an Ohio driver’s license) and as such, Joe the Plumber is really Joe the disenfranchised Plumber. Seriously Sam? You can’t talk coherently, drive, vote, or plumb? The fact that you are somehow the poster child for the Republican party, but are prey to their voter suppression tactics and your life would be incredibly better under the Democratic party shows that John McCain vetted you with the same care and focus as he did Caribou Barbie (much credit to Stephanie Miller for coming up with that term.)

Sincerely,

Johnny Boulevard

I have been posted to India for the last month. Partially the reason my beer reviews have been in less supply (there is only so much you can say about Kingfisher) but I have been given access to Satellite TV. So I have started watching TV. And some of the commercials.

Now the weirdest part is that some of India’s commercials, especially if you get onto any of the native language channels are really bad. Think public access cable bad. Only a select few are actually decent. Though, the weirdest part is that the best two commercials I’ve seen are ads for AMD processors staring a Chess God. I kid you not.

Anand AMD Train Commercial

Anand AMD Cricket Commercial

The weird part is that Vishwanathan Anand (and you have to watch the first commercial to figure out how to pronounce that name) is actually a horrible, but good actor. I don’t know how many of you are familiar with Peyton Manning’s add last year in which he discusses a “6′ 5″ 230 pound quarterback with a laser-rocket arm.” Manning is bad. He’s not a good actor. But he’s hilarious, and well, he sells that he is playing as himself. In these ads above, Vishy (as his friends apparently call him) cannot act. He’s bad. But he’s hilarious. His face at the end of the train sequence is epically hilarious. It’s bad acting, but it is great acting. Anand is without a doubt, playing himself.

So my introduction to Anand came when I saw his ads on TV, and I had no frickin clue who he was. So I had to look him up and see what the big deal was. And he’s actually a very cool story. And one hell of a chess player. And then this article pops onto the cover of The Hindu this morning. Front cover. A story about Chess.

More importantly, this article obviously took the place (on the front page!) of this story on the cricket team. Now, imagine that you have a country 4x the size of the US, but instead of having three major sports as the US does right now (football, baseball, and …..oh yeah, basketball) it has 1.5:  Cricket and occasionally soccer (futbol to the rest of the world). Now imagine that that US team was pounding the crap out of one of their most bitter international rivals. Now imagine that story getting knocked off the front page BY A CHESS STORY!

Full Disclosure:  This article was written entirely on computers employing Intel Core Duo Processors.

Photo credit – http://flickr.com/photos/eustaquio/

Reverend Bill Bichsel, or “Bix” as he’s known to friends and admirers, has lived an extraordinary life.  Born in Tacoma in 1928, he has dedicated his life to education, and peace.  An ordained Jesuit Priest, Bill was the dean of students at Gonzaga University from 1963 to 1966, he helped start the Martin Luther King Center of Tacoma for the homeless in 1969, he co-founded the Tacoma Catholic Worker, which houses and provides amenities for the homeless Tacoma.  He has also been arrested over 45 times and spent nearly two years of his life in prison for protesting US military force on numerous occasions.

After reading a News Tribune article about Rev. Bichsel, we at The Melon felt compelled to talk to such a brave and caring individual. In calling Bill, he invited us into his home where we talked about everything from his politics and personal accomplishments to the fall of the Soviet Union and his memories of the great depression.

We’ve turned the resulting discussion into a two-part interview with Bill that we’re very pleased to share with you.

In part one, we discuss Bill’s influences, some of his protests, the fall of the Soviet Union, US interventionism, and more. (Part two will be released later this week.)

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Download Mp3

Photo credit to: www.companysj.com