Mad Max Myers is not my Anti-Fracking Savior

Recently, in the interest of providing our coalition membership an opportunity to educate themselves about the ideological commitments, policy positions, and political strategies of candidates aspiring to the nomination for Pennsylvania governor, Shale Justice met with aspirant Max Myers. Mr. Myers represents himself as the best possible candidate for the anti-fracking community across Pennsylvania, and is thus far the only candidate who claims to support a moratorium on new gas industry permits.

He sounds great.

Moreover, in our meeting with Mr. Myers, he was gracious, liberal with his time, and seemed interested in our perspective and questions. He is immensely affable.

It's thus that much more unfortunate that, at that meeting, he so woefully misrepresented by omission his ideological commitments, and that these commitments are, in fact, not merely inconsistent with the progressive base whom he wishes to court, but anathema to the separation of church and state, the basic human rights of gays and lesbians, and the reproductive rights of women. It is one thing to hold, for example, that gays and lesbians ought not to be permitted the right to marry. That's a rough enough bullet to bite for folks--especially women like myself--who've cut their activist teeth in the trenches of the civil rights movements in America. But it's another altogether to hold the view that gays and lesbians are possessed by demons, and thus presumably are in need of exorcism and salvation. Yet Mr. Myers led for six years the Global School of Supernatural Ministry (GSSM) (http://gssm.globalawakening.com/), part of the Apostolic Network of Global Awakening (ANGA) --known more for its Pentacostal-style faith healing and other appeals to the far right fringe supernatural than for its purchase on reason (http://globalawakening.com/).

Indeed, no matter where one stands on these other hot-button issues, it's hard to imagine even fairly conservative Republican voters finding themselves comfortable with what can only be described as the authoritarian, theocratic, and just plain whacky vision of Max Myer's America. Moreover, this is a "whacky" with consequences. The sorts of beliefs GSSM and ANGA advocate fuel the sorts of actions responsible for the beating murders of young men like Michael Shepherd, the horrific anti-gay policies of Uganda, the plainly bigoted policies of Russia.

Beliefs have consequences, and we cannot afford the beliefs of candidates like Max Myers no matter how much we want that moratorium.

When we originally met with Myers, I was concerned about two things:

1. His evident non-commital if not cagey non-response to my direct questions about his position on gay rights and women's reproductive rights. Though it was difficult to make out just what he was saying, it seemed to be that he did not want to alienate voters or distract them from the bigger issue (fracking) by coming out before the primaries with a policy position on these issues. He made it out as a matter of strategy--but implied that he was with his progressive base.

2. His apparent lack of any very sophisticated understanding of the issues relevant to extreme extraction. For a candidate who claims that he is going to make fracking and energy policy more generally a major campaign issue, Mr. Myers evinced at best a cursory understanding not only of what all is involved with respect to the processes associated with fracking, but had fairly little idea of the immense amount of work that has already gone into opposing it.

So--I wrote Mr. Myers a letter--before I knew anything about GSSM or ANGA:

Dear Max,

First, let me thank you sincerely for coming to speak to Shale Justice. We appreciate the time you took greatly.

Second--and I am now simply speaking to you as a citizen of the Commonwealth--I have spent some quality time on your website. I appreciate your observation concerning fracking that "the procedure should be stopped until such a time as the industry demonstrates that they can employ a procedure that does not contaminate our drinking water and pollute the atmosphere." That you specifically support the moratorium distinguishes you from every other candidate in the Democratic Party--and I think that this could be your winning hand in the primary. Perhaps I'm the crazy one, but I feel quite sure you're not a "crazy fanatic, a lunatic, and a poor representation of a minister" as the one radio host endeavored to describe you--and I'm a garden variety atheist. I very much appreciated the time you took to talk with me after the "official" evening had concluded--I know you surely were as beat as I was--so thanks.

Third, I have thought a fair lot about that conversation, and I wonder if I may venture a couple of observations--intended to be helpful:

a) The conversation we had about reproductive healthcare rights--including access to abortions--seems fairly similar to the one recounted here:

"I asked Max Myers, assuming this abortion ban gets signed into law, would he support repealing it as governor. I couldn’t really get a straight answer. He said he’s trying to stay away from social issues like abortion on his campaign, but I insisted that if he was governor and that abortion ban was law and he had a repeal bill on his desk, he’d either have to sign it or veto it, he’d have to make a decision one way or the other. Well, he still wouldn’t give a real answer. To be honest, my natural inclination is to suspect he’s for the abortion ban, but I have to admit that if I was for the abortion ban and he gave me the same non-answer, I’d probably suspect he was against it. So at best, his position is unknown, and I think it is perfectly fair to hold his unwillingness to take a position against him on this issue. It’s impossible to have it both ways. You can’t hope to get both pro-choice and anti-choice people on your side by refusing to give an answer on the issue, and you might even invite opposition from both camps (http://counterpointpa.org/max-myers-democratic-candidate-for-pa-governor-on-progressive-issues-counterpoint-pa-613-192013-with-transcript-and-links-to-sources/)

Assuming this is an accurate reflection of that interaction, and after some reflection of my own, I'd have to say that this writer seems correct--it IS fair to hold your unwillingness on this issue against you because it IS very important to thousands of people, it IS a matter of human rights, and whatever your moral (or pastoral) position may be on abortion, per se, these, I think you'd agree, are not strictly relevant to your run for the gubernatorial nomination for the Democrats. Put differently: I appreciate that you do not want to make yourself a target of the Republicans by coming out as a progressive on women's reproductive rights--but--and I cannot stress this enough:

You will risk losing the support of key members of the anti-fracking movement if you do not take a clear-sighted pro-reproductive rights position BEFORE the primary. The KEY organizers, writers, activists in the GRASSROOTS of the PA anti-fracking movement are WOMEN:

Karen Feridun--Berks Gas Truth
Maya van Rossum, Tracey Carlucci: Delaware River Keepers
Sue Laidacker, Wendy Lynne Lee, Carol Parowski: Shale Justice
Dory Hippauf: Gas Drilling Awareness Coalition
Deirdre Lolley: Marcellus Earth First

And this is a tiny selection of names--there are hundreds more--in vital decision-making capacities. This fact is what distinguishes the grassroots movement in PA from the Big Greens--the Sierra Club, for example, whose position on fracking is only recently moved in the direction even of regulation, and with whom we have at best a contentious and wary relationship. Many of their members will get behind Hanger--just as those who support regulation within the anti-fracking movement have (Breathe Easy Susquehanna County, for instance). They mostly either waffle on the moratorium--or oppose it, like Hanger himself. From our point of view, regulation is nothing but code for the control of the rate of harm--NOT the amount. Just as there is no such thing as a little bit of acceptable slavery, so too there is no such thing as a little bit of acceptable cancer, neuro-toxin disease, endocrine disruption, etc. We want a candidate that will stand up for the human rights contained in the environmental rights provision of the Pennsylvania Constitution--and this candidate must stand for ALL human rights.

The reason taking a pro-reproductive health rights position before the primary is, in my view, critical to win the support of these grassroots organizers is not, however, only because they're women--but because they (we) are mostly veterans of precisely those battles. We are the progressive women of the Democratic Party (or among the independents)--and we have put countless hours into the defense of women's reproductive rights. COUNTLESS. Moreover, we see that these issues are intimately connected in many ways. For example, some evidence shows that exposure to frack-related toxins may deleteriously affect fetal gestation (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/01/1259276/-Bad-news-for-pregnant-women-near-fracking-Study-shows-toxins-linked-to-heart-defects#). There is clear evidence that shows benzene--a carcinogen in the frack cocktail) is a causal agent in breast cancer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwE0kClzg8M). We are also far too sophisticated to be one issue voters--and that's because we see these connections. We're just not going to sell ourselves out on one issue in order to support the candidate that claims to be able to deliver on another. We know that such an approach is wholly self-defeating.

b) Ditto for gay rights--including the right to marry.
c) To turn to fracking specifically for a moment--we had discussed at the meeting with Shale Justice the tremendous significance of the drive to construct pipeline infrastructure, and that many of us in the activist community hold the view that this is where our attention and work needs to turn if we are going to prevent a catastrophe for the state (and for our sister states). I simply want to reiterate that key point, and add that among the vital things we have learned is that "fracking" is NOT just about what happens at the well pad. It is an enormous environmentally liquidating industrial colonization of the Marcellus Shale--and all of the people, flora and fauna who inhabit these regions. If those pipelines and their export facilities are constructed, we face becoming an effective gas-factory for multinationals whose only real sense of patriotism is the American flag they wave as an advertising strategy. The idea that natural gas is an avenue to national security and energy independence is ludicrous--indeed, precisely the reverse is true. As our municipalities become more and more eroded--both ecologically, economically, and with respect to the social fabric--we become a weaker nation, not a stronger one. (I have written on this subject pretty extensively: http://www.ragingchickenpress.org/2012/03/17/why-fracking-epitomizes-the-crisis-in-american-democracy-profiteering-and-the-good-american/). The overturning of Act 13 was a tremendous victory and opportunity to build momentum towards a moratorium--but the vast majority of us in the anti-fracking movement see that moratorium as a strategy to buy time towards a ban. To be very clear: even IF the drilling process could be rendered safe (and monitored in perpetuity), that is only a FRACTION of the drilling-to-LNG-export process. From the well pads (and the immense ecological disturbance this process causes there) to the pipelines, to the compressors, to the dehydrators, to the waste tankers, the chemical crew cabs, to the derricks, to the waste processing facilities, to the deep injection wells, to the road damage, to the bridge damage, to the LNG export depots--the truth is that there is NO way this process can be rendered safe. From both the clear science and the obvious practical effects--ecological, economic, and social--we don't need more study.

We NEED a BAN. Should you ever like to tour some sites you'll find convincing, let me know. I am more than happy to show you what this looks like 40 minutes from my house. Should you like to canvas some photographs of both the destruction and the resistance to it, please go here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/wendylynnelee/sets/

That's it for now--I am sorely tempted to try to engage you on union rights, and the recent (grotesquely misnamed) "right to work" legislation introduced in the PA legislature, and your view on the Affordable Heathcare Act, and the increasing penchant for surveillance both at the federal and state levels--especially of environmental activists. But I have "talked your ear off" already.

Thanks for listening.

Wendy

I received a short, but friendly response from Mr. Myers that he and his wife were on a short vacation, and that he'd respond more fully soon.

Fine.

But then, in the course of my own research, a thirty second Google search, and with thanks to the awesome Sean Kitchen of Raging Chicken Press, I discovered GSSM, ANGA and Max Myer's connection to the New Apostolic Reformation:

The New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) is a title used to describe a movement within Protestant Christianity largely associated with the Pentecostal and the Charismatic movements. Its fundamental difference from other movements is the belief that the lost offices of church governance, namely the offices of prophet and apostle are being restored.. The New Apostolic Reformation is a title originally used by C. Peter Wagner to describe a movement within Pentecostal and charismatic churches. The title New Apostolic Reformation is descriptive of a theological movement and is not an organization and therefore doesn't not have formal membership. Among those in the movement that inspired the title NAR, there is a wide range of variance on specific beliefs. Those within the movement hold to their denominational interpretations of the ongoing ministry of the Holy Spirit within each believer. Unlike some parts of Protestant Christianity, these include the direct revelation of Christ to each believer, prophecy, and the performance of miracles such as healing. This move has also been given the descriptive title, the Third Wave of the Holy Spirit. Although the movement regards the church as the true body of saved believers, as most Evangelical Protestants do, it differs from the broader Protestant tradition in its view on the nature of church leadership, specifically the doctrine of Five-Fold Ministry, which is based upon a non-traditional interpretation of Ephesians 4:11. C. Peter Wagner writes that most of the churches in this movement have active ministries of spiritual warfare.[3] As an example of this warfare he claims that God acted through him to end mad-cow disease in Germany. In an article responding to criticism of the NAR, Wagner notes that those who affiliate themselves with the movement believe the Apostles’ Creed and all the orthodoxy of Christian doctrine, so that the movement is therefore not heretical.Wagner has listed the differences between the NAR and traditional Protestantism as follows:
Apostolic governance – The Apostle Paul's assertion that Jesus appoints apostles within his church continues to this day.

The office of the prophet – There is within the church a role and function for present-day prophets.

Dominionism – "When Jesus came, He brought the kingdom of God and He expects His kingdom-minded people to take whatever action is needed to push back the long-standing kingdom of Satan and bring the peace and prosperity of His kingdom here on earth."

Theocracy – Not to be confused with theocratic government but rather the goal to have "kingdom-minded people" in all areas of society. There are seven areas identified specifically: religion, family, education, government, media, arts & entertainment, and business.

Extra-biblical revelation – There is available to all believers the ability to hear from God. "The one major rule governing any new revelation from God is that it cannot contradict what has already been written in the Bible. It may supplement it, however.

Supernatural signs and wonders – Signs and wonders such as healing, demonic deliverance and confirmed prophecies accompany the move of God.

Relational structures – church governance has no formal structure but rather relational and voluntary alignment to apostles. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Apostolic_Reformation

).

Lest we think Mr. Myer's connection to a movement whose believers think that their pentacostalism can be credited for the cure of mad cow disease is fleeting, a youthful indiscretion, or that he's clearly disavowed such bat-shit crazy talk--well, no. As Rachel Tabachnick shows in her 3.13.13 piece, "NAR Leader Running for Governor in Pennsylvania - As a Democrat," Myers joined internationally known ANGA apostle, Randy Clark as recently as 2007 (http://www.talk2action.org/story/2013/3/18/223235/954 ). Fact is that as recently as the 2014 mission trip application for ANGA members, the applicant must answer the question whether he/she "has ever been involved with drug abuse, homosexuality, or the occult?"

Time for another letter--but this time, I sent it out to as wide a swath of anti-fracking activists as I could muster:

Dear fellows--

Thanks to my good friend and excellent writer Sean Kitchen at Raging Chicken, I was alerted to some VERY disturbing stuff about our new friend Max Myers--there is NO POSSIBLE WAY we can with any credibility lend support to this campaign (even as private citizens).

Here's Sean's piece:

http://www.ragingchickenpress.org/2014/01/30/why-are-environmentalists-supporting-max-myers/#comment-60883

Here's the name of his 2009 book:

The Tail That Wags The Dog: A Journey Towards Supernatural Leadership

Here's even more disturbing stuff:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/03/20/1195486/-PA-Democrat-for-Governor-Wants-Theocratic-Leadership-Max-Myers-Secret

He RAN the Global School of Supernatural Ministry:

http://gssm.globalawakening.com/

It teaches that "homosexuality can be caused by demon possession."

WHOA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

He is involved in a religious fringe movement: Apostolic and Prophetic:

http://www.politicalresearch.org/tag/new-apostolic-reformation/#

"On March 18th, Max Myers officially kicked off his campaign for Pennsylvania governor at the William Way LGBT Community Center in Philadelphia. Touting himself as a moderate Democrat, Myers failed to mention his leadership in a politico-religious movement that believes in casting out “gay demons.”" (http://www.politicalresearch.org/tag/max-myers/).

http://www.talk2action.org/story/2013/3/20/142944/066

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Apostolic_Reformation

http://general.mtstars.com/360355.html

NONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONO.

w

Needless to say, the post eventually made its way to Mr. Myers who responded that he was "saddened" that I had "attacked" and "accused him," that I was "throwing him under the bus," and that he'd "appreciate it" if I'd be one of the leaders to "help him" "get the troops lined up" to get a moratorium. He appealed to the exam,ple of Martin Luther King to substantiate his commitment to civil rights.

Here is how I responded:

Good morning Max,

Thank you for responding. Please let me respond to your letter--I am going to number my comments just for clarity:

1. I am wholly unsure what you mean by "actions and accusations." I have accused you of nothing--I have simply made available to a wide constituency of relevant citizens materials anyone can google for themselves. These materials contain facts relevant to your candidacy that voting citizens have a right and a responsibility to know so that they can make an informed decision of conscience once they enter that polling booth.

2. You are in fact associated--and have LED--organizations whose view of homosexuality is that it is demonic possession. I can only assume you concur with that view because (a) I can find no source where you explicitly and publicly denounce it, (b) you are wholly non-committal when pressed to take any position--and that lends further force to the claim that you endorse it, and (c) this is in no way a view one has to dig for--it comes up immediately in a recent search. Ditto for women's rights--which are women's reproductive rights.

3. You may have indeed left the Republican Party--but this is largely irrelevant when the view you clearly advocate is theocratic and violates the separation of church and state. That you have an ongoing connection to the Dominionist Movement is something voters have a right to know since it instantiates a specifically theocratic ideology that--were virtually any facet of it enacted as law--would substantially alter the very ways in which we all live, and in ways that would violate in deep-going ways the civil liberties contained in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/03/20/1195486/-PA-Democrat-for-Governor-Wants-Theocratic-Leadership-Max-Myers-Secret#).

4. You provide no evidence in your missive here of your support of gay rights or women's rights--and opening up your campaign in a location connected to gay persons (The William Way Center) is absolutely NOT support for gay rights--it IS political window-dressing. You led for six years an organization, the Global School of Supernatural Ministry, that is associated with an endorsement of policies (including Uganda's) that have led to widespread violence against gays (http://www.talk2action.org/story/2013/3/19/212223/878).

5. There is little evidence that you in fact support the war on fracking as anything other than the only issue with which you can reach progressives. Such motives can only be counted as political expediency--not a commitment to either human rights of ecological integrity. This is not "leadership." It is pandering. Moreover, what research into your theocratic commitments shows is that you hold views anathema to any view of human rights that includes all human beings regardless sexual orientation. The page on your own website reflects little more than a cursory understanding of the issues relevant to extreme extraction, and it contains inconsistencies. You cannot coherently both hold that we ought to enact a moratorium AND hold that you favor an extraction (do you mean severance?) tax. The latter presupposes the continuation of fracking; the former advocates a halt. It was also very unclear at your meeting with members of Shale Justice that you had conducted even a cursory level of homework on these issues. You do not appear to really understand what was in Act 13, or any of the copious relevant legislation currently at issue.

6. To appeal to MLK may seem quite honorable--but it is compromised by a history of explicit views and associations that are inconsistent with that view.

I believe that my candidates have a responsibility to inform me of whatever may be relevant to my making an informed thinking decision about my vote. At the meeting with members of Shale Justice, you effectively dissimulated by omission insofar as you did NOT inform us of your theocratic commitments, and you demurred with respect to your view of gay rights and women's rights. This, it turns out, did not merely feel dishonest, it WAS dishonest.

Thing is, perhaps you don't hold any of these views any longer--but it doesn't really matter. That you can hold views that are so profoundly irrational and potentially violent in their consequences must at the very least raise a red flag for any thinking voter. It's not as if you merely held the view that, say, gays ought not be allowed to marry. That would be difficult enough for any progressive. You endorsed a view that would allow gays to be subjected to violence in the name of "liberating" them from demonic possession--that's in a whole other league. And it does not bespeak a life devoted to "reconciling people" unless what you mean by that is through oppressive measures designed to enforce adherence to religious ideology.

I am truly sorry Max--but yours is not a candidacy that I can support without the serious compromise of my commitment to human rights. You're correct when you say that a candidate's religious beliefs should not be strictly relevant to the judgment of her or his strength AS a candidate. But that presupposes he or she does not intend to govern from the pulpit. Everything researchable about you says otherwise.

With respect,

Wendy Lynne Lee

The central question, however, is why any of us would go to so much trouble to even vet a candidate who stood so little chance of getting the democratic party nomination.

I think the answer is clear and compelling:

Because we NEED a candidate who will stand up against an industry who is turning Pennsylvania into an extraction colony owned and operated by multinational corporations so powerful that they have their own standing armies.

That's why. And we need her or him to win.

That's manifestly not John Hanger--who works for a law firm that defends the gas companies against us (http://thewrenchphilosleft.blogspot.com/2013/10/john-hangerright-off-rack-wendy-lynne.html).

It's not Alison Schwartz who calls the moratorium "misguided" (http://www.nofrackingway.us/2013/06/24/allyson-doesnt-live-in-gasland/).

Are there others? Not who stand much of a chance--even if they don't traffic in crazy as does Mad Max.

Beliefs have consequences. So, if--as some folks responding to my posts with tremendous anger clearly do--you want to see a theocrat in the governor's office who may or may not be committed to a fracking moratorium, apparently thinks gays are in need of exorcism, is at a minimum very shaky on the rights of women, and just may be trying to appeal to you as a progressive by playing the frack-card 'cuz he's got nothing else to get your attention--if you're OK with all that, Mad Max Myers is your guy.

But if it's not, gaining a fracking moratorium is not worth sacrificing everything else.

Makes Corbett look pretty good.

Nah. Just kidding.

The Patriot's Voice Tea Party: A Case Study in Hate Speech

Dear Mr. Sachetti,

This is not a letter to the editor.

It is an attempt to correct Michael Lester's tepid account of the Patriot's Voice Tea Party on July 4th at the Bloomsburg Town Park. I have no issue with Mr. Lester; however, his account seriously under-represents--and hence misrepresents--the speech and actions of the Tea Party participants. This record needs to be corrected, and it needs to be corrected publicly.

I attended the Tea Party from 1:30-2:50.

I took careful notes.

A friend was with me and, while I cannot of course speak to his interpretation of these events, he can vouch for the fact that I was there, that I took notes, and that I was approached by two Patriot's Voice members. Here are the events that took place at the podium:

1. Al Togno, self-identified speaker, claimed that without belief in a creator there could be no democracy--and that therefore atheists (as in the far past) ought not to be allowed to testify in courts. (applause)

2. Anonymous Speaker 1: refers to the Obama administration as a "gang." (applause)

3. Robert Runyon (especially rambling): The only moral government is based on natural law, handed down by God, whose specific aims are to realize God's plan on Earth. Without this God, there can be no government. (applause)

4. Anonymous Speaker 2: Identifies Obama with the Communist Party (repeatedly), referring to "Barack Hussein Obama." calls Obama a "Muslim Appeaser," and calls the Democrat Party "Socialists." (loud applause)

5. Anonymous Speaker 3: "The U.N. wants to disarm all people."

6. Robert Runyon thanks "his adversary Wendy Lynne Lee for coming and taking notes." (Laughter; crowd turns to stare, several boo).

7. Anonymous Speaker 4: claims that what's "wrong with America" is not the economy, but "homosexuality," that such persons must be "made to repent," and that "we must all come to repent...It is my desire to see people saved." (applause)

8. Anonymous Speaker 5: "All my news is from FOX." (loud applause)

9. Anonymous Speaker 6: "Republicans have failed because they have turned away from the Bible." (applause)

10. Anonymous Speaker 7: "Obama is good news because we're going to soon be raptured up." (applause)

11. Anonymous Speaker 8: "I want to talk about a delicate subject, abortion." The speaker then went onto deride Dr. Tiller as a "baby-killer." Claimed that "the media is controlled by liberals," and that what's coming is the "euthanasia of the elderly." (loud applause)

12. Anonymous Speaker 9: Claims that "Barack Hussein Obama is proud of his Muslim heritage," calls Michael Jackson a "pervert," implies that he's is glad that Jackson is dead, and claims a crowd in attendance of 200 people. I counted at that point, and the number was definitely not more than 70 (2:40). (very loud applause--despite dwindling audience)

Could the evidence of racism and religious bigotry really be any clearer?

There is no religious litmus test in the United States for becoming president, but what this speaker clearly implied is that if Obama were Muslim, this disqualifies him tout court.

Michael Jackson was acquitted for lack of evidence.

Could the evidence of bigotry towards homosexuals be clearer than in anonymous speaker 7's remarks (for which he received significant applause)?

Conservatives are not necessarily either homophobes or bigots. This was not an exercise in conservatism. It was an exercise in hate speech--protected by the 1st amendment, but as hateful, and as consistently hateful, as Kurt Smith mentions to Lester. Part of what I am trying to make clear here is that this speech characterizes ALL of the remarks made by the speakers at this event.

Patriot's Voice members can respond that they are not responsible for the specific remarks of the people they encourage to step up to the microphone.

But indeed they are.

This was their sponsored event; they applauded the speaker's remarks; they actively and repeatedly encouraged this group of speakers to "come forward" The passed around a petition to "fire" Arlen Spectre. They flew the Confederate flag directly next to the American flag. Could any African American person really feel comfortable at this event? A Jewish person? A gay person?

There are many African American, Jewish, and gay conservatives--they were not represented at this Tea Party.

Did Mr. Lester ask Mr. Runyon for proof that an invitation to Alan Keyes had been accepted? Perhaps it had--but it is unlikely in the extreme given that Keyes is a nationally known speaker who can command a significant speaker fee. Mr. Keyes could have offerred to do the event for free--but, again, hihgly unlikely. If the Patriot's Voice has access to this sort of revenue, they ought to file with the IRS--and it is highly unlikely that they either have such access or have so filed.

During the event, Evy Lysk walked directly up the the picnic table where Jay and I were sitting (we approached no one at any time before, during, or after the event), and took my picture (she did not ask permission). She called me "Miss Wendy." She told me to smile because it was Independence Day. I responded that her actions were not something to smile about. She laughed. I am sure this doesn't seem like a significant event, but the intent was clearly to intimidate.

What if they post that picture on their website along with the sort of language they routinely use to describe me in 30 Seconds? What if they post it on Facebook where Runyon remarks: "We are having a 4th of July Tea Party at the town park of Bloomsburg beginning at 12:00 noon till 4:00pm. This promises to be Memorable as we have an ahtiest, lesbian professor who wishes time to counter our party as she deems us as haters and homophobes. Come join the fun" (www.facebook.com/pages/The-9-12-Project-Pennsylvania-Chapter/57461030678). What was the point of this action? An event scrapbook?

No.

Along with another picture and text already available on their website (posted 4.9.09), their aims are hardly consistent with the first amendment rights professed by conservatives and liberals alike. Their aim is to encourage precisely more of the hate speech to which I was a witness at this event.

Lastly, Kathy Wells approached me and said "I hate your articles in the newspaper." She turned to walk away, but then turned again towards me and said that she "didn't hate me," but that "she felt sorry for me," and then she repeated that she "hated my PE articles." I did not respond to Ms. Wells.

Let me be very clear: I am in no way suggesting that this gathering should not have taken place. This was an exercise in the right to free speech, and I applaud that. But it is the responsibility of the PE to report on the events accurately.

I am also not suggesting that any of these events were in any important way about me. I do, however, represent (whether accurately or otherwise) much of what they regularly demonize, and as the hateful and bigoted remarks of the attendees demonstrate, I--among millions of others--am not included in their America.

Again, this is not conservatism.

One can oppose the stimulus plan without identifying it as the product of a Muslim/Communist/Socialist conspiracy. One can object to the policies of the Obama administration without resorting to the incendiary language of "Barack Hussein Obama." One can be a conservative without insisting that ONLY a Christian nation can be composed of a free people (and this is a logical contradiction). Many conservatives, moreover, have little to say in support of the hero of this event, Glenn Beck.

I would be happy to talk to Mr. Lester further about this, and what I have posted here is a complete account of my notes. Had I access to Mr. Lester's email address, I would gladly have included him in this missive. This was not simply another Independence Day event like the Millville parade or the fireworks display. To report it as if it were misrepresents its meaning.

Thank you for attending to this matter.

Wendy Lynne Lee
wlee@bloomu.edu

Building a Firewall: The Unconstitutionality of SB 1250 (The PA Marriage Protection Amendment)

April 9, 2008

Testimony on Senate Bill 1250, a proposed marriage amendment to the Pennsylvania Constitution

Wendy Lynne Lee, Professor, Department of Philosophy
Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania
Bloomsburg, PA USA 17815 (wlee@bloomu.edu)

First, please allow me to introduce myself: My name is Wendy Lynne Lee and I am a professor of philosophy at Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania where I have taught for nearly sixteen years. My primary interest here, however, is that of a citizen. In my view, the Pennsylvania Marriage Protection Amendment (SB 1250) is premised on faulty if not disingenuous reasoning, a distortion of the Pennsylvania Constitution, a paucity of substantial evidence, and an obvious violation of the separation of church and state. It is, in effect, an attempt to build a constitutionally enforceable firewall against an unconstitutional law (PA-DOMA).

As The Support Center for Child Advocates (Philadelphia) makes clear in its March 13th testimony, such an amendment may function to deny legal protection for partners and their children in cases of domestic violence (as has already occurred in Ohio), and could have direct and damaging effects on an already struggling Pennsylvania foster care system. Moreover, SB 1250 could restrict “[a] child’s access to health insurance, medical care, Social Security, and pensions.” “At a minimum,” they go on to argue, “domestic partner benefits—and thus the benefits available to the children of the domestic partner—would no longer be available to any state or local government employee, nor the employee of any contract agent, government agency, or recipient of government funds!”

First to the amendment’s logic: Pennsylvania already has DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) statutes. But, as is made clear on the amendment’s promotional website (www.pa4marriage.org), the proponents of the current law do not regard it as immune to law suit. In fact, they specifically claim that “[i]t's true that Pennsylvania, like 37 other states, already has a law which limits marriage to one man and one woman. Legal experts agree, however, that in the event of a lawsuit, the DOMA is likely to be overturned or struck down. It is also possible that court rulings at the national level could render such laws "unconstitutional"; an amendment to the state constitution is much more likely to withstand such challenges.” In other words, the aim of the amendment is to build a firewall in case of a lawsuit that would challenge the constitutionality of PA-DOMA. The sponsors of the amendment know that the current law is unconstitutional, and that this is why it’s unlikely to withstand challenge. So, the only way to insure that marriage remain an exclusively heterosexual institution is to amend the constitution itself. That the amendment’s proponents place the term “unconstitutional” in scare quotes only serves to underscore their view that the Pennsylvania constitution is bound to recognize only heterosexuals as full citizens and only heterosexual unions as meriting the privileges and responsibilities of specific social contracts, namely, marriages. Such manipulation is clearly inconsistent with the very concept of a constitution, leaving it open to the further erosion of its guarantees.

Second to its paucity of substantial evidence: Contrary to the religiously motivated rhetoric of the Pennsylvania for Marriage website, no evidence supports the claim either that gay unions endanger heterosexual unions or that children raised by gay parents are likely to suffer trauma on that count. That some children of gay parents are stigmatized or even bullied in a society that continues to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation shows only the extent to which bills like SB1250 are likely to harm children and their families by reinforcing—indeed legitimating by constitutional amendment—second class citizenry. The bill’s proponents know that this is why the current law will not withstand constitutional challenge, but are effectively willing to allow, if not actively encourage, discrimination and its attendant harmful consequences for families and their children in the interest of enforcing a narrow and religiously proscribed definition of marriage on Pennsylvanians. The very title of the website offers a telling clue—Pennsylvanians for Marriage—implying that there is only one configuration of marriage that counts, and that whomever would oppose such an amendment opposes marriage per se. That the bill includes an addition to outlaw civil unions (SB 2381) further attests to this intent.

Third, to its violation of the separation of church and state: That the Protect Marriage Amendment’s motives are religious—despite the careful choreographing of the website to avoid overt religious references—could not be clearer. It’s no accident that many of its endorsements come from churches and other religious organizations. Its proponents claim that “if same-sex relationships are legally recognized, schools will be forced to change curricula to reflect homosexual role models and same-sex parenting as normal and acceptable. Parents will lose control of their children's moral education.” This passage, one of many like it, assumes without evidence or argument that homosexual role models are immoral and that same-sex parenting is abnormal and unacceptable. Its aim is to fear monger on the unsupported assumption that gays and gay marriage endanger the “traditional” family.

This reasoning is without justification: Sexual orientation is irrelevant to parenting skill, and as even the most cursory tour of family composition in the United States and elsewhere amply demonstrates, the nuclear, male-headed household does not have a monopoly on successful family structure. Moreover, the burden of proof to demonstrate that gays and lesbians are not adequate parents falls on the bill’s proponents, not on gay and lesbian parents.

That the amendment’s proponents site no fault divorce as an unqualified failure should send a very cold chill up the backs of women whose only escape from violent marriages are no-fault divorce laws. As, moreover, University of Pennsylvania law School Professor Tobias Barrington Wolff makes clear in his March 17th 2008 testimony,

SB 1250 threatens to write into the PA Constitution a license for deadbeat spouses to flee to Pennsylvania in order to avoid their alimony obligations; for disgruntled parents to disrupt the results of child custody resolutions; and for reckless individuals to use Pennsylvania as a safe haven to escape paying their judgments when their actions cause the wrongful death of a same-sex partner. I cannot imagine that any member of this body intends these results, but the amendment invites these bad public policies and even more.

The real motives behind the amendment are in fact to define a civil contract in terms of a religious institution; why else ban civil unions in addition to gay marriage? What makes the proponent’s arguments particularly onerous, however, is that the arguments in support of the so-called unnaturalness of homosexuality have been so thoroughly discredited, and for so long, that it demands nothing less than willful blindness to ignore them. This amendment erects a second-class citizenry in Pennsylvania; it overtly discriminates against citizens, their families, and their children. Professor Wolff makes the point clear in its constitutional context: “[DOMA] takes one class of citizens and (gay men and lesbians) and deprives their relationships, and only their relationships, of equal treatment under the full faith and credit clause [of the federal constitution].” SB1250 is rightly compared to laws that denied marriage across color. Yet, when I queried one legislator directly as to why he has sponsored this bill, his response was that it was the will of his constituents. Would he find this answer acceptable were the amendment to deny marriage across color? I doubt it.

Moreover, the additional amendment to outlaw civil unions clearly endangers current domestic partnership provisions in our and other union contracts. Domestic partnerships are civil unions; to outlaw one is to deny the enforceability of the other. As ACLU representatives make clear in their response to SB1250:

There is significant confusion and disagreement over the interpretation of constitutional amendments that go further than a simple, clear, and concise prohibition on same-sex marriage. The Michigan constitution was amended in 2004 to include this language: “To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose.” Michigan Constitution, Article 1, Section 25. The Michigan Court of Appeals has held that this amendment bars state entities from providing health care benefits to domestic partners of state employees. National Pride at Work v. Governor, 274 Mich. App 147, 372 N.W. 2d 139 (Mich. App. 2007). The court found that “the operative language of the amendment plainly precludes the extension of benefits related to an employment contract, if the benefits are conditioned on or provided because of an agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union.” (From the ACLU Senate Judiciary Committee Testimony)

Kentucky has also followed the Michigan precedent: “The Attorney General said that the state cannot provide domestic partner healthcare benefits without violating that state’s marriage amendment” (ACLU testimony). A similar case can be found in Idaho. As the ACLU representatives go on to make clear, the Philadelphia domestic Partnership law is in no way immune from being overturned:

Opponents of the Philadelphia Domestic Partnership Law have already tried to have it overturned once in the court. (They were largely unsuccessful as the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled against them in 2004 in Devlin v. City of Philadelphia, 862, A 2d 1234). Were this proposed amendment to become part of Pennsylvania Constitution, we would expect another challenge to the Philadelphia law as well as other local laws and that we would see arguments based on this amendment.

Obviously, this is a significant union issue given the recent inclusion of domestic partnership benefits within my current APSCUF contract.