February 7, 2012 | 12:39 pm

Federal appeals court strikes down California’s gay marriage ban

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

Follow me on

Gay Marriage advocates during a rally before hearing the news of the Proposition 8 over-ruling in San Francisco, Ca., Feb. 7. Photo by REUTERS/Beck Diefenbach

Affirming a ruling by the district court that California’s voter-passed ban on gay marriage was unconstitutional, the Ninth Circuit struck down Proposition 8. In a 2-1 opinion, Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote:

“Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable,” 9th Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote, “it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently.”

“There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted,” Reinhardt wrote

More from Reuters. The full opinion is on the Los Angeles Times website.

This is the latest legal decision in a case that many people have expected would find its way to the U.S. Supreme Court since voters approved the measure in 2008.

One of my law professors, Adam Winkler, has a great piece at the Huffington Post that breaks down what’s next for same-sex marriage and how the Supreme Court might resolve this case. A snippet:

With four Justices expected to vote against gay marriage (Roberts, Thomas, Scalia, Alito) and four others expected to vote in favor (Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan), how the Court rules is expected to turn on the vote of Anthony Kennedy, the usual swing vote. And that, perhaps surprisingly, buoys the hopes of many in the gay rights community.

The Supreme Court has twice before squarely ruled on gay rights issues and, in both cases, Kennedy wrote strong opinions endorsing equality for all Americans regardless of sexual orientation. In the most recent of those cases, Kennedy wrote that “our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage” and “other family relationships.” ...

Students of the Supreme Court also recognize Justice Kennedy to be the Justice most likely to side with the individual against the government.

Read the rest here, where he also addresses the standing issue that I discussed in the fall. The Supreme Court could still dismiss this case by ruling that supporters of the state law, as opposed to the state government, are not the proper party to defend the law.

February 6, 2012 | 1:37 pm

Defamatory to associate Romney with Sikh temple?

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

Golden Temple in Amritsar, Punjab, India. Photo by Wikipedia/Julijan Nyča

Last month, Jay Leno showed a slide of Mitt Romney’s “summer home.” In fact, it was Golden Temple in Amritsar, India, a shrine of the Sikh faith. And now Leno and NBC are being sued over it.

From Reuters and TheWrap:

Dr. Randeep Dhillon, who does business as Bol Punjabi All Regions Community Organization, claims that Leno “hurt the sentiments of all Sikh people in addition to those of the plaintiff” with his joke. Dhillon further claims that Leno’s joke “clearly exposes plaintiff, other sikhs and their religion to hatred, contempt, ridicule and obloquy because it falsely portrays the holiest place in the Sikh religion as a vacation resort owned by a non-Sikh.”

Was the joke false? Obviously. Was it funny? Maybe. But was it libel? I can’t possibly imagine how.

Libel pertains to false statements of fact. Parody doesn’t count. Just ask Jerry Falwell. (Well ... you can’t actually.) Did anybody seriously believe that the above image was of Romney’s summer home?

The lawsuit also raises interesting questions about whether Dhillon and other Sikhs think that it’s defamatory to be associated with Mitt Romney. I know that Romney appears to have the GOP nomination in hand, but can he really win the White House without the Sikh vote?

1 Comments — Leave your comment

February 6, 2012 | 11:33 am

If you OCeeker, you will find

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

This is definitely not your father’s faith column.

The OCeeker, a new feature from the OC Weekly, offers reviews of houses of worship in Orange County. It’s a great idea, and I can see why the alternative news weekly’s editor in chief—that Mexican guy—is so excited about it.

The OCeeker is Josh Dulaney, who comes by way of my old stomping grounds, the San Bernardino Sun, but brings a very different voice—complete with f-bombs and talk of Calvinists.

The inaugural review focuses on a Mars Hill’s OC offshoot, “where one will not find sh*tty little anthems of praise,” which coincidentally meets at the Observatory music hall. It turns out that when the OCeeker visited, Mark Driscoll was in town:

Driscoll is constant fodder in the evangelical blogosphere. Whether it’s his views on Christian manhood, or his tendency to wax long about all things Driscoll, he feeds the blog beast with one money quote after another. He was there to encourage the new church and give a message based on his controversial book, Real Marriage—a manual on matrimony and sanctified sex. Go Maaark! Git bizzy! Go Maaark! Git bizzy! It was standing room only in the temporary temple, where DJ Quik ironically is scheduled this month to bust rhymes about “Sweet Black P*ssy.”

(skip)

Ultimately, Driscoll urged the men, mostly in their 20s and sporting hip haircuts, to treat their wives, mostly in their 20s and flaunting SoCal couture, as Christ treats the church—with love, respect and understanding. It was an apt illustration plucked from the pages of the New Testament.

A high point of the message was Driscoll’s exhortation to men who probably aren’t ready for marriage:

“If you’re a guy who still thinks that The Big Bang Theory is interesting, that Zach Galifianakis is funny, that Seth Rogan has interesting insights, that David Spade contributes anything to the human race, (or) Adam Sandler has ever made a movie worth watching, punch yourself in the face.”

The OCeeker has an edge to it that makes it unique in the arena of religion reporting. (Funny, I’ve always told people that religion reporting is not about reporting what happened at St. Michael’s on Sunday—but for the OCeeker, it kind of is.) It’s also comes off as knowledgeable of the world of religion. However, the tone borders on condescending.

Maybe that came from a general dislike for Driscoll or a disagreement over the Mars Hill doctrine or a disdain for religion in general. I guess that that will become clearer as the OCeeker reviews more houses of worship. Gustavo Arellano, in an editor’s note, said that we can expect to see Josh Dulaney finding “Holy Rollers, mosques, parish, or Zoroastrianism center in the search for the holy, the sacred, and the freaky.”

I’m excited about this new feature, but also interested to see how it works out. Religion reporters certainly aren’t above having some fun with their stories—nor should they be—but they are best when they aren’t making fun of the people in their stories. That’s what Bill Maher didn’t get with “Religulous.” The result was a funny movie, even brilliant, but it wasn’t a sincere documentary and it didn’t reflect religion but only fringe fundamentalists.

0 Comments — Leave your comment

February 5, 2012 | 11:04 am

Ski resort Jesus statue gets another 10 years from Forest Service

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

Aerial view of Whitefish Mountain Resort. Photo by Wikipedia/Donnie Clapp

There is a statue of a skiing Jesus at Whitefish Mountain Resort in Whitefish, Mont. The statue, a memorial to World War II veterans that has resided on federal land since 1995, was evicted by the U.S. Forest Service a year ago. That move led to protests from religious groups and Montana’s congressman.

Last week, the Jesus statue got a 10-year extension on its lease. The AP reports:

Forest Service supervisor Chip Weber said the revised decision took into account that the statue is eligible for placement on National Register of Historic Places, and that no substantive concerns related to environmental conditions were found in about 95,000 comments received by the agency.

The latest decision renews a 10-year special-use permit for the Knights of Columbus Council, members of which placed the statue there.

“I understand the statue has been a long-standing object in the community since 1955, and I recognize that the statue is important to the community for its historical heritage based on its association with the early development of the ski area on Big Mountain,” Weber said.

Of course, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, which claims that the statue’s presence on federal land is a blatant violation of the separation of church and state, isn’t pleased with the issuance of a new special-use permit. Annie Laurie Gaylor, the organization’s co-president, called the permit a “sham.”

A lawsuit challenging the decision can be expected. And I don’t think that supporters can lean too much on the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision upholding the constitutionality of the mojave cross—since stolen—which was heavily tied to the facts of that case and, in my opinion, was not the watershed moment that proponents of religious symbols on public land wanted it to be.

So how will this one turn out?

0 Comments — Leave your comment

February 3, 2012 | 11:20 am

Komen reverses course; resumes funding Planned Parenthood breast cancer screenings

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

Race for the Cure 2005 Breast cancer fundraising race. Photo by Wikipedia/Aine D.

The Susan G. Komen-Planned Parenthood saga this week has come full circle.

After the Susan G. Komen Foundation said they would no longer fund breast cancer screening by Planned Parenthood, the public reaction showed just how divisive abortion remains in American society. And now, in a complete reversal, Komen says it won’t stop sending funds to Planned Parenthood.

Komen founder and CEO Nancy G. Brinker reportedly announced the about-face on the foundation’s blog. That link appears dead, but NPR excerpted the announcement of a policy change while it was still accessible:

“We want to apologize to the American public for recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission of saving women’s lives.

The events of this week have been deeply unsettling for our supporters, partners and friends and all of us at Susan G. Komen. We have been distressed at the presumption that the changes made to our funding criteria were done for political reasons or to specifically penalize Planned Parenthood. They were not.

Our original desire was to fulfill our fiduciary duty to our donors by not funding grant applications made by organizations under investigation. We will amend the criteria to make clear that disqualifying investigations must be criminal and conclusive in nature and not political. That is what is right and fair.

Our only goal for our granting process is to support women and families in the fight against breast cancer. Amending our criteria will ensure that politics has no place in our grant process. We will continue to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants, while maintaining the ability of our affiliates to make funding decisions that meet the needs of their communities.”

More from NPR here.

Whether pro-choice or pro-life, we can all agree that cancer doesn’t care. And I think that is what made a lot of people so upset about Komen’s original decision to de-fund. But, at the same time, those who were protesting the decision were willing to stop supporting the leading advocate for women against a life-threatening disease. Now that Komen has reversed course, they can certainly expect a protest from the pro-life side.

It’s all a bit head-spinning and leaves you wondering how Komen can repair their brand and get back to doing what they do best: helping women.

1 Comments — Leave your comment

February 2, 2012 | 10:43 am

Obama grounds financial reform in ‘love thy neighbor’ at National Prayer Breakfast

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

Barack Obama and Leader Nancy Pelosi at the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington Feb. 2. Photo by REUTERS/Larry Downing

Speaking at the National Prayer Breakfast this morning—and not the People’s Prayer Breakfast—President Obama grounded his push for financial reform in the Bible. Specifically, Obama said:

And so when I talk about our financial institutions playing by the same rules as folks on Main Street, when I talk about making sure insurance companies aren’t discriminating against those who are already sick, or making sure that unscrupulous lenders aren’t taking advantage of the most vulnerable among us, I do so because I genuinely believe it will make the economy stronger for everybody. But I also do it because I know that far too many neighbors in our country have been hurt and treated unfairly over the last few years, and I believe in God’s command to ‘love thy neighbor as thyself.’

Obama followed that up with an ecumenical tip of the hat—“I know the version of that Golden Rule is found in every major religion and every set of beliefs — from Hinduism to Islam to Judaism to the writings of Plato”—but it was still interesting to hear Obama putting such emphasis on biblical values in encouraging through and signing in the Dodd-Frank Act. And he didn’t stop there.

Now you’d expect Obama to be a bit more effusive about his Christian beliefs at the National Prayer Breakfast. And you wouldn’t simply be a cynic to point out that it’s campaign season and Obama needs to grab some of those moderate Christian voters, particularly evangelicals, who don’t know what to do with the GOP candidates.

But there seems to me a good deal of sincerity here. Much as questions about his faith have haunted Obama, this is not the first time he’s spoken openly about how Christian values have influenced his politics. In doing so, he comes off as a pretty run-of-the-mill liberal Christian. Which probably isn’t far off.

1 Comments — Leave your comment

February 1, 2012 | 7:22 pm

Shabbat dinner from the Davos World Economic Forum

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

Liz Claman (courtesy photo)

In recent years, Fox Business Network anchor Liz Claman has made it a priority to observe Shabbat at the Davos economic forum. Her thoughts from the 2010 dinner appeared on wowowow and were excerpted on this blog.

Before she left for Davos last week, Liz offered to write The God Blog from become an annual Shabbat dinner. My questions are in bold:

Why do a Shabbat in Davos? Is this about breaking bread with those attending or about observing the Sabbath?

It’s a little of both.  The World Economic Forum is like a gigantic magnet that pulls in world leaders and business people from around the globe to this tiny Swiss Alpine ski village. At some point, someone must have looked around and said, “My goodness, an important number of people here are Jewish. Let’s give them a place not only to mark Shabbat but to meet and schmooze.”

Who is at this year’s Davos Shabbat dinner?

Everywhere you turned, there was someone who’s got an important and pivotal role in either business, politics or both.

Israel’s president Shimon Peres and Minister of Finance Ehud Barak were the star guests. Israel’s Central Bank Governor Stanley Fischer, JP Morgan Chase International Chairman Jacob Frankel, U.S. Undersecretary of State Bob Hormats, Council on Foreign Relations President Richard Haass, Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg, Bank Hapoalim Chairman Yair Seroussi, Warren Buffett’s grandson Howard Buffett Jr., Fortune’s Adam Lashinsky, Nobel Prize winners Astrophysicist Saul Perlmutter and Biologist Bob Horvitz,  billionaire investor Jeff Greene, Henry Schein CEO Stan Bergman, the list goes on.

Who took a surprising role in dinner?

Randi Zuckerberg, the sister of Facebook Founder Mark Zuckerberg. She’s an amazing singer and led us all in “Shalom Alechem.” It was very emotional. There we all were at the Hotel Seehof singing at the top of our lungs in a country that hadn’t exactly extended real help to the Jews during World War II. Definitely an important moment and real affirmation of our resilience.

Davos this year has not been without Occupy protestors. How has that affected the tone of the conference? The dinner?

One of the first things my crew and I did upon arrival was to head over to the Occupy Davos location. The protestors were building igloos and I felt we as journalists should take a look. The mandate of the World Economic Forum is to “solve the world’s problems.”

One issue on a lot of participants’ plates was fixing the income inequality gap, a big Occupy complaint. We got there and found 3 guys slicing ice blocks. We talked to them. They are still angry at the banks. As one protestor put it, “They got bailed out when they got into trouble. So many of us lost our jobs because of their mistakes. Where’s our bailout?”.  They told me they were hoping for more people to amass but Davos is a 2 and a half hour winding drive from Zurich. Even with only 3 people there, it was a topic of conversation at dinner.

Ehud Barak brought up Israeli’s complaints about high inflation and unemployment, saying this was equally if not more important than Occupy Wall Street to discuss. Israel, he asserted, needs to be stronger than ever to face the always present threat Arab nations and Iran pose. “Let me remind you of a Jewish saying,” he said with a smile. “Be healthy because troubles will never be in short supply.”

0 Comments — Leave your comment

February 1, 2012 | 12:29 pm

Occupy the National Prayer Breakfast?

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

Move over National Prayer Breakfast. Folks affiliated with Occupy DC announced today that the newly organized People’s Prayer Breakfast will be meeting at the same time Thursday in Washington as a prayer alternative to the 59-year-old event.

Jaweed Kaleem has a good article about this at Huffington Post:

“We thought prayer shouldn’t be used for access to power or to move forward people’s agendas,” said Brian Merritt, an organizer of the alternative breakfast who is pastor of the city’s Palisades Community Church. “Prayer connects us to something greater than ourselves, but also moves us in action for those around us. It challenges us to confront others’ needs.”

So while dignitaries and the nation’s leaders munch on an elaborate meal—a ticket to the formal prayer breakfast has been $650 in past years—the free People’s breakfast will entertain a little over 200 people for coffee, danishes, meditation and prayer.

“We are not expecting any representatives or senators or the president, but they are all welcome to come,” Merritt said of the guest list, which includes rabbis and imams.

(skip)

“We aren’t here to gain political points. We are here to make the point that God is not found exclusively among the powerful, but among the most dispossessed,” said Merritt, who typically pastors to an inter-denominational congregation of a few dozen. “It’s not okay to be given a feeling of comfort when there are so many people who are suffering. Prayer is something people agonize over, people cry over. But it’s not always something that makes those who have power feel comfortable.”

Read the rest here.

Obviously, the People’s Prayer Breakfast isn’t going to overtake the National Prayer Breakfast. But it’s interesting to see this alternative movement—and I say that as someone who has not been a fan of the whole Occupy movement.

1 Comments — Leave your comment