Michael-In-Norfolk - - Coming Out In Mid Life

Thursday Morning Male Beauty

2012-02-02T07:40:00.002-05:00

Retired Philadelphia Cardinal Conveniently Dies in His Sleep

2012-02-02T07:23:00.006-05:00

I wrote just the other day about how a Philadelphia court had ruled that retired Catholic Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua was competent to testify in the upcoming sexual abuse trial in which Rev. William Lynn, a Monsignor in charge of priests for the archdiocese, is accused of covering up for sexual predator priests and shuffling them from parish to parish. Indications are that Lynn may be unwilling to fall on his sword to protect higher ups in the archdiocese such as Bevilacqua. Now, the 88 year old Bevilacqua has died in his sleep at a seminary and will never be put on the stand and required to testify about his role in the wide scale cover ups. It's certainly a convenient - and perhaps welcomed - coincidence for the Catholic Church hierarchy. Here are highlights from the New York Times:

Anthony J. Bevilacqua, a former cardinal and archbishop of Philadelphia whose passion for Roman Catholic causes like helping the poor and fighting abortion was eclipsed in retirement by accusations that he had covered up sexual abuse by priests, died on Tuesday at a seminary in Wynnewood, Pa. He was 88. The Archdiocese of Philadelphia announced the death. Cardinal Bevilacqua had dementia and an undisclosed kind of cancer.

Cardinal Bevilacqua was archbishop from 1988 until his retirement in 2003. Pope John Paul II elevated him to cardinal in 1991.

Cardinal Bevilacqua’s last years were caught up in investigations of priests accused of sexually abusing altar boys. In September 2005, a grand jury report on a 40-month investigation of clerical sex abuse accused him and his predecessor of allowing hundreds of abusive priests to go unpunished and ignoring the victims. Cardinal Bevilacqua did not respond publicly to the allegations.

The grand jury said weak laws prevented it from recommending criminal charges. After Pennsylvania’s child endangerment laws were strengthened in 2007, another grand jury revisited the case last year and indicted a former underling, Msgr. William J. Lynn, and three priests. Its report said it had “reluctantly” chosen not to recommend charges against Cardinal Bevilacqua.

His declaration that homosexuals, even ones who accept celibacy, cannot be priests enraged gay-rights advocates. He said a heterosexual gives up “a very good thing,” a wife and children, to be a priest. A homosexual, by contrast, he said, gives up “what the church considers an aberration, a moral evil.”

The accusations about his role in the sex-abuse scandals did not surface until two years after his retirement, after he testified 10 times before the first grand jury. Its report concluded that he had not taken an accusation against a priest seriously unless the priest expressly confessed. “He tried to hide all he knew about sex abuse committed by his priests,” the report said.

If there is a God, one can hope that Bevilacqua will finally be held accountable for his apparent misdeeds.

Where are the GOP Moderates?

2012-02-02T07:04:00.005-05:00

I often disagree with much of what columnist Nicholas Kristof has to say. But in a column in the New York Times, he provides a good history of the Republican Party and makes the case that it is today's far right extremists in the GOP who are the aberration and "Republicans in Name Only" a/k/a RINO's. The far right and hate-filled "family values" crowd have perverted the GOP into something ugly and Kristof wonders if there's any chance that the party will be able to return to its moderate past. The GOP of today is certainly NOT the party that I and most of my family once belonged to. Today, its hallmarks are the embrace of ignorance, a hatred of anyone who's not a white conservative Christian, and constant attacks on the religious freedom of all but the most extreme Christianists. Here are some column highlights:

The most embarrassing moments to watch this political season have occurred as Mitt Romney has pretended to be an angry, fire-breathing true conservative. The evidence suggests that in his soul he’s a moderate pragmatist . .

Newt Gingrich, Romney’s main rival for the Republican presidential nomination, is denouncing Romney with one of the ugliest slurs in the Republican lexicon: a Massachusetts moderate. Other moderate Republicans are savaged as RINOs — Republicans in name only — as if they emerged from an ugly mutant strain.

Yet, in fact, as a new history book underscores, it is the Gingriches and Santorums who are the mutants. For most of its history, the Republican Party was dominated by those closer to Romney than to social conservatives like Rick Santorum, and it is only in the last generation that the party has lurched to the hard right.

“Much of the current conservative movement is characterized by this sort of historical amnesia and symbolic parricide, which seeks to undo key aspects of the Republican legacy such as Reagan’s elimination of corporate tax loopholes, Nixon’s environmental and labor safety programs, and a variety of G.O.P. achievements in civil rights, civil liberties, and good government reforms,” Kabaservice writes. “In the long view of history, it is really today’s conservatives who are ‘Republicans in name only.’ ”

[T]he original Massachusetts moderates were legendary figures in Republican history, like Elihu Root and Henry Cabot Lodge. Theodore Roosevelt embraced progressivism as “the highest and wisest form of conservatism.” Few did more to promote racial integration, civil rights and individual freedoms than a Republican, Earl Warren, in his years as chief justice.

Dwight Eisenhower cautioned against excess military spending as “a theft from those who hunger and are not fed.” Richard Nixon proposed health care reform. Ronald Reagan endorsed the same tax rate for capital gains as for earned income. Each of these titans of Republican Party history would today risk mockery for these views.

What happened? That’s a long and gradual story beginning with Senator Joe McCarthy’s success in galvanizing working-class suspicions of government elites and continues with an angry backlash at changing mores and liberalized abortion laws. Conservative Southern whites moved into the Republican Party. Newer media voices like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck made extremism seem congenial — while making bipartisanship feel treacherous.

[S]ocial conservatives staged a grass-roots overthrow of the moderate Republican apparatus in the late 1970s and early ’80s, and focused on abortion and gay rights. “Moderates simply gave up participating after being ostracized,” Bladine remembers. “It became almost impossible to nominate a Republican for statewide office who had any chance of winning in a statewide vote.”

The question becomes one of when and how - if it's even possible at this point - the GOP can be wrenched back from the haters and ignorance worshipers of the so-called "social conservatives" and Tea Party morons who are now the core of the GOP base. The recapture of the GOP needs to happen for the best interest of the country and a positive future. The current GOP only seeks to drag the nation backward in time.

Washington State Senate Passes Marriage Equality Bill

2012-02-02T06:36:00.006-05:00

Last night in a 28-21 vote, the Washington State Senate passed a bill that would give full marriage equality to same sex couples in that state. It is expected that the legislation will pass the House not later than next week and that Governor Christine Gregorie has promised to sign the bill when it arrives on her desk. Sadly, Democrat Brian Hatfield who voted for the bill is still supporting a referendum vote by voters at large. Would Mr. Hatfield support a referendum to determine the civil rights of blacks, those of Jewish descent, or Muslims? I think not and that fact speaks volumes about Hatfield's willingness to pander to religious extremists. It is far pass time that conservative versions of Christianity cease being given special rights and entwined into the laws in this country. Stated another way, religious based discrimination has no place in the civil laws - a concept lost on the Virginia GOP. Here are highlights from The Advocate:

The state of Washington looks like it's on its way to becoming the seventh state to offer marriage equality, with the senate passing a bill 28-21.

The bill is almost certain to pass the house this week or early next, and governor Christine Gregoire has promised to sign the legislation, meaning Washington will likely to become the first West Coast state with marriage equality

Though dozens applauded when the vote came down in Olympia, rightwing groups are already mobilizing a referendum effort to overturn it. Democrat Brian Hatfield, a crucial swing vote, endorsed same-sex marriage, but he also supported a November referendum that would allow voters to overturn the legislation. "I believe that ultimately this question should be decided by the voters of Washington," Hatfield said, according to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

Sen. Lisa Brown (D-Spokane) urged senators to not push for a voter referendum on the matter, saying it's wrong for the majority to vote on the rights of a minority. Sen. Dan Swecker (R-Rochester) came out adamantly against same-sex marriage, saying it would alter the definition of same-sex marriage. "It's an issue I am compelled to fight," said Swecker, one of many older Republican men to rail against marriage equality.

Sen. Debbie Regala (D-Tacoma) urged support for same-sex marriage; she was visibly emotional and near tears when she described how her interracial marriage was illegal at one point. Sen. Kevin Ranker (D-San Juan Island) was also emotional as he described how his gay father survived a lifetime of discrimination and still offered his son unconditional love and support. Cheryl Pflug, a Republican, urged passage of the bill. She was one of four Republicans to vote for marriage equality.

Kudos to the corporations that backed equality. I sincerely hope that the referendum effort of hate groups fails. Meanwhile, I continue to believe that fundamentalist religions of all faiths - and their ignorance embracing, bigoted followers - are among the principal evils in the world today.

More Wednesday Male Beauty

2012-02-01T22:13:00.001-05:00

Does Bob McDonnell Support Janet Howell's Cialis Amendment ?

2012-02-01T21:45:00.005-05:00

Virginia Governor Bob "Taliban Bob" McDonnell and his fellow Christofascists in the Republican Party of Virginia are striving to make abortion unavailable - even if not technically illegal - in Virginia. The excuse for implementing new clinic regulations to force the closure of clinics is always couched in terms of "safety" and "protecting women." The latest GOP effort in the General Assembly is to require women seeking an abortion to have an ultrasound within 24 hours before the abortion procedure. Truth be told, neither McDonnell nor the Republican Party of Virginia give a rat's ass about the health and safety of women - or not those outside their own families.

Democrat Senator Janet Howell recognizes hypocrites when she sees them. Therefore, she sought to underscore the dishonesty and hypocrisy of the GOP ploy by introducing a proposed amendment to the GOP bill pending in the Virginia Senate. What was it? That before men can receive a Viagra of Cialis prescription, they would have to undergo safety related exams: a rectal exam and a cardiac stress test given the dangerous health risks these drugs can trigger. Here's a video of the proposed amendment being read and Janet's explanation of her reasons for her amendment:

I've known Janet for a number of years and she's a class act. Not to mention smart and tenacious. And a great ally to LGBT Virginians. Should Bob McDonnell be considered for a VP nod, I sincerely hope that the public learns more about his far right extremism and the nastiness of his GOP buddies in Virginia.

Romney: "I'm Not Concerned About the Very Poor"

2012-02-01T20:55:00.005-05:00

In a truly self-inflicted wound, Mitt Romney stated during an interview that he's "not concerned about the very poor." He claimed that the rest of his statement - i.e., that there's "safety net" for the very poor - mitigated the offensiveness and totally out of touch aspect of his statement. One can only wonder if Romney has ever meet anyone very poor or understands that most have NO health care and certainly not preventive health care access. Many Republicans, realizing the toxicity of Romney's remark, have tried to do damage control. Yet Romney's comments about lack of any concern for the poor exactly track the actions of the Republicans in Congress who have sought to slash programs for the poor - especially children. His comments also exactly track the actions of the Christian Right and Tea Party crowd who utterly disregard the Gospel message of selling one's property and giving to the poor. Talking Points Memo looks at the backlash that has arisen Here are some highlights:

Once again, Mitt Romney is on the defensive over his wealth on Wednesday after telling a CNN reporter that “I’m not concerned about the very poor, we have a safety net there.” And once again, pundits on the right are smacking their foreheads in amazement the usually controlled candidate can’t stop handing Democrats’ more “rich guy” gaffes.

“Facepalm,” Michelle Malkin wrote of the incident, which she said “could easily have been a Saturday Night Live parody” Over at the National Review, Jonah Goldberg said the quote raised concerns that Romney is “simply not a good enough politician” to beat Obama.

“There are plenty of things one could say to defend Romney on the merits of what he says here,” he wrote. “But great politicians on the morning after a big win, don’t force their supporters to go around defending the candidate from the charge that he doesn’t care about the poor. They just don’t.” “Romney’s ‘I’m not concerned with the very poor’ line may be the most idiotic thing a politician has ever said,” The Weekly Standard’s John McCormack tweeted.

RedState, whose bloggers have traditionally not been Romney fans, added their voices to the pile. According to co-founder Erick Erickson, Romney “played straight into the liberal caricature that Republicans don’t have hearts.” He added that “The issue here is not that Romney is right or wrong, but that he is handing choice sound bites to the Democrats to make him as unlikeable as he made Newt Gingrich.”

Still others were upset with Romney’s apparently sanguine take on the current state of entitlement spending on the poor. “The subtext of Romney’s comment is actually worse - that the safety net is the only answer the poor need,” conservative blogger Ben Domenech tweeted.

Romney may in fact be a decent person. But he is clearly totally out of touch with what life is like for average Americans, much less poor Americans. Remember this: Romney has filed an application with the city of La Jolla, California, to bulldoze his $12 million 3,009-square-foot, single-story ocean front home (pictured below) and replace it with a two-story, 11,062-square-foot structure. Oh, did I mention that this is one of SIX homes Romney owns? Again, the man is utterly out of touch with the reality most Americans live with and, if he was smart, he'd spend some time learning how the rest of us live. And, he might want to start supporting true charities rather than the Mormon Church and anti-gay organizations.

Amazon Joins Marriage Equality Supporters - Meanwhile NOM Attacks Starbucks

2012-02-01T20:22:00.005-05:00

I guess "better late than never" is the way to describe Seattle, Washington based Amazon's somewhat belated announcement that it supports the marriage equality bills now before the Washington State legislature. Other Washington State based corporate giants came on board weeks ago. Still noticeably absent from the list of supportive corporations is Boeing. The Seattle Times has coverage on the development. Here are highlights:

Seattle-based Internet retailer Amazon.com said Wednesday it has joined other large Northwest companies to support legislation that would legalize gay marriage in Washington state.

Amazon's support comes as the state Senate prepares to vote on the measure, likely late afternoon or early evening Wednesday.

It also comes nearly two weeks after six prominent companies — Concur, Group Health Cooperative, Microsoft, Nike, RealNetworks, and Vulcan — publicly declared their support for gay-marriage legislation. Last week, Starbucks added its name to the list.

"Amazon is joining other Pacific Northwest companies, including Microsoft, Starbucks and Nike, in support of Washington state's marriage equality bills," Amazon said in a statement released by spokeswoman Mary Osako. "The spirit of these bills is consistent with our longstanding employment practices."

Meanwhile the Christofascists at the National Organization for Marriage are having hissy fits and spray spittle as they lash out at supportive corporations. Here's a sampling of the rant coming out of NOM's Brian Brown, a/k/a "Brian Brownshirt" to utilize Joe Jervis's apt nickname for Brown:

Brian Brown, the president of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), sharply criticized Starbucks' decision to wade into the gay marriage fight in Washington State. That decision comes on top of an earlier decision by Starbucks to ask the Supreme Court to strike down the federal definition of marriage as one man and one woman as well.

NOM pledged an intensive public relations effort to ask Starbucks customers who favor retaining marriage as the union of husband and wife to complain to company headquarters.

Having waded into a social issue where Starbucks has no special competence, the company has an obligation to reassure its customers, vendors and employees that it will respect the most important diversity—diversity of opinion,"

The hypocrisy of NOM is striking. First, because NOM has ZERO competence to speak on social issues. It's sole argument rests on trying to force Christianist religious beliefs on everyone. Second, to NOM it's fine to speak out if one is a Christofascist extremist who wants to re-criminalize homosexuality and turn the nation into a quasi-theocracy, but God forbid if one doesn't subscribe to NOM's religious beliefs and bigotry. Combined with NOM's flouting of campaign finance laws,its continued deliberate use of debunked faux science, and the stream of outright lies disseminated by NOM, this new outburst by Brian Brownshirt is yet another strong argument of why the best move one can make is to walk away from Christianity - or at least NOM's perverted version of it.

What Planned Parenthood Actually Does vs. GOP/Claims

2012-02-01T20:04:00.003-05:00

As part of its never ending effort to utterly prostitute itself to the Christian Right, the GOP constantly targets Planned Parenthood - an organization that utilizes only 3% of its budget/funding to provide abortion services. As the chart above from the Washington Post indicates, the other 97% goes to needed services - such as cancer screening - given principally to poor and less affluent Americans. Meanwhile, spineless organizations like the Susan G. Koman Foundation - which has received its last dollar from me - are running scared and kissing the religious extremist asses of the Christianists and withdrawing ALL funding to Planned Parenthood. If you find such pandering to the forces of hate distasteful, let the Susan G. Komen Foundation know here.

Wednesday Morning Male Beauty

2012-02-01T07:59:00.001-05:00

Romney Reminds Religious Extremsts That He's Antigay

2012-02-01T07:19:00.003-05:00

As noted in a prior post, Mitt Romney's anti-gay positions make it impossible for me - and I suspect many LGBT Americans - to support him. And lest there be any misunderstanding of how willing Romney is to trash LGBT citizens and back anti-gay agendas, Romney himself participated in a conference call with leading haters so that he could underscore his agreement with their anti-gay jihad. Here are highlights from The Advocate as well as a video of Romney's pandering to haters:

On a conference call last week with religious leaders, GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney said President Obama is blazing a trail toward marriage equality and that, as president, he'll fight against same-sex marriage tooth and nail.

"There's been an assault on marriage," Romney says. "I would, unlike this president, defend the Defense of Marriage Act." He then vows to push for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

Yet Another Failed GOP Plan?

2012-02-01T07:11:00.001-05:00

Is the GOP Demolition Derby Most Helping Democrats?

2012-02-01T06:42:00.003-05:00

A long grueling primary fight can often most help the opposing political party as the primary contenders bludgeon each other and often provide the opposing party with future campaign ad materials. In addition, less engaged voters may become tired of the whole process and sick to death of hearing about candidates thus giving the opposing party candidate the opportunity to appear fresher and less damaged. In the context of the GOP clown car demolition derby, may have vanquished serial adulterer Newt Gingrich, but the contest is taking a toll on Romney as well. Here are highlights from a New York Times piece that evaluates the aftermath:

With his resounding victory over Newt Gingrich in Florida on Tuesday, Mitt Romney showed a worried Republican base a side of himself that it has both longed for and feared that he lacked: the agile political street fighter, willing to mock, scold and ultimately eviscerate his opponent.

But if he has quelled doubts about his toughness, he also emerges from the Florida free-for-all and the three contests that preceded it carrying heavy new baggage.

Mr. Romney was savaged by Mr. Gingrich over his record at Bain Capital, softening him up for the coming Democratic effort to portray him as a heartless capitalist happy to fire people to enrich himself. His release of his tax returns, complete with details about a Swiss bank account, provided new facts for opponents seeking to cast him as out of touch with ordinary Americans.

And the very trait that propelled him in Florida — a willingness to descend into the muck and run a relentlessly negative campaign — distracted from his economic-themed argument against Mr. Obama while deepening his rift with some populist conservatives.

“There are questions about his wealth and Bain, but he has not become an intensely polarizing figure yet,” said Alex Castellanos, a Republican strategist who worked on Mr. Romney’s presidential campaign in 2008. “The question is, will he become that?”

Mr. Romney himself seemed sensitive to the perception that his campaign has become locked in a bitter — and counterproductive — war of words with his leading Republican rival.

His challenge is about to become even more complicated. As much as he would like to be punching and counterpunching with Mr. Obama, he must still contend with Mr. Gingrich, who even after his steep loss described the primaries as a two-man nomination fight across 46 more states.

Mr. Romney faces a classic dilemma in presidential politics: Going negative is never an appealing option, but the alternative amounts to unilateral disarmament and a much higher likelihood of defeat, especially against a rival like Mr. Gingrich who has little to lose.

“In primary politics, short-term gains are what matters, because if you don’t have the short-term gains, you won’t be around long enough to deal with the long-term problems,” said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

[I]f Mr. Romney has to engage in a long stretch of negative campaigning against Mr. Gingrich, the challenge will be to hit back hard enough that he does not leave himself exposed to another Gingrich comeback without undercutting his own image. A candidate who comes across as attacking too viciously and personally risks turning off all but the most partisan voters.

Determined not to lose in Florida, Mr. Romney unleashed a wave of attacks on Mr. Gingrich’s finances, ethics and even stability — hammered repeatedly in TV commercials, conference calls, e-mails and speeches — that helped stoke the image of Mr. Gingrich as an “erratic” and “unreliable” leader.

The balance that Mr. Romney is trying to strike in his battle against Mr. Gingrich is one he also has to strike if he ends up facing Mr. Obama, whose aides have made clear that a general election campaign against him will be highly personal.

Mr. Obama’s deputy campaign manager, Stephanie Cutter, took to Twitter to mock Mr. Romney for a line about Europe in his victory speech. “If he dislikes it so,” she asked, “why is he betting against the American dollar with his own Swiss bank account?”

Given all the factors, personally, I don't see myself with much of an option but to hold my nose and continue to support Obama. Romney's positions on LGBT rights and the anti-gay groups he has helped fund make the choice pretty easy. Yes, some of my former Republican colleagues - some of whom seem to have begun to drink the Christianist Kool-Aid - will accuse me of being a single issue voter. My response is that since I lack hundreds of rights afforded to straights under the nation's laws, I'm actually motivated by hundreds of issues.

National Organization Loses Appeal Trying to Hide Donors

2012-02-01T06:22:00.003-05:00

The National Organization for Marriage has lost yet another court round in its efforts to hide the identities of its donors from the public. NOM claims to be a "grassroots" organization, but certain filings have shown that NON's money principally comes from less than a dozen donors each of which has given large amounts of money. As a result, it would seem that despite its crocodile tears, NOM's really worry is not about protecting donors from claimed harassment as much as it is about not having voter know the real face behind NOM. Many have speculated that NOM is actually a front group for the Roman Catholic Church and/or the Mormon Church - institutions who don't want the full extent of their anti-gay activities revealed to the public. The Boston Globe looks at NOM's latest court loss. Here are highlights:

An appeals court on Tuesday upheld the state's campaign disclosure law that requires a national anti-gay-marriage group to release its donor list, but the group plans to take the fight to shield the list to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The decision pertains to ballot question committees in Maine and represents a second defeat for the National Organization for Marriage, which previously lost a challenge to the state's political action committee laws and laws governing independent expenditures and advertising attribution and disclaimers.

The latest appeal focused on part of the law that says groups that raise or spend more than $5,000 to influence elections must register and disclose their donors.

The NOM, which says it was founded in 2007 in response to the "growing need for an organized opposition to same-sex marriage in state legislatures," donated $1.9 million to a political action committee that helped repeal Maine's same-sex marriage law. It said it believes that releasing the donor list would stymie free speech.

Mary Bonauto, an attorney with Boston-based Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, said Bopp's claims are an attempt to divert attention from NOM's failure to follow Maine disclosure rules. "Courts have said it's important for voters to know who the donors are for each side since that information may help them decide how to vote. Everyone else abides by the disclosure rules and so can NOM," she said Tuesday in an email statement.

Even if the Supreme Court rejects the appeal, additional action would be required before the donor list could be released. The Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices must conduct an investigation to determine whether the list must be made public.

The Supreme Court has previously rejected arguments like the one being made by NOM in a case arising out of Washington State. Hence, NOM's tactics are dishonest - what a surprise - and are actually aimed at delaying disclosure as long as possible. No one is as dishonest as the professional Christian set and their cowardly homophobic financial backers.

More Tuesday Male Beauty

2012-01-31T22:25:00.002-05:00

Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua Competent To Stand Sex Abuse Trial

2012-01-31T21:53:00.003-05:00

Speaking of sexual abuse by priest, in a positive development a Philadelphia court has ruled that retired Roman Catholic cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua (pictured at right) is competent and his recent deposition testimony can be used at an upcoming priest abuse trial. The Church had endeavored to argue that Bevilacqua suffered from dementia and that, therefore, he could not be deposed or called as a witness. As noted previously, legal counsel for Monsignor William Lynn who has been formally indicted have suggested that Lynn did not intend to take the fall for the Archdiocese when his actions had been directed by his superiors, one of whom was Bevilacqua. Obviously, catching Bevilacqua would be delicious. Here are highlights from the Philadelphia Inquirer:

Retired Cardinal Anthony J. Bevilacqua, however, remains legally competent to testify at the forthcoming trial of three priests accused of sexually abusing young boys, a Philadelphia judge ruled Monday.

"I'll adhere to my original ruling," Common Pleas Court Judge M. Teresa Sarmina told Thomas A. Bergstrom, attorney for Msgr. William J. Lynn, a former church official accused of enabling a pedophile priest to continue preying on children by transferring him to another parish.

Sarmina first ruled Bevilacqua legally competent in late November after a two-day private hearing at which the cardinal, who retired in 2003, was questioned by the judge, Bergstrom, and a prosecutor. Bergstrom subsequently renewed his motion to disqualify Bevilacqua from testifying.

Lynn, 61, was secretary for clergy for 12 years under Bevilacqua, beginning in 1992. As such, he was responsible for pastoral assignments and disciplinary actions against priests. Prosecutors have argued that Lynn's decisions involving pedophile priests were part of a long-standing practice in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia of transferring deviant priests to new, unsuspecting parishes.

Assistant District Attorney Patrick Blessington argued Monday that Bevilacqua's memory problems would be no more problematic for a jury than a hostile witness who refuses to submit to defense questioning.

In other developments, Sarmina promised to rule by Monday on whether prosecutors may introduce evidence at trial about other incidents of priests in the archdiocese sexually abusing altar boys and other children.

Prosecutors insist such evidence is necessary to help the jury understand how pedophile priests were able to prey on their young parishioners and, after being exposed, get transferred to new parishes to repeat the conduct.

The Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis Contributed $650,000 to Support Anti-Gay Amendment

2012-01-31T21:15:00.004-05:00

While continuing to go to great lengths to protect child rapists, closing long established parishes because of supposed financial deficits, and closing down Catholic Charities operations rather than cease anti-gay discrimination, the Catholic Church hierarchy is none the less finding plenty of money to contribute to support anti-gay legislation around the country. In fact, as the St. Cloud Times is reporting, the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis alone contributed $650,000 last year to support the proposed constitutional amendment now pending in Minnesota that would ban gay marriage. The priorities (and moral bankruptcy) of the bitter old men in dresses is striking: close schools and parishes, resist paying compensation to the victims of clerical sex abuse, but spend lavishly to interfere with the CIVIL legal rights of LGBT citizens. Here are highlights from the St. Cloud Times:

MINNEAPOLIS — The Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis says it contributed $650,000 last year to support a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage.

The archdiocese said today that it spearheaded a statewide effort of Minnesota’s Catholic bishops. Archbishop John Nienstedt has come out strongly in support of the ban. He says it’s in line with fundamental church teaching that marriage should be between one man and one woman.

The archdiocese says the money comes from investment income.

The largest group working to defeat the amendment, Minnesotans United for All Families, said last week it had raised $1.2 million.

As I have noted often, I do not understand how anyone who is truly moral can remain a Catholic. Loving gay couples are demonized and targeted for second class citizenship while child molesters are protected and the church goes to extreme lengths to compensate the victims of sexual abuse.

Romney Wins Big in Florida Primary

2012-01-31T20:50:00.003-05:00

Mitt Romney - who as a number of blogs and news outlets have reported contributed to anti-gay organizations - has apparently won the Florida primary by a projected 16 percentage point margin - 47 percent to 31 percent against Newt Gingrich. The delusion gay hater, Rick Santorum was a distant third with 13 percent while Ron Paul is projected to garner 7 percent of the vote. Obviously, the big question now is what the losers will do. Logic and reason would suggest that Santorum drop out of the race, but logic and reason are not exactly Santorum's strong suits. As noted in an earlier post today, given Gingrish's egomania and delusions that he has a destiny in history, it's hard to predict what the serial adulterer will do next. Here are some excerpts from Politico:

Mitt Romney claimed a powerful victory in Florida’s presidential primary, reasserting himself as the frontrunner for his party’s nominationand leaving Newt Gingrich reeling from a likely double-digit defeat and facing an uncertain path to regaining his post-South Carolina momentum.

With 55 percent of precincts reporting, Romney led Gingrich by 16 percentage points, 47 percent to 31 percent. Rick Santorum was a distant third, with 13 percent, followed by Ron Paul with 7 percent.

Romney’s final victory margin may tighten as returns come in from Florida’s conservative western Panhandle. But with a majority of votes reported, Romney appeared on the brink of an important symbolic accomplishment: winning more votes than Gingrich and Santorum – the two would-be anti-Romney conservatives – combined.

That won’t put to rest questions about Romney’s ability to connect with and fire up the activist base of the Republican Party. It may, however, deprive his beleaguered opponents of a key argument they’ve used to explain their persistence in the race.

Romney won with both men and women and in every age and income group, according to network exit polls. He won a majority of white voters – 53 percent – and 44 percent of Latinos.

The only conspicuous bright spot for Gingrich was voters who described themselves as “very conservative,” who made up 33 percent of the electorate and broke for Gingrich over Romney, 43 percent to 29 percent.

Another Politico article looks at why Gingrich is not likely to drop from the contest and will continue the clown car demolition derby. Here are a few highlights::

Gingrich’s way forward depends as much as anything on his own frame of mind and whether he has the resiliency and determination to keep fighting in a race that’s slipping away. To continue clashing with a resurgent Mitt Romney is a psychological exercise for the former House speaker, on top of a political and tactical dilemma.

[W]ill Gingrich, if he badly loses a bruising Florida slugfest, still have the mettle to answer the bell? Without a doubt, say those who know him best. Even his most bitter enemies will grant that Gingrich has self-motivational skills — a natural abundance of chutzpah to some — to spare.

Having been repeatedly battered into near-defeat only to roar back into competition, Gingrich may have been inoculated against the disappointment of watching Romney overtake him in the polls in the Sunshine State.

Neither that nor the ever-lengthening list of prominent GOP officeholders supporting Romney has driven Gingrich to the point of personal despair in the last few difficult days on the trail in Florida. In some ways, it may even reinforce Gingrich’s view of himself as a Winston Churchill-like figure — a battle-scarred war horse, viewed as over the hill by his compatriots, riding to save his country at its moment of greatest peril.

“I would define Newt’s head space as: ‘Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning,’” said David Lane, the Christian conservative leader close to Gingrich, quoting Churchill. “They’ve unloaded everything on him now.”

Virginia House Panel Endorses Anti-Gay Adoption Discrimination

2012-01-31T20:18:00.004-05:00

Dealing yet another blow to LGBT Virginians - and basically flipping all of us the middle finger - a Virginia House of Delegates panel has approved a "conscience clause" in adoption regulations that will allow Christian and other self-congratulatory religious bigots to openly discriminate against gays and others they don't like. Even as the receive state funds and act as de facto state agencies. So much for freedom of religion for all citizens in Virginia. Once again we see far right Christians given special rights not afforded to anyone else. If the legislation passes the General Assembly and is signed into law by Bob "Taliban Bob" McDonnell, one can only hope that a legal challenge is promptly filed in federal court. Here are highlights from the Washington Post on this latest Republican Party of Virginia effort to legalize religious based hate and bigotry and to denigrate and marginalize the lives of LGBT Virginians:

Private, faith-based adoption agencies would be allowed to deny placement of a child if doing so would violate their religious beliefs, including opposition to homosexuality, under legislation advanced by a House of Delegates on Tuesday.

The Health, Welfare and Institutions Committee voted 14-5 to send Del. Todd Gilbert’s “conscience clause” bill to the House floor. Gilbert, R-Woodstock, said his bill protects religious freedom.

Virginia has 120 local departments of social services, which administer adoption and foster care services. There are 77 state-licensed private child placement agencies that local departments can contract with to provide those services.

Along with allowing private agencies to deny placements based on religious tenets, the bill would bar the Department of Social Services from denying or revoking an agency’s license solely because it refused to place a child based on sexual orientation. It also would shield agencies from legal actions stemming from such decisions.

Have I mentioned how much I hate Virginia? Seriously, but for my relationship with the Boyfriend, I'd leave this theocratic backwater as soon as I could shut down the law firm and pack my belongings.

Tuesday Morning Male Beauty

2012-01-31T08:15:00.002-05:00

Anti-Gay Bigotry Triumphs Yet Again in Virginia

2012-01-31T07:46:00.005-05:00

In yet another example of why I cannot in good conscience recommend that any LGBT individual ever consider moving to Virginia, a Virginia Senate committee has killed a bill that would have added employment discrimination based on sexual orientation to unlawful forms of discrimination in state hiring. Yes, I said STATE hiring. We supposedly have freedom of religion in Virginia, yet the Commonwealth itself can fire you if you're gay and don't conform to Christianist religious beliefs. As I have said before, were circumstances different, I'd leave this backward benighted state in a heart beat. How majorities treat minorities says a lot about a state or a nation. Here in Virginia the picture that this kind of legalized bigotry presents is very, very ugly. No doubt the hate merchants and liars at The Family Foundation are patting themselves on the back this morning. Here are highlights from the Virginian Pilot:

Reflecting the recent switch from Democratic to Republican control of the Virginia Senate, a bill aimed at prohibiting discrimination in state hiring on the basis of sexual orientation was defeated today.

The Senate General Laws and Technology Committee rejected Sen. Adam Ebbin’s bill, SB263, on an 8-7 party-line vote. A similar measure was passed by the Senate last year when it had a Democratic majority, only to be defeated in the Republican-led House of Delegates.

Ebbin, D-Alexandria, had the support of labor unions, teacher and public-employee associations, and AARP, the over-50 lobby group. The socially conservative Family Foundation and the Virginia Association of Independent Baptists opposed the measure. Opponents argued that the bill is unneeded because there is no evidence that gays and lesbians face discrimination now.

Excuse me as I go vomit.

Have the Odds Improved to Defeat North Carolina's Anti-Gay Amendment?

2012-01-31T07:11:00.002-05:00

Watching the progress of the Christianist effort to pass an anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment in North Carolina has in some ways been a replay of what happened here in Virginia in 2006. The Christianists have used the same lies and underhanded tactics to dupe voters and if passed, the amendment would do far more than only bar "marriage" for same sex couples just as is the case in Virginia. Making matters worse, the vote on the amendment was set to take place on the date of the North Carolina primary in May. With no Democrat presidential primary, the anti-gay forces thought that the tactic would help insure passage since fewer Democrats and non-Christofascists would be likely to go to the polls. Now, fortuitously, a possible wrench has been thrown into the equation: the incumbent Democrat governor will not be seeking re-election and there will, therefore, be a primary contest for the governor slot on the Democrat ticket. WECT-TV 6 looks at this new factor. Here are highlights:

Democratic Gov. Beverly Perdue unexpectedly announced last Thursday that she won't seek re-election. That means more Democrats could turn out to the polls for the May 8 primary to pick a new candidate for governor.

Before that, mostly Republicans were expected to show up to pick their candidates for governor and president. They were expected to approve the ban.

"When the Republicans decided to use the primary election instead of the general election..they were probably thinking boy this is going to be a nice, quiet sleepy little election..not many folks are going to be showing up..this is going to be the time for us to try and get this passed," Michael Bitzer, a professor of politics at Catawba College said.

Now supporters of gay rights hope that an influx of Democratic voters could defeat the ban.

I sincerely hope that the voters in North Carolina vote against writing hate into that state's constitution.

How Long Will the GOP Demolition Derby Go On?

2012-01-31T06:45:00.004-05:00

On Sunday, thrice married, serial adulterer Newt Gingrich said that he would continue in the GOP presidential contest all the way into August even if he loses the Florida primary. Some see this as bluster but others believe that Gingrich is such an ego maniac that he might well live up to the threat. His goal would be to force a brokered convention which itself might allow for yet more circus like insanity. Should Gingrich stay on, the biggest winner will likely be Barack Obama as the GOP contestants continue to bludgeon one another. A piece in New York Magazine looks at Gingrich and why it's not out of the question that he will try to stay in the race. Here are some highlights:

On the Sunday shows, Gingrich repeatedly called Romney a liar and decried his rival's "carpet-bombing" of him with negative ads. But outside the church, Gingrich went further, calling Romney a "pro-abortion, pro-gun-control, pro-tax-increase moderate from Massachusetts" who has been using "money from Wall Street" to spread his pernicious lies. Gingrich called this "as big an outrage I've had in my career." He predicted that Romney would be unable to secure the requisite number of delegates to claim his party's nomination.

Three things sprang to Impolitic's mind after basking in the warm Florida sun and absorbing this praise-the-Lord-and-pass-the-truncheon performance. The first and most obvious is that Gingrich has fully absorbed the fact that he is going to lose, and possibly very badly, in Tuesday's primary here. Given the trio of polls released this morning that show Romney leading by between eight and sixteen points, of course, Gingrich would have to be blind or batshit crazy (i.e., even crazier than his critics believe him to be) not to recognize what is almost certainly about to befall him.

The second thing evident from Gingrich's parking-lot press avail in Lutz was that someone has finally impressed on him that, if he is going to have a hope in hell of competing effectively against Romney in the final two days in Florida and beyond, he must, you know, drive a message. All week long and most glaringly at the pair of debates in Tampa and Jacksonville, Gingrich failed utterly to pound the contrast that served him so well in South Carolina: that Republican voters have a clear choice before them — between, as he would put it, a timid Massachusetts moderate and a bold Reagan conservative.

And what of Gingrich's pledge to carry on his crusade all the way to Tampa? That's takeaway number three. Pledges to continue the fight unabated in the face of harsh and/or humiliating outcomes are staples of presidential campaigns. . . . . But in Gingrich's case, he might be serious, so much has he come to despise Romney and the Republican Establishment that has brought down on him a twenty-ton shithammer in Florida, and so convinced is he of his own Churchillian greatness and world-historical destiny. The same antic, manic, lunatic bloody-mindedness that has made him such a rotten candidate in the Sunshine State may be enough to keep him the race a good long time.

Waging a protracted battle would likely be an act of futility for Gingrich, but it could turn out to be something much worse for Romney. That is why it's so important for the latter not just to win on Tuesday but to win big — very big. And that, in turn, is why the matter of margins will be the topic of tomorrow's column.

Today's primary vote results will be interesting indeed.

More Monday Male Beauty

2012-01-30T23:33:00.001-05:00

Quote of the Day - An Anti-Immigrant Bigot's View on a Teen Suicide

2012-01-30T23:06:00.005-05:00

Some time ago I wrote about the sad suicide death of Joaquin Luna (pictured at right) who was only 18 years old. Luna was the child of illegal immigrants and feared that he'd be deported and never achieve his dreams. Today a comment was left on the blog by a "Jack Reylan" that in my opinion shows the moral sickness of the far right in this country. While I tried to better identify the author of the comment, I was met with a circular set of links that never allowed me to clearly identify the author. I did find a number of knuckle dragging comments attributed to the same individual on a number of blogs. I did not publish the comment outright because I did not want to be thought to subscribe to the sickness of the comment. However, it is important in my view that people see the truly ugly face and mindset of the far right in this country. Here's the comment left in connection with the tragic suicide death of an 18 year old:

I will not deny that foreign students can be bright, but faculty exaggerate their brilliance because foreign students are servile in doing work and favors for faculty and not demanding that professors actually earn their tuition keep. Moreover, faculty like that foreign students are either afraid, complicit or morally ambivalent about the immoral behavior of professors. In many cases they are more likely to share the professors' anti-Americanism than American students.

Actually, I had to correct a couple of spelling errors in the comment. I guess that's typical of the bigoted and ignorant far right elements in this country. What truly strikes me the most - and disgusts me the most - is the utter inability of the comment author to see any shred of shared humanity with Joaquin Luna or any other illegal immigrants or their children. If anyone is a threat to America, it's not Luna and those like him who seek to achieve the American Dream, but rather it's the "Jack Reylan's" in this country. Reylan - or whatever his/her real name may be - make me truly ashamed to be an American. And, if there is a God and a Hell, I suspect that it's folks like "Reylan" who have reserved seats.

Black Pastors, Marriage Equality, and NOM’s Money

2012-01-30T22:39:00.004-05:00

I have lamented frequently about the manner in which many black pastors are routinely co-opted to act as water carriers for white Christianist organization which, if one knows accurate history, are the successors to the same far right Christians who supported slavery in the 1850's and 1860's and who later supported the Jim Crow laws and segregation. Here in Virginia, the toxic bigots at The Family Foundation ("TFF") routinely manipulate black pastors to support TFF's anti-gay agenda as if they were trained circus dogs. It's disgusting not to mention an extreme dishonor of blacks who fought against these very same Christianist for equality under the nation's civil laws. Now, Alvin McEwen has a post at Pam's House Blend that speculates that these very same pastors such as Rev. Patrick Wooden (pictured at right) are perhaps being paid by the National Organization for Marriage ("NOM") to support NOM's anti-gay jihad. Here are highlights from Alvin's post:

A 2005 article on now disgraced Atlanta pastor Eddie Long highlights a disturbing perspective to this issue of the National Organization for Marriage utilizing the black church and leaders against marriage equality that very few people are openly talking about.

The article theorizes that there was a tie between Long’s 2005 anti-marriage equality march held in Atlanta and a $1 million grant he received from the faith-based initiatives of the Bush Administration. The article also theorizes that other black pastors were rewarded for making public positions against marriage equality.

When I read the recent disgusting comments of Pastor Patrick Wooden and several other black ministers and leaders assembled by the NOM to combat marriage equality, I can’t help wondering if we are seeing a retread of this theory.

While I’m certainly not making pointed accusations, I have been amazed at how quickly and convenient these coalitions between NOM and several black pastors and leaders have come together. I have also been alarmed by the rhetoric. There seems to be a degree of unrestrained glee and vindictive pleasure in not only attacking marriage equality, dehumanizing the gay community, but also – particularly in Wooden’s case – going on a tangent about alleged gay sex acts.

These folks come across like well-paid hired guns. . . . . And in this case, we may be talking about NOM’s mysterious funds. Remember, the organization has fought tooth and nail to conceal not only how much it has, but also just who is footing the bill. Yet NOM spends that money like water, brazenly committing large sums of money to stop marriage equality in states like New Hampshire and Washington.

I am not the only lgbtq of color to have voiced this opinion. In the lgbtq of color community, there has been much talk and opinion-forming that these ministers and leaders who step out publicly to not only vilify marriage equality but verbally crucify the gay community in general aren’t exactly doing it solely on spiritual terms.

Again, I am merely speculating. However, if, when it’s all said and done, we find out that money has in fact been greasing some brown, very well manicured palms, lgbtqs of color won’t be surprised and we won’t be shocked. But we will say “we told you so.”

Candidly, in my personal opinion, there are few organizations more morally bankrupt and willing to engage in underhanded and dishonest behavior than the "godly Christian" set. It seems, in their minds, the means justify the end - i.e., the persecution and denigration of LGBT individuals - and no lie and no bribe is too big or distasteful for the Christianists. Indeed, they are the most immoral people one is likely to ever meet.

Monday Morning Male Beauty

2012-01-30T08:16:00.001-05:00

Newt Gingrich and the Continued Hypocrisy of the Christian Right

2012-01-30T07:42:00.004-05:00

In many ways Newt Gingrich is the poster boy of much of what the Christian Right in this nation claims to condemn: adulterous affairs, multiple marriages, political graft and sleazy lobbying, not to mention being challenged when it comes to truth and veracity. Yet, in South Carolina, these self-anointed and seemingly falsely pious folk supported Gingrich over their other choices. Insane as he might be, at least Rick "Frothy Mix" Santorum seems to more closely resemble what the Christian Right crowd claims to support. As I've noted before, the incredible disconnect between purported support of "family values" and the "sanctity of marriage" and support for Gingrich is mind numbing. And the phenomenon underscores the hypocrisy of those who most like to wear their religion on their sleeves. A column in the New York Times looks at this circumstance and why Gingrich - who is the opposite of what these people should be supporting if they weren't hypocrites - has at least temporarily captured their votes. Here are some highlights:

In 1999, shortly after the Senate voted to acquit President Clinton on two charges of impeachment stemming from his affair with the intern Monica Lewinsky, Paul Weyrich — mastermind of the union of the Republican Party and the Christian right, a founder of the Heritage Foundation, the Moral Majority and the Free Congress Foundation — threw up his hands in despair.

In the face of this onslaught of moral corruption, Weyrich counseled withdrawal from society at large. A “legitimate strategy for us to follow is to look at ways to separate ourselves from the institutions that have been captured by the ideology of Political Correctness, or by other enemies of our traditional culture,” he wrote. “We need to drop out of this culture, and find places, even if it is where we physically are right now, where we can live godly, righteous and sober lives.”

What would Weyrich, who died in 2008, make of the fact that Newt Gingrich — who was himself having an adulterous affair during the Clinton impeachment proceedings (one of several conducted by the former speaker, according to his own testimony and a number of lengthy journalistic investigations, including this one and that one) — won the 2012 South Carolina Republican primary with a plurality of voters who described themselves as evangelical or born-again Christians?

Exit polls show that Gingrich beat Romney by 44-22 among born-again and evangelical Christians, and by 46-10 among voters who said the religious convictions of the candidates mattered “a great deal.”

In fact, the Gingrich campaign reveals the current state of the Christian right, its status anxieties, its desperation, its frustration and in particular its anger.

In strategic terms, religious conservatives need to be motivated to turn out in high numbers. Republican consultants have developed tools to identify and inflame what they call conservative “anger points.” . . . it is Gingrich who is the quintessential “anger points” candidate.

Gingrich won the hearts of many devout voters two weeks ago when he exploded in anger as CNN’s John King asked him to respond to the claim made by his second wife, Marianne, that he had refused to give up his six-year affair with Callista Bisek and offered his wife the option of an “open marriage.” Gingrich’s reply to King brought the audience to its feet, capturing one of the most deeply felt conservative “anger points” — hostility to the mainstream media . . .

Gingrich is the first conservative presidential candidate to campaign on a package of traditional values from which he is exempting issues relating to personal sexual behavior. And there are reasons why this strategy worked on Jan. 21: The moral vision of the religious right is collapsing everywhere, including within its own ranks. There are fewer and fewer “traditional” families in the United States; the number of secular voters is growing at a faster rate than the number of those who are religiously observant; women’s rights and homosexual rights have become broadly accepted; births outside of marriage are now routine among whites, Hispanics and African Americans.

Gingrich’s strength as the tribune of conservative rage at liberal elites trumped his long history of personal failings. He violated the very family values and the sanctity of marriage that social conservatives profess to believe in, but it was much more important that Gingrich was the enemy of their enemy.

What does this political volatility say about the conservative movement and the Republican Party?

First, that although the Christian right is now in decline, it remains powerful, making up roughly 35 to 40 percent of the Republican primary electorate. But its preoccupations are less and less those of Americans taken as a whole. The Christian right might become increasingly marginalized and as the movement shifts to the periphery, it becomes more of a liability to the party than an asset.

Second, the Republican Party will, over time, struggle to develop a coherent moral stance that does not conflict with the leftward drift, both in values and behavior, of the electorate.

[T]he country is going through a profound restructuring in moral and economic thinking and the danger for Republicans is that their current coalition might become obsolete. If the party doesn’t adapt, the alternative is that its power centers — the Christian right, anti-immigration forces, and proponents of policies that benefit the affluent at the expense of the less well-off — will refuse to adjust, in which case the party risks going the way of the Studebaker.

Frankly, the GOP deserves to go the way of the Studebaker. For too long of late it has courted the worse elements of the electorate and pandered to hate merchants.

UN Secretary General Calls Out African Homophobia

2012-01-30T07:15:00.004-05:00

American Christianists have shown themselves only too willing to take advantage of the general lack of education of the populace in Africa and the ease with which politicians can be bribed to export their vicious anti-gay agenda to the African continent. With the exception of South Africa which recognizes gay marriage and at least in theory has anti-discrimination statutes on the books, the continent is largely a place to avoid like the plague if possible. And for LGBT Africans, it's a place to leave if one values one's life. The much discussed "Kill the Gays" bill in Uganda is but one example of the toxicity that has been nurtured by American Christianists and their willing political accomplices. While the United States and the United Kingdom have begun to condemn the situation, much more needs to be done. Now, the Secretary General of the United Nations (pictured at left) has begun to address the evil being done in Africa under the name of religion. Here are highlights from the Herald Sun:

"One form of discrimination ignored or even sanctioned by many states for too long has been discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity," Dr Ban said speaking at the opening of a summit meeting today. "It prompted governments to treat people as second class citizens or even criminals."

Homosexuality is illegal in several African countries, and previous external criticism of restrictions imposed upon gays has attracted angry responses from African leaders, who say it is alien to their culture.

After Commonwealth leaders refused to adopt reforms to abolish homophobic laws in 41 member nations, British Prime Minister David Cameron said last year he would consider withholding aid from countries that do not recognize gay rights.

"Confronting these discriminations is a challenge, but we must not give up on the ideas of the universal declaration" of human rights," Dr Ban told the summit.

Homosexuality is already illegal in Uganda, but a bill that calls for the death penalty for certain homosexual acts was reintroduced in the Ugandan parliament late last year.

The proposed law envisages stiffer punishments, including the death penalty, for anyone caught engaging in homosexual acts for the second time as well as for gay sex where one partner is a minor or has HIV. Gay rights activists have blamed an increase in homophobia in Uganda on evangelical preachers, some of whom are close to the regime of President Yoweri Museveni.

There's a saying that one will know Christians by their fruits. In Africa, these fruits are hate, bigotry, intolerance and violence against others. WWJD?

Does the Mormon Church Need Major Reform?

2012-01-30T06:51:00.003-05:00

Mitt Romney's Mormon faith is continuing to haunt him on the campaign trail, particularly among the knuckle dragging Christianist elements of the Republican Party base. Some 25% or more have said that they would not vote for a Mormon to be president. Clearly, religious based discrimination is alive and well in America, the land of supposed religious freedom. However, an op-ed in the Washington Post puts some of the blame for this anti-Mormon mindset squarely at the feet of the often unforgiving and unwelcoming Mormon Church which, like the leadership of the Catholic Church talks a good game of Christian love but then acts in decidedly unloving if not morally bankrupt ways. And then there's the Mormon Church's tendency to trample on the religious freedom of others as demonstrated by its role in the passage of Proposition 8. Sometimes you reap what you sow. Here are some column highlights:

There has been much talk recently about whether America is ready for a Mormon president. This tolerance question should cut both ways. Nearly a quarter of Americans told Gallup last summer that they wouldn’t vote for a Mormon president, which is unfortunate since former governor Mitt Romney and former candidate Jon Huntsman are both smart, capable men.

[T]he church isn’t exactly welcoming of outsiders. Mormons account for 57 percent of Utah residents yet some 91 percent of Utah state legislators self-identify as Mormons. The state that’s home to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has elected only two non-Mormon governors in nearly 116 years and has sent just one non-Mormon to Congress in the past five decades.

Mormons love families. But the family-values facade applies only if you stay in the fold. Former Mormons know the family estrangement and bigotry that often come with questioning or leaving the church. The church I was raised in values unquestioning obedience over critical thinking. This caused trauma and cognitive dissonance when I questioned church doctrine and official history.

I struggled after realizing that Mormonism’s claims about anthropology, history and other subjects contradict reason and science. While many faiths’ irrational claims are obscured by centuries of myth and rubble, the LDS church lacks the moderation and scholarship of its older peers. It also stifles efforts to openly question church pronouncements, labeling such behavior as satanic.

Critics of Mormonism include geneticists, Egyptologists and even the Smithsonian Institution, which stopped Mormon apologists from claiming the institute viewed the Book of Mormon as a factual document.

I spiritually imploded after learning these things and other facts outside official church curriculum. Disturbed, I met with a high-ranking Mormon leader who told me to quit reading historical and scientific materials because they were “worse than pornography.” BYU’s dean of religious education wouldn’t answer my growing list of questions.

Salt Lake City’s male gerontocracy told me to avoid books and marry, but I could not stomach all their teachings. For example, mainstream Mormons banned polygamy in 1890 to obtain Utah’s statehood, but they continue to perform temple ceremonies that “seal” one man to multiple women in the hereafter.

Non-Mormons are not allowed to attend family members’ weddings in Mormon temples. Many gay Mormons have been driven to suicide, deeply conflicted about whether acting on their sexuality is, as the church teaches, a sin.

With public interest in Mormonism so high, I hope the scrutiny will help break down the church’s fundamentalist trappings: secrecy about its finances, anti-women doctrine and homophobia, to start. Perhaps someday the church will not excommunicate, fire and demote people who want honest, church-wide dialogue about Mormon history and doctrine.

In many ways, the writer's lament could apply to Catholicism and many fundamentalist denominations as well. If you want to be accepted, you need to be accepting. In addition, at some point it becomes necessary to stop refusing to face the fact that history and scientific knowledge can no longer be ignored.

Is NARTH Back Peddling on Its "Change" Claims?

2012-01-29T21:50:00.003-05:00

One of the leading proponents of what I refer to as the "change myth" for many years has been National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, a/k/a NARTH. Not coincidentally, NARTH is largely funded by anti-gay Christianist organizations. And also not coincidentally, NARTH's claims run counter to the positions of every legitimate, non-Christianist funded medical and mental health association. In my opinion, NARTH's claims that "change is possible" are principally motivated by the far right's anti-gay agenda. As additional icing on the cake, ex-gay "ministries" continue to rake in large amounts of money as religiously brainwashed individuals and their families futilely throw money at trying to change their own or their loved one's sexual orientation.

Of late, however, acceptance of the "change myth" seems to be waning with the general public. Worse yet, as I have noted recently, Exodus International - a principal marketer of the change myth - has been seriously distancing itself from the categorical claim that gays can change their sexual orientation to become totally heterosexual. Alan Chambers, president of Exodus has even stated that 99.9% of those who seek to change their sexual orientation faile in the process. In contrast, NARTH has continued to trot out and display "ex-gays" who say they have "changed" and are now married to someone of the opposite gender with children. Having been married myself for 24 years, marriage to a straight spouse and parenting children proves absolutely nothing in terms of one's true sexual orientation. It is a testament soley to how much one wants to delude them self and deny reality.

Now, in a stunning development, NARTH has issued a statement contending that "change" cannot be measured on a categorical change. Rather, NARTH says "change" must be measured on a "continuum. The apparent shift is to position NARTH so that it can claim that change is possible even if the percentage of "change" is in the range of 1%. It's a disingenuous tactic, but then, everything NARTH has done over the years in my view has been disingenuous. Warren Throckmorton looks at this sea change at NARTH. Here are excerpts:

Apparently in response to Alan Chambers’ candor about sexual orientation change, the National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality issued a clarification of what that organization means by change.

Issued January 27, the statement reads . . . :

Rather than pigeonholing homosexual sexual orientation change into categorical terms, NARTH believes that it is far more helpful and accurate to conceptualize such change as occurring on a continuum. This is in fact how sexual orientation is defined in most modern research, starting with the well known Kinsey scales, even as subsequent findings pertinent to change are often described in categorical terms. NARTH affirms that some individuals who seek care for unwanted same-sex attractions do report categorical change of sexual orientation. Moreover, NARTH acknowledges that others have reported no change.

[T]hose who are highly pessimistic regarding change in sexual orientation appear to have assumed a categorical view of change, which is neither in keeping with how sexual orientation has been defined in the literature nor with how change is conceptualized for nearly all other psychological challenges. NARTH believes that viewing change as occurring on a continuum is a preferable therapeutic approach and more likely to create realistic expectancies among consumers of change-oriented intervention. With this in mind, NARTH remains committed to protecting the rights of clients with unwanted same-sex attractions to pursue change as well as the rights of clinicians to provide such psychological care.

In sum, NARTH seems to be conceding - as Exodus International has already conceded - although in a dishonest manner, that total change in sexual orientation simply doesn't happen. Hence the malarkey about change on a continuum. No coincidentally, NARTH also ignores the fact that nearly 100% of those who publicly claim to be "ex-gay" are either on the payrolls of "ex-gay ministries" or otherwise make their livelihoods based on their alleged ex-gay status - e.g. Greg Quinlan, president of PFOX and the New Jersey Family Policy Council. In short, the ex-gay claims and "ministries" continue to be scams that seek to take advantage of the ignorant and gullible while providing a smoke screen for anti-gay propaganda and politicians. The other motivation, of course, may be to try to limit the potential for lawsuits by those who enroll in and throw away their money on "ex-gay" cure programs. In my opinion, most whores have more integrity than the folks at NARTH.

Libertarian Republicans May Block Marriage Repeal in New Hampshire

2012-01-29T16:00:00.003-05:00

One of the announced goals of far right Republicans in New Hampshire has been to repeal that state's same sex marriage law. But despite majorities in both houses of the legislature, they may not be able to gather the 2/3 vote required to repeal the 2009 law. The stumbling block? Libertarian inclined Republicans who see the repeal as a trampling on individual freedom. I would add religious freedom as another victim of the Christianist element in the GOP's jihad against gay marriage. Not surprisingly, some of the cretins in the pro-repeal faction mouth the myth that gay marriage threatens their religious liberty. To these folks, only anti-gay Christians have religious freedom rights. Everyone else can go f*ck themselves per this mindset. The Concord Monitor looks at the uncertain fate of the repeal effort in New Hampshire. Here are excerpts:

While the fate of a bill repealing same-sex marriage in New Hampshire remains uncertain, two facts are not in dispute: Republicans hold veto-proof majorities in the House and Senate. The state Republican Party platform defines marriage as "the legal union between one man and one woman" and opposes "all other forms of civil unions, regardless of where such unions were formed." So what's so hard about getting it done?

Sen. Fenton Groen, a Rochester Republican who has been vocal in his support of the repeal, said last week. "I think that, in the House particularly, we have a significant libertarian caucus within the Republican Party. . . . And there are some Republicans who differ on that within that caucus."

"I'm for liberty and freedom, leaving people alone so long as they don't harm or defraud other people," said Rep. Steve Winter, a Newbury Republican who opposes the repeal. . . . He considers himself a "fiscal conservative and a social libertarian."

Rep. Seth Cohn, a Canterbury Republican who moved here as part of the Free State project, a libertarian movement to relocate to New Hampshire, is also against repeal. Cohn and others believe the bill may pass the House but does not have the two-thirds majority to override a potential veto by Democratic Gov. John Lynch, who signed the bill three years ago legalizing same-sex marriage. "I know for a fact, based on people I've talked to, that if Gov. Lynch vetoes it, that veto is not override-able," Cohn said.

Cohn said he plans to introduce an amendment on the House floor that would take government entirely out of marriage, instead giving all couples a civil union and leaving marriage up to churches and other religious institutions. That same approach is supported by the Republican Liberty Caucus of New Hampshire, a libertarian-leaning group that endorsed 107 House members elected in 2010.

[U]nwillingness to take up the mantle in opposition to same-sex marriage has extended to top lawmakers in both chambers. . . . . Gay marriage supporters in New Hampshire say the current of public opinion favors their side. A University of New Hampshire survey in October found 62 percent of residents oppose the repeal and 27 percent support it. The rest were neutral.

Senate Majority Leader Jeb Bradley also voted against the gay marriage law. But before he could support the repeal bill, he said, language establishing civil unions for same-sex and heterosexual couples must be strengthened so all employers and other entities would be required to recognize them.

Rep. Jennifer Coffey's view has also been colored by life experience. The Andover Republican, a nurse's assistant for 16 years, remembers a terminally ill woman who had been estranged from her family for 20 years because of her relationship with another woman. When the family she hadn't talked to for decades came to visit her in the hospital, they did not allow the woman's partner in the room.

"It really stuck in my mind," she said. "There are certain things you see in health care that break your heart." Still, Coffey - who considers herself a "Goldwater Republican," a "little-'l' libertarian" - voted against the gay marriage law in 2009. Now, she plans to vote against repealing it, but says her position has been consistent all along.

"I voted against government defining marriage," she said. "It doesn't have the right to define marriage in any sense. It is a religious ceremony."

While not addressed in the article, just maybe some in the GOP are waking up to the fact that the GOP's anti-gay positions are driving away both libertarians and the younger generation of voters. Time will tell. Obviously, I hope the repeal effort fails.

More Sunday Male Beauty

2012-01-29T15:10:00.001-05:00

HUD Introduces Sweeping LGBT Protections

2012-01-29T14:26:00.004-05:00

In a move that will have Christianists and professional Christians shrieking and wailing, the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (pictured at left) has introduced sweeping new regulations that will afford LGBT citizens and families protections in housing related programs and insurance programs that receive federal funding. Among the areas impacted will be including Section 8 housing, emergency shelters, and other social services, as well as lending for FHA-insured mortgage financing. Such protections even if of limited application are welcomed inasmuch as currently in Virginia - and many other states - LGBT citizens have absolutely no non-discrimination protections. The move is long overdue. Now if only similar regulations would be implemented in the realm of employment non-discrimination. Here are highlights from Think Progress' coverage:

Speaking today [Saturday] at the National Conference on LGBT Equality: Creating Change in Baltimore, HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan introduced a broad and sweeping set of new nondiscrimination protections the department will be implementing. Under the new guidelines, any program that receives funding or insurance through HUD will be prohibited from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. . .

In addition, all such programs will now be required to recognize same-sex and otherwise LGBT families — regardless of their marital status or the adoption status of their children — to ensure they can stay together as a family unit when accessing HUD resources.

In his remarks, Donovan explained the significance of these changes:

DONOVAN: And so, first and foremost, this rule includes a new equal access provision that prohibits owners and operators of HUD-funded housing, or housing whose financing we insure, from inquiring about an applicant’s sexual orientation or gender identity or denying housing on that basis. If you are denying HUD housing to people on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity—actual or perceived—you’re discriminating, you’re breaking the law – and you will be held accountable. That’s what equal access means – and that’s what this rule is going to do. . . . the rule also makes clear that sexual orientation and gender identity should not and cannot be part of any lending decision when it comes to getting a mortgage insured by the FHA – part of HUD.

The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force has additional coverage. Here are highlights:

U.S. Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan announced a new HUD policy to fight discrimination against LGBT people in federally supported housing programs.

The new rules, to be published next week, will help LGBT people and their families across the country stay in their homes, get the loans they need to buy homes, and access life-saving federal assistance programs to help get low-income people and families back on their feet.

Donovan is the first sitting Cabinet secretary in history to speak at the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force’s National Conference on LGBT Equality: Creating Change, the country’s largest annual gathering of LGBT rights advocates. They have been meeting this week in Baltimore to strategize and mobilize in this critical election year.

“I’m here this afternoon because our president and his administration believe the LGBT community deserves a place at the table — and also a place to call home. Each of us here knows that rights most folks take for granted are routinely violated against LGBT people,” Donovan said.

While I'd prefer to see these non-discrimination protections afforded by statute, the regulations are hopefully a beginning. While likely motivated by Obama's re-election effort, the regulations are yet another blow against the special rights given to anti-Christians for far too long.

The GOP Empire Strikes Back at Gingrich

2012-01-29T12:00:00.005-05:00

It's sort of perverse fun to watch the gyrations within the Republican Party as the so-called establishment tries to sabotage Newt Gingrich's campaign. Granted, those who remember his tenure as Speaker of the House and his scandal wrought exit from Congress have plenty of reasons to want to push Gingrich back into the political wilderness. But it's still fun to watch the those who are generally the enemies of LGBT equality train their weaponry on one of their own rather than the LGBT community. As an added bonus, the intra-party strife and nastiness makes the Democrats look as if they have their act together in relative terms. A piece in the Washington Post looks at the efforts of those who view themselves as main stream Republicans to end Gingrich's insurrection. Here are excerpts:

The revenge of the Republican establishment is a sight to behold. From one corner to another, those who have tangled with Newt Gingrich, who feel aggrieved toward Newt Gingrich or who fear Newt Gingrich have amassed to stop him. They know how much harder it will be to do so if the former House speaker wins Florida on Tuesday.

The quintessential example of establishment angst came Thursday from Bob Dole, the former Senate majority leader and 1996 Republican presidential nominee. Hours before Thursday’s GOP debate, he released a letter — circulated by Mitt Romney’s campaign — attacking Gingrich and pleading with Republican voters not to make him the party’s nominee.

Dole is just one voice in a chorus of critics who have spoken out. Gingrich’s victory in South Carolina just a week ago sent a shudder through the ranks of elected officials and others who make up the establishment and the conservative elite. Fear of Newt has displaced lack of love for Romney as the dominant emotion among these Republicans.

The establishment message that Gingrich is a threat to the party is not new, but the intensity with which it is being delivered is. That he might become the nominee has touched off near panic in the ranks ahead of Tuesday’s vote. Party establishments, to the degree they exist, have only limited power to direct the course of events. But to the extent that they have power, they are exercising it with a vengeance.

“If Gingrich is the nominee it will have an adverse impact on Republican candidates running for county, state, and federal offices,” Dole wrote. “Hardly anyone who served with Newt in Congress has endorsed him and that fact speaks for itself. He was a one-man-band who rarely took advice. It was his way or the highway.”

What is fascinating about the Republican race is that, in a matter of days and weeks, it has turned from the question of whether a stop-Romney movement would materialize to the reality that a stop-Gingrich movement now has taken shape.

Those who underestimate Gingrich today were many of the same people who underestimated him as he crashed his way into the upper ranks of the party more than two decades ago. He may resent what the establishment is doing to him now, but he also may welcome the attacks as ratification that he remains a threat to established order.

Gingrich may lose this battle, and he could damage himself in the process. But he will not go quietly, and his old friends and enemies in the party know it.

And so the spectacle will play out. I plan on enjoying it.

The Inquisition - The Precursor to the Police State

2012-01-29T10:58:00.004-05:00

I often note that throughout history, religion has been one of the causes of more deaths and misery than just about any other cause. Yes, there were plagues and pestilence, but deaths arising from conflicts over religion, including the rigid enforcement of religious dogma, have always been elective as opposed to naturally occurring. And but for religion - and the oft related goals of power control and, most of all, money - these deaths need not have occurred.

While wars of religion date back probably to the near dawn of history, one institution took religious reigns of terror to their peak and set the template in many ways for modern police states and totalitarian regimes. The institution likewise justified torture as a supposed furtherance of what was good and "holy." The institution? The Catholic Church's infamous Inquisition. An institution which continues to exist this very day under the name " The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith." Even more frightening, until his election as Pope, Benedict XVI presided over this institution. A piece in the New Humanist based in the United Kingdom looks at the Inquisition and the dangers that arise from religious certitude - a characteristic all too prevalent amongst today's Christianists. The piece also looks at how the Inquisition created the mindset of today's police states. Here are some highlights:

Just inside the gate, at Piazza del Sant’Uffizio 11, stands a Renaissance palazzo with a ruddy ochre-and-cream complexion. This is the headquarters of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, whose job, in the words of the Apostolic Constitution Pastor bonus, promulgated in 1988 by Pope John Paul II, is “to promote and safeguard the doctrine on faith and morals throughout the Catholic world”. Pastor bonus goes on: “For this reason, everything which in any way touches such matter falls within its competence.” It is an expansive charge.

But before the Congregation became the Holy Office, it went by yet another name: as late as 1908, it was known as the Sacred Congregation of the Universal Inquisition. Lenny Bruce once joked that there was only one “the Church”. The Sacred Congregation of the Universal Inquisition was the headquarters of the Inquisition – the centuries-long effort by the Church to deal with its perceived enemies, within and without, by whatever means necessary, including the most brutal ones available.

The palazzo that today houses the Congregation was originally built to lodge the Inquisition when the papacy, in 1542, amid the onslaught of Protestantism and other noxious ideas, decided that the Church’s intermittent and far-flung inquisitorial investigations needed to be brought under some sort of centralised control – a spiritual Department of Homeland Security, as it were. The Inquisition had begun in the Middle Ages, to deal with Christian heresies, and been revived in Iberia, under state control, to deal with Jews and Moors.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith inherited more than the Inquisition’s DNA and its place on the organisational charts. It also inherited much of the paper trail. The Inquisition records are kept mainly in the palazzo itself . . . .

[C]onsider what an inquisition – any inquisition – really is: a set of disciplinary procedures targeting specific groups, codified in law, organised systematically, enforced by surveillance, exemplified by severity, sustained over time, backed by institutional power and justified by a vision of the one true path. Considered that way, the Inquisition is more accurately seen not as a relic but as a harbinger.

Whatever the number killed, the Inquisition levied penalties on hundreds of thousands of people, and the fear and shame instilled by any individual case rippled outward to affect a wide social circle. Little wonder that the Inquisition has left such a lasting imprint.

Here’s the central question: why did the Inquisition come into being when it did? Intolerance, hatred and suspicion of one group by another had always existed. Throughout history, these realities had led to persecution and violence. But the ability to sustain a persecution – to give it staying power by giving it an institutional life – did not appear until the Middle Ages. Until then, the tools to stoke and manage those embers of hatred did not exist. Once the tools do exist, inquisitions become a fact of life. They are not confined to religion; they are political as well.

The tools are these: there needs to be a system of law, and the means to administer it with a certain amount of uniformity. Techniques must be developed for conducting interrogations and extracting information. Procedures must exist for record-keeping, and for retrieving information after records have been compiled and stored. An administrative mechanism – a bureaucracy – is required, along with a cadre of trained people to staff it. There must be an ability to send messages across significant distances, and also an ability to restrict the communications of others – in a word, censorship.

Interrogation manuals, like the famous Practica written by Bernard Gui, were drawn up to instruct inquisitors on how to question the accused – the tricks to use, the psychology to employ. The resemblance to the modern manuals for military personnel and intelligence operatives is hard to miss. As a supplement to interrogation, torture became systematic – subject to rules, perhaps, but rules that proved elastic, as they always do.

So the tools were new. The precipitating mindset was age-old: the conviction that one is absolutely right. Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, the prefect of the Holy Office through most of the 1960s, adopted as his motto the Latin phrase Semper idem – “Always the same”. The inquisitors shared an outlook of moral certainty. In a world of moral certainty, the unthinkable becomes permissible. The sanctity of private conscience is no longer deemed inviolate. Techniques for ensnaring the innocent in scenarios of scripted guilt become increasingly sophisticated.

[T]he desire to control the thoughts and behaviour of others – joined to a belief that God or history will render an approving judgement – underlies much of the sad narrative of the past hundred years: the police states, the dirty wars, the ethnic cleansing, the internments, the renditions, the Red Scares, the fatwas, the special prosecutors, the electronic surveillance, the encroachments accomplished in name of national security.

Persecution acquired a modern platform – the advantages afforded by a growing web of standardised law, communications, administrative supervision and controlled mechanisms of force. It was run not merely by warriors but by an educated elite; not merely by thugs but by skilled professionals. Every subsequent outbreak of persecution, political or religious, has been abetted by these same forces. . . . Through the lens of the Inquisition we can glimpse the world we inhabit now.

When the Inquisition’s palazzo was built, in the mid-16th century, the Pope ordered words to be carved in a marble scroll over the front door – a kind of mission statement – establishing the building as a “bulwark against heretical depravity”. The words are gone now, removed by French troops during Napoleon’s occupation. It’s easy enough to remove some words – harder to erase a legacy.

As noted in previous posts, what is disconcerting is that in the USA, the laws have been amended to reduce civil liberty protections and place more arbitrary power in the hands of the government with little means to hold the government accountable. Were religion to ever become fully entwined with government as is the goal of the Christianists, the outcome could be frightening indeed.

Sunday Morning Male Beauty

2012-01-29T10:42:00.002-05:00

Could Gingrich Beat Obama in Debates?

2012-01-29T09:29:00.003-05:00

If nothing else, Newt Gingrich has one of the most visibly overinflated egos of any of the occupants of the GOP presidential candidate clown car. And because his ego often out leads rational thought, some speculate that in Obama-Gingrich debates, Gingrich would prove to be the loser. Especially if the audience wasn't limited to delusional Christianists and Tea party followers whose cheering seems to encourage Gingrich's demagoguery. A op-ed in the Washington Post looks at a face off between Obama and Gingrich and predicts that contrary to Gingrich's dreams, he'd end up the loser. Here are highlights:

Newt Gingrich is basing his bid for the Republican presidential nomination, in large part, on one premise: He is the candidate best equipped to debate President Obama. . . .

Supporters of the former House speaker love to imagine these debates. . . . . Gingrich’s legions picture their guy landing blow after blow against Obama, leaving the president dazed and hopeless.

An honest look at Gingrich’s record suggests that the results could differ markedly from the fantasies of Team Newt. Obama would not collapse in a heap, Gingrich would not emerge triumphant — and the whole thing would go down as the biggest campaign blunder since Richard Nixon figured he could out-debate John F. Kennedy on television.

But as a student of military history, Gingrich should know better than to underestimate an opponent in this way. The president taught law at the University of Chicago and has as much experience lecturing as Gingrich. He has shown in White House events and town hall meetings that he is perfectly capable of talking in depth and in detail about complex policy issues.

In debates with Gingrich, Obama might botch a name here or a fact there. . . . Gingrich is prone to a more serious kind of mistake. His problem is not that he errs on the fine points but that he makes radioactive comments that alienate voters outside the Republican core. In a debate in October, CNN’s Anderson Cooper asked whether voters should pay attention to a candidate’s religion. “How can you have judgment if you have no faith?” Gingrich answered. “And how can I trust you with power if you don’t pray?”

The more time he [Gingrich] gets to talk, the more likely he is to say something outrageous. Throughout his career, his speeches and extended interviews have been spawning grounds for odd or even grotesque Gingrichisms.

When he’s under criticism, Gingrich’s standard operating procedure is to interject that people are taking his words out of context. In a Lincoln-Douglas format, he would just have to sit and seethe until his turn came. As we’ve witnessed several times during the current debates, Gingrich is very good when he’s pretending to be angry; he’s very bad when he is angry for real. . . . Knowing this history, Obama would try to play with his head.

[A]s conservative commentator John Ziegler has pointed out, the audiences for those debates would include independents and Democrats as well as Republicans. Any incendiary remarks by Gingrich would get more catcalls than cheers.

In the end, what most people would see of such debates would be brief clips on news programs. And those clips would naturally consist of the most dramatic and attention-getting material — including the moments when Gingrich drew jeers from the audience for making over-the-top attacks. And so he would be back to where he’s been many times, complaining of selective quotation by liberals and the media.

So just picture Obama giving Gingrich everything he wants: seven three-hour debates with demonstrative audiences. Gingrich would then be able to make knockout punches — against himself.

The Unanswered Question: How Does Gay Marriage Harm Heterosexual Marriage

2012-01-29T08:54:00.004-05:00

The great mantra of the Christianists and professional Christians like Maggie Gallagher who make foul prostitutes look virtuous, is that marriage must be "protected" and/or that same sex marriage somehow diminishes straight marriages. Of course, no further explanation is ever provided beyond these convenient sound bites. The answer is, naturally, that there is no rational explanation as to how the boyfriend and I having civil law marriage rights threaten every straight couple's marriage in Virginia. Ultimately, the argument against same sex marriage comes down to one thing and one thing only: religion. Religion and the desire of Christianists to impose their religious beliefs on all of society - in direct contravention of the First Amendment, I might add - and to punish those who refuse to conform for whatever reason. Added to that, I believe, is the unspoken Christianist fear that if the Bible is wrong about homosexuality, the entire artificial house of cards of their religious dogma begins to unravel and collapse. A Middletown, New Jersey columnist ran a column asking the question from opponents of gay marriage to explain how heterosexual marriage would be harmed. Here are highlights from her description of the responses she received:

The question (put to those who say that marriage equality will "make less" of their heterosexual marriage) is, "Okay, what does marriage equality for all citizens of this country/state say about your marriage?"

Two weeks after writing the column I still don’t have an answer. Oh, I heard from many, many people. Interestingly, the majority of people that I heard from were supportive of marriage equality. Yet I heard from dozens who are adamantly against it. Some, who sent their emails directly to my email address choosing not to post on the PATCH site, were not always so nice and occasionally vile.

I was told ...

"The act of homosexuality is an abomination and sin many times over."

"Why do you feel entitled to enjoy the benefits of marriage when you have proclaimed the basis for this marriage is based on being a homosexual? Why should everyone be forced to confer legitimacy on that which is historically against human nature? You are completely free to live your life as you see fit; but don't try and proclaim that everyone must accept your definition of what normal is. Have a really great day, unless you have made other plans!"

"May you know no peace in this life."

"At the end of every speech that an American president makes he says, ‘God Bless the United States of America’. The law of this land is that God rules here and not the deviants who support homosexuality."

"A pox on you and your house!"

"You and all like you will burn in hell for eternity."

Aside from nasty comments and quotes from the Bible, no one ever answered the question. Several supporters of separation of church and state and/or marriage equality did contradict the statement that marriage equality will compromise anyone else’s marriage -

"As far as I can determine, no one has ever come up with a valid reason to oppose same sex marriage. First, all religious arguments are invalid. We have separation of church & state, so what the bible or any other religious document says must not be considered. Religious institutions can make any rules they want for their members, but they cannot affect others, so no one should even bring them up.

"Second, whatever anyone else, gay or straight, does in their marriage has no affect whatever on my marriage. Third, the institution of marriage is under attack by many factors, such as divorce, cohabitation etc. Gay marriage is not one of them.

As I mulled all this over in my mind I thought about some of the things I have heard or seen of late that involve members of the Christian faith.

• I heard a Catholic bishop say, “Heaven help us if gay marriage is approved.”

• I watched the evening news in horror as Christians lined the streets in protest bearing signs and posters that said horrible un-Christian-like things at the funeral of an American soldier who gave his life for his country. The chants include rants that state that this death is God’s punishment for homosexuality. This act has been repeated on several occasions.

• Christian people show up in Trenton to protest the passing of a marriage equality law and many of the accusations shouted at those in favor are cruel and repulsive. Not really ‘Christian behavior’.

Hypocrisy runs rampant.

I echo the columnist's experience. Before I severely restricted the posting comments to this blog, virtually ALL of the nasty, foul and hate-filled comments were ALWAYS from self-professed Christians. Yes, the comments even involved death threats. And on one occasion the electric breaker box for my law office was vandalized (posting my business card on this blog makes me easy to find and the breaker boxes for the office suites are conveniently labeled). Need I ask why I suspect it was a "godly Christian" who decided to vandalize only my breaker box? As noted before, the best argument for walking away from Christianity is the self-professed godly Christians.

Genetic or Not, Gays Won’t Go Away

2012-01-29T08:20:00.006-05:00

Cynthia Nixon caused a recent firestorm when she said she chose to be lesbian. Not being inside her mind and having lived her life, it's impossible to know for certain how she interprets "choosing" to be gay. Perhaps she's bisexual or perhaps she finally gave in to feelings and attractions that she had long experienced. I don't want to judge her even though some of the usual hate merchants of the professional Christian set have leaped on her statements as proof of their anti-gay "choice myth." Having been married with children and in the closet for decades, on could argue that I "chose to be gay" when I came out. I'd argue that instead of choosing, I finally admitted the truth about myself and began the process of rejecting the religious and societal brainwashing I'd been subjected to. I can state with absolute certainty that my emotional/physical connection with a guy I love is far different and more spiritual fulfilling than what I can experience with a woman. And I mean no slight to women by this comment. It's simply how/who I am. And Lord knows I tried desperately to deny it for 37 years.

Frank Bruni has an op-column in the New York Times that looks ate the Cynthia Nixon brouhaha and the reality that gays are not going away no matter how much the Christofascists malign us and denigrate us. and try to convince the ignorant and gullible that we all could be straight if we but wanted to. Here are some column highlights:

Born this way. That has long been one of the rallying cries of a movement, and sometimes the gist of its argument. Across decades of widespread ostracism, followed by years of patchwork acceptance and, most recently, moments of heady triumph, gay people invoked that phrase to explain why homophobia was unwarranted and discrimination senseless. Lady Gaga even spun an anthem from it. But is it the right mantra to cling to? The best tack to take?

Not for the actress Cynthia Nixon, 45, whose comments in The New York Times Magazine last Sunday raised those very questions. For 15 years, until 2003, she was in a relationship with a man. They had two children together. She then formed a new family with a woman, to whom she’s engaged. And she told The Times’s Alex Witchel that homosexuality for her “is a choice.” “For many people it’s not,” she conceded, but added that they “don’t get to define my gayness for me.”

They do get to fume, though. Last week some did. They complained that she represented a minority of those in same-sex relationships and that she had furthermore handed a cudgel to our opponents, who might now cite her professed malleability as they make their case that incentives to change, not equal rights, are what we need.

By hinging a whole movement on a conclusion that hasn’t been — and perhaps won’t be — scientifically pinpointed and proved beyond all doubt, they hitch it to a moving target. The exact dynamics through which someone winds up gay are “still an open question,” said Clinton Anderson, the director of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Concerns Office of the American Psychological Association. “There is substantial evidence of various connections between genes, brain, hormones and sexual identity,” he said. “But those do not amount to a simple picture that A leads to B.”

[B]igotry isn’t rational. Finding a determinative biological quirk, deviation or marker could prompt religious extremists who now want gays in reparative psychotherapy to focus on medical interventions instead. And a person’s absence of agency over his or her concentration of melanin has hardly ended all discrimination against blacks.

What’s more, the born-this-way approach carries an unintended implication that the behavior of gays and lesbians needs biological grounding to evade condemnation. Why should it?

Our laws safeguard religious freedom, and that’s not because there’s a Presbyterian, Buddhist or Mormon gene. There’s only a tradition and theology that you elect or decline to follow. But this country has deemed worshiping in a way that feels consonant with who you are to be essential to a person’s humanity. So it’s protected.

Our laws also safeguard the right to bear arms: not exactly a biological imperative. Among adults, the right to love whom you’re moved to love — and to express it through sex and maybe, yes, marriage — is surely as vital to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as a Glock. And it’s a lot less likely to cause injury, if that’s a deciding factor: how a person’s actions affect the community around him or her.

We don’t need to be born this way to refute the ludicrous assertion that homosexuality poses some special threat to the stability of the American family. We need only note that heterosexuality — as practiced by the likes of Newt Gingrich and John Edwards, for example — isn’t any lucky charm, and yet no one’s trying to heal the straights.

We don’t need to be born this way to call out Chris Christie, currently trying to avoid responsibility for a decision about same-sex marriage in New Jersey, for being a political wimp. Andrew Cuomo showed courage and foresight in fighting successfully for such legislation in New York. Christie, who fancies himself a dauntless brawler, should do the same in the state next door.

I honestly have no idea if I was born this way. My memory doesn’t stretch to the crib.

But I know that from the moment I felt romantic stirrings, it was Timmy, not Tammy, who could have me walking on air or wallowing in torch songs and tubs of ice cream. These feelings gelled early, and my considerable fear of society’s censure was no match for them.

I know that being in a same-sex relationship feels as central and natural to me as my loyalty to my father, my pride in my siblings’ accomplishments and my protectiveness of their children — all emotions that I didn’t exit the womb with but will not soon shake. And I know that I’m a saner, kinder person this way than trapped in a contrivance or a lie. Surely that’s not just to my advantage but to society’s, too.

If the laws are only going to protect characteristics that are not a "choice," then one of the first things that needs to change are laws that bar discrimination based on religion. If there is anything in life, it's religious affiliation. Yes, one may be raised in a particular tradition, but each and every one of has the choice to walk away from it. Religious affiliation is ultimately 100% choice. And that being the case, the Christianist need to be truly careful how they poise their anti-gay arguments. Because by pushing the "choice myth" and linking legal rights to only things that are not a choice, they are sowing the seeds for their own destruction.

More Saturday Male Beauty

2012-01-28T14:26:00.002-05:00

eBay Pressures Utah to Enact LGBT Non-discrimination Protections

2012-01-28T14:06:00.004-05:00

In an example of how corporate America can pressure states that are in fact or are perceived as backwards and hostile to LGBT equality, eBay is advising the State of Utah that it may have to reconsider adding 3,000 jobs in that state if non-discrimination protections for LGBT citizens are not passed by the state legislature. In making the pitch, the message being delivered is that Utah has a serious PR problem which makes it dificult to recruit the best and the brightest employees. I wish some of the Fortune 500 companies that support non-discrimination would deliver that message here in Virginia to Bob "Taliban Bob" McDonnell and Ken "Kookinelli" Cuccinelli not to mention the vitriolic anti-gay Republicans in the Virginia General Assembly. As I've noted before, I cannot in good conscience recommend that anyone who is LGBT move to Virginia because of the total lack of any legal protections for LGBT Virginians. Indeed, but for the Boyfriend's successful business and the fact that I currently employ one of my daughters at my law firm, I'd be pushing to leave Virginia as soon as possible. QSaltLake looks at the businesses that are pushing the elected officials to do the right thing. Here are highlights:

Sen. Ben McAdams hosted a panel discussion Thursday at the Utah State Capitol to discuss his proposed law, which seeks to add gender identity and sexual orientation to Utah’s existing list of prohibited discrimination characteristics. The bill has received a wellspring of support from Utah’s business community, including the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce.

The panel was composed of McAdams, Tim Sullivan (CEO of Ancestry), Brandon Pace (general counsel for eBay), Jay Magure (VP of 1-800-Contacts) and Cliff Rosky (Professor of Law, University of Utah). The bottom line, according to the panelists, is that discrimination isn’t just wrong, it’s bad for business.

All of the panelists agreed that there is a perception problem outside of Utah, making it difficult for them to recruit and retain the best talent for their companies. That perception, said Magure, “is reality and it creates real harm.” eBay’s Pace indicated that his company is planning to add up to 3,000 workers this year and if they can’t bring workers to Utah because of the perception that Utah is intolerant of the LGBTQ community then they’ll be forced to fill those jobs in other places.

The panelists agreed, urging the state legislature to enact the proposed law in order to send a clear message to people and businesses around the country: that Utah doesn’t tolerate discrimination.

Currently there are 21 states and over 300 municipalities in the United States that include sexual orientation and gender identity as part of non-discrimination protections. More than half of America’s Fortune 500 has such policies in place, including major Utah employers such as Adobe, American Express, Zions Bank, and the companies involved in the panel: eBay, 1-800-Contacts, and Ancestry.

71.3% of Incoming College Freshmen Support Same Sex Marriage

2012-01-28T13:09:00.005-05:00

A new UCLA survey shows more bad news for the Christian Right and its pandering whores and sycophants in the Republican Party. It's yet more proof that the GOP is committing a slow form of long term suicide as it continues to swear sole allegiance to anti-gay generations that are literally dying off while the younger generations are trending toward full LGBT acceptance. Here's the summary of the study's findings:

An unprecedented 71.3 percent of incoming college students indicated that same-sex couples should have the right to legal marital status, compared with 64.9 percent in 2009, a remarkable 6.4 percentage-point increase over a two-year period. While support for same-sex marriage is highest among female students and those who identify as liberal, a significant amount of conservative students (42.8 percent) and an increasing number of male students (64.1 percent in 2011 vs. 56.7 percent in 2009) expressed support for this issue.

"Among students entering college, we're seeing a more unified support for same-sex marriage that reaches across political party lines," said John H. Pryor, lead author of the report and director of CIRP. "Given the influence of young voters in the last presidential election, candidates may want to pay careful attention to the student perspective on these and other civil rights issues."

Has Newt Gingrich Peaked?

2012-01-28T12:53:00.003-05:00

As noted in a previous post, the consensus is that Newt Gingrich largely bombed in the recent GOP debate in Jacksonville. Now, the question is whether or not Gingrich is on a downward slide that - if the nation is lucky - cannot be halted despite huge monetary donations from a gambling industry king pin. A piece in the Daily Beast suggests that Newt's glory days on the GOP clown car are over. I hope the analysis proves correct. If it does, then the next nutcase that needs to be ejected from the clown car is Frothy Mix. Here are highlights from the Daily Beast column:

The question that emerges from Thursday night’s debate is: Have we seen the end of Newt? Not only did he not have any South Carolina-style moments; he blew the chances he had for such moments, and blew them badly. The big moment came right before the first commercial break, when Gingrich tried to hit Mitt Romney on his investments in Fannie and Freddie, and Romney fired back about Newt’s lobbying (or advising or whatever it was). If Romney wins this nomination, that new debate coach deserves an awfully nice bonus out of that blind trust.

What arrow does Gingrich have in his quiver besides the great debate one-liner that expresses right-wing grievance? He’s an adrenaline junkie. When he has that from a crowd, he can go out on the hustings for the next two or three days with the kind of joyous malevolence we’ve seen so often over the years. But when he doesn’t, he deflates like a Macy’s balloon on Thanksgiving afternoon. And I hear the hissing of air, as I’m sure a lot of people do. Gingrich needs to play some kind of big card in the next three days. . . .
Gingrich’s only hope is to throw something new against the wall and hope that it sticks.

I think that a month or two from now, the epitaph of this contest might well end up being something like: The establishment guy won, the next-in-line guy won, but he got pushed a little farther this time than the next-in-line guy did in 2008 or 2000 or 1996. If Barack Obama wins reelection, will the next-in-line guy in 2016 finally be pushed off the cliff? Will the insurgent vote finally say, “It’s Our Time!” Who will the next-in-line guy even be in 2016, anyway? All interesting questions, but all far off. For now, it looks like Newt peaked last week.

Oral Roberts’ Gay Grandson Launches "Gay Agenda" Tour to Fight Homophobia

2012-01-28T12:14:00.003-05:00

Few forms of Divine justice are more satisfying than seeing the worse of the Bible beaters end up with gay family members. It obviously demonstrates that they are the last folks to be telling others how to raise children since, according to their own propaganda, it's flawed parenting that cases the gays. Hence, it's interesting to see that the gay grandson of televangelist and snake oil merchant Oral Roberts is launching a "Gay Agenda" tour through the Bible belt of the USA to counter the anti-gay legacy of professional Christians like his grandfather. Even better, he's scheduled to marry his boyfriend in May. Here are some highlights from the Houston Chronicle:

Randy Roberts Potts—whose grandfather Oral Roberts was a pioneering 20th-century televangelist and healer — is now touring the country hoping for his own kind of revival, comforting gay people like him, who have been told by their evangelical communities that they’re destined for hell.

Potts spoke about coming out as gay in the Roberts family on CNN recently. He lives in Dallas, where he and his fiancé do a performance art piece called “The Gay Agenda,” basically doing boring day-to-day activities like cooking and watching TV together while on display downtown. They’re now taking their show on tour.

The late Oral Roberts was a dramatic, charismatic preacher, and—like most big-name televangelist of his time — would warn audiences about the dangers of homosexuality. His eldest son ended up coming out as gay in the ‘80s, committing suicide shortly after ending his marriage.

“I think (Oral Roberts) was convinced that homosexuality killed his son,” Potts said in Details magazine profile. “Some evangelicals see it as a spirit or a demon of homosexuality that invades you, that it’s an almost personified thing that will completely strangle and kill you. Not even so much as a choice, but something you give in to, something that can afflict anybody.”

Potts’ own “It Gets Better” video was inspired by Ronnie’s experience among evangelicals and eventual suicide. He’s wearing a yellow T-shirt with an image of praying hands printed on it, much like the giant sculpture at his grandfather’s namesake university.

“My uncle and I were both raised in a world dominated by Evangelicals who taught and still teach that the fires of Hell await all gay men and women,” the clip said. “This is the Evangelical ‘Christian’ legacy for gays like my uncle and me: threats, bullying, death.”

Potts says his last visit with his grandfather was a friendly one, and Roberts did not bring up Potts’ homosexuality. His mother, though, continues to remind him of her views on his “lifestyle” (Potts told Details his parents don’t even use the word “gay”) and how it’s destined him to hell.

Through his performance art and speaking tours, he finds that a message of acceptance from a member of Roberts’ “royal family” means a lot to people who have been told the same thing.

“It’s an amazing thing that I know is a lot bigger than me. I’m just the guy who’s Oral Roberts’ gay grandson, and I don’t even think it matters what I say a lot of the time. It’s just the fact that I’m up there, gay and open about it and saying it’s okay—it’s just this huge release,” he said in the Details story.

The referenced Details magazine article can be found here. A CNN video clip on Potts' effort is here. His message is definitely needed here in the Hampton Roads area.

Saturday Morning Male Beauty

2012-01-28T11:54:00.002-05:00

White House Launches Politically Motivated LGBT "Charm Offensive"

2012-01-28T10:54:00.005-05:00

Apparently the Obama campaign doesn't think the extreme homophobia of the current slate of GOP presidential nominee contenders might not be enough to drive LGBT voters to the polls in November to cast votes for Democrats. As the Washington Blade is reporting, Obama has launched what might be called a "charm offensive" seeking to endear himself with LGBT Americans without taking a strong stand on same sex marriage equality. To me, it's more of Obama's attempt to have his cake and eat it too while still supporting a "separate but equal" approach to CIVIL law recognition of same sex relationships. Stated another way, he wants out votes, but that's about the extent of things when it comes to fully equality under the civil laws.

Where's the Executive Order enforcing ENDA like protections? Where's the "evolution" on same sex marriage? LGBT Virginians currently have ZERO legal protections under state or federal law unless we are beaten to death, in which case the federal Hate Crimes Law applies, albeit too late to help us while we are living. Here are highlights from the Washington Blade story:

The White House announced on Friday it plans to host a series of LGBT conferences throughout the country in early 2012 so the public can “hear directly” from the administration on efforts “to ensure health, well-being, security, justice, and equality for LGBT Americans.”

In a statement, the White House identified the White House LGBT Conference on Health — which will be held in Philadelphia on Feb. 16 — as the inaugural event for the initiative. The conference is set to feature remarks from Secretary of Health & Human Services Kathleen Sebelius.

The statement says the events — which will take place from February to June 2012 — will be a collaboration between the White House Office of Public Engagement and other departments and agencies. Expected attendees include grassroots leaders, community organizers, advocates, students and others.

Absent from the list of planned topics for discussion at the conferences is employment discrimination. No federal law prohibits workplace discrimination against LGBT people. Advocates have been pushing President Obama to issue an executive order barring federal dollars from going to contractors that lack LGBT-inclusive non-discrimination policies.

Asked whether one of these conferences would address employment discrimination, a White House official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said, “The list of topics is not comprehensive.”

I doubt the conferences will come to Hampton Roads even thought we are more or less in Washington, D.C.'s backyard.

Ron Paul Approved Racist, Anti-Semitic, and Anti-Gay Newsletters

2012-01-28T10:19:00.005-05:00

When the media first began to focus on some of Ron Paul's former newsletters that were racist and bigoted in nature, the first story line to come out of the Paul camp was that Ron Paul had not been fully aware of the content. That story line is proving to have been a lie - are we surprised? - as Paul's associates both past and present are speaking out and confirming that the presidential candidate did in fact approve the nasty news letters. It's yet another example of candidates lying when they ought to know that eventually they will get caught. And the result is that the lying only compounds their public relations problem. Not, of course, that racism and anti-gay bigotry won't play well with a significant portion of the Christianist and Tea Party base of the Republican Party. The Washington Post looks at Paul's crumbling excuse that he was not aware of the inflammatory content of the newsletters. Here are highlights:

Ron Paul, well known as a physician, congressman and libertarian , has also been a businessman who pursued a marketing strategy that included publishing provocative, racially charged newsletters to make money and spread his ideas, said three people with direct knowledge of Paul’s businesses.

[P]eople close to Paul’s operations said he was deeply involved in the company that produced the newsletters, Ron Paul & Associates, and closely monitored its operations, signing off on articles and speaking to staff members virtually every day.

“It was his newsletter, and it was under his name, so he always got to see the final product. . . . He would proof it,’’ said Renae Hathway, a former secretary in Paul’s company and a supporter of the Texas congressman’s.

Jesse Benton, a presidential campaign spokesman, said that the accounts of Paul’s involvement were untrue and that Paul was practicing medicine full time when “the offensive material appeared under his name.” Paul “abhors it, rejects it and has taken responsibility for it as he should have better policed the work being done under his masthead,” Benton said. He did not comment on Paul’s business strategy.

[L]ast month, he told CNN that he was unaware at the time of the controversial passages. “I’ve never read that stuff. I’ve never read — I came — was probably aware of it 10 years after it was written,’’ Paul said.

A person involved in Paul’s businesses, who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid criticizing a former employer, said Paul and his associates decided in the late 1980s to try to increase sales by making the newsletters more provocative. They discussed adding controversial material, including racial statements, to help the business, the person said.

“It was playing on a growing racial tension, economic tension, fear of government,’’ said the person, who supports Paul’s economic policies but is not backing him for president. “I’m not saying Ron believed this stuff. It was good copy. Ron Paul is a shrewd businessman.’’

The articles included racial, anti-Semitic and anti-gay content. They claimed, for example, that the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. “seduced underage girls and boys’’ . . . . The June 1990 edition of the Ron Paul Political Report included the statement: “Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities.”

Paul's campaign is trying to claim that Paul's not a racist, an anti-Semite or anti-gay per se, but past actions would seem to speak louder than current defensive denials.

Former Survivor Cast Member Rudy Boesch Proves He's a Bigot at Military Event

2012-01-28T08:13:00.010-05:00

Living in Hampton Roads it's impossible to escape the huge military presence and hearing about military related events. One such event was the 50th Anniversary event for the Navy SEALS which were first organized on January, 1962. In honor of the occasion, more than 150 retired and active Navy SEALs attended a 50th anniversary ceremony Friday at Joint Expeditionary Base Little Creek-Fort Story in nearby Virginia Beach. One of the two two featured speakers at the SEALS' 50th anniversary ceremony was Rudy Boesch, a retired Navy SEAL and locally best known as a former cast member of the reality TV show "Survivor."

Boesch apparently behaved himself until asked if he keeps in touch with any members from "Survivor" cast, Boesch's response was that "I don't talk to queers — and when I say queer I mean homosexuals." Not only was the comment uncalled for and inappropriate, placing those in active military status in an awkward position, it's not true. First, I have known several gay SEAL team members, so it's all too likely Boesch has in fact spoken to gays in the military. He's simply too ignorant to know it. Moreover, years ago when we lived in the same neighborhood, Boesch spoke with me more than once. I was precinct captain for a political party and every time Boesch went to vote he spoke to yours truly. Boesch typifies the ignorance of those who think they don't know and interact with gays on a regular basis. Here are highlights from the Daily Press on the unfortunate display of bigotry:

Rudy Boesch, a retired Navy SEAL and former cast member of the reality TV show "Survivor," was one of two featured speakers at the SEALS' 50th anniversary ceremony. He spent much of his speech reflecting on his 45-year career in the military. His speech took an unexpected shift in his final remark. Boesch said when people ask him if he keeps in touch with any members from "Survivor," he responds: "I don't talk to queers — and when I say queer I mean homosexuals."

Lt. Arlo Abrahamson, a public affairs officer for Naval Special Warfare Group 2, said, "Those were his views as a retired Navy SEAL. Those views do not reflect the views of the United States Navy or Naval Special Warfare."

Members of gay-rights organizations, when told of Boesch's comment Friday, expressed dismay. "How is that pertinent to the purpose of the event?" said James Hermansen-Parker, president of Hampton Roads Pride, a gay rights organization in Norfolk. "How is that pertinent to the celebration of 50 years as Navy SEALs? I find it very closed-minded of him."

"I'm disappointed and I thought he was better than that," said Michael Hamar, a gay activist and Norfolk attorney. "I think with 'don't ask don't tell' ended, it's inappropriate now. He's making a bigoted remark at a military function where the military now — at least formally — says it's a non-issue."

Boesch was speaking at about the same time that The Virginian-Pilot reported that Navy Capt. Owen Honors would retire April 1. Honors was relieved of command of the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise for making videos that included anti-gay jokes.

Fortunately, the mindset of those like Boesch will eventually die out as bigots die off. Meanwhile, it's unfortunate that he needlessly tarnished what might otherwise have been an honorable event.

More Friday Male Beauty

2012-01-27T15:47:00.002-05:00

Indicted Philadelphia Monsignor Now Pointing Finger at Superiors

2012-01-27T15:08:00.003-05:00

It appears that things might get interesting in the pending criminal prosecution of a Philadelphia monsignor and other priests relating to the sexual abuse of children and youth by predator priests. It seems that the good monsignor doesn't want to fall on his sword and protect the more senior members of the Catholic Church hierarchy whom he says were giving him orders. Frankly, it is inconceivable that the bishops and archbishop of the archdioceses were not fully involved in the cover ups and failures to report. One can only hope that Monsignor Lynn spills his guts and implicates his superiors. As it is, the archdioceses has already been named an unindicted co-conspirator. It would be great fun to see that status change to that of an indicted co-conspirator. Here are highlights on developments from the Delaware County Daily Times:

An indicted Catholic church official is showing signs he won't take the fall alone for the priest abuse scandal in Philadelphia, with his lawyer saying Wednesday that a successor threw him "under the bus."

Monsignor William Lynn, 61, is the only official from the Archdiocese of Philadelphia facing trial for allegedly failing to remove accused predators from the priesthood. He served as secretary of clergy from 1992 to 2004. Defense lawyers argue that Lynn took orders from then-Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua and other superiors in the church hierarchy.

Prosecutors hope to include dozens of old abuse allegations to show a pattern of conduct at the trial, which is scheduled to start in late March and last several months. One such case involves a West Chester University chaplain accused in 1994 of taking pictures of students in their underwear. He next became chaplain of Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, worked with a parish youth group and later admitted taking boys on overnight trips, one to Jamaica, before retiring to the New Jersey shore, prosecutors said.

Prosecutors call the archdiocese "an unindicted co-conspirator" in the case. A 2005 grand jury report blasted Bevilacqua and his successor, Cardinal Justin Rigali, for their handling of abuse complaints, but they were never charged. Bevilacqua is now 88 and in failing health.

A judge will hear more arguments Monday on whether 27 of the 63 priests described in that grand jury report can be referenced at Lynn's trial. Prosecutors want to show that Lynn kept them on the job despite knowing of complaints stored in "secret archives" at the archdiocese. Continued...

They have detailed the cases over a three-day pretrial hearing this week. The cases include a priest who allegedly pinned loincloths on naked boys playing Jesus in a Passion play, and whipped them, in keeping with the drama; a priest who held what prosecutors called "masturbation camps" at the rectory, having boys strip naked and teaching them to masturbate; and a pastor written up for disobedience for complaining to Bevilacqua about an accused priest being transferred to his parish.

Defense lawyers hope to limit the trial evidence to Lynn's handling of the priest and ex-priest on trial with him. The Rev. James Brennan, 48, and defrocked priest Edward Avery, 69, are charged with rape. All have denied the charges. The archdiocese declined to respond to the comments made Wednesday about Monsignor Senior, citing a gag order in the case.

Let's face it. Most of the Catholic Church hierarchy is cesspool filled with morally bankrupt hypocrites who cared nothing for the lives of children and youths subjected to sexual abuse. Worse yet, legislators in Washington State, Maryland and New Jersey are allowing the affiliates of these foul individuals to claim that allowing normal, loving same sex couples CIVIL marriage rights threatens humanity. It's disgusting.

Study: Low IQ Correlates With Prejudice and Bigotry

2012-01-27T11:12:00.006-05:00

I've often wondered how Christianists and the Tea Party crowd can cling to beliefs that defy logic and scientific fact. Now, we may have the answer: they're simply stupid. I mean literally dumb from an intelligence perspective. A new study done by researcher Gordon Hodson, a psychologist at Brock University in Ontario, Canada, finds that those with low intelligence gravitate towards conservatism and are prone to embrace prejudice of things they don't understand or that are different. I can already hear Tony Perkins and the anti-gay professional Christian set howling and bellowing that Hodson's work is biased or slanted. When you think of about, however, the correlation tracks with a great deal of everyday experience in dealing with people. If you can't think for yourself, you're an easy target for demagogues who like to blame problems and failings on "the other." Here are some highlights from Yahoo News on the study findings:

There's no gentle way to put it: People who give in to racism and prejudice may simply be dumb, according to a new study that is bound to stir public controversy.

The research finds that children with low intelligence are more likely to hold prejudiced attitudes as adults. These findings point to a vicious cycle, according to lead researcher Gordon Hodson, a psychologist at Brock University in Ontario. Low-intelligence adults tend to gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, the study found. Those ideologies, in turn, stress hierarchy and resistance to change, attitudes that can contribute to prejudice . . .

The findings combine three hot-button topics. "They've pulled off the trifecta of controversial topics," said Brian Nosek, a social and cognitive psychologist at the University of Virginia who was not involved in the study. "When one selects intelligence, political ideology and racism and looks at any of the relationships between those three variables, it's bound to upset somebody."

Polling data and social and political science research do show that prejudice is more common in those who hold right-wing ideals that those of other political persuasions . . .

Earlier studies have found links between low levels of education and higher levels of prejudice, Hodson said, so studying intelligence seemed a logical next step. . . . As suspected, low intelligence in childhood corresponded with racism in adulthood. But the factor that explained the relationship between these two variables was political: When researchers included social conservatism in the analysis, those ideologies accounted for much of the link between brains and bias. People with lower cognitive abilities also had less contact with people of other races.

Hodson was quick to note that the despite the link found between low intelligence and social conservatism, the researchers aren't implying that all liberals are brilliant and all conservatives stupid. The research is a study of averages over large groups, he said.

Nonetheless, there is reason to believe that strict right-wing ideology might appeal to those who have trouble grasping the complexity of the world. "Socially conservative ideologies tend to offer structure and order," Hodson said, explaining why these beliefs might draw those with low intelligence. "Unfortunately, many of these features can also contribute to prejudice."

They found that what applies to racism may also apply to homophobia. People who were poorer at abstract reasoning were more likely to exhibit prejudice against gays. As in the U.K. citizens, a lack of contact with gays and more acceptance of right-wing authoritarianism explained the link.

Interestingly, this study would seem to affirms some prior reports that found that evangelical Christians had lower IQ's and lower levels of education than denominations such as Episcopalians and Lutherans.

Friday Morning Male Beauty

2012-01-27T08:22:00.002-05:00

The GOP Circular Firing Squad Continues

2012-01-27T07:23:00.003-05:00

The latest debate among the occupants of the GOP presidential nominee clown car went down last night and by most accounts Newt Gingrich bombed and made Romney look good. Personally, I want to see both Gingrich and Santorum driven from the race for the simple reason that we don't want such insanity given any more credibility than these two nut cases have already wrongly received. That's not to say that I like Romney because the man will say anything to further his election chances, but at least he's not certifiably mentally disturbed - even if he has participated in "posthumous Mormon baptisms" if not "recently." A column in the Washington Post seems to compile the consensus on last night's debate. Here are highlights:

Newt Gingrich got slammed in the debate by a remarkably invigorated Mitt Romney, an impressive Rick Santorum and CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, who really wouldn’t let him get away with much.

Romney was clearly on his game, ready to swat down Gingrich. He vigorously defended his success in business and skewered Gingrich on his carping about his capital gains. He tied Gingrich to Freddie Mac and wouldn’t let go, making it clear that Gingrich was a cheerleader for the entity that contributed mightily to the financial crisis. When Gingrich accused him of investing in Freddie, Romney pointed out that they both had investments in mutual funds which held Freddie bonds. On Gingrich’s loony moon colony, he was restrained but emphatic that this was fiscally irresponsible.

He did get slightly tangled up by an ad citing Gignrich for calling Spanish the language of the “ghetto,” saying he didn’t know if it was his ad. When Blitzer later confirmed that it was, however, Romney cornered Gingrich, whose defense boiled down to: I didn’t say the word “Spanish.” The Romney team quickly put out its research form Politifact showing that Romney’s ad was “mostly true.” More impressively, he faced down Gingrich for calling him anti-immigrant in a radio ad, reminding the audience that Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) had rebuked Gingrich and forced the former Speaker to take down the ad. For once, Gingrich looked dumbfounded.

Gingrich had a perfectly dreadful night, appearing angry and then sheepish, nasty and then defensive. He didn’t have well-prepared defenses on his time with Freddie or strong attacks on Romney’s earnings. He played to type in defending his fantastical idea for a space colony. And he sniped at conservatives who have come forward to question whether he was all that close to Reagan . . . Conservatives have had enough of him, and have come forward out of fear he might actually get the nomination. After tonight they have less to fear. Not only did Romney have the best debate of the primary season, but Santorum’s strong showing should bleed votes away from Gingrich as well.

Finally, Wolf Blitzer did a commendable job, rebuffing Gingrich’s attempt to duck away from a question on his anti-capital gains language. He kept the proceedings lively and substantive.

A NARTH Versus Exodus Internationl Cat Fight

2012-01-27T06:41:00.004-05:00

Among the many, many fraudulent things that the Christian Right peddles to the unwary and ignorant, one of the worse in my opinion, is the knowingly untrue claim that through so-called reparative therapy gays and lesbians can become straight. Literally none of the legitimate medical and mental health associations - i.e., the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American School Counselor Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Association of Social Workers - support the validity of reparative therapy. The sole purpose for the continued marketing of reparative therapy by the far right, in my view, boils down to two things: (1) duping the public into believing that gays can change and, therefore, deserve no legal rights or protections, and (2) money - desperate individuals and parents brainwashed with false religious belief can be shaken down for lots of money.

Now, a cat fight if you will has broken out between the National Association for the Research and Therapy (NARTH) and Exodus International, heretofore one of the biggest marketers of the "ex-gay" myth. Why one might ask? Because Exodus is distancing itself from the claim that gays can actually change their sexual orientation - a lie that Exodus has been marketing for at least two decades. Warren Throckmorton looks at the cat fight and the almost laughable defense put up by NARTH even as it admits that "change" doesn't eliminate attraction and desire for those of the same sex. Reparative therapy is and always has been a cold, calculating lie. Here are highlights from Warren's post:

Until recently, Exodus sold reparative therapy books in their bookstore but recently removed them. Also, Alan Chambers recently told an audience at the Gay Christian Network conference that

The majority of people that I have met, and I would say the majority meaning 99.9% of them have not experienced a change in their orientation or have gotten to a place where they could say that they could never be tempted or are not tempted in some way or experience some level of same-sex attraction.

I asked Alan Chambers about the reason for the removal of the reparative therapy books and he told me that Exodus wants to be clear that Christian discipleship is how they want to be known.

Apparently, these developments are troubling to NARTH leaders. One of them, David Pickup, recently penned an article at the Anglican Mainstream in defense of reparative therapy. He wrote the article in direct response to the comments by Alan Chambers, noted above. Pickup writes:

Chambers’ remarks essentially indicate that:

1. Exodus will no longer indicate or specifically claim that change from Gay to 100% straight is possible for anyone except for a few rare cases.

2. Exodus has apologized and will continue to do so for making these unrealistic claims, which they now believe have contributed toward misinformation, hurtfulness and homophobia.

3. Exodus will work to achieve a deeper understanding of the truth of homosexuality, which will allow them to minister more effectively and compassionately to those dealing with homosexuality.

Pickup then offers his slant on why change in orientation should be recognized even if a same-sex attracted person is still same-sex attracted after they say they have changed:

Let’s take other challenges common to many people: depression or anxiety for instance. How many people who have successfully dealt with these issues are 100% changed so that they are not susceptible to later feelings of depression or anxiety? Can a therapist guarantee a client will never have those feelings again? Of course not. The same is true for homosexuality. Real change has occurred; however, no apologies should be made if much successful change has occurred even though homosexual feelings occasionally surface.

Alan [Chambers] seems to want to extract himself from this semantic debate by sticking to experience – the vast majority of people he knows retain attractions to the same sex. Pickup wants to explain that away by making sexual attraction analogous to depression or anxiety. Since he sees same-sex attraction as a disorder which stems from childhood wounds, that may work for him, but it won’t work for those who do not see it that way.

One problem here is political. NARTH wants to be able to say SSA people have changed if they experience a reduction in awareness of SSA and perhaps an experience of opposite sex attraction. This is a kind of change and if left in the therapeutic context, . . . . However, NARTH does not stay in the therapeutic context. They provide support for political groups who want change to mean complete change from gay to straight. Change is such a volatile concept because a modicum of change in the therapeutic setting is then exaggerated in the political and legal settings to argue against same-sex attraction as something intrinsic to the vast majority of people who experience it.

I think Chambers is much more on the right track than Pickup. Although Exodus continues to refer to reparative therapists and there are member ministries that are quite reparative in their approach, I think a move toward ministry and honesty about what people can expect is valuable.

This debate IS important because right now as the marriage equality legislation is working its way through the New Jersey legislature, the New Jersey Family Policy Council is busy marketing the ex-gay myth to members of the legislature. As noted before, no one lies more than the "godly Christian" set. They make a very strong case that one's best course is to walk away from Christianity entirely.

More Thursday Male Beauty

2012-01-26T23:15:00.002-05:00

Wings - The Original Broke Back Mountain?

2012-01-26T22:41:00.004-05:00

Among the nominees for the Best Picture Oscar this year is the silent movie, The Artist. A film critic at Towleroad has described this year's Academy Award nominees overall as a Hollywood nostalgia fest. Which ultimately leads him to brings up the subject of the winner of the first best picture Academy Award, the 1927 movie Wings that involves two World War I fliers. I remember seeing the movie a number of years ago and it definitely has its homoerotic moments such as in the clip below which captures what was most likely the first same sex movie kiss:

Pretty passionate if you ask me and filled with angst and a feeling of lost love. The reviewer had this to say:

If you've never seen it, it's totally worth a look and not just for the gorgeous flyboys. Charles "Buddy" Rogers and Richard Arlen play Jack and David, two fighter pilots who are initially at odds. In one early military training scene they're constantly giving each other the eye. Their drill master calls them "powder puff guys" -- I'm not making this up -- and then they proceed to beat the shit out of each other. Jack regularly has David flat on his back but David won't give up. Finally Jack stops and smiles.

"Boy you're game!" he says in a title card and just like that they're besties, tenderly wiping blood from mouths (with boxing gloves still on). It's all macho ridiculous and incredibly hot if you ask me. Their super tight friendship, threatened by sharing the same love ("It" girl Clara Bow), finally leads to one of the most famous embraces in early cinema: