Hate is everywhere, but the fundamental question of why one person can hate another has never been adequately studied, contends Jim Mohr of Gonzaga University, who is developing a new academic field of hate studies.

The goal is to explain a condition that has plagued humanity since one caveman looked askance at another.

“What makes hate tick?” Mohr, director of Gonzaga’s Institute for Action Against Hate, wondered. “How can we stop it?”

Gonzaga founded the institute a decade ago after some black law students received threatening letters. It has since started a Journal of Hate Studies, hosted a conference and offered its first class on hatred last spring.

The hope is that other universities will follow suit, said Ken Stern of the American Jewish Committee in New York, who has been involved in the effort. “We wanted to approach hate more intelligently,” he said.

Stern, who has spent 20 years battling anti-Semitism, said the need for hate studies became obvious when people started fighting groups like the Aryan Nations, which once flourished in this area. Opponents galvanized against the Aryans, but didn’t really know how best to fight them, Stern said.

“We were flying by the seat of our pants,” he said. “There was no testable theory.”

There is not even a good definition of hate, Stern contends.

Philosophers have offered numerous definitions: Rene Descartes said hate was the urge to withdraw from something that is thought bad. Aristotle saw hate as the incurable desire to annihilate an object.

In psychology, Sigmund Freud defined hate as an ego state that wishes to destroy the source of its unhappiness.

Gonzaga, a Jesuit university best known for its basketball team, offered a class on the subject taught by five professors from different disciplines.

Student Kayla De Los Reyes was in that class, and said the information both horrified her and gave her hope.

“Hate is something that is part of the human emotional makeup,” she said. “Everyone feels it at one point or another. You have to learn to control it.”

The goal is to create an academic home where a variety of disciplines, including history, psychology, religious studies, anthropology and political science, can be brought together to focus on hate. It’s the same sort of effort that led to the creation of disciplines like black studies or women’s studies, Mohr said.

Such academic efforts are not without controversy. Some skeptics fear they are little more than attacks on the dominant power structure.

“This stuff tends to be one dimensional and presumes the guilt of an archetypal white male,” said Glenn Ricketts, spokesman for the National Association of Scholars.

Indeed, De Los Reyes said one of the more interesting topics in the class involved white privilege. The most recent Journal of Hate Studies contained articles about oppression of gays, Nazi experiments on Jews, the local battle against Aryan Nations, and Muslim support for suicide bombings.

Heather Veeder, a graduate assistant for the institute, said the organization has an important mission.

“Hate thrives in areas not illuminated by education,” she said.

But Stern said it is too easy to blame ignorance for hate. People can have plenty of knowledge about something and still hate it, he said. The problem is when one person or group can separate another person or group from their humanity, thinking of them as an “other,” Stern said.

“We dehumanize them and justify violence against them,” Stern said.

There is no simple answer to why people hate, Mohr said. Hate can be sparked by greed, or fear, or a tribe bonding together in opposition to another. People looking to belong will hate others to fit into a group, he said.

With all the political conflict in the United States, it can seem that hate is on the rise. Some people seem to hate President Obama. Some hate Muslims. Some hate homosexuals.

But Mohr said he wouldn’t pursue a field of hate studies if he didn’t think something positive could be achieved.

“We can change,” Mohr said. “There has to be hope.”

A press release on ChurchOuting.org says:

A new local Internet and social media campaign was launched today in response to increasing anti-gay attacks by Archbishop Donald Wuerl of the Archdiocese of Washington and to a 57 page Pastoral Letter, which was passed today by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) affirming the national church leadership’s opposition to recognition of civil marriage between same sex couples

ChurchOuting.org is a clearinghouse for reports of priests who are openly gay men in social settings yet professionally closeted in their parishes.  The campaign will also accept reports of heterosexual priests who are involved in romantic or sexual relationships, yet support the Archbishop’s efforts to harm lesbian and gay families.

The site, which is founded by political consultant Phil Attey,  encourages those with knowledge of a priest’s closeted homosexuality to come forward.

Whenever I get up in arms about religious organizations, my friends remind me of all the good work they do. Homeless shelters, feed the hungry, social outreach, community building, these are all part of the church/shule/mosque environment. So I nod and feel a little guilty for being so judgmental.

But then the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington goes and does something so silly and weird, I get all incensed all over again.

Today, they announced that they would be pulling their social services in Washington D.C. if the gay rights measure is approved. Their argument: they might be forced to extend employment benefits to same-sex spouses if they choose to keep working with the city.

First, Catholic charities gets huge amounts of money from D.C. in order to perform their good works. As in, they are being paid to help people, they are not necessarily doing it out of the goodness of their heart. If they don’t want to provide these services, the city can hire some other group to perform their functions.

Second, extending employment benefits to the few individuals who work for you who don’t already get those benefits is really so costly that you have to stop serving the 68,000 people in need in D.C.? Really? Ok then, why is it that we want you involved in social services again?’

Third, if we do make politics secular – as in no religious involvement at all – wouldn’t we be making things easier for gay, Jewish, Muslim and athiest homeless people in D.C.?

I know it’s a knee jerk reaction, but my response to the Catholic threat is “good riddance!”

But, wait! There are more bills in the air: Michigan has one seeking to repeal its constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and New Hampshire has one seeking to repeal its newly approved-but-not-yet-enacted marriage equality law.

And, of course, there is still Maine, a dropped ball.

Ever since last Tuesday, when voters in Maine voted to repeal the state’s newly approved-but-not-yet-enacted marriage equality law, opponents of same-sex marriage have touted the vote as a decisive renunciation of equal rights for gay couples.

They claim Maine was a “liberal New England state” where they were “grossly outspent.” Supporters of equal rights, who did eventually concede the defeat, the struggle is “about love and family and that will always be something worth fighting for.”

Both sides of the same-sex marriage issue have re-positioned their resources from Maine to these five other states.

New York

In New York State on Tuesday, the Senate was slated to take up a marriage equality bill. The bill  already passed the state Assembly, but the volatile Senate –where Democrats cling to a 32 to 30 majority—has been reluctant to take it up.

That reluctance continued: The Senate did not take up the bill Tuesday. Instead, Senate leaders huddled with Gov. David Paterson and, according to the New York Times, came up with yet another “vague agreement” to vote on the bill “before the end of the year.”

That may be as soon as Monday of next week, but many observers say they doubt the Senate will put the bill on the floor unless the Democratic leadership knows the bill has 32 votes.  Two Democrats have already said they would not vote for the measure, and the anti-gay National Organization for Marriage sent out a statement this week, saying it would “build a $500,000 war chest to fund a primary challenge to any Republican senator who votes for gay marriage –regardless of the outcome” of the Senate vote.

Washington, D.C.

 Meanwhile, in Washington, D.C., counting votes is not an issue. A D.C. council committee voted 4 to 1 on Tuesday to approve a marriage equality bill there. The full Council will vote on Dec. 1; 10 of the 13 Councilmembers are sponsors of the legislation.

But inevitability is not translating into a smooth victory. The Council Committee on Public Safety and the Judiciary heard more than 160 witnesses over two days of hearings testify for and against a bill that will provide for gay couples to be able to obtain marriage licenses. Simultaneously, the D.C. elections board heard testimony for and against a proposal to let D.C. voters decide by initiative whether to ban same-sex marriage.

Wait! Wasn’t it just last month that the elections board said there could be no ballot battle over same-sex marriage? Yes, but that was only in regard to D.C.’s just recently passed law recognizing marriage licenses same-sex couples obtain elsewhere, like in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, or Iowa. (New Hampshire’s law doesn’t go into effect until Jan. 1.)

Now, opponents are before the elections board seeking an initiative to establish a statute limiting the definition of marriage to straight couples. The board is expected to rule on that request in the next two weeks, says Human Rights Campaign regional field director Sultan Shakir.  Those opponents are being aided by the aid of the National Organization of Marriage and have the legal aid of another staunch conservative anti-gay group, the Alliance Defense Fund.

Perhaps trying to head off some of the controversy, the Council Committee on Tuesday agreed to amend the marriage equality bill by giving religious institutions more leeway to discriminate against same-sex couples. The original bill allowed religious institutions to refuse to accommodate same-sex weddings through such services as rental of space as long as they did not accommodate straight couples.

 But the Committee agreed to allow religious institutions to refuse only gay couples in spaces owned by the institution. One committee member tried to expand that even further to non-religious institutions, but the Committee said no.

The Committee also amended the legislation to continue providing a domestic partnership option for both straight and gay couples.

 New Jersey

Gay marriage supporters are considering a hurried run at the New Jersey legislature –a hurry necessitated by the defeat of incumbent Gov. Jon Corzine (D) in the Nov. 3 election. Corzine has said he would support of equal rights for gay couples, but his successor, Chris Christie (R), has promised to veto any such legislation.

 The New Jersey legislature passed a civil unions law after the state supreme court ruled that the state constitution required gay couples be able to obtain the same benefits of marriage as straight couples can obtain. Momentum has been growing, however, for full marriage equality.

But New Jersey is also the original home-base for the National Organization for Marriage and that group is already playing its “save the children” radio ads warning that allowing gay couples to marry will lead to homosexuality being “forced” on school children.

The Star-Ledger in Newark reported that NOM funded robo-calls to “every household in selected legislative districts” and that the Catholic church has been distributing letters statewide to rally opposition to any marriage equality bill.

Like New York, passage of a marriage equality bill in New Jersey will require some Republican votes.

Oregon, Michigan, New Hampshire

Meanwhile, efforts are underway in a couple of states to untie the constitutional binds that currently prevent states from treating same-sex couples the same as straight couples when it comes to marriage licensing.

In Oregon, the statewide gay group Basic Rights Oregon announced last week that it is launching a petition drive to put on the ballot in 2012 an initiative to repeal the constitutional ban on same-sex marriage there. Voters approved the ban by initiative in 2004, but in 2007, the state legislature approved a law to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and another law to allow same-sex couples to register as domestic partners.

In Michigan, the House speaker pro tem, State Rep. Pam Byrnes, made good on a promise she announced in June: She introduced a measure seeking repeal of the constitutional ban approved by voters there in 2004. If the bill receives two-thirds approval in the House and Senate, it will then go to voters in 2010.

But in New Hampshire, there is an attempt to repeal a marriage equality law approved earlier this year. The law is set to go into effect Jan. 1.

The idea for the bill emerged long before the vote in Maine, but the conservative Union Leader newspaper got the ball rolling last week with a blistering editorial, claiming that the repeal vote in Maine jostles the neighboring domino.

The paper said at least two bills are already being drafted to undo the marriage equality law –one by legislative repeal, one by voter repeal.

Openly gay State Rep. Jim Splaine, who sponsored the marriage equality bill earlier this year, said he expects opponents to file the repeal bill in January. Because the marriage equality bill passed on very close votes last spring, said Splaine, “we shouldn’t take anything for granted.”

© 2009 Keen News Service

The strategy worked. Overruling the courts and lawmakers, voters defeated gay marriage ballot measures in California last year and in Maine this week after conservatives convinced residents that same-sex unions would become common classroom fodder without any say from parents.

The punch-to-the gut claim has emerged as the latest tool in the ever-evolving playbook of same-sex marriage opponents, and the Achilles’ heel of the gay-marriage movement. Voters seem to be swayed by the notion that gay marriage will be a corrupting force among children, even though critics blasted the message as a blatantly misleading case of fear-mongering.

“It was very effective. It’s drawing on the fears of the unknown,” said Sandy Maisel, director of the Goldfarb Center for Public Affairs and Civic Engagement at Maine’s Colby College. “There’s no evidence that it’s going to happen, but there’s very clear evidence that it’s an effective campaign tactic.”

Gay marriage opponents discovered the effectiveness of the schools message in last year’s successful effort to pass Proposition 8 to outlaw gay marriage in California.

After signing up to lead the campaign, political consultants Frank Schubert and Jeff Flint knew they had a problem: Polls were showing that residents tended to not have much of a problem with gay relationships.

With the help of focus groups, surveys and ammunition unwittingly supplied by their opponents, Schubert and Flint soon found a new way to frame the issue, by focusing on education.

It was a departure from past elections when the issue was defined in simpler terms – that marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. The various strategies have helped conservatives win 31 consecutive ballot initiatives on gay marriage.

“We bet the campaign on consequences, especially on education,” Schubert recalled in March when he and Flint were named the “public affairs team of the year” by the American Association of Political Consultants for their work in California. “Education from the beginning, while it was one of three consequences, it was the one that was the most emotionally charged and the most powerful.”

In California and Maine, gay marriage supporters countered the claims with spots featuring prominent elected officials – California’s chief of public instruction, Maine’s attorney general – who insisted that same-sex marriage had nothing to do with schools.

They also angrily denounced as deceptive the visuals the Sacramento team employed, including a Massachusetts couple who lost a lawsuit seeking parental consent before same-sex families are discussed in elementary classrooms.

But the response did not defuse the hot-button issue, advocates on both sides of the issue observe, in part because they failed to address what many parents knew to be true: Many public schools already have lessons that include references to gay families in the younger grades and confronting anti-gay discrimination for older students. Although the topics usually are broached in the context of appreciating diversity and tolerance, for some parents any discussion of gay people is too close to talking about gay sex.

“The trend that we are seeing is homosexuality is being promoted more and more in schools, and the increase in this is creating a hostile environment for kids with Christian or socially conservative viewpoints,” said Candi Cushman, education analyst for the Christian group Focus on the Family.

Cathy Renna, a public relations consultant in Washington who is married to a woman and has a 4-year-old daughter, said that equating references to gay parents with sex is “like saying that introducing someone’s mother and father to a class means you are talking about heterosexual sex.” But Renna agrees that same-sex marriage supporters need a different comeback to the kids-and-schools argument.

“This idea that gay people are coming to eat your children is a long-standing tactic of the right wing,” she said. “The response to those ads that not only has more truth, but more integrity, is that we live in a diverse world and our kids know that and it’s irresponsible for us not to talk about the world we live in in age-appropriate ways. Dismissing them as lies actually does a disservice not only to the people in our community, but to the public that knows better.”

In California, some gay rights groups want to try to repeal Proposition 8 at the ballot box next year. There has been talk about including language in the new measure that would state that nothing in it is meant to mandate the teaching of same-sex marriage in schools. Some gay rights advocates fear, though, that the wording could be used to undermine the way gay subjects are treated in schools now, said Chaz Lowe, founder of Yes! on Equality.

Melissa Murray, an assistant professor at the UC Berkeley Boalt Hall School of Law who researched the messages used in the Proposition 8 campaign, said gay marriage advocates underestimated how deeply Schubert and Flint’s carefully crafted schools message resonated with the public.

One reason it resonated so deeply is it changed the debate from one of equal rights to the equally cherished notion of individual rights, something gay activists should keep in mind as the marriage moves to other states, Murray said.

“Parents are always thinking about how do I keep unwanted influences out of my children’s lives, and it’s a lot harder to do that as a parent if that influence is the state,” Murray said. “That’s the fear they are tapping into. … and they are just going to keep repackaging it, because it works.”

Though it looked likely, it was still nice to see the official announcement that the “everything but marriage” ballot initiative passed in Washington State. Now, I know that Washington is a much more liberal state than Maine and equating the two would be a mistake. But I wonder, how much the removal of the word marriage assisted in the ballot victory?

Not that I believe marriage without the term is sufficient. It’s not. Legal distinctions between groups based on personal characteristics like sexual orientation matter even if the distinctions don’t result in a concrete rights disadvantage for one group. But, if we could create a national situation where civil union-like status existed for all same-sex couples, we’d be in a pretty good place to start a Supreme Court legal challenge.

Once the relationships are the same, there would be a good equal protection argument in favor of adding the word marriage to both kinds of relationships.

That’s how it happened in Canada: fight for civil unions first, get marriage second.

Washington might just have proven how sound that strategy is.

With about 72 percent of the expected vote counted Thursday in unofficial returns, Referendum 71 was leading 52 percent to 48 percent, with a margin of about 60,000 votes.

Sen. Ed Murray, a Seattle Democrat who spearheaded the law, called it “a great step forward for equality in Washington state.”

“I’m relieved,” he said. “I was very concerned that if the voters had said no, it would have been a major setback for gay and lesbian families in Washington state.”

The measure asked voters to approve or reject the latest expansion of the state’s domestic partnership law, granting registered domestic partners additional state rights previously given only to married couples.

Full-fledged gay marriage is still not allowed under Washington law.

Gary Randall of Protect Marriage Washington, which opposed the law and pushed to get the referendum on the ballot, said they weren’t ready to concede.

“We’re just going to wait and watch it play out,” he said.

Randall said that while they’re waiting until all the votes are counted, “going in, we knew that we had a pretty tough task ahead of us.”

“We knew there was a chance we would not prevail,” he said.

Two national gay rights groups – the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and the Family Equality Council – say that voter approval of such a measure was a first. Gay equality laws in other states, ranging from civil rights to gay marriage, have either been implemented by the courts or legislative process. Voters have rejected gay marriage 31 states, most recently in Maine, where voters repealed a gay marriage law on Tuesday.

“Our state made history today,” said Anne Levinson, chairwoman of Washington Families Standing Together, which fought to keep the law on the books. “This is a day for which we can all look back with pride.”

The expanded law in Washington state adds benefits, such as the right to use sick leave to care for a domestic partner, and rights related to adoption, child custody and child support.

During the campaign, opponents argued the law is a stepping-stone to gay marriage. Gay rights activists countered that while the marriage debate was for another day, same-sex couples need additional legal protections and rights in the meantime.

The law was to take effect July 26, but was delayed because of the referendum campaign. It will now take effect Dec. 3, according to the secretary of state’s office.

The underlying domestic partnership law, which the Legislature passed in 2007, provided hospital visitation rights, the ability to authorize autopsies and organ donations, and inheritance rights when there is no will.

Last year, lawmakers expanded the law to give domestic partners standing under laws covering probate and trusts, community property and guardianship.

More than 12,000 people in Washington state are registered as domestic partners, and most are gay. Under state law, senior heterosexual couples can register as domestic partners as well, if at least one partner is 62 years old or older. That provision was included by lawmakers to help seniors who don’t remarry out of fear they could lose certain pension or social security benefits.

Washington state, along with California, Oregon, New Jersey, and the District of Columbia, have laws that either recognize civil unions or domestic partnerships that afford same-sex couples similar rights to marriage.

Same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa and Vermont, and will start in New Hampshire in January. Voters in Maine on Tuesday repealed a gay marriage law that was passed by the Legislature there earlier this year.

Gov. Chris Gregoire said that the vote on R-71 made her “very proud.”

“I think Washington state stood out in this country on Tuesday by saying one of the inherent values in our state is equality,” she said Thursday.

Results weren’t known until Thursday because almost all voters in Washington cast their ballots by mail, and even those ballots postmarked on Election Day are valid. That means close elections often drag on for a few days or longer.

There will be finger pointing today. All unfair. The Maine loss stings and nothing will change that; however, the marriage equality advocates made a valiant argument. Right now the argument isn’t changing enough minds.

And focusing only on the Maine defeat neglects Washington. Looks like voters in that state will narrowly support a beefing up of the state’s domestic partnership laws; “everything but marriage” so to speak.

I know  keyboard revolutionaries will be typing missives of rage and that’s cool, but listen up peoples: freedom struggles are difficult and filled with  losses and setbacks. It’s not fair and many of us are not going to see the very things we are fighting for, but if you want quick results it’s time to find something else to do. If you are not in it for the long haul, what’s the point? If you think struggles for rights are easily earned in one election cycle, you are not paying attention to the narrative called American history.

Nothing wrong with being angry and disappointed today, but when you are finished put the armor back on because the struggle still continues.

The latest numbers are 51.1 percent approve domestic partnerships; 48.9 percent reject them.

Dave Ammons, a spokesperson for the Secretary of State’s office, said the office is posting results at www.vote.wa.gov. But he added that they would have “probably no more than half of the expected total vote counted by the end of the evening.”

© 2009 Keen News Service

So with everything up in the air – and our readers steadily dropping off – James and I are going to call it a night.

But we’ll be back first thing tomorrow with whatever results have come in.