Quote of the Day - John Aravosis

Over at America Blog Gay John Aravosis asks the question that I often raise on this blog in terms of why does anyone listen to anything the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy says on any issues of supposed morality given the self-displayed moral bankruptcy of these nasty men in dresses? Here's John's phrasing of the question:

*

Once again it must be asked, why do we care what people who embraced the rape of children think about anything? They're the ones who should be banned from going anywhere within 1000 feet of a child.

*

John asked this question in reaction to a Christian Post story about Brooklyn Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio directing all Catholic churches and schools in the Diocese of Brooklyn to ban state lawmakers who voted for gay marriage in New York.

The Hubris Of LGBT Rights Organizations

I have complained before about the mindset of the Democrats who want the LGBT community to fork over money and votes yet never have the audacity to ask questions or demand something back in return for their cash and votes. Sadly, many of our LGBT organizations are not a whole lot better and when they aren't treating their rank and file supporters with thinly disguised condescension, they are giving away the store to fair weather politicians without holding their feet to the fire. One sees it at the state level - e.g., Equality Virginia in my home state - and at the national level typically in the form of the Human Rights Campaign that likes to think that it speaks for the LGBT community when in fact it often does not. An example? HRC has come out and endorsed Obama for the 2012 presidential contest. Never mind that HRC doesn't even know who the GOP standard bearer will be. Talk about flushing any semblance of being a non-partisan organization down the toilet. In addition, the clear signal to Obama and company is that nothing more need be done to lock up the LGBT vote. Pam Spaulding correctly takes issue with HRC's hubris in a blog post entitled "HRC endorses Obama for re-election; message: open the gAyTM and get with the program." Here are some highlights:
*
Again, this illustrates that if HRC is on board, the assumption is that entire LGBT community is stepping in line by default. Is it "Groundhog Day", a case of waking up and starting the same day over and over with these folks? HRC no more controls the community than blogs do, as we've seen before, it's just that the institutions seek credibility through our Beltway orgs.
*
Also, what is the point of doing this now? I don't recall HRC endorsing in the primaries when it was Hillary vs. Obama, for instance. And how about Republican presidential candidate Fred Karger, is he a non-starter? It just seems odd for an allegedly non partisan org.
*
John Aravosis also rightly is peeved with HRC's hubris and believes it sends Obama a strong message that nothing need be done to solidify LGBT allegiance. He equates it to "why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?" He's 100% correct and it ticks me off that our self-anointed "leaders" feel they can speak for us without any consultation or consensus. Here are highlights from John's comments:
*
Why buy the cow when you get the milk for free?
*
The Human Rights Campaign, which likes to tout itself as the nation's largest gay rights organization, today endorsed Barack Obama for president in 2012. Which pretty much leaves the President no reason to do anything that he perceives as controversial for us at least until 2013, if he gets re-elected. The news that HRC is endorsing him comes on the heel of a rumor flying around town that a very senior HRC official is being talked about for a senior position in the White House (because White House relations with the community weren't on thin enough ice).
*
While an eventual endorsement of Obama by HRC is inevitable, expected, and fine, there's a dance that's expected where both sides get something. And the expectation should be for gay rights advancements, not appearing at your dinner or giving you a job. (HRC may be the only folks in town worse at negotiating than the White House itself. )
*
HRC clearly hasn't learned the lessons of the first two years of the Obama presidency. You don't get anything for being nice to the man (well, anything of substance - I'm sure that HRC dinner invite is now locked in). If anything, he looks down on people who are nice to him. The only thing this President respects are people who stand up to him. The President didn't finally start moving on DADT, and finally stop defending DOMA, because HRC was nice to him. He did it because this blog, GetEqual, Dan Choi, the larger Gay Netroots, and a very few organizations like Servicemembers United and SLDN stood up to the man.
*
Sadly, there are few organization on the left who do stand up to President Obama, and that's why so many of the President's promises to the left have been broken or unfulfilled.

Harvard Theologian Attacks Gay Activists Rather than Christian Hate Merchants

Earlier in the week I wrote a post addressing the failure of "good" Christians to speak up and combat the hate and lies issuing daily from far right Christians against LGBT individuals. Indeed, I likened them in some ways to the "Good Germans" during the Nazi regime who chose to close their eyes to what they either knew or suspected was being done to eradicate Jews in Europe. A cross posting of the post on The Bilerico Project generated dozens of comments.
*
Like it or not, religion - and in the USA that principally means Christianity - is THE underlying source for homophobia, anti-gay laws, and on occasion deadly violence against LGBT people. Many do not want to accept this hard truth. Refusing to accept that reality and speak out LOUDLY against the hate filled "Christians," however, and failing to demand equal media time to counter the hate, doesn't solve the problem. Neither does attacking LGBT activists who call out the source of the hate - namely the Bible. Bible apologists are, in my view, disingenuous and in truth aiding the cause of people like Fred Phelps. Bryan Fischer, Tony Perkins and Maggie Gallagher who wave about the Bible during their hate filled rants. Yet this is precisely what Mark D. Jordan of Harvard Divinity School (pictured above) does in a piece at Religion Dispatches. His particular target is John Aravosis, but his whining is broad enough to include myself and many other activists.
*
Jordan prefers those who have quietly "labored strenuously over recent decades to change received readings of the Bible" forgetting the fact that most out in the general public have never heard of him or other academic types or their "labors." Quiet labors such as those Jordan lauds are fine and good, but LGBT people are still being regularly murdered, fired from their jobs and undergoing daily discrimination because of the Bible. And this sad truth dictates that at times those willing to use brickbats and loudly condemn the haters and the fount of such hate are a necessity. I would argue that the younger generations - who seem increasingly inclined to walk away from religious affiliation and hold a negative view of "Christians" - are hearing the message of those like Aravosis far more than that of ivory tower academics like Jordan.
*
Yes, we need the academics, but we need the street fighters as well. who daily expose the viciousness and hate that are too often synonymous with Christian belief. Jordan has directed his criticism in the wrong directions. I would also suggest that Jordan spend more time tracking what those who I call Christianists are saying and doing. If he did, he'd know that there ARE those in the Southern Baptist Convention and elsewhere who really would like to see gays criminalized and imprisoned if not executed. He'd also realize that patience is in short supply when one lives in a homophobic state like Virginia, has been fired for being gay or has experienced a police harassment simply for being gay. Here's a sampling of Jordan's whining:
*
The news item is both grisly and depressingly familiar: a young man is accused of killing an older man for making sexual advances. The weapon was a sock filled with stones; the young man told police that he had been instructed in prayer to apply the Old Testament punishment of stoning.
*
Unfortunately the story didn’t stop there. John Aravosis, political blogger and publicist for gay causes, is perhaps best known for leading a boycott against Dr. Laura; or else for outing a conservative “journalist” as a gay porn star. In a recent post, Aravosis says first that “the Bible does say to kill gays,” then quotes a string of alternate (and admittedly “wrong”) biblical translations before reiterating that they are “quite clear about the need to murder gay people,” only to conclude that “Christians do nothing about it, other than quote it against us in order to take away our civil rights.”
*
But then let me ask the obvious question: Who gains when a gay activist endorses the most homophobic of marginal interpretations of the Bible after half a century of gay or gay-friendly efforts to establish better readings? . . . . The horrifying prescription of Leviticus 20:13 (and its correlate, 18:22) are not directed against classes of persons, but against acts committed by Israelite males (and males only). Moreover, it’s a matter of lively dispute even among fierce textual literalists exactly which acts are intended.
*
Does Aravosis really want to persuade members of the Southern Baptist Convention, say, that a strict interpretation of Leviticus requires them to advocate the death penalty for same-sex acts? It’s more likely that Aravosis is preaching to his own choir; that is, to political liberals who identify as LGBTQ, or their staunch allies. What effect will this post have on them? It can only confirm the view that queer political progress depends on a strict secularism—after all, Christians only quote their violent Bible “to take away our civil rights.” We politically awake queers would be so much better off, the post implies, if only we could get rid of that hateful book and those who still read it.
*
I am tempted to ask Aravosis whether what he counts as progress in gay politics (say, around Don’t Ask Don’t Tell) owes more to the liberationists or to their homophile predecessors. . . . . I recall the long line of Christian writers, pastors, and congregants who have labored strenuously over recent decades to change received readings of the Bible, to enlist the churches in support of legal reforms, to open church hierarchies and church rituals to LGBT people. They understood, as Aravosis may not, that no effort at public persuasion could forestall every violent misuse of the Bible or any other sacred text.
*
While it cannot issue guarantees, the patient work of undoing Christian homophobia is still worthwhile—if not for bloggers like Aravosis, then for the sake of public debate in a country where Christianity still wields considerable power. And not least for the sake of queer believers who still find themselves caught between the dogma of homophobic churches and the dogma of versions of gay politics.

How DADT Repeal Came to be Hostage of the Lame Duck Session

As many of us hold our breath and wonder whether or not DADT repeal will finally happen in the lame duck session of Congress, it's important to remember how we came to be in the current posture of things: Democratic Party spinelessness and a constant string of lies from the White House. Not that the Democrats will accept any of the responsibility. Thus, it is hopeful to look back on some of the bullshit that has emanated from the Democrats in the lead up to this 11th hour do or die situation. A case in point is the whining of Andrew Tobias, DNC Treasurer (pictured at left). Tobias exemplifies the phenomenon of it being easier to blame someone else rather than admit that your team has been called out for being utter screw ups, if not two faced liars. As many may recall, Tobias has sought to place the blame for the growing rift between the Democrat Party and many LGBT Americans who are sick to death of the Liar-in-Chiefs lies and the overall spinelessness of the Congressional Democrats on LGBT issues. Oh, and did I mention all those broken campaign promises? No, Tobias would rather blame it all on John Aravosis and America Blog and by extension other LGBT bloggers and activists who refuse to drink the DNC's Kool-Aid and cheer lead for Obama like HRC.
*

The truth is that some of us - like John - want action, not cocktail party invites and "access." Tobias needs to get his head out of his ass and wake up to reality. Most of the LGBT community is smart enough to recognize when they are being conned and are just plain tired of it. If the DNC and Democrat Party have problems with their LGBT constituents, they need only look in the mirror to find the cause. If DADT repeal fails to pass, the Democrats haven't seen anything yet in terms of LGBT anger. Joe Sudbury had a piece earlier in the month on America Blog that looks at Tobias' efforts to deflect blame from where it belongs which bears revisiting. Here are some highlights:

*
DNC Treasurer Andy Tobias joined in the comments section last night of John's latest post about the DNC's, and White House's, growing gay problem. And he wasn't very happy.
*
The DNC's Tobias, a series of 11 comments spanning into the early hours of the morning, blames John for the increasingly strained relationship between the gay community and the Democratic party: As these comments show, you are being quite effective in turning people against support of the Democrats. That, by definition, helps the Republicans.
*
So, John is to blame for the Obama administration's infamous DOMA brief last June comparing same-sex relationships to incest and pedophilia. Right. I remember how hard John worked on that brief. Oh, right, it wasn't John who wrote that brief. Obama's Department of Justice did, and Obama's press secretary said the President stands behind it.
*
And I suppose it's John's fault that President-elect Obama invited famed homophobe Rick Warren, who was an outspoken supporter of Prop 8, to give the invocation at the inauguration.
*
It was also John's fault that Senator Durbin said this week that the Senate may not take up the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" next year, even though our community has been repeatedly told that early next year DADT will be repealed, as the president promised.
*
Tobias is the top-ranking gay official at the DNC and his comments really gave us some insight into the way that organization thinks. He blamed Aravosis for turning people against the DNC. Apparently, in the world of Andy Tobias and the DNC, John's gay civil rights advocacy is helping the Republicans. All we're asking is for Obama to keep his promises to the LGBT community. All we've done here at AMERICAblog is report whether or not those promises have been kept.
*
If any Senate Democrats break ranks and fail to vote for DADT repeal, it will be interesting to see how Tobias tries to play that situation. I'm sure anyone and everyone will be to blame except the White House and the Congressional Democrats.

Analysis: Huckabee wants to take America "back to Christ"

John Aravosis and I do not always see eye to eye on every issue, but in this editorial comment he is dead on the money in his analysis of Mike Huckabee and what he represents(http://www.americablog.com/2007/12/huckabee-wants-to-take-america-back-to.html). Why conservative Christians who are not Southern Baptists act like lemmings and jump onto the Huckabee bus without doing some homework and realizing exactly what they are buying into is dismaying. Ignorant is perhaps not the right adjective, but the phenomenon does illustrate how uninformed today's US citizenry has become. Here are John's thoughts on Mr. Huckabee:

Funny, I don't recall America ever being in, on, around, or about Christ. There are lots of us Christians here in America. But taking America "back to Christ"? What does that mean? And where does that leave America's Jews, Muslims, and other non-Christians? I suppose they're welcome to stay like guest-workers, or maybe we should call them "guest Christians." Huckabee is a creep. The man thinks that AIDS may be caused by casual contact - you know, like toilet seats and doorknobs and handshakes and sneezing, I suppose. We do know one way AIDS can be spread - through rape. But Huckabee doesn't have as much of a problem with rapists as he does Jews and gays and others whose only crime is to be different from Mike Huckabee, America's number one Christian.

You'll recall that Huckabee recently told America that God wanted him to be number one in the polls. Then Huckabee used Jesus in a TV commercial. The man isn't running for president, he's running for preacher. And lest any Christians out there there be fooled by Huckabee's "aw shucks" Christianity, the man is a Southern Baptist. Southern Baptists think Catholics worship Satan - they quite literally think the Pope is an agent of Satan. Southern Baptists don't think Catholics are Christians. If Catholics, or any other non-Baptists out there, think Huckabee is a good Christian, I've got news for you. Huckabee's religion thinks you're not a good Christian - hell Huckabee's religion says you're not a Christian at all. So if you think he's going to be in favor of policies that push your Christian world view, you're in for a big surprise. The only world view he's pushing is one that doesn't include you.

Not to mention, has Huckabee been asked about this "Catholics worshipping a Satanic counterfeit" issue? I mean, the man keeps invoking Christ. I think we have a right to know just what his religious beliefs are.

More on ENDA - Salon's Idiocy

Sadly, the debate over ENDA is tearing the LGBT community apart in some ways. Salon has an article (http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/10/11/transgender/index_np.html) by Susan Stryker that viciously attacks John Aravosis for agreeing with Barney Frank's pragmatic approach to getting a LGB version of ENDA passed in the event an LBGT version is dead on arrival. While John Aravosis may be, in Ms. Stryker's opinion "in the nosebleed section of the social hierarchy; if he gets any higher up the food chain he should be issued an oxygen mask," I can assure you that the LGB individuals who call my office on a regular basis after being fired or harassed at work because of their sexual orientation are not. There ARE millions of LGB individuals who lack any sort of employment protections. Ms. Stryker apparently doesn't give a flip about them based on her all or nothing rant.

Andrew Sullivan and I significantly disagree on the need for ENDA - I strongly favor its passage and think it will make a difference - but he is directly on point in his post (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/10/why-i-still-loa.html#more) taking Stryker and those of her ilk to task:

This ad hominem attack on anyone's views who veers from far left orthodoxy is routine among the professional GBLTXYZers who mau-mau the rest of us. John Aravosis is an almost pathologically partisan Democrat, a gleeful outer of insufficiently correct closeted public figures, a blogger in the mold of Atrios ... but he still can't be oppressed enough to be valid for the gay left. Hey, John. It's wake-up time. They hate you too. Welcome to the club. As for the matter at hand, the federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act, I was told two decades ago that this was the non-negotiable number one priority for gay Americans, that gay people couldn't afford to fight for marriage equality or military service or anything else until this vital law passed.

I was told to shut up about everything else in order to support this central goal. The Human Rights Campaign raked in tens of millions of dollars over twenty years with this message (while the private sector, with HRC's help, actually enacted many legal protections for gay employees, and while the debates about marriage and military service transformed the movement, in the face of HRC's opposition). But now ... not so much. The transgendered movement is so important that it's worth subjecting gay people to many more years of employment insecurity. Not so urgent, after all, is it? Gay people in red states without employment protection have to wait while pomo lefty activists in cushy gay lobby jobs preen about p.c. purity.

I'm no big supporter of ENDA and don't truly believe it will make much of a difference. Nonetheless, holding it up for transgendered inclusion after two decades of waiting seems bizarre even for the p.c. hell that is the gay rights establishment. I can't believe I'm with Barney Frank on this one. But I am.

Stryker may be in a position immune from job discrimination threats, but millions of LGB individuals are not so lucky. Her approach will likely leave them with no protections after 30 years of effort. Is she an idiot or what??