STEP ASIDE, MR. SCALIA...STEP WAY ASIDE

What if a Supreme Court Justice publicly expressed discriminatory opinions against an entire population segment? And what if that same Justice repeatedly voted in a way that would deny that population segment the same rights as other Americans? And most importantly, what if the culture was rapidly changing in favor of the above-mentioned population segment, but the Justice continued to vote in favor of what he has referred to as “rather modest attempt to preserve traditional sexual mores against the efforts of a politically powerful minority."

The very bad news is that there is indeed such a Supreme Court Justice. For those who have not really paid much attention to him, let me introduce Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia (below, left). And that much talked-about population segment? That would be gay Americans, a part of the U.S. citizenry that Scalia has clearly chosen to disenfranchise at every turn. That is why I am using my citizen voice to ask Scalia to recuse himself from the Court’s 2013 votes related to gay rights. I believe Scalia should step aside during these votes based on his unfortunate, discriminatory and fully homophobic past votes on issues related to gay Americans.

 

This year, the Supreme Court is slated to vote on two critical issues related to gay rights -- California's Proposition 8, which bans gay marriage, and a provision of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.  In the first case, the Court will consider the constitutionality, or lack thereof, of California’s Proposition 8, which defines marriage as only between a man and a woman.  The second critical decision will have to do with the Defense of Marriage Act, which also holds that only men and women can marry one another, and that all of the following are not legal for gay couples:  Insurance benefits for government employees, Social Security survivors' benefits, immigration, and the filing of joint tax returns.

For the record, DOMA was signed into law in 1996. These past 17 years have seen more rapid social change regarding gay Americans than in any time in U.S. history. Even the President who signed the bill into law, Bill Clinton, now disagrees with it. So do a number of federal courts that have ruled the bill unconstitutional. DOMA does not really apply to contemporary America. And although 1996 may not seem like such a long time ago, we all know that much has changed since then. So, those “traditional sexual mores” Scalia once referred to are not so traditional anymore.

Here is why Scalia needs to dismiss himself from this debate. First, and most recently, during an appearance before the American Enterprise Institute (a conservative think tank), Scalia, said, “Homosexual sodomy? Come on. For 200 years, it was criminal in every state."  Scalia’s comments are uninformed on two fronts: First, homosexuality is not all about sodomy. Without going into the graphic details, let’s just say that just like heterosexuals, some homosexuals engage in sodomy and some do not. And just like heterosexuals, homosexuals base their loving relationships on a number of human elements, only one of which is sex.  Second, many laws that were enacted 200 years ago no longer apply to the wide population in the U.S. Has Scalia taken a look at copyright laws, for example, since technology wrought online publications?  The “200-year” rule is not a valid argument for discrimination.

Further, in an address to students at Princeton University in December, Scalia said, ““If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against other things?” Clearly, Scalia, 77, came of age at a time when World War II had recently ended, and the country was in the throes of true conservatism. There was little or no talk of civil rights, and almost no talk of homosexuality. He was raised in a strict Catholic household, and attended a private Catholic high school.  In a 2010 NY Times article,a high school classmate of Scalia’s said, "This kid was a conservative when he was 17 years old. An archconservative Catholic.” It is the “archconservative” part that matters here, not the “Catholic” part. Believe me, there are plenty of gay Catholic Americans who would jump at the opportunity to get married.

There is a federal statute that governs judicial recusals.  Here is what it says: (a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. (b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances: (1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding.”

How much clearer could it be? Scalia is unqualified to rule on issues related to gay rights. I could easily make the case that Scalia is simply too out of touch with contemporary culture and society to rule on these cases, but instead, it is more appropriate to simply label him as unqualified to do so, based on the above-mentioned federal statue. His “impartiality might reasonably be questioned” and he clearly “has a personal bias or prejudice” against the homosexual population in America.

Justice Antonin Scalia needs to recuse himself from both cases that are due to be heard in the Supreme Court this coming Spring.

THE DEADLIEST ANTI-GAY RHETORIC

Jack Conkling is a seventh grade social studies teacher in Hutchinson, KS, population just over 42,000. In Hutchison they still like to brag about Tommy Thompson, an early to mid-20^th century football hero now in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. They don’t, however mention one of their other native citizens, Ms.  Raquel Darrian, a 1990 Penthouse Magazine “Pet of the Month,” and later a successful porn actress. Such activities have no place in Hutchison. No, everything in Hutchison is quite orderly.

Safely landlocked in the middle of middle America, Conkling (below, right) also coaches women’s basketball at Buhler High School in Buhler, KS, a cozy bedroom community of just over 1300 people.  The most recent census says Buhler is 98.45 percent white. In his photos, Jack looks like any other average white guy,

but here’s what separates Jack from the pack. He wrote this on his Facebook page, where many of his “friends” are also his students:

“Gay marriage is wrong because homosexuality is wrong. The Bible clearly states it is sin. Now I do not claim it to be a sin any worse than other sins. It ranks in God’s eyes the same as murder, lying, stealing, or cheating.”

Conkling’s post made national news and continues to be the stuff that blogs are made of from coast to coast. I found Conkling’s email address and decided to drop him a line:

Dear Mr. Conkling:

Gosh, I can’t help wondering what your gay students felt when they read on Facebook that because of their sexuality they are just like murderers -- “in God’s eyes.” You do know that if you teach seventh grade long enough, the odds are that you will have gay students in class, don’t you, Mr. Conkling? Then I couldn’t help wondering what it must be like to live in Kansas and know what the world looks like through God’s eyes.  Could you tell us more about that in your next Facebook post? By the way, I’m sure you know that Kansas is one state where the death penalty is still legal.  So, since being gay and being a murderer are equal in God’s eyes, do you believe it would be most efficient to execute gay people? And listen, if so, you better hurry, because you know the Kansas legislature, as we speak, is debating House Bill 2323, which would abolish the death penalty.  Hope to hear from you soon…

Paul A. Greenberg

Oddly, I haven’t received a response from Mr. Conkling.

Meanwhile, almost 800 miles away in tiny Braxton, MS (population 181, and no that is not a typo), MS State Representative Andy Gipson (left) has been busy with his own Facebook page, on which he quoted the Bible last week:

“Leviticus 20:13 reads: "If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

It’s worth mentioning that Gipson references the Old Testament. I was wondering if he happened to see the part where it says it’s acceptable to sell your daughter into slavery.  Oh, and Andy, did you see where Leviticus says I’m supposed to “hate any animal in the water that does not have fins or scales?” Fess up, Andy…you know you eat Gulf shrimp over there in Mississippi.  I’m pretty sure the Old Testament also says the world is flat and prostitutes must be stoned to death.  

Andy Gipson needs to be reminded that he was elected to serve all of his constituents fairly and equally, including those who are gay. I want to remind him that his job is to help create and pass laws. The job does not include promoting any particular religious view, and passing moral judgments on constituents is way outside the boundaries of his job description. I would remind him that the basic tenet of Judeo-Christian philosophy is respect for the dignity of human beings – all human beings. While he has the right as a private citizen to interpret the Bible, that privilege does not come with his elected position. Now that he has advocated death for gay citizens, I believe he should be compelled to step down.

Similarly, Jack Conkling should pay close attention to the wave of gay teen suicides in this country. He should realize that as a middle school teacher he wields great influence over his young students, and again I would remind him that some of them are gay.

To equate their inborn sexuality with the crime/sin of murder should be grounds for his immediate dismissal from his profession. I base this on the fact that he is working with impressionable, vulnerable youth, and his expressed attitude may cause some of his students lifelong self-doubt or worse. His ill-conceived Facebook post implicitly communicated to his students that they are not and cannot be good enough to live in our society.

Now that the President of the United States has publicly endorsed marriage between gay people, the anti-gay rhetoric is amping up to an unreasonable volume.  When a seventh grade teacher in Kansas and an elected official in Mississippi each find it acceptable to publicly denigrate all gay people based on biblical scripture, going so far as to compare sexuality to murder, we have lost our cultural sense of reason. It serves to remind us that there is something in the human condition that just causes some people to need extreme affiliation with their "own kind," and extreme superiority over those who are not just like they are. I’m not about to try to figure out what that need stems from, but I am sure such individuals do not belong in our public school systems or legislatures.

TRENDING NOW: THIS WEEK'S BIG 5

TRENDING NOW is a new Greenberg Rants feature that links you to the best online reporting of five of this week’s biggest news stories. Here we go:  

THE JOHN EDWARDS TRIAL: The best daily reporting of the Edwards trial is found on Daily Beast, where reporter Diane Dimond is in the courtroom listening to testimony every day. Dimond’s reporting offers readers a true “you are there” perspective. It was Dimond who reported that the late Elizabeth Edwards publicly confronted her husband in an airport over his affair with Rielle Hunter, and experienced a breakdown in the presence of campaign employees. Her daily reports are thorough and concise.
  
SANTORUM’S WEAK ENDORSEMENT OF MITT ROMNEY: Former GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum oddly sent out a late night email on May 7 endorsing the presumptive Republican candidate Mitt Romney. Let’s remember Santorum is the guy who publicly stated that Mitt Romney was the "worst Republican in the country for the GOP to put up against President Obama in November." In his endorsement, which you can read in full at Politico you will notice Santorum reiterates that he and Romney have real differences of opinion, but he is still harping on social issues rather than the nuts and bolts issues Americans care about, Santorum says, “We certainly agree that abortion is wrong and marriage should be between one man and one woman.”

VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN CAME OUT IN SUPPORT OF GAY MARRIAGE THIS WEEK: “I am absolutely comfortable with the fact that men marrying men, women marrying women and heterosexual men and women marrying one another are entitled to the same exact rights, all the civil rights, all the civil liberties,” said the vice-president. The New York Times did a nice job covering Biden’s rather blatant departure from the Obama administration’s stated opinion on the issue. The White House was quick to downplay Biden’s outspoken support, reiterating that Obama’s thinking on this issue is “still evolving.”  

CAN SUPERHEROES SAVE THE FILM INDUSTRY? “The Avengers,” one of the most highly anticipated feature films in recent history, broke all box office records this week with a $200 million first week opening, the highest in box office history. How Disney and Marvel pulled this off, and how they prevented it from leaking online to any great extent is the subject of a good story at The Hollywood Reporter.

 SECOND MASSEUR FILES SEXUAL BATTERY SUIT AGAINST JOHN TRAVOLTA: It was big news on May 7 that actor John Travolta had been sued for sexually assault a male masseur. Travolta’s attorney, Marty Singer announced Travolta

vehemently denies the accusations. However, by the next day, a second masseur, in a different city filed a similar suit. Each suit asks for damages in the amount of $2 million. Radar Online is so far doing the lead reporting on this story, complete with a copy of the formal complaint.

IS THIS THE MOST DANGEROUS MAN IN AMERICA?

This week, in one of his first appearances in New Hampshire, before a group of college students, GOP presidential hopeful Rick Santorum was confronted about his views against marriage equality. Reportedly, he asked the student what the difference would be between allowing two men to get married and allowing more than two men to marry. Essentially, he compared gay Americans getting married to polygamy. This is from a guy who has in the past compared gay people getting married to bestiality and sex between dogs.

Reports are showing up that bigger money is starting to bolster Santorum’s surprisingly emerging candidacy. Just yesterday, Foster Freiss, a megabucks-rich Wyoming financier, revealed that he dropped a half million dollars on Santorum’s Super PAC. This news comes right as it is revealed that Santorum, in a proactive sweep, is planning a major media blitz in South Carolina. While he preps for South Carolina, polls have him pulling up to third in New Hampshire. Meanwhile, he continues his unabashedly bigoted remarks about black Americans, gay Americans, pro-choice Americans, poor Americans, and even Mormons (who he says are members of a dangerous cult”). Rick Santorum is a bigot. Just reading those words right now on the page, I can’t help wondering why I haven’t read them anywhere else. Not only is he a bigot, but he tries mightily to convince you and me that he is not, even backtracking on his own words. Watch:

The ultimate danger is an exclusionary, closed-minded bigot gathering steam in the race to be the leader of the free world. What kind of a world would happen with a President Santorum? I envision a world under Santorum where America is at war with Iran. He has as much as said it. I envision a world in which girls raped by their fathers are forced to give birth; a world in which fully trained doctors in the best medical facilities in the country are legally compelled to allow a woman to die rather than abort the fetus that is killing her. Santorum would even like to legislate sexual behavior between men and women; he recently said contraceptives are “a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.” His views on contraception are nothing new; they’ve just gotten louder. Here is what he said as far back as 2006:

Those who still remain unconvinced of Santorum’s ignorance should take note of the fact that somehow he speaks of birth control only in terms of pre-marital sex. The truth is it is a multi-faceted, life and death issue. He makes no mention of sexually transmitted diseases, HIV infection, teen pregnancy rates or any other issue associated with a lack of birth control. Again, Santorum’s narrow view of the world ignores inevitable consequences and asks the citizenry to subscribe to his own lack of understanding of vital issues.

Santorum’s rhetoric is positively Bachmannesque in its ignorance, but there is quite a distinction between him and Michele Bachmann. She was a flake who fizzled out of the public’s consciousness faster than you can say “Iowa.” He, on the other hand is rising. By some estimates his support nationwide quintupled after Iowa. He is reported to have raised $2 million in the 48 hours following the caucus there. As the money pours in, Santorum is steadily elevating his rhetorical swagger. On Thursday he actually dissed Ronald Reagan in a speech about social security. Try to remember the last time you heard a GOP candidate who was bold (or stupid) enough to denigrate Reagan. Santorum’s getting perilously cocky.

The danger here is the precedent. If Santorum can rise in America, what ails this country, and what other fringe candidate could garner support? We Americans rarely rally behind extremists who run for president. But people are scared right now. After witnessing the Arab Spring, bloodshed worldwide, the Occupy movement coast to coast – Americans are ripe for a law and order guy. And if the only type of law and order that presents itself is moral law and order in the body of a Rick Santorum, it appears a lot of scared Americans are ready to jump on his highly determined and rigidly conceived bandwagon. He is a man whose rapid ascent is the clear result of national desperation.

That’s no way to elect a president. If I could get one message across to all of those rabid Santorum supporters it would be this: What you are witnessing is the candidacy of an angry man. Inside of his rhetoric is a true rage against freedom. It is the world according to Rick Santorum, and anyone who doesn’t fall in line is simply dismissed and categorized as a sinner.


If you want to witness a teachable moment, this is the big one. Here and now we can learn a lot about what moves people when they’re in trouble. Santorum’s message is resonating among citizens who feel disenfranchised and hopeless. He is playing the God card, and transforming his holier-than-thou attitude into a public rallying cry for his limited version of morality.

Will we buy what he’s selling in the long term? I think not. But plenty of damage can be done in the meantime. As the campaign goes on, attention will likely turn to Santorum’s cozy connections with big business, his uncomfortable alliance with lobbyists, his questionable past business dealings and his hawkish views on foreign policy. But right now, since he seems hell bent on imposing his moral views on America, it’s time for us to ask ourselves if we could truly abide a President who dismisses millions of us simply because we believe in something he does not comprehend – freedom of choice.

SAME SEX MARRIAGE: CHECK THE CONSTITUTION

Your culture is shifting – can you feel it? If you feel vaguely uncomfortable, apprehensive and possibly even scared, you are not alone. Right now, major shifts in the American culture have everything to do with inclusiveness and exclusiveness. We are moving toward including the homosexual segment of our population, as we move closer to excluding our immigrant population. Ying, Yang. Push, Pull. Aahhh, ouch. Feel it?

I will save the immigrant portion of this topic for another day, but today let’s talk same-sex marriage. It is front burner now. You know that. It has been inching toward the front of our collective consciousness for a very long time now, but U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker just gave it the necessary impetus to speed itself up. Republican-appointed Judge Walker, on August 4, 2010, ruled that California’s controversial Proposition 8 is unconstitutional, in spite of the millions of Californians that voted otherwise in 2008. Proposition 8, you will recall, was a measure that made same-sex marriage illegal in California. Widely seen as precedent setting in the U.S., Prop 8 has given talking heads material for years now, and threatened to deny millions of Americans their constitutional rights.

In his ruling, Judge Walker (below, left)wisely and sensibly wrote this: “Moral disapproval, without any other asserted state interest, has never been a rational basis for legislation.” (Page 133). He also made the inevitable comparison to our country’s mid-20th century struggle with inter-racial marriage. He wrote: “Race restrictions on marital partners were once common in most states but are now seen as archaic, shameful or even bizarre. When the Supreme Court invalidated race restrictions in Loving, the definition of the right to marry did not change. Instead, the Court recognized that race restrictions, despite their historical prevalence, stood in stark contrast to the concepts of liberty and choice inherent in the right to marry.” (Page 114)

When Walker refers to ‘Loving,’ he is referencing the landmark case Loving v. Virginia, a 1967 Supreme Court decision that invalidated the 1924 Racial Integrity Act that outlawed interracial marriage. The plaintiffs in the 1967 case were Mildred Jeter, a black woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, who married in Virginia and were subject to criminal prosecution under the Racial Integrity Act. Watch:

Now, 43 years later, similar dynamics are showing up in the struggle to legalize same-sex marriage in America. You might think we had settled this equal rights dilemma all those years ago, but clearly we did not. Somehow, because two people with the same reproductive organs fall in love, America has collectively decided to disenfranchise gay people. How do you feel about that? Do you feel that you, as a citizen, have the right to deprive other citizens of their rights because of their sexual preference? Are your rights as a citizen in any way tied to your sexual organs? Let’s carry that just a step further: What if your rights as a citizen were challenged based on some things that you have done sexually in your life? Think back, real hard now. What if, all of a sudden, your citizenship was challenged because you had sex with someone other than your spouse? Or what if you were no longer allowed to visit your spouse in the hospital because of that one time you had sex with a prostitute? Or wait, what about this? What if you were turned down for military service because you like three-ways?

The very noisy objections of the anti-gay marriage movement are typified by one Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council, a right-wing Christian group dedicated to conservative policies. Perkins has been vocal in his staunch objections to all things homosexual. I like to think of Perkins’ group as Anita Bryant on acid. But that’s just me. Listen to what Perkins had to say about Judge Vaughn’s ruling:


You and I both know that 50 years from now we will look back on this the same way we look back on Loving v. Virginia. As I said earlier, you can feel the culture shifting right now. Even 10 years ago it was unheard of for some major corporations to extend employee benefits to the partners of gay employees, but now it is almost de rigueur. The idea of two men or two women adopting a child was not even considered just a few years ago, and now there are thousands of such families. The thought of making it legal for openly gay men and women to serve in the military was not even up for discussion not long ago, and now we are on the cusp of repealing the discriminatory, ill-conceived “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy. It is happening, albeit perhaps not as swiftly as some citizens prefer.

In America, social change happens at a snail’s pace. When it does happen, as dictated by the judicial system, there is an inevitable backlash from those who cling to tradition, even if that tradition is flawed and discriminatory. In the end, when social change focuses on marriage, as it did with the Lovings, love trumps politics, history and prejudice. That will certainly happen again, but this time the recipients of equal rights will be gay Americans. That could include your sister, or your uncle, or your boss, or your best friend or your son’s best friend, or your pre-school teacher or…well, fill in the blank. These individuals are not anomalies. Rather, they are your fellow citizens.

Judge Vaughn’s ruling is not a radical move. Instead, it is an effort to extend equal protection under the law to all citizens. It is not an effort to change the law, but rather one to enforce existing law. The 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution clearly states that no state shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” With that very simple statement in mind, Vaughn wrote the following in his ruling:

“Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.”

That says to me that the only way gay Americans can be prohibited from marrying other gay Americans is by amending the existing U.S. constitution. Since that is unlikely to happen in our lifetime, I suggest you break out your tux, or your party dress and get yourself to the church on time. There are wedding bells about to ring coast to coast and surely you won’t want to miss the fun.

The Day The Justice Put Love Asunder

We who live in Louisiana occasionally must cringe in humiliation at the bad behavior of some of our fellow Louisianans. Surely you remember the Jena Six, the story of the six black students who allegedly beat up a white student in 2006, resulting in one of the black kids being convicted and sentenced to a possible 20 years in prison. A similar attack on a black student by whites a week earlier had resulted in only a suspension from school. The Jena Six incident started when white kids hung nooses from a tree in the school courtyard, a perceived threat to the black kids. Welcome to Louisiana.

Now comes word that we have further reason to hang our heads in shame in Louisiana, due to the ridiculous rantings of one Keith Bardwell, a Tangipahoa Parish justice of the peace who decided to play God and refuse to marry Beth Humphries and Terence McKay because he’s black and she’s white. “I've had countless numbers of people that was born in that situation, and that they claim that the blacks or the whites didn't accept the children," Bardwell told CBS 'Early Show's' Harry Smith. "And I didn't want to put the children in that position."

If haven’t yet seen Bardwell defending his decision, watch this Associated Press report:

I often tell people that having lived through the 1960s and now into this new century, I believe racism is more widespread and threatening today than it was in the days of the civil rights movement. Some people disagree with my assessment ,but I firmly believe it. How many Keith Bardwells still lurk out there and never emerge until they do something blatantly stupid like this? It makes one wonder: Are civil rights strides necessarily permanent? Do landmark legal decisions change ideology or simply change the way the country does business? Consider the case of Mildred and Richard Loving, the couple whose struggles challenged the U.S. Constitution and ultimately encouraged the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down state laws that denied interracial couples the right to marry in this country. Here is an ABC news report from 1967:

The Lovings unknowingly changed the course of love and marriage in this country, and had it not been them, it would likely have been another interracial couple who made it happen. But cultural change and altering the hearts and minds of status-quo prone Americans does not come quickly. It would take fully 30 years until America in majority supported interracial marriage, according to polls from Gallup. Watch this quick statistical recap:

Some might say the problem is really generational, and men and women with mindsets similar to Bardwell’s are dying off. They would argue that the evidence from polls like the one you just watched suggest that the youngest generation supports equality. Unfortunately, the same could be said of the youngest generation in the 1960s, but age tends to narrow the thinking of many people, and if we asked those same people who were 18-29 in 1967 their opinions of interracial marriage today, I wonder if many of them would opt for the tradition of “marrying your own kind.”

At least interracial couples have the strength of the law on their sides. Now, if we can only move the culture along to a point when Mike and Sam or Barb and Sue can legally marry. As I said, cultural change comes slowly. But I have faith that it is coming.

"AND A CHILD SHALL LEAD THEM"

Don’t ever discount the collective wisdom of the pre-pubescent crowd. Two kids hit the headlines this week in separate, but equally significant incidents.

First, AOL “Parent Dish” writer Bethany Sanders wrote a piece about a Romona, CA sixth grader who learned firsthand about censorship. Reportedly, student Natalie Jones was to deliver a report to her class about the late Harvey Milk,(right) San Francisco’s first gay elected official. Principal Theresa Grace vetoed the idea, claiming it violated the school’s policy about teaching sexual content. Read all about it here.

I couldn’t help wondering what Ms. Grace is trying to protect her young charges from. From the importance of treating all human beings with respect? From a truly significant moment in the history of the state of California? And I couldn’t help thinking how unfortunate it is that Ms. Grace has reduced a true pioneer, Harvey Milk, to nothing more or less than his sexuality. And of course, being the inveterate letter writer that I am, I fired off a letter this morning to Ms. Grace, saying all of the above, and more.

There are 1,066 miles between Ramona, CA and Denver, CO, but apparently the two cities are light years apart. Last week in Denver, a third grader named Ethan McNamee organized a rally for marriage equality. It seems Ethan has gay neighbors who cannot legally marry, and he sees an injustice that needs to be addressed. TheDenverChannel.com reports that Ethan says, “Everybody is different in a good way.”

Unlike Bethany’s school, Ethan’s school, Montclair Elementary not only supported his efforts, but notified all of the students’ parents in case they would like to attend or get involved. Some of the other kids even helped plan the rally. Watch this:

And yes, in case you’re wondering, I wrote a letter to Ethan, as well, offering him congratulations for the way beyond his years wisdom and commitment. Maybe you should do the same – Ethan McNamee, c/o Montclair Elementary School, 1151 Newport St., Denver, CO 80220

SAY WHAT? Pastor Rick Warren Is Drowning In His Own Words

On Sunday morning, ABC’s George Stephanpoulos and the staff at “This Week” were left scrambling, when Pastor Rick Warren cancelled his scheduled appearance moments before air time. Warren’s official excuse was that he was “sick with exhaustion.” It can be exhausting keeping your stories straight, especially on issues that your exceedingly loyal parishioners feel strongly about.

Warren, who founded the Saddleback Church 30 years ago, claims the church is one of the largest multi-site mega-churches in the country. It is, by all reports, founded on tenets of traditional conservatism. In the inevitable cross-pollination that happens these days between evangelical dogmatism and hot button political issues, Warren has come forward more than once with his views on gay marriage. Unfortunately, every time he speaks of gay marriage, he peppers the statements with his work with AIDS groups. Why is it, I wonder, that a smart man like Warren cannot understand that these are individual, starkly different issues? And why is it that Rick Warren blatantly contradicts himself on his views of gay marriage?

Here is what Warren said about gay marriage before the vote in California on Proposition 8, which essentially banned gay marriage:

Warren left no doubt in the minds of those who heard his statement. Oddly, a few nights ago on Larry King, Warren had this to say about gay marriage:

In fairness, Warren should not be pigeonholed on one cultural issue. He has spoken out on many issues, and he has led the charge on some important work in his career. But he is clearly in the hot seat right now on the cultural shifts regarding gay marriage, and in at least one of the statements you just heard in these videos he is not being truthful. Based on Warren’s historical anti-gay marriage stance, it would appear he was less than honest with Larry King.