Religious Discrimination or Homophobia?

Eric Holyfield is a sergeant with the Los Angeles Police Department.  He is also a minister, and in those combined roles he was asked to give a eulogy at the funeral of a fellow officer.  Clad in his ministerial garb, he gave his sermon, including indicating that gays would go to hell.  This was in 2006.  In June 2008 he filed suit against the LAPD and the city stating that he has been passed up for promotions and raises because of his speech, which means that he is being discriminated against because of his religious views (his opinion, not mine).  You can read the article from the Los Angeles Times by following this link: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-holyfield3-2008jul03,0,6800842.story

This story brings up many questions for me, but the first is, why were these remarks being made at a funeral?  Was the deceased gay?  If so, it would hardly be comforting to the mourners to be told their loved one is going to hell.  If not, then why bring up gay issues at all at his funeral?  Was he killed by a gang of murderous gays?  I've never heard of such things, but in Los Angeles I suppose anything is possible.  Speaking from a personal perspective, I'm fairly certain that any gang of gays (which I think would properly be called either a "gaggle of gays" or a "pride of gays") who I know would not be interested in killing anyone, but might help them with their hair and clothing.  God knows we need the fashion police in this town.

But back to the funeral.  Barring the deceased himself being gay, or being killed by gays, what possible motive is there for mentioning homosexuality at a funeral?  A funeral is a time of high emotions, and I can only think that Holyfield was using this as an opportunity to enforce his own personal bias, and therefore what he engaged in is hate speech, which is illegal in this state.  It seems to me that the LAPD should have done more than just file a complaint against him; they should have arrested him and charged him with a hate crime.

According to the article, Holyfield quoted the Bible as saying, "men should not lie with men; women should not lie with women. To do so was an abomination or sinful; one must repent or be condemned to hell."  The article does not give any indication of what denomination Holyfield is, nor of where he studied to become a pastor.  For that matter, it doesn't give any details about whether he was ever ordained, but I have to question his educational background when he claims to quote the Bible and makes up passages.

What Mr. Holyfield is misquoting is Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13.  According to the Tanakh, these passages read, "Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman; it is an abhorrence."  And, "If a man lies with a male as one lies with a woman, the two of them have done an abhorrent thing; they shall be put to death -- their blood-guilt is upon them."

Notice that these passages do not say that women should not lie with women.  Mr. Holyfield made that up, which means he lied about what the Bible says.  What kind of pastor lies about the scriptures?

Also, as an educated, ordained minister, I would expect Mr. Holyfield to understand that these passages are an interpretation of the scriptures, and not a translation.  If you translate the first passage directly from the Hebrew into English, it says, "With a male you shall not lie the lyings of a woman."  That is not the same thing as saying two men shall not lie together.

Mr. Holyfield should also realize that this passage is taken from a section known as the Holiness Code.  In this section the people of Israel are God's chosen people, and they are being told to follow a path provided by God, and not one that other people followed (specifically the Egyptians and Canaanites in this passage).  These rules are meant to set the people apart in their religious beliefs and practices.  It does not condemn homogenital sex in itself, but as a religious prohibition.  For Mr. Holyfield to follow this he would have to follow all of Leviticus.  For example, Leviticus 19:19 says "You shall not put on cloth from a mixture of two kinds of materials."  I've never met Mr. Holyfield, but I'll bet he's worn polyester/cotton blend clothing in his lifetime.  Probably at the funeral.

Leviticus 19:27 says, "You shall not round off the side-growth on your head, or destroy the side-growth of your beard."  To me that just looks unkempt, but it's God's law, so Mr. Holyfield must follow it.  The article doesn't contain a picture of him, but I'll see if I can find one and post it.  I'm sure his sideburns must reach the floor by now.

There are more.  Leviticus is full of prohibitions and requirements, but the point is, if you claim that one must be followed then you must follow all of them.  This book was written thousands of years ago, and we don't follow these teachings any longer, so for Mr. Holyfield to state that we must indicates to me that his education is extremely limited.

One further point, the original passage that I quoted claims that this act is an abomination.  Leviticus 20:25-26 indicates that abomination is another way of saying "unclean."  This was seen as an unclean act.  The reason they would be put to death is because they committed a religious offense against God, however many of the other acts don't have the same punishment.  This has lead many scholars to believe that the correct translation ("With a male you shall not lie the lyings of a woman") is intended to refer to temple prostitutes (yes, they existed in the early days of Judaism), and therefore the prohibition was against sexual relations that were conducted within the temple.  As such, homosexuality is not being condemned at all, but ritualistic sexual acts that are conducted more for eroticism than ritual are being condemned.  

I wonder if Mr. Holyfield included that in his eulogy.

The High Price of Oil

The following is a message I sent to my Representative in Congress, the Honorable Brad Sherman:

Representative Sherman:

It seems to me that our country works best when we all work together. The current overly-inflated gasoline price is a prime example of an area where we must come to an agreement. President Bush recently called for a moratorium on Congress’ ban on offshore drilling for oil and gas. I think this is an area that needs to be explored, rather than being dismissed immediately.

If the Democrats and the Republicans work together, we can do something to solve this crisis, however, it would be foolish to simply lift the ban, as the President has suggested. This ban has been in place for nearly 30 years, and has received large support from both Democrats and Republicans and to simply lift it is to invite abuse.

What I would suggest is a compromise that would be beneficial to the Democrats, as it shows our willingness to work with the current administration, as well as to the American people as it will help alleviate the high price of oil.

In the area of offshore drilling, the agreement would be that no drilling will be allowed offshore until the entire 68 million acres currently under lease on federal lands and waters outside of the ban area are developed. Only after this has been done will offshore drilling be considered.

Additionally, all oil extracted from the United States must be capped at fifty dollars per barrel, without exception. In no event can any oil from the United States be sold for an amount higher than this. Such a restriction would bring down prices considerably.

Next, any oil extracted from the United States must remain within the United States. It can only be sold here, it can only be refined here and the gasoline created can only be sold at stations in the United States. Further, those stations can only sell the gasoline at a price that would reflect the fifty dollar per barrel maximum. This would bring gasoline prices back down to less than half of where they are today.

Further, once oil prices on the open market drop to a level below seventy five dollars per barrel, all drilling in the United States that was begun to confront the high cost of oil must cease. Production can only resume when (and if) oil is once again trading at a rate higher than seventy five dollars per barrel.

Once all oil has been depleted from the 68 million acres currently under lease to oil companies on federal lands and waters, then and only then can Congress debate the idea of offshore drilling.

I welcome your response to this idea.

Sincerely,

Mr. Patt Gavin

Gay Marriages Live On!

I was thrilled to hear that the California Supreme Court has decided not to stay its ruling to allow gays to legally marry in the state of California.  The implications of this for gay couples is enormous, since the ruling does not pertain to only gay couples living in California, but to any gay couples who get married in California.  For this reason, several other states have initiatives lined up for their November ballots to disallow those marriages from being legal in their states.

This is exactly what gay activists have been working toward for years.  By getting one state to allow gay marriage it opens the door for the issue to be finally pushed forward.  When a couple from another state come to California to get married, then return to their home state, they will file to be accepted as married, which will be rejected.  This violates the Full Faith and Credit clause of the United States Constitution, which trumps any state constitution.  Because of this, the issue will finally be forced to the highest court in our land.  This is the best possible situation for those of us who believe in gay marriage.

Not to toot my horn, which I would (almost) never do, but I did write about this subject five years ago.  For those who are interested, the book is still available and can be found at this link: http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Almost-Paradise/Patt-Gavin/e/9780595287901/?itm=3  

Yes, I can admit it now.  I am ahead of my time.  

Now I'm working on my third book, this one on religions.  I'm hoping to finish it by the end of 2008 (I'd really like to have it completed before the summer is over).  I might put a few posts on here from that work over the next couple of weeks, so if religion is something that interests you, keep an eye out.

To anyone who reads this who disagrees with gay marriage, I'd be very interested in hearing from you.  Specifically, your reasons would be of great interest to me.

Gay Marriage

It was five years ago when I published my first novel, a fictional account of two men attempting to legalize their marriage in a story titled "Almost Paradise."  As an openly gay author, it's probably not going to come as any surprise to find out that I'm in favor of gay marriage.  What I find interesting is the number of homophobic people in our society who are against it.  I say these people are homophobic because I truly don't see any other possibility.

The issue of gay marriage is once again in the news, due to the California Supreme Court's recent ruling that overturned the state's ban against it.  Conservative groups are now coming out of the woodwork threatening to put an initiative on the November ballot to allow the voters to change the state's constitution making marriage strictly between one man and one woman.  The people who write such an initiative are, to my mind, homophobic.  I can't find any other term that adequately defines them.  They have an unrealistic hatred of homosexuals and are showing this in their actions.

I have yet to hear one compelling argument against same-sex marriage that would make me change my mind on this subject.  I've heard plenty of arguments, but they are easily seen as works of hatred, not logic.  Look, for example, at the website belonging to the National Organization for Marriage, one of the groups threatening the November initiative.  I searched their site for anything that would give a logical reason why they oppose same-sex marriage, but found very little.  They do have a pdf file called "Why Marriage Matters" and that lists "Seven Scientific Reasons" why marriage is important, but they fail to demonstrate that these reasons are truly scientific.  Note that these reasons are only for marriage, not against gay marriage.  Here are the seven reasons, along with my response:

1. Marriage reduces the risk of poverty for children and communities.  Wouldn't this also include gay marriages?  What evidence exists that this statement a) is true and b) only refers to heterosexual unions?

2. Fatherless households increase crime.  Again, what evidence supports this, and if it is accurate, then doesn't that say that two father households would be the best defense against crime?

3. Marriage protects children's physical and mental health.  Again, no support is given as to where this statement originated, but the American Psychological Association states that children of gay parents are at no disadvantage psychologically or socially compared to children of heterosexual parents.  The American Academy of Pediatrics says that children who grow up with gay parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social and sexual functioning as children with straight parents.  The National Association of Social Workers agrees that research on gay parenting shows a total absence of pathological findings in their children. Finally, Charles J. Patterson, researcher at the University of Virginia, stated that "Not a single study has found children of gay or lesbian parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by gay and lesbian parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children’s psychosocial growth.”  (More on this can be found at http://www.openadopt.org/adoptive-parents/gay-and-lesbian/facts.php).

4. Both men and women who marry live longer, healthier and happier lives.  Again, no support, but where is the research on the life expectancy of married homosexuals?

5. Just living together is not the same as marriage.  All the more reason why gays need to be allowed to marry.

6. Parents who don't get or stay married put children's education at risk.  What studies prove this, and do those studies include children of same-sex couples?

7. When marriages fail, ties between parents and children typically weaken too.  I don't how they could even print this.  I know plenty of children of failed marriages who have great relationships with both of their parents.  To me, this statement is purely fictional.

For gay marriages, the flier states that "Marriage teaches that men and women need each other and that children need mothers and fathers."  Again, no justification is given for this statement, other than that the author (and it doesn't say who wrote it) says so.  It should say "Heterosexual marriage teaches that men and women need each other" and that would probably be a true statement, but to state that marriage teaches this is false.  Marriage is a union between two people, be they opposite sex or same sex, and in and of itself, it does not teach heterosexuality.  

The second statement, that "children need mothers and fathers" is also false.  See the response to number 3 above and you can see that no reputable organization supports this claim.  The American Psychological Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics are both scientific organizations (unlike the National Organization for Marriage), and both these organization show this statement to be false.

The flier also claims that "every same-sex home ... intentionally deprives children of their own mom and dad."  Note that I did not add the emphasis, it's in the original.  This statement is so obviously untrue it amazes me that they would print it.  If I have a child with a woman, and my lover and I raise that child, how would that child be deprived of their mom and dad?  Just as children of divorce are raised primarily by one parent, so would mine be.  

If, as a gay parent, I chose to adopt a child, then they are deprived of their parents, but not by my doing. Their parents either gave them up for adoption, and therefore the deprivation comes from the biological parents, or died, in which case the deprivation comes from whatever caused their deaths.  The gay couple who adopt these children are providing them with loving homes, not depriving them of anything.

Okay, more lies in the flier.  "The law will teach your children and grandchildren that there is nothing special about mothers and fathers raising children together, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a bigot."  Note again that the emphasis is in the original.  You can always tell when a writing (or speech) is relying more on fiction than on truth when it appeals largely to emotions.  This statement has no basis in fact, but relies heavily on making people believe that the law will call them bigots.  The law doesn't call anyone a bigot, that's a social construct, not a legal one.  The law also doesn't say that there is nothing special about mothers and fathers raising children together, it simply says that this is not the only way of raising children.  In fact, if this was so important to this organization, they should be trying to make divorce illegal rather than trying to stop gay marriages, since divorce is what stops men and women from raising children together.

"Marriage is about brining male and female together."  Again, that's a definition of heterosexual marriage, not marriage.

The National Organization for Marriage does not, in my opinion, give any good reason for putting an initiative on the ballot to outlaw same-sex marriage.  Based on their writings and on their website, I have to conclude that their actions are driven by nothing but homophobia.  

 

Leahy and Dodd -- UnAmerican

There's quite a bit of buzz on the news lately with various politicos calling for Hillary Clinton to quit the race for the presidency and allow Barack Obama to win the Democratic nomination.  Senators Patrick Leahy (Vermont) and Chris Dodd (Connecticut) have both been quite vocal in this regard.

According to Leahy, Clinton "has every right, but not a very good reason, to remain a candidate for as long as she wants to."  Dodd was even more vocal stating, "if a person wants to stay in the race, stay in the race, but if you have enough people rallying behind what appears to be the likely choice, and I believe the choice is Barack Obama, then I think you have to step up to the plate and say, 'Enough is enough!'  We want this to be over with."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/politics/03/28/clinton.dropout.calls/index.html

You have to admire politicians for their way of speaking.  Leahy never tells Hillary to quit the election, he simply states that she doesn't have a good reason to remain in the running.  Dodd starts off by stating that she has the right to stay in the race, but that she's not the "likely choice" in his opinion.  

Their careful consideration of the words to use are the main problem with their statements.  Clinton's reason for staying in the running is that America has the right to vote.  Where I live in California, we have already had our election, but where my mother lives in Pennsylvania they have not.  If my mother supports Hillary Clinton (and I believe she does because Mom's a smart cookie) she should have the right to vote for the candidate of HER choice, not Leahy's and not Dodd's.

Our election process is designed so that the candidate is elected by the people.  Not the senate.  The people.  Me.  My Mom.  People like us who read up on the candidates, formulate our opinions, pick the person we best feel represents our interests and go to the polls and vote.  When politicans like Leahy and Dodd, or pundits like Stephanie Miller call on a candidate to step down, they are showing themselves to be unpatriotic and unAmerican.  They would deny Americans the right to elect the person they best feel represents their interests.  They would deny Americans their freedom.

New Program For Homeowners

Due to the current debacle in the housing market, more homeowners have less than 50% equity in their homes than at any time since the government began tracking such things in 1945.  This means that if you bought a house for $200,000, you would own less than $100,000 worth of that house today, meaning if you were forced to sell it, you would take a loss.

The major reason for this loss is the current situation in the housing market.  A few years ago, lenders decided that they could make boatloads of money by selling houses to people who really couldn't afford them.  They did this by offering teaser loans, where the interest was very low for the first five years, then jacking the interest up to obscene levels five years later, knowing full well that the majority of these homeowners would not be able to afford the increased payments.

As an example, take a home that cost $200,000.  Since these people really can't afford to be homeowners, we'll assume that the loan they received was for the entire price of the house, without having anything for a down payment.  (Which would actually result in two loans, with two different interest rates, but to keep it simple, I'm ignoring that.)  At a rate of 3.5% the payments would be $898.09.  Let's assume that this amount is affordable to the homeowner, but just barely.  For the next five years they manage to make this payment each month, and all is well.

Now, five years later, their mortgage suddenly jumps to 7.0%, which means their monthly payment goes from $898.09 to $1,330.60.  They were barely hanging on at the lower rate, and now have to come up with hundreds more each month to make their payment.  Since their salary hasn't increased substantially in five years, where do they get the extra money?  For many of these homeowners, they're borrowing against their credit cards.

When the credit cards reach their limit, the homeowners often wind up in foreclosure, which means they lose the house.  Since the market has fallen, the house isn't worth what is owed on it, which means they have zero equity in the home.  Added to this, they still have to pay off their credit cards, which are at their limits.  These people are in debt for the rest of their lives.

Solution: for the housing market the solution is simple.  Take the original loan (in our example, the 3.0% interest rate) and convert it from an ARM (Adjustable Rate Mortgage) to a fixed rate, retroactive to the date when the interest rate increased.  Remove any late fees from the account, and re-adjust for any increases due to raising the rate.  In our example, return the loan to the original $898.09 per month and make it a fixed loan for the next 30 years.  What this will do is provide the homeowner with an affordable mortgage that they will be able to pay off over the course of 30 years, resulting in a profit for the lender, but not the profit they had hoped to receive.  Why this is a good idea is because failure to do this will result in the homeowner going into foreclosure, and the lender will lose money since the house is no longer worth the amount of money they loaned on it.  It's a good idea because it keeps the houses in the hands of the homeowners, not on the already too full housing market, and allows the homeowners to continue building credit and equity.  Everyone wins and no one gets taken to the cleaners.

Next solution: for the credit cards, the banks can make out very well here.  Reduce the interest rate significantly, say to 4% or 5%, with the stipulation that this rate is effective only if the payment is 5% or more above the minimum.  What this does is several things; it allows the card holder to pay off their debt without paying 20% in interest (which is just profit for the bank).  It discourages them from walking away from their debt, or declaring bankruptcy, and by structuring it so that they must pay slightly more than the minimum due, it allows them to reduce their debt faster, both with decreased interest rates and increased payment amounts.  What it does for the bank is allow them to project their profit margin over time, albeit at a lower rate than they would like.  It increases the minimum amount they will receive in payments each month, which increases their cash flow.  It also means fewer card holders walking away from their debts, as they now have the means to pay them.  This will result in lower debts for the bank, increasing their net worth (and their stock price).  Again, a win-win situation without anyone being unduly hurt.

So, who is offering these solutions?  Absolutely no one.  Corporate America is concerned with profits, and if those profits aren't huge, no one is interested.  Your government could enact legislation to assist Americans in financial need, but since the banks and lending institutions fund candidates, your elected officials aren't going to turn their backs on the companies that pay them to help their constituents.  It seems to me that if the government spent a portion of the money being wasted in Iraq to start their own lending institution, all of these homeowners could be spared the pain and embarrassment of foreclosure, and the interest they pay would benefit the government instead of major corporations.

Just an idea.

Hillary Wins!

The fascinating thing about Hillary Clinton winning the New Hampshire primary is that every poll taken right up until the day of the election had her losing to Barack Obama by a hefty margin.  Obviously, the polls are not always correct.  In fact, it's good to see that Hillary was able to beat Barack because it sends a message to voters to not pay too much attention to polls.  In the end, the only thing that matters are the votes.

One thing that needs to be considered going forward is what caused Hillary to pull ahead in New Hampshire.  Most of the pundits feel that her breakdown in the week before the election helped people to see her in a more personal light, and thus change their votes.  This is possible, but there is another possibility.  In New Hampshire forty percent of the voters are Independent and are allowed to vote either Democratic or Republican in the primary, as they choose.  In this election, the choice for Democrat was two to one over Republican.  Of those who chose to vote Democrat, were they voting for Hillary because they want her as their next president, or were they voting for Hillary because they think that she can't win and they really want a Republican in the White House?  Something to think about.

On to more important matters; my cats.  I have two cats that I adopted last June when they were three weeks old and their mother abandoned them.  They are a brother and sister and I named them Endora and Arthur.  They are now just over seven months old, so they are fully out of the cute kitten stage and into the cat stage, and as they continue to grow I understand more and more each day why their mother abandoned them.

From the time they were little they have both worn collars with bells on them, as I feel that the hummingbirds have a right to know when the cats are around.  Within the last week Arthur started removing his collar on a daily basis.  I responded by purchasing harnesses for the two of them, which they cannot remove.  I attached their bells to these, and Arthur somehow figured out how to get the bell off.

I finally took out my sewing kit and decided to attach the bell to the back of the harness with thread so he wouldn't be able to remove it.  While doing this, I noticed that I had a few other bells in the sewing kit, so I attached those as well.  Unfortunately for Arthur, these were jingle bells left over from a Christmas project.  Now when he runs across the room, it sounds like Santa's sleigh is getting ready for take-off.