Saturday, December 26, 2009
'A Single Man' Highlights Gay and Family Issues
While the movie "A Single Man" directed by designer Tom Ford will likely not be shown in the areas of the country where it is perhaps the most needed, one can nonetheless hope that the movie may open at least some minds as to the common humanity of LGBT Americans and even provoke some thoughts and conversations about the inequity of denying same sex couple marriage rights - particularly those who have been in decades long relationships. Admitted, the goal of the Christianists and homophobes is to keep LGBT individuals viewed as "other" or even sub-human, but movies like this one as did Brokeback Mountain in a different sense may make it more difficult for our enemies to maintain the anti-gay stereotypes they work so hard to promote. As the immediately prior post discusses, the homophobes are in fact very sick people. Here are some highlights from a CNN commentary on the new movie:*
Ford's project is more than just a stylish and thought-provoking film about the crippling loneliness a gay man feels when his partner dies in a tragic accident. It is a timely conversation piece about same-sex rights.
*
For the gay community the story of a closeted college professor mourning the death of his long-time lover reflects the history of the struggle to be open about homosexuality in the 1960s. The same struggle continues today as the gay community fights for equal rights and laws allowing same-sex marriage.
*
"We're used to movies like 'Brokeback Mountain' that deal with the difficulties of being gay, but this is about the difficulties of being human viewed from the perspective of a gay man," said Aaron Hicklin, the editor-in-chief of Out, the highest-circulation gay monthly. "That's not as common as it should be. As we continue to make the case for full equality, movies like this help balance the negative and stereotypical views of homosexuality that are out there."
*
In one pivotal scene in the film, George learns his long-time partner Jim, played by Matthew Goode, has died in a car crash and George is not invited to the funeral, which is limited to family only. Jim's family even keeps the couple's dog. George and Jim had been together for 16 years, but in 1962 such relationships were "invisible," which only makes the grieving process more difficult for George. "Though this movie is set in the 1960s, the same thing can potentially happen to gays and lesbians now," Conrad said.
*
"Through Colin Firth's character we come to truly appreciate the tremendous power of love, and of redemption. I can't imagine anyone, whatever their sexual orientation, failing to connect with his humanity," Hicklin said. "The silence and the invisibility the film is portraying was in part why Americans didn't understand the need for freedom to marry when the first cases for the freedom to marry began by 1971," explains Evan Wolfson, the Executive Director of the organization Freedom to Marry and author of "Why Marriage Matters."
*
"I think the film shows the price people pay for silence and it shows the common humanity and invites people to ask themselves: How would I feel if I couldn't acknowledge the love of my life?"
*
Ford's project is more than just a stylish and thought-provoking film about the crippling loneliness a gay man feels when his partner dies in a tragic accident. It is a timely conversation piece about same-sex rights.
*
For the gay community the story of a closeted college professor mourning the death of his long-time lover reflects the history of the struggle to be open about homosexuality in the 1960s. The same struggle continues today as the gay community fights for equal rights and laws allowing same-sex marriage.
*
"We're used to movies like 'Brokeback Mountain' that deal with the difficulties of being gay, but this is about the difficulties of being human viewed from the perspective of a gay man," said Aaron Hicklin, the editor-in-chief of Out, the highest-circulation gay monthly. "That's not as common as it should be. As we continue to make the case for full equality, movies like this help balance the negative and stereotypical views of homosexuality that are out there."
*
In one pivotal scene in the film, George learns his long-time partner Jim, played by Matthew Goode, has died in a car crash and George is not invited to the funeral, which is limited to family only. Jim's family even keeps the couple's dog. George and Jim had been together for 16 years, but in 1962 such relationships were "invisible," which only makes the grieving process more difficult for George. "Though this movie is set in the 1960s, the same thing can potentially happen to gays and lesbians now," Conrad said.
*
"Through Colin Firth's character we come to truly appreciate the tremendous power of love, and of redemption. I can't imagine anyone, whatever their sexual orientation, failing to connect with his humanity," Hicklin said. "The silence and the invisibility the film is portraying was in part why Americans didn't understand the need for freedom to marry when the first cases for the freedom to marry began by 1971," explains Evan Wolfson, the Executive Director of the organization Freedom to Marry and author of "Why Marriage Matters."
*
"I think the film shows the price people pay for silence and it shows the common humanity and invites people to ask themselves: How would I feel if I couldn't acknowledge the love of my life?"
*
Sadly, situations like that depicted in the movie do still occur - as I know from the calls I receive from the survivors of same sex couples who are being suddenly treated as a stranger by their deceased partners family and are often thrown out of their own homes. It underscores the need for wills, trusts, and medical powers of attorney so that George's sad story does not repeat yet again.
The Disturbed Psyches of Homophobes
As I have frequently pointed out in my view extreme homophobes are in reality very disturbed individuals who have severe issues concerning their own sexuality and sexual matters in general. As a result, those who are comfortable with their own sexuality - particularly LGBT individuals - cause extreme emotional disturbance/fear in the sexually repressed set - like Matt Barber pictured at left - who belong to religious denominations that are literally obsessed with sex: e.g., the Roman Catholic Church and the Southern Baptist Convention. James Hipps at GayAgenda that features an article by Rev. Dr. Jerry Maneker that looks at the underlying psychological problems of homophobes and how they project their own emotional/sexual issues against others, particularly gays. The bottom line analysis is that rather than attacking gay citizens, these folks would be better served by securing appropriate mental health intervention. Here are some highlights from Manaker's article:*
Sexuality is such a primal urge, that it manifests its energy in a variety of ways; not only in sexual activity. That energy that is part and parcel of one’s sexuality, especially when feared for all sorts of ostensibly “moral” reasons, or the fear that one’s currently repressed sexual complexities will come to consciousness, can be, and frequently is, directed to the perceived source(s) of anxiety provoked by that threat, an anxiety that the homophobic individual can find to be almost unendurable.
*
One of the major defense mechanisms that one can use to minimize his/her anxiety provoked by that threatening stimulus, in this case of his/her sexual issues and/or repression that is provoked by LGBT people, is “displacement.”
*
In the case of homophobic people, Gay people are the precise threat because they bring to the homophobe’s consciousness his/her sexual issues, largely because of the unfortunate equation that Gay=Sex. So, when vulnerable people are brought face to face with Gay people or the issue of equality for Gay people, that threat can be of enormous proportions triggering an anxiety of enormous proportions.
*
Rather than seeing Gay people as posing no threat, as the defense mechanism of “displacement” posits, Gay people pose an enormous threat to the sexually vulnerable. Otherwise, why would strident homophobes be so insistent in making a veritable career out of defaming Gay people and doing everything in their power to prevent and/or rescind Gay people’s civil rights?
[W]hen one is stridently homophobic, not only does rationality play no part in being able to change their minds, but that person often resorts to irrational rhetoric (”traditional family values,” “for the good of the children,” etc.) to lessen hiWe must counter strident homophobia by asking such questions as: What are you so fearful of? Why do you evidence lack of sexual intactness by having to bear false witness against Gay people? What sexual issues are you repressing or suppressing so that you seek to deprive fellow human beings of equal rights based solely on their sexuality?
*
What I am suggesting is that rather than play “defense” in the fight for LGBT equality, we take the “offense” and question and seek to analyze the emotional/sexual repressions and issues that seemingly coerce strident homophobes to make a veritable career out of irrationally maligning their fellow human beings based solely on their sexuality and gender expression.
*
Ultimately, the issue of LGBT equality rests in the political-legal arenas, but the strident homophobia that seeks to prevent a constitutionally protected outcome for Gay people rests in the warped psyches of the sexually repressed homophobes who, by their bearing false witness and their resorting to irrational arguments to justify their homophobia, show themselves to have frail, if not warped, psyches worthy of public examination and analysis.
*
Dr. Jerry S. Maneker is a Ph.D, and Professor Emeritus of Sociology at California State University, Chico, having been a professor there since 1970.
Sexuality is such a primal urge, that it manifests its energy in a variety of ways; not only in sexual activity. That energy that is part and parcel of one’s sexuality, especially when feared for all sorts of ostensibly “moral” reasons, or the fear that one’s currently repressed sexual complexities will come to consciousness, can be, and frequently is, directed to the perceived source(s) of anxiety provoked by that threat, an anxiety that the homophobic individual can find to be almost unendurable.
*
One of the major defense mechanisms that one can use to minimize his/her anxiety provoked by that threatening stimulus, in this case of his/her sexual issues and/or repression that is provoked by LGBT people, is “displacement.”
*
In the case of homophobic people, Gay people are the precise threat because they bring to the homophobe’s consciousness his/her sexual issues, largely because of the unfortunate equation that Gay=Sex. So, when vulnerable people are brought face to face with Gay people or the issue of equality for Gay people, that threat can be of enormous proportions triggering an anxiety of enormous proportions.
*
Rather than seeing Gay people as posing no threat, as the defense mechanism of “displacement” posits, Gay people pose an enormous threat to the sexually vulnerable. Otherwise, why would strident homophobes be so insistent in making a veritable career out of defaming Gay people and doing everything in their power to prevent and/or rescind Gay people’s civil rights?
[W]hen one is stridently homophobic, not only does rationality play no part in being able to change their minds, but that person often resorts to irrational rhetoric (”traditional family values,” “for the good of the children,” etc.) to lessen hiWe must counter strident homophobia by asking such questions as: What are you so fearful of? Why do you evidence lack of sexual intactness by having to bear false witness against Gay people? What sexual issues are you repressing or suppressing so that you seek to deprive fellow human beings of equal rights based solely on their sexuality?
*
What I am suggesting is that rather than play “defense” in the fight for LGBT equality, we take the “offense” and question and seek to analyze the emotional/sexual repressions and issues that seemingly coerce strident homophobes to make a veritable career out of irrationally maligning their fellow human beings based solely on their sexuality and gender expression.
*
Ultimately, the issue of LGBT equality rests in the political-legal arenas, but the strident homophobia that seeks to prevent a constitutionally protected outcome for Gay people rests in the warped psyches of the sexually repressed homophobes who, by their bearing false witness and their resorting to irrational arguments to justify their homophobia, show themselves to have frail, if not warped, psyches worthy of public examination and analysis.
*
Dr. Jerry S. Maneker is a Ph.D, and Professor Emeritus of Sociology at California State University, Chico, having been a professor there since 1970.
Are “Undercover Gay Reporters” Causing Media Bias in Gay Marriage Stories?
The question in the title of this post may seem crazy, yet that's the allegation being made by one wingnut. In her online “The Barras Report” column this week, Jonetta Rose Barras (pictured at left)accused “undercover gay reporters” of undisclosed bias in their coverage of the D.C. same-sex marriage bill. The Washington City Paper looks at Barras' batsh*tery and one can only wonder why people listen to those who are so obviously untethered from objective reality. I guess it has never crossed Barras' mind that some people believe in religious freedom and equality under the civil laws for ALL citizens. As for being cast as backward, homophobic, discriminatory, if the shoe fits, do something about it rather than blame others for fairly depicting the truth. Here are some story highlights:*
“Some opponents of same-sex marriage wonder why they couldn’t get coverage in the press similar to proponents,” Barras wrote. “Stand4Marriage coalition members . . . have been cast as backward, homophobic, discriminatory crew.” Well this crew of forward-thinking non-homophobes need wonder no further! According to Barras, “undercover” gay reporters engaged in a gay media conspiracy to unfairly characterize people who oppose civil rights for gay people as homophobes.
*
Opponents [of gay marriage] believe they have received the raw deal in the media because the deck was stacked against them. Several of the individuals who reported on the legislation are themselves gay. None revealed their status in the gay community, which surely created in TBR’s mind a bias. TBR doesn’t want to out anyone. They know who they are.
*
So if you’re a gay reporter who has failed to out yourself as gay in every story you write that concerns gay people, Barras thinks you’re a “disgrace” to the profession . . .
*
If gay reporters are expected to publicly announce on television that they’re gay whenever they’re involved in reporting out a story that concerns gay marriage in D.C., I’d hope that Barras would pepper every absurd column she writes about undercover gay media conspiracies with unneccessary disclaimers concerning her sexual orientation, and any other possible conflict of interest.
*
The story then goes on to parody Barras' column with with the necessary modifiers to reflect her own bias and hypocrisy on the sanctity of marriage - including the fact that's she's been divorced and remarried.
“Some opponents of same-sex marriage wonder why they couldn’t get coverage in the press similar to proponents,” Barras wrote. “Stand4Marriage coalition members . . . have been cast as backward, homophobic, discriminatory crew.” Well this crew of forward-thinking non-homophobes need wonder no further! According to Barras, “undercover” gay reporters engaged in a gay media conspiracy to unfairly characterize people who oppose civil rights for gay people as homophobes.
*
Opponents [of gay marriage] believe they have received the raw deal in the media because the deck was stacked against them. Several of the individuals who reported on the legislation are themselves gay. None revealed their status in the gay community, which surely created in TBR’s mind a bias. TBR doesn’t want to out anyone. They know who they are.
*
So if you’re a gay reporter who has failed to out yourself as gay in every story you write that concerns gay people, Barras thinks you’re a “disgrace” to the profession . . .
*
If gay reporters are expected to publicly announce on television that they’re gay whenever they’re involved in reporting out a story that concerns gay marriage in D.C., I’d hope that Barras would pepper every absurd column she writes about undercover gay media conspiracies with unneccessary disclaimers concerning her sexual orientation, and any other possible conflict of interest.
*
The story then goes on to parody Barras' column with with the necessary modifiers to reflect her own bias and hypocrisy on the sanctity of marriage - including the fact that's she's been divorced and remarried.
29% of Americans Say Religion "Out of Date"
In another sign that while still winning some battles, the Christo-fascists are slowly losing the larger war of inflicting their religious bigotry on all Americans, the percentage of Americans identifying as Christian is continuing to fall. The result, of course, will in the short term likely be even more hysterical efforts by the Religious Right to enact as many anti-gay and anti-diversity laws as possible before the oldest living generations - which are the most prejudiced - die off. Indeed, the Christianists will be hyperventilating over the fact that, accordingly newly released Gallup Poll, the percentage of Americans who consider themselves to be Christian has dropped from 91% in 1948 to 78% in 2009. At the same time, the number of citizens saying that they have no religion has risen from 2% to 13%.*
Personally, I believe that much of the decline in Christian identification is due to the wanton un-Christian conduct of self-righteous, self-anointed, hate filled "Christians." Be it their degradation of gays or the rampant hypocrisy and callousness found in the Catholic Church hierarchy, these false Christians have made the Christian faith something to be scorned and avoided. The irony is that its the efforts of the likes of Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Tony Perkins, James Dobson and Benedict XVI that have given Christianity this increasingly toxic image. Here are some highlights from the new Gallup Poll findings:
*
The trend results are based on annual averages of Gallup's religious identity data in America that stretch back over 60 years. One of the most significant trends documented during this period is the substantial increase in the percentage of American adults who don't identify with any specific religion. In 1948, only 2% of Americans did not identify with a religion. That percentage began to rise in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Eleven years ago, in 1998, 6% of Americans did not identify with a religion, a number that rose to 10% by 2002. This year's average of 13% of Americans who claim no religious identity is the highest in Gallup records.
*
The percentage of Americans who identify as Catholic, Protestant, or some other non-Catholic Christian faith has been concomitantly decreasing over the years. In 1948, 91% of Americans identified with a Christian faith. Twenty years ago, in 1989, 82% of Americans identified as Christian. Ten years ago, it was 84%. This year, as noted, 78% of all American adults identify with a Christian faith. There has also been a slight increase in the percentage of Americans who identify with a religion that is not specifically classified as Christian. Sixty years ago, for example, 4% of Americans identified with a non-Christian religion. By 1989, 9% of Americans were in this non-Christian religion category, the same percentage as today.
*
When a faith seems increasingly defined by the people that they hate - which with the Religious Right is nearly everyone but themselves - it is anything but a ringing endorsement for that faith. Especially when the supposed Gospel message is something far different. I am not anti-religion - although I did not go to church the night before last/yesterday - but I am against a belief system that betrays Christ's supposed message and seems more focused on hate and division than love of neighbor and equality for all.
The trend results are based on annual averages of Gallup's religious identity data in America that stretch back over 60 years. One of the most significant trends documented during this period is the substantial increase in the percentage of American adults who don't identify with any specific religion. In 1948, only 2% of Americans did not identify with a religion. That percentage began to rise in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Eleven years ago, in 1998, 6% of Americans did not identify with a religion, a number that rose to 10% by 2002. This year's average of 13% of Americans who claim no religious identity is the highest in Gallup records.
*
The percentage of Americans who identify as Catholic, Protestant, or some other non-Catholic Christian faith has been concomitantly decreasing over the years. In 1948, 91% of Americans identified with a Christian faith. Twenty years ago, in 1989, 82% of Americans identified as Christian. Ten years ago, it was 84%. This year, as noted, 78% of all American adults identify with a Christian faith. There has also been a slight increase in the percentage of Americans who identify with a religion that is not specifically classified as Christian. Sixty years ago, for example, 4% of Americans identified with a non-Christian religion. By 1989, 9% of Americans were in this non-Christian religion category, the same percentage as today.
*
When a faith seems increasingly defined by the people that they hate - which with the Religious Right is nearly everyone but themselves - it is anything but a ringing endorsement for that faith. Especially when the supposed Gospel message is something far different. I am not anti-religion - although I did not go to church the night before last/yesterday - but I am against a belief system that betrays Christ's supposed message and seems more focused on hate and division than love of neighbor and equality for all.
Friday, December 25, 2009
Two More Irish Bishops Resign; Meanwhile Cardinal Mahony Still in Office and the Vatican Does Nothing
Two more Catholic bishops in Ireland who were named for malfeasance in the Murphy Report on the Diocese of Dublin have resigned and pressure mounts further for a fifth bishop to resign. What is happening in Ireland remains a startling contrast from the USA where bishops and cardinals who enabled predator priests and then sought to cover up the reporting of abuse remain in office. A case in point in the USA is Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles who I will get to shortly. The other contrast is that elected officials in Ireland seem much more willing to call for resignations than spineless politicians in the USA who worry that they might look "anti-religion" merely for demanding that accessories to against minors be prosecuted or removed from office. First some developments via the Irish Times concerning the additional resignations in Ireland:*
Dublin's remaining two auxiliary bishops are to step down in the wake of the Murphy report into the handling of child abuse complaints in the Dublin Archdiocese. The resignations of Bishop Éamonn Walsh and Bishop Raymond Field were announced late last night, bringing to four the number of bishops who have stepped down over the report.
*
Bishop of Kildare and Leighlin James Moriarty said on Wednesday that he had offered his resignation to Pope Benedict, which put further pressure on other serving bishops also mentioned in the report to do likewise. The fifth bishop, the Bishop of Galway Martin Drennan, has so far resisted calls for him to step down. Bishop of Limerick Donal Murray resigned earlier this month.
Dublin north central Labour councillor Aodhan O Riordain welcomed the statement. "The timing of the announcement is open to question, but the resignations are welcome nonetheless. It is now time for a full and frank debate about the relationship between the church and state institutions in Ireland, especially education. As a principal of a Catholic school, I feel we can hide from that debate no longer," he said.
*
Dublin's remaining two auxiliary bishops are to step down in the wake of the Murphy report into the handling of child abuse complaints in the Dublin Archdiocese. The resignations of Bishop Éamonn Walsh and Bishop Raymond Field were announced late last night, bringing to four the number of bishops who have stepped down over the report.
*
Bishop of Kildare and Leighlin James Moriarty said on Wednesday that he had offered his resignation to Pope Benedict, which put further pressure on other serving bishops also mentioned in the report to do likewise. The fifth bishop, the Bishop of Galway Martin Drennan, has so far resisted calls for him to step down. Bishop of Limerick Donal Murray resigned earlier this month.
Dublin north central Labour councillor Aodhan O Riordain welcomed the statement. "The timing of the announcement is open to question, but the resignations are welcome nonetheless. It is now time for a full and frank debate about the relationship between the church and state institutions in Ireland, especially education. As a principal of a Catholic school, I feel we can hide from that debate no longer," he said.
*
I sharp contrast to the bishops in Ireland who have resigned is Cardinal Mahony in Los Angeles. Here are some highlights via UPI.com:
*
A senior Catholic official in Los Angeles has testified under immunity before a grand jury investigating sex abuse, the Los Angeles Times reported Thursday. A source told the newspaper Monsignor Richard Loomis, the former vicar of clergy for the archdiocese of Los Angeles, was granted use immunity. That means his testimony before a federal grand jury cannot be used to prosecute him. Loomis' responsibilities as vicar of clergy included overseeing cases involving priests accused of molesting children.
*
Loomis gave a deposition in a civil case this year, saying Mahony told him in 2000 not to tell police about charges of sexual misconduct against a priest. The civil case involved the Rev. Michael Baker, who has been sentenced to 10 years in prison and defrocked.
A senior Catholic official in Los Angeles has testified under immunity before a grand jury investigating sex abuse, the Los Angeles Times reported Thursday. A source told the newspaper Monsignor Richard Loomis, the former vicar of clergy for the archdiocese of Los Angeles, was granted use immunity. That means his testimony before a federal grand jury cannot be used to prosecute him. Loomis' responsibilities as vicar of clergy included overseeing cases involving priests accused of molesting children.
*
Loomis gave a deposition in a civil case this year, saying Mahony told him in 2000 not to tell police about charges of sexual misconduct against a priest. The civil case involved the Rev. Michael Baker, who has been sentenced to 10 years in prison and defrocked.
*
Some members of the Church hierarchy like Mahony literally have no shame and refuse to do the right thing and resign. Meanwhile, Benedict XVI has lacked the decency to demand their resignation. Archbishop Martin of Dublin has been unique in his calls for bishops guilty of malfeasance and abuse cover ups to resign. Martin it would seem would make a far more honest and moral Pope than Papa Ratzi. Some believe that I am too harsh. I think not - especially when you consider this point brought up by Colm O'Gorman:
*
So what has the response of the Vatican been to the Murphy Report? Well, the Pope has expressed his disgust and outrage at the content of the report. Mind you given the fact that he was responsible for the management of clerical child sexual abuse within the global church for the best part of two decades it can’t have been the detail of the abuse that “outraged” him, he must have been very familiar with that already. Perhaps it was the criticism of the institution that alarmed him? No doubt we will hear more in his upcoming pastoral letter to the Irish Church due sometime next year.
*
If Benedict failed to act because John Paul II did not allow him to do so, he needs to say that such was the case publicly - and also stop the ridiculous effort to canonize John Paul II.
Haters Are Pushing to Overturn Iowa Marriage Equality
Like a toxic plague, the anti-gay forces are relentless in their efforts to strip LGBT citizens of the civil legal rights. Now, the militant theocrats are focusing on making an attempt to repeal marriage equality in Iowa. It is truly difficult at times not to hate these people - especially the ones like Maggie Gallagher who are enriching themselves in the process of spreading homophobic hate and making a farce out of America's supposed promise of freedom of religion for all. From my perspective, these haters are no different that the segregationists who sought to keep black Americans as second class citizens, often using the Bible as one of their justifications for bigotry. Some things and some people seem to never change - they always want someone to hate and denigrate. I sincerely hope that their efforts fail and that Iowa upholds its historic record of being far ahead of the rest of the nation in upholding the rights of ALL citizens, not just the rights of religious extremists. Here are some highlights from the Advocate:*
Iowa marriage equality foes are ramping up pressure on state legislators to support a constitutional ban on gay marriage.
*
The Iowa Family Policy Council’s Bryan English told the Waterloo-Cedar Falls Courier that the group is asking 150 state lawmakers where they stand on a ballot measure similar to California’s Proposition 8 and Maine’s Question 1 — both of which stripped same-sex couples of state marriage rights. The group also intends to hold a “two days for marriage” rally next month in Des Moines.
*
A proposed constitutional amendment has to be approved by the general assemblies in two consecutive sessions before it goes to voters. If the legislature does not act on the matter in 2010, the earliest the amendment could be before Iowan voters would be 2013 or 2014.
*
However, state house and senate leaders have stated their opposition to a gay marriage ban and said they do not plan to take up a resolution on the amendment next year.
*
No doubt the haters are stepping up their pace because they realize that the longer same sex marriage continue to occur with no adverse effect on society, the more difficult it will be to overturn The Iowa Supreme Court's ruling that specifically linked the anti-gay agenda with religion and ruled that the state could not impose only one religious view on all citizens. As for Bryan English, he's likely to be a self-hating closet case who has transferred his self-hatred to normal LGBT citizens.
Iran Protests Spread in Heartland
As far too many Americans seem to be embracing the dumbing down of the populace favored by the Christianists - who need an ignorant populace to further their theocratic goals - and focus on moronic reality TV, Tiger Woods' moral lapse, what same sex couples do in the privacy of their bedrooms, etc., rather than significant current events and basis knowledge such as geography, critical developments continue to be playing out in Iran. Depending upon which side wins in the continuing protests, the entire calculus of the Middle East could change radically. Personally, I do not understand the mind set or the narrow world view that allows citizens to be so oblivious of important events overseas. While many Americans view Iran as a backward nation of religious extremists, the reality is that the nation has a long cultural history that is more than 10 times the age of that of the USA. I hope the protests lead to a succesful overthrow of the current government and a true democracy. The Los Angeles Times has a story on the continuing protests in Iran which I hope in time may topple the theocratic dictatorship that currently rules that nation. Here are some highlights:*
Large-scale protests spread in central Iranian cities Wednesday, offering the starkest evidence yet that the opposition movement that emerged from the disputed June presidential election has expanded beyond its base of mostly young, educated Tehran residents to at least some segments of the country's pious heartland.
*
Demonstrations took place in Esfahan, a provincial capital and Iran's cultural center, and nearby Najafabad, the birthplace and hometown of Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri, whose death Saturday triggered the latest round of confrontations between the opposition movement and the government.
*
Iranian authorities are clearly alarmed by the spread of the protests. Mojtaba Zolnour, a mid-ranking cleric serving as supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's representative to the elite and powerful Revolutionary Guard, acknowledged widespread unrest around the country.
*
There were also reports Wednesday of protests breaking out on university campuses in Tehran and the eastern city of Mashhad, Iran's second largest, and a violent clash broke out in the southern city of Sirjan over the execution of two men accused of criminal activity. Tehran's mass postelection protests, which were crushed by authorities, drew Iranians from all walks of life.
*
"What has happened was a religious reaction out of devotion and conviction" to Montazeri, he said. "While on the surface the unrest has no relation with the political agenda of the green [opposition] movement, more deeply it is part and parcel of the same social, political and economic dissatisfaction, and if it continues, it will become more a political than merely a religious backlash." "The limitation imposed on the reform movement by the government made it into a social movement which has become viable and gained momentum," he said.
Large-scale protests spread in central Iranian cities Wednesday, offering the starkest evidence yet that the opposition movement that emerged from the disputed June presidential election has expanded beyond its base of mostly young, educated Tehran residents to at least some segments of the country's pious heartland.
*
Demonstrations took place in Esfahan, a provincial capital and Iran's cultural center, and nearby Najafabad, the birthplace and hometown of Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri, whose death Saturday triggered the latest round of confrontations between the opposition movement and the government.
*
Iranian authorities are clearly alarmed by the spread of the protests. Mojtaba Zolnour, a mid-ranking cleric serving as supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's representative to the elite and powerful Revolutionary Guard, acknowledged widespread unrest around the country.
*
There were also reports Wednesday of protests breaking out on university campuses in Tehran and the eastern city of Mashhad, Iran's second largest, and a violent clash broke out in the southern city of Sirjan over the execution of two men accused of criminal activity. Tehran's mass postelection protests, which were crushed by authorities, drew Iranians from all walks of life.
*
"What has happened was a religious reaction out of devotion and conviction" to Montazeri, he said. "While on the surface the unrest has no relation with the political agenda of the green [opposition] movement, more deeply it is part and parcel of the same social, political and economic dissatisfaction, and if it continues, it will become more a political than merely a religious backlash." "The limitation imposed on the reform movement by the government made it into a social movement which has become viable and gained momentum," he said.
Gay Marriage and the Constitution
I am a firm believer that once religious based bigotry is stripped away from the issue of same sex marriage, there remains no legitimate reason under the U.S. Constitution for the disparate treatment of same sex couples under the CIVIL marriage laws. Both the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the freedom of religion promised by the First Amendment demand that ALL citizen be afforded equality under the CIVIL laws. Churches and denominations are free to teach whatever they want within their walls and to deny religious or church marriage to same sex couples as they wish. But CIVIL marriage should be outside the scope of what religious organizations control. Otherwise, there is a de facto establishment of one religious view on marriage. Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean and Distinguished Professor of Law, University of California, Irvine, School of Law, has an article in Saturday Night Magazine that looks at LGBT progress on the marriage front and why marriage equality matters. In my opinion, the effort to deny same sex couples marriage rights highlights the entire agenda of the Christianists to keep LGBT individuals as inferior citizens based solely on religious belief. Here are some article highlights:*
Within this decade, a major step to equality has occurred in much of the world. Same sex marriage is now allowed in Canada and most nations in Western Europe. In 2008, two state supreme courts, in California and Connecticut, held that gays and lesbians have the right to marry. They joined Massachusetts as the first states in this country to provide for marriage equality. Until California voters amended the California Constitution in November to outlaw same sex marriage, over one in eight people in the United States lived in a state where same sex marriage was allowed.
*
Why does this matter? Most studies estimate that about one tenth of the population is gay. Laws in every state traditionally have provided enormous benefits to married couples that were unavailable to others. These statutes concern important matters such as child custody, inheritance, insurance coverage, and tax benefits. When I got married, my wife could immediately get coverage under my insurance and could inherit from me if I died. But gays and lesbians are usually permanently denied these benefits that married couples receive automatically.
*
Beyond the tangible benefits, marriage is the primary way in which people express their love and desire for permanent commitment. Denying marriage equality to gays and lesbians is a powerful statement that society still believes them to be second-class (or worse) citizens.
*
Litigating in state courts under state constitutions has been a deliberate choice by advocates of marriage equality to keep the matter out of the hands of the United States Supreme Court because of the sense that there are not five Justices there who would vote in favor of marriage equality. So long as the advocates of marriage equality do not present any claims under the United States Constitution or under federal law, the United States Supreme Court cannot hear the matter.
*
[G]ays and lesbians will have children whether or not they can marry. Gay men will have children through surrogacy and adoption; lesbians will have children through artificial insemination and adoption. Thus, the issue is not whether gays and lesbians should have children, but whether their children should have the benefits of married parents. If one believes that marriage promotes family stability, then allowing marriage equality benefits children of gays and lesbians.
*
Every opinion poll shows that views on marriage equality are often a function of age. Whereas voters over 60 tend to oppose same sex marriage, voters under 25 strongly favor allowing it. This dramatic difference in views means that it is only a matter of time before same sex marriage is allowed in most of the United States. Gays and lesbians will be accorded the same ability to experience the joys of marriage — and the same opportunity to experience its frustrations and disappointments — as heterosexuals always have had.
Sexual Abuse in Other Denominations No Excuse for Catholic Church
A reader left a comment on my recent post on the continuing fallout from the Murphy Report in Ireland on the Diocese of Dublin. While acknowledging that the abuse and the cover ups in the Roman Catholic Church are terrible, the author of the comment - that will not be published because it is anonymous - tries to (1) give Pope Benedict a pass by saying he has been more forthcoming that John Paul II and (2) launching into a review of sex abuse issues in Anglican churches in Canada. The false piety of the Catholic hierarchy sickens me and I wish would be apologists for Benedict XVI would open their eyes. To say that he is better than the un-saintly John Paul II does not excuse his continuing failures to remove bishops, archbishops and cardinals who were involved in enabling and/or covering up the abuse of minors.*
The bottom line is that sexual abuse of minors is inexcusable anywhere and in all denominations, but in my view the Catholic Church deserves special scrutiny for several reasons. First, the abuse seems to have been endemic world wide - case are pending literally around the globe. Second, the efforts of cover up and refusal to settle with abuse victims has often victimize those abused by priests a second time. Third, rather than wait for offered resignations, the Popes should have immediately removed bishops implicated in cover ups. In the present case in Ireland, if Benedict XVI was serious about cleaning up the Church, he would have immediately fired the five bishops named in the Murphy Report. Instead, we have seen more deference to those guilty of malfeasance than one would see in any other type of institution.
*The bottom line is that sexual abuse of minors is inexcusable anywhere and in all denominations, but in my view the Catholic Church deserves special scrutiny for several reasons. First, the abuse seems to have been endemic world wide - case are pending literally around the globe. Second, the efforts of cover up and refusal to settle with abuse victims has often victimize those abused by priests a second time. Third, rather than wait for offered resignations, the Popes should have immediately removed bishops implicated in cover ups. In the present case in Ireland, if Benedict XVI was serious about cleaning up the Church, he would have immediately fired the five bishops named in the Murphy Report. Instead, we have seen more deference to those guilty of malfeasance than one would see in any other type of institution.
Another truth is that the Catholic Church continues to marginalize women and gays and rejects modern knowledge. Its anti-birth control positions for example only serve to spread disease and have children born into situations where they suffer starvation and sometimes abuse. If as an institution the Church is going to play holier than thou, then, by God, hold it to the higher standard that it pretends to demand of everyone else. Like so many issues, it is the hypocrisy and callousness of members of the hierarchy that is so disgusting.
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Holiday Blogging
Christmas weekend will be hectic and my posting will be somewhat interrupted and not on its typical schedule. Today's been crazy with events with the boyfriend's parents and friends and tomorrow morning we are making the drive up to Charlottesville which is still recovering from more than 2 feet of snow last weekend The Rotunda on the UVA campus is pictured above). I will post as and when I have an opportunity and wish all my readers a Merry Christmas. I also want to thank all of you for supporting my efforts on this blog. Your positive feed back means more than you will ever know. Dustin Lance Black Takes on Gay Bashing College
There have been numerous blog posts and news stories about how Hope College in Holland, Michigan, disinvited Dustin Lance Black, Academy Award winning screen writer for the film Milk - who is a sweetheart in person as I know personally from meeting him at the National Equality March - from speaking at the college and from screening Milk. It was yet another case of homophobic Christianists seeking to avoid a real world discussion of the fact that (i) gays DO exist and (ii) that religious based discrimination against LGBT Americans is not acceptable under the U.S. Constitution. Ultimately, a theater in Holland did allow a screening of Milk and Dustin describes his experiences at Daily Beast. What he has to say speaks volumes about why it is important for gays to live openly and help kill the stereotypes that our enemies work so hard to create. Here are some highlights:*
The story said I had been banned from screening Milk and was officially not welcome on Hope College’s campus. The dean of students wasn’t shy about it. He called my brand of “advocacy” hurtful to the student body. Without ever meeting me in person, without so much as a phone call, he had publicly declared me and Milk unholy and unwelcome.
*
What had started as a wide-eyed adventure to bring Harvey Milk back to life had taken a darker turn since my Oscar acceptance speech appeared and re-appeared on Oprah, The View, and The O’Reilly Factor. Anti-gay letters, emails, and attacks had begun, and now, here in West Michigan, I had met the same fate as many of my favorite writers: I was banned. Naïveté was gone. My education had begun. Between the apologetic handshakes were glares from unknown locals. The politeness I’d come to admire was lifted up, revealing hidden enmity.
*
But let me be clear: I don’t think the town was homophobic. I think they had simply never discussed gay rights openly before, and here I was, an interloper, threatening to thrust this hot-button issue into their community. As the dean kept talking and students began protesting, calls came from journalists in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and New York. I did my best to stay focused, wrap up production, and in the end, decided to move my editing room out of West Michigan.
But that’s not how the story ends. Two weeks ago, in blizzard conditions, a Delta pilot landed on a snowy runway in Grand Rapids, and I drove the half hour from the airport to Holland, watching SUVs slide into ditches in front of me. With five minutes to spare, I arrived at the Park Theater off Main Street, right across from the steeples of Hope College.
*
Why had I made the journey back? Because when I decided I needed to set things right with the people of Holland who had been so welcoming, I called that same student who had come up to me in the coffee shop months ago, and we decided not to take “no” for an answer.
*
He organized a new group called “Hope Is Ready,” and raised funds from local city leaders who had never taken a stand on gay rights before, but in the face of Hope’s now widely publicized homophobia, decided to put their quiet courtesy aside (most for the first time), and donated time, money, and space to do what Hope wouldn’t: have this conversation.
*
The theater sold out in an hour. We booked a second night at a larger venue and it, too, filled up. As the film wrapped up, Harvey called out from the screen: “You gotta give ‘em HOPE. You gotta give ‘em HOPE.” And for the first time, those words meant something very different to me. They meant, as we fight for equality in California and New York, we can’t forget about those kids out there in small-town America, in the Hollands or Hope Colleges. Their lives are too valuable.
*
When the lights came up, it became clear the audience was almost entirely students and faculty from Hope College. And it wasn’t just gay people who stood up and told their stories at the Q&A afterward; it was minorities of every kind. And the next morning, for the first time, the dean of Hope College called me. As long as there was no one else around to witness it, he wanted to meet.
*
A tall, white-haired man waved to me from under the marquee of another local theater. It had warmed up to 20 degrees. I was shivering; he was braver about the weather. This was the man who had banned my film and lecture, and denounced me to reporters. Now he was responsible for my return. Without him, I likely would have spoken to a handful of students on campus, the event would have gone largely unnoticed, and the long-needed dialogue that had taken place the night before would never have happened. Gay people in Holland had this man to thank.
*
What struck me immediately was his referring to me as “you people.” I asked him to clarify, and he hesitantly said, “gay people.” He claimed it was “my people” who had been attacking him since the news broke, though all of the complaints I’d read in the papers had come from straight people in his own community. But I didn’t argue that. Instead, I asked that he get to know gay and lesbian people individually instead of lumping us together, stereotyping.
It became clear the problem here wasn’t gay people or Hollywood people or people from California. The problem was a fear of “other” people, people from different worlds or with different viewpoints. I was reminded of Harvey Milk who claimed the war against homophobia was a war against fear. Fear of the unknown. Fear of what is different.
The story said I had been banned from screening Milk and was officially not welcome on Hope College’s campus. The dean of students wasn’t shy about it. He called my brand of “advocacy” hurtful to the student body. Without ever meeting me in person, without so much as a phone call, he had publicly declared me and Milk unholy and unwelcome.
*
What had started as a wide-eyed adventure to bring Harvey Milk back to life had taken a darker turn since my Oscar acceptance speech appeared and re-appeared on Oprah, The View, and The O’Reilly Factor. Anti-gay letters, emails, and attacks had begun, and now, here in West Michigan, I had met the same fate as many of my favorite writers: I was banned. Naïveté was gone. My education had begun. Between the apologetic handshakes were glares from unknown locals. The politeness I’d come to admire was lifted up, revealing hidden enmity.
*
But let me be clear: I don’t think the town was homophobic. I think they had simply never discussed gay rights openly before, and here I was, an interloper, threatening to thrust this hot-button issue into their community. As the dean kept talking and students began protesting, calls came from journalists in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and New York. I did my best to stay focused, wrap up production, and in the end, decided to move my editing room out of West Michigan.
But that’s not how the story ends. Two weeks ago, in blizzard conditions, a Delta pilot landed on a snowy runway in Grand Rapids, and I drove the half hour from the airport to Holland, watching SUVs slide into ditches in front of me. With five minutes to spare, I arrived at the Park Theater off Main Street, right across from the steeples of Hope College.
*
Why had I made the journey back? Because when I decided I needed to set things right with the people of Holland who had been so welcoming, I called that same student who had come up to me in the coffee shop months ago, and we decided not to take “no” for an answer.
*
He organized a new group called “Hope Is Ready,” and raised funds from local city leaders who had never taken a stand on gay rights before, but in the face of Hope’s now widely publicized homophobia, decided to put their quiet courtesy aside (most for the first time), and donated time, money, and space to do what Hope wouldn’t: have this conversation.
*
The theater sold out in an hour. We booked a second night at a larger venue and it, too, filled up. As the film wrapped up, Harvey called out from the screen: “You gotta give ‘em HOPE. You gotta give ‘em HOPE.” And for the first time, those words meant something very different to me. They meant, as we fight for equality in California and New York, we can’t forget about those kids out there in small-town America, in the Hollands or Hope Colleges. Their lives are too valuable.
*
When the lights came up, it became clear the audience was almost entirely students and faculty from Hope College. And it wasn’t just gay people who stood up and told their stories at the Q&A afterward; it was minorities of every kind. And the next morning, for the first time, the dean of Hope College called me. As long as there was no one else around to witness it, he wanted to meet.
*
A tall, white-haired man waved to me from under the marquee of another local theater. It had warmed up to 20 degrees. I was shivering; he was braver about the weather. This was the man who had banned my film and lecture, and denounced me to reporters. Now he was responsible for my return. Without him, I likely would have spoken to a handful of students on campus, the event would have gone largely unnoticed, and the long-needed dialogue that had taken place the night before would never have happened. Gay people in Holland had this man to thank.
*
What struck me immediately was his referring to me as “you people.” I asked him to clarify, and he hesitantly said, “gay people.” He claimed it was “my people” who had been attacking him since the news broke, though all of the complaints I’d read in the papers had come from straight people in his own community. But I didn’t argue that. Instead, I asked that he get to know gay and lesbian people individually instead of lumping us together, stereotyping.
It became clear the problem here wasn’t gay people or Hollywood people or people from California. The problem was a fear of “other” people, people from different worlds or with different viewpoints. I was reminded of Harvey Milk who claimed the war against homophobia was a war against fear. Fear of the unknown. Fear of what is different.
*
I commend Dustin for not taking "no" for an answer and pushing the envelop so that some real dialogue could take place. I count myself as lucky to have had the opportunity to meet with this amazing young man. I suspect that we will hear much more from and about him in the future.
Resignation Statement Pressures Other Irish Bishops to Resign
In the USA after the massive sex abuse scandal exploded in 2002, other than Cardinal Law, no U.S. Bishops resigned as a result of their enabling and cover up of sexual predator priests. Even then, Law was given a plum position in Rome - hardly a harsh punishment. It appears that in Ireland, some accountability may yet occur. Two bishops named in the Murphy Report on the Diocese of Dublin have already tendered their resignations and three more are under growing pressure to reign as well. True, it's a drop in the bucket in terms of those who need to resign world wide - including Benedict XVI - but it is far better than what occurred in the USA. Of course, part of the issue may be that most American Catholics lacked the will to demand change and continued to support the Church like mindless sheep. I truly hope that the Catholics in Ireland will show more integrity and fortitude and that the resignations to date are just the beginning. Here are some highlights from the Irish Times on the latest developments:*
THE ANNOUNCEMENT yesterday by Bishop James Moriarty that he has offered his resignation to Pope Benedict will put further pressure on the three other serving bishops also mentioned in the Murphy report to do likewise. There was no comment from the Vatican last night on the offered resignation of Bishop Moriarty. He will remain Bishop of Kildare and Leighlin until his offer of resignation is formally accepted by Pope Benedict, probably towards mid-January.
*
In his statement yesterday Bishop Moriarty said: “The Murphy report covers far more than what individual bishops did or did not do. Fundamentally it is about how the leadership of the archdiocese failed over many decades to respond properly to criminal acts against children.” He continued that “with the benefit of hindsight, I accept that, from the time I became an auxiliary bishop, I should have challenged the prevailing culture.”
*
He said: “I know that any action now on my part does not take away the suffering that people have endured. I again apologise to all the survivors and their families. I have today offered my resignation as Bishop of Kildare and Leighlin to the Holy Father.
*
Responding last night, Marie Collins, who was abused in 1960 by a priest named in the report with the pseudonym Fr Edmondus, said it was a “step forward”. The Murphy report found that Bishop Moriarty received a complaint about Fr Edmondus in 1993 concerning the priest’s contact with young children. Bishop Moriarty spoke to Fr Edmondus and discussed the complaint with local priests and then archbishop Desmond Connell. “No attempt was made by archdiocesan authorities to check the archives or other files relating to Fr Edmondus when these complaints were received,” the Murphy report said.
*
Marie Collins said of Bishop Moriarty last night that she was “encouraged by him having courage”. It was important that the remaining bishops did the same, she said. Andrew Madden, who was abused as an altar boy by Ivan Payne, welcomed Bishop Moriarty’s decision and repeated his call for bishops Martin Drennan, Éamonn Walsh and Ray Field to also resign.
*
THE ANNOUNCEMENT yesterday by Bishop James Moriarty that he has offered his resignation to Pope Benedict will put further pressure on the three other serving bishops also mentioned in the Murphy report to do likewise. There was no comment from the Vatican last night on the offered resignation of Bishop Moriarty. He will remain Bishop of Kildare and Leighlin until his offer of resignation is formally accepted by Pope Benedict, probably towards mid-January.
*
In his statement yesterday Bishop Moriarty said: “The Murphy report covers far more than what individual bishops did or did not do. Fundamentally it is about how the leadership of the archdiocese failed over many decades to respond properly to criminal acts against children.” He continued that “with the benefit of hindsight, I accept that, from the time I became an auxiliary bishop, I should have challenged the prevailing culture.”
*
He said: “I know that any action now on my part does not take away the suffering that people have endured. I again apologise to all the survivors and their families. I have today offered my resignation as Bishop of Kildare and Leighlin to the Holy Father.
*
Responding last night, Marie Collins, who was abused in 1960 by a priest named in the report with the pseudonym Fr Edmondus, said it was a “step forward”. The Murphy report found that Bishop Moriarty received a complaint about Fr Edmondus in 1993 concerning the priest’s contact with young children. Bishop Moriarty spoke to Fr Edmondus and discussed the complaint with local priests and then archbishop Desmond Connell. “No attempt was made by archdiocesan authorities to check the archives or other files relating to Fr Edmondus when these complaints were received,” the Murphy report said.
*
Marie Collins said of Bishop Moriarty last night that she was “encouraged by him having courage”. It was important that the remaining bishops did the same, she said. Andrew Madden, who was abused as an altar boy by Ivan Payne, welcomed Bishop Moriarty’s decision and repeated his call for bishops Martin Drennan, Éamonn Walsh and Ray Field to also resign.
*
The sad thing is that the so-called "culture" that allowed wanton abuse for decades was not and is not unique to the Diocese of Dublin. It permeates the entire Catholic hierarchy around the world from Virginia where former Bishop Sullivan covered up for a predator until criminal charges were brought to the most remote of dioceses. It is one of the reasons I am no longer a Roman Catholic. The Church hierarchy remains a toxic cesspool.
Spain's Supreme Court Increases Suspension for Homophobic Judge
Wow!! While on the topic of homophobia in the legal profession, one best not forget the rampant homophobia among judges who allow their personal religious beliefs to lead them to inequitable if not downright horrific treatment of LGBT Litigants. If the Virginia Supreme Court were to follow the example of Spain's highest court, many courts in Virginia - including the majority in Norfolk - might well be without judges. Kudos to Spain's Supreme Court for hitting a homophobic judge (pictured at left) with a 10 year suspension for his inappropriate discrimination against an LGBT litigant. Once again, Spain is ahead of the USA in its treatment of its LGBT citizens. Here are some story highlights:*
The Murcia judge who was suspended by the Murcia High Court for maliciously delaying the adoption by a lesbian woman of her partner’s child has had his appeal against the court’s turned down by Spain’s highest court.
*
The Supreme Court has in fact decided to increase more than four-fold the magistrate’s original suspension of two years, three months and one day: the length of his ban has now gone up to 10 years.
*
The sentence prohibiting Fernando Ferrín Calamita from his profession for 10 years has also ordered him to pay a fine of 720 €, and has confirmed 6,000 € in compensation to the woman who had applied to adopt the child.
*
The Murcia judge who was suspended by the Murcia High Court for maliciously delaying the adoption by a lesbian woman of her partner’s child has had his appeal against the court’s turned down by Spain’s highest court.
*
The Supreme Court has in fact decided to increase more than four-fold the magistrate’s original suspension of two years, three months and one day: the length of his ban has now gone up to 10 years.
*
The sentence prohibiting Fernando Ferrín Calamita from his profession for 10 years has also ordered him to pay a fine of 720 €, and has confirmed 6,000 € in compensation to the woman who had applied to adopt the child.
*
Judge Calamita was originally suspended for 2 years for maliciously delaying a lesbian adoption.
Honestly, moving to Spain is looking better and better all the time.
Honestly, moving to Spain is looking better and better all the time.
Law Firm Homophobia: Ex-Fried Frank Associate Sues Firm, Claiming Harassment, Phony Reviews
I have looked at the homophobia that still permeates much of the legal profession - particularly outside of truly major metropolitan areas - in prior posts. However, even some law firms in the largest cities may still have their prejudices. One potential example is Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson in New York City which about to be sued by a former associate attorney, Julie Kamps, who plans to file a lawsuit this week in federal court in Manhattan. Kamps, previously filed a less detailed complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which in a separate proceeding, issued Kamps a notice of right to sue in November indicating that it appeared that discrimination had indeed occurred. In a prior post, I looked at the disconnect between the non-discrimination policies of top law schools and what law firms actually engage in as laid out in a letter to four Virginia law schools. To date, only the College of William & Mary School of Law has responded and the response was less than encouraging as I will discuss in separate post. Meanwhile, here are some highlights from the AmLaw Daily:*
A former associate plans to file a wide-ranging $50 million lawsuit against Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, accusing the firm of denying her a promotion to partner because she is a lesbian and of doing nothing to stop higher-ups from harassing her, according to a copy of the complaint obtained by The Am Law Daily.
*
A firm spokeswoman did not immediately provide a comment in response to the suit. Kamps, a graduate of Harvard Law School, worked at Fried Frank from 1998 until January of this year, when the firm terminated her in the middle of an arbitration hearing.
*
In the complaint, to be filed this week, Kamps claims that Janice Mac Avoy, a litigation partner, "knowingly made unwelcome sexual advances and sexual comments to Kamps, both alone and in the presence of others." Mac Avoy allegedly "told Kamps it was 'the biggest regret of her life' that she had not slept with Kamps 'when she had the chance,'" and discussed various sexual acts with Kamps, the complaint states. Kamps also alleges that Mac Avoy encouraged her to "wear women's clothes," because William McGuinness, chair of the firm's litigation department, believed Kamps's preference for men's shirts could "make clients uncomfortable."
*
As we've previously reported, Fried Frank terminated Kamps in the middle of an arbitration session in January, during which Bettina Plevan, a well-known employment attorney at Proskauer Rose, represented Fried Frank. It is unclear why Kamps was fired at that time, and Kamps claims in her lawsuit that she has never received a negative performance evaluation or a solid reason for her dismissal.
*
It will be interesting to see where the case goes. The fact that the EEOC issued a right to sue letter does seem to add credence to Kamps' claims.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
For LGBT Americans, Holidays Can Be a Time of Added Stress
I have shared with readers the fact that I do not like the Holiday Season in many ways and often find it to be a time where I find myself battling sadness. Many other LGBT individuals find it equally bad or even fer worse if they have been disowned by their families because of their sexual orientation. I know a number of individuals in this latter category who have been cut off from family for many years. As a parent myself, I truly cannot understand how one can have such a warped mindset as to disown their own child. To me, it says much more negative about the parent than the LGBT child. Sadly, it is typically a toxic version of religion that leads parents to act this way - yet another example as a force for evil rather than good. The Chicago Tribune has a story that looks at this difficult season from the perspective of many LGBT Americans. Here are some highlights:*
Even after he turned 20, Justin Herren viewed Christmas with childlike wonderment. Back at his family's home in Tennessee, he and his brother and sister -- all three grown up -- would rise before dawn to open presents, just like they did as kids. The family would sing carols around their mother's piano, soak in a tree trimmed with long-familiar ornaments and reconnect over an elaborate feast.
*
But when Herren was 22, he sat his family down and told them he is gay. At that moment, the holiday he loves was forever altered. Five years on, he and his father still barely speak. His mother doesn't want to hear about his life in Chicago. Instead of a four- or five-night Christmas stay, he flies in for a night and leaves the next day. "We're able to be around each other, but it's just tense," said Herren, now 27. "To be honest, I'd rather be in a place with people who are happy to have me around, rather than just tolerating me."
*
While many view the holidays with a certain amount of familial anxiety, people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender often face a wide array of additional stressors. Some aren't out of the closet -- or have told only a sibling or two -- and spend the holiday keeping a whole part of their life and personality locked away. Others must manage parents who don't approve of their sexuality. And some must be apart from their partner because of unaccepting relatives.
*
"You have all the built-up family expectations and the mythology of the holidays, you have the regular family drama, plus this," said Lisa Gilmore, a counselor at the Center on Halsted, a GLBT community center in Lakeview. "There's this added tension relating to a family member's identity, there's anxiety over secret-keeping." "The holidays are a lot about fantasy," Gilmore said. "For some, there can be a deep grief and sense of loss over the shattering of that fantasy. For others, it's knowing that the holidays are always going to be this hard, thinking, 'Something about my identity is always going to be a problem.' "
*
That's what it's like for Ben Gannon, 24, of Chicago, who still returns to his family's home in rural Washington state every Christmas. His father is a conservative Christian minister who, along with his mother, has been unable to accept that Gannon is gay, even though he came out at age 19. "I was informed of the impact I'd had on the family by coming out," Gannon said. "So at Christmas, it's a bit of a Cold War. I don't talk about my sexuality, I don't talk specifically about my life. It's a part of my life they just can't handle."
*
Germaine McGlun was born and raised in Chicago. She's 54, and this Christmas she'll surround herself with friends at a celebration the Center on Halsted is hosting. She has vivid memories of Christmastime growing up, from the smell of home cooking to the excitement of being surrounded by loved ones.
*
"They're my family, I love them," Gannon said. "Ideally, I would love to spend Christmas with them as myself. But right now, I just can't do that."
*
Even after he turned 20, Justin Herren viewed Christmas with childlike wonderment. Back at his family's home in Tennessee, he and his brother and sister -- all three grown up -- would rise before dawn to open presents, just like they did as kids. The family would sing carols around their mother's piano, soak in a tree trimmed with long-familiar ornaments and reconnect over an elaborate feast.
*
But when Herren was 22, he sat his family down and told them he is gay. At that moment, the holiday he loves was forever altered. Five years on, he and his father still barely speak. His mother doesn't want to hear about his life in Chicago. Instead of a four- or five-night Christmas stay, he flies in for a night and leaves the next day. "We're able to be around each other, but it's just tense," said Herren, now 27. "To be honest, I'd rather be in a place with people who are happy to have me around, rather than just tolerating me."
*
While many view the holidays with a certain amount of familial anxiety, people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender often face a wide array of additional stressors. Some aren't out of the closet -- or have told only a sibling or two -- and spend the holiday keeping a whole part of their life and personality locked away. Others must manage parents who don't approve of their sexuality. And some must be apart from their partner because of unaccepting relatives.
*
"You have all the built-up family expectations and the mythology of the holidays, you have the regular family drama, plus this," said Lisa Gilmore, a counselor at the Center on Halsted, a GLBT community center in Lakeview. "There's this added tension relating to a family member's identity, there's anxiety over secret-keeping." "The holidays are a lot about fantasy," Gilmore said. "For some, there can be a deep grief and sense of loss over the shattering of that fantasy. For others, it's knowing that the holidays are always going to be this hard, thinking, 'Something about my identity is always going to be a problem.' "
*
That's what it's like for Ben Gannon, 24, of Chicago, who still returns to his family's home in rural Washington state every Christmas. His father is a conservative Christian minister who, along with his mother, has been unable to accept that Gannon is gay, even though he came out at age 19. "I was informed of the impact I'd had on the family by coming out," Gannon said. "So at Christmas, it's a bit of a Cold War. I don't talk about my sexuality, I don't talk specifically about my life. It's a part of my life they just can't handle."
*
Germaine McGlun was born and raised in Chicago. She's 54, and this Christmas she'll surround herself with friends at a celebration the Center on Halsted is hosting. She has vivid memories of Christmastime growing up, from the smell of home cooking to the excitement of being surrounded by loved ones.
*
"They're my family, I love them," Gannon said. "Ideally, I would love to spend Christmas with them as myself. But right now, I just can't do that."
*
What strikes me as a constant in stories like this is that the parents/family are more concerned about themselves rather than their child. They worry about "what will people think" and cling to out dated and false views about sexual orientation. Love is love whether it be between and man and woman or two people of the same sex.
Congress Pressures Pentagon on Eve of Gays in the Military Debate
The Palm Center is reporting that 96 members of Congress have sent a letter to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates requesting all 2009 “don't ask, don't tell” discharge data in an effort to ready their arguments for the impending 2010 debate on the gay ban. Any casual reader od this blog knows that I believe DADT to be nothing more than legalized religious discrimination that serves no real purpose other than to stigmatize LGBT servicemembers and LGBT citizen's in general - a constant goal of our Christianist enemies who want us punished for not conforming to their religious beliefs. The requested information seeks to show the huge waste of resources DADT involves and how in reality, the policy harms military readiness. The letter can be found here. I know numerous honorable veterans who were discharged under DADT, as well as a number of servicemembers who managed to make it to retirement. It is a travesty that individuals like these are banned from service even as the military accepts convicted felons, gang members and those lacking a high school education. Here are highlights from the Palm Center Press release:*
The letter was authored by Congressman Jim Moran (D-VA), a member of the House Defense Appropriations subcommittee and was signed by Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-PA), lead sponsor of the bill to repeal “don't ask, don't tell.” Members are requesting up-to-date information on the number of service members discharged in 2009 under the Obama Administration as well as information about their job specialties, years of service and branch in which they served.
*
This request comes as supporters of repeal in Congress are collecting information to prepare for the upcoming House and Senate debate on repeal in 2010. On December 2nd Congressman Alcee Hastings (D-FL) introduced legislation, which currently has 32 co-sponsors, to allow openly gay service members to testify in upcoming hearings without being discharged under “don't ask, don't tell.” Hearings are expected in the Senate in January or February and in the House in March.
*
Palm Center Director Aaron Belkin stated, "It's clear that some in Washington are looking for ways to avoid discussing DADT in 2010. This letter from 96 Congressional offices keeps the pressure on the White House, Pentagon and Congress by illustrating the costs of discrimination with concrete data."
*
The letter from Congressman Moran also requests that the Pentagon provide monthly updates on “don't ask, don't tell” discharges in 2010 to inform debates over repeal in the House and Senate.
*
As seems to be the case with everything, President Obama is not leading on this issue as promised, but rather being dragged along by members of Congress. Our self-described "fierce advocate" is again missing in action.
The Frightening Mindset of Some Buju Banton Fans
My prior posts on the arrest on Buju Banton for cocaine charges have prompted both comments and nasty e-mails. The comments, as is typical, are "anonymous" and as such I have not published them. One, however, needed a response because it shows the lack of thinking on the part of some of Banton's supporters who it would seem more than anyone ought to not fall for the excuse that "homosexuality is against the law" in Jamaica. Here's the particular comment:*
No matter how faggots try, the generality of the black consciousness can never accept their practice,so the sooner they get to grips,the better,while violence against anyone should never be promoted,let also remember clearly that in Jamaica,homosexuality is against their laws and that should be respected so telling people to boycott the country is another form of violence against the people of the country as not everyone there is anti gay.the beauty about black people is that,Buju Banton will always be seen as a hero,cocaine or no cocaine,prison or no prison.
*
Slavery was legal in many parts of the world for centuries and segregation was legal in the USA for decades. The supposed legality of the slavery laws and Jim Crow laws did not mean that they were moral correct and not in need of changing. Under this individual's reasoning, if slavery were to be made legal again in the USA or elsewhere, such a morally wrong law would need to be "respected." I think not and must beg to differ. Bigotry and hate and disrespect for others, whether it be based on race, religion, or sexual orientation, is wrong, plain and simple. Would that more people could figure out this simple truth.
Anti-Gay Hate Crimes Surge in Honduras
In the six months since its president was deposed in a coup, human rights advocates say that anti-gay brutality and the murder of gays in Honduras has surged. As I made mention in an earlier post last week on this topic and the murder of LGBT activist, Walter Trochez, one of the groups thought to behind the coup is the Catholic Church. It is disturbing to me personally to think that in the land of my mother's birth, I could be callously murder with the Church backing the murderers and the government doing nothing. It is a sick and disgusting situation that again makes me wonder whether a world without institutionalized religion might not be a far better place. UPI has coverage on the surge in murders of gays since the coup. Here are some highlights:*
TEGUCIGALPA, Honduras, Dec. 21 (UPI) -- Up to 18 gay and transgender men have been killed in Honduras in the six months since its president was deposed in a coup, human rights advocates say. That is as many homophopic hate crimes as were recorded in the Central American country the prior five years, The Miami Herald reported Monday.
*
Activists contend the killings are a result in a breakdown in the rule of law in Honduras since the ouster of former President Manuel Zelaya. The Herald reported that HIV-positive gay activist Walter Trochez was slain last week, just days after escaping a six-hour kidnapping ordeal, in a crime indicative of the dangers facing not only gays but Zelaya's supporters.
*
`Walter was afraid," Reina Rivera, director of the Center for the Investigation and Promotion of Human Rights, told the newspaper. "He was a leader in the (pro-Zelaya) Resistance, but we thought he was in a precarious situation because he was also HIV-positive and gay in a patriarchal, machista and homophobic society."
TEGUCIGALPA, Honduras, Dec. 21 (UPI) -- Up to 18 gay and transgender men have been killed in Honduras in the six months since its president was deposed in a coup, human rights advocates say. That is as many homophopic hate crimes as were recorded in the Central American country the prior five years, The Miami Herald reported Monday.
*
Activists contend the killings are a result in a breakdown in the rule of law in Honduras since the ouster of former President Manuel Zelaya. The Herald reported that HIV-positive gay activist Walter Trochez was slain last week, just days after escaping a six-hour kidnapping ordeal, in a crime indicative of the dangers facing not only gays but Zelaya's supporters.
*
`Walter was afraid," Reina Rivera, director of the Center for the Investigation and Promotion of Human Rights, told the newspaper. "He was a leader in the (pro-Zelaya) Resistance, but we thought he was in a precarious situation because he was also HIV-positive and gay in a patriarchal, machista and homophobic society."
MEXICO: Green Light for Gay Marriage, Adoption in Capital
It seems increasingly that hardly a month goes by without some other nation or foreign municipality passing legislation to recognize either same sex civil unions or full same sex marriage rights. As has been the case for some time now, the USA - the alleged land of the free with freedom of religion for all - lags behind even what until recently what might have been considered third world countries. One cannot help but wonder whether or not foreigners view the USA as a huge fraud which fails to practice what it preaches and disregards the promise of full equality under the civil laws to all citizens. Personally, I find the USA's hypocrisy to be embarrassing. Not surprisingly, in the vanguard against legal equality is the Roman Catholic Church in Mexico. Here are some highlights from IPSNews on the development in Mexico City - a city that has more residents than the majority of states in the USA:*
The Mexican capital's local parliament has authorised marriage between same-sex partners, a measure covering the eight million people in Mexico City proper. Adoption by gay couples will also be allowed. With a tally of 39 votes in favour, 20 against and five abstentions, the leftwing Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD) used its majority in the parliament to approve changes to the local civil code, so that marriage is no longer defined as the union of a man and a woman, but as "the free uniting of two people."
*
"We want to correct the exclusion of millions of people from the rights we have established in law," lawmaker José Muñoz of the PRD, the governing party in the nation's capital, told the plenary session of the municipal parliament.
*
The rightwing National Action Party (PAN), which governs Mexico at the national level but is in opposition in the Mexico City municipal government, attempted to delay approval of the bill by proposing a referendum in the capital on same-sex marriage. But the PRD rejected the motion. The reforms will enter into force after the city government has promulgated the new law, and a further period of 45 working days has elapsed. The PAN intends to challenge the bill in the Supreme Court on the grounds that it is unconstitutional.
*
A survey of Mexico City residents by the newspaper El Universal found that 50 percent of respondents were in favour of the legal reform, compared with 38 percent who were against and 12 percent who did not answer. Among the men interviewed, 51 percent backed the change in the law, and 49 percent of women were also in favour. The Catholic Church vigorously attacked the bill. The Archdiocese of Mexico, in the words of its spokesman Hugo Valdemar, called it "immoral."
*
About 20 percent of the Mexican population of 107 million have or have had same-sex partners, according to the Mexican Society for Holistic Humanistic Sexology (SOMESHU), a non-governmental organisation devoted to spreading knowledge about sexuality issues. There are at least 10 types of family in Mexico, according to the state National Institute of Statistics and Geography (INEGI).
About 20 percent of the Mexican population of 107 million have or have had same-sex partners, according to the Mexican Society for Holistic Humanistic Sexology (SOMESHU), a non-governmental organisation devoted to spreading knowledge about sexuality issues. There are at least 10 types of family in Mexico, according to the state National Institute of Statistics and Geography (INEGI).
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Martha Stewart’s Gay Wedding Couple
I previously posted about fellow LGBT Blogger Summit attendee Jeremy Hooper's wedding to his partner being one of the weddings spotlighted in the 15th anniversary issue of Martha Stewart Weddings. Before that, I had posts last summer that carri
ed some photos from Jeremy and Andrew's wedding in Connecticut (at right). Now, The Advocate has an interview with Jeremy that looks at how he and his husband came to be featured in the magazine and what Jeremy hoped to achieve. I particularly like the fact that he sought to have his wedding as just as natural as that of a straight couple - which is as it should be. Needless to say, I applaud Jeremy and Andrew for their willingness to put their faces on an issue that has needlessly caused so much political turmoil. Here are some highlights from the Advocate story:*
Blogger Jeremy Hooper talks about being featured with his husband, Andrew Shulman, as the first gay couple in Martha Stewart Weddings. Jeremy Hooper is best known in gay circles as the brains behind the website GoodAsYou.org, which tackles everything from antigay conservatives sticking their feet in their mouths to the marriage equality movement. But this month Hooper (pictured at left) and his husband, Andrew Shulman, are more likely to be recognized as the first gay couple featured in Martha Stewart Weddings.
*
Hooper first posted photos from his Connecticut wedding on his blog in June, circulating them out to newspaper and magazine editors in the weeks that followed. An editor from Martha Stewart Weddings e-mailed him back a day later. “I think they were actively looking for a same-sex couple,” Hooper says. The blogger says the magazine wasn’t looking to get overly political, but it was clear to him the editors were looking to make a statement.
Martha Stewart Weddings' editor in chief Vanessa Holden says it was Andrew and Jeremy's personal take on the wedding that really caught the magazine's eye. "We have thousands of submissions, and we look for a very particular kind of wedding," she says. "We liked the personal style, their take on how they wanted to celebrate their union. It was a very nice, well-executed, tastefully done celebration of two people's unions."
*
Hooper says he made such a point of getting the wedding photos out there because “for the past five years my personal and my public life have been one and the same. Every step of this journey — every time I can put a human face on this issue, I do.” He says he thinks another reason editors at Martha Stewart Weddings were so eager to run the photos is that the wedding was so pro-family. “We had six or seven children there under the age of 10. We had a nun in full habit. Every faith, everything they always use against us, I think we nipped all of those in the bud.”
Martha Stewart Weddings' editor in chief Vanessa Holden says it was Andrew and Jeremy's personal take on the wedding that really caught the magazine's eye. "We have thousands of submissions, and we look for a very particular kind of wedding," she says. "We liked the personal style, their take on how they wanted to celebrate their union. It was a very nice, well-executed, tastefully done celebration of two people's unions."
*
Hooper says he made such a point of getting the wedding photos out there because “for the past five years my personal and my public life have been one and the same. Every step of this journey — every time I can put a human face on this issue, I do.” He says he thinks another reason editors at Martha Stewart Weddings were so eager to run the photos is that the wedding was so pro-family. “We had six or seven children there under the age of 10. We had a nun in full habit. Every faith, everything they always use against us, I think we nipped all of those in the bud.”
*
It is important for the members of the LGBT community to put human faces on "the gays" so that it becomes increasingly difficult to depict us as the "other" and somehow not fully human.
Gay Rights and the "Natural Law" Farce
As more and more members of the general public are being turned off by the Christianist refrain that the Bible condemns homosexuality, the far right is looking for additional arguments to support its homophobia. One of the justifications - which relies in part on the Roman Catholic Church's 13th century view of the "natural law" - is a movement to depict same sex attraction as "unnatural" and against the "natural law." Objectively, there is nothing to support this anti-gay premise, especially since science has found hundreds of species where same sex relations occur, but the homophobes never let the unbiased facts get in their way. Likewise, the argument ignores the findings of legitimate mental health experts who see homosexuality as "normal" for a certain segment of the populace and as some that is not changeable. Hence the APA's condemnation of "reparative" therapy earlier this year. One of the "high priests" of this approach is Princeton professor, Robert George, profiled in this past weekend's Sunday's New York Times magazine. Regardless of how the anti-gay pig (i.e., religious based bigotry) is dressed up or given lipstick, it remains a pig and efforts to disguise religious based discrimination as something "scientific" is disingenuous at best. Nathaniel Frank has a post a Huffington Post that looks at this latest manure being disseminated by anti-gay Christianists. Here are some highlights:*
For years now a culture war has raged between liberal rationalists and religious dogmatists over whether homosexuality should be treated equally by civil law. Having lost ground in recent years as young people grow up in a world far more familiar with the banalities of what it really means to be gay, the right wing has begun taking careful steps to re-brand its homophobia as a rational, secular position, instead of the sectarian prejudice that it is.
*
It's a dangerous trend, and a starkly immoral one, as credentialed, highly educated people who should know better [than to] lend their social science credentials to the sloppy thinking and outright bigotry of those who are unable or unwilling to challenge their own dogma.
*
George and other proponents of natural law believe that nature endows humans with reason, and all you have to do is consult that reason to know that, just as a stone falls by gravity, homosexuality is morally wrong. But there are (at least) two main problems with natural law reasoning as the basis of public policy. First is that it is utterly circular: it relies on broad agreement about what is a human good, from which natural law theorists deduce morally right action as anything that leads to that good; but how do we decide in the first place what is a moral good?
*
Most of us may agree on friendship or knowledge as human goods, but the test of a good theory is whether it's applicable when the tougher stuff comes into play. Natural law fails this test, as it's totally incapable of actually answering the question of how nature or reason resolves the question of what is morally good.
*
The second problem is that the link that natural law makes between observation and valuation relies on privileging one natural act over another as your starting point, and insisting that act is supreme, to the exclusion of other acts that some view as good. Those like Freud and George, who apparently view the world through a telling prism of sexual fixation, choose the procreative act as supreme.
*
Remember, it's not that anything that's natural is good; it's that nature provides humans with the tool of reason to know what's good and choose what's right. But this means we're back to square one. On what mystical "authority of reason" does George rest his claim that heterosexual intercourse is moral and homosexual intercourse is not? . . . So why is heterosexual intercourse, which is so messy, indulgent, and narcissistic (after all, what's more narcissistic than reproducing yourself?) a moral good, while equality for gay people is not? . . .
[I]f we're going to use reason, let's use real reason, and not lean on our ivy-league credentials to pass off homophobia as genuine rationality.
For years now a culture war has raged between liberal rationalists and religious dogmatists over whether homosexuality should be treated equally by civil law. Having lost ground in recent years as young people grow up in a world far more familiar with the banalities of what it really means to be gay, the right wing has begun taking careful steps to re-brand its homophobia as a rational, secular position, instead of the sectarian prejudice that it is.
*
It's a dangerous trend, and a starkly immoral one, as credentialed, highly educated people who should know better [than to] lend their social science credentials to the sloppy thinking and outright bigotry of those who are unable or unwilling to challenge their own dogma.
*
George and other proponents of natural law believe that nature endows humans with reason, and all you have to do is consult that reason to know that, just as a stone falls by gravity, homosexuality is morally wrong. But there are (at least) two main problems with natural law reasoning as the basis of public policy. First is that it is utterly circular: it relies on broad agreement about what is a human good, from which natural law theorists deduce morally right action as anything that leads to that good; but how do we decide in the first place what is a moral good?
*
Most of us may agree on friendship or knowledge as human goods, but the test of a good theory is whether it's applicable when the tougher stuff comes into play. Natural law fails this test, as it's totally incapable of actually answering the question of how nature or reason resolves the question of what is morally good.
*
The second problem is that the link that natural law makes between observation and valuation relies on privileging one natural act over another as your starting point, and insisting that act is supreme, to the exclusion of other acts that some view as good. Those like Freud and George, who apparently view the world through a telling prism of sexual fixation, choose the procreative act as supreme.
*
Remember, it's not that anything that's natural is good; it's that nature provides humans with the tool of reason to know what's good and choose what's right. But this means we're back to square one. On what mystical "authority of reason" does George rest his claim that heterosexual intercourse is moral and homosexual intercourse is not? . . . So why is heterosexual intercourse, which is so messy, indulgent, and narcissistic (after all, what's more narcissistic than reproducing yourself?) a moral good, while equality for gay people is not? . . .
[I]f we're going to use reason, let's use real reason, and not lean on our ivy-league credentials to pass off homophobia as genuine rationality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)