More Saturday Male Beauty

More on the Faux Expert Used in the Florida Adpotion Case

For the better part of eight years I have been trying whenever possible to expose the lies and bogus "research" and "experts" used by the Christianist crowd to support anti-gay legislation. My post on the Florida court decision striking down the Florida gay adoption ban is an example of an old tired retread if you will being trotted out yet again to parrot religious based opinions against gays and gay parenting. That "expert" is George A. Rekers (pictured at left), who while a psychologist, is more importantly a Baptist minister. A gay.com news article from a few years back described Rekers as follows:

*

The University of South Carolina professor doesn't like you. He believes homosexuality is a mental illness that can be cured, and that same-sex couples make inferior parents, and he's devoting his career to proving it. Rekers' obsessive antipathy would be of little consequence if he had not become the religious right's leading "expert" witness in raging legal battles over the legal definition of family.

*

He is a key player in a burgeoning anti-gay legal movement, composed of dozens of well-funded groups seeking to block all legal recognition of same-sex relationships. It also has a related -- and even more diabolical -- aim: rolling back the gains gays and lesbians have made in adoption and foster-parenting rights.

*
Over the years the previous generation of such agitators, led by Paul Cameron, became so discredited that even the most vitriolic anti-gay legal groups began stripping references to their crackpot studies from legal briefs. (Based on a study with a sample size of 11, Cameron once concluded that lesbians are crime-prone.) Barred by three professional groups for biased research and unprofessional conduct, Cameron has all but disappeared from the debate.
*
Rekers' research is no more credible, but he is more adept at passing it off as mainstream. Rather than depict gays and lesbians as perverts, pedophiles and worse -- a Cameron trademark -- he relies on discrediting and twisting an emerging body of research finding that children fare equally well in same- and opposite-sex households.
*

It is crucial that coverage about these bogus experts be disseminated as widely as possible in order to deprive the Christianists of any credible expert witnesses whatsoever. Fortunately in the Florida case, a battery of expert witnesses were willing to testify against the bullshit put out by the State of Florida and its hired "expert" witnesses. As noted in a post on Pam's House Blend, the courts are waking up to the garbage put out by Rekers:

*

In 2005, Pulaski County [Arkansas]Circuit Judge Timothy White ruled that the state did not have justifiable grounds to keep gays from adopting children. The Arkansas court specifically said that “Dr. Rekers’ willingness to prioritize his personal beliefs over his functions as an expert provider of fact rendered his testimony extremely suspect and little, if any, assistance to the court” and "Dr. Rekers' personal agenda caused him to have inconsistent testimony on several issues." That ruling led to a ballot initiative that was passed in November barring unmarried heterosexual and gay couples from adopting children.Rekers would later sue the state of Arkansas for $200,00 for his testimony but settled out of court for $60,000.

*
About Rekers's testimony, the ACLU said, "The fact that the State resorted to hiring Dr. Rekers - and paying him a $60,000 retainer - despite the fact that he had already been severly discredited by another court in a similar case suggests an absence of credible experts who would testify in support of the prohibition against adoption by gay people.

*

"What happened in Florida is nothing new. For years the religious right/anti-gay industry have brought in phony experts to push for anti-gay laws or stop the passage of pro-gay laws. If Lederman’s criticisms of Rekers sound familiar to you, then you obviously have read opinions about Paul Cameron. The two are almost interchangeable in their lies about the gay community.

Gay Marriage and a Moral Minority

A reader,R. J. referred me to a column in today's New York Times that looks at the the issue of the high percentage of black women who voted for Proposition 8 and the thoughts of the author, Charles Blow on why black women voted as they did. While I personally find it far beyond ironic that blacks, and black women in particular, have been perhaps unknowingly duped into supporting the agenda of white evangelicals and Mormons (blacks have been able to hold the priesthood only since the late 1970's) who historically have supported slavery, segregation, Jim Crow laws, and are against affirmative action that assists blacks, the column is interesting and perhaps gives some insight into the dialogue that needs to happen to open some hearts and minds. Here are some highlights:

*

There were far more black women than black men, and a higher percentage of them said that they voted for the measure than the men. How wide was the gap? According to the exit poll, 70 percent of all blacks said that they voted for the proposition. But 75 percent of black women did. There weren’t enough black men in the survey to provide a reliable percentage for them. However, one can mathematically deduce that of the raw number of survey respondents, nearly twice as many black women said that they voted for it than black men.

*

Why? Here are my theories: (1) Blacks are much more likely than whites to attend church, according to a Gallup report, and black women are much more likely to attend church than black men. . . . (2) This high rate of church attendance by blacks informs a very conservative moral view. While blacks vote overwhelmingly Democratic, an analysis of three years of national data from Gallup polls reveals that their views on moral issues are virtually indistinguishable from those of Republicans. . . . (3) Marriage can be a sore subject for black women in general. According to 2007 Census Bureau data, black women are the least likely of all women to be married and the most likely to be divorced. Women who can’t find a man to marry might not be thrilled about the idea of men marrying each other.

*

Proponents of gay marriage would do well to focus on these women if they want to win black votes. A major reason is that black women vote at a higher rate than black men. . . . But gay marriage advocates need to hone their strategy to reach them. First, comparing the struggles of legalizing interracial marriage with those to legalize gay marriage is a bad idea. Many black women do not seem to be big fans of interracial marriage either. . . . Second, don’t debate the Bible. You can’t win. Religious faith is not defined by logic, it defies it. Instead, decouple the legal right from the religious rite, and emphasize the idea of acceptance without endorsement.

*

Then, make it part of a broader discussion about the perils of rigidly applying yesterday’s sexual morality to today’s sexual mores. Show black women that it backfires. The stigma doesn’t erase the behavior, it pushes it into the shadows where, devoid of information and acceptance, it become more risky.

*

[P]itch it as a health issue. The more open blacks are to the idea of homosexuality, the more likely black men would be to discuss their sexual orientations and sexual histories. The more open they are, the less likely black women would be to put themselves at risk unwittingly. And, the more open blacks are to homosexuality over all, the more open they are likely to be to gay marriage. This way, everyone wins.

Saturday Male Beauty

Thanksgiving Reflections

So far the Thanksgiving holiday has been enjoyable with one exception that I will post about once I have better collected all my thoughts and reflections. Thanksgiving day was spent with my boyfriend's family in Newport News and then yesterday almost all of my family - my son and oldest daughter did not attend - gathered in Richmond which is more or less the half way mark between the Tidewater and Charlottesville contingents of my family. My deceased sister's son and daughter were also with us. It was touching and I am glad that the boyfriend and my youngest daughter were with me. Everyone was accepting of the boyfriend. After that we headed to Charlottesville and are staying at my mother's place. Today I am taking the boyfriend to Monticello so that he can experience Thomas Jefferson's amazing home. Later we will likely get together with my sister and her family. The boyfriend continues to be an amazing treasure to me.

Friday Male Beauty

Religious Extremist Attacks in India

In what is yet another example of the horrors that are done in the name of religious belief, it appears - yet is still not yet fully confirmed - that the attacks in Mumbai, India, which have left over 140 dead and many wounded were the work on Islamic extremists. Once again, fundamentalist religious belief is used as an excuse for evil actions shows itself to be a great evil as opposed to a force for good. Religious extremists of all stripes truly sicken me. Would that allegedly pious religious followers held some remote sense of compassion for their fellow humans. I am sure some of my many clients from India are worried about family members in Mumbai. The New York Times has more on these barbaric attacks. Here are some highlights:
*

MUMBAI, India — As the crisis in Mumbai neared its 48th hour, Indian commandos were battling to overcome stubborn resistance by militants on Friday, seeking to end the bloody assault on India’s financial and entertainment capital that has shaken the nation and raised perilous regional tensions with Pakistan.

*

Shortly before night settled over the stricken city, the police said the death toll had reached 143 with the discovery of 24 bodies in the luxury Oberoi hotel, where guests were set free on Friday after being holed up in their rooms as security forces re-asserted control of the building.

*

Indian security forces claimed some success in rescuing hostages from the five-star Oberoi hotel but still appeared to be encountering resistance inside the ornate, turreted Taj Mahal Palace and Tower Hotel. The hotels were two of several of the city’s landmarks hit by the attackers late on Wednesday. . . . In addition to the Jewish center and the hotels, the attackers, armed with grenades and automatic weapons, struck at least four other sites on Mumbai’s southern tip — the main train station, a hospital, a cinema and a historic cafe.

*

While there was still no definitive word on the identity or affiliation of the attackers, an Indian official said one assailant had been captured alive and was a Pakistani citizen. . . . The suspicions raised by the attack seemed a blow to relations between India and Pakistan, which had been recovering from a low earlier this year after India blamed the Pakistani intelligence agency for abetting the bombing of the Indian Embassy in Afghanistan. India has frequently accused Pakistan-based militant groups of fueling terrorist attacks on Indian soil, though lately it has also acknowledged the presence of homegrown Muslim and Hindu militant organizations.

Rejecting the "Privately Held Religious Beliefs" Excuse

We continue to hear the whining of the cry babies who gave money to support the passage of Proposition 8 and who now do not like the fact that their actions are bringing them adverse consequences. Their whining is based on the disingenuous excuse that they were only acting on their "privately held religious beliefs" which they claim gives them a free pass apparently to engage in any and all kinds of bigotry and discrimination. I guess using that pathetic excuse, one can hate blacks, Jews, and anyone else one desires, work for discriminatory laws and it's supposed to be just fine. The excuse is, of course, bullshit and fortunately the bigots are getting called on it. Dan Savage has a good column that dismantles this disingenuousness. Here are some highlights:

*

When you donate $1500 to a political campaign to strip other people—people who are not your co-religionists—of their civil rights. Richard Raddon is, or was, the director of the Los Angeles Film Festival. . . . Raddon released a statement that said, in part, "I have always held the belief that all people, no matter race, religion or sexual orientation, are entitled to equal rights." Except for when they're not—and Raddon also believes that the religious should wield a veto over other peoples' civil rights. He goes on to whine about being a "devout and faithful Mormon," and about how his contribution to "Yes on 8" was a "private matter."

*

Uh... no. A donation to a political campaign is a public matter; and civil marriage rights for same-sex couples did not infringe upon the religious freedom of Mormons, devout or otherwise. . . . Raddon lost his job due to criticism of his public political actions, not his private religious beliefs, and his public political actions were a part of the public record. If Raddon wanted to go to church and pray his little heart out against same-sex marriage, or proselytize on street corners against gay marriage, or counsel gay men to leave their husbands and marry nice Mormon girls instead, that could be viewed as an expression of his "privately held religious beliefs."

*

In the wake of Prop 8 millions of gays and lesbians all over the country have decided that we're no longer going to play by the old rules. We're not going to let people kick our teeth down our throats and then run and hide behind "Nothing personal—just my private religious beliefs!" That game's over.

*

The bottom line is that a bigot is a bigot no matter what the excuse is that they attempt to use for their bigotry. They need to be called out and have their discriminatory actions have consequences. End of story.

More Wednesday Male Beauty

National Day of Protest and Responding to Hate Mongering

A good friend of mine who has worked with me on many activism projects helped organize the Norfolk, Virginia, protest on November 15, 2008. In addition, she sent a letter to the editor to both the Virginian Pilot - which gave the protest no coverage whatsoever - and to the Daily Press, which publishes to the Hampton, Newport News and Williamsburg markets on the north side of Hampton Roads. While the Pilot all too typically did not print the letter, the Daily Press published it on November 17th with no editing whatsoever. I fully agree with her views (particularly the need for main-line denominations to grow some backbone and challenge the haters) and wanted to share her words with readers. Here is her letter:

*
On Saturday, November 15th, lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgendered and their allies rallied across America, all at 1:30 ET, to protest California’s Proposition 8, and other anti-gay measures, passed on Election Day. Even though the local media, save WTKR Channel 3, chose not to cover the story, in Norfolk, we had a peaceful, yet vocal crowd of about 200 protestors. There was also a small group of Christian protestors on hand, yelling that gays are going to hell, and the like. This continued hate mongering is very disturbing to me.

*
I encourage all main-line Christians to talk about love, acceptance, and equal rights for all- just as Jesus did. Please stand up in your churches, your neighborhoods and at work and tell everyone you know if you do not share the same views as the Religious Right. That small minority is giving Christians a bad name and is turning many away from knowing the love of Jesus Christ because of their hate-mongering. This group uses false teachings as a way to raise money. Gays are just their current scapegoat of choice, a mantle that has been shared with blacks, immigrants, unwed mothers, and many others over the years.

*
Many Christians are disturbed that their congregations are shrinking and people are falling away from the Faith. I suggest that it is due to this ugly, fundamental minority of Christians. Because they are so vocal and organized, they appear to speak for all Christians, which we know is not the case. Until straight Christians across the country actively speak out and stand up for the true teachings of Christ, this abhorrent campaign of hate and bigotry will continue, alienating anyone who feels different.

*
I am Christian, and I am a lesbian, and I know my God created me and loves me exactly as I am. I am, however, one of the lucky ones. I encourage you all to reach out and open your hearts (and give your voices) to our lesbian, gay, bi-sexual and transgender brothers and sisters. There are many out there who are hurting. With our civil rights being stripped away, little by little, state by state, the feelings of disenfranchisement and alienation are growing, even for someone as strong in the Faith as me. Please take a stand. Don't let hate rule America, ESPECIALLY in the name of Christ.

Sean Penn on Harvey Milk, His Death, and Proposition 8

Sean Penn is never one to mince his words. I do not always agree with his views, but his analysis of how things might have been different had Harvey Milk lived and the consequences of Proposition 8 are on target. I particularly agree with his manslaughter conviction comment since I cannot help but believe that somewhere in the USA one or more gays have taken their own lives in despair over the passage of Proposition 8 and the other anti-gay initiatives. Sadly, many of the "Christians" and Mormons who voted for these initiatives probably do not care one wit for the lives they destroy. Here are some highlights of Penn's comments:

*

The actor, never known for being shy with his opinions, spoke sharply even through a cold during a New York press conference last week, saying that Harvey Milk’s premature death likely caused the death of millions more.

*

“I think less people would have died of AIDS [if Harvey Milk had not been assassinated],” Penn said. “ I think Ronald Reagan would have been forced to address it. [Milk] was a leader, and he happened to be focused on the gay movement. He would have advanced that argument a lot sooner. I think people are dead because he died too soon.”

*

Penn also had some strong words for California voters who supported the recent Proposition 8. “If we could have no excuse for being ignorant in human history, then the punishment for support of Proposition 8 would be minimally manslaughter. There will be teenage boys who will hang themselves [because of this].”

Wednesday Male Beauty

Americans' Food Stamp Use Nears All-Time High

The fallout from the eight years of misrule and hostility towards regular Americans of the Chimperator and the Congress which the GOP controlled for over 6 years continues to unfold with terrible consequences for working Americans. Would that we could sweep the Chimperator from office immediately in order that efforts to save the economy could begin in earnest. One measure of the damage done - in addition to the financial market meltdown - is the rise in the number of citizens now on food stamps in order to survive. Does any of this distress the Chimperator? It seems not. On many fronts, the Chimperator deserves to be impeached, not to mention tried for war crimes. A new Washington Post story looks at the food stamp disaster. Here are some highlights:

*

Fueled by rising unemployment and food prices, the number of Americans on food stamps is poised to exceed 30 million for the first time this month, surpassing the historic high set in 2005 after Hurricane Katrina. The figures will put the spotlight on hunger when Congress begins deliberations on a new economic stimulus package, said legislators and anti-hunger advocates, predicting that any stimulus bill will include a boost in food stamp benefits.

*

"We soon will have the most food stamps recipients in the history of our country," said Jim Weill, president of the Food Research and Action Center, a D.C.-based anti-hunger policy organization. "If the economic forecasts come true, we're likely to see the most hunger that we've seen since the 1981 recession and maybe since the 1960s, when these programs were established."

*

Analysts attribute the jump primarily to rising unemployment, which hit 6.5 percent in October and is predicted to increase to 8 percent by the end of 2009, but rising food costs are also a factor. Although prices have fallen from the levels of this past spring, they remain high. In October, the consumer price index for food and beverages had jumped 6.1 percent over last year. Staples such as eggs and bread rose even faster.

*

Economists say an increase in food stamp benefits would help the economy overall by concentrating relief on those most likely to spend the money quickly, pumping dollars into an economy desperate for demand. According to Mark Zandi, chief economist of the rating agency Moody's Economy.com, every $1 spent on food stamp benefits generates $1.73 of economic activity, more than extending unemployment benefits or offering state fiscal relief.

Why Churches Fear Gay Marriage

There is an interesting interview at Salon.com with author Richard Rodriguez, who is Mexican-American, gay and a practicing Catholic, in which Rodriguez discusses what he believes is the real issues behind Proposition 8 and why gay marriage terrifies some religious denominations. The answer? It's all about control, power and money. One might argue its part of the last gasp of male dominated religious groups that are trying to push back time and reassert a patriarchal system where women, minorities and gays all know their place and stay quiet and subservient. It's a lengthy piece, but is well worth the read. As a former Catholic, what he says about the anti-woman mindset in the Roman Catholic Church rings especially true. The hierarchy's message to women is: shut up, do as we say and don't you dare ask questions. The same message is there for gays. Naturally, Rodriguez's views do not cast a favorable light on the would be male chauvanist oppressors who falsely claim to be following God's plan. Here are some highlights*

*

While conservative churches are busy trying to whip up another round of culture wars over same-sex marriage, Rodriguez says the real reason for their panic lies elsewhere: the breakdown of the traditional heterosexual family and the shifting role of women in society and the church itself. As the American family fractures and the majority of women choose to live without men, churches are losing their grip on power and scapegoating gays and lesbians for their failures.

*

I also knew that large numbers of Californians in religious communities were voting against gay marriage and that Latinos and blacks were continuing to take part in this terribly tragedy. We persecute each other. The very communities that get discriminated against discriminate against other Americans.

*

The possibility that a whole new generation of American males is being raised by women without men is very challenging for the churches. I think they want to reassert some sort of male authority over the order of things. I think the pro-Proposition 8 movement was really galvanized by an insecurity that churches are feeling now with the rise of women. Monotheistic religions feel threatened by the rise of feminism and the insistence, in many communities, that women take a bigger role in the church.

*

If the Hispanic Catholic and evangelical churches really wanted to protect the family, they should address the issue of wife beating in Hispanic families and the misbehaviors of the father against the mother. But no, they go after gay marriage. It doesn't take any brilliance to notice that this is hypocrisy of such magnitude that you blame the gay couple living next door for the fact that you've just beaten your wife.

*

[C]hurches are going after homosexuals as a way of insisting on their own propriety. They are insisting that they have a role to play in the general society as moral guardians, when what we have seen in the recent past is just the opposite. . . . .To my knowledge, the churches have not accepted responsibility for the Bush catastrophe. Having claimed, in some cases, that Bush was divinely inspired and his election was the will of God, they have failed to explain why the last eight years have been so catastrophic for America.

*

The desert religions -- Judaism, Christianity and Islam -- are male religions. Their perception is that God is a male god and Allah is a male god. If the male is allowed to hold onto the power of God, then I think we are in terrible shape. I think what's coming out of Colorado Springs right now, with people like Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, is either the last or continuing gasp of a male hierarchy in religion. That's what's at stake.

Florida Ban on Gay Adoptions Unconstitutional

As a number of media outlets are reporting, including the Miami Herald, in a well written opinion and with plenty of expert testimony to support the decision, a Miami-Dade circuit judge Tuesday declared Florida's 30-year-old ban on gay adoption unconstitutional, allowing a North Miami man to adopt two foster kids he has raised since 2004. In opposing the suit by the foster parents, the State of Florida incredibly relied on the "expert" testimony of two psychologists who were less than objective. One, Dr. George Rekers, is an ordained Baptist minister, was paid an advance retainer of $60,900 by the state, and has authored anti-gay article. The other, Dr. Walter Schumm, likewise could not separate his religious fanaticism from legitimate research and had written an article in which it was stated in part that: we prefer to accept the authority of the Bible as the best guide for sexual decision making, . . . Not surprisingly, the judge based her ruling on the testimony of the numerous other non-Christianist experts. Here are some highlights from the Miami Herald story:

*

In a 53-page order that sets the stage for what could become a constitutional showdown, Circuit Judge Cindy Lederman permitted 47-year-old Frank Gill to adopt the 4- and 8-year-old boys he and his partner have raised since just before Christmas four years ago. A child abuse investigator had asked Gill to care for the boys temporarily; they were never able to return to their birth parents.

*

Moments after Lederman released the ruling, attorneys for Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum announced they would appeal the decision to the Third District Court of Appeal in Miami.

*

In her ruling, Lederman said children taken into state care have a ''fundamental'' right to be raised in a permanent adoptive home if they cannot be reunited with birth parents. Children whose foster parents are gay, she said, can be deprived of that right under the current law. ''The challenged statute, in precluding otherwise qualified homosexuals from adopting available children, does not promote the interests of children and, in effect, causes harm to the children it is meant to protect,'' Lederman wrote.

*

In a ruling that, at times, reads more like a social science research paper, Lederman dissected 30 years worth of psychological and sociological research, concluding that studies overwhelmingly have shown that gay people can parent every bit as effectively as straight people and do no harm to their children.

*
''Based on the evidence presented from experts from all over this country and abroad,'' Lederman wrote, ``it is clear that sexual orientation is not a predictor of a person's ability to parent. Sexual orientation no more leads to psychiatric disorders, alcohol and substance abuse, relationship instability, a lower life expectancy or sexual disorders than race, gender, socioeconomic class or any other demographic characteristic.

Final Tuesday Male Beauty

Does Father Absence Cause Homosexuality?

Warren Throckmorton and I have sparred verbally via e-mail for some years now. He was especially peevish when I worked with Wayne Besen to expose ex-gay poster boy, Michael Johnston, as a fraud. For a while, Throckmorton appeared to be maneuvering to become the new high priest - or perhaps priestess given his inordinate hysteria over homosexuality - of the reparative therapy crowd. But then he began backing off, perhaps concerned that the American Psychological Association might throw him out for pushing what legitimate mental health professionals increasingly deem to be an unethical type of therapy.

*

Given his past activities, it is most interesting to see Throckmorton writing about a study that appears to largely debunk the favored story line of the wingnuts - e.g., James Dobson, Robert Knight, Tony Perkins, and the tired handful of "ex-gays for pay" employed by Christianist organizations - that an absent father is one of the causes of male homosexuality and that "reparative therapy" can cure same-sex attraction/sexual orientation. Here are some highlights from Throckmorton's column on the Christian news service, Crosswalk.com:

*

A new study by Andrew Francis of Emory University in the Journal of Sex Research casts doubt on both the fraternal birth-order effect and reparative drive theory of male homosexuality.

*

This study undermines reparative drive theory due to the unremarkable performance of the parental variables to predict orientation. One would expect to find great differences between male heterosexual participants and same-sex attracted participants if fathering/mothering were crucial to male sexual orientation as Joe Nicolosi teaches. In fact in this YouTube video, Nicolosi says that the main factor in the development of male homosexuality is a distant or hostile father, no matter what else is true in the life of the child.

*

The Francis article finds very little predictive power in family dynamics of any kind. There is no predictive power at all for those whose parents are separated. Living with dad should insulate against a homosexual outcome and living with mom alone should enhance the likelihood of same-sex attraction and/or behavior. In this sample, it does not.

*

[T]his study demonstrates that there is no ability to predict adult same-sex behavior or attraction by knowing that a boy is/was in a fatherless home. Recall that the sample size is large and representative U.S. young adults. While there is a lot we do not know about the fatherless state of those taking this survey, if fatherlessness was massively related to same-sex attraction, one would expect at least a modest relationship to show up in this sample.

Mormons and Proposition 8: PR Disaster and Election Fraud?

I must say that I am somewhat enjoying seeing the Mormon Church and its sheep like followers reeling from the backlash from the Mormon role in passage of Propostion 8. On the legal front, both the Salt Lke Tribune and 365gay.com are reporting that the State of California is going to move forward with an investigation of possible election fraud by the Mormon Church. Not only would a finding of fraud cost the Mormon Church money in terms of fines, but it would lay a great groundwork for further backlash against Mormons in general. I cannot think of a more deserving bunch to suffer the consequences of their hate based actions. Didn't the Church leadership ever stop to think that actions have consequences and not always the ones expected? Here are some highlights from the Salt Lake Tribune:

*

(San Francisco, California) California officials have begun an investigation into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints to see if it broke the law during the campaign for a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. The California Fair Political Practices Commission said it wants to determine if the Church accurately described its role in the battle over Proposition 8.

*

The Church put an estimated $25 million into the battle to end gay marriage in California. If the Commission finds the Church broke state election laws, it could be fined up to $5,000 per violation. The Commission also could file an additional civil lawsuit. Porter said, seeking remedies up to three times the amount that was misrepresented or misreported.

*

In terms of other bad PR being reaped by Mormons, the Salt Lake Tribune also has a story that looks at the negative experience that Mormons across the country are enduring. One would think that the allegedly infallible Church leaders might have foreseen some of this. Personally, I hope that backlash only gets worse. Here are some highlights.

*

Although they live a continent away from California, LDS Church members Gregory and JaLynn Prince, of Washington, D.C., still have felt the backlash from their church's involvement in the traditional marriage initiative known as Proposition 8. Their daughter, Lauren, a Boston University student, has lost friends over the issue, while their son, an LDS missionary in San Bernardino, Calif., has had a disproportionate number of potential converts cancel appointments.
*

About two weeks ago, during a first-ever class on Mormonism at Wesley Theological Seminary, where the Princes have built bridges for years, students pointedly asked them: "What was your church thinking?" "We are not taking sides on the issue, but the way this was done has hurt our people and the church's image," JaLynn Prince said. "It reminds me of the naive public relations strategy we had regarding the Equal Rights Amendment." In some minds, the so-called "Mormon moment" heralded at the start of 2008 has stopped short. Now, angry opponents of Proposition 8 are demonstrating at Mormon temples, accusing the church of being anti-gay.

*

The Mormon push for Proposition 8 reinforces what people already think of Mormons, he [Mark Silk, professor of religion in public life at Trinity College] said, "that they have a lot of money and are willing to work for a socially conservative cause." That image may hurt the LDS Church with a wide swath of the American public. Mark Silk, professor of religion in public life at Trinity College in Hartford, Conn., thinks the visceral opposition to Proposition 8 is much more consequential for the LDS Church than either the Romney campaign or the perceived association with polygamy.

*

It is not clear, however, whether the LDS Church will soon jump into another political fray. "Politics is a tough game, especially at this visceral level where one side is talking about religion and the other about rights, " said Gordon, the Penn scholar. "I would be surprised to see them do this again. They really need to heal some wounds."

More Tuesday Male Beauty

Remembering That Not All Christians Are Anti-Gay

While it is difficult at times to remember given all the hate directed at LGBT citizens by allegedly Christian churches, we do have our allies among some Christian churches. Mission Gathering Christian Church of San Diego put up this billboard, which reads:

*

MissionGathering Christian Church is sorry for the narrow-minded, judgmental, deceptive, manipulative actions of those who took away the rights & equality of so many in the name of God.

NYT: Strike Down Proposition 8

I recently stated that if the California Supreme Court upholds Proposition 8 it will further enshrine a very dangerous precedent for the elimination of minority rights by a bare majority of voters. Two articles have made me think even more about the dangers posed as well as a possible counter offensive against the Christianists and Mormons. The first is a an editorial in the New York Times that supports the striking down of Proposition 8 based on the use of the wrong process to amend the California Constitution. The second is a column in the New Republic that rightly argues that RELIGION is not immutable and, therefore, applying the Christianists own anti-gay arguments, religion should not be a protected classification. First, here are highlights from the NYT:

*

The approval of Proposition 8 in California, a constitutional change designed to prohibit marriage between couples of the same sex, was not just a defeat for fairness. It raised serious legal questions about the validity of using the Election Day initiative process to obliterate an existing right for a targeted minority.

*

These deeper questions were largely lost during the expensive campaign by proponents of Proposition 8. Essentially, in their rush to enshrine bigotry in the State Constitution, they circumvented the procedure specified in that same document for making such a serious change. Now, the state’s top court, which has agreed to hear the legal challenge to Proposition 8, has the unpleasant duty of tossing out a voter-approved ballot measure.

*

The court has correctly determined that the equal protection clause prohibits governmental discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, which extends the right of marriage to same-sex couples. But the issue goes well beyond gay rights. Allowing Proposition 8 to stand would greatly limit the court’s ability to uphold the basic rights of all Californians and preclude the Legislature from performing its constitutional duty to weigh such monumental changes before they go to voters.

*

The justices’ job is to protect minority rights and the State Constitution — even when, for the moment at least, it may not be the popular thing to do.

*

In their various briefs opposing the striking down of the sodomy laws in Lawrence v. Texas and many other cases concerning gay rights, the Christianists ALWAYS argue that sexual orientation is a choice - hence why the fraudulent "ex-gay" programs are so important to Focus on the Family and similar dishonest organizations - and not immutable and, therefore, not worthy of being a protected class under the equal protection provisions of the state and U. S. constitutions. In his column, Richard Just in the New Republic correctly argues in part as follows:
*

[Y]ou raise what I think is really the core of our disagreement: whether gays and lesbians are entitled to constitutional protections similar to those for racial minorities and women--and whether laws that discriminate against them should therefore be subject to heightened scrutiny by courts. This was the main legal basis for the Connecticut and California decisions. You are correct that the immutability of a trait is not sufficient for showing that a group deserves heightened protection. But neither court treated it that way. In fact, both courts downplayed this factor in their decisions, focusing instead on other criteria for determining whether a group is entitled to heightened protection: Has there been historical discrimination against the group? Does sexual orientation affect a person's ability to contribute to society? And (in the case of Connecticut's court, though not California's) does the group lack political power? The answers to the first two questions are obvious, and, as for the third, . . . If gays were indeed politically powerful, we wouldn't be having this conversation. . .

*

As for immutability: Neither court found that homosexuality was immutable, even though most people who study the subject believe that it is. Instead the justices reasoned that--to quote the California court--"[b]ecause a person's sexual orientation is so integral an aspect of one's identity, it is not appropriate to require a person to repudiate or change his or her sexual orientation in order to avoid discriminatory treatment." In other words, the justices treated it much like religion--which, as you note, is considered a suspect classification, and therefore invites heightened scrutiny from courts.

*

Since the Christianists want only immutable traits to justify special protections, let's pass amendments to state constitutions removing protections for say the Mormons. Or maybe evangelical denominations. After all, these folks can easily change their denominations - far more easily that us gays can change our orientations. Thus, under THEIR own arguments, they are not entitled to constitutional protections. True, the passage of such amendments would likely never happen, but nonetheless the argument needs to be increasing thrown back in the faces of the homophobic religious denominations. We seriously need to put the bigots on the defensive so that they cannot be aiming sustained attacks on us.

Tuesday Male Beauty

Standing Up to Intolerance

John Aravosis has a post on America Blog that struck me. It contains the words of a speech given by David Lee, who was the co-producer of the television show CHEERS and co-creator of WINGS and FRASIER. The speech looks at what is wrong with this country in terms of how so many people turn a blind eye to hate, bigotry and intolerance until they themselves are the victims. The truth is that when we abide the mistreatment of others, we lessen ourselves and imperil the entire democratic experience. Yesterday's post on the terrible precedent set by Proposition 8 is a case in point about the slippery slope to fascism and cruel majority rule. Here are some highlights that struck me in particular:

*

I now find myself in a similar position around another subject: the anti-gay bigotry of some of our major religious institutions. I keep looking around for someone, anyone to say something, anything in response to the incessant bile about of gay and lesbian people that is spewed forth daily by the some of the world’s so called spiritual leaders. I keep looking around for someone to finally say “Enough. This has got to stop!” And what I see when I turn around is a bunch of folks who have taken a step to the rear. Sadly and shockingly our major gay political groups are the most conspicuous in their silence.

*

First, let me make it absolutely clear that this is not an attack on religion. I am on a spiritual path myself. I’m sure many of you are too. What I am attacking is homophobic bigotry that justifies itself in religious belief. And the free pass that we in the gay community have given much of this stuff over and over again. Folks, the time for polite silence is finished. We have got to start defending ourselves when attacked. And we are under a massive attack.

*

The Mormon Church is the fastest growing cult in the world. Every year they send out 30 to 40 thousand new missionaries. They are not trying to convince people that gays and lesbians are cool. As late as the last decade this group was attaching electrodes to gay men's testicles trying to shock them back into the hetero fold. There is a task to be tended to here, yet the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force has said nothing.

*

As an American I understand that Islam is not the enemy. But what about as a gay man? Have we have forgotten that there is no sect of Islam worth noting that even tolerates homosexuality, and in countries where Islam predominates punishment can be anything from imprisonment, to torture, to disfigurement to death. Islam may not be the enemy of my country, but I'd be hard pressed to find a bigger enemy of gay people. Human rights transgressions are being carried out daily its name, but what do we hear from the Human Rights Campaign?

*

The number of Catholics in this country is increasing by leaps and bounds, mostly by immigration. The leader of this sect now sends "instructions" (his word) to Catholic politicians on gay issues. He has told them that it is their “moral duty” (his words again) to oppose any gay rights reforms. This is absolutely outrageous. The sovereign head of another country giving instructions to our government officials. Yet have you heard one word from our national organizations? Has anyone quizzed these Catholic congressmen, senators, judges and justices about whether they intend to follow these orders from the Vatican?

*

Here’s what I think. We as a group have become tolerant of intolerance. Whenever anyone justifies their bigotry with what I call DHRB (deeply held religious beliefs) we roll over as if that were the end of the discussion. We have confused respecting a persons right to hold whatever religious beliefs they chose with respecting those beliefs. The truth is there are plenty of DHRB that are simply not worthy of our respect. Can we start with the ones that have no respect for us? Can you imagine an African American respecting someone’s DHRB that the Bible justifies slavery? The right to believe it, yes. The belief itself? No way.

*

We are terrified to call a bigot a bigot if the bigotry is a result of DHRB. We are horrified that we might be accused of attacking someone’s religion. As if attacking bigotry hiding behind the skirts of religion and attacking religion were the same thing. The church homophobes have it easy on this one. They say the most vile, cruel, untruthful things about us, usually to raise funds, and then use their tax exempt dollars to promote anti-gay legislation.

*

We have got to start talking about religion. All of it. The good guys—and there are many--and the bad guys. It must be a compassionate discussion but we must not in our compassion shy away from the truth.

*

I for one will continue to speak out about religious based bigotry and continue to tell the truth about our enemies until they stop telling lies about us in the LGBT community.

Thoughts on a Relationship

It has been over three months since I began dating the boyfriend exclusively and in that time he has amazed me continually with his sweetness and inherent goodness. I see it not only in how he treats me, but also in his kindness to others and the near adoration he receives from his many friends, many of whom have known him for decades. Is he a keeper? Most definitely! And together with my children, he's the best thing in my life.

*

Why do I love him so? It's not just that he's cute, smart, witty, and personable (and for some reason crazy about me). Rather, I love him the most because he has a beautiful soul - and that is what lasts over time. I don't mean to embarrass him with the post. I just want the world to know how wonderful he is. I am looking forward to spending the Thanksgiving holiday with him. First with his family locally and then in Charlottesville with members of my family. Our detractors try to diminish our love and define us negatively, but to me, my love for the boyfriend is incredibly beautiful and I cherish him.

More Monday Male Beauty

Virginian-Pilot Cuts 125 Jobs

The Virginian Pilot, the larger of the two newspapers in this area is cutting 125 jobs, citing declining advertising sales as the cause. While the advertising sales are down due to the economy, in my personal view, the bigger cause is the generally poor quality of the news coverage in the Virginian Pilot. Often stories of national note appear days later - if they are covered at all - than in larger newspapers after those stories have been available for 1 or 2 or 3 days online. In addition to late coverage, the Pilot has shown time and time again that the concept of investigative reporting is a virtually unknown concept. Serious readers want more than just a regurgitation of what often disingenuous people are saying when the available facts show them to be lying.

*

Along this line, many of the Pilot reporters I have dealt with over the years are young, lazy, and I'm sorry to say not overly bright. As I recently told one reader who is a journalism professor in another state, you can research and write a story and give it to the Pilot reporters and the story will still come out screwed up. The only thing the Pilot has going for it is that the Daily Press on the Peninsula is even worse. Newspapers and the larger media have a serious role to play in keeping politicians and others honest through probing investigations and hard hitting reporting. Unfortunately, the Pilot forfeited this role years ago. Here are highlights from how the Virginian Pilot describes the cuts:

*

Plagued by advertising declines, The Virginian-Pilot is cutting at least 125 positions - or 10 percent of a 1,260-person work force - mostly through layoffs and shutting affiliated publications, publisher Maurice Jones said Friday.

*

The size of the newspaper will be reduced, and the weekday and Saturday business sections eliminated, in January, Finley said. Local business stories will appear in the front and Hampton Roads sections, he said, and the front section will include a "market page" Tuesday through Saturday. Stock listings will appear on The Pilot's Web site, Jones said.

*

The Pilot, Jones said, will remain "the most thorough source of news, information and advertising in the marketplace." The newspaper's owner, Landmark Media Enterprises LLC, continues to negotiate a sale of the newspaper. A buyer is trying to get financing, Jones said. The potential sale, he said, did not influence the cost-saving measures. The Pilot also is expanding ways to generate revenue, Jones said. In October, it began printing front-page advertisements.
"The paper will be a little smaller," Finley said. "I think readers will notice. We will keep the quality of the journalism as high as possible. There will just be less of it in the daily Pilot."

*

Already struggling with Internet competition, newspapers nationwide have suffered further declines in advertising and circulation with the shriveling economy this year. Many have been cutting costs and laying off workers.

*

A recent report showed that The Pilot's average circulation for the six months that ended on Sept. 30 declined slightly less than the national average. The weekday average fell to 174,573, down 3.4 percent from the previous year, the Audit Bureau of Circulations reported. The Sunday average fell 4.3 percent, to 200,457. The declines nationally were 4.6 percent on weekdays and 4.8 percent on Sundays.

White Extremists Lash Out

It is sad state of affairs but not a surprise that racist white extremists are lashing out and claiming increased interest in their organizations in the wake of Barack Obama's election as the first black president (albeit it he's only half black at that). However, no one seems to be adequately connecting the dots to the larger agenda of these people. Not only are they anti-black, but also anti-immigrant, anti-gay, and anti-Jewish. Moreover, I suspect that many of these extremists in California in addition to voting for the McCain/Palin ticket probably also voted for Proposition 8.

*

In my personal opinion, the racists and homophobes are not all that different: (1) both groups need to feel superior to others in order to feel good about themselves and (2) they are equally hateful towards those who are different whether the difference is racial, national origin, or sexual orientation. Hopefully, more parallels will be drawn between the similar mindset that exists among racists and homophobes. Just as racists are condemn by the larger public, so too should homophobes. The religious belief excuse doesn't cut it. Here are some highlights from a Los Angeles Times story that looks at the doings of white extremists:

*

Reporting from Bogalusa, La. -- Barely three weeks since America elected its first black president, noose hangings, racist graffiti and death threats have struck dozens of towns across the country. More than 200 such incidents -- including cross burnings, assassination betting pools and effigies of President-elect Barack Obama -- have been reported, according to law enforcement authorities and the Southern Poverty Law Center, which monitors hate groups.

*

Racist websites have been boasting that their servers have been crashing because of an exponential increase in traffic. And America's most potent symbol of racial hatred, the Ku Klux Klan, is reasserting itself in a spate of recent violence, after decades of disorganization and obscurity.

*

"We've seen everything from cross burnings on lawns of interracial couples to effigies of Obama hanging from nooses to unpleasant exchanges in schoolyards," said Mark Potok, director of the Intelligence Project at the Southern Poverty Law Center, based in Montgomery, Ala. "I think we're in a worrying situation right now, a perfect storm of conditions coming together that could easily favor the continued growth of these groups.

*

"Experts attribute the racist activity to factors including the rapidly worsening economic crisis; trends indicating that within a generation whites will not comprise a U.S. majority; and the impending arrival of a black family in the White House.

Monday Male Beauty

Minorities Fear Loss of Rights at Majority Whim

For some time now I have been saying that the anti-gay constitutional amendments - including Proposition 8 which needed only a simple majority vote - are setting a very dangerous precedent which could come back to harm other minorities - immigrants and religious minorities being others particularly at risk from Christianist orchestrated initiatives. This is particularly true since the Christianist believe that only themselves have rights and that anyone else is subordinate to the Christianists' beliefs. Apparently, some folks are beginning to wake up as reflected in this Reuters story. Too bad more of them did not think of this danger before November 4th. Here are some highlights:

*

California's gay marriage ban could open the door to legal discrimination against unpopular groups if the state Supreme Court allows the voter-approved measure to stand, blacks, Latinos, Asians and other minorities said.

*
The November 4 vote, supporting an end to legal same-sex marriage in the most populous U.S. state, has caused a nationwide furor as opponents of the measure decry what they consider a civil rights violation. California's highest court agreed on November 19 to hear a challenge, based on whether the state constitution requires support from the legislature -- as well as a majority vote of the people -- to strip rights from any group.

*

Legal scholars say the measure, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman, breaks new ground by limiting the courts' ability to protect minorities. "They could take away any right from any group," said University of Southern California Law Professor David Cruz, who filed a brief in favor of gay marriage in an earlier case.

*

"The entire purpose behind the constitutional principle of equal protection would be subverted if the constitutional protection of unpopular minorities were subject to simple majority rule," read a brief by black, Asian and Hispanic groups challenging the ban. "This case is not simply about gay and lesbian equality." . . . . Other groups -- from prisoners to undocumented workers -- might not have public opinion on their side.

Mormon Hypocrisy

The sign pretty much sums it up. Personally, I hope the Mormons find themselves increasingly held in low esteem and that people are reminded of their true past.

Sunday Male Beauty

Why the Excuse of "Religious Belief" Does Not Justify Discrimination

There seems to still be a chorus of anti-gays who are using their "deeply held" religious beliefs as an excuse for their homophobia and desire to keep LGBT Americans less than full citizens. Personally, I belief the "religious belief" excuse is - pardon my French - bull shit and, if allowed, opens the door for all kinds of discrimination under the civil laws. The same goes for the unfettered "majority rule" now being used against gays as well.

*

First, one's alleged religious beliefs do NOT entitle you to take away someone else's CIVIL legal rights as a citizen. Otherwise - to use the term the anti-gay bigots like to use - we are headed down a "slippery slope" where all kinds of hateful discrimination arguably become just fine. Have people already forgotten that religious belief has been used to justify slavery, support segregation and justify laws against interracial marriage? Using the lame "religious belief" argument, then Muslim extremists should be free to murder Jews and Christians freely. Can't you just hear the Christianists wailing if this argument was put forth?

*

It seems only when gays are the target do excuses that would never otherwise fly are accepted and given a pass. What would be unthinkable if "Jew" or "black" was substituted for "gay" somehow are treated as somehow being just fine. Of course, it's NOT fine. - provided one has the courage and backbone to say so. Sadly, these simple realities are beyond the grasp of some in Hollywood who are wringing their hands over whether or not to condemn bigotry and boycott bigots. Here are some highlights from the Los Angeles Times:

*

Should there be boycotts, blacklists, firings or de facto shunning of those who supported Proposition 8? That's the issue consuming many in liberal Hollywood who fought to defeat the initiative banning same-sex marriage and are now reeling with recrimination and dismay. Meanwhile, activists continue to comb donor lists and employ the Internet to expose those who donated money to support the ban.

*

[T]argets include Film Independent, the nonprofit arts organization that puts on both the Los Angeles Film Festival and the Spirit Awards; the Cinemark theater chain; and the Sundance Film Festival.

*

For many in Hollywood, the Proposition 8 backlash represents a troubling clash of free speech, religious beliefs and the right to fight intolerance. Many supporters of same-sex marriage view the state constitutional amendment as codified bigotry, a rollback of civil liberties for gays and lesbians.

*

'Do we take discrimination against gays as seriously as bigotry against African Americans and Jews?' . . . the answer is, 'Of course we do.' But we also believe that some people, including Rich, saw Prop. 8 not as a civil rights issue but a religious one. That is their right. And it is not, in and of itself, proof of bigotry."

*

[T]here remains a distinct contingent of same-sex marriage supporters who are adamant about retribution. One is Chad Griffin, a political advisor to Hollywood executives who says, "A dollar to the yes campaign is a dollar in support of bigotry, homophobia and discrimination. There are going to be consequences. Any individual who has held homophobic views and who has gone public by writing a check, you can expect to be publicly judged. Many can expect to pay a price for a long time to come."

*

In part, Hollywood's distress is a reflection of its guilty conscience about Proposition 8's passage. Many feel that they were asleep at the wheel, preoccupied with Barack Obama's candidacy and winning larger congressional majorities for the Democrats. "Many straight people really don't understand it's a civil rights issue," says Vachon. "We didn't do our job well enough. We need to do it better."