May 31, 2012 | 10:49 am

Federal appeals court invalidates DOMA

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

Follow me on

Photo by Wikipedia/Ligth Mehanist

In related news, the First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled this morning that the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act violates the Constitution. The decision comes on the heels of two district court judges holding likewise.

The SCOTUSblog recaps:

Thursday’s ruling by the First Circuit marked the first time that a challenge to DOMA had succeeded in a federal appeals court, but the same issue is now pending in the Ninth Circuit Court after two federal judges in California had found Section 3 to be invalid.  The Ninth Circuit Court is also pondering now a request that it reconsider, en banc, a three-judge Circuit panel’s ruling in February striking down California’s voter-approved “Proposition 8,” banning same-sex marriage in that state.

DOMA’s Section 3, limiting any federal benefit based on marriage to a man and a woman, applies to more than 1,000 federal laws and is understood to affect more than 100,000 married gay couples around the country.  While Congress did not seek in DOMA to directly outlaw same-sex marriage, it did deny access for such married couples to such things as Social Security survivor benefits, health insurance for federal workers’ spouses, and other medical benefits, and it barred such couples from filing joint federal tax returns.

The First Circuit also noted that the ban “has potentially serious adverse consequences for states that choose to legalize same-sex marriage.” In fact, the state of Massachusetts joined in this challenge by arguing that Section 3 would revoke federal funding for the state’s Medicaid program for the poor, and for state veterans’ cemeteries.

DOMA is almost certain to make its way to the Supreme Court. And the First Circuit got into the ambiguity over the level of constitutional scrutiny that courts should apply to laws that discriminate against gays and lesbians, saying that it must be higher than the deferential rational-basis review applied to non-suspect classifications.

The First Circuit opinion can be read here.

If invalidated the federal government could not deny federal marriage benefits to the six states that have legalized same-sex marriage.

May 31, 2012 | 10:31 am

Congregants give ovation for pastor who wants to create gay ghetto

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

It comes as no surprise to readers of The God Blog that different Christians think different things about homosexuality. And even among those who think the people condemns homosexual activity, there is a split about how Christians should treat gays.

The spectrum is wide, but I honestly couldn’t conceive of a point on it that would advocate for create a gay version of the Warsaw Ghetto. Not until I read about a sermon that Charles Worley, pastor of a small North Carolina church, gave earlier this month.

Worley was upset with President Obama’s announcement supporting gay marriage—something that some Christians actually applauded. Totally understandable, though, because, as I just mentioned, lots of Christians think homosexuality is a direct affront to God. Or, as Franklin Graham put it, Obama’s support amounting to a “shaken fist” to heaven.

But Worley went much further and said that gays and lesbians should be boxed in and left for dead:

Build a great big large fence 50 or 100 miles long. Put all the lesbians in there. Fly over and drop some food. Do the same thing with the queers and the homosexuals. Have that fence electrified so they can’t get out. You know what, in a few years, they’ll die out. You know why? They can’t reproduce.

You can hear Worley’s sermon in the above video. It is, to say the least, theologically misguided. Worse, it seems to take the same view of gays that Hitler had. And thousands responded with protest. But Worley’s church congregation greeted him Sunday with a standing ovation.

From the Hickory Daily Record:

Church members and about 100 visitors from in and outside the area gave Worley a standing ovation when he approached the pulpit. A few members stood up from the pews and spoke out in favor of Worley as officers watched and intervened when one particularly longwinded member spoke.

The atmosphere was a vocal and jubilant one. The sanctuary was mostly full, with the vast majority of the crowd singing and crying out in joy. Many threw their hands up in praising the Lord and in support of the pastor.

“I appreciate all the support,” Worley said, buoyed by the loud cheers and applause of the congregation.

Barely touching on the subject of his May 13 sermon that sparked the controversy, Worley did not apologize. “I’ve got a King James Bible,” Worley said. “I’ve been a preacher for 53 years. Do you think I’m going to bail out on this?”

You can read the rest here.

I try not to make too much of crazy statements from previously unknown ministers with small followings. (See Terry Jones.) But as both an evangelical Christian and someone who had three Jewish grandparents, Worley’s statement struck as offensive, intolerant and historically insensitive.

Fortunately, it doesn’t even rise to the level of being a minority view. No Christian theologian is going to defend Worley’s position.

0 Comments — Leave your comment

May 30, 2012 | 8:56 pm

‘Family Guy’ asks ‘overprivileged Jews’ for an Emmy

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

From JTA:

“Family Guy” appealed for an Emmy Award by asking “overprivileged Brentwood Jews” to “let us into your little club.”

The ad was created as part of the FOX comedy’s “for your consideration” DVD mailer to Emmy voters, the Hollywood award news website Gold Derby reported. The awards are presented by the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences.

On Twitter, “Family Guy” creator Seth MacFarlane shared the photo, billing it “the Emmy ad the trades refused to run,” referring to Hollywood trade publications.

Actually the full ad, viewable here, said:

Come on, you bloated, overprivileged Brentwood Jews. Let us into your little club.

Peter Griffin wasn’t talking about Hillcrest.

As you know, I don’t care for “Family Guy” for the same reasons that Cartman tried to get the show canceled. But I do enjoy the occasionally Jewish humor comical. Who could forget “When You Wish Upon a Weinstein?”

0 Comments — Leave your comment

May 30, 2012 | 8:06 pm

Former NY gov.: Obama is American—if not, ‘he got away with it’

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

David Paterson. Photo by Wikipedia/David Shankbone

I had thought the challenges to the authenticity of President Obama’s birth certificate were over. The whole made-up controversy has been absurd, to say the least. But it seems to keep finding its way back into the news.

Today it was because of some that David Paterson, the former New York governor, said on his radio show. After defending Obama’s citizenship, an unnecessary exercise, Patterson said:

“You know, even if he wasn’t born in the United States at this point, it’s kind of like he got away with it. A lot of people get away with a lot of things.”
“You know, we learned later that Nixon spied on Johnson’s Paris peace talks. That was actually an act of…uh…I mean it was against the interests of the United State’s government. You’ve got to say that before you would say it was treason. But it was, but he got away with it. They decided it wasn’t a good thing to bring up at that particular time. Not only did he get away with it, he won the election, so maybe they should have brought it up.”

That statement, particularly the last line, seems to give more credence to the birther trope than the countervailing effect of any previous statement Paterson made saying Obama is American-born. The last time I mentioned birther news was this past winter when one of Mitt Romney’s sons cracked a birther joke.

0 Comments — Leave your comment

May 30, 2012 | 7:58 pm

ESPN’s elevator ride to hell

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

One of my favorite ESPN commercials involves the New Jersey Devil and an elevator ride to hell. I’ve shared this before, but it’s worth, um, resurrecting given the start tonight of the Stanley Cup Finals between the New Jersey Devils and Los Angeles Kings. For those who don’t know, that’s hockey.

1 Comments — Leave your comment

May 29, 2012 | 1:27 pm

Mayans not so worried about 2012 after all

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

So much for the 2012 end of the world. This is, supposedly, the year that Mayans warned the apocalypse would come. But, according to a study in the journal Science, Mayan calendars recently discovered in the ruins of Xultun go well beyond 2012.

USA Today reports:

“The numbers we found indicate an obsession with time and cycles of time, some of them very large,” Saturno says. “Maya scribes most likely transcribed the numbers on the wall in this room into (books) just like the ones later seen by conquistadors.”

Explorers first reported the site of Xultun, once a large Maya center, in 1915. But it was only two years ago that National Geographic Society-funded archaeologists noted a small residential room partly exposed by looters. The room’s walls proved to hold murals and small, delicate hieroglyphs inscribed in rows between paintings of scribes and rulers that not only corresponded to a 260 day ceremonial calendar and 365-day year, but the 584-day sky track of Venus and 780-day one of Mars.

Examination of the rows shows they are columns of numbers and symbols similar to lunar eclipse calculations found in early 16th century Maya writings that tied astronomical events to rituals. Some of them include dates corresponding to a time after the year 3500.

Read the rest here and more from the Christian Science Monitor here.

0 Comments — Leave your comment

May 29, 2012 | 10:44 am

Paleoanthropologist: End Times near for evolution debate

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

Richard Leakey. Photo by Wikipedia/Ed Schipul

Richard Leakey doesn’t have the name recognition of many contemporary atheists. He’s not a New Atheist like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, the late Christopher Hitchens. But Leakey, a paleoanthropologist, is getting some attention for recently telling the Associated Press that the pace of scientific discoveries will continue to accelerate at such a rate that over the next 15 to 30 years, the evidence for evolution will become overwhelming:

“If you get to the stage where you can persuade people on the evidence, that it’s solid, that we are all African, that color is superficial, that stages of development of culture are all interactive,” Leakey says, “then I think we have a chance of a world that will respond better to global challenges.”

Frankly, I already thought that it was.

The “debate” over evolution isn’t that old—at least not relatively. And the evidence is difficult to deny.

That, of course, does not automatically take God’s hand out of Creation. There are a number of exceptional scientists who, like me, think that evolution and Creation are both right. And, no, these scientists do not work at the Institute for Creation Research; these scientists don’t believe in a literal, 24/7 Genesis story. They believe that evolution was the mechanism by which God created.

0 Comments — Leave your comment

May 29, 2012 | 9:16 am

Prosecution: Muslim killed blind imam because he thought he was Antichrist

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

The defense attorneys for Hamza Boutouli, a 25-year-old Muslim, have admitted that their client killed the blind imam at the Muslim Welfare House in London’s Finsbury Park. What the defense and prosecutors are arguing in Boutouli’s trial for the manslaughter of Sheikh Maymoun Zazour is whether Boutouli could distinguish right from wrong or was legally insane.

Yesterday, the jury heard that after Zazour was discovered by mosque staff with a cord wrapped around his neck, Boutouli returned to the mosque while a witness was describing him to police and people “raving” about the imam being the Antichrist. The Haringey Independent reports the prosecution telling the jury:

“Among the things he was saying, which bystanders translated from Arabic so the police could understand, was that he had killed the Anti-Christ - and by that he meant the imam - and that this was judgement day.

“One thing they noted though was that he now had injuries to his face and ears which he hadn’t had before.

“Clearly he had been involved in a fight and, of course, we now know it was with the imam.”

Read the rest here.

Curiously, the Antichrist isn’t a Muslim concept.

0 Comments — Leave your comment

May 26, 2012 | 8:32 pm

NPR’s big hole in ‘God Hates No One’ story

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

Last week, NPR shared a photo of a 9-year-old boy, Josef Miles, who responded to Westboro Baptist Church—the “God Hates Fags” and “God Hates Jews” and “God Hates Nerds” guys—with a small sign on a ringed notebook that said “God Hates No One.” The boy’s mom explained on Facebook:

“Josef was determined to make his own statement so we went to the car and with pencil and his sketch pad, he made up his own little sign that reads ‘GOD HATES NO ONE,’ ” his mom wrote. “Those people are scary but he stood strong, was respectful and stood by his convictions. He will be a good man, I have no doubt. I got my Mothers Day present early.”

There was a compelling story behind Josef Miles’ decision to make that sign. But as Sarah at GetReligion pointed out, NPR, when it had the Josef and his mom on the radio with Michel Martin, left a very bit component out: Just what religion are Josef and his mom?

This may seem like a small detail, but it’s central to the story, which is all about Josef having guts and conviction and a perspective different than the Westboro clowns.

Few tents are as exclusive as that belonging to Westboro. We already knew that Westboro does not think God hates no one. They don’t even think that God loves most people.

But without knowing Josef’s religious beliefs, we don’t really know why he thinks God hates no one. Does he attend an Open Church congregation? Or is he from a more theology conservative background that condemns homosexuality? Or—wait for it—is he not religious at all?

Such an inquiry does not take away from what made Josef’s action remarkable. But it is essential to providing much needed context to the motivation behind his belief.

7 Comments — Leave your comment

May 26, 2012 | 8:22 pm

Police kill naked man ‘eating’ face of attack victim

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

I’m a fan of zombie stories: “Walking Dead,” “Dawn of the Dead,” even the “Resident Evil” film series. And this story from the Miami Herald sounds frighteningly like one of the scenes I’ve seen in any one of those zombie movies and shows. Well, except for the naked part.

One man was shot to death by Miami police, and another man is fighting for his life after he was attacked and his face allegedly half eaten, by a naked man on the MacArthur Causeway off ramp, police said.

(skip)

The officer, who has not been identified, approached and saw that the naked man was actually chewing the other man’s head, according to witnesses. The officer ordered the naked man to back away, and when he continued the assault, the officer shot him. The attacker continued to eat the man, despite being shot, forcing the officer to continue firing. Witnesses said they heard at least a half dozen shots.

The partially eaten victim was in critical condition. Not much else is known. Read the rest of the horrifying story here.

In other news, the End may be near.

(Hat tip Voidmstr)

0 Comments — Leave your comment

May 25, 2012 | 5:02 pm

Another federal judge strikes down DOMA

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

In other same-sex marriage news, a second federal judge has overturned the Defense of Marriage Act as unconstitutional. The San Francisco Chronicle reports:

The decision by U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken of Oakland was the second by a Bay Area judge this year to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act, the 1996 law withholding more than 1,000 federal benefits - such as joint tax filing, Social Security survivor payments and immigration sponsorship - from gays and lesbians legally married under state law.

Wilken also overturned another 1996 law that denied federal tax benefits to long-term health insurance plans for state employees if they included domestic partners.

That law, like the Defense of Marriage Act, was based on “moral condemnation and social disapprobation of same-sex couples,” she said. She cited assertions during congressional debate that same-sex domestic partnership was “an attack on the family” and would “undermine the traditional moral values that are the bedrock of this nation.”

Read the rest here and Judge Wilken’s full opinion here.

0 Comments — Leave your comment

May 24, 2012 | 10:49 pm

Maryland high court OKs same-sex divorce

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

Maryland does not recognize same-sex marriage, but last week the state’s highest court said that if a same-sex couple legally married in another state sought a divorce in Maryland court, then Maryland would have to grant it. From the ABA Journal:

The court, in a 7-0 ruling (PDF), said Maryland courts should withhold recognition of a valid foreign marriage only if that marriage is “repugnant” to state public policy. It said that threshold is a high bar that had not been met in the case before it.

(skip)

“A valid out-of-state same-sex marriage should be treated by Maryland courts as worthy of divorce, according to the applicable statutes, reported cases, and court rules of this state,” Judge Glenn T. Herrell wrote for the court.

What caught my eye was the court’s saying that a same-sex marriage was not repugnant to state public policy—even though state public policy does not permit same-sex marriage. If this logic was in fact flawed, it would be odd coming from a 7-0 decision.

Possibly the rationale is that though same-sex marriage is against Maryland public policy, recognizing it does not rise to the level of being “repugnant” and, furthermore, it is balanced against the public policy interest in not forcing an unhappy couple to remain married.

But what the Maryland high court right to do this?

0 Comments — Leave your comment