It’s uncommon, to put it mildly, for an R&B singer to admit he’s gay. While rumors abound for certain beloved crooners, no popular contemporary artists have come out of the closet.

Well, one brave guy changed all that last week. Singer-songwriter Frank Ocean posted an eloquent account of his first love–who just so happened to be man. The unprecedented admission set the social media ablaze: Never before had any young black man in the music industry been so cavalier about his sexuality, especially a young man who appears stereotypically masculine. A slew of fans (including Beyonce) praised Ocean’s honesty, and popular bloggers took to their keyboards to analyze the impact Ocean’s confession would have on the masses.

But even as LGBT acceptance grows in the United States, the African American community remains largely against equal marriage and overtly homophobic in some circles, including Ocean’s hip-hop ensemble Odd Future. For every well wish to Ocean, there’s a hell wish. Don Lemon, the CNN anchor who came out last year, explained the issue well:

“[To be gay is] quite different for an African-American male… It’s about the worst thing you can be in black culture. You’re taught you have to be a man; you have to be masculine. In the black community they think you can pray the gay away.”

Some think the outing of a young black male signals the demise of humanity, a slippery slope toward the proverbial island full of men (come back 100 years later, and no one will be there, they say). Some say Ocean was just stirring up interest for his first studio album, Channel Orange, which was released today instead of July 17 as originally planned. But despite what fearmongers and skeptics say, Frank Ocean’s candor about his sexuality eases the burden for others. It’s evidence that a young man can be creative, talented, gay, black, masculine, and accepted, all at the same time. Ocean’s account is a small chink in the old homophobic armor, and in a musical genre that often derides or hides homosexuality, that’s a feat worth celebrating.

Anyone who counted out the influence and power of the National Organization for Marriage should think again. On Tuesday, three state Supreme Court justices in Iowa found themselves out of jobs after voters opted not to send them back to Des Moines for another term. This is the first time in Iowa history that voters have fired justices from the Supreme Court.

And what was their crime? Voting with the unanimous majority in Varnum v. Brien to uphold a lower court’s ruling that the state’s limitation of marriage to only between a man and a woman violated the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution. This ruling instituted marriage equality in Iowa in 2009, making the state one of only five states in the nation (plus the District of Columbia) that allow for full marriage rights for all couples. As reported in the New York Times, this vote was intended to send a message nationwide:

Leaders of the recall campaign said the results should be a warning to judges elsewhere.

“I think it will send a message across the country that the power resides with the people,” said Bob Vander Plaats, an unsuccessful Republican candidate for governor who led the campaign. “It’s we the people, not we the courts.”

The campaign to remove the three justices at the ballot box was heavily supported by the National Organization for Marriage and the American Family Association. The Des Moines Register reports that over $650,000 from these and other groups was spent on the campaign to remove the three justices.

As for the justices themselves, they saw something nefarious afoot. From the Times:

The judges declined requests for interviews but released a statement that decried what they called “an unprecedented attack by out-of-state special interest groups.” The statement defended the system for selecting judges but offered what a veiled warning about populist impulses to remake the judiciary: “Ultimately, however, the preservation of our state’s fair and impartial courts will require more than the integrity and fortitude of individual judges, it will require the steadfast support of the people.”

Judicial retention elections are meant to serve as a democratic stamp of approval on the work of judges. For example, in Iowa the justices do not run contested campaigns; voters are merely asked on election day if they approve of retaining the justices in question, and more than fifty percent must vote yes for the judge to be retained. Justices usually do not campaign to retain their own seats, and receiving less than half the vote is rare. By the very nature of the judicial system, justices are likely to rule on controversial issues; with retention elections there is a great deal of risk that the work of the justices will be politicized. This fear was expressed by Joseph R. Grodin, a law professor and former California Supreme Court justice who was voted out in 1986 after a campaign asserting that he was soft on the death penalty. He told the New York Times:

Obviously it has an impact on the independence of judges and how they think of their role — I think that’s demonstrable…But more than that…I think the damage is not on judges, but that courts will come to be seen and judges will come to be seen as simply legislators with robes.

And if you look at the National Organization for Marriage’s victory statement about the Iowa elections, released yesterday, it is clear that they do desire to politicize the work of the bench. From the statement:

“The victories we have achieved this election are truly historic and stunning,” said Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM). “First and foremost, we wanted to defeat the judges in Iowa who had usurped the will of the people and imposed gay marriage in that state. The three judges were overwhelmingly rejected, sending a powerful message to any judge who thinks they can impose gay marriage by judicial fiat against the wishes of the people. We thank Iowa for Freedom, the American Family Association, and the Campaign for Working Families for working together to hold these judges accountable.”

If Iowa judges are limited to making rulings that are only supported by the majority of Iowans, then obviously the power of the judiciary in Iowa to defend the State Constitution would be completely neutralized. Why bother having a judicial branch with the power of examining constitutional questions at all? Of course, I strongly suspect that the language of direct democracy is merely what the NOM finds convenient in making its argument against marriage equality. As the struggle to defend marriage equality continues, arguments against it will evolve, especially in light of the fact that support for marriage equality continues to increase across the United States.

In the meantime, expelling the justices from Des Moines does not change the fact that marriage equality remains in effect in Iowa. But it could send a chilling national message that the Religious Right will pour resources into campaigns around the nation opposing other justices who make rulings perceived to be too friendly to LGBT rights, therefore staying the gavel of justices who want to side with, well, justice. This is the most pernicious effect of Tuesday’s judicial retention election in Iowa, and it could have national consequences. But the lesson is learned: in future elections of this nature, outside organizations on the side of marriage equality will have to get down in the mud a little bit too, spend some money, and work to defend the judges who rule in favor of equal rights under the law for all.

The night Obama was elected, my roommates and I huddled around our beaten and battered television amidst term papers and study guides to watch a rare, if not once-in-a-lifetime event occur: history catching up to our own ideals.  Obama appealed not only to the “bleeding-heart liberals,” but the youth who needed to believe that change was possible. A clichéd concept, but to a generation watching their parents lose their jobs, their grandparents lose their houses, and their peers die in Afghanistan, change was salvation.  Obama was our savior.  So put that in your pipe and smoke it, Sharron Angle.

His speech was moving, carrying all the themes and meaning we expected from a man of such deep intelligence and passion. I doubted we’d be disappointed, but a simple statement left us stunned:

Its the answer spoken by young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Latino, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled – Americans who sent a message to the world that we have never been a collection of Red States and Blue States: we are, and always will be, the United States of America.

“Oh my gawd!” my roommate shrieked, “did he just shout out to the gays??”

He did, and understandably so.  A large portion of the LGBT community threw all their weight behind his campaign, thrilled to root on a man who had no apparent moral objections to homosexuality (a claim that couldn’t be made for the McCain/Palin Bible camp).  It was assumed Obama would, with the magical flick of his wrist, give gays their rights.  All of them.  Stat.

What some members of the LGBT community failed to remember was that Obama’s agenda wasn’t driven by the 10 percent of the population who smacked his campaign logo next to their rainbow bumper stickers.  He never claimed (once running for President) to be a proponent for gay marriage.  He still needed to take into consideration the moderates and conservatives of the country who couldn’t sit through an episode of Will and Grace without squirming.  And they were out there.  The country was reminded of this when news quickly broke of the Proposition 8 victory in California.  An initiative Obama opposed.  See how this works?

Obama has managed to theoretically support the LGBT community without completely ruffling the feathers of the Christian right.

“Yes, the Defense of Marriage Act is wrong.”

“No, marriage is between a man and a woman.”

”Yes, Prop 8 is divisive.”

“No, give them civil unions.”

“Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is wrong.”

“Now hold that thought.”

Obama is not an advocate, but an ally of the LGBT community, and a meek ally at that. Wednesday’s enormous Prop-8 smack-down victory (hopefully the first of more to come) gave gay rights advocates a reason to celebrate, but left the more critical thinkers to contemplate Obama’s impending moment of truth.  As gay marriage rises from the shadows of the states and begins to enter federal territory, how will Obama respond?

Maybe two years ago, when the country was crawling out of its George W. hole, a vague nudge of support from the president would have been briefly sufficient.  Some bread, water, and a charismatic nod were more than the Bush administration had ever bothered to give.  But in the months to follow, as a flood of hostile bigots came barring down on local street corners and assembly halls, and the Christian right’s disgusted disapproval began to border on abusive rage, bread and water were no longer enough.  The scraps being fed in the form of partner benefits and a glacially-paced repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell only served as a reminder of what was truly deserved: equal rights.  All of them.

Much has changed within the country since the Obama campaign. Hope has sunken with his approval rating, and many have thrown their hands in the air, branding him a failure and a disappointment. Though I’ve not given up on Obama, this country certainly isn’t where I envisioned it to be on that inspiring night in November.  It has warped, mutated, and blistered into a nervous “before” picture of a crumbling empire.  That’s changed its citizens.  It’s changed me.

And yet, somewhere deep down, I’m still that liberal arts college student who waited five hours in a line to hear Obama speak about “hope” and “change” and the possibility of me and my friends becoming adults in a world that wouldn’t tell us, “No.  Who you are is not good enough.”

In these times deprived of Martin Luther Kings and Harvey Milks, my fellow students and I believed that Obama was supposed to fill the void.  He was supposed to save the world.  He was supposed to be everything to everyone.  But as it turns out, he isn’t a super hero or a miracle worker; he’s simply a person.  Just like the gays and lesbians who want to get married to the people they love. We’ll accept that you’re only human, Obama, if you acknowledge that we’re all human, too.

The reaction of the Catholic Church to last week’s court decision striking down California’s anti-gay marriage Proposition 8 was swift and to the point. Speaking for the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, Cardinal Francis George mourned that “It is tragic that a federal judge would overturn the clear and expressed will of the people in their support for the institution of marriage.” On the Protestant side, Focus on the Family chimed in that “Judge Walker’s ruling raises a shocking notion that a single federal judge can nullify the votes of more than 7 million California voters.”

This sudden Christian solicitude for the will of the people should make anyone familiar with the history of Christianity gag.

Democracy was invented by the Pagan Greeks; there is some reason to believe that Pagan Germanic tribes practiced a rough form of democracy as well. It certainly isn’t found anywhere in the Bible; when 250 “men of renown” complained to Moses that he was being overly autocratic, God obligingly opened a pit in the earth to swallow them up.

After Christianity seized control of the Roman Empire, democracy vanished from Europe altogether; Middle Ages society was founded on Augustine’s iron notion of rule by God, not by man. The Middle Ages Church did all it could (and that was quite a bit) to snuff out any glimmer of democracy before it could take hold. When the Emperor Frederick II published his “Constitution of Melfi” in 1231, it provided among other things for a representative assembly, with each town sending two delegates to inform the Emperor about local needs. A livid Pope Gregory IX excommunicated Frederick and called him the Antichrist. That should not have been surprising, for only a few years earlier Pope Innocent III had declared England’s Magna Carta, the first written expression of the English people’s rights, null and void because it purported to rein in the power of a divinely ordained monarch and vassal of the Pope.

The Protestant Reformation did nothing to advance the cause of democracy; neither Luther nor Calvin had the slightest intention of giving the common people any more power than the Pope had. By the 1640s, when the English Civil War broke out, the rebels were a curious mix of proto-democrats, heavily influenced by John Lilburne, and radical Calvinists, led by Oliver Cromwell. Lilburne’s goal was simple: he wanted all adult males to be able to elect Parliament, rather than just a small handful of the propertied class. Cromwell’s goal was equally simple: rule by the God experts, to impose morality on a sinful island. Cooperation between the two camps was easy when both were simply warring against the status quo, but once the king was defeated the incompatibility of their goals quickly surfaced. Cromwell ordered Lilburne’s arrest for treason, but after a dramatic trial before a jury Lilburne was acquitted. Didn’t matter; Cromwell threw him back in jail anyway, without bothering to file charges. Cromwell proceeded to expel the elected members of Parliament who voted against him – so much for democracy. Read the rest of this entry &raquo

Via Think Progress, I see that Rep. Steve King (R-IA) thinks he has a novel solution for the problem of discrimination against gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgender people. The website Good As You posted the audio, which Think Progress helpfully transcribed, of a discussion between Rep. King and Tony Perkins, the head of the anti-gay religious right group Family Research Council. King was discussing how a Republican state senator from Iowa named Jerry Behn used to try and make LGBT activists guess his sexual orientation in order to make a point.

KING: And he said, ‘let me ask you a question.’ ‘Am I heterosexual or am I homosexual?’ And they looked him up and down, actually they should have known, but they said, ‘we don’t know.’ And he said, ‘exactly, my point. If you don’t project it, if you don’t advertise it, how would anyone know to discriminate against you?’ And that’s at the basis of this. So if people wear their sexuality on their sleeve and then they want to bring litigation against someone that they would point their finger at and say ‘ you discriminate.‘ …This is the homosexual lobby taking it out on the rest of society and they are demanding affirmation for their lifestyle, that’s at the bottom of this.

Rep. King unconsciously distilled the essence of what we could call straight privilege into an easily comprehensible form. He just explained how easy it is to be straight. He doesn’t have a clue how a person hides his or her own sexual orientation or what it feels like, because he doesn’t have to. He thinks that there is some insight to be gained from that story, but he is merely illustrating his blindness to his own straight privilege, along with the fact that upon first glance it may be difficult to ascertain the sexual orientation of some people.

But has he ever had a job where he had to hide a significant portion of his life from his colleagues, all the time, for fear of being fired for being gay? Has he ever had to lie or deny that he has a partner because he didn’t want his colleagues to know that he was living with another man? Has he ever had to tell his partner not to call him at work, because he didn’t want people figuring out that he had a boyfriend? Has he ever had to hide a significant part of his own identity, simply because bigoted co-workers might make his life miserable if they found out that he was gay?

This is what Rep. King is demanding that LGBT people do in order to be able to avoid discrimination in the workplace. And, as a matter of fact, this is what millions of LGBT people do at their jobs every day. Only 21 states, the District of Columbia, and over 140 cities and counties currently forbid discrimination in the workplace against gays and lesbians. Anywhere else, you can be fired from your job if your boss finds out about your partner, whom you were so desperately trying to keep secret, or finds out that you were seen walking out of a gay club on a Friday night.

Rep. King’s statement is just further evidence that federal protection is needed. The time to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act is now!

One last point: Rep. King is clearly talking about LGBT living out of the closet when he refers to “people wear[ing] their sexuality on their sleeve.” But the truth is, straight people do this too. Straight people talk about their straight lifestyle, they talk about their husbands or wives, boyfriends or girlfriends, they hold hands in public, they put pictures of their families in their work spaces. Straight people are very open about their sexual orientation. Why? Because it is a part of their identity, and there are no harmful consequences in American society for being open about it. LGBT people are demanding the same thing; they want to live openly, as themselves, in America, in their jobs and in their private lives, without worrying about harmful consequences that come about from bigotry.

Many people’s anti-LGBT attitudes won’t change over night, but a huge step in the right direction would be passing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act to ensure that no one can be legally penalized at work simply for their sexual orientation. To learn more, and to see what you can do, visit the Human Rights Campaign’s action page on ENDA.

This is a big week for marriage equality in North America. First, same-sex couples can now start applying for marriage licenses in Washington DC:

D.C. Superior Court began accepting marriage license applications from same-sex couples Wednesday morning, a historic milestone for gay couples and activists that was made possible by the city’s new gay marriage law.

About 45 couples with their coffee, newspapers and blackberries — many dressed in blazers and slacks as they planned to go to work after filing an application — were waiting in line when the court’s marriage bureau opened its doors at 8:30 a.m. Employees allowed 10 couples to enter at a time, and had extra personnel on hand to accept the applications.

Licenses take up to three days to process, so early next week will see the first same-sex marriages in the District of Columbia.

This follows a barrage of attempts by opponents to stop the marriage equality law passed by the DC Council in December by any means possible. Local anti-equality activist Bishop Harry Jackson had attempted to take his case all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States after the DC Court of Appeals declined to intervene, arguing that District residents deserved the opportunity to vote on marriage equality before it took effect. His effort failed.

And in Mexico City, a marriage equality law will takes effect today, after being passed in December of last year by the city’s leftist Democratic Revolution Party (PRD)-dominated government.

The Catholic Church has been, predictably, up in arms,
as is the right-wing National Action Party (PAN), the party of Mexico’s president Felipe Calderón::

“The family is under attack,” warned Mexico City Cardinal Norberto Rivera, saying that the “perverse” measure would inflict psychological damage on “innocent children.”

…

“Marriage, as it was originally conceived, as a union between a man and a woman, guarantees the future of the state and of Mexican society,” Mariana Gómez del Campo, PAN’s leader in Mexico City, told a radio interviewer.

But opinion polls on the subject show widespread support among resident’s of Mexico’s capital city:

An opinion poll by El Universal newspaper in November found that 50 percent of Mexico City respondents accepted gay marriage and 38 percent opposed it. Residents ages 18 to 39 were more likely to be supporters.

Marriage equality is moving forward. While neither the United States nor Mexico currently have it on a national level, the symbolism of the national capitals of each nation enacting equality laws in the same week surely will not be lost on the world.

The Washington Post reports today on how pro-marriage equality organizations have recently been targeting the Mormon Church with advertisements and campaigns:

As more states take up the debate on same-sex marriage, some advocates of legalization are taking a very specific lesson from California, where the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints dominated both fundraising and door-knocking to pass a ballot initiative that barred such unions.

With the battle moving east, some advocates are shouting that fact in the streets, calculating that on an issue that eventually comes down to comfort levels, more people harbor apprehensions about Mormons than about homosexuality.

In particular, the article mentions web ads sponsored by the anti-Proposition 8 organization Californians Against Hate. The ads (which can be viewed, along with their accompanying documentation and campaign information, here), appeared on newspaper websites in three states on the East Coast but were apparently rejected by at least some newspapers for being insulting against the Mormon Church.

Why is the Mormon Church in particular being targeted by pro-marriage equality ads? The Washington Post explains how it may have played a big role in the narrow margin of passage for Proposition 8:

A torrent of last-minute contributions from church members across the country financed well-framed TV ads in the final weekend of the campaign. Opponents’ analysis of campaign-contribution reports indicated that Mormons contributed more than half of the campaign’s $40 million war chest.

The Mormon Church seems to be reluctant to actually take public credit for working for the passage of Proposition 8. The Washington Post notes that the Mormon Church was involved with an anti-marriage equality campaign in Hawaii in 1998 and spent $400,000 of church money but requested that the Catholic Church take the lead when it came to the public image of the campaign. This may have something to do with Mormons’ overall low favorability ratings with the American public in general, which declined to 37 percent last year. Perhaps, for this reason, the Mormon Church doesn’t feel that the most effective public face for the anti-marriage equality movement would be a Mormon one.

When it comes to marriage equality, is it fair to target the Mormons? While I am certainly against stigmatizing any particular individual based on his or her religion, the institution of the Mormon Church is fair game for criticism for its strong support for the suppression of LGBT civil rights. The institution has inserted itself into this issue to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of funding and resources for anti-gay campaigns. This is a campaign of bigotry, and the institution must be held accountable for it in the court of public opinion. In particular, Californians Against Hate has been working to illuminate areas that the church seems to prefer keeping quiet, such as the participation of top Mormon leaders in the creation of the the National Organization for Marriage, the national anti-marriage equality organization that drew attention for its laughably poor attempts to frighten people about same-sex marriage.

My one caveat is that I do not want to see this particular focus on the Mormon Church come at the expense of looking at the broader picture of anti-LGBT bigotry. In the end, for a successful campaign to reinstate marriage equality in California and to bring it to other states, the religious and non-religious alike are going to need to understand marriage equality as an issue that is fundamentally about civil rights and equality. This will require massive outreach, but it can be done; indeed, a movement to repeal Proposition 8 is already under way.

Inspired by the film Milk, a California sixth grader prepared a presentation for a class assignment on the life of slain gay rights pioneer and San Francisco supervisor Harvey Milk. But apparently discussing the life of a gay politician and civil rights leader was too much for her school, and now the ACLU of San Diego County may sue on her behalf (hat tip to Atrios):

The American Civil Liberties Union on Wednesday threatened to sue a San Diego County school that refused to let a student present a report on slain gay rights leader Harvey Milk until her classmates got permission from their parents.

David Blair-Loy, legal director of the ACLU of San Diego County, said the principal of Mt. Woodson Elementary School in Ramona violated the free speech rights of 6th-grader Natalie Jones, who was the only student in her class prevented from giving an in-class presentation.

According to Blair-Loy and Natalie’s mother, Mt. Woodson Principal Theresa Grace concluded last month that the subject of the girl’s project triggered a district policy requiring parents to be notified in writing before their children are exposed to lessons dealing with sex.

Lessons dealing with sex? Was she going to discuss Harvey Milk’s sex life? I doubt it. Any in-class presentation about the sex life of a historical figure would probably be inappropriate at that grade level.

But that’s not the real issue here. The issue is that this student was going to discuss a historical figure who made a name for himself by making the argument that gays and lesbians should have full civil rights. He led a statewide campaign against Proposition 6, a 1978 initiative that went in front of California voters and would have banned gay and lesbian teachers from working in California schools. His leadership helped lead to Proposition 6′s defeat at the ballot box and also went a long way towards mainstreaming the gay rights movement and presenting the LGBT community to America as a legitimate part of our nation’s cultural fabric. Harvey Milk’s courageous legacy resonates to this day in the marriage equality movement, and he is a model for activists all over the world.

So what’s the controversy? Why did the school implement it’s sex discussion policy when dealing with the student’s presentation? It’s because he was gay and spoke up for the LGBT community. It’s as simple as that.

This school needs to join the 21st century. Even though some parents may have complained, the school cannot accommodate everyone’s religious sensitivities on this. Indeed, it would be to confer second class status upon gays to say that a remarkable historical figure cannot be discussed in class without an additional layer of permission from parents — simply because he was gay.

Let’s hope that this will be a learning experience for this school and others. Parents may teach their children at home whatever they would like about homosexuality, including that it is wrong or some kind of religious sin. I strongly disagree, but it is their right to believe so and teach this to their children. But schools do not have to accommodate such nonsense.

Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam recently spoke at the Pew Forum on Faith in Public Life about his latest research on religion in America. He discussed the increasing lack of affiliation with any religion amongst younger generations in the United States, saying that the percentage of Americans in their 20s that declare no affiliation is now between 30 and 40 percent.

This comes on the heels of the recent news from the Pew Forum’s US Religious Landscape Survey that over 15 percent of Americans now report themselves to be unaffiliated with any religion. But looking at Putnam’s recent work, it is clear that there is a generational divide: young people are more secular than ever.

Why? Writing about Putnam’s speech, former George W. Bush speechwriter and Washington Post op-ed columnist Michael Gerson characterizes the trend this way:

The politicization of religion by the religious right, argues Putnam, caused many young people in the 1990s to turn against religion itself, adopting the attitude: “If this is religion, I’m not interested.”

And as ABC news reported on Putnam’s speech:

This movement away from organized religion, says Putnam, may have enormous consequences for American culture and politics for years to come.

“That is the future of America,” he says. “Their views and their habits religiously are going to persist and have a huge effect on the future.”

For just one example of this, look at the generational divide on support for marriage equality (found via Daily Kos)

Fifty-four percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll released Monday say marriages between gay or lesbian couples should not be recognized as valid, with 44 percent suggesting they should be considered legal.

But among those 18 to 34 years old, 58 percent said same-sex marriages should be legal. That number drops to 42 percent among respondents aged 35 to 49, and to 41 percent for those aged 50 to 64. Only 24 percent of Americans 65 and older support recognizing same-sex marriages, according to the poll. (emphasis added)

With full marriage equality in five states now and New Hampshire poised to soon be the sixth, it is clear that the political landscape for marriage equality is shifting. The current generation of young voters are less likely to support future efforts to limit or repeal marriage equality. Hopefully Proposition 8 in California will be one of the last of its kind – while two-thirds of voters over the age of 65 supported it, the measure failed to gain a majority in any other age group.

While some of the political implications of this increase in lack of religious affiliation among young Americans are clear, another major question is, will it stick? Are young Americans going to be secular for good? As reported by Gerson::

Putnam regards the growth of the “nones” as a spike, not a permanent trend. The young, in general, are not committed secularists. “They are not in church, but they might be if a church weren’t like the religious right. . . . There are almost certain to be religious entrepreneurs to fill that niche with a moderate evangelical religion, without political overtones.”

Putnam’s book on this research is yet to be published, but I’ll be interested to read it when it comes out, because his discussion with the Pew Forum seemed to mainly focus on politics and the negative impact of the Religious Right on religious affiliation amongst younger Americans. But political and social views are only part of the picture. What else influences younger people’s lack of religious affiliation? In their report Faith in Flux: Changes in Religious Affiliation in the U.S., the Pew Forum provided additional research on this very subject, examining the reasons why Americans in general change affiliations or leave their former religious affiliations without adopting a new one. From the executive summary of the report:

Two-thirds of former Catholics who have become unaffiliated and half of former Protestants who have become unaffiliated say they left their childhood faith because they stopped believing in its teachings, and roughly four-in-ten say they became unaffiliated because they do not believe in God or the teachings of most religions. Additionally, many people who left a religion to become unaffiliated say they did so in part because they think of religious people as hypocritical or judgmental, because religious organizations focus too much on rules or because religious leaders are too focused on power and money. Far fewer say they became unaffiliated because they believe that modern science proves that religion is just superstition. (emphasis added)

I initially thought that the increase in the number of people that are unaffiliated with organized religions would be driven in large part by increased scientific literacy. But even if this is happening, it’s not a very conscious process; as the Pew Forum reports, not many people credit science for their changes in religious outlook. Rather, the changes take place in light of what the report calls “disenchantment with religious people or institutions.” This is similar to Putnam’s characterization of the younger unaffiliated being driven away by intolerant religious conservatives.

Also significant is the age range at which the Pew Forum found people make their most monumental religious changes:

The survey finds that religious change begins early in life. Most of those who decided to leave their childhood faith say they did so before reaching age 24, and a large majority say they joined their current religion before reaching age 36. Very few report changing religions after reaching age 50.

So the religious decisions that people make in their younger years often end up staying with them. Nevertheless, the report points out that the unaffiliated population is one of the most dynamic religious populations in the United States, with over half of people who are raised without any affiliation later joining one.

I will be very curious to see how Putnam’s research fits with the picture painted by the Faith in Flux report. I certainly feel that humanists should not take for granted that the younger, less affiliated generation is going to automatically join our ranks. The Pew Forum reveals a dynamic religious population that may get disgusted with the politicization of religion or the frailty of human institutions but isn’t necessarily going to march in step with organized non-religion. The key, of course, will be humanist outreach to this population: we have to offer something of value, something beyond a critique of the institution of religion, something that offers the sense of community and togetherness that people are seeking, even as they decide that religious institutions are not serving their needs.

The House of Representatives voted yesterday 249-175 to expand federal hate crimes laws to include crimes that were motivated by the victim’s gender, sexual orientation, sexual identity, or disability. The bill also lifts the previous restriction that the victim had to be engaged in a federally protected activity when attacked, such as voting or attending school. Additionally, the bill expands federal assistance to state and local authorities for the investigation of suspected hate crimes.

The measure has yet to be taken up by the Senate. It has proven to be quite controversial, with the House vote coming in almost entirely along party lines. Religious Right organizations mobilized their constituents to speak out against the measure. Focus On the Family claims to be responsible for 5,000 messages to Congress against the bill.

Why is it controversial? Let’s look at a few of the objections to this legislation:

Representative of the Religious Right case against hate crimes laws is an editorial from today’s edition of the right wing newspaper the Washington Times, which concluded:

Once homosexuals become a special class protected by hate-crime legislation, the back door is open to prosecuting those who speak out against homosexuality and same-sex marriage. Yesterday’s House vote was really about creating thought crimes to further the liberal agenda.

That unsubstantiated assertion (that the bill creates “thought crimes”) was ominously illustrated with a photograph of George Orwell.

In a piece dripping with contempt towards the LGBT community, Matt Berber puts it in more drastic terms:

In short, this bill places newfangled “gay rights” in direct conflict with our enumerated constitutional rights. It becomes the first step in the official criminalization of Christianity. It’s a zero sum game and someone has to lose. Ultimately, what we lose are our First Amendment guaranteed rights to freedom of speech, religious expression and association.

Um…no. This is the often repeated lie of the Religious Right, but this simply isn’t the case. Let’s get a few things clear about this bill.

First, this is a hate crimes bill, not a hate speech bill. Commentator and attorney Glenn Greenwald explains the distinction:

Hate speech laws and hate crimes laws are entirely different, since the former punishes the pure expression of ideas while the latter involves the commission of actual crimes, usually quite violent and serious crimes. One can easily and coherently oppose the former but support the latter.

While critics have been drawing on cases from Europe where people were prosecuted only for what they said, what they are referring to are laws against hate speech, rather than hate crimes. Many countries in Europe have these kinds of laws; thankfully, the United States does not, because Congress cannot just legislate away the First Amendment. This bill does nothing to criminalize hate speech.

In fact, the language in the actual bill is clear that the defendent’s actions, not thoughts, are what will be on trial:

In a prosecution for an offense under this section, evidence of expression or associations of the defendant may not be introduced as substantive evidence at trial, unless the evidence specifically relates to that offense.

This law isn’t about punishing what the criminal thought; it’s about punishing what the criminal did. It does nothing to prevent a pastor from sermonizing against homosexuality from the pulpit, or for a newspaper to publish anti-gay editorials (don’t worry, Washington Times!), or anything relating to speech, freedom of the press, or freedom of religion. It does nothing to prevent religious activists from rallying against marriage equality. Anyone that tells you otherwise doesn’t understand the bill or is simply lying.

Another objection to the hate crimes bill is that, as an issue of fairness and equal protection, crime victims should not be treated any differently based on the motivation behind the crime. In other words the punishment should be the same for a criminal whether he committed assault because the victim was gay or because he wanted the victim’s wallet. This is reflected in the comments by Rep. Lamar Smith, R-TN, when he was speaking against the bill:

“All violent crimes must be vigorously prosecuted,” Smith said. “Unfortunately, this bill undermines one of the most basic principles of our criminal justice system — ‘equal justice for all.’”

“Justice will now depend on the race, gender, sexual orientation, disability or other protected status of the victim,” Smith said. “It will allow different penalties to be imposed for the same crime.”

What this argument fails to recognize is the particular threat that hate crimes have towards society. For one, when a person is attacked because he or she is identified as being part of a particular group, the attack is, in essence, against the entire group. For example, if racist graffiti was spray painted on the home of an African American family, would it not be clear that the action was taken to intimidate not only that particular family, but any other African American family in the area that may subsequently fear being victimized by a similar crime? The group of victims encompasses those that are given reason to fear after the attack. Hate crimes are a way of sowing terror among the particular group that is the target of hate. This is more detrimental to society than many other types of crimes, and the punishment for the perpetrator should reflect this accordingly.

The new hate crimes bill is, unfortunately, not going to end violence that is motivated by hatred. But it will give law enforcement and prosecutors additional tools to deal with these crimes and ensure that the criminals receive a just punishment.