More Saturday Male Beauty

Franklin Graham: Christianist Bigot Claims Religion is Genetic Except for Christians

I never cease to be amazed by the idiocy and bigotry of self-righteous and self-congratulatory Christians. Case in point: Franklin Graham, the son of Billy Graham who but for his famous father would more than likely be a complete nobody and unknown to anyone (perhaps not a bad thing). This fool and bigot - no other words seems quite appropriate - has shot off his mouth claiming that Barack Obama is a Muslim since with Islam "the seed of Islam is passed through the father like the seed of Judaism is passed through the mother." The exception to this genetic passage of religion is, according to Graham Christians who must "accept Jesus." Yep, that's what evangelical Christianity is coming to. One apparently needs to first have a lobotomy before one can be a Graham style Christian.
*
There's no way to state it nicely - Graham is a buffoon and a bigot. In the reality of the objective world - as opposed to Graham's bigoted fantasy land - religion is something CHOSEN and changeable at any time in one's life. It is NOT genetic in any way. And it is NOT an immutable characteristic. No one is born Catholic, Jewish, Muslim or any other denomination or faith. Instead one is either raised by parents in a particular faith tradition (or no faith tradition in some cases) or selects a faith tradition for themselves. Indeed, one can change their religious belief/affiliation at will and countless Americans do so every year according to various Barna Group studies. Indeed, 60 MILLION Americans have changed their religious tradition according to the most recent studies.
*
The other thing noteworthy about Graham's verbal diarrhea is that he says that Christian belief is being immutable. This flies squarely in the face of the positions of the majority of anti-gay professional Christians. One of the standard lines of the professional anti-gay crowd is the allegation that being gay is "a choice" and therefore, not an immutable characteristic worthy of constitutional anti-discrimination protections. This specific argument was made in Lawrence v. Texas and the Prop 8 supporters attempted to make the same argument in Perry v. Schwarzenegger more recently. Under Graham's bizarre world, since being Christian is clearly a choice, then by taking the Christianists' own logic to its logical conclusion, born again Christians should net receive any anti-discrimination protections since their religion is a choice and, therefore, clearly not immutable.
*
Frankly, Graham's position is pure idiocy. Obama was no more born Muslim than the man in the moon. But if Graham intends to stand by his allegations (which he has said he does), then I say fine. Let's start a ballot initiative to amend California's constitution to strip all born again Christians in that state of anti-discrimination protections. Let them be fired from their jobs, refused housing and subject to all kinds of discrimination. If being a born again Christian isn't an immutable characteristic, then lets use the same logic the Christianist use against LGBT Americans. Here are highlights from ABC News on Franklin Graham's utter batshitery:
*
"I think the president's problem is that he was born a Muslim, his father was a Muslim. The seed of Islam is passed through the father like the seed of Judaism is passed through the mother. He was born a Muslim, his father gave him an Islamic name," Graham told CNN's John King in a televised interview that aired Thursday night.
*
"Now it's obvious that the president has renounced the prophet Mohammed, and he has renounced Islam, and he has accepted Jesus Christ. That's what he says he has done. I cannot say that he hasn't. So I just have to believe that the president is what he has said," Graham continued, adding that "the Islamic world sees the president as one of theirs."
*
As for why Obama and his family rarely go to local church services, the article continues as follows:
*
Obama has favored a more private faith since he took office in January 2009, attending formal church services just a handful of times, including Easter of this year.
*
Like his predecessor George W. Bush, Obama has said he prefers worshiping at the chapel at Camp David. But the president rarely goes to the presidential retreat, and instead spends Sundays at the White House. Weekend activities often include basketball or golf.
*
While the president and his family initially planned to join a church in Washington, they put the search on hold after finding the trappings of the modern presidency too cumbersome for congregation life. Before the president attends a service, the building must be swept for threats and every churchgoer screened for weapons.
*
An Obama family visit to the 19th Street Baptist Church, a historic African-American congregation in Washington, turned into a circus atmosphere that dismayed the family, according to aides, particularly after learning that longtime church members were turned away from the service.
*
This explanation has real merit. When my sister died, one of my former law partners who was at the time Attorney General of Virginia attended the funeral. Accompanying him were state troopers and a number of plainclothes body guards. I can only imagine the circus involved with an appearance by a U. S. President.

Leaked Survey to Military Spouses on DADT Is Pointless

Excuse me, but allowing all physically and mentally qualified citizens to serve in the nation's armed forces should not hinge uon whether homophobes in military families would opt out of picnics and social events. Nor should religious bigots who might not want a gay neighbor get to dictate the nations laws on who can serve in the military. If the same sort of survey was put out and used "black" or "Hispanic" instead of gay or homosexual, imagine the firestorm. Yet those are two of the threards that run throughout the 13 page survey sent to 150,000 military family members. Once again anti-gay Christians are seeking/receiving special rights compared to the rest of the citizenry. Frankly, I am beyound over it all. A leaked copy of the survey can be viewed here via Service Members United. Here are highlights from Politico on the survey's release:
*
The 13-page survey, similar to one sent to troops earlier this year, poses 44 questions on a range of topics. Among the questions: “Assume Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed. If the partner of a gay or lesbian Service member participated in a family support program, would it affect your participation?”
*
[T]he survey asks how many informal military social events -- picnics, gatherings and holiday parties -- the spouse has attended in the last year. It then asks if the law were repealed, would the attendance of a gay or lesbian service member with his or her partner affect future attendance?

Other questions ask if the spouse would recommend military service to a family member or close friend if the law were repealed, or if the service member of the spouse would opt not to stay in the military if “Don’t ask, don’t tell” were repealed.
*
“The military and their families are ready for the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and the low turnouts show that,” said a gay service member who uses the pseudonym J.D. Smith to avoid prosecution and is co-director of Outserve, which represents gay and lesbian military personnel. “We think that we’ll see the exact same thing here [namely, a 28% return rate or less on the surveys].”

Saturday Male Beauty

Fort Eustis Troops Punished For Refusing to Attend Christian Concert

I have written a number of times about something that I believe to be a serious threat to the U.S. military and constitutional freedoms: the presence of Christo-fascists in leadership ranks of the U.S. military. These individuals seek to force their Christianist beliefs on those serving under them and at times punish troops who rightfully refuse to participate in Christian ceremonies and events. The Air Force Academy has experience major problems in this regard as have other units throughout the military. Now, the phenomenon has raised its ugly head at nearby Fort Eustis. To me the solution to the problem is simple: Members of the military have sworn to uphold and protect the United States Constitution which GUARANTEES freedom of religion to all, not just far right Christians. Therefore, when anyone in a command position in the military intimidates and/or punishes those who do abide by or participate in that officer's religious beliefs, that officer needs to be subject to court martial and hopefully dishonorably discharged from the military immediately, losing all retirement benefits. Were that to happen a few times, I suspect the religious fanatics in the ranks would start to get the message - they do NOT have the special rights to inflict their religious beliefs on others serving under them. Period. Here are highlights from the Virginian Plot on this travesty(NOTE: The Military Religious Freedom Foundation has more information here):
*
The Army said Friday it was investigating a claim that dozens of soldiers who refused to attend a Christian band's concert at a Virginia military base were banished to their barracks and told to clean them up. Fort Eustis spokesman Rick Haverinen told The Associated Press he couldn't comment on the specifics of the investigation. At the Pentagon, Army spokesman Col. Thomas Collins said the military shouldn't impose religious views on soldiers.
*
Pvt. Anthony Smith said he and other soldiers felt pressured to attend the May concert while stationed at the Newport News base, home of the Army's Transportation Corps. "My whole issue was I don't need to be preached at," Smith said in a phone interview from Phoenix, where he is stationed with the National Guard. "That's not what I signed up for."
*
Smith, 21, was stationed in Virginia for nearly seven months for helicopter electrician training when the Christian rock group BarlowGirl played as part of the "Commanding General's Spiritual Fitness Concerts." Smith said a staff sergeant told 200 men in their barracks they could either attend or remain in their barracks. Eighty to 100 decided not to attend, he said. "Instead of being released to our personal time, we were locked down," Smith said. "It seemed very much like a punishment."
*
The Military Religious Freedom Foundation first reported on the Christian concert. . . The group's president, Mikey Weinstein, claims Christian-themed events are "ubiquitous" throughout the military, and he credited the soldiers for stepping forward. "Whenever we see this egregious, unconstitutional religious tyranny our job is to fight it," he said.
*
About 20 of the men, including several Muslims, refused to attend the concert based on their religious beliefs, he said. Smith said he went up the chain of command and traced the concert edict to a captain, who said he simply wanted to "show support for those kind of events that bring soldiers together."
*
While not accepting blame, the officer apologized to the soldiers who refused to attend the concert and said it was not his intent to proselytize, he said. "But once you get in there, you realize it's evangelization," Smith said.
*
WTF is with "Commanding General's Spiritual Fitness Concerts" in the first place? Why are taxpayers underwriting these types of events? Obviously, some heads need to roll at Fort Eustis and elsewhere throughout the U.S. Military. This behavior is wrong and insults the Constitution that the U.S. military is supposed to be supporting.

Prop 8 Case Plaintiffs May Seek Attorneys Fees from ADF, et al

Talk about hitting them where it hurts! Ted Olson and David Boise and the legal team representing the plaintiffs who challenged the constitutionality of California's toxic Proposition 8 may petition the Court to award the costs of the plaintiffs' legal fees against the proponents of Prop 8 who defended the California constitutional amendment in court when the Sate of California refused to defend the provision. One never knows what a court will do when an award of legal fees is requested, but given the fact that the State of California conceded the plaintiff's case, it would not seem inappropriate that the non-governmental supporters of Prop 8 who demanded to intervene in the case be saddled with the costs incurred by the plaintiffs because of the intervenors frivolous defense of Prop 8. Whether or not Olson and Boise actually believe that they can secure such an award, it nonetheless adds a huge bargaining chip against the Prop 8 supporters who could likely be facing an award that could push them into bankruptcy. And rightly so. It would be sweet indeed to see the religious extremists at Alliance Defense Fund get hit with a crushing fee award to the plaintiffs. Here are some highlights from the Advocate:
*
Attorneys representing two California gay couples in the federal Proposition 8 case may seek to recoup mounting legal fees from their opponents if an appeals court upholds U.S. district judge Vaughn Walker's landmark decision. In court filings this week, the attorneys requested extended time to consider fees and court costs but have also asked Prop. 8 supporters for an expedited response in the matter — which they opposed in a Wednesday filing.

"Plaintiffs seek to drastically shorten [our] time to respond to that motion so that they have more time to prepare an application for attorney’s fees in the event this Court does not grant their motion to enlarge time," Alliance Defense Fund attorney Brian Raum wrote. "Such a burden shift is unwarranted."
*
Ted Olson and David Boies has not disclosed how much the litigation has cost, though the organization charged with funding the suit, the American Foundation for Equal Rights, has in recent weeks reached out to the public for donations as the case proceeds to the U.S. court of appeals for the ninth circuit.

Target Feels Backlash From Its Shareholders

It is remarkable how dumb some corporate leaders can be. Target and the current controversy that it finds itself embroiled in is a case in point. The $150,000 contribution to what turns out to have been an anti-gay organization obviously should have been better investigated BEFORE the contribution was made. But someone from the outset should have realized that the same forces that are always describe themselves as "pro-business" are the same ones who typically wrap themselves in the flag of homophobia to pander to Neanderthal Christianists voters. Even someone casually familiar with politics and the GOP platform in general should have been able to connect the dots and figured out that this might backfire and bite Target in the ass. Did they think Teh Gays wouldn't find out? In any event, now Target, which has carefully worked to provide same sex partner benefits, non-discrimination policies for LGBT employees, etc., has found all of that effort shot to Hell. Worse yet, it now faces calls for boycotts and is receiving all kinds of negative news coverage. And deservedly so in my view. Now adding to the mix is the backlash from shareholders who are none too happy at the controversy which could have been so easily avoided by simply remaining neutral. Having once been in-house counsel for a Fortune 50 corporation, I never cease to be amazed how ego maniacal senior management forgets that it is the shareholders - not management - that own the corporation. The Los Angeles Times looks at the self-inflicted damage being experienced by Target. Here are some highlights:
*
After weeks of public protest over its financial support of an organization that backed a GOP gubernatorial candidate opposed to gay rights, Target Corp. now faces a new form of pressure: demands from institutional shareholders that it revamp its donation process to avoid the chance of additional backfires.
*
Imprudent donations can potentially have a major negative impact on company reputations and business if they don't carefully and fully assess a candidate's positions," said Tim Smith, a senior vice president at Walden Asset Management, one of three asset management firms that this week filed a resolution asking the retail giant to overhaul its campaign donation policies. He cautioned that funding ballot initiatives, as many corporations have done, "can similarly backfire."
*
The three management firms sponsoring the resolution — Calvert Asset Management, Trillium Asset Management and Walden — together hold $57.5 million of Target stock. Other institutional investors, including the giant New York state pension fund and union investment managers, are considering co-signing the resolution, which calls on Target's independent directors to review the criteria and risks in making donations to organizations active in political campaigns.
*
"Target should have carefully considered the implications that direct political contributions can have toward shareholder value," said Ola Fadahunsi, spokesman for New York Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli, the pension fund's sole trustee. "It's troubling to think that they can fund controversial candidates without properly assessing the risks and rewards involved." The New York state pension fund currently holds 3.8 million shares in Target, with a market value of $283 million.
*
Target said it made a $150,000 donation to MN Forward because the group promised to back candidates promoting a better business climate. "The intent of our political contribution to MN Forward was to support economic growth and job creation," Steinhafel said in an e-mail to employees.
*
The first advertisement aired by MN Forward touted Emmer, who favors lower taxes and other pro-business positions but also has a strong record of opposition to gay rights legislation.
*
Besides seeking a review of political contributions, the institutional shareholders also are asking the retailers to consider how contributions will affect the company's public image, business sales and profitability, and whether a candidate espouses policies that conflict with the company's values.
*
Bill de Blasio, a board member of another large pension fund, the New York City Employee Retirement System, said Thursday that he would ask other members of his board to support the resolution. The retirement board holds nearly 1 million Target shares.
*
"A good corporate political contribution policy should prevent the kind of debacle Target and Best Buy walked into. . . . "We expect companies to evaluate candidates based upon the range of their positions — not simply one area — and assess whether they are in alignment with their core values. But these companies' policies are clearly lacking that," Alpern said.
*
In a news release announcing the resolution, Trillium also disclosed that one client with a relatively small holding in Target had asked that its ownership of the stock be immediately liquidated. Officials from the Equity Foundation of Portland, Ore., said they were divesting because they were "troubled" by Target's political contribution.
*
Target also is facing calls for a boycott from MoveOn.org and has received stinging criticism from gay rights advocates, who once lauded the company for its approach to gay and lesbian issues.

Friday Male Beauty

On Proposition 8 Ruling, It's the Evidence, Stupid

Attorney, Lisa Bloom, a television commentator and daughter of well known attorney Gloria Allred, has a great op-ed at CNN that looks at Perry v. Schwarzenegger and why the Prop 8 supporters went down so thoroughly in defeat. As she notes, in political ads and talking points disseminated by e-mail, radio spots and other methods, unsubstantiated opinions and rank demagoguery can hold sway. However, once you walk into a court of law, the focus shifts to evidence, not opinion and mere religious belief (unless, of course you are one of Virginia's state court judges who ignores the Canons of Judicial Conduct and let personal religious belief form your ruling). The simple fact is that the Prop 8 supporters had no legitimate expert witnesses and that when all the smoke and mirrors were pulled away they had nothing but religious belief and religious inspired prejudice to support Prop 8. Here are highlights from Bloom's column:
*
There's a big difference between a political debate about same-sex marriage and the recent hard-fought court challenge to the California ban, Proposition 8.
*
In politics, anything goes: Vague, sinister comments about same-sex marriage threatening children or undermining the sanctity of heterosexual marriage were prevalent during the Prop 8 campaign. In court, same-sex marriage opponents needed solid evidence to back up these and other claims.
*
Despite "able and energetic counsel," they never produced it. That's why they lost, resoundingly, in the federal district court. And that lack of evidence should dog opponents up through the chain of appeals that is now beginning, because appellate courts are required to review only the evidence in the court record and to give great deference to Judge Vaughn Walker's findings of fact. He was there, after all, presiding over the trial, and the appellate judges weren't.
*
And what a lopsided trial he presided over. All the anti-same-sex marriage arguments imploded when subjected to the rules of evidence.
*
Trials turn on admissible evidence -- primarily credible witness testimony or documents, in this type of case. And Prop 8 proponents did not have it. Over and over again, Walker's decision focused on the evidence, the mountain of reliable facts offered by gay marriage advocates, and the glaring lack thereof proffered by gay marriage opponents.
*
Opponents offered exactly zero lay witnesses to explain, say, how their heterosexual marriages would be undermined by same-sex marriage, or how children would be harmed by a neighbor's same-sex marriage -- though these were central arguments made during the Prop 8 campaign.
*
The evidence at trial proved that children raised by gay or lesbian couples are just as likely to be well-adjusted as children raised by heterosexual parents. That gay folks are no more likely to be child molesters than heterosexuals. That marriage has evolved in this country to allow for women's equality and interracial marriage. That no "undermining" of straight marriage would occur if marriage further evolved to allow same-sex couples to marry, too.
*
In a nice trial "gotcha" moment, gay marriage advocates read in deposition testimony from two witnesses who were to testify for the other side -- yet their pretrial testimony instead supported the gay marriage advocates. Opponents offered no explanation for why their witnesses flipped. Another embarrassment.
*
Ultimately, same-sex marriage opponents called only two witnesses, the founder of the Institute for American Values, who the court found lacked qualifications to offer expert testimony, and a Claremont College professor, who "sought to rebut only a limited aspect" of the plaintiffs' case.
*
Given all these detailed evidentiary findings that follow ineluctably from the marriage opponents' failure to put on much of a case at all, and given Walker's finding that Prop 8 violated two separate constitutional provisions -- the due process and equal protection clauses -- it will be extremely difficult for an appellate court, following well-established rules of deference to lower court findings, to reverse.

Rep. Glenn Nye Fends off Challengers' Attacks

Last night was the first debate for the candidates running for incumbent Democrat Glenn Nye's seat in the 2nd Congressional district. The greatest threat to Nye (pictured at left) is Republican Scott Rigell who is throwing huge amounts of his personal money - actually, some say his wife's family money - into the election in an effort to buy a seat in Congress. Rigell who is pretending to be a "pro-business" candidate makes Bob "Taliban Bob" McDonnell look like a moderate and is in reality a clone of Virginia's certifiably insane Attorney General Ken "Kookinelli" Cuccinelli. The independent candidate, Kenny Golden (a former local GOP chair)will hopefully drain votes away from Rigell who alienated a number of libertarians during the GO, P primary back earlier this year.

*

While Nye has voted the correct way on LGBT issues, he has disappointed on some issues such as health care. In Nye's defense, his district includes much of the far right areas of Virginia Beach and the even more reactionary Eastern Shore. In my view, Nye's main task will be making sure that voters understand just how dangerous an extremist Rigell is in fact even though he will try to hide his extremism during the campaign - at least when he knows members of the media are present. From my days as a Republican and the period that Rigell and I lived in the same neighborhood I know first hand that Rigell is an ultra-far right, Pat Robertson worshipping Christo-fascist (Rigell received his MBA from Robertson's Regent University). If elected, he could be Virginia's equivalent of Michelle Bachmann. From his campaign website and his public statements Rigell is anti-gay and anti-immigrant. Indeed, for those who know him first hand, he's anti-minority as well. Here is what Rigell's website says about LGBT Issues (I suspect he'd even support reimposing the sodomy laws):
*
As a nation, we must support legislation that will reaffirm marriage and family life as the foundation of a healthy society. Over the last decade we have seen an assault on the institution of marriage and our core family values. In 2006, I was proud to have joined a majority of Virginians as we voted to protect traditional marriage in our state Constitution.

*

Rigell also is supportive of Arizona's racial profiling and likely unconstitutional immigration law. BOTTOM LINE: If you are black, Hispanic, non-Christian, Jewish, LGBT and/or believe in the separation of church and state, Rigell is your worse nightmare. More details can be found at the Virginian Pilot on the first debate.

More Thursday Male Beauty

Andrew Sullivan Thinks the Pope is Gay - and I Suspect He's Right

I will be the first to admit that in retrospect I spent 37 years of my life trying to live my life within a fabricated mental construct that would allow me to convince myself that I wasn't really gay. This self-manufactured mental/spiritual world in many ways made no objective sense - especially in hindsight - but it allowed for a religiously inspired system where if I didn't do this or didn't think that, then somehow I could tell myself that I wasn't something that my religious indoctrination growing up taught me to believe was too horrible to even imagine. As Mediate reports and as he himself discusses, Andrew Sullivan makes a strong case that Pope Benedict XVI (pictured with his inseparable personal secretary, Georg Ganswein, who is 30 years his junior) is gay. A flaming gay even. Andrew makes these statements during a discussion of Colm Toibin's quite astounding essay in the London Review of Books on the Catholic church and the homosexuality question (the full essay is here).

*

Yes, Benedict XVI is likely gay - although that's not to say Benedict has ever violated his mental construct that allows him to continue to pretend to himself and the world that he's not a gay. Meanwhile, in truth, he's a gay man hiding behind the smoke screen of celibacy and religious brainwashing so that he never has to confront the real truth. Do I feel sorry for him if this theory is correct? Not in the least. Just like I and countless others have come to terms with who we are, so could Benedict. But to do so he'd lose his power, luxurious residences, authority and the vapid ass kissing that goes with his title of Supreme Pontiff. Perhaps worse yet, he'd have to admit that things he has done to maintain his mental construct and avoid facing the truth about himself has harmed others. Mediate makes this statement that may sum up how Benedict rationalizes away his own gayness:
*
Ratzinger himself wrote in 1992, “An individual’s sexual orientation is generally not known to others unless he publicly identifies himself as having this orientation or unless some overt behaviour manifests it. As a rule, the majority of homosexually oriented persons who seek to lead chaste lives do not publicise their sexual orientation. Hence the problem of discrimination in terms of employment, housing etc, does not usually arise.” So the Pope may be gay, but he has not engaged in gay behavior. He has not sinned, according to his own belief system.
*
As for Andrew Sullivan's analysis which I believe is 100% on point, here are some highlights:
*
What Toibin conveys is the special love many homosexuals have had - for two millennia - for this institution and its mission; and the choice the hierarchy has had for several decades to move forward in hope with these [gay] Catholics or to move back in fear against them. So far, tragically, fear has won. But Toibin also sees the potential for a reborn Christianity in the papacy of John Paul II - wrecked by the white-knuckled reactionary politics that grew under him and now defines the Vatican.
*
The pursuit of control is really a fear of scrutiny and transparency which, when added to the unspeakable crimes of the past, ineluctably led to the current meltdown in the West. The homosexual question is not in any way marginal to this; in fact, you could see it as a central challenge for a church caught between truth and power.
*
And this collapse of authority rightly means that this Pope himself is no longer immune to the kind of scrutiny once deemed unimaginable. The church, having been revealed to have concealed raw evil, now has little option but to allow the light in, or face sheer disbelief.
*
It seems pretty obvious to me - as it does to Angelo Quattrochi, whose book is reviewed by Toibin - that the current Pope is a gay man. I am not claiming that Benedict is someone who has explored his sexuality, or has violated his own strictures on the matter. There is absolutely no evidence of that, or of hypocrisy of any sort. But that does not mean that he isn't gay. In fact, Ratzinger's command that gay priests should actively lie about their orientation makes any public statement about this on its face lacking in credibility. But when you look at the Pope's mental architecture (I've read a great deal of his writing over the last two decades) you do see that strong internal repression does make sense of his life and beliefs. At times, it seems to me, his gayness is almost wince-inducing. The prissy fastidiousness, the effeminate voice, the fixation on liturgy and ritual, and the over-the-top clothing accessories are one thing.
*
But what resonates with me the most is a theology that seems crafted from solitary introspection into a perfect, abstract unity of belief. It is so perfect it reflects a life of withdrawal from the world of human relationship, rather than an interaction with it. Of course, this kind of work is not inherently homosexual; but I have known so many repressed gay men who can only live without severe pain in the world if they create a perfect abstraction of what it is, and what their role is in it. Toibin brilliantly explains this syndrome, why the church of old was so often such a siren call for gay men who could not handle their own nature. In Benedict, one sees a near-apotheosis of this type, what Quattrocchi describes as "simply the most repressed, imploded gay in the world."
*
I would like to return to the world where this kind of speculation was disgraceful, unnecessary and blasphemous. But when this Pope has already enabled the rape of children, has covered up the crimes of many priests, when he has responded by blaming gay men for the moral failings of his own church, when he has publicly demanded that gay Catholics remain in the closet, i.e. lie about themselves as a sacred duty ... then such deference becomes much more difficult.

*

Can I understand how Benedict XVI placed himself in his fictional mental world? Most definitely. However, when the fall out from ones own mental contortions harms the lives of literally millions of gays - and others - world wide, the moral obligation becomes one of facing the truth and ending the lies. Both the lies Benedict tells himself and the lies he preaches against God's LGBT children.

The True Cost of DADT a/k/a the Cost Of Religious Based Discrimination

As our do nothing faux "fierce advocate" in the White House and the leadership of the Congressional Democrats apparently contemplate their navels rather that do anything substantive and meaningful in terms of repealing DADT - or enacting LGBT friendly legislation such as ENDA - the Palm Center has released an new report on the real cost of the failed DADT policy and the extent to which DADT IMPEDES military readiness. The report makes it clear that no one gains from DADT except the professional Christian set that uses DADT as one of its issues to dupe the ignorant and bigoted into handing over their hard earned money to the likes of Elaine Donnelly, James Dobson, Tony Perkins, et al, who are little more than opportunistic parasites (here in Virginia, the same holds true for Victoria Cobb and the leeches at The Family Foundation who use homophobia to line their own pockets). The full report can be found here. The following are some highlights from the report:
*
This report details a litany of costs incurred by the military, the troops—both gay and non-gay alike, and the nation as a result of DADT. Indeed research and experience now show that the policy is a costly failure that has had the opposite of its intended effect. DADT was supposed to preserve indispensable talent in the armed forces; protect privacy, morale, and unit cohesion; and let gays who did not voluntarily reveal their sexual orientation serve their country discreetly without undue hardship. It was, in short, supposed to make sexuality into a non-
issue in the U.S. military.
*
Yet the actual impact of the policy has been quite different. Far from protecting military readiness, the policy has harmed it, sacrificing badly needed personnel that is replaced with less qualified talent; undermining cohesion, integrity, and trust through forced dishonesty; hurting the morale of gay troops by limiting their access to support services; wasting hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars; invading the privacy of all service members—gay and non-gay alike—by casting a cloud of suspicion and uncertainty over the intimate lives of everyone in the armed forces; and damaging the military’s reputation which makes it harder to recruit the best and brightest America has to offer.
*
The overall results of DADT have been to:
*
1. Waste the talents of thousands of essential personnel with “critical skills” who were fired for their sexual orientation, including Arabic language specialists, medical professionals, combat aviators, counter-intelligence agents,
military police and more.
*
2. Strike at the heart of unit cohesion by breaking apart cohesive fighting teams, and undermining trust, integrity, and honesty among soldiers.
*
3. Hamper recruitment and retention by shrinking the pool of potential enlistees and discouraging many of America’s best and brightest young people from joining, or remaining in, the military.
*
4. Lower the quality of military personnel by discharging capable gay troops leaving slots to be filled through “moral waivers” that admit felons, substance abusers, and other high-risk recruits.
*
9. Increase reports of harassment that are more difficult to investigate and harder to prevent because of the policy’s strictures on gathering honest information and because of service members’ inability to safely report abuse.
*
10. Embarrass the military through consistently bad press reports on an institution increasingly seen as intolerant, widening the “civil-military gap” and further hampering recruitment efforts by alienating Americans who view the military as out of touch.
*
11. Cost the American taxpayer hundreds of millions of dollars paid toward lost troop replacements, administrative enforcement, and defending the policy in court.
*
Rather than hiring or retaining competent gay troops, the military began to hire less competent recruits, including those who scored poorly on military aptitude test and enlistees who were granted “moral waivers”— invitations to enlist despite a prior record of criminal activity or substance abuse that would normally prohibit entry, including murder, kidnapping, and “making terrorist threats.” In 2005 the army increased by nearly 50 percent the number of new recruits it granted moral waivers. Between 2003 and 2006, 4,230 convicted felons, 43,977 individuals convicted of serious misdemeanors, including assault, and 58,561 illegal drug abusers were
allowed to enlist. According to GAO, soldiers who are granted moral waivers are more likely to be discharged for misconduct than those who are not.
*
The report in short is scathing. Especially since DADT in truth ONLY exists so that Christianist can feel morally superior about themselves and savor the punishment of those who do not live in accordance with Christianist religious beliefs. DADT's continued existence is an outrage and makes a farce of the alleged, but unrealized religious freedom promised by the U.S. Constitution.

AltDaily Has A Great Story on HRBOR

As one of the original founders of Hampton Roads Business OutReach ("HRBOR") I confess that I am proud of what the organization has done since its launch in May, 2007. AltDaily - a local online publication - has a great story on HRBOR and how its members hope to be a benefit for the larger community. The photo above is of the 2010 HRBOR Board of Directors and a representative from the NGLCC who announced that HRBOR had been selected as the NGLCC's chamber of the year. HRBOR's next networking event is tonight and information can be found here. Here are some story highlights:

*

Here in Hampton Roads, we are fortunate to have an organization whose sole purpose is to protect and promote that diversity. In particular, it promotes a sector of local business that counters our major industries (namely, our government- and military-related industries) with all the other colors of the spectrum, so to speak.

*
Hampton Roads Business OutReach (HRBOR) is a broad based coalition of LGBT owned and LGBT supportive businesses and professionals dedicated to the development, growth and advocacy of Hampton Roads and its LGBT community. By promoting an environment in which diversity can flourish, HRBOR is committed to the economic growth and prosperity of our members and our community.

*
In fact, HRBOR is the only LGBT and LGBT-friendly Chamber in the Commonwealth. This past May, the National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce® (NGLCC) honored the organization as its 2010 Rising Star Chamber of the Year Award. The award acknowledges HRBOR’s “noticeable growth, enthusiasm, and vision on behalf of its members and community.”

*

Not just a place for LGBT business owners, the organization includes a great many LGBT allies as members. . . . . HRBOR welcomes non-business owners, as well. Really, any individual with professional goals will benefit, particularly from the organization’s many networking events. Simply put, as long as you support HRBOR’s mission, you’re encouraged to join.

Thursday Male Male Beauty

Christianist Cat Fight: Liberty Counsel v. Alliance Defense Fund

Nothing is more entertaining than watching the spectacle of Christianist wingnuts going at each other. In this case it is Liberty Counsel attacking Alliance Defense Fund - both are groups that seek to eliminate the Constitution's provisions barring an established religion - for losing Perry v. Schwarzenegger. The whack jobs at Liberty Counsel wanted to intervene in the case and ADF blocked that effort. The reality is that even with Liberty Counsel (which has lost consistently in the Virginia/Vermont lesbian custody saga) had been in the case, there STILL would have been no legitimate science or objective facts to support Prop 8. It is and always has been in the final analysis a legal measure aimed at punishing same sex couples for not conforming to Christianist religious beliefs. The equally theocratic Catholic news service, Life Site News, has coverage of the continuing back biting and blame game. You have to love it when one religious extremist group calls another one to "too extreme." Here are some highlights:
*
In the wake of Judge Vaughn Walker’s controversial decision finding Proposition 8 (California’s constitutional amendment protecting true marriage) unconstitutional, an internal spat has broken out between two different Christian legal societies about the manner in which the defense of Prop. 8 was handled.
*
[A]ccording to Liberty Counsel, the ADF kept them out of the Proposition 8 trial because they disagreed over legal strategy - a disagreement that LC says resulted in a radically weakened argument that ignored the central reasons to oppose homosexual "marriage."
*
At the time, the ADF's Andrew Pugno said that Liberty Counsel should not defend the proposition. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, Pugno has said that the Campaign for California Families (CCF), Liberty Counsel's client, "represents the extreme fringe and is not representative of the coalition that got [Proposition 8] passed." "The proponents believed that intervention by that group would harm, not help, our case," Pugno told LifeSiteNews.com (LSN).
*
Matthew Staver, chairman of the LC , denies that that the CCF had worked against Proposition 8, and told LSN that there were two reasons the ADF opposed LC's intervention. "First was a misplaced idea of competition or domination of the case," he said. "And second, a desire to narrow the defense so as not to focus or even address the consequences of homosexuality and homosexual marriage." "We wanted to include that as part of our defense," he continued.
*
According to Staver, the ADF "basically gave away the essence of the case, because they wanted to shy away from homosexuality and really were not willing to take the issue directly head on."
*
Staver believes that addressing the negative aspects of homosexuality is "a very critical component to the case, as to why same-sex marriage would ultimately harm marriage." The ADF nevertheless "completely refused to put on that kind of testimony," he said.

Morally Bankrupt Catholic Church Continues to Meddle in Mexico's Politics

Despite having proved itself to be one of the most corrupt and shameless institutions on the planet where the enabling and cover up of the sexual molestation of children was official policy, the Roman Catholic Church has the gall to try to meddle in Mexican politics in terms to the rights afforded citizens. Indeed, Cardinal Juan Sandoval Iniguez of Guadalajara, has accused the mayor of Mexico City of bribing the nations Supreme Court justices who recently upheld Mexico City's gay law and gay adoption. It would seem that the cardinal's time would be better served cleaning up the moral cesspool within his own institution as opposed to trying to influence the CIVIL laws. But then, like many in the Catholic hierarchy, he's probably trying to distract the sheeple within the laity from focusing on just how corrupt and immoral the Church has become. The mayor of Mexico City, Marcelo Ebrard (pictured above), isn't taking the abuse quietly. Indeed, on Wednesday he filed a civil suit claiming defamation against the pompous cardinal. As for paying bribes, one has to wonder how many bribes the Church paid to avoid prosecution for its crimes against minors. Here are highlights from the Los Angeles Times :
*
Mayor Marcelo Ebrard of Mexico City on Wednesday filed a civil suit claiming defamation against Cardinal Juan Sandoval Iniguez of Guadalajara, upping the ante in a high-profile political spat over gay marriage in Mexico that pits emboldened secular institutions against the country's influential Roman Catholic clergy.
*
The suit comes after Ebrard demanded that Sandoval retract suggestions made over the weekend that Mexico's Supreme Court justices were bribed for their recent landmark rulings in favor of gay marriage and adoption by same-sex couples in the Mexican capital.
*
Sandoval made the allegations on Sunday during an event in Aguascalientes state. He also used a slur against gays while decrying the recent high court decisions that were called victories for the gay-rights community, as L.A. Times correspondent Tracy Wilkinson analyzes in this story.
*
In the secular institutional corner, the Supreme Court censured Sandoval's statements unanimously, and Ebrard issued a stark warning to the highest-ranking prelate of Mexico's second-largest city: "We live in a secular state, and here, whether we like it or not, the law rules the land," Ebrard said, according to La Jornada. "The cardinal must submit to the law of the land, like all other citizens of this country."
*
By wide majorities, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of gay marriages in Mexico City, ruled that those marriages must be recognized in Mexico's 31 states, and upheld a portion of the Mexico City gay-marriage law that permits same-sex couples to adopt children.
*
The court hewed to Mexico's strict separation of church and state and said the constitution did not indicate that marriage had to be defined as the union of a man and woman. To deny gay couples the right to adopt, the court said, would amount to discrimination. "There is nothing that indicates that homosexual couples are less apt parents than heterosexual ones," Justice Arturo Zaldivar said in televised proceedings this week.
*
Candidly, it is long past time that religious institutions that attempt to meddle in secular politics need to be stripped of their special privileges and - in the USA - stripped of their tax exempt status. Were the Roman Catholic Church, the Southern Baptist Convention and Mormon Church to name a few to be taxed like other citizens, it would be a well deserved punishment for their efforts to subvert the separation of church and state. It would also be a boon to the U.S. Treasury.

Lesbian Disproportionately Targeted Under DADT

As even a casual reader of this blog will know, the continued existence of Don't Ask, Don't Tell is a major bitch that I have with Barack the spineless" Obama and his weak sisters in the Democratic Congressional leadership. With even 56% of Republicans shown to back the repeal of DADT, WTF is the problem with our team in Washington? Adding to my frustration is a new Palm Center study that confirms that lesbian service members are disproportionately targeted by the male chauvinist bigots in the military leadership. True, women are making progress - the Norfolk Naval Station just got a woman commander and a woman now commands a carrier strike group - but over all, the military remains a bigoted good old boy club where old style fraternity hazing and prejudice are too often the norm. If the objections to DADT really come from the old reactionary dinosaurs in the top military echelons, I have an easy solution: fire THEIR asses, not honorable and competent LGBT service members. Frankly, there is too much dead wood in the upper ranks and if Gates wants to save money, the way to go is to thin the ranks of self-important ass kissers and homophobes. Here are highlights from the Washington Post:
*
Women account for 14 percent of Army soldiers but received 48 percent of the Army's "don't ask" discharges in 2009, the study said. Six percent of the Marine Corps is female, but women accounted for 23 percent of its discharges. The Navy discharged only two officers for violating the policy in 2009, and both were Asian. The Army discharged five officers -- two were black, one was Asian and two were white, the Palm Center said.
*
[T]he list included eight linguists, 20 infantrymen, 16 medical aides and one member of the Army's special forces, positions considered "mission critical" by the Government Accountability Office. Gay rights groups have long argued that the military's decision to discharge experienced, highly specialized service members costs taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars in military training costs.
*
The Palm Center reviewed military data provided to lawmakers regarding the number and type of separations by service members. The data does not include names but lists specific reasons for the discharges. The Pentagon did not return requests for comment.
*
Let's face real facts: DADT serves no purpose other than to discriminate against gays under the law and provide a basis for orgasms for nut cases like Elaine Donnelly and similar Christo-fascists who find a near sexual pleasure in denigrating and maligning LGBT citizens..

More Wednesday Male Beauty

Why The Ground Zero "Mosque" Must be Built; Some Gays Get It Right

It is a strange day indeed when Kathleen Parker - one of the increasingly small number of sane conservatives - is in agreement with Maureen Dowd. But that is the reality in terms of their views on the manufactured controversy over the proposed construction of a Muslim community center a few blocks from "Ground Zero" in lower Manhattan. The real issue at hand is whether this country will continue to stand by religious freedom and equality for all religions under the law or whether islamophobes will subvert the law just as the Christianists seek to subvert the Constitution when it comes to LGBT equality. Parker and Dowd both realize the importance of not knuckling under to bigots and extremists with a mindset like that in the picture at right. First, some highlights from Parker's column in the Washington Post:
*
This is why plans for the mosque near Ground Zero should be allowed to proceed, if that's what these Muslims want. We teach tolerance by being tolerant. We can't insist that our freedom of speech allows us to draw cartoons or produce plays that Muslims find offensive and then demand that they be more sensitive to our feelings.
*
More to the point, the tolerance we urge the Muslim world to embrace as we exercise our right to free expression, and revel in the glory and the gift of irreverence, is the same we must embrace when Muslims seek to express themselves peacefully.
*
Nobody ever said freedom would be easy. We are challenged every day to reconcile what is allowable and what is acceptable. Compromise, though sometimes maddening, is part of the bargain. Ultimately, when sensitivity becomes a cudgel against lawful expressions of speech or religious belief -- or disbelief -- we all lose.
*
Taking a similar tact, Dowd also lays into Obama and other politicians who lack the backbone to support Constitutional freedoms and instead tremble when confronted by bigots. She also notes that Chimperator Bush in one of his exceedingly rare good moments recognized that the USA loses if it demonizes Islam and all Muslims. Here are some highlights from Dowd's New York Times op-ed:
*
Maybe, for Barack Obama, it depends on what the meaning of the word “is” is. When the president skittered back from his grandiose declaration at an iftar celebration at the White House Friday that Muslims enjoy freedom of religion in America and have the right to build a mosque and community center in Lower Manhattan, he offered a Clintonesque parsing.
*
Some critics have said the ultimate victory for Osama and the 9/11 hijackers would be to allow a mosque to be built near ground zero. Actually, the ultimate victory for Osama and the 9/11 hijackers is the moral timidity that would ban a mosque from that neighborhood. Our enemies struck at our heart, but did they also warp our identity?
*
The war against the terrorists is not a war against Islam. In fact, you can’t have an effective war against the terrorists if it is a war on Islam. George W. Bush understood this. And it is odd to see Barack Obama less clear about this matter than his predecessor. It’s time for W. to weigh in. This — along with immigration reform and AIDS in Africa — was one of his points of light.
*
Have any of the screaming critics noticed that there already are two mosques in the same neighborhood — one four blocks away and one 12 blocks away.
*
So look where we are. The progressive Democrat in the White House, the first president of the United States with Muslim roots, has been morally trumped by Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, two moderate Republicans who have spoken bravely and lucidly about not demonizing and defaming an entire religion in the name of fighting its radicals.
*
Interestingly, this morning I received an e-mail from a reader in fly-over country. The message dealt with the experience of a long partnered gay couple and their Muslim neighbors. It's a testament to what we all should be doing. Here are some highlights reprinted by permission:
*
We first met our new neighbor in 2007 shaking of hands over the fence between our backyards. He was in the process of closing on the house and was showing off to a friend. Two things were obvious, his big smile showed the pride in the new house and English was not his first language. OK, I thought, an immigrant, hope he didn’t get taken with one of those crazy loans. We welcomed him to the neighborhood, gave him our land line number in case he needed anything during the move.
*
A couple of days passed, his family moved in. After we helped him light the pilot on his gas water heater, he introduced his wife and children to us. His and his wife’s first names were generically ‘American,’ but the children’s names were Muslim.
*
We attended his naturalization, enjoyed watching a different culture’s celebration of a wedding, played with the children and helped each other shovel snow. One of our other neighbors remarked we had gone out of our way to help them, I hope so.
*
The past few weeks have been very hot, the weather and the political rhetoric. We haven’t been outside drinking a beer on our front porch or puttering in the yard. No chance to exchange friendly waves or a quick hug with the kids when you have retreated to the air conditioning. I wanted to do something to kind of check on them. Nothing heavy handed, besides it is Ramadan and this Lutheran pastor’s son doesn’t know all the rules.
*
After a discussion about what we knew of the practice of not eating during the day and a meal at night, we hit on a small gesture. Mrs. Neighbor likes our homegrown habanera peppers, so we knocked on the door to give her a few. When the 8 year old saw it was us, he didn’t give it a second thought, told his mother who it was as he threw open the door. He only marveled on my newly grown beard. Normal. It’s going to be OK. We’ve been through this nonsense before.

Blackwater Founder, Erik Prince, Moves to Abu Dhabi

Hmm . . . it seems odd that a far right Christianist would move his family to a Muslim country, but that exactly what Erik Prince, the founder of Blackwater USA and son of benefactors to numerous anti-gay organizations has done according to a story in the Virginian Pilot. Yep, Mr. Prince has moved to Abu Dhabi which conveniently has no extradition laws. Does it look suspicious? You bet it does - especially given the indictments and lawsuits plaguing Prince's subordinates and his company as well. Frankly, I have always found Prince to be creepy to say the least. Apparently, Prince is now set for depositions in Abu Dhabi next week. However, should he ultimately be indicted, the authorities will likely be unable to get him back to the USA. Here are story highlights:
*
Erik Prince, whose security company once known as Blackwater has spawned a series of criminal and civil court cases, has left the United States and moved with his family to Abu Dhabi, according to court documents. Abu Dhabi is the capital of the United Arab Emirates, which has no extradition treaty with the United States.
*
Prince does not face any criminal charges. But five former executives of the Moyock, N.C.-based company now known as Xe have been indicted on federal firearms charges, and two ex-Blackwater contractors are on trial in Norfolk, accused of murdering two civilians in Afghanistan.
*
Prince’s company also faces several civil lawsuits, including one brought by two former employees in federal court in Alexandria alleging that the company has defrauded the U.S. goverment.
*
Attorneys for the plaintiffs in the Alexandria case had sought to obtain a deposition from Prince before he left the country, speculating that he might not return to the United States “if he is indicted on weapons smuggling charges or other matters."

**
The judge in the case has ordered Prince to appear for the deposition Monday in Abu Dhabi.

George "Rent Boy" Rekers Continues to Haunt Bill McCollum

Karma can truly be a bitch. Ask Bill McCollum - the Florida GOP candidate for governor who hired George "Rent Boy" Rekers as a fraudulent expert for the state in the lawsuit seeking to uphold the Florida ban on gay adoption. The ad shown above - is being run by McCollum's opponent for the GOP nomination. While McCollums is a far right Neanderthal, I cannot help but savor the way McCollum's sleazy dealings with Rekers are now biting him in the ass.

Gay Or Straight, Marriage Matters -- For Taxes

I have had to educate a number of candidates on the issue of why the word "marriage" means so much to LGBT Americans. It's not just because civil unions are a framework of "separate and unequal" - of course, here in Virginia, we don't even get that right to be unequal. No, where the rubber hits the road comes from the fact that so many laws, especially tax laws, use the word "marriage" in dispensing benefits and rights. In terms of taxes, not being able to marry causes LGBT citizens to pay more in income taxes - even though we receive fewer civil rights - and more in the estate tax realm as well. Rubbing salt into the wound is the fact that same sex couples are punished solely because they do not live their lives per the Christianists' religious beliefs. Robert Woods, a tax attorney (pictured above), has a piece in Forbes that looks at this reality and why marriage matters in terms of hard dollars and cents. Here are highlights:
*
It may sound myopic, but as a tax lawyer for 30 years, I tend to think of taxes first in all things. Even marriage. The gay marriage debate raises big issues, but I find taxes at the front and center of them. As a number of states and the IRS move to address marriage tax issues, you might think the main issue would be whether same-sex couples can file joint tax returns.
*
Yet marriage has a whole host of tax issues, in addition to joint filing. Some of these issues can make the denial of joint filing look like small potatoes.
In fact, the biggest tax issues often come up on the unraveling of a marriage. Whether a couple is heterosexual or gay, the tax aspects of unraveling a relationship are very different inside and outside marriage. You might be shocked how these tax rules work.
*
If you're married, there's no limit on the amount of money or property you can transfer back and forth between spouses. There's no gift tax and no limit (except in those instances where the spouse getting the assets isn't a U.S. citizen). If you're not married, you are limited to $13,000 per year tax free. Any gifts beyond that trigger an immediate gift tax or eat into your lifetime gift-tax exemption of $1 million. If you use the gift tax exemption it reduces, dollar for dollar, the amount you can pass on estate tax free to heirs at your death, and most people prefer saving the exemption for their estates. (While the estate tax has lapsed for 2010, under current law the estate tax exemption will be just $1 million come Jan. 1, 2011.
*
A divorcing couple can divvy up property tax free. Again, there's no limit. So if you jointly bought a house, you can transfer your interest to your ex without tax. Not married? In that case, you'll likely face income or gift taxes. If you give your half of the house to your ex-partner and receive nothing in exchange, you've made a taxable gift.
*
Suppose you're not feeling that generous and instead are deeding your half of the house to your ex in exchange for some of your ex-partner's stock holdings? Then you both could be hit with income taxes.
*
If you look at a many-year relationship with significant assets, the taxes at stake can be enormous. In fact, the tax bill can be so big that in some cases, unmarried couples trying to untangle joint assets might consider getting married just so they can then qualify for the benefits of a tax free divorce! . . . .Of course, gay couples can only do this where marriage is permitted, since the tax law requires a valid marriage--even if it is a sham marriage for purposes of qualifying for a tax-free divorce.
*
Despite my focus on tax law, I realize the non-tax aspects of marriage are considerably more important than the tax aspects. Nevertheless, as you can see, taxes matter a great deal, especially if you have to unwind a relationship.

Wednesday Male Beauty

Socarides: Obama 'Has No Choice' But to Support Marriage Equality

Our faux "fierce advocate" in the White House seems to be more and more painted into a corner in terms of his position on gay marriage. He can seek to blame his problems on us nasty gay bloggers, but the reality is that just as is the case with the Republicans who oppose full LGBT equality, the younger voters are on the side of marriage equality. Obama can acted peevish and posture, but sooner or later he needs to bite the bullet, grow a spine, and set aside his personal RELIGIOUS views and back civil marriage equality. True, the economy is the predominant concern for most voters, but allowing marriage equality to erode support among progressives and LGBT voters is just plain stupid. In my view, Obama's "separate and unequal" approach is doing a great deal to dampen LGBT support for both the President and the leadership of Congressional Democrats. Richard Socarides, a former advisor to the Clinton White House, has an op-ed at Politico that looks at Obama's losing position and why/how he needs to get on board. Here are some highlights:
*
The recent sweeping federal court ruling striking down California’s gay marriage ban as unconstitutional provides President Barack Obama, a constitutional law scholar, with an important opportunity to shift his views on same-sex marriage. He can do so by reminding people that respect for the constitution, the rule of law and the courts are the principles upon which this country was founded.
*
When he ran for president, Obama took the position that while he was for equal rights for gays, he favored civil unions over marriage. . . . But that position is now untenable for several reasons.
*
First, where you stand on the issue of marriage has become a kind of political litmus test for gay voters on whether you support full or partial equality. It is now seen as a proxy for whether you believe gays and lesbians are entitled to full dignity, respect and inclusion in every aspect of American society. And whether, in essence, our struggle for equality is worthy as a civil rights movement. Just saying you are for equal rights will no longer cut it.
*
Moreover, as the Perry case and its high-profile legal dream team of Ted Olson and David Boies continue to focus attention on the issue, Obama’s position becomes increasingly important to the liberal (and younger) voters that helped elect him — voters who are already less enthusiastic, according to recent polling.
*
Obama can no longer continue to allow his Justice Department to vigorously defend the constitutionality of anti-gay laws in court — laws he then says should be repealed. . . . Continuing on this course will lose him and his fellow Democrats the support and enthusiasm of a large block of his base voters.
*
But can President Obama, who once supported gay marriage, only to oppose it now, change his position again? The answer is yes — and he in fact has no choice.
*
People understand that most public officials who now support gay marriage once opposed it. It wasn’t until after they left office that Bill Clinton and Al Gore (and, most recently, Laura Bush) said that they favored marriage equality.
*
The sooner Obama changes his answer on this most important equal-rights issue of the day, the better off he will be. The Perry ruling provides the right opportunity to shift his emphasis and provide real leadership, reminding people that in this country, we look to the courts for direction on what our Constitution requires.
*
It might also help the president’s popularity with those that elected him, and it puts him and his party on the right side of the equality question, where he, of course, belongs and presumably wants to be.