Marchers for Gay Pride in Jerusalem (Reuters/Ronen Zvulun)

A mysterious video painting the organizers of the latest Gaza flotilla as anti-gay was exposed as a hoax last week, in the latest instance of what pro-Palestinian activists call “pinkwashing.”

The term refers to efforts by the Israeli government and its allies to highlight the rights afforded to the gay community in Israel — and the plight of gays in Arab countries and the Palestinian territories — to distract from or justify the continued occupation of the West Bank and the blockade of Gaza. …

This video appeared on YouTube purporting to show an American gay rights activist explaining his rejection by — and disillusionment with — the organizers of the latest Gaza flotilla. It was promptly promoted on social media by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs and an intern in Benjamin Netanyahu’s office.

But several bloggers investigated and determined that the man in the video is in fact a Tel Aviv actor. …

[See NY Times "Lede" blog on this subject.]

Across California, 6,600 prisoners have participated in the hunger strike begun on July 1 at Pelican Bay State prison’s security housing unit or solitary confinement.

On July 1st, 43 prisoners inside California Pelican Bay State Prison’s security housing unit (or SHU, a fancy name to get those of us not in prison to think it is something other than solitary confinement and all that entails) began a hunger strike against torture and for self-determination and liberation. Solidarity with prisoners who are organizing themselves for justice is just a click away. Prisoner Hunger Strike Solidarity, a San Francisco Bay Area coalition of grassroots organizations “committed to amplyifing the voices of and supporting the prisoners,” has a blog and I suggest you check out like I did by clicking here.

It’s day two and at the same time as these 43 prisoners refuse food in participate in this hunger strike at Pelican Bay, 2.3 million people are in similar conditions, marginalized in solitary confinement and isolating conditions within an already hidden and dehumanizing system. For those of you who have not thought about the prison industrial complex as a justice issue for people of faith specifically, just that number of people hidden in our society seems like something to pray on. Here’s a couple other reflections that convinced me to learn about mass incarceration as a social justice issue and now to write about and pray for the Pelican Bay prisoners:

In a well-received Op/Ed piece in the New York Times, Columbia law professor, Katherine M. Franke explains why she considers the New York marriage decision a “mixed blessing.” Why does she say that?

First, Franke is concerned that the decision to allow same-sex couples access to civil marriage in New York will most likely lead to the elimination of domestic partnership status. She sees this as unfortunate because having domestic partnership as an option provides “greater freedom than can be found in the one-size-fits-all rules of marriage.”

Second, Franke does not think people should be “forced” to get married in order to access their partners’ health insurance and other benefits. She believes domestic partnership ought to be an alternative way of accessing benefits for both gays and straights.

Finally, she does not want to “celebrate” the idea of having the state sanction and regulate personal relationships.

A lot of my friends recommended this op/ed piece on Facebook, but I found myself less than convinced by Franke’s claims for a number of reasons. First, while Franke insists that “domestic partnerships and civil unions aren’t a consolation prize made available to lesbian and gay couples because we are barred from legally marrying,” in most cases, that is exactly what they are.

This seems to be the case even in New York City, where Franke resides. According to the City, domestic partnership status is available only to “couples that have a close and committed personal relationship” and who “live together, and have been living together on a continuous basis.” It is not available to anyone who “is married or related by blood in a manner that would bar his or her marriage in New York State.” While it is open to gay and straight couples alike, the status seems to be aimed at those who are living together as if married, rather than alternative domestic configurations.

To give another example, my home state of Delaware just legalized civil unions for same-sex couples precisely because such couples are prohibited from marrying. The new status will provide all the state-level benefits of marriage, but because civil unions have no federal status, none of the federal ones. While I am happy that my relationship will soon have some legal protection in Delaware, I am not happy to be relegated to second-class status. But it was the best we could do politically.

Since I monitor the Christian Right for Tikkun Daily, I had to ask myself this week: What does the Christian Right (CR) think about the recent decision of the New York legislature to allow same-sex couples access to civil marriage? Their websites were actually less focused on this issue than I thought they would be, but those who did comment seemed to offer two major lines of attack.

The first argument, advanced by the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), Family Research Council, and others, says the people of New York don’t want gay marriage and so the legislature shouldn’t have legalized it. Since we claim to be a democratic society, this makes sense as an argument. However, this criticism is not actually the principled argument that it at first seems to be because Christian Right spokespeople appeal to the will of the majority only when it serves their purposes.

That is to say, if you look at the arguments against gay marriage made by the Right over time, they change depending on the circumstances. When the courts order marriage equality, the CR says “leave it to the legislature.” When legislatures legalize gay marriage, then the CR demands a referendum.

For example, Maggie Gallagher from NOM, who is now pushing the will of the people argument, previously criticized the Massachusetts Supreme Court for overturning the laws passed by the legislature.

Well what if the people decide they want gay marriage? Would the Christian Right then drop its opposition to marriage equality?