My good friend Lisa, in her post today, alerted us Piskie readers to the actions of the Diocese of South Carolina, which she charged might be "secessionist and duplicitous".

I responded, because it showed me the clear, highly charged path between conditions and actions. It's almost as clear as the path that creates a lightning bolt between cloud and ground:

Since 2009, TEC has not received a pledge from the DofSC greater than 0.7% of its income. By contrast, even the DofLouisiana has pledged in the 10-11% range; NC is at 21%, and VA is above 17%. SC is de facto in secession.

I have two proposals, one hard line, the other softer. Hardline? Adopting the principle that one puts one's money where one's mouth is, I propose we replace the entire SC standing committee and bishop based on their failure to do their part to uphold the Church to which they claim to belong. IOW, show me your commitment to TEC by your pledge and its fulfillment. This is the God of Judgement, in spades. There will be winners and losers.

The softer line entails more work. Organize. Create a coalition. Invade the state as CORE did the South in 1961 with its Freedom Rides. Enlist Integrity, HRC, and any other organizations willing to participate. Visit the churches in the DofSC. All of them, if you have the staff. Engage the vestries and clergy. Ask for time to speak to "adult formation". Put human faces to labels like "gay" and "lesbian". You want friends? Be a friend. There are dozens of ways by which you can do this, you know them, you can't do it just by e-mail or Twitter or blogs. You have to be there and make the commitment to be a real friend. Visit a sick relative, hug a stranger, make a phone call in support of a parishioner's need. The softer line converts adversaries into friends. Net, no losers.

The bishop's stance? Up to his congregations. The change starts from the ground up. When the civil rights movement changed us forever, some fifty years ago, did you see the change coming from the top down? Weren't you listening?

 I recognize the risk I have created, that I might be thrust into a leadership role in such an effort. Understand that I greatly prefer a consultative role. I recognize that such a role transfers responsibility to another, whose values may not coincide with my own. I have not given sufficient thought to the morality of such a decision.

Romney's attack on gays

I wrote earlier that Gov. Romney's Wednesday, May 9th statement, "If a civil union is identical to marriage other than with the name, why, I don't support that". I wondered just what benefits granted hetero married couples Mr. Romney would deny LGBT couples, and why.

Today, I found the answer to those questions, in the form of a video. According to the video, Romney would:

 Deny health insurance for one's partner and kids
 Prohibit gay couples from adopting children together
 Refuse one person from making emergency medical decisions for his/her partner
 Let the states roll back federal rights for couples' hospital visits
 Work to adopt an amendment to the Constitution denying rights now granted under the 14th Amendment, Section 1. This would be the first Constitutional amendment in U. S. history to discriminate and deny rights to individuals.

"Calling it marriage creates a whole host of problems," Gov. Romney said during the 2012 debates, "for families, for the law, for the practice of religion, for education. Let me say this, 3,000 years of history shouldn't be discarded so quickly."

OK, let's examine his statement in somewhat greater detail. What kind of problems would gay marriage create?

 For families, it would mean that parents and grand-parents would have to learn that their LGBT progeny are human, discovering as they grow that they can love another of the same gender. It would mean abandoning the idol of straight marriage, 2.3 kids, picket fence, that sort of thing. Have you seen Fiddler on the Roof? Behold Tevye, the father of five daughters, the strong-willed actions of the eldest three abandonment of prejudice toward LGBT persons. But, that's already happening across the world.

 For the law, it means that Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the U. S. Constitution would finally apply to LGBT persons. Just as with the Caucasian clauses of almost every home real estate title in the sixties, it would invalidate every one of the state constitutional amendments that chooses not to recognize that two loving couples can marry and have their rights—and responsibilities—recognized by state and federal governments.

 For religion, it means that religious denominations have two options: re-interpret Scripture or declare bigotry to be a religious icon. In essence, this is a choice between pride and humility, between sticking with the concept of hetero superiority and God's decision to create some people gay.

 For education, note the educational aspect of all the above points. Essentially, the community of educators would have to, first, learn that human sexuality is not exclusively straight, it varies, and second, teach that natural variation in mammalian sexuality is a normal condition. As with families and religion, it must disenthrall itself from the pride of straight superiority and teach that gay sexuality is no more inferior than left-handedness or green eyes.

Oh, yes, Mr. Romney, gay marriage creates a whole host of problems, but there's not a single one of them that can't be overcome with strong political leadership. During the Republican debates, you chose to lead our country to a position that denies LGBT persons their rights to equality under the law. Should you be elected President, your Oath of Office would be perjury, because the platform on which you ran would be contrary to the U. S. Constitution, as amended.

A Clear Choice for 2012

I've been holding back on putting together my thoughts on why I'm for Barack Obama and against Mitt Romney for President. Yesterday, however, convinced me to begin to express my thoughts. With luck, they'll be succinct, perhaps even understandable.

President Obama, in yesterday's interview with Robin Roberts on "Good Morning America," said, "I've always been adamant that gay and lesbian Americans should be treated fairly and equally." Equality under the law is a concept written into the U.S. Constitution (14th Amendment, Section 1). For gays and lesbians, President Obama's position has "evolved". He now supports this concept more fully.

Gov. Romney, in contrast, said, “I don’t favor civil unions if it’s identical to marriage, and I don’t favor marriage between people of the same gender.” Asked why he opposed civil unions, in particular, he explained that in many cases they represent marriage by a different name for gay couples. “If a civil union is identical to marriage other than with the name, why, I don’t support that,” he said Wednesday."

Mr. Romney's statement left me wondering just what benefits granted hetero married couples Mr. Romney would deny LGBT couples, and why. What state interest is advanced by denying any benefits, now granted married couples, to gays? Name one.

Another question occurred to me: were Mitt Romney to be elected President, God forbid, how could he take the oath of office without perjuring himself? Remember the Presidential Oath of Office?

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. (emphasis mine)

Vice President Biden expressed what I believe to be the key framing issue in his Monday interview. "Who do you love," asked Mr. Biden, "Who.Do.You.Love?" he repeated, with emphasis. No government, State or National, can or should be in the position of encouraging or discouraging its citizens to love or not love another person of his or her choice. Amendment 1 of the Constitution, lead-off hitter for the Bill of Rights. 30 or 31 states, however, have placed themselves in the position of denying equal benefits to their LGBT citizens and encouraging all their citizens to hate gays and lesbians.

In the period Oct 1787 - Aug 1788, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay published a series of 85 papers in an effort to promote the ratification of the new U. S. Constitution. We know these papers today as The Federalist Papers. Federalist 10 discusses "the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority," a concept now referred to by the phrase "tyranny of the majority". de Toqueville popularized the phrase, using it as the title of one of the chapters of his book, Democracy in America, in 1835. Ayn Rand, with whom I agree only infrequently, stated in Collectivized Rights, that individual rights are not subject to a public vote, and that the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and that the smallest minority on earth is the individual--her extreme individualist views is where we part company).

Yet here we are, with 30 or 31 states whose majorities are conducting a campaign of oppression against LGBT persons. 29 states do not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. You could be fired if your employer thinks you're gay.

President Obama's and Gov. Romney's positions are sufficient for me to support Barack Obama for President this year.