More Saturday Male Beauty

The Shit Continues to Hit the Fan in Ireland Over Catholic Sex Abuse Scandal

It is interesting to watch the firestorm unfolding in Ireland after the release of the latest government report on the massive sexual abuse cover up that went on in the Diocese of Dublin. Some of the formerly lesser auxillary bishops involved in the cover up hold higher office now and at least one or two high clerics are calling for accountability on the part of bishops - something that to this day has not occurred in the USA. The two calling for accountability are the current Archbishop of Dublin, Diarmuid Martin, and to a lesser extent the Archbishop of Armagh, Cardinal Séan Brady. They - unlike so many in the Church hierarchy seem to understand that either the Church embraces accountability and reform or its days of influence and power in Ireland certainly once a bastion of Catholicism - may be gone forever. First, some comments from an Irish Catholic to a fellow blogger:
*
The RC archbishop of Dublin has said this week that he doesn't want to go in to a meeting with fellow bishops this week until they have answered for their behaviour in dealing with priests who were accused of abusing children. There are calls that at least one bishop should resign ... the Bishop of Limerick for "inexcusable behaviour" in not following up on claims of abuse in a thorough manner. The church in Ireland really has reached a turning point where the old ways will not be tolerated any more but the future remains unclear. It could be a catalyst for genuine reform or it may also result in many giving up on religion completely. The single point of hope is that the current Dublin archbishop has for the most part dealt in an honest fashion with what he has inherited.
*
This archbishop says that there are now only two other bishops in the country who are on speaking terms with him! I think it would be fair to say that the continued existence of the Catholic Church in Ireland rests in the hands of the archbishop of Dublin, without him the institution would have lost all credibility and the jury is still out on whether the institution can regain any credibility in the future.
*
It goes without saying that the behaviour of the church in the Dublin diocese was typical of the behaviour in dioceses countrywide. A TV current affairs program dealt with a case in Donegal where a priest was transferred to a new parish within the diocese every time accusations were made about him and there were about 10 transfers made over the course or 20 or 30 years leaving that individual free to repeatedly abuse over that period.

*

Here's what the Irish Times is reporting on the statements of the Archbishop of Dublin - who in my view seems better for leadership that the current Pope who likewise engaged in coverups at the direction of the anything but saintly Pope John II:

*
THE ARCHBISHOP of Dublin Diarmuid Martin said last night he was writing to the Bishop of Limerick Donal Murray and all other auxiliary bishops who served in Dublin and who are named in the Dublin diocesan report.
*
Dr Martin said he was “not satisfied” with some of their responses so far. He pointed out that those bishops named in the report, but no longer serving in the Dublin archdiocese, could not tailor their responses to people in their current dioceses.What they did and did not do failed people in Dublin and they owe them a response, he said.

*Archbishop Martin said he was not the leader of the Church in Ireland. “Only two bishops lifted the phone [to him in recent days] and asked ‘are you ok?’,” he said. There was “a need for strong leadership, Cardinal Brady and I are agreed on that,” he said. “I want answers that can stand up. This we have to see and I will have no difficulty in showing the answers I get.”

*
“If I am unhappy with answers . . . I don’t want to be sitting at meetings with people who have not responded to a very serious situation. . . Everyone should stand up and take responsibility for what they did,” he said.

*
*The Irish Times reports the following with respect to the statements of the Archbishop of Armagh:

*

Archbishop of Armagh Cardinal Séan Brady has today called for accountability among bishops in the wake of the Murphy report into the handling of complaints of child sexual abuse by priests. Dr Brady said he would be travelling to the Vatican with Archbishop of Dublin Diarmuid Martin to discuss the findings of the report with Pope Benedict.
*
Asked what he would do if it were found that children had been abused as a result of any failing on his part, Dr Brady said he would stand down. “I would remember that the abuse of children is a very serious crime in civil and canon law. It’s also a very grave sin,” he said. "If I found myself in a situation where I was aware that my failure to act had allowed or meant other children were abused, well then I think I would resign."

*

Accountability among the Catholic Church hierarchy. What a refreshing concept. I can only hope that the Church in Ireland shows more integrity than it has in the USA. Here, the Church deserves to be continually maligned and criticised for its failure to clean its own house.

Rick Warren's Role In the Uganda "Kill Gays" Bill

Candidly, I have always found Rick Warren to be a sleazy, bloated snake oil merchant and modern day Pharisee in the worse sense of the word. That Barrack Obama had the stupidity to allow Warren to give the Inaugural invocation still disgusts me. Now, with the international focus on the extraordinary homophobia in Uganda and the proposed "kill gays" legislation before that nation's lunatic Parliament, further scrutiny is revealing that Warren's foul stench is very much involved in the push for the horrific anti-gay legislation. If Obama continues to have any connections with Warren whatsoever, it will speak volumes about Obama and none of it will be good. Moreover, it will be further corroboration that Obama's campaign cynically manipulated LGBT Americans for their money and their votes while meaning nothing stated about gay equality. Talk2Action has a piece that looks at Rick Warren's connection to what's happening in Uganda and which confirms my initial instincts about Warren. Here are some highlights:

*
In 2008 Rick Warren declared that, following Rwanda, Uganda was the world's second official "Purpose Driven" nation. Uganda is currently in the news because of a bill before the Ugandan legislature that would establish the death penalty for homosexual acts and, critics charge, might even require the execution of HIV-positive Ugandan citizens.
*
Some observers have wondered if Purpose Driven Life author and mega-evangelist Rick Warren has had a role in the globally controversial bill, especially because of Warren's close association with Ugandan anti-gay activist Martin Ssempa and, more broadly, because Warren has refused to denounce the anti-gay bill. To little notice, a charismatic network overseen by Warren's doctoral dissertation advisor, C. Peter Wagner, has played a major role in politically organizing and inspiring the Ugandan legislators who have spearheaded the anti-gay bill.
*
Both Wagner and Warren have designed elaborate infrastructures for blurring the lines between church and state. Wagner describes his movement as the “New Apostolic Reformation” and openly espouses his goals of reorganizing and mobilizing the church to take Christian “dominion” over government and society. Warren’s movement is described as a “second reformation” in the form of his P.E.A.C.E. plan, but his goals of rapid “expansion of the kingdom” in Uganda and elsewhere closely parallel those of Wagner's.
*
Both C. Peter Wagner and Rick Warren want to transform the world, and both have proclaimed the advent of a second Reformation. Wagner claims the New Apostolic Reformation began in 2001. Rick Warren's "second reformation" is "purpose driven" and powered by his 2005 launch of a global P.E.A.C.E. Plan. In Uganda both visions for societal transformation appear to include the categorical elimination of homosexuality - by any means. *
the methods portrayed are conceptually medieval, and the agenda is theocratic and Christian supremacist. One Ugandan blogger labels the Transformations ideology as "political Christianity" and an import of the Western world. . . . Beyond its anti-gay animus, C. Peter Wagner's movement is also virulently anti-Catholic.
*
Warren has supported the role of Archbishops Orombi, Peter Akinola of Nigeria, and Emmanuel Kolini of Rwanda as leaders in the GAFCON/CFA realignment of the Anglican church on the issue of homosexuality. As reported in a March 29, 2008 story from the AllAfrica.com news service, in March 2008 Rick Warren attended a conference of Ugandan Anglican Bishops who were protesting the Church of England's tolerance for homosexuality. AllAfrica, reporting on his appearance, summarized Warren's quotes as "homosexuality is not a natural way of life and thus not a human right," and directly quoted Warren as stating, "We shall not tolerate this aspect at all."
*
Is Rick Warren's "second reformation" the same as C. Peter Wagner's New Apostolic Reformation? Wagner is quite open about his goal of merging church and state - it is the core of his ideology. Warren's P.E.A.C.E. plan has been publicly characterized as altruistic public service but what is this "Purpose Driven" world that Warren envisions?
^
On April 17, 2005 at California’s Anaheim Stadium, Rick Warren told approximately 30,000 who had gathered to celebrate the 25th anniversary of Saddleback Church, . . "For the past 18 months we have been on a stealth, secret mission - project - around the world. We've been sending members out, actually over 4500 members somewhere overseas, over the period of the the last few years, going out to do what we're gonna call the PEACE plan... Warren continued by asking what his audience could accomplish if they had the absolute dedication of the followers of Hitler, Lenin, and Mao, and told the crowd they must do "whatever it takes" for the "New Reformation" and the global expansion of the kingdom. [See video below]

C. Peter Wagner's former student Rick Warren also has a formula for breaking down the walls of separation of church and state and building a Christian kingdom on earth. Who are the enemies that Richard Duane Warren believes must be eliminated to fulfill his utopian vision? Perhaps "Purpose Driven" Uganda gives us a clue.

Take a good look. This is the man Obama picked to give the Inaugural invocation. It was a travesty then and it's a travesty now that this bigot is not being expsed for the dangerous religious extremist that he is in fact.

Saturday Male Beauty

Andrew Sullivan- Leaving the Right

I've made no secret that I once was a Republican - an active Republican in fact, holding a seat on the Virginia Beach City Committee for the GOP just short of eight (8) years, served as a precinct captain and worked on many campaigns. In those days, most of my extended family were also Republicans or at least voted Republican. Something that extended back to the days growing up in Central New York when Nelson Rockefeller was governor of New York. But the Party and conservatism have changed. The result was that I and many family members left the GOP - or more accurately, the GOP left us as it increasing became a party of reaction controlled increasingly by religious fundamentalists. If you believe in the separation of church and state and that religion should not shape civil rights, it virtually became impossible to remain a Republican in good conscience. Many others have experienced the same thing. One is Andrew Sullivan who describes why he left the Right in a recent blog post. His post sums up many of my thoughts. Here are some highlights:

*
[I]n so far as it [The Right] means the dominant mode of discourse among the institutions and blogs and magazines and newspapers and journals that support the GOP, Charles Johnson is absolutely right in my view to get off that wagon for the reasons has has stated. Read his testament. It is full of emotion, but also of honesty.

*
[T]here has to come a point at which a movement or party so abandons core principles or degenerates into such a rhetorical septic system that you have to take a stand. It seems to me that now is a critical time for more people whose principles lie broadly on the center-right to do so - against the conservative degeneracy in front of us.
*
[M]y attachment to the Anglo-American conservative political tradition, as I understand it, is real and deep and the result of sincere reflection on the world as I see it. And I want that tradition to survive because I believe it is a vital complement to liberalism in sustaining the genius and wonder of the modern West. For these reasons, I found it intolerable after 2003 to support the movement that goes by the name "conservative" in America.
*
My reasons were not dissimilar to Charles Johnson, who, like me, was horrified by 9/11, loathes Jihadism, and wants to defeat it as effectively as possible. And his little manifesto prompts me to write my own (the full version is in "The Conservative Soul"). Here goes:
*
I cannot support a movement that claims to believe in limited government but backed an unlimited domestic and foreign policy presidency that assumed illegal, extra-constitutional dictatorial powers until forced by the system to return to the rule of law.
*
I cannot support a movement that exploded spending and borrowing and blames its successor for the debt.
*
I cannot support a movement that holds that purely religious doctrine should govern civil political decisions and that uses the sacredness of religious faith for the pursuit of worldly power.
*
I cannot support a movement that is deeply homophobic, cynically deploys fear of homosexuals to win votes, and gives off such a racist vibe that its share of the minority vote remains pitiful.
*
I cannot support a movement which has no real respect for the institutions of government and is prepared to use any tactic and any means to fight political warfare rather than conduct a political conversation.
*
I cannot support a movement that sees permanent war as compatible with liberal democratic norms and limited government.
*
I cannot support a movement that regards gay people as threats to their own families.
*
I cannot support a movement that does not accept evolution as a fact.
*
I cannot support a movement that sees climate change as a hoax and offers domestic oil exploration as the core plank of an energy policy.
*
I cannot support a movement that refuses to distance itself from a demagogue like Rush Limbaugh or a nutjob like Glenn Beck.
*
Does this make me a "radical leftist" as Michelle Malkin would say? Emphatically not. But it sure disqualifies me from the current American right. To paraphrase Reagan, I didn't leave the conservative movement. It left me. And increasingly, I'm not alone.

Church - State Separation Is A Lie in America

Earlier in the week I bookmarked a post by Jeremy Hooper at Good As You that looked at the myth of freedom of religion in New York State after the defeat of the marriage equality bill in the new York State Senate. As I said before, anti-gay legislation in the final analysis comes down to one thing: discrimination based on religion. Since GLBT Americans do not conform to the beliefs of more reactionary forms of Christianity, we are deprived of equal rights and indeed, until 2005 in the Lawrence v. Texas were still criminalized in 13 states. Jeremy quotes the mindset behind the no vote via one of the Christo-fascists who lobbied to sway the gutless senators who have basic contempt for the true meaning of freedom of religion:

*
Rev. Duane Motley, Senior Lobbyist for New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms, made the following comments: . . . The legislation placed freedom of religion and freedom of conscience in jeopardy. New Yorkers’ voices were heard today.” McGuire added, “The authentic marriage movement in New York is a movement based on love and justice. Our existing marriage laws are just. They do not violate the Constitution, nor do they violate the civil rights of same-sex partners. All people are created equal, but not all choices are equal and not all relationships are marriages. We are pleased that today a majority of the senators recognized and upheld the true purpose of marriage.” . . . According to the Word of God, marriage is and always will be the union of a man and a woman. Since God created marriage, only He has the authority to change it.”
*

There you have it: the Christianist RELIGIOUS view must be the law - even the CIVIL laws. It's a mindset not unlike the Islamic obsession with imposing Sharia law. The irony, of course, is that the Founding Fathers knew well the dangers posed by having one set of religious beliefs enforced via the civil laws in the form of the Anglican Church that was the official church in many colonies prior to the Revolutionary War. Here in Virginia one of the most revered figures in Virginia history, Thomas Jefferson was most emphatic on the hypocrisy and evil of religious discrimination in doling out civil liberties - something the Virginia Legislature has forgotten as it has deprived GLBT Virginians of what Jefferson called natural rights of all citizens. I have posted it before, but Jefferson's draft of the Virginia Statute for Religious freedom says it all. Here again are some highlights:

*
VIRGINIA STATUTE FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
*
[Sec. 1] Where as Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as it was in his Almighty power to do; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor, whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporary rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which in common with his fellow-citizens he has a natural right; that it tends only to corrupt the principles of that religion it is meant to encourage, . . . and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.
*
[Sec. 2] Be it enacted by the General Assembly: [N]o man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
*
. . .[T]he rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present, or to narrow its operation, such act shall be an infringement of natural right.
*

By their "no" votes, 38 New York senators demonstrated absolute contempt for ideals of Thomas Jefferson's - probably one of the greatest minds in the nation's history. Oh yes, Christianist will try to argue that Jefferson was not in favor of sodomy. Unlike the narrow minded Christiansts and like bigots, Jefferson soaked up knowledge and embraced new discoveries and science. One need only visit Monticello to see this - something I have done probably more than 50 times over the years (UVA students once got in for free with their student ID card). Unlike the present day merchants of intolerance, I find it inconceivable that Jefferson would shun new medical and mental health knowledge on sexual orientation. I suspect that had he been voting in the New York Senate he would have cast a resounding "Yes" vote.

*

Until the day arrives when GLBT Americans have full civil equality in every way, America's claim that its citizen enjoy freedom of religion will continue to be a cancerous lie.

More Friday Male Beauty

If Ted Olsen and David Boise Win, Are They Doing the GOP A Favor.

I have posted several times about the challenge to Proposition 8 now pending in federal court in California being led by former U.S. Solicitor General Ted Olson and David Boise. The case contends that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under the U. S. Constitution, not the least because it denies same sex couples equal protection under the law. Given the fact that homophobia and anti-gay legislation are the hallmarks of today's GOP and wingnut Christianists, it is interesting that David Frum - certainly no one's idea of a liberal - has a column on his blog, FrumForum, by Jeb Golinkin that raises the question of whether a court invalidation of Proposition 8 and similar laws would not in the longer term be a benefit for the Republican Party. Here are some highlights:

*
Yesterday, the New York State Senate crushed a bill that would have allowed gay couples to get married by a margin of 38-24. While righties everywhere are probably doing back flips this morning and proclaiming that the people have spoken, the decision is not just morally wrong, it is also unconstitutional and bad for the future of the Republican Party. . . . if history shows one thing, it is that these groups will prevail. The question is not if… but when… and how.
*
In every one of these fights, conservatives have been on the wrong side of history. Our natural instinct to fight against any radical change in the makeup of society can, and has blinded us to real injustices. . . . Victories like the one earned by conservatives in New York yesterday do little but delay the inevitable and give Democrats more ammunition to use as evidence that the Republican party is an intolerant, ignorant group of belligerent dinosaurs.
*
Ironically, one of our own might save us before it is too late through the very process that we (and he) so very deplore: “judicial activism.” Ted Olson and David Boies have joined forces to appeal the constitutionality of California’s ban on gay marriage. The two men, who faced off in Bush vs. Gore, are quite possibly the best two constitutional lawyers in the United States, and together they represent a formidable legal force to be reckoned with. If they were to succeed in showing the California ban to be what it is, an unconstitutional law that is, in Olson’s words, “utterly without justification” and that brands gays and lesbians as “second-class and unworthy” in the eyes of the law, Republicans will owe the two a debt of gratitude for saving the party from twenty years of supporting a position that 20 years from now men and women will view as utterly abominable.
*
Not only will they save us from the eyes of history, they will save us from the electoral losses that the public’s general condemnation of the position will turn into at some point. If you care about electoral victories, cheer for Ted Olson. You will thank him later if he wins.
*

Interestingly, Frum edits the blog that is described as being dedicated to the modernization and renewal of the Republican party and the conservative movement.

Snarling, Catty Gays

One thing I have noted since coming out is how catty some in the GLBT community seem to be. They seem to almost revel in being nasty towards and critical of others. Rather than realizing that we are "all on the same side," some prefer to make personal attacks on others simply because they have led their lives differently or did not come out until later in life. On a local (or national basis) basis it can take the form of an individual or organization attacking other GLBT groups or individuals who seek to advocate in different ways or seek to focus efforts in a narrower focus. In the blogosphere it can be in the form of one GLBT blogger attacking another out of spite, envy or who knows what. A case in point: this evening a blogger friend sent me a link where another blogger from another part of the country had made a personal attack on me. Why? Simply because I had lived part of my life married and in the closet. Even though for years I had not even actually realized I was gay.

*

In addition to discussing politics, religion and current events, this blog has always been aimed at discussing coming out in mid-life. From the e-mails I receive from literally every continent, there are many, many of us who came out after years of marriage. I suspect there are even far more still who remain in the closet and struggling to accept themselves and who they are. Perhaps even struggling to make the decision to" come out." The message of this blog is not necessarily aimed at those who have never been in the closet. I give them kudos for those who knew early on who they were. Not all of us were so lucky or self-intuitive.

*

For the record, I do not believe in intentionally "outing" anyone unless they are hypocritically advocating or voting for measures that harm the GLBT community. Former Republican Congressman Ed Schrock - whose name was first given to Mike Rogers by me - and similar closeted members of the GOP are one prime example. But those who are out should not be afraid to live openly. Meredith Baxter now that she has come out is an example. It does make a difference despite what some may say.

*

Yes, I am relatively new to GLBT activism. But my coming out has not been without cost: forced from a law firm in 2004 for not lying any more of who I am; brutalized by homophobic judges in divorce hearings that ruined me financially; two of my children no longer communicating with me. I feel I have paid my dues. Maybe not as much as some, but not insignificant. Those who don't want to read my thoughts and views - simply don't read this blog.

Glenn Nye - Another Disappointing Democrat

I supported Glenn Nye this past election cycle when he ran against Republican Thelma Drake. Sadly, Glenn has beeen a disappointment to date. Indeed, he's voted the way Thelma would likely have voted. To express your displeasure with Glenn and other Democrats like him, go here.

Friday Male Beauty

Northeaster Damage Repair Update

A number of readers have asked how the boyfriend an I are doing in terms of storm damage repair. The reality is that although we have had a number of estimates done, we are still waiting for the final settlement figure from the insurance company. Pending receipt of that, we are continuing to pack up dishes, artwork and window treatments that all must come out of the first floor before the demolition - tearing out sheet rock up to four feet from the floor and removing the remaining flooring - begins. We also had some roof damage for good measure so some ceilings upstairs need some slight repair.

*

We have rented a storage unit so that we will have somewhere to put everything, plus hold some of the furniture currently upstairs so that we have a more livable space while the downstairs is torn up. The plan is to replace the sheet rock with a type of concrete board which will be covered with a waterproof wainscoting. All of the downstairs floors will be marble so that in any future severe storm we can simply take up the oriental and area rugs and carry them upstairs. Total cost? Still not known but guessing in the at least $75,000 to $80,000 range. Tomorrow we will be moving some things to storage, although the weather forecast is not good. The next couple of months we will be living in a construction zone. Overall, I believe the damage estimates for the region have been low - so many homes suffered flooding or roof damage and corresponding plaster and floor/carpet damage.

Kaine Plans to Extend Health Benefits to Virginia Same-Sex Partners

One has to wonder why he has waited until the waning weeks of his term to begin to implement the plan to belatedly extend health care benefits to the same sex partners of Virginia State employees. Up until now, outgoing Governor Tim Kaine has largely thrown LGBT Virginians under the bus other than giving lip service to equality for all Virginians. Nonetheless, the proposal has some fun aspects to it because it will pose an immediate test for Governor elect, Taliban Bob McDonnell (pictured at left) who campaigned as moderate despite his Christianist past. The plan has merit and would obviously make Virginia more competitive in the employment market, but the gay-hating Republican Party of Virginia ("RVP") base will likely go berserk. Obviously, if McDonnell has ambitions for higher office, he will have to be careful not to act in a manner that reveals his whole campaign as a moderate was a lie. If there would be no cost to the state, then McDonnell will be greeted with a land mine as soon as he is sworn in. It will be entertaining to see how this all plats out. Here are some highlights from the Washington Post:

*
RICHMOND -- Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine has directed his staff to begin putting into effect a proposal that would allow same-sex partners to be covered under the state's employee health plan. The incoming governor, Robert F. McDonnell (R), who has sparred with Kaine (D) on gay rights issues, expressed concern Thursday about the potential cost of the proposal but did not criticize what is expected to be a controversial one.
*
"My first question is, what [is] the cost to the state by expanding those policies?" McDonnell said at a news conference at the state Capitol. "I am all for using business -- public and private -- to expand health-care coverage. . . . But what I don't know is, what is the cost that has to be borne by the state government versus the individual new subscriber?"
*
Sara Wilson, director of the Virginia Department of Human Resource Management, said officials hope to offer the expanded benefit at no additional expense to the state because employees would be required to pay the entire cost. She said that state officials have been discussing the proposal for months but that she was not directed until mid-November to begin implementing the change.
*
Wilson said that a change of this magnitude would take about 18 months to implement, well after Kaine completes his four-year term Jan. 16. That would leave McDonnell to decide whether to continue the program. House Majority Leader H. Morgan Griffith (R-Salem) said that Kaine, who serves as chairman of the Democratic National Committee, is a "political animal" and called his timing suspect. "He gets to throw a bone to his base and then create a land mine for the incoming administration," Griffith said. "It may be totally innocent, but to change a policy in the last month of administration calls it into question."
*
Kaine and McDonnell clashed on gay rights in 2006 when McDonnell, then the state attorney general, advised Kaine that he had overstepped his constitutional authority when he outlawed bias against gays in state hiring. Eighteen other states provide benefits to adults other than spouses, and 10 provide benefits to domestic partners with no distinction between couples of the same or opposite sex, Wilson said. In the Washington region, Maryland offers benefits to same-sex partners; the District, to domestic partners.

*

McDonnell claims he's now a moderate and that he does not support discrimination against LGBT Virginians. I guess we will see if he meant any of it.

More Thursday Male Beauty

Frank Schaeffer Takes on the Christianists

Frank Schaeffer (pictured at left) is an American author, film director, screenwriter and public speaker. He is the son of the late evangelist Francis Schaeffer, one of the founders of the modern day Christian Right. He became a Hollywood film director and author, writing several internationally acclaimed novels depicting life in a strict, fundamentalist household including Portofino, Zermatt, Saving Grandma, Crazy for God: How I Grew Up as One of the Elect, Helped Found the Religious Right, and Lived to Take All (or Almost All) of It Back. He has appeared on the Rachel Madow show and other broadcasts and Wednesday of this week he was on on Blog Talk Radio, hosted by James Hipps of The Gay Agenda, another fellow attendee of the LGBT Blogger Summit last December. Schaeffer's views are unique because he saw the fundamentalists from the inside out and what he has to say is informative. I encourage readers to listen to his interview with James.

*

I find Schaeffer interesting and a week or so ago his publicists e-mailed me asking if I'd like a free copy of Schaeffer's newest book, Patience with God: Faith for People Who Don't Like Religion (or Atheism). Naturally, I said yes and the book arrived via overnight delivery the next day. In reading his book and having heard him on Rachel's show, he views the current Christianist agenda to be frightening and sees the movement as a menace. Moreover, he sees the far right fundamentalists as having perverted Christianity. Surprisingly, he makes a statements similar to those I made in a debate with a Regent University professor some years back:

*

Of course, evangelical/fundamentalists can't stand the Bible's obvious flaws because they worship the Bible, not God. So they try to "fix" their inerrant Bible's reputation by torturous justifications. They make rules even for God as if they understand God as some sort of creature trapped in the pages of the Bible, something like a fly caught on flypaper. . . . God is stuck between a rock and a hard place. The rock? - human words by flawed authors. The hard place? - the Bible as interpreted by self-interested parties.

*

Wikipedia has the following information on Schaeffer's polical views which again largely mirror my own:

*
Schaeffer has written: "In the mid 1980s I left the Religious Right, after I realized just how very anti-American they are, (the theme I explore in my book Crazy For God)." He added that he was a Republican until 2000, working for Senator John McCain in that year's primaries, but that after the 2000 election he re-registered as an independent.
*
On February 7, 2008, Schaeffer endorsed Senator Barack Obama for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination, in an article entitled "Why I'm Pro-Life and Pro-Obama." The next month, prompted by the controversy over remarks by the pastor of Obama's church, he wrote: "[W]hen my late father -- Religious Right leader Francis Schaeffer -- denounced America and even called for the violent overthrow of the US government, he was invited to lunch with presidents Ford, Reagan and Bush, Sr."
*
On October 10, 2008 a public letter to Senator McCain (and Sarah Palin) from Schaeffer was published in the Baltimore Sun newspaper. The letter contained an impassioned plea for John McCain to arrest what Schaeffer perceived as a hateful, and prejudiced tone of the Republican party's election campaign. Schaeffer was convinced that there was a pronounced danger that fringe groups in America could be goaded into pursuing violence.

*
In my view, Schaeffer is correct and the reality is that the evangelical/fundamentalists actual have weak faith, but much fear and hatred in their hearts. I consider them a danger as well. They certainly have no regard for freedom of religion for others.

Why Coming Out and Living Openly Matters

On Hearsay with Cathy Lewis yesterday (btw, thank you Lyndon for your very kind words), one caller said that he had no desire to identify with the gay community because the media stereotype of gay males is effeminate, sissy males. While his comments were in part true, what he failed to grasps is that the MAJORITY of gay males are NOT effeminate as per the stereotype. So much so, in fact, that they generally pass for straight and those who casually observe them and even socialize with them will typically assume that they are anything but gay. Indeed, I have gay clients who are military personnel in special forces divisions. These men could literally kill you with their bare hands and appear outwardly as macho as they come, yet they are just as homosexual as some nellie gay.

*

The truth is that stereotypes die only when there are enough readily available examples to the contrary that the image portrayed by the stereotype becomes a recognizable caricature as opposed to the generally known reality. What's the best way to kill prejudicial stereotypes? To come out and live openly so as to show the falsehood of the stereotype. I realize that not everyone is at a place in their life that they can come out - they may be in the military, hold a job where they might be fired, etc. - but those of us who can need to do so. I commented yesterday on Meredith Baxter's coming out and how I applauded her. Now, she intends to write a book that hopefully will educate others that, contrary to what our Christianist enemies preach, the vast majority of us in the LGBT community are every day ordinary people and live lives not so different than the general public. Here are highlights from a story in The Advocate:

*
“The message I get is that I’m America’s mom,” Baxter told The Advocate. “And because research seems to show that people who have someone who is gay in their family — or a friend or just know someone in the community who is gay — they seem to have a more open attitude about gay and lesbian issues. So I can say I’m still that mom. I am still the same person. I’m non-threatening, I’m very friendly, I’m accessible, and if they can say, ‘OK, well, she’s a lesbian, maybe that’s not such a scary thing. And if she can come out and say that without too much fear, then maybe I can do that.’ If it makes a difference to a couple of people, then I guess it’s worthwhile.”
*

It is true that Baxter outed herself before tabloids could do so, but now that she's done that, she seems to have the correct attitude. Each one of us CAN make a difference by being who we are and telling our stories. Yes, it can be terrifying and even dangerous. But the freedom and relief of being able to be yourself 24/7 is invaluable. I was in the closet for decades and I can say with certainty that I'd NEVER want to live that way again. Never, ever.

Thursday Male Beauty

Immunity for Gay Service Members?

As President Obama continues to do nothing to significantly deliver on his campaign promises to the LGBT community, Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.) continues to try to push the envelop on repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell and has come up with an interesting approach to allowing honorably serving LGBT members of the military a mechanism to testify before Congress and perhaps wake up some of the gutless wonders in Congress who act as lap dogs for the Christian Right even though most Americans now believe that DADT needs to go. Here are story highlights from the Washington Post:

*
Lawmakers want to give immunity to gay military service members that agree to testify at Congressional hearings about the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.) unveiled the measure Wednesday that would expand whistleblower protections between members of the military and lawmakers to include any instance when an active-duty member testifies about the Pentagon policy that bans openly gay people from serving in the military. It would also apply to service members that disclose their sexual orientation during a hearing. The House and Senate armed services committees are likely to hold hearings on repealing the policy next year, Hastings said.
*
The Hastings bill -- which has 27 co-sponsors -- appears to be a backdoor way to make "don't ask, don't tell" illegal since current military whistleblower law grants protections to service members that want to report violations of law or policy to lawmakers, an inspector general or other Defense officials.
*
“I am extremely proud of the men and women who serve in our Armed Forces and truly appreciate the countless sacrifices they continue to make every single day to protect this nation and the American people," Hasting said. "They deserve better than Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and now is the time to take action."
*
President Obama has taken hits from gay rights groups for appearing to drag his feet on repealing "don't ask" and the Defense of Marriage Act. Hastings noted Wednesday that he's reached out to the White House twice on the matter and has heard no response. He's not the only one.

Cardinal Denigrates Gays Even As Cover Ups Continue

The sexual obsessions of the Catholic Church hierarchy over gays continues as one Cardinal (pictured at left) pronounces more anti-gay bigotry. As America Magazine reports:
*
Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragan, a Mexican cardinal and emeritus president of the Pontifical Council for Pastoral Health (1996-2009), has said in an interview with Pontifex, that homosexuals and transvestites "will never enter into the reign of God," appealing to St. Paul. . . . Later in the interview he says that he believes homosexuals are not born that way but become that.
*
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, however, begs to differ, offering gays and lesbians who live chastely the hope of "Christian perfection." (2359) "By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection."
*
I cannot help but wonder if the good cardinal is among the 53% of priests Robert Sipe reported have sexual relations in spite of their vows of celibacy and whether the cardinal prefers men, women, boys or young girls. Meanwhile, the Church in Australia continues to assist predator priests. Here are some highlights from The Age concerning efforts by Church agents to frustrate a police investigation:

*
THE Catholic Church's chief sexual abuse investigator in Melbourne has for the second time tipped off a priest that he is the target of a covert police inquiry. The action by Peter O'Callaghan, QC, has infuriated police and drawn a strong rebuke from Victoria's top sexual crime detective.
*
In the two separate cases, the priests were told by Mr O'Callaghan that they were under investigation without the consent of detectives, before police had interviewed them and while the inquiries were at a covert stage, leaving them open to potential compromise.
*
Mr O'Callaghan is appointed and paid by the Melbourne Archdiocese to privately investigate sexual abuse allegations made about priests and refer victims to a compensation panel. The most recent tip-off occurred this year. It involved Mr O'Callaghan telling a Victorian priest, via his lawyers, that police were investigating him over sexual assault allegations first made to Mr O'Callaghan by a parishioner. Mr O'Callaghan learnt of the secret police inquiry after a detective asked him to provide documents about the priest.
*
In 2007, Mr O'Callaghan tipped off now-convicted priest Paul Pavlou, telling him via his lawyers that allegations about Pavlou's relationship with a 15-year-old boy had ''been reported to the police and apparently police are considering the matter''. At the time, police were investigating allegations - initially relayed to Mr O'Callaghan by the victim and his mother - that Pavlou had committed indecent acts with a minor and may have looked at child pornography. Pavlou later pleaded guilty to these offences in court.
*
Melbourne Archbishop Denis Hart said he ''always believed the police were supportive of [Mr O'Callaghan's] processes'', but said he would act on any police concerns. In August, the archbishop dismissed calls to review the Melbourne Catholic Church's handling of more than 450 sexual abuse cases over 13 years.
*

Despite its crocodile tears of remorse over the sexual abuse of minors, the Catholic Church hierarchy ultimately remains unchanged: to Hell with children and youths. It's all about protecting their own and lies and cover ups.

More Wednesday Male Beauty

‘Family Ties’ Mom: ‘I am a Lesbian’

Some have reacted with a shrug to the coming out of Meredith Baxter at age 62. She hasn't been in the Hollywood lime light for years, but she is still well known to many and overall, I congratulate her on taking this action. The reality is that the more that we all come out, the more the lies and stereotypes are destroyed. Some have asked me how she could possibly not have known she was gay as she went through three marriages and had five children. My response is that one can go to great lengths to deny what they do not want to accept. I did it for decades and might well have stayed closeted but for a totally unplanned encounter a decade ago - you might say that "I kissed a boy and I liked it." And that unplanned encounter and the way it "felt right" for the first time made me have to face what I had never wanted to accept because of my religious background and upbringing in a conservative area. Younger readers may not recall that homosexuality was classified as a mental illness until 1973 (my third year of college) and the ever gay-hating Catholic Church was of course preaching that gays were going to go straight to Hell. I suspect that Meredith Baxter, especially being older than me, went through some similar type of denial for years as I did. Here are some highlights from MSNBC:
*
For seven years, actress Meredith Baxter has been hiding a secret. Now Baxter, who played the devoted hippie mom constantly butting heads with her conservative kids on “Family Ties,” is making a public admission.
*
“I am a lesbian and it was a later-in-life recognition,” she told Matt Lauer on TODAY. “Some people would say, well, you’re living a lie and, you know, the truth is — not at all. This has only been for the past seven years.” Baxter, 62, though anxious, decided to come out on national television after her sexuality became tabloid fodder. “I’ve always lived a very private life,” said the actress, who’s never even had a publicist. “To come out and disclose stuff is very antithetical to who I am.”
*
The National Enquirer reported that Baxter was spotted last month aboard a Caribbean cruise sponsored by lesbian travel company Sweet, writing that she was seen “traveling with a female friend, and she seemed very relaxed and comfortable.”
*
Baxter says that her relationship with men was complicated, and it took her decades to understand why. . . . “I got involved with someone I never expected to get involved with, and it was that kind of awakening,” she said. “I never fought it because it was like, oh, I understand why I had the issues I had early in life. I had a great deal of difficulty connecting with men in relationships.”
*
Both Baxter’s former on-screen family and her real family have known about her sexuality, though she was initially nervous about telling her five children. “I said, ‘I think I’m gay,’ and my oldest boy said, ‘I knew,’ ” Baxter laughed. “The support from my family and anyone close to me has been so immediate and unqualified. I’ve really been blessed.”
*
Now that she is coming out, she also sees herself as an advocate for gay rights. “This is a political act, even though that’s not what it feels like to me,” she said. “If anyone knows someone who’s gay or lesbian … they’re less likely to vote against them to take away their rights. I can be that lesbian you know now …”

Poor Little Rich Boy Walking Away from Blackwater

In a temper tantrum worthy of a prima donna, Blackwater USA founder, poor little rich boy, Erik Prince (pictured at left), the son of profound homophobes who backed numerous far right religious organizations, is packing up his marbles and walking away from his company that committed atrocities in Iraq and made a fortune off of American taxpayers. Not surprisingly, under Prince, Blackwater was a favored contractor by the Bush/Cheney regime. Now, he's acting as if he and the company are being persecuted. Sounds all to typical of the far right loonies. Sorry, but I just cannot find any sympathy for this jerk. In my view, it is too bad he isn't up on charges for civilian deaths in Iraq. Here are highlights from the Virginian Pilot:

*
The man who built Blackwater USA into one of the world's most respected and reviled defense contractors feels that he was thrown under the bus after serving the nation's security interests for years.
*
Erik Prince's company, which renamed itself Xe Services in February after an uproar over its Iraq operations, has worked closely for years with the CIA, the State Department and the U.S. military. But it became the target of a series of federal investigations and congressional probes, primarily for its Iraq work. Most recently, officials disclosed that the CIA tapped the company to work under a program to capture or kill terrorists.
*
The 40-year-old heir to a Michigan auto parts fortune told Vanity Fair in an interview released Wednesday that Xe now pays $2 million a month in legal bills. The company is headquartered in Moyock in northeastern North Carolina.
*
Prince likened his case to the leak of former CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity — a disclosure that led to a special prosecutor investigating the matter. "Well, what happened to me was worse," Prince said. "People acting for political reasons disclosed not only the existence of a very sensitive program but my name along with it."

[His father, Edgar Prince, turned a small die-cast shop in Holland, Mich., into a major auto parts supplier with a specialty product: a windshield visor with a lighted mirror. After his death in 1995, the company was sold for $1.4 billion. Edgar Prince was a confidant and financial backer of Gary Bauer] With his auto parts inheritance, Prince founded Blackwater in 1997 along with former colleagues from the Navy SEALs. After the Sept. 11 attacks, the company quickly developed a presence providing security and later won a lucrative contract to protect diplomats in Iraq.
*
A September 2007 shooting in a Baghdad square that led to federal charges against company contractors triggered outrage in Iraq and the United States and prompted the eventual State Department decision not to renew Blackwater's contract protecting diplomats in Iraq. Executives at the company bemoaned that the work had tarnished the company's image.
*
The company has been beset by lawsuits and complaints over its work in the Iraq War, where it was a contractor providing security to U.S. government officials, and in other company endeavors. In August, two men who worked for Blackwater alleged in a federal lawsuit that Prince or his agents murdered one or more people who were planning to provide information to federal authorities about criminal conduct by the company and its operatives in Iraq. In a sworn statement, a “John Doe #1” says he observed “multiple incidents of Blackwater personnel intentionally using unnecessary, excessive and unjustified deadly force.”

New York State Senate Votes Down Gay Marriage Bill

Sadly, religious based discrimination triumphed today in the New York State Senate where marriage equality was defeated by a unanimous vote of the Republican senators and a number of spineless Democrats. These Benedict Arnolds included the following:
*
• Joseph Addabbo (D-Queens) — NO
• Darrel Aubertine (D- Cape Vincent) — NO
• Ruben Diaz (D-Bronx) — NO
• Shirley Huntley (D-Queens) — NO
• Carl Kruger (D-Brooklyn) — NO
• Hiram Monserrate (D-Queens) — NO
• George Onorato (D-Queens) — NO
• William Stachowski (D-Buffalo) — NO
*

Obviously, the LGBT boycott of Democrats candidates needs to be extended to these folks. Better yet, let's hope that they face primary challenges in the next election. The photo above shows Senator Thomas K. Duane, the sponsor of same-sex marriage legislation, embracing Senator Ruth Hassell-Thompson after she announced her support for the bill during the debate on the senate floor on Wednesday in Albany.

*

Not surprisingly, among the gloating are Maggie Gallagher and Brian Brown at NOM and the Roman Catholic Church. Of course, Ms. Maggie and Ms. Brown love it because they are further enriching themselves with each additional state they beg for money to fund their campaign of lies and untruths. Their merchandise is bigotry and discrimination veiled behind religion. I increasingly believe that the most tawdry prostitute has more intrinsic integrity than Ms. Maggie. One can only long for the day when history views her and her allies as the equivalents to George Wallace when he stood blooking the school house door. Here are some highlights from the New York Times on this unfortunate development:

*

The New York State Senate decisively rejected a bill on Wednesday that would have allowed gay couples to wed, providing a major victory for those who oppose same-sex marriage and underscoring the deep and emotional divisions surrounding the issue.
*
The 38-to-24 vote startled proponents of the bill and signaled that political momentum, at least right now, had shifted against same-sex marriage, even in heavily Democratic New York. It followed more than a year of lobbying by gay rights organizations, who poured close to $1 million into New York legislative races to boost support for the measure.
*
The defeat revealed stark divides: All 30 of the Republican senators opposed the bill, as did most of the members from upstate New York and Long Island. Support was heaviest among members from New York City and Westchester County and among the Senate’s 10 black members. Seven of the Senate’s 10 women voted for it.
*
“I’m a woman and a Jew and so I know about discrimination,” said Senator Liz Krueger of Manhattan.
*
The state’s Roman Catholic bishops lobbied for its defeat, however, and after the vote released a statement applauding the move : “Advocates for same-sex marriage have attempted to portray their cause as inevitable,” Richard E. Barnes, the executive director of the New York State Catholic Conference, said in the statement. “However, it has become clear that Americans continue to understand marriage the way it has always been understood, and New York is not different in that regard. This is a victory for the basic building block of our society.”
*
Alan Van Capelle, executive director of the Empire State Pride Agenda, New York’s largest gay rights group, hinted that senators who voted against the bill on Wednesday could face repercussions. “Had there been no vote today, we would not know who would stand by our community in a fight, and who would walk away. We wouldn’t know what work needed to be done in 2010.

Wednesday Male Beauty

Appearance on WHRV 89.5 FM Public Radio Today

UPDATED: From those who listened, it seems the show went well although we had nowhere near enough time to cover many issues I would have liked to cover. In my view, all of the other guests did a wonderful job. . For those interested, you can go here and download the show and listen.

*

I mentioned last week that I will be a guest on Hearsay with Cathy Lewis on WHRV 89.5 FM Public Radio for Hampton Roads a part of a round table group to discuss LGBT issues in Hampton Roads, Virginia. The show will air between 12:00 O'clock noon and 1:00 PM. The show is being billed as follows:

*
We've assembled a roundtable of members of the LGBT Community here in Hampton Roads to discuss some of the key issues impacting them. Guests: James L. Parker, President of Hampton Roads Pride, Jon Blair, CEO of Equality Virginia, Attorney Michael Hamar, who specializes in services for LGBT clients, Shannon Bowman, who, along with her partner, was recently denied family membership status at the Mallory Country Club, and Philip Deal, co-founder of GLBTLiveRadio.

*

I have only been on one call in show in the past and that was via telephone and involved the case of the gay employee fired by the Virginia Museum of Natural History (located in uber-conservative Martinsville, Virginia) for being gay. That case is now on appeal to the Virginia Court of Appeals. Thus, today will be a new experience.

Catholic Church's View of Sex the Root Cause of its Troubles

That's the opinion of Maureen Gaffney, a clinical psychologist and chairwoman of the Irish National Economic and Social Forum, which advises the Irish Government on economic and social issues. She has an op-ed piece in the Irish Times that looks at the issue in some detail. Having been raised Catholic I concur with her thoughts. The Catholic clergy are absolutely obsessed with all things sexual and feverishly work to instill a sense that sex is dirty, nasty and to be avoided at all costs other than to produce children. Even thoughts of sex can send one to Hell - as a child we were admonished not to have "impure thoughts." As if most 7 year olds even knew what an "impure though" involved. The irony, of course, is that it's a group of allegedly celibates who don't want anyone else to have the normal sexual intimacy that they themselves are not supposed to ever experience. Not that many don't break their vows of celibacy as Gaffney discusses. From this obsession/dysfunction flows so much of the Church's warped policies. Here are some column highlights:

*
[T]idying up corporate governance and instituting a more transparent culture is not going to resolve the scandal of clerical sexual abuse. That will require the church to face up to a much more profound problem – the church’s own teaching on sexuality.
*
Consider the list of issues the church has failed to deal with credibly since the 1960s: premarital and extramarital sex; remarriage; contraception; divorce; homosexuality; the role of women in ministry and women’s ordination; and the celibacy of the clergy. All have to do with sexuality.
*
Very few Catholics are looking to the church for moral guidelines in relation to any of these questions anymore. And why would they? After all, the church’s teaching on sexuality continues to insist that all intentionally sought sexual pleasure outside marriage is gravely sinful, and that every act of sexual intercourse within marriage must remain open to the transmission of life. The last pope, and most probably the present, took the view that intercourse, even in marriage, is not only “incomplete”, but even ceases to be an act of love, if contraception is used. Such pronouncements are so much at variance with the lived experience of most people as to undermine terminally the church’s credibility in the area of intimate relationships.
*
The sexual revolution, particularly the development of effective contraception, and the growth of the women’s and gay rights movements, has left the church stranded with an archaic psychology of sexuality. The world has moved decisively away from a view of sex as simply procreation. . . . Even the clergy cannot put up a credible defence for the insistence on priestly celibacy in the face of the almost complete collapse in vocations and the mounting evidence that many priests have ignored teachings on this matter.
*
Richard Sipe is a former priest and a recognised authority on celibacy. On the basis of his research in the US and other countries, he estimates between 45 and 50 per cent of Catholic clergy are sexually active. A study in Spain found that of those clergy who were sexually active, 53 per cent were having sex with an adult woman; 21 per cent with adult men; 14 per cent with minor boys and 12 per cent with minor girls. His own research showed 20 per cent of priests were involved in a more or less stable sexual relationship with a woman, or with sequential women in identifiable patterns. Another 10 per cent were in exploratory “dating” relationships that might include sexual contact.
*
Sipe estimates the proportion of gay men in the priesthood as between 30 per cent and 50 per cent, significantly greater than the proportion in the general population. About 10 per cent of clergy in the US were involved in homosexual activity. A further 12 per cent identified themselves as homosexual or as having serious questions about their sexual orientation, although not all were sexually active. These men find themselves in a church which views a homosexual orientation as “an objective disorder”, “a more or less strong tendency towards evil”. How can gay men and women in religious life, or those troubled by their orientation, work out their sexual identity in such an environment, let alone minister to their gay and lesbian flock?
*
All of those issues are institutionally denied or shrouded in secrecy. Hardly surprising, then, that paedophilia can flourish in such an environment. It is important to stress here that homosexuality and paedophilia are two quite separate phenomena.
*
[N]o amount of improved decision-making and transparency will enable senior clergy to respond effectively to the church’s crisis of sexuality. To do that, they must confront the root cause of the problem – that the Catholic Church is a powerful homo-social institution, where men are submissive to a hierarchical authority and where women are incidental and dispensable. It’s the purest form of a male hierarchy, reflected in the striking fact that we all collectively refer it to as “the Hierarchy”.
*
It has all the characteristics of the worst kind of such an institution: rigid in social structure; preoccupied by power; ruthless in suppressing internal dissent; in thrall to status, titles, and insignia, with an accompanying culture of narcissism and entitlement; and at a great psychological distance from human intimacy and suffering.
*
Most strikingly, it is a culture which is fearful and disdainful of women. As theologian William M Shea observes, “fear of women, and perhaps hatred of them, may well be just what we have to work out of the Catholic system”. Until that institutional misogyny is confronted, the church will be unable to confront the unresolved issue of its teaching on sexuality and the sexuality of the clergy. . . . The hierarchy will continue to project its fear of women on to an obsessive effort to exert control over their wombs, their fertility and their unruly sexual desires. That is the psychology of exclusion.

*

Her assessment is brutal, but I believe accurate. It is tragic that the Church continues to try to inflict the sexual dysfunction of its clergy on to all of society all around the world.

More Tuesday Male Beauty

The Fight for Gay Marriage is America's New Civil Rights Battle

Richard Cohen - with whom I frequently disagree - has a column in the New York Daily News that correctly looks at LGBT rights and gay marriage in particular are today's civil rights battle. As with past civil rights issues such as women's suffrage and interracial marriage, the opponents of equality and modernity cite the Bible as their justification for discrimination and bigotry. WWJD? I suspect he'd reject the professional Christians and their followers, viewing them as today's Pharisees: sanctimonious, judgmental, self-absorbed and uncaring towards others. Here are some column highlights:

*
The truth is that if Maj. Nidal Hasan, the accused killer of 13 people at Fort Hood, had entered the officers club there with a nice handbag on his arm, perhaps a Gucci tote, he would have been out of the Army by the end of the week. But since he was merely anti-social, a misfit, an incompetent psychiatrist and a likely Islamic fanatic, he was retained and promoted. This says something about America. On the subject of gays, we are a tad nuts ourselves.
*
That irrationality comes at me on an almost daily basis. One of the most prominent and strongly held planks of the Republican Party's right wing - its only wing, it seems - is opposition to same-sex marriage. I know this from the sheer huffy-and-puffiness of commentators such as Bill O'Reilly.
*
In a recent column, O'Reilly directed us to read something called "The Manhattan Declaration," . . . the longest section of the declaration - applies to same-sex marriage. It amounts, really, to a confession of confusion, a cry by the perplexed who have come to think that same-sex marriage is at the core - the rotten core - of much that ails our society. Everything from divorce to promiscuity is addressed in this section without any acknowledgment that same-sex marriage, like all marriage, is a way of containing promiscuity (or at least of inducing guilt) and that not having it would not reduce promiscuity in the least. This I state as a fact.
*
The reasoning in the declaration is so contorted that it brings to mind the dire warnings from years past of what would happen if blacks and whites were allowed to marry - not to mention similar references to what the Almighty purportedly intended.
*
In the end, the courts will decide this question. That's what they're there for. Then, I suspect, wedding bells will ring through the land - and, after a pause, America will wonder what the fuss was all about.
*

Ultimately, the argument over gay marriage sybolizes the current battle of science and modernity against ignorance and religious superstition. A progressive future lies with a victory of the former. Should the forces of reaction win out, I fear for the future of the nation. Bob Felton at Civil Commotion had an apt description of this struggle:

*
What is going on is an epochal fight for humanity’s future. . . . A portion of the world adopted a metaphysics, or theory of reality, which is mechanical, which strives to isolate causes and their effects, which believes the proper instrument for apprehending reality is the abstractions of a disciplined mind.
*
What is really going on, worldwide, is that those metaphysical theories are in mortal combat [with religion/superstition] and the outcome is very much up for grabs; the good guys, the Newtonians, don’t have to win. Recall that Epicurus had improved Democritus’ theory of atoms, articulated an early version of Newton’s First Law of Motion, and set out an early version of evolution of by natural selection by 300 B.C. — and it lay dormant for nearly 2-millennia because the Catholic Church succeeded in suppressing it.
*
Remember that the Dark Ages were a Western, Christian, not global, phenomenon. Islamic scholars were busy inventing algebra as Europe lay comatose under Roman Catholic rule, and the Chinese were busy mapping the cosmos. We are unlikely to see a reprise so awful as that, but the West — and the United States, in particular — are unarguably losing global influence before the onslaught of of fundamentalism, and that is the only possible end-point of the anti-intellectualism of the evangelical right, of its insanely literal interpretation of the Bible, and like movements afoot today in the Islamic world.
*
It is not merely contemporary politics which drive this fight; it is the underlying theory of reality, and the modern Republican Party is on the wrong, backward-looking side.