Green Jello Hotdish

Illinois state Rep. Greg Harris of Chicago proposed a measure Thursday to make his state the second in the U.S. to recognize same-gender marriage.

Not civil union. Full civil marriage.

Openly-gay himself, Harris recognized from the start that it is an uphill battle to pass the bill, but he said he felt Illinois’ progressive track record in the Midwest poises it well for passing:

Illinois is a heartland state but has always been a leader in civil rights and social justice issues.

I’d almost buy that, if it wasn’t less than two years ago when the state finally passed a civil rights law protecting GLBT individuals from discrimination and hate crimes. I’d almost buy that if, rather than placing a moratorium on capital punishment, the state had banned the measure entirely.

Illinois doesn’t have a leadership track record, it has a record of maintaining the status quo. (Vote early and vote often comments aside.) The focus is on the state for now, as we wait to see how Obama does in the presidential race. Riding on the legacy of Lincoln has worn out. It’s time for some actual leadership to emerge. Is this Illinois’ time to shine?

Yesterday in New Jersey, same-gender couples lined up to apply for civil unions in the most recent state to take a step toward full marriage equality. The best summary is from one of the newly-unioned himself:

“It’s a bittersweet moment because it is not a marriage ceremony, but it is a step forward,” said Mr. Goldstein, the chairman of Garden State Equality, a gay rights group.

I argue constantly that marriage is a religious issue, not a state issue. The term is a religious term, the act is a religious act. And you know if we allow the gays and lesbians to have marriages, everyone will want them: including the polygamists. So what? How does that affect you? And you say people will marry their dog? I didn’t recall the motion to give animals contractual rights.

Everyone should have a civil union — gay and straight alike. If they choose to have a religious ceremony, allow them to enjoy their marriage. The state recognition should be a separate act.

It is, you say? The marriage license has to be applied for separately? Oh, well then. It looks like it wouldn’t be that big of a deal.

But think of the children. Yes, let’s. Think of the children of same-gender couples who grow up knowing the love of their parents and their family. Think of the children who grow up in this household where, in some states, they can be ripped apart at any minute, where if one of their parents is in the hospital and they’re the legal child of the other partner they may or may not be able to visit. Think of the children who have this awesome understanding of love and equality in an environment that doesn’t respect them.

Today, this week, maybe even this month we celebrate. But there is a long way to go. And I seem to remember hearing these arguments before: against inter-racial marriage, against inter-national marriage. But hey, in some states, feel free to get married to your cousin, married younger than 16, provided it’s an opposite-gender couple.

In a state whose electorate encouraged lawmakers to consider reinstating the ultimate sentence last November, it gives me hope reading about the Hard Line State’s progress toward ending this cruel and unusual punishment.

It’s just simply sad that it takes a botched execution in Florida to prompt a rethinking of a punishment which has been outdated since medieval times. It’s not just — in fact, the death penalty is the polar opposite of real justice, it is retribution. The proponents argue it deters crime: show me evidence of this claim. I don’t understand how a killer’s mind works, but I’m pretty sure they aren’t worried about the possibility of dying since chances are they’re at a higher risk of dying committing the actual act.

From a religious standpoint, it should be abhorrent to all Christians. Those who argue eye for an eye had better pick up their New Testament and reevaluate the passages from Christ where he commanded us to love our neighbor as ourselves, to save judgment for God the Creator, and be in constant service to the poor and oppressed.

Capital punishment is wrong. Period. End of discussion. For those who would argue, “Well what if someone killed your family,” I respond you don’t know me very well. (And you might be interested in reading this column by my colleague and office neighbor.)

The world is looking with a more skeptical eye at the death penalty following the botched executions in Iraq. We can’t do anything about anyone but ourselves, and it’s time to finally be a true leader and shore up our domestic policy against senseless, state-sanctioned violence at home.

Americans are not the only parties objecting to Prime Minister Howard’s attacks. The Australian had this to say:

Mr Howard’s outburst surprised some Liberal MPs, already worried over loss of electoral support. But senior Liberal figures were confident Mr Howard had succeeded in drawing the political debate back on to the Coalition’s flagship issue of national security, and away from climate change.

A defiant Mr Howard refused yesterday to back away from his hardline criticism, despite concerns the remarks could damage Australia’s alliance with the US.

“If I hear a policy being advocated that is contrary to Australia’s security interests I will criticise it,” he told parliament as Labor moved to censure the Prime Minister.

Our neighbors to the north weighed in through this report from the Canadian Press:

Howard’s foray into U.S. politics dominated Monday’s session of Parliament and news bulletins in Australia, and triggered a sharp response from Obama and senators on both sides of U.S. politics, including one who called the comments “bizarre.”

The issue overshadowed the results of a new opinion poll published Monday showing Howard, who will attempt to lead his conservative coalition to a fifth term at elections expected later this year, is lagging badly behind Labour opposition leader Kevin Rudd.

In a nationally televised interview on Sunday, Howard said Obama’s plan meant al-Qaida leaders in Iraq should “be praying as many times as possible for a victory, not only for Obama but also for the Democrats” at presidential elections due late next year.

Rudd said Howard’s comments amounted to calling the Democrats “the terrorists’ party of choice” and could harm Australia’s future with a possible Democratic U.S. administration.

Meanwhile, over in England, the message boards have been abuzz:

Ha ha ha! As if anyone cares what the Australian PM thinks - like a large proportion of his countrymen he is illiberal, and borderline racist.

No need to worry about this election year, Mr. Howard. I’d start packing now.

Front page news from the BBC this morning as Australia Prime Minister John Howard has said a victory for Sen. Barack Obama in 2008 will usher in victory for Iraqi terrorists.

Excuse me?

I’m the first to tell you I’m cautiously on the Obama bandwagon — but not because of his war stance. I’m afraid that he won’t be able to withstand the brutal attacks against him with minimal experience at the Federal level. Of course, this could very well work in his favor in the eyes of the American public, as we saw with Jimmy Carter and others in the past. He’s a better candidate than Sen. Hillary Clinton, of course, because of the baggage she carries.

But if Obama’s already pissing off foreign heads of state as a candidate over his anti-war stance, I’m 100 percent all for him. While I was in Australia two months ago, during Labour Party Parliamentary leadership elections in December, Prime Minister Howard has bigger fish to catch before he can be critical of American candidates. The analysis in the papers, on television, and from conversations with my good friend and travel companion Bryan who had just spent five months in the country, all pointed to rocky roads ahead for the PM. Perhaps this is just an antic to bolster Australian support for the war — and Liberal Party leadership — in the only country that still claims any positive public backing for American Middle Eastern policy in polling data.

The UW Board of Regents has approved a proposal to revise the admissions policy for system schools. The policy takes a “holistic” approach to decision-making, taking into account not just the academic credentials of an applicant, but also non-academic factors including race, leadership, personal experience, “motivation,” traditional vs. non-traditional status and a host of other subjective standards. (It must be noted that this decision affects UW system schools other than UW-Madison, which has been operating under this policy for some time.)

Rep. Stephen Nass (R-Whitewhater) has publicly challenged the move, saying he would request fellow Republican AG J.B. Van Hollen to review the law’s constitutionality. Supporters claim the legal precedent from the U.S. Supreme Court which has decided in favor of allowing higher educational institutions to include race as a factor in admissions, however Wisconsin law prohibits non-academic criteria, including race, religion, sex nor national origin of U.S. citizens. They also claim the policy will make the UW representative of Wisconsin. Opponents say this is a new form of affirmative action and establishing quotas in admissions, and will deter otherwise academically-qualified applicants from applying.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a national watchdog group, has filed charges with the IRS against Mac Hammond, the leader of a sprawling megachurch Living Word Christian Center in north suburban Minneapolis. The claims against him are strong amid the growing backlash in the evangelical movement, of financial misappropriations and insider business deals. (Hammond claims the Bible says nothing about clergy living in poverty; that the biggest mistake of Christians is the belief that wealth is inappropriate.)

Before last year’s elections, Hammond and Living Word were also under fire for endorsing US Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN 6th) in worship. The StarTribune story also goes to tell about an ex-member who was shunned for wearing a John Kerry button and called a “baby-killer” by church members.

The Ku Klux Klan is making a comeback, fueled in part by the 35 million immigrants to the United States. While numbers are increasing after near extinction of the group, it’s still important to point out that any increase in the age of 24/7 media and communication is troubling, especially in the current social, religious and political environments. From the Christian Science Monitor article:

As it did from its founding, the KKK views itself has having a religious dimension. Members see “lighting” a cross as a symbol of faith. Today, Christian Evangelicals are much more likely than mainstream Protestants or Roman Catholics to believe that “newcomers threaten traditional American customs and values,” according to the Pew Research Center.

But, he adds, “The whole nature of hate group membership has changed with the advent of the Internet. You can take bits and pieces from whatever group you like without necessarily becoming a card- carrying member.”

The House today approved a measure to raise the federal minimum wage to $7.25 over the next three years. Over 80 Republicans joined the Democratic caucus in favor of the measure, a certain victory for Democratic Congressional control.

But let’s not get ahead of ourselves. $7.25 over three years means that when the wage is finally adopted — in the year 2010 — inflation will have grown to eat most of the buying power of the new wage. In three years time, the $2.10 increase may very well be the equivalent of up to $1 less.

There was a victory today — of this certain. But let’s not overblow it. This raise is long overdue, and by the time it is implemented, we will need to be discussing the next wage increase.

Virginia Republican Rep. Virgil Goode believes that immigration laws must be strengthened to prevent individuals like newly-elected Minnesota Democrat Rep. Keith Ellison from joining the Congress. Why? Because Ellison, a Muslim, has decided to swear his oath of office on the Qu’ran.

The comments to this post by Julia Neuberger, a rabbi and Baroness in the British House of Lords who writes for On Faith, were so ripe with antisemitic hatred, my blood curdled as I read them. Simply because, as she explained, as a Jewish woman, she does not believe Jesus to be the divine Son of God.

I took a quiz yesterday that found me to socially be in step with only 38% of Americans. But if believing in what these reports publish — and the responses to them — is what I have to do to be American, then I’ll start packing my bags for New Zealand. The downfall of our culture, our government, and our society is not going to be an external attack. We’re doing it to ourselves.

Following a vote by Wisconsinites encouraging the return of the death penalty in this state, Florida Governor Jeb Bush (yes, that other Bush) has stepped away from family tradition and ordered a moratorium on implementations of the death penalty in that state — and a study into them — after a botched state-sponsored murder of an inmate earlier this month.

A California judge ruled the use of lethal injection a violation of cruel and unusual punishment — yet the death penalty “could be fixed.”

I could be disgusted — well, more disgusted — at this turn of events. But rather than fight this broken, psychotic system here, I think I just want to move to Auckland, New Zealand. Who’s with me?