In this Issue:

Commentary: A Plague on Both Parties by Rev. Michael Piazza
Thirty-One Candidates Attend H4PJ Candidates Day
N.J. Court Backs Rights for Gay Unions

Commentary: A Plague on Both Parties
by Rev. Michael S. Piazza

As the midterm elections rapidly approach, if you are like me, you may be ready to curse both political parties. Never has the argument for having more than two choices been more apparent.

Let me start with the Republicans. (Don’t worry; I’ll get to the Democrats.) For the past four years, Republicans have controlled both houses of Congress, as well as the White House. In the process, they have alienated the whole world, changing in other’s minds what America means. They have tortured prisoners, reduced civil liberties, increased global warming, and sold our future to the Chinese. The legacy of the Bush Administration will be:

• The creation of a generation of terrorists by the unprovoked invasion of Iraq;
• The destruction of the environment; and
• Increasing the deficit by pandering to corporations and the richest Americans so much that, someday, the Chinese, who hold most of our debt, will determine our economic future.

I am not sure our country has ever seen such a cynical exploitation of American’s fear for the purpose of gaining and maintaining power. I keep asking myself, “Don’t any of them expect to have grandchildren whose lives will be diminished in almost every way by the legacy this Administration will leave?” History will replace Machiavelli’s name with Karl Rove’s when citing examples of ruthless, unprincipled, manipulative genius. He has managed to convince more than 40 percent of Americans that President Bush is doing a good job. Incredible.

However, if it is possible, I hold even greater contempt for the Democrats. Their cowardice makes those Nazi collaborators seem like heroes. Where is a courageous, articulate leader who is willing to challenge the lies? Was there not a single Democratic senator willing to filibuster legislation to construct a multi-billion dollar fence along the Mexican border, which everyone acknowledged was only election-year pandering? Wasn’t a single Democrat willing to filibuster legislation that will allow milder, gentler torture and authorize a trial system that the Supreme Court has already ruled violates our most basic legal principles? The Democrats are, in some ways, worse than the Republicans, because they continually compromise and hide their real values for fear that Rove and company will label them as weak and unwilling to protect the “Homeland.” They ARE weak. They are failing to protect us from a regime that is destroying our core values and most basic principles. The Democrats are no less culpable than the Republicans, and so I say, in the words of Shakespeare, “a plague o’ both their houses.”

In 1972 I voted for the very first time. While I am not certain of this, I always suspected that I was the only white person in my small town in South Georgia who actually voted for George McGovern. Actually, George did carry my hometown in that election—George WALLACE. Richard Nixon came in second, and McGovern’s election-watch party could have been held in a telephone booth. I have a long and proud history of campaigning for losers who turned out to be winners. I had to go into therapy when Jimmy Carter lost.

It is said that we get the politicians we deserve. I’m not sure if that is true, but I do think our fear and obsession with national security has made us vulnerable to the worst of both parties. Where are courageous leaders who will tell us the truth, even when the news is bad—like that the deficit is more dangerous for our future than Osama Bin Laden? Or that terrorists aren’t going to kill you, but the destruction of the ozone may cause you to get cancer or die of emphysema? Or that our addiction to cheap goods will ultimately result in shipping jobs and our future off-shore?

If a politician ever starts telling the truth like that, vote for them, then hold your election night watch party in a closet, ‘cause they don’t make phone booths anymore.

<--back to top-->

Hope for Peace & Justice needs your support to continue to provide a progressive, religious response to the Religious Right. Donations, at any amount, are greatly appreciated. Click here to Donate to H4PJ.

Thirty-One Candidates Attend “Candidates Day”
Event hosted by Hope for Peace & Justice

Thirty-one candidates, in a variety of races from County Judge to Lieutenant Governor to United States House of Representatives, attended worship services last Sunday, October 22 at the Cathedral of Hope. Hosted by Hope for Peace & Justice, “Candidates Day” offered an opportunity for candidates, regardless of party affiliation, to meet face-to-face with members of Cathedral of Hope. Hope for Peace & Justice sponsored the event as a part of its mission to be a religious voice for progressive people of faith, calling them to be fully engaged in the political process.

“This surely is a sign of a major shift in the political landscape,” said Rev. Michael Piazza, President of Hope for Peace & Justice. “In no previous election cycle have more than two candidates in Dallas County worshipped at Cathedral of Hope. Progressive candidates, recognizing the importance of the minority vote—including the lesbian and gay community—have come to realize that we, too, are values voters.

“We care significantly less about the political party of the candidates than about the values they share with us,” Rev. Piazza noted. “We expect our government to care about issues like the environment, the poor and equal rights for all people. Unlike our evangelical sisters and brothers, we will not be appeased by mere lip service.”

Invitations were issued for Candidates Day to both major parties and to all candidates in various races. In the race for Governor, Democrat Chris Bell’s campaign responded favorably to the invitation but was concerned with previous commitments. Governor Rick Perry refused the invitation.

“One of the reasons that Cathedral of Hope founded Hope for Peace & Justice was to ensure that the voices of progressive people of faith are heard by politicians and our nation’s leaders,” said Rev. Piazza. “It is appropriate that candidates worship with us and experience the values of our families firsthand. It is especially important that they see hundreds of lesbian and gay people worshipping God. We have not surrendered our country or our God to the fundamentalist right.”

Candidates attending H4PJ event

• Charlie Thompson, Candidate for U.S. Representative, TX - District 5
• David Harris, Candidate for U.S. Representative, TX - District 6
• Will Pryor, Candidate for U.S. Representative, TX - District 32
• Maria Luisa Alvarado, Candidate for TX Lt. Governor of Texas
• Terri Hodge, Candidate for re-election, TX - District 100
• Jack Borden, Candidate for State Representative, TX - District 108
• Phillip Shinoda, Candidate for State Representative, TX - District 114
• Jim Foster, Candidate for Dallas County Judge (TX)
• Gary Fitzsimmons, Candidate for Dallas County District Clerk (TX)
• Joe Wells, Candidate for Dallas County Treasurer (TX)
• Carlos Cortez, Candidate for Judge, 44th Civil District Court (TX)
• Martin Hoffman, Candidate for Judge, 68th Civil District Court (TX)
• Jim Jordan, Candidate for Judge, 160th Civil District Court (TX)
• Gena Slaughter, Candidate for Judge, 191st Civil District Court (TX)
• Carl Ginsberg, Candidate for Judge 193rd Civil District Court (TX)
• Emily Tobolowsky, Candidate for Judge, 298th Civil District Court (TX)
• Carter Thompson, Candidate for Judge, 5th Criminal District Court (TX)
• Michael Snipes, Candidate for Judge, 7th Criminal District Court (TX)
• Judge Keith Dean, Candidate for re-election, 265th Criminal District Court (TX)
• Andy Chatham, Candidate for Judge, 282nd Criminal District Court (TX)
• Tracy Holmes, Candidate for Judge, 363rd Criminal District Court (TX)
• Lori Chrisman Hockett, Candidate for Judge, 255th Family District Court (TX)
• Bill Mazur, Candidate for Judge, 304th Juvenile District Court (TX)
• King Fifer, Candidate for Judge, County Court at Law #2 (TX)
• Ken Tapscott, Candidate for Judge, County Court at Law #4 (TX)
• Judge Bruce Woody, Candidate for re-election, County Court at Law #4 (TX)
• Doug Skemp, Candidate for Judge, County Criminal Court #3 (TX)
• Teresa Tolle, Candidate for Judge, County Criminal Court #4 (TX)
• Peggy Hoffman, Candidate for Judge, County Criminal Court #9 (TX)
• Roberto Canas, Candidate for Judge, County Criminal Court #10 (TX)
• Jeff Rosenfield, Candidate for Judge, County Criminal Court of Appeals #2 (TX)

<--back to top-->

N.J. Court Backs Rights for Gay Unions
Originally Published by the New York Times

The State Supreme Court in New Jersey said today that under equal protection guarantees of the state constitution, same-sex couples “must be afforded on equal terms the same rights and benefits enjoyed by opposite-sex couples under the civil marriage statutes.”

But it said that whether that status is called marriage or something else “is a matter left to the democratic process.”

In a 4-3 vote, the court found that an arrangement similar to that of Vermont, which authorizes civil unions between same-sex couples but does not call them marriages, would be consitutional in New Jersey.

The court gave the legislature a six-month deadline to enact the necessary legislation to provide for same-sex unions.

Courts in many other states have rejected similar lawsuits by same-sex couples, ruling, as the Court of Appeals of New York did in July, that only the legislature can define or redefine marriage. No legislature has done so, despite widespread shifts in public opinion in the last few years, and the recognition of domestic partnerships and civil unions in some states.

Only Massachusetts so far authorizes same-sex marriages. Since the Massachusetts Supreme Court held in 2003 that full marriage rights were required for all couples under that state’s constitution, gay-rights advocates have suffered a string of defeats. The Court of Appeals of New York rejected a similar argument in July.

Nineteen states have adopted constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage. Most others have explicit statutory bans --- though New Jersey does not. New Jersey is among several that recognize domestic partnerships, and Vermont and Connecticut authorize civil unions, affording more legal protections.

In part because the New Jersey Supreme Court is known as liberal and, above all, independent, the case here had garnered national attention.

The case was brought by seven gay and lesbian couples, who have been together from 14 to 35 years and were denied marriage licenses. Five of them have children.

The trial-level and lower appellate courts rejected their claim that the state constitution protected their right to marry as heterosexual couples do. The Appellate Division said in June 2005 that marriage between members of the same sex was neither a fundamental right under the constitution nor one protected by its equal protection clause.

The Supreme Court heard the case, Lewis v. Harris, on Feb. 15.

Under New Jersey’s domestic partnership law, enacted in 2004, same-sex partners may make critical medical decisions for each other, for example, and must be offered the same health coverage by insurers that is given to spouses.

The law was approved by the Legislature with little dissent and signed by then-Gov. James E. McGreevey --- who at the time did not support fully legalized gay marriage, even though he would resign several months later with the statement, “I am a gay American.”

Mr. Goldstein was among those who celebrated the domestic partnership law, but he would later find that it fell short of expectations. He said on Wednesday that “hospitals and other employers have told domestic-partnered couples across New Jersey: We don’t care what the domestic partnership law says. You’re not married.”

In the last few years, public opinion has become more accepting of gay marriage, at least in New Jersey. A Rutgers-Eagleton poll of New Jersey residents taken in June found that 50 percent said they supported allowing same-sex couples to marry legally, while 44 percent were opposed. (The margin of error was plus or minus 4 percentage points.) When the poll asked the same question in 2003, 43 percent of respondents supported legal recognition for gay marriage and 50 percent were opposed.

Still, conservative opposition has also organized, culminating in proposed constitutional amendments on the ballot in 11 states in 2004. All were approved overwhelmingly.

Last summer, the New York Court of Appeals ruled in a 4-to-2 decision that it would not depart from the state’s century-old law defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye wrote, in a sharply worded dissent, that “a history or tradition of discrimination --- no matter how entrenched --- does not make the discrimination constitutional."

<--back to top-->