Confronting Religion, The Source of Anti-LGBT Animus

I continue to feel a general malaise since the massacre at Pulse in Orlando, which has been followed by new assaults on LGBT Americans through the GOP's adoption of the most anti-LGBT platform EVER.  Now, this evening we have seen our own possibly American version of Hitler or Stalin accept the nomination as the Republican presidential nominee.   It is a frightening time to be an American.  It is perhaps even a more frightening time to be an LGBT American despite the strides that have been made in recent years.  Indeed, LGBT people will never be safe and fully equal until we and our allies confront the root cause of homophobia and anti-LGBT animus: religion, especially fundamentalist religions.  My August column in VEER Magazine - which is longer than usual - looks at this issue and what needs to be done.  Pick up a copy on local Hampton Roads newsstands.  For those who are not locals, the following are some excerpts from the column:

Like so many in the LGBT community, I have found myself profoundly shaken by the massacre last month at Pulse, a gay dance club in Orlando, Florida.  When my husband and I travel, we often enjoy going to local gay dance clubs in the cities that we are visiting, be it New York City, Key West, Ft. Lauderdale, or last year, a club called Raidd in Paris, France.  Though worlds apart in some ways such clubs have a common trait: they offer a refuge in a still too homophobic world.  They offer a place to dance, talk with friends and to have fun. While I had never visited Pulse, we know a number of people who had visited.  We also have a friend who lost someone he knew in the carnage that took place during the early hours of June 12, 2016.
 What happened at Pulse sadly could have happened at any gay club, including clubs here in Hampton Roads.  And, if one looks at history, over the years at least twenty five (25) attacks have taken place against gay clubs, although not on the scale of the Pulse massacre.  The most notable was in 1973 at the Upstairs Lounge in New Orleans where 32 individuals lost their lives. Closer to home, in 2000 an attack on the Backstreet Cafe in Roanoke, Virginia, one person died and six were wound.  The shooter's motivation in the Roanoke attack?  To kill some "faggots" - seemingly the same as that of the shooter in Orlando.   All of these incidents stand as a reminder that if one is LGBT, hatred toward you is always lurking in the hearts of those who would happily commit violence.   Conveniently for Republican politicians and those I call Christofascists, America's homegrown answer to the Taliban, to whom these Republican politicians regularly prostitute themselves, the shooter at Pulse pledged allegiance to ISIS.  This allowed them to quickly blame Islam and "radical Islamic extremists" and to ignore the root cause of homophobia and anti-LGBT animus in America: religion, especially fundamentalist Christianity. Numerous pastors and “professional Christians” like Pat Robertson and anti-gay hate group leaders Tony Perkins and James Dobson stepped forward to make this religious based animus all too visible following the Orlando tragedy.  Some of them implied that the gays and their allies who died at Pulse "deserved" what happened to them.  Others went further and even bemoaned the fact that there had been any survivors at all.  And some advocated for the government to execute LGBT citizens. Some statements even repeated the deliberate lie that most gays are pedophiles - in truth the vast majority of those who molest children are heterosexual males - and suggested the world was now safer for children.  At the same time that some American Christians were making their animus to LGBT people shockingly obvious, others engaged in strenuous efforts to avoid condemnation of Bible based anti-gay hatred even as they condemned that found in Islam.  . . . . . Nowhere does it mention the fact that Leviticus predated the Quran by roughly 2100 years.  The Quran and hadiths were not authored in a vacuum and, sadly, the misogyny of the Bible and in more recent centuries, Christian missionaries and colonial regimes found their way into Islam. Another effort to apologize for religious based hatred can be found in Pope Francis' comment to journalists that Christians and the Roman Catholic Church needed to "apologize to gays and should seek forgiveness from homosexuals for the way they have treated them."  The problem with Francis' nice words is that when he has had the opportunity to dramatically change Catholic dogma and doctrine on gays he has done nothing and backed down in a cowardly fashion to the ugliest homophobes in the Church hierarchy.  Likewise, Francis ignored his own past attacks against gays, equating gay marriage and adoption by gay couples with the work of the Devil, and declaring that gay marriage was a “destructive attack on God’s plan.” 

 We cannot allow these subterfuges and insincere apologies to succeed.  I hope the Orlando massacre has set the stage for a long overdue discussion about the role of Christianity in anti-gay animus.  Likewise, those I call the "good Christians" - i.e., akin the "good Germans" at the time of Hitler's rise to power – must face the complicity they bear in keeping anti-gay animus alive and well and socially acceptable.  I call this Christians "good Christians" because, like their German counterparts of roughly 85 years ago, they stand by silently as their churches and pastors preach anti-gay hatred even as they themselves claim to not agree with the anti-gay diatribes. Despite such protestations - almost always made in private conversations - these Christians continue to financially support the very same churches and "family values" organizations that daily promote hatred and reject modern knowledge while clinging to a few passages written roughly 3400-3500 years ago by unknown Bronze Age authors who would be deemed utterly ignorant by today's standards of knowledge.  

In my opinion, it is long past time that these "good Christians" cease being given a pass for their complicity in funding and supporting homophobic denominations, church hierarchies, and pastors.  They need to either become part of the solution or they need to be confronted for their role in keeping hate and homophobia alive.  Will these people like the confrontation?  Most assuredly not.  Like most of us, they will not like to be forced to candidly analyze their beliefs and/or cease their sheep like following of church leaders. The favored phrase of "love the sinner, hate the sin" needs to be challenged head on for the disingenuous lie that it is.  The implicit support of hate and homophobia must be challenged.  

However, "good Christians" are not the only ones who need to be held accountable.  The Republican Party needs to be held accountable for its role in cynically keeping anti-gay hatred alive and well and politically acceptable.  Over the last year, roughly two hundred (200) anti-gay bills have been introduced in states across America in reaction to the U.S. Supreme Court's same sex marriage ruling in 2015.  All of these bills have been almost unanimously backed by Republican elected officials only too happy to seek political favor at the expense of the lives and dignity of LGBT Americans. 

If you find yourself falling into the "good Christian" category, perhaps it's time to cease your silence.  Consider (i) speaking out against homophobes, (ii) confronting anti-LGBT clergy, and/or (iii) ceasing your financial contributions until your church ends its homophobic teachings (make sure the church leadership knows why you are taking the action).  If need be, find a new church that does not espouse homophobia and the marginalization of LGBT lives. Such actions may be scary and uncomfortable, but unless you take them, you will be complicit in the hatred and violence based on slavish adherence to a handful of Bible passages - even as the balance of Leviticus, including dictates against wearing clothes of two different fabrics, planting multiple crops, eating "unclean" foods and other supposed "abominations," are utterly ignored by Christian denominations.  

Could Jamaica End Colonial-Era Gay Sex Ban?

Years ago I traveled to Jamaica on business when I was in-house counsel for an oil company.  I found the country to be gorgeous (on one trip I stayed here), the people friendly and a place I'd love to visit again were it no so homophobic.  Indeed, because of the rabid homophobia in Jamaica and its sodomy laws that date back to the imposition of British penal law against same sex relations - which calls for punishment of up to 10 years in prison with hard labor for those convicted of the "abominable crime of buggery" - in my view, one would have to be crazy to visit Jamaica if you are gay.  It's simply too dangerous.  Now, a legal challenge has been launched to have the law repealed.  It goes without saying that ignorance embracing "Christians" and parasitic pastors are opposed to bringing the nation into the 21st century.   Interestingly, the nation's largest newspaper, The Gleaner, has come out in favor of repeal of the law.  First highlights on the legal action from The Advocate:

Human rights activist Maurice Tomlinson filed a constitutional challenge to Jamaica's 1864 law banning "buggery," a.k.a. sodomy, on Thursday, the Associated Press reports — and some are seeing it as a first step at tackling the Caribbean nation's deep animus toward LGBT people.

Tomlinson's challenge follows a similar lawsuit that was brought last year, but was later withdrawn after the plaintiff faced threats against himself and his family. The initial challenge prompted a homophobic rally that brought 25,000 people to the streets.

The current law calls for punishment of up to 10 years in prison with hard labor for those convicted of the "abominable crime of buggery." Tomlinson's attorney say the law violates the Jamaican constitution by conflicting with the nation's Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms. Activists say the law legitimizes discrimination and encourages violence against LGBT people, of which there is no shortage in Jamaica.

"The law is a gross violation of my human rights and those of all LGBTI people in my country," Tomlinson said in a statement. "It directly infringes numerous rights guaranteed by Jamaica's Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, and also fuels horrific violence."

As for The Gleaner's editorial, here are excerpts:

[W]e, like Mr Tomlinson and many other rational Jamaicans, know instinctively that not only are those laws offensive to the universal principles of individual rights and freedoms, but they are probably contrary to guarantees afforded by Jamaica's Constitution.

Under Jamaica's anachronistic sections of the Offences Against the Person Act, anal penetration, even between consulting adults, including husband and wife, and conducted in utmost privacy, is illegal, for which people can be sent to jail. But this criminalisation of anal sex is a cudgel used primarily against males in a still largely homophobic society, despite the pockets of increasing tolerance for male homosexuality.

These old attitudes, underpinned by the law, have consequences, some, while perhaps unintended, painfully severe. Not least of these being the assault on the dignity and emotional well-being of that significant proportion of the Jamaican society, male and female, that is homosexual. They are denied the right to openly display affection, or, in privacy, engage in acts of physical intimacy with persons they love or with whom they wish to have sexual relations.
If the State doesn't get you, the vigilantes might.

Little wonder that Jamaica has among the hemisphere's highest rates of HIV-AIDS among men who have sex with men. So, there is a public-health problem that is exacerbated by this silly old law.

Further, as we often argue, this newspaper sees no logic to the Jamaican State setting itself up as a kind of voyeuristic commissar of sexual practices. It certainly has no right in people's bedrooms to determine the acts in which they engage, whatever the gender or status of the participants.

The fundamental argument in favour of the buggery law is framed in a fundamentalist Christian and biblical construct of morality, to which probably the majority of Jamaicans subscribe. However, the Constitution prescribes freedom of religion, which we believe means not only the Judaeo-Christian variety. Importantly, also implied in this construct, we believe, is freedom from religion. Religious people have no greater right than others to be final arbiters of moral principles.

Bigoted Utah Judge Orders Child Removed from Same-Sex Parents

Johansen - the face of a bigot

America continues to have a huge problem of bigoted judges who allow their own prejudices and all too often religious beliefs to impact their rulings.  Rather than impartially apply the law and defer to legitimate expert knowledge, these individuals who are unfit for the bench apply their own religious beliefs (and often racial bigotry) to the detriment of litigants whom they disfavor.  In my own divorce, the presiding judge who is still on the bench - and a total cretin in my opinion - stated that being gay was a choice and therefore sought to punish me. Now, in Utah we see the same kind of religious based bigotry in the ruling of Judge Scott Johansen of the Seventh District Juvenile Court who ordered that a foster child be removed from the child's legally married foster parents.  Laughably, Johansen claimed he had "research" that showed that children fared better with heterosexual parents.  As regular readers know, the only research that finds that result is fraudulent Christofascist financed research that has been rejected by the federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court.  The foster parents need to appeal and Johansen needs to be permanently removed from the bench. The Washington Blade looks at this batshitery.  Here are excerpts:

A same-sex couple in Utah is about to lose their foster child as a result of a state judge’s determination children don’t do as well in LGBT homes.

As local CBS affiliate KUTV first reported on Wednesday, April Hoagland and Beckie Peirce of Carbon County say the baby they’ve loved and raised for the last three months will be taken from their home and moved to an opposite-sex household.

Judge Scott Johansen of the Seventh District Juvenile Court ordered the child removed in seven days. According to the couple, the judge said he has research indicating children don’t fare as well in same-sex households, but hasn’t produced his findings.

“We’ve been told to care for this child like a mother, and I am her mother,” Hoagland says in the report. “That’s who she knows. And she’s just going to be taken away in seven days to another probably good loving home, but it’s not fair, and it’s not right, and it just hurts me really badly because I haven’t done anything wrong.”

It’s hard to imagine the judge would have any accurate research showing children are worse off with same-sex parents. Major medical and psychological organizations, including the American Psychological Association and the American Medical Association, have concluded there’s no scientific basis for same-sex couples are less capable parents than straight couples, or that their children are less psychologically healthy and well adjusted.

According to KUTV, the couple is legally married, want to adopt the baby and plan to appeal the decision. The biological mother of the child reportedly has said she wants the child to remain with the same-sex couple. 

Again, Johansen needs to be removed from the bench and state judicial review boards need to make it clear that the moment a judge steps onto the bench, his or her religious beliefs and prejudices need to disappear.  Otherwise, they need to resign from the bench.  It is really that simple.

Robin Williams Comes Out In Final Film Release, "Boulevard"

As the name of this blog indicates, I have special experience when it comes to coming out of the closet in mid-life.  Added to my own journey has been what I have learned from others making the journey, including one relative and acquaintances of the husband and our circle of friends.  It is safe to say that there is no recipe or blue print of how one goes about the process of letting go of the in some ways artificial life that was created to meet the expectations of family and society as a whole. A new movie - which I have yet to see - looks at the process and stars the late Robin Williams.  The name of the film is "Boulevard."  Some may pan the film, but it addresses an issue that I suspect impacts far more men and women than most are likely able to imagine.  As I have noted in the past, simple go to Craigslist or sites like adam4Adam or Grindr and witness just how many closeted married men there are. The question is one of how many will decide to come to full self-acceptance as opposed to continuing to live a role dictated to them by others.   Deadline Holywood looks at the film which I do plan to see.  Here are excerpts:

Robin Williams’ final theatrical release, Boulevard, opens this weekend via Starz Digital. The feature, starring Williams as a 60-year-old married man who comes out of the closet, debuted at the 2014 Tribeca Film Festival, but was temporarily shelved following the actor’s death. Starz will open the film in a slow traditional rollout this summer.

Boulevard centers on a married but closeted 60-year-old bank officer Nolan (Williams), whose spontaneous turn down an unknown street upends his monotonous life and marriage. After forming an unusual friendship with a young, charismatic hustler named Leo, Nolan finds himself on a journey of self-discovery that forces him to confront lifelong secrets he has kept from his wife, Joy (Kathy Baker), and himself. Nolan’s climactic decision to confront who he really is promises to bring happiness and reconciliation to both him and his wife, proving that it is never too late to change life for the better.

“I received a copy of the script…and something about it really touched me,” said director Dito Montiel. “Probably the last thing your agent wants to hear is that you want to do [a movie] about a 60-year-old man coming out. [But] there was an aspect of the coming out I was drawn to and that was of the marriage itself. The [couple] do love each other. It’s not a ‘stand-up and cheer’ to leave ‘the evil woman.’ They did love each other.”

The film has also screened as part of recent Robin Williams retrospectives at the Museum of the Moving Image in New York (MOMI) and the American Cinematheque in L.A. “We planned the release around a lot of things but didn’t plan around the Marriage Equality Act,” said Starz’s Winokur. “Robin’s character is 60 and didn’t have the right to live his life as he would have. It’s a fortuitous coincidence to be able to look at this movie with a fresh pair of eyes.” Starz also released the film’s trailer on YouTube, receiving about 4 million views.

Recently, I was at the birthday party for one of my grandchildren and my ex-wife was there with her husband.  It was awkward at first - I usually "self-medicate" with a glass or two of wine - but we did hug each other.  The truth is that we did love each other once upon a time.  Sadly, we were doomed to failure because I my inability to accept myself for so many years and my foolish belief in wrongheaded, false religious dogma and "pray away the gay" lies and nonsense.  We all deserve happiness and we all deserve to be happy.  I do hope that my former wife finds happiness too.  With our children and now grand children, we will always be connected. 

Straights, It’s Time to Leave Your Homophobic Church

I have long encouraged LGBT individuals to walk away from the homophobic religious traditions in which they were raised.  To remain a member of a church that despises you is nothing short of a form of masochism.  One of the best things I ever did for my own mental health and self-acceptance was to walk away from the Roman Catholic Church.  But it's not just gays who need to leave homophobic churches.  So must their families and, truth be told, those who claim to be friends and allies of the LGBT community.  Being social friends with gays while attending and financially supporting anti-gay churches cannot be reconciled.  It's akin to having a few black friends even as you remain a member of the KKK.  You don't get to have it both ways.  A piece in Slate looks at this need for straights to walk away form homophobic churches.  Here are highlights:

Homophobia in religious communities is unquestionably endemic. Pope Francis recently described gay and lesbian families as “bastardized.” Southern Baptist leaders have suggested that gays are “abominations” controlled by Satan. Countless sermons, prayers, and Sunday school classes have been devoted to the demonization and condemnation of LGBTQ individuals. But for many gay youth, the most crushing aspect is seeing their friends and families unflinchingly accept these lessons in bigotry. If this environment sounds familiar to you, it’s time to leave your church.

Simply attending a homophobic church reinforces the hopelessness and despair many LGBTQ churchgoers experience on a daily basis. In supporting these churches, millions of parishioners across America tacitly endorse a vicious brand of homophobia that puts gay congregants at an increased risk for depressive disorders, substance abuse, and suicide attempts. More often than not, adolescents are most susceptible to these negative messages. In their zeal to condemn homosexuality as sinful, many churches have become toxic theological wastelands for young people.

Published in the Journal of Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior this past June, a survey of lesbians, gays, and bisexuals who had attempted suicide found that only 23 percent of respondents sought out mental health or medical treatment before their suicide attempts. The median age of a first suicide attempt was 17.4 years old. The age at which individuals first recognized their sexual minority identity was 17.9. In other words, suicide attempts tend to happen during periods of questioning and coming out.

Another 14 percent of respondents sought religious or spiritual counsel. Shockingly, these individuals were more likely to attempt suicide than those who sought no treatment or professional care. This disproportionately affects black lesbian, gay, and bisexual parishioners, who were far more likely than white or Latino congregants to seek religious advice about dealing with their sexuality.

Silence in the face of homophobia from the pulpit is as much an affirmation of bigotry as the sermon itself. Support for these churches—even through attendance—sends a clear message to LGBTQ youth: You are not welcome; you are an abomination. While many churches suggest that preaching “the truth” about homosexuality is showing “love,” it is nothing more than an agonizing torture ritual designed to demoralize, demean, and disempower LGBTQ youth. And it must no longer be supported.

Anti-gay churches are no longer the only option. The opportunity is there to send a new message of acceptance and affirmation to LGBTQ youth in the religious community. For the sake of your children, your neighbors, your loved ones, and your friends, it’s time to leave your anti-gay church.

Does the University of Virginia Have Its Own Mark Regnerus?

I have written numerous times about Mark Regnerus at the University of Texas and his discredited "study" funded by right wing ultra right anti-gay organization which was used by Christofascists to oppose marriage equality and adoption and foster care by gay couples.  Now, some wonder if something similar may have gone on at the University of Virginia with Professor Douglas Laycock, who is married to UVa President Teresa A. Sullivan.  Laycock has authored pieces that support misnamed "religious freedom laws" that the Christofascists want to grant themselves the right to ignore laws they do not like and to discriminate based on claimed religious belief.  Laycock likewise supports Hobby Lobby in its ongoing case before the U.S. Supreme Court case involving Hobby Lobby's desired to ignore the contraception coverage requirements of the Affordable Health Care Act.   Freedom of Information Act requests have been filed to investigate what funding has been used by Laycock to back his support for religious extremist positions.  Here are highlights from the Richmond Times Dispatch:

University of Virginia legal scholar Douglas Laycock is facing criticism from gay rights groups for his support of religious freedom laws that activists say could lead to discrimination against the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community. Activists also are upset at his support for Hobby Lobby in an ongoing Supreme Court case involving contraception coverage.

Laycock, who is married to UVa President Teresa A. Sullivan, is the subject of a Freedom of Information Act records request by two UVa student activists - Gregory Lewis and Stephanie Montenegro. In an open letter to the professor, Lewis and Montenegro said that while they respect Laycock's right to academic freedom, they believe his writings supporting controversial religious freedom laws are holding back progressive causes such as access to contraceptives and gay marriage.

"Most recently, your legal work on the topic of 'religious liberty' has been used as a basis of discrimination bills like the one that went into effect in Mississippi and nearly in Arizona," read the letter. "Your work has also been used in efforts to resist the requirement in the Affordable Care Act that employers cover the cost of contraception."

Montenegro and Lewis are seeking, among other things, university-funded travel expenses and cellphone records for the past two-and-a-half years. The students wrote that the request - a copy of which was sent to The Daily Progress - was in the public interest, seeking "a full, transparent accounting of the resources used by Professor Laycock which may be going towards halting the progress of the LGBT community and to erode the reproductive rights of women across the country."

"These laws mostly address miscellaneous conflicts between the practices of assorted religious groups and government regulations," Laycock said.

But lately, the laws have been in the headlines as the battle over gay marriage continues around the country. Some anti-gay-marriage groups see it as a way to allow businesses to discriminate against gay and lesbian couples, said Heather Cronk, spokeswoman for the national gay rights advocacy group Get Equal.

"There shouldn't be a need for a new law ... if there are already protections under freedom of religion," Cronk said. "There are no protections for LGBT people in place," she added.

Among the records requested by Lewis and Montenegro are emails between Laycock, Alliance Defending Freedom and the Becket Fund.  Laycock said he believes the campaign is based on guilt-by-association.

"'He's giving aid and comfort to the enemy' - that's their position," Laycock said "My position is civil liberties applies to both sides. It applies to all Americans."

One can only hope that public funds have not been used to further discrimination and extremist positions.  Given the controversy that  surrounded his wife's tenure as president of the University, one would hope that Laycock isn't another Regnerus.

Judge Denies Utah Attorney General Request to Stay Same-Sex Marriages

So far the Utah Attorney General's and Utah Governor's efforts to stop same sex marriages from taking place in the wake of last week's historic ruling striking down Utah's bans on gay marriage are batting zero.  The U. S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit turned down the Governor's request for an emergency stay of the federal District Court ruling and now the District Court that entered the ruling has refused to halt gay marriages pending an appeal to the 10th Circuit. It goes with out saying that the theocrats are going bonkers and filling the air with spittle flecked shrieks about "activist judges" even though the judge's ruling based on the plain language of the U.S. Constitution is 100% on target.  Here are highlights from the Salt Lake Tribune:

Moments after a federal judge in Utah struck down the state’s request to halt same-sex marriage, there were tears, hugs and high-fives among lesbian and gay couples waiting to wed at county clerks’ offices across the state.

But at the federal courthouse, where the latest clash over these couples’ right to marry was decided Monday, there was little hurrah.

Instead, lawyers who represent the plaintiffs in the case exchanged tenuous smiles and cautious congratulations. They told reporters they were "relieved" rather than thrilled.  They had won the battle, but their fight is far from over.

Just after 11 a.m., U.S. District Judge Robert J. Shelby denied the state’s motion for a stay that would have stopped marriage licenses from being issued to same-sex couples, who came out in record-setting numbers throughout the state to seek the licenses.

Shelby refused to accept the state’s claim that allowing same-sex couples to continue marrying in Utah would cause irreparable harm to the state and — eventually — to the couples themselves. 

"The reality is this is something of a mess," Shelby said. "But, at its core, the state essentially relies and reasserts arguments it previously submitted to me, arguments I previously considered and rejected. Those findings prevent me from providing a stay today."

An hour later, state attorneys filed a request with the 10th Circuit Court in Denver for an emergency order that would stop the marriages. It was the state’s third such request since Friday, when the state filed its appeal of Shelby’s ruling with the circuit court in defense of Amendment 3. 

The previous two were denied by the high court, which oversees federal appeals out of Utah, for procedural reasons.

Utah’s latest filing asks the 10th Circuit Court to stop same-sex marriages immediately, while the appeals court decides whether to overturn Friday’s decision. The appeals court is not expected to make that decision for at least several months.

Monday afternoon, the director of the Governor’s Office of Management and Budget sent an email to Gov. Gary Herbert’s cabinet members requesting a list of state services, programs and policies that might be affected by same-sex marriages.

In the email, which was obtained by The Salt Lake Tribune, Kristen Cox instructs her colleagues to "include a brief outline of the potential impact and conflicts/questions" on their department as a result of the same-sex marriage decision.

In his ruling, Shelby allowed the state to move forward immediately — up the chain to the 10th Circuit, which will ultimately decide whether the district court’s ruling will stand — but it will be several weeks from now until the appeals court will set a schedule for the filing of briefs, a court official told The Tribune.

If things don’t go its way in Denver, said acting Utah Attorney General Brian Tarbet, the state may consider taking the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

What the state's appeal is really about is trying to force the religious beliefs of bitter, sexually repressed - and I would argue psychologically disturbed  - individuals on all Utah residents, tearing the freedom of religion guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution to shreds in the process.  All so that these people who fear objective reality and have a sick need to feel superior to others can preen in their false piety.  Kudos to the District Court judge for saying "No" to this.

American Sociology Association Files Brief Against Marriage Bans In Nevada and Hawaii

As noted many, many times on this blog, EVERY legitimate medical and mental health association in America opposes "ex-gay" therapy and admits that one's sexual orientation is not something that can be "cured" or "fixed."  The natural result of this understanding is that same sex couples ought to have the same civil legal marriage rights as heterosexual couples.  Bans on gay marriage only seek to harm same sex couples and enshrine Christofascist religious belief into the civil laws.  With numerous lawsuits pending that challenge state laws and constitutional amendments aimed at keeping gays inferior, we can expect to see legitimate medical and mental health associations filing briefs against such bans.  The American Sociological Association has filed such briefs in cases pending in Nevada and Hawaii.  Here are highlights from the organization's press release:

The American Sociological Association (ASA) filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit today supporting efforts to overturn gay marriage bans in Nevada and Hawaii and highlighting the overwhelming body of social science research that confirms “children fare just as well” when same-sex or heterosexual parents raise them. The Ninth Circuit is scheduled to hear lawsuits challenging the bans in the coming months.

“The supporters of gay marriage bans in these cases offer no facts to support the contention that Nevada and Hawaii possess an important or rational basis for their respective state laws against marriage for same-sex couples,” said ASA Executive Officer Sally T. Hillsman. The amicus brief is part of the ASA’s ongoing effort to ensure that U.S. courts considering lawsuits to legalize gay marriage understand that social science research shows parents’ sexual orientation has no bearing on their children’s well-being.

Obviously, these facts are 100% opposed to the arguments of the Christofascists who use faux experts and manipulated "research" to support their predetermined conclusions.  An example of this is the much slammed "study" done by Mark Regnerus which was funded by far right organizations for use against arguments for same sex marriage.  The ASA singled out the Regnerus "study" for particular condemnation:

“The Regnerus papers and other sources gay marriage opponents often rely on provide no basis for their arguments because this research does not directly examine the well-being of children raised by same-sex parents,” Hillsman said. “These analyses therefore do not undermine the consensus from the social science research and do not establish a legitimate basis for gay marriage bans in Nevada, Hawaii, or anywhere else.”

 When all else is stripped away, the only argument against gay marriage comes down to conservative religious beliefs.  Beliefs that should not be included in the civil laws whatsoever. 

"Religious Liberty" - The Far Right's New Ploy to Justify Discrimination

As numerous posts on this blog have previously pointed out, no element of society is more self-centered or inclined to believe itself above the law than the "godly Christian" crowd.  It's all about them 24/7 and they hold nothing but contempt for the rights - in some instances, the very lives - of others.  Meanness and selfishness and hypocrisy are their principal characteristics.  And when others stand up to the Christofascist effort to ride rough shod over everyone else, these modern day Pharisees have the gall to claim that they are the ones being persecuted.   With last month's losses at the Supreme Court on gay marriage and a recognition that demographics are increasingly against them, it can be expected that the claims of persecution and efforts to use claims of "religious freedom" will escalate further.  A piece in Think Progress looks at the coming disingenuous propaganda campaign.  Here are highlights:

Religious conservatives, however, still have one more card to play in their efforts to deny equal rights to LGBT Americans. As the socially conservative writer Ross Douthat suggested shortly after the Court struck DOMA, the best way to continue to limit the rights of gay people is to “build in as many protections for religious liberty as possible along the way.”

It’s clear that anti-gay leaders are already executing this contingency plan. Heritage Foundation President Jim DeMint claimed on Tuesday that marriage equality “means trampling First Amendment religious liberty protections along the way.” At least fifteen anti-gay individuals, ranging from wedding cake bakers to bed and breakfast owners to t-shirt makers, have claimed the right to discriminate against gay people — often in direct violation of the law — with many citing their religious beliefs as justification. The conservative U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops claimed in a brief they filed in the Supreme Court that treating anti-gay discrimination permissively “protects the religious liberty of those employers with a religious objection to providing” health coverage to same-sex partners.

This, simply put, is the social conservative end game. They are not going to succeed in blocking marriage equality. But if they can exempt the very people who are most likely to engage in invidious discrimination against gay people from laws prohibiting such discrimination, then they can suck the life out of many pro-gay laws. Their exaggerated view of “religious liberty” can no more be squared with equality than it could when Bob Jones University claimed a similar religious right to engage in race discrimination.

Ultimately, social conservatives’ efforts to expand religious rights to the point where they devour other essential freedoms such as the right to be free from discrimination are likely to backfire. In the 1980s, the Supreme Court developed a workable framework for religious liberty. Such liberty is robust, but it does not include the right to engage in invidious discrimination, and it does not give businesses a right to “impose the employer’s religious faith on the employees.” Then, in 1990, Justice Scalia blew up this framework with his majority opinion in Employment Div. v. Smith. Smith shrunk religious liberty far more than many Americans were willing to tolerate; Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) to restore the religious liberties lost in Smith almost unanimously, and it was signed into law by President Clinton.

Now, however, religious conservatives want to go far beyond the 1980s framework that RFRA restored. They claim both the right to defy anti-discrimination law and the right to ignore the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Lee, which held that “[w]hen followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity.” Religious liberties are rightfully enshrined in our Constitution, but they have not been understood as a sweeping right to deny equally important liberties to others. If religious conservatives insist upon the right to do so, the consensus that led to RFRA’s passage is likely to break down, and people of faith could ultimately wind up with fewer protections than they enjoyed before a small number of religious conservatives decided to overreach.

The task before the LGBT community is to educate the larger public on this fraudulent approach of the Christofascists and make it clear that this twisting of the concept of "religious freedom" ultimately will threaten the rights of many other in addition to LGBT citizens.

The Disaffiliation of Gays and Religion

Few factors account more for the abuse, discrimination and often outright persecution faced by LGBT individuals than religion.  Indeed, if one is gay, it is easy to come to see religion - certainly the fundamentalist forms - as nothing less than a toxic evil.  Hate, bigotry and the mistreatment of others seem to often be religion's principal hallmarks.  Thus, it is not surprising that gays are much less likely to claim a religious affiliation than the general public even though the trend for the under 30 demographic is to be far more rejecting of religion than older demographic groups.  Here are some findings from the Pew Research Center:

Lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgender adults are, on the whole, less religious than the general public. About half (48%) say they have no religious affiliation, compared with 20% in the general public; this pattern holds among all age groups. LGBT adults who do have a religious affiliation generally attend worship services less frequently and attach less importance to religion in their lives than do religiously affiliated adults in the general public.

Also, a third (33%) of religiously affiliated LGBT adults say there is a conflict between their religious beliefs and their sexual orientation or gender identity.

That sentiment is even more prevalent among the general public. About three-quarters of white evangelical Protestants (74%) and a majority of all U.S. adults with a religious affiliation (55%) say homosexuality conflicts with their religious beliefs.
The new Pew Research survey asked LGBT respondents to rate six religions or religious institutions as friendly, neutral or unfriendly toward the LGBT population. By overwhelming margins, most rate all six as more unfriendly than friendly. About eight-in-ten LGBT respondents say the Muslim religion, the Mormon Church and the Catholic Church are unfriendly toward them, while one-in-ten or fewer say each of these religious institutions is friendly toward them. Similarly, about three-quarters of LGBT adults (73%) say that evangelical churches are unfriendly toward them, . . .

I would argue that following the "godly Christian" crowd and seeing just how poisonous they are makes it increasingly difficult for me to desire any religious affiliation.  Indeed, one would need to be a masochist to remain affiliated with a religion that does nothing but denigrate you and bar you from equal legal rights.  Thankfully, the under 30 generation seems to be recognizing that religion - at least as practiced by a majority of denominations - is a net negative force in society.

Cat Fight Develops Between "Ex-Gay" Myth Proponents

UPDATED: Religion Dispatches also has a good piece on what the Christianists consider to be Alan Chamber's hersey.  Here's a sampling:

Chambers acknowledged that most Exodus members are single and remain so, that those who are married are trying to salvage an existing marriage rather than starting new, straight ones, and that homosexual desire stays homosexual desire. “In the past,” he said, “we’ve been aligned with organizations that believe feelings can completely change, temptations can completely go away. We now believe that’s an unrealistic and unhealthy expectation that can cause a lot of damage.” Rather than insisting on change, the organization now claims to help support those who wish to align their sexual lives with their religious faith. “We’re here to support those who are in conflict at the place where their sexual attractions meet their faith,” Chambers said.

This is not to say that Exodus can necessarily be trusted to independently take those and other positions in support of the life and liberty of gay people in a responsible and timely fashion. But it does suggest that Exodus is changing, is engaged in an actual conversation with gays and lesbians, and is receptive to efforts to keep it a little more honest and hold it a little more accountable. That change may be tentative, its direction may be uncertain, it may well be motivated by money, and suspicion, of course, is warranted. But dismissing that change is inaccurate

Needles to say hate groups such as Family Research Council and American Family Association are beside themselves.   Personally, I suspect that Chambers - like Warren Throckmorton who used to advocate that change was possible - has seen the hand writing on the wall.  With all legitimate medical and mental health associations condemning "reparative therapy" it is only a matter of time before these bogus ministries and therapists who perpetuate the change myth are either shut down by state regulators or hit with major lawsuits.  Thus the issue is either move away from the disingenuous change myth or be shut down and put out of business over the longer term.

ORIGINAL POST: One of the things that gives me perverse pleasure is watching the Christofascists get in a cat fight amongst each other when someone finally briefly acknowledges reality and makes an "the emperor has no clothes" statement that draws attention to the lies and disingenuousness of their former compatriots.  A case in point? Exodus International's recent admission that gays cannot change their sexual orientation.  This is utter heresy to the "family values" organizations and professional Christians who have pour tons of money and crafted a relentless propaganda campaign to try to convince the public, but more importantly, politicians that being gays is a "choice" or a "behavior" as opposed to in immutable characteristic - an immutable characteristic that would support non-discrimination laws just like race, national origin and gender.   It's also heresy to the psychologically disturbed "ex-gays for pay" who see their livelihood going down the toilet if they can't prey on those tortured by toxic religious belief to line their wallets and bank accounts.  The New York Times looks at the in fighting now overtaking this group of charlatans as Exodus International belatedly begins to accept scientific reality.  Here are some excepts:

For more than three decades, Exodus International has been the leading force in the so-called ex-gay movement, which holds that homosexuals can be “cured” through Christian prayer and psychotherapy.

Exodus leaders claimed its network of ministries had helped tens of thousands rid themselves of unwanted homosexual urges. The notion that homosexuality is not inborn but a choice was seized on by conservative Christian groups who oppose legal protections for gay men and lesbians and same-sex marriage. 

But the ex-gay movement has been convulsed as the leader of Exodus, in a series of public statements and a speech to the group’s annual meeting last week, renounced some of the movement’s core beliefs. Alan Chambers, 40, the president, declared that there was no cure for homosexuality and that “reparative therapy” offered false hopes to gays and could even be harmful. His statements have led to charges of heresy and a growing schism within the network.

In a phone interview Thursday from Orlando, Fla., where Exodus has its headquarters, Mr. Chambers amplified on the views that have stirred so much controversy. He said that virtually every “ex-gay” he has ever met still harbors homosexual cravings, himself included. Mr. Chambers, who left the gay life to marry and have two children, said that gay Christians like himself faced a lifelong spiritual struggle to avoid sin and should not be afraid to admit it. 

He said Exodus could no longer condone reparative therapy, which blames homosexuality on emotional scars in childhood and claims to reshape the psyche. And in a theological departure that has caused the sharpest reaction from conservative pastors, Mr. Chambers said he believed that those who persist in homosexual behavior could still be saved by Christ and go to heaven.

Mr. Chambers’s comments come at a time of widening acceptance of homosexuality and denunciation of reparative therapy by professional societies that say it is based on faulty science and potentially harmful.

A bill to outlaw “conversion therapy” for minors has passed the California Senate and is now before the State Assembly. Earlier this year, a prominent psychiatrist, Dr. Robert L. Spitzer, apologized for publishing what he now calls an invalid study, which said many patients had largely or totally switched their sexual orientation.

Some in the ex-gay world are more scathing about Mr. Chambers.   “I think Mr. Chambers is tired of his own personal struggles, so he’s making excuses for them by making sweeping generalizations about others,” said Gregg Quinlan . . . 

Many of the local ministries in Exodus continue to attack gays and lesbians, said David Roberts, editor of the Web site Ex-Gay Watch, and they often have close ties with reparative therapists. He speculated that Mr. Chambers was trying to steer the group in a moderate direction because “they were becoming pariahs” in a society that is more accepting of gay people. 

Mr. Chambers said he was simply trying to restore Exodus to its original purpose when it was founded in 1976: providing spiritual support for Christians who are struggling with homosexual attraction. 

He said that he was happy in his marriage, with a “love and devotion much deeper than anything I experienced in gay life,” but that he knew this was not feasible for everyone. Many Christians with homosexual urges may have to strive for lives of celibacy.  But those who fail should not be severely judged, he said, adding, “We all struggle or fall in some way.”

As one who tried to "pray away the gay" for 37 years and experienced profound self-hate and self-loathing when I could not "change" I know full well what a line of utter bullshit the "ex-gay" myth is in fact.  What religiously tortured gays need to do is find a new church and/or denomination as opposed to trying to change the unchangeable.  If those who in my opinion are psychologically disturbed such as Greg Quinlan want to delude themselves and pretend that they have "changed," it's their right to do so.  But they need to cease disseminating lies and trying to convince legislators that sexual orientation is not an immutable characteristic.  I also believe that straight spouses need to think twice before they marry an "ex-gay" who despite the best of intentions simply can never be straight.

Why Are the Christianists So Afraid of Love?

I came across this video which is in Spanish with subtitles (skip the initial advertisement) which makes me ponder once again as to why the Christianists are so terrified of same sex love. Is it because of their own damaged psychological/emotional state? Or is it because their house of cards like faith cannot withstand anything that suggests that the Bible passages cited to condemn us might just be wrong?  Because obviously, if those passages are wrong, then they must confront the reality that much more in the Bible is likely wrong as well.  Love is love and in this troubled world, love should be celebrated.

An Inexplicable Gay Suicide

We read time and time again about gay teens who end their lives prematurely due to relentless bullying and other factors that no one will likely ever know. Thus, it's unnerving to read about the suicide of a financially successful member of the LGBT community who had outwardly seemed to come to terms with living in a still very homophobic society and by reports was a personification of the "It Gets Better" story line. The New York Times has such a story today. Having attempted suicide twice myself in the past and ended up hospitalized as a result, I do understand all too well the feeling that forces are out of one's control and the desire to just stop the pain can take control and trump everything else. And getting older - I will hit a major age benchmark in August, so I speak with knowledge - and realizing that so many of your dreams of your youth will never come to be can also be a depressing phenomenon - especially for those of us who tend to be perfectionists.

While I don't claim to know what motivated Bob Bergeron to take his own life, I do believe that gays have a far more burdensome existence where we are forced to justify our own humanity and worth in ways that the heterosexual world will never know. Like it or not, the religious culture in America remains overwhelmingly toxic towards LGBT individuals who see themselves as a group denigrated daily and described in the foulest of ways by the "godly Christian" crowd. Even if one's family doesn't reject you, some level of damage is done nonetheless. And that damage is done deliberately by those like the folks at the National Organization for Marriage, Family Research Council, and even the Vatican. Devout Mormons and Christians don't like have their responsibility cited - as I found from a nasty e-mail attacking me for a recent post on a gay Mormon suicide - but the fact that the truth hurts doesn't make it any less the truth.

Here are some excerpts from the New York Times on Bergeron's tragic and still inexplicable suicide:

Over the last decade, he built a thriving private practice, treating well-to-do gay men for everything from anxiety to coping with H.I.V. Mr. Bergeron had also begun work as a motivational speaker, giving talks at gay and lesbian centers in Los Angeles and Chicago. In February, Magnus Books, a publisher specializing in gay literature, was scheduled to print a self-help guide he had written, “The Right Side of Forty: The Complete Guide to Happiness for Gay Men at Midlife and Beyond.”

It was a topic he knew something about. Having come out as gay in the mid-1980s, Mr. Bergeron, 49, had witnessed the worst years of the AIDS epidemic and emerged on the other side. He had also seen how few public examples there were of gay men growing older gracefully.

He resolved to rewrite the script, and provide a toolbox for better living. “I’ve got a concise picture of what being over 40 is about and it’s a great perspective filled with happiness, feeling sexy, possessing comfort relating to other men and taking good care of ourselves,” Mr. Bergeron said on his Web site. “This picture will get you results that flourish long-term.”

But right around New Year’s Eve, something went horribly wrong. On Jan. 5, Mr. Bergeron was found dead in his apartment, the result of a suicide that has left his family, his friends and his clients shocked and heartbroken as they attempt to figure out how he could have been so helpful to others and so unable to find help himself.

But there is something particularly resonant about Mr. Bergeron’s tale. Here was a man who ended his life at the exact moment he seemed to be nearing a professional peak, one that involved the upbeat story of a mature gay man facing the second half of his life with enthusiasm, hope and an endless array of tight T-shirts.

“We sell this idea that 60 is the new 40, but it’s just lying,” said Dr. Frank Spinelli, an internist in Chelsea who referred numerous patients to Mr. Bergeron. “We tell children there’s Santa Claus, and then they get older, and learn better. I can’t even begin to imagine what Bob was going through.”

Though some of his friends, Mr. Rappaport among them, wondered whether drugs were involved, leading to a crash Mr. Bergeron did not anticipate, the suicide seemed to have been carried out with methodical precision. On an island in the kitchen, Mr. Bergeron had meticulously laid out his papers. There was a pile of folders with detailed instructions on top about whom to call regarding his finances and his mortgage. Across from that he placed the title page of his book, on which he also wrote his suicide note. In it he told Mr. Sackheim and Mr. Rappaport that he loved them and his family, but that he was “done.”

As his father remembered it, Mr. Bergeron also wrote, “It’s a lie based on bad information.”An arrow pointed up to the name of the book. The inference was clear. As Mr. Bergeron saw it at the end of his life, the only right side of 40 was the side that came before it.

I hope Bergeron finds the peace that seems to have eluded him. Perhaps he feared not living up to his own standard. Perhaps he feared disappointing - failing, if you will - his patients and readers. Even writing this small blog, I at times feel I cannot fail readers. For the rest of us, we need to be vigilant in watching out for one another and keep up the fight against the anti-gay hate and bigotry that remain so rampant in America.

The Tortured and Dysfunctional Lives of Professional "Ex-Gays"

Have you ever noticed that virtually all of the prominent "ex-gays for pay" have a common theme in their pasts? It seems that nearly every one, whether male of female, has a history that includes alcoholism, drug use, prostitution, molestation, screwed up family backgrounds, or all of the foregoing. And rather than take real responsibility for the bad life choices they made, they without exception want to blame their tortured pasts on being gay. In fact, in my view, the biggest problem driving all of the poor choice behavior these "ex-gays" exhibit is the psychological damage they experienced from their religious upbringings. I've often maintained that raising and LGBT child in a far right religious household is a form of child abuse and most "ex-gays" - many of whom have no careers except playing ex-gay for pay - seem to be very damaged individuals as a result of their religious inner self-hate and self-loathing. To listen to these "ex-gays," no one who is LGBT can lead a normal productive life like everyone else in society. Truth be told, most of us do and given their train wreck like past lives, "ex-gays" would seem to be the last people to advise others on any issue. Jeremy Hooper looks at the bizarre lives of the "ex-gays for pay" in a post at Good As You:

n a recent interview with Christian radio host Janet Parshall, professional "ex-gay" Stephen Bennett did that thing the professional "former homosexuals" always do: He linked a whole host of horrible life experiences and choices to his sexuality, as if unrelated feathers are undetachable parts of the gay bird . . .

It's so telling. Virtually to a person, these career "ex-gays" have backgrounds (or supposed backgrounds) of prolonged drug abuse, alcoholism, family strife, molestation, vicious shunning, obsessions with club life, bulimia, and any number of things with which most people truly would need to deal, if they wanted to advance. These "former gays" then link those other elements directly to their sexual orientations, as if it's all in the same bucket. Alan Chambers does it. Charlene Cothran did it. Melissa Fryrear does it. Janet Boynes does it. We never see an "ex-gay" paycheck-earner who just happened to be LGBT with the everyday, up and down life experiences that are most common among the LGBT population. They are always presented as having been addicted, abused, trapped, entrenched, damaged, broken, stuck in horrible relationships, sex-crazed, lacking ambition, immoral (or at best amoral), and generally hurting -- part of a "lifestyle" rather than a life.

I actually think it does more damage to their cause than they realize. Most modern Americans now know an LGBT person or two. Many more see LGBT people in pop culture. A growing number even realize that the negative cultural elements that do greet some LGBT people are largely the byproducts of decades of forced differentiation and stigma, not innate "brokenness."

More and more people know that Stephen Bennett, despite his pretense of firsthand insight, doesn't speak for the LGBT experience, writ large: He speaks for Stephen Bennett, or at least the professionally-crafted version thereof. Oh, and of course he speaks against the entire field of credible science. So there's that, too.

Does the Mormon Church Need Major Reform?

Mitt Romney's Mormon faith is continuing to haunt him on the campaign trail, particularly among the knuckle dragging Christianist elements of the Republican Party base. Some 25% or more have said that they would not vote for a Mormon to be president. Clearly, religious based discrimination is alive and well in America, the land of supposed religious freedom. However, an op-ed in the Washington Post puts some of the blame for this anti-Mormon mindset squarely at the feet of the often unforgiving and unwelcoming Mormon Church which, like the leadership of the Catholic Church talks a good game of Christian love but then acts in decidedly unloving if not morally bankrupt ways. And then there's the Mormon Church's tendency to trample on the religious freedom of others as demonstrated by its role in the passage of Proposition 8. Sometimes you reap what you sow. Here are some column highlights:

There has been much talk recently about whether America is ready for a Mormon president. This tolerance question should cut both ways. Nearly a quarter of Americans told Gallup last summer that they wouldn’t vote for a Mormon president, which is unfortunate since former governor Mitt Romney and former candidate Jon Huntsman are both smart, capable men.

[T]he church isn’t exactly welcoming of outsiders. Mormons account for 57 percent of Utah residents yet some 91 percent of Utah state legislators self-identify as Mormons. The state that’s home to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has elected only two non-Mormon governors in nearly 116 years and has sent just one non-Mormon to Congress in the past five decades.

Mormons love families. But the family-values facade applies only if you stay in the fold. Former Mormons know the family estrangement and bigotry that often come with questioning or leaving the church. The church I was raised in values unquestioning obedience over critical thinking. This caused trauma and cognitive dissonance when I questioned church doctrine and official history.

I struggled after realizing that Mormonism’s claims about anthropology, history and other subjects contradict reason and science. While many faiths’ irrational claims are obscured by centuries of myth and rubble, the LDS church lacks the moderation and scholarship of its older peers. It also stifles efforts to openly question church pronouncements, labeling such behavior as satanic.

Critics of Mormonism include geneticists, Egyptologists and even the Smithsonian Institution, which stopped Mormon apologists from claiming the institute viewed the Book of Mormon as a factual document.

I spiritually imploded after learning these things and other facts outside official church curriculum. Disturbed, I met with a high-ranking Mormon leader who told me to quit reading historical and scientific materials because they were “worse than pornography.” BYU’s dean of religious education wouldn’t answer my growing list of questions.

Salt Lake City’s male gerontocracy told me to avoid books and marry, but I could not stomach all their teachings. For example, mainstream Mormons banned polygamy in 1890 to obtain Utah’s statehood, but they continue to perform temple ceremonies that “seal” one man to multiple women in the hereafter.

Non-Mormons are not allowed to attend family members’ weddings in Mormon temples. Many gay Mormons have been driven to suicide, deeply conflicted about whether acting on their sexuality is, as the church teaches, a sin.

With public interest in Mormonism so high, I hope the scrutiny will help break down the church’s fundamentalist trappings: secrecy about its finances, anti-women doctrine and homophobia, to start. Perhaps someday the church will not excommunicate, fire and demote people who want honest, church-wide dialogue about Mormon history and doctrine.

In many ways, the writer's lament could apply to Catholicism and many fundamentalist denominations as well. If you want to be accepted, you need to be accepting. In addition, at some point it becomes necessary to stop refusing to face the fact that history and scientific knowledge can no longer be ignored.

Quote of the Day - What Gay Acceptance is Revealing About the Christianists

The "first kiss" photo of two local sailors (at right) and the YouTube video version of the same continues to provoke a lot of commentary. One comment left on Andrew Sullivan's blog summed up - in my view at least - the reason for the absolute hysteria among Christianists over gay marriage and the growing acceptance of LGBT individuals as normal everyday citizens:

Dan Savage wrote: "The growing civil equality of gays and lesbians—from marriage equality in Canada and New York to the end of DADT in the USA—is revealing a lot of things." Among them, just how non-existent a threat it all was, he says. And I think in retrospect that THIS is what the right was most afraid of. Not that society as they knew if would crumble, or that God would damn everyone. But that things wouldn't change at all. That their story about hellfire and damnation would be revealed for what it was: pure fiction. And that in large measure, their authority (moral or otherwise) would be diminished.

The far right Christians' (and the Catholic Church's) opposition to gay rights and marriage equality has ultimately nothing to do at all with "protecting marriage." Rather, it's all about maintaining control of others. But even more importantly, it's about not facing the fact that much of their lives have been based on myths and lies. This terror of realizing it was all untrue and that they've led needlessly miserable lives is what is the strongest motivator of all. Of course, there are also those like Maggie Gallagher who want to make a ton of money marketing hate and division.

Recognizing Bullying in Its Many Forms

I continue to be haunted by the suicide death of Jamey Rodemeyer this past week. Like other teen suicide deaths caused by bullying, his death could have been avoided if he had spoken up more, if our society recognized that bullying isn't just "part of growing up," and religious based anti-gay bigotry was confronted across the board and anti-gay religious beliefs were not routinely given deference instead of being labeled for the hate that they are in fact. One other factor that we will never know may have factored into Rodemeyer's death is that he appears to have been raised Roman Catholic - or at least his funeral was in a Catholic Church. Having been raised Catholic while growing up gay, I know all too well what a mental/psychological/emotional clusterf*ck that is for LGBT youth. Whether Catholics like it or not or not, growing up even nominally in a religious tradition that views gays as "inherently disordered" and "motivated toward evil" could not have been good for Rodemeyer's psychological well being. An op-ed in the New York Times looks at the pressing need to pay more attention to bullying and to hold bullies accountable even when they don't want to see themselves as bullies. Here are some excerpts:

THE suicide of Jamey Rodemeyer, the 14-year-old boy from western New York who killed himself last Sunday after being tormented by his classmates for being gay, is appalling. His story is a classic case of bullying: he was aggressively and repeatedly victimized. Horrific episodes like this have sparked conversations about cyberbullying and created immense pressure on regulators and educators to do something, anything, to make it stop.

Adults need to start paying attention to the language of youth if they want antibullying interventions to succeed.

Jamey recognized that he was being bullied and asked explicitly for help, but this is not always the case. Many teenagers who are bullied can’t emotionally afford to identify as victims, and young people who bully others rarely see themselves as perpetrators. For a teenager to recognize herself or himself in the adult language of bullying carries social and psychological costs. It requires acknowledging oneself as either powerless or abusive.

In our research over a number of years, we have interviewed and observed teenagers across the United States. . . . . Teenagers repeatedly told us that bullying was something that happened only in elementary or middle school. “There’s no bullying at this school” was a regular refrain.

This didn’t mesh with our observations, so we struggled to understand the disconnect. While teenagers denounced bullying, they — especially girls — would describe a host of interpersonal conflicts playing out in their lives as “drama.”

Teenagers say drama when they want to diminish the importance of something. . . . . Dismissing a conflict that’s really hurting their feelings as drama lets teenagers demonstrate that they don’t care about such petty concerns. They can save face while feeling superior to those tormenting them by dismissing them as desperate for attention. Or, if they’re the instigators, the word drama lets teenagers feel that they’re participating in something innocuous or even funny, rather than having to admit that they’ve hurt someone’s feelings.

And when teenagers like Jamey do ask for help, they’re often let down. Not only are many adults ill-equipped to help teenagers do the psychological work necessary, but teenagers’ social position often requires them to continue facing the same social scene day after day.


Like Jamey, there are young people who identify as victims of bullying. But many youths engaged in practices that adults label bullying do not name them as such. Teenagers want to see themselves as in control of their own lives; their reputations are important. Admitting that they’re being bullied, or worse, that they are bullies, slots them into a narrative that’s disempowering and makes them feel weak and childish.

When teenagers acknowledge that they’re being bullied, adults need to provide programs similar to those that help victims of abuse. And they must recognize that emotional recovery is a long and difficult process.

Interventions must focus on positive concepts like healthy relationships and digital citizenship rather than starting with the negative framing of bullying. The key is to help young people feel independently strong, confident and capable without first requiring them to see themselves as either an oppressed person or an oppressor.

Here in Virginia, there are no effective laws on the books and even watered down policies are rarely enforced - ask Christian Taylor's mother - because The Family Foundation and Christianist organizations demand (and the Republican Party of Virginia supports such demands) free rein to make the lives of LGBT students and adults a living Hell. Yes, better work is needed in working with students to end bullying. Equally important, however, is ending the ongoing message that hating and abusing LGBT individuals is perfectly okay. And this latter effort will require confronting haters in pulpits and "family values" organizations head on.