Tag Archives: Obama

Catholics Defend The President

by D Gregory Smith
St. Peter's Basilica at Early Morning

Image via Wikipedia

It seems as if the Obama Administration’s rule change requiring that contraception (to those who want it) be insurance-paid commodities was seen to be a nuclear missile aimed directly at St. Peter’s in Rome.

But mostly just by the bishops…. The fuss! The hierarchy’s view of sexuality is- and has always been, about 160 years behind science- and popular understanding, not to mention practice. Humanae Vitae was the most dismal failure, in my opinion, to come out of the era of the Second Vatican Council. The chain attached to a wall in a room that no longer existed. (see below)

And some people realize that. In The Boston Globe today, Joan Vennochi says that the hierarchy is manufacturing a war against the president:

Last Sunday, the Catholic Church declared war on President Obama. Republican Senator Marco Rubio of Florida quickly took up the cause, signaling the outlines of a serious religious rumble to come in 2012.

The president should be ready for the fight, knowing that on this one he is right.

At Sunday Mass, Catholic parishioners across the country were read letters denouncing the Obama administration’s recent decision to require religiously affiliated hospitals, colleges, and charities to offer health insurance coverage to employees for contraception and the “morning-after pill.’’ On Monday, Rubio, a Republican star who is often mentioned as a VP candidate, introduced a bill that would override the Obama policy by allowing religious institutions that morally oppose contraception to refuse to cover it.

But not all employees of Catholic institutions are Catholics. Why should their employers impose their religious beliefs on them and deny coverage for birth control and other medical care? As long as those Catholic institutions are getting taxpayer money, they should follow secular rules. That’s the Obama administration’s argument, and it makes sense.

But if truth is a casualty of war, reason is an even more specific casualty of culture war. Obama can’t let the other side frame the argument, which it is already doing in typically ferocious fashion.

…Obama isn’t trying to undermine Catholicism. He’s telling Catholic leaders they can’t regulate the beliefs of those of other faiths.

Keith Soko in The National Catholic Reporter agrees that a war is brewing but it may be one-sided:

But which Catholics would really be against providing access to contraceptives in health care coverage for women? Is it the 90-some percent of Catholic married couples of child-bearing age who use contraceptives? Is it the 98 percent of sexually active Catholic women who use contraceptives? No, it is not.

So who would it be? It must be a small minority.

One, of course, is the U.S. bishops and the rest of the Catholic hierarchy, including the Vatican. They are all men. In 1968, Pope Paul VI published the “birth control encyclical” called Humanae Vitae (“Of Human Life”), which affirmed the Catholic church’s opposition to contraception. This was in spite of the pope’s own commission, which voted 75 out of 90 in favor of changing the church’s teaching and allowing contraception for married couples. Immediately, Catholic theologians issued a statement arguing against the document’s methods and conclusions. Years later, the long pontificate of Pope John Paul II began, with him reaffirming the “official” Catholic teaching against contraception, despite the fact that most Catholic theologians disagreed and most Catholics rejected the teaching.

So, the bishops are taking moral “high ground”- which is designed to… well, what, exactly?  Soko gives us some insight:

If the U.S. bishops and the conservative Catholic and Christian media are going to appeal to “conscience,” then they better allow for the well-informed consciences of Catholics and non-Catholics who work at Catholic institutions to make their own decisions.

No one is forcing Catholics to use contraception. It is merely stating that they should have access to contraception. Many Catholic theologians have argued that it is a fair and just decision that respects the ability of Catholic and other women to follow their own consciences and make decisions as responsible adults about their own health care and that of their families.

And they also must respect the well-informed consciences of professors at academic universities whose job is the pursuit of knowledge and truth, and for some, the pursuit of justice as well. This includes Catholic theologians who are trying to give advice on improving the church. Since the bishops and others have introduced this into the public arena, they need to respect the consciences and expertise of those voices without the threat of job loss or excommunication.

This is not a question of teaching Catholic doctrine in a classroom; this is wrestling with public policy in a democratic and pluralistic society, and that can get messy. And Catholic teaching has in the past acknowledged that public policy and morality are two separate things. Everything that Catholic teaching argues is immoral is not illegal, as that would not always be practical public policy.

Which Catholics are really against providing contraceptive coverage? My guess is not many, but they are vocal. And probably most of them would be men. Men controlling women. History marches backward.

The bishops are always decrying “cafeteria catholicism”- for the way some pick and choose what they’d like to believe and practice. You gotta believe the whole package, they say. But their use of conscience is carefully controlled and shifty- picky and choosy, if you will. But not according to them.

Credibility, boys, credibility. The people will notice.

 “It is now quite lawful for a Catholic woman to avoid pregnancy
by a resort to mathematics,
though she is still forbidden to resort to physics and chemistry.”
~H.L. Mencken

Related articles

“The Race To End AIDS”

by D Gregory Smith

On Today’s Morning Edition from NPR, a story about HIV Treatment As Prevention:

AIDS Awareness

2011 has been a momentous year in the 30-year-old AIDS pandemic.

The big breakthrough was the discovery that antiviral drugs can prevent someone who’s infected with HIV from passing the virus to others. It’s nearly 100 percent effective. That led President Obama to declare earlier this month that the U.S. will expand HIV treatment in hard-hit countries by 50 percent.

As recently as last year, many of those experts were saying that just giving more people with HIV more drugs would never work. “For every one person that was put on antiretroviral therapy or treatment, we would have two to three new infections identified,” Dr. Eric Goosby, U.S. Global AIDS coordinator, says.

It looked like a losing game, but not anymore.

The new research shows that antiviral drugs not only save the lives of infected people, they also stop people from spreading the virus and causing new infections, if the drugs can be given early enough after someone gets infected. The new strategy is called “treatment as prevention.”

“So we suddenly are looking at a moment where we can treat our way out of the epidemic,” Goosby says. “That’s the turning point that we’re looking at.” Still, it’ll take decades to end AIDS, according to experts. But many say the world has to be much more aggressive about treating HIV.

But just the fact that this is being reported on and is being taken seriously is a big deal.

You can read and/or listen to the whole story here

Related articles

The President at HRC: Nothing To Sniff At

by D Gregory Smith

I was going to give a bit of a recap of President Obama’s address to the Human Rights Campaign diners on October 1st- but when someone else already does what you would have done anyway- and probably better, it’s best to just get out of the way.

Over at Towleroad, the recap included some important points:

President Obama was urged this week to come out for gay marriage in his address to the Human Rights Campaign. He didn’t do so last night – not explicitly. But did he imply it? Toward the speech’s end, he cited New York’s marriage law as a triumph of democratic change. Might that be an indirect way of saying, “I’m with you on marriage”?

It’s progress led not by Washington but by ordinary citizens, who are propelled not just by politics but by love and friendship and a sense of mutual regard. It’s playing out in legislatures like New York, and courtrooms and in the ballot box. (…) It happens when a father realizes he doesn’t just love his daughter, but also her wife.

It’s disappointing that the president won’t make his “evolving” position clear. But last night’s speech was nonetheless a juggernaut. It opened with a wisecrack: “I also took a trip out to California last week, where I held some productive bilateral talks with your leader, Lady Gaga.” Snarky, yes: Gaga as Kim Jong-Il. The president throwing shade.

Joking aside, he seemed acutely aware of the complaint he’s getting from the LGBT community: that he’s too slow on civil rights. So he reminded us that he has never counseled patience in the fight, which he conflated with the movement for black civil rights. Then, without sounding triumphal, he went through the stack of accomplishment in his first term: hate-crime legislation, DADT repeal, abandonment of the government’s legal defense of DOMA (whose repeal he backs), lifting of the HIV travel ban, the “first comprehensive national strategy” to combat HIV/AIDS, hospital visitation rights for gay partners. (He didn’t mention the State Department’s new policy that makes it easier for transsexuals to change their passports.) (emphasis mine)

Nothing to sniff at.

Indeed. We may sometimes forget that this president has done more for LGBT equality than every other president before him.

We shouldn’t.

Read the full story here.

Same Sex Sunday, 3/27/11

by D Gregory Smith


#SSS: An immigration slam dunk: has the game officially changed?

President Obama has had his critics from within the LGBTQ community, but will he go down as the hero of same-sex binational American couples? We’ve already discussed the Justice Department’s decision to no longer defend the Constitutionality of the so-called ‘Defense of Marriage Acts’ in the courts, but this week one of America’s top immigration attorneys for same-sex couples won a delay in a deportation case that may have far reaching effects for a long time to come.

Lavi Soloway returns to the interview chair this week to discuss his legally married clients Monica Alcota and Cristina Ojeda; their win in immigration court, and why the prosecutor and the judge both agreed with Soloway over the need for delay in light of new DOMA developments.

However, that’s not all. Two immigration districts have put all cases on hold involving legally married same-sex binational couples. Are we about to see a total halt to the break-up of binational families based on DOMA’s discrimination?

We’ll takle this on our round table as well as get the skinny on state-wide developments, strategies on ENDA, and a whole lot more. Find out the who and the what and give it a listen after the jump.

Once again, our brilliant round table breaks down the news of the week:

  • Relationship recognition news from Colorado to Rhode Island, and discrimination in Indiana
  • The reintroduction of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and how we can use a Republican-controlled House of Representatives to build for victory
  • The President’s promise to create an LGBTQ watchdog at the Organization of American States with his Brazilian counterpart
  • Polls and reports on the Americans and their gays, and the DOJ finds the New Orleans Police Department been harassing residents based on their gender identity and sexual orientation–what does it mean that the FBI and DOJ have come to our aid?
  • And, the first Republican to file with the FEC to run for president is… gay?

Joining us this week are:

  • Executive Directors of Catholics for Equality, Phil Attey
  • Senior Political Writer at MetroWeekly in DC Chris Geidner
  • Co-Founder Swish Sue Sena and
  • State Legislative Director at the Human Rights Campaign, Sarah Warbelow

If you’re not subscribed in iTunes yet, you can do so super-quick and super-easily athttp://ituenes.samesexsunday.org/. We’re also on Facebook and on Twitter: @SameSexSunday. ‘Like’ and ‘Follow!’

Email us at info@samesexsunday.org and tell us what you think about the show and about what you’d like to see more of. Join us next week when Joe will be on his own!


Lettin’ in “the gays”

by D Gregory Smith

The ban on allowing only certain people to serve without secrecy and shame in the United States Military has ended, giving all LGB (not T?) persons another venue in which to pursue their chosen career path with a semblance of integrity.

I have always had mixed feelings about the ban. On the one hand, having worked with a number of U.S. veterans, I think military culture often has a negative impact on individuals, especially when it comes to relating to civilian life. Life in the barracks or on active duty can be far removed from the reality of most Americans’ day-to-day lives. Some of my military friends say that is how it needs to be in order to combat the enemy. I’m not so sure. I do know that the culture offers very little support for soldiers re-entering civilian life, resuming relationships and entering the workforce. It’s even worse for those with PTSD.

On the other hand, I think everyone has the right to choose their own path to empowering themselves as human beings- sometimes this is the only (or at least glaring) option for those without other resources to gain a shot at higher education or skill training. So if someone wants to serve, being able to do so without shame or fear of discovery- at least officially, can only make the military better, and camaraderie more honest. And when official shaming ends, we move closer to full acceptance and integration into society- and further away from internalized homophobia and humiliation.

All good things.

And for those who think the president hasn’t done enough: I believe he and his administration are doing as much as they can- and carefully enough that the changes they do make will stand. Across the board, from Health and Human Services to the Justice Department to the FDA, changes that reflect good science and social practice are being carefully integrated into public policy- as are the diversity of the personnel involved (which include a large number of LGBT persons). That isn’t often remembered because it’s not sexy, sensational or scintillating. But it’s totally important to our well-being as a diversity-accepting country. It’s the Obama Long Game. And I’m a fan.

They haven’t lost me, because I know this would have never happened under President McCain.

Eight False Things The Public “Knows” On Election Day

by D Gregory Smith

And while we’re on the topic of things to think about this election cycle, Dave Johnson puts forth a few of his own, including:

1) President Obama tripled the deficit.
Reality: Bush’s last budget had a $1.416 trillion deficit. Obama’s first budgetreduced that to $1.29 trillion.

2) President Obama raised taxes, which hurt the economy.
Reality: Obama cut taxes. 40% of the “stimulus” was wasted on tax cuts which only create debt, which is why it was so much less effective than it could have been.

3) President Obama bailed out the banks.
Reality: While many people conflate the “stimulus” with the bank bailouts, the bank bailouts were requested by President Bush and his Treasury Secretary, former Goldman Sachs CEO Henry Paulson. (Paulson also wanted the bailouts to be “non-reviewable by any court or any agency.”) The bailouts passed and began before the 2008 election of President Obama.

 

Read ’em all here.   (Thanks, Wulfgar)

White Sulphur Councilman Accused Of Racism

by D Gregory Smith

Homecoming never used to be such a problem when I was a kid- but then there were only white kids in my school.

The Great Falls Tribune reports:

Senior Kody Mondragon and the other 10 homecoming king and queen candidates planned to take the traditional ride in the back of convertibles during the Oct. 8 parade.

But Mondragon said when he tried to climb into the car owned and driven by Councilman Heith Stidham, Stidham refused repeatedly to let him in, saying he couldn’t let someone who looked like Obama ride with him. (emphasis mine)

WTF? Full story here.