Exposing the "Alliance Defending Freedom," an Anti-Gay Hate Group

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

The Evils of Religion: Athlete Disowned for Being Gay

Emily Scheck

Ironically, a group of us had already planned to see "Boy Erased" today when I came across this article about a young student athlete disowned by her parents for being gay.  Both the Buffalo News and Out Sports have coverage of the nightmare Emily Scheck has experienced since her parents learned she was gay and disowned her.  It is a story only too common for many in the LGBT community where parents cling to Bronze Age myths originating with ignorant herders and reject their own children.  Schenk's parents' claim that they did not want to force her into "conversion therapy" - a thoroughly discredited and dangerous practice often peddled by quacks and charlatans - seem disingenuous.  Thankfully, she found support  from here girlfriend who launched a GoFundMe page and her college community.   Meanwhile, conservative Christianity remains a toxic evil.  Here are excerpts from the Buffalo News story:

Canisius College sophomore Emily Scheck had just moved back onto campus in August as a cross-country and track athlete when her mother came across photos of Scheck and her girlfriend on a photo-sharing social media site.

That's when Scheck's life came crashing down.  Her parents, who had been unaware their daughter was a lesbian, demanded she come home to the Rochester area, give up her partial athletic scholarship to Canisius College, commute to a local college and participate in counseling sessions. When she refused, her parents cut her off.

"I couldn’t even get groceries, initially," said Scheck, 19. "I was just really relying on my roommates and my girlfriend."

What happened next launched her into a public controversy over whether money raised for a student through a GoFundMe page should disqualify that student’s athletic eligibility under NCAA rules.

After three months, a frustrated roommate posted Scheck's story on a GoFundMe page. Money started pouring in. But when the college alerted the NCAA to the GoFundMe page, Scheck's student athlete status and partial scholarship were suddenly in jeopardy.

OutSports first reported Scheck's predicament last week. At that time, the NCAA stated it was "currently reviewing all options" regarding Scheck's situation. The NCAA revised its position Friday after being contacted by The Buffalo News, and said Scheck could keep the money raised through her GoFundMe page as long as Canisius monitors the contributions.

"Emily Scheck can retain her eligibility and continue to receive GoFundMe donations that assist her with living and educational expenses," the NCAA said in a statement.

Her mother sent her a text that read, "Well, I am done with you. As of right now, declare yourself independent. You are on your own. Please don’t contact us or your siblings."

When Scheck asked her mother why she would do this, she said her mother texted back, "Because you disgust me."

Though Scheck owned a car, she said, her parents removed her from their insurance policy. And shortly afterward, her father drove to Buffalo from the Rochester suburb of Webster with Emily's remaining personal belongings, including her birth certificate, stuffed animals, trophies, childhood photos and clothing. He dumped them in her car and removed the license plates. The family asked her to participate in counseling sessions, but he said that did not mean conversion therapy. The family accepts her sexual orientation, he said. Scheck disputes her father's account.

Scheck said her family didn't change their behavior toward her until after the GoFundMe page went up. In the meantime, she said, she struggled to make ends meet, working two part-time jobs and going to cross-country practice every day. She relied on her roommates and girlfriend until she received her first paychecks, she said, and continued to field difficult and upsetting messages from her family. Scheck said she's not ready go home and be part of her family's plans when for months it seemed they didn't want her.  "As long as I stay in Buffalo and I don’t come home, they’ve made it clear that I’m still on my own," she said.

Another case of supposed "Christian love" that in truth is infused with hatred.  Time and time again I find the so-called "unchurched" and agnostics far more likely to exhibit behavior in keeping with Christ's gospel dictates than the self-congratulatory "godly folk."

For Love of Country, and Each Other

A piece in the New York Times looks at a happy ending wedding story, something much needed by the LGBT community in the age of Trump/Pence.  Frankly, it is difficult at times to be optimistic if one is an LGBT American.  Over the last year, the Trump/pence regime has waged an unrelenting war on LGBT rights and, now, any day regulations will be released that will permit health care providers to refuse to treat and serve LGBT patients under the smoke screen of "religious freedom."  Meanwhile, here in Virginia, Senate Republicans seemingly are ignoring the message from voters last November when 15 house of delegates  seats flipped to Democrat.  Just this week a second Senate committee killed a pro-LGBT bill on a straight party line vote.  The bill would have banned "therapists" from subjecting minors to "conversion therapy" - something condemned by every legitimate medical and mental health association in America.  The Washington Blade provides details:

The Virginia Senate’s Health and Education Committee on Thursday killed a bill that would have banned so-called conversion therapy to minors in the state.

Committee members struck down Senate Bill 245 — which state Sen. Scott Surovell (D-Fairfax County) introduced — by an 8-7 vote margin.

State Sens. Richard Black (R-Loudoun County), Charles Carrico (R-Galax), Amanda Chase (R-Chesterfield County), John Cosgrove (R-Chesapeake), Siobhan Dunnavant (R-Henrico County), Stephen D. Newman (R-Lynchburg), Mark Peake (R-Lynchburg) and Dave Suetterlein (R-Roanoke County) voted against SB 245.  

State Sens. George Barker (D-Alexandria), Janet Howell (D-Fairfax County), Lynwood Lewis (D-Accomack County), Mamie Locke (D-Hampton), Louise Lucas (D-Portsmouth), Chap Petersen (D-Fairfax City) and Richard Saslaw (D-Fairfax County) voted for the bill. 

Take note of the names of the Republicans and give serious thought to supporting whoever runs against them in the next election cycle.

But back to the happy story which features the wedding of  Captains Daniel Hall and Vincent Franchino, both Apache helicopter pilots, who were married at the Cadet Chapel at West Point.  The article is lengthy but worthy of a full read, especially by those not living in communities with large numbers of military personnel.  Here in Hampton Roads, the military surrounds us and many same sex couples are within the ranks and put their lives on the line daily for their country - even though their country has historically mistreated them.   Here are article highlights:

Apache helicopters — the kind of aerial weaponry immortalized in Hollywood tough-guy films such as “Rambo” and “Black Hawk Down” — are among the Army’s most revered killing machines, and those who fly them across enemy skies “have an attack mentality,” said Capt. Daniel Hall, a 30-year-old Apache helicopter pilot based at Fort Bliss, in Texas. As he spoke, Captain Hall was flanked by Capt. Vincent Franchino, a 26-year-old fellow Apache pilot who is also stationed at Fort Bliss, where they are both a part of another community: the group of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender soldiers who serve there. “It’s been a bit of a bumpy road for us,” said Captain Franchino, who married Captain Hall on Jan. 13 in the Cadet Chapel at the United States Military Academy in West Point, N.Y., where they are believed to be the first active-duty, same-sex couple to exchange vows at the legendary Army post.

The couple, beaming in their own immaculately pressed blue mess uniforms, the most formal threads in the Army’s wardrobe, were celebrated by a saber-arch salute as they departed the chapel.

“We’ve experienced everything from people feeling awkward around us to being called faggots while holding hands and walking down the street, stuff like that,” said Captain Franchino, who was born and raised in Stony Point, N.Y., the youngest son of Holly Franchino, a retired pharmacist, and Robert Franchino, a retired sergeant with the Police Department in Clarkstown, N.Y.

“But despite what we’ve been through,” Captain Franchino added, “nothing was worse than having served during the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ years.”

The emotions and romantic feelings felt by Captains Hall and Franchino, as well as scores of others from the L.G.B.T. military community, were hamstrung by “don’t ask, don’t tell,” . . . . “It’s really frustrating when two people have feelings for each other but are not allowed to act on them,” Captain Hall added. “We were serving under a policy that was telling all of us — perfectly capable soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines — to lie about ourselves.”

In January 2010, they selected each other as a partner in a mentorship program that allowed seniors to offer instruction to freshmen who were following similar career paths.  By April of that year, it was clear to their fellow cadets that a spark had been ignited, but under the rules, there could be no flame.

But in September 2011, it was that way no longer. Congress repealed “don’t ask, don’t tell,” and Captains Hall and Franchino were soon celebrating their new sense of freedom.

“We’ve just grown accustomed to being apart at times,” said Captain Franchino, who spent all of 2017 deployed in Germany and several countries in Eastern Europe. “It’s a part of who we are, a part of what we do, so we simply accept it.”

Captain Hall, who said he plans on “leaving the Army after spring,” also said that his military stint, especially the time he spent in the cockpits of Apache helicopters, “has brought a lot of excitement to my life, and so has Vinny.”

But when pressed, Captain Hall refused to say which of the two has brought him more excitement. “Don’t ask,” he said with a wink and a smile. “I won’t tell.”

One does not choose to be LGBT.  It's something you are born with and that is unchangeable despite how hard one might try (I tried for 37 years without success).  We are no different than others and in most cases are productive citizens, pay our taxes - the husband and I pay plenty - and are responsible neighbors.  It is time that religious based ignorance and bigotry be thrown on the trash heap of history where they belong. 

Federal Judges Hail Gavin Grimm as Human Rights Leader

When I received my "Outstanding Virginia" award early in the month, I stood on the stage next to another honoree - Gavin Grimm, the truly amazing transgender teen from Gloucester County, Virginia.  Sadly, Gloucester has proven itself to be a bastion of backwardness and religious extremism that will do little to advance the county economically or socially.  In contrast, Grimm, whom I have known for several years now, shows the bravery and willingness to put one's self in the spotlight that is too often missing in today's society.  The consequence of such cowardice, as has always been the case, is that cowardice becomes complicity and bad things happen to people.  Some of the judges on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently noted Gavin Grimm's courage and unsought status as a civil rights leader.  Here are highlights from the Washington Post:

Federal appeals court judges on Friday hailed the Virginia transgender teen fighting to use the boy’s restroom at his high school as a courageous civil rights leader even as they lamented that the school year would end without a resolution of his case.

The praise for Gavin Grimm came from two judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, who could have issued a short, unsigned order but instead chose to post a five-page memo.

The Supreme Court in March put off a ruling in Grimm’s case after the Trump administration revoked federal guidelines that directed schools to allow transgender students to use a bathroom consistent with their gender identity. The high court sent Grimm’s case back to the Richmond-based 4th Circuit. The appeals court earlier had sided with the teen and deferred to the federal guidelines on transgender rights that had been in place under the Obama administration.

The 4th Circuit announced Friday that Grimm’s case against the Gloucester County School Board would not be heard before he is scheduled to graduate. But Judge Andre M. Davis, a senior judge appointed by Barack Obama in 2009, used a separate court order issued the same day to passionately express his support for Grimm’s legal journey and state his dismay that the legal system sometimes lags behind the realities of people’s lives.

Grimm’s case “is about much more than bathrooms. It’s about a boy asking his school to treat him just like any other boy. It’s about protecting the rights of transgender people in public spaces and not forcing them to exist on the margins,” wrote Davis, who was joined by Judge Henry F. Floyd, another Obama appointee.

Davis said Grimm would be remembered alongside of other “brave individuals,” including Dred Scott, Fred Korematsu and Mildred and Richard Loving, who “refused to accept quietly the injustices that were perpetuated against them.”

“Today, hatred, intolerance, and discrimination persist — and are sometimes even promoted,” Davis wrote, referring to Grimm by his initials, G.G.

“But by challenging unjust policies rooted in invidious discrimination, G.G. takes his place among other modern-day human rights leaders who strive to ensure that, one day, equality will prevail, and that the core dignity of every one of our brothers and sisters is respected by lawmakers and others who wield power over their lives.”

An attorney for the school board, David Corrigan, declined to comment on the court’s order.

Grimm, who was on spring break this week, said he was honored to be compared to men and women whose names feature prominently in civil rights fights.

Evangelicals See Trump Win As Their Own

As previous posts have explored, while the election last week was truly a divide between cities and modernity and diversity against rural backwardness and bigotry, the critical tipping point for Donald Trump came from evangelical Christians in states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan (among other states) who voted for Donald Trump who they saw as their last best hope to stop cultural and demographic change that threatened their hegemony and ability to force their fairy tale beliefs on  the rest of society. Now, with Donald Trump the Electoral College winner, these people feel victorious and emboldened to pursue their message of hate against those who do not subscribe to their flawed belief system.  A piece in the Washington Post looks at the phenomenon.  Here are highlights;

For months, Rose Aller kept her support for Donald Trump a secret from her colleagues at the Northern Virginia school where she works as a substitute teacher.

“You’re judged for your beliefs,” she said. “Our media branded you a racist, a bigot, a homophobe if you were Republican.”

So Aller stayed quiet. Only at church did she feel surrounded by people who think like her, people who were distraught by the changing values they saw around them and pulling for Donald Trump as their unlikely standard-bearer to bring their chosen Christian policies back into the White House.

 Eighty-one percent of white evangelicals voted for Trump. Aller, 46, came into school on Wednesday wearing a red-for-Republican T-shirt and beaming at a few other teachers who seemed jubilant instead of despondent about the election results. She wasn’t the only Trump supporter in school, it turns out.

And that night, at church, she was one of hundreds.

During the eight years of the Obama administration, white evangelical Christians, who make up one-quarter of the U.S. population, felt that culture moving away from them. They watched gay marriage become the law of the land and Christians come under fire for saying they didn’t want to provide pizzas or cakes or photographs for those weddings. They heard college students demand “safe spaces” and “trigger warnings”; they heard “Black Lives Matter” and didn’t understand when they were demonized for responding “All Lives Matter.” Their president disparaged people like them who “cling to guns or religion,” and then said that religious employers should subsidize their workers’ birth control and anyone should use any bathroom they like.

And then on Wednesday, evangelicals woke up remembering what it’s like to feel victorious again in American politics. . . . Hartford Seminary professor Scott Thumma, who studies megachurches and nondenominational evangelical churches, wrote in an email. “I have interacted with a few evangelicals since the election … and every one of them were proud and happy to have had a part in Trump’s election — not exactly because of who Trump is, but what he stood for.”

The morning after the election, Aller said, a black second-grader came into her school and declared, “Trump was elected, so we’re moving.”  Aller said she responded, “We’re going to miss you. Let me know when your last day is. We’ll throw you a goodbye party.” She says she’s sure the boy knew she was joking.

While Hispanic Catholics, Jews and some other faith groups voted heavily for Clinton, and white Catholics and mainline Protestants were more divided in their choices, voters like the congregants at Cornerstone turned out in force on Election Day. White evangelicals made up 26 percent of the electorate, according to the exit polls. Three percent more of them voted for Trump than had voted for Romney in 2012.

White evangelicals were so key for Trump that, had no white evangelicals voted, Clinton would have won in a landslide, 59 percent to 35 percent.

Many churchgoers echoed that idea and said that Trump seemed to support the sort of Bible-based morality they craved, which they imagine was standard in the bygone America he offers to bring back.

It’s like every day our morals in America are being chipped away. Now on the radio you can say words you couldn’t say eight years ago,” said Risvold, the military veteran.

“Hopefully, now we can see some progress for some evangelical causes in our country,” Gary Hamrick said. “I feel like we actually have an advocate now in the White House.”  He used another word, too, to describe the mood of white evangelical America waking up as victors once again: “Relief.”

I cannot imagine treating a second graders as described in the column.  The take away that must never be forgotten is that evangelical Christians are among the most selfish on the planet.  They are not kind, decent or compassionate despite their pretenses of piety and decency.  They will do anything to anyone rather than face the fact that their religious beliefs are based on myths and lies.  They, and now thier champion, Donald Trump, are a clear and present danger to America.  They need to become social pariahs and unwelcome by decent people - none will be welcomed in my home - and the media needs to cease affording them deference or any shed of respect.  The embrace of ignorance and bigotry towards others under the smoke screen of religious belief deserves ZERO respect. -

Deciding to Let Go of Religious Based Bigotry is a Choice

Growing up Roman Catholic I was brainwashed into viewing almost all sex as something bad and abhorrent - gay sex, of course, was in a category of its own and offered an express ticket to Hell and eternal damnation.  Thankfully, with therapy I got over the damage done to me by the nuns and the male clergy who we all know are most characterized by hypocrisy when not actively aiding and abetting predator priests.  Leaving the Catholic Church was another positive step and now I remain a nominal member of the ELCA - Evangelical Lutheran Church in America - which is gay friendly and affirming.  My point from all of this is that clinging to homophobic religious beliefs is a choice.  To do so, however, one needs to be willing to think and analyze for them self  and be willing to do some independent study - concepts that terrify religious fundamentalists of all faiths and which are condemned by the parasitic "holy men" who want their flocks ignorant and viewing them as the sole source of divine knowledge.  Without this monopoly, the need for such holy men and by extension ceases.  Something we are seeing as the number of Americans who label themselves as "Nones" skyrocketing.  

When one looks at letting go of religious based homophobia, one unlikely champion given her religious upbringing is Marie Osmond - the mother of a lesbian daughter.  Despite her Mormon background, she firmly supports same sex marriage - something no doubt frowned on by the elderly old men who continue to maintain a stranglehold on the Mormon Church.  A piece in Huffington Post from a few years ago looks at Osmond's position which is diametrically opposed to that of her brother Donnie.  Here are highlights:

Marie Osmond subtly re-affirmed her support of marriage equality in a poignant new interview.

The singer-actress, who is currently promoting her new memoir The Key Is Love: My Mother’s Wisdom, A Daughter’s Gratitude, spoke frankly about her daughter Jessica, who is openly gay.

“The God that I believe in is a god of love, not fear,” Osmond, who is a practicing Mormon, told Diane Sawyer.

As for same-sex marriage, Osmond noted, “I believe in [my daughter’s] civil rights, as a mother. I think that my daughter deserves everything that she desires in life. She’s a good girl. She’s a wonderful child.” She then added, “I don’t think God made one color flower. I think He made many.”

Osmond, 53, has spoken out in support of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights in previous years, usually citing Jessica’s role in that mindset. “I think everybody should have the right to share homes and finances with somebody that they care about,” she told KOST 103.5 Los Angeles in 2009. “You know on those types of things I’m very supportive. When it comes to marriage...I think that civil rights need to be for all.”

Meanwhile, Osmond’s brother Alan reportedly hosted a “pro-family” rally at the Utah State Capitol earlier this week, aimed at “benefitting the protection of marriage” from gay and lesbian Americans, according to Towleroad.

The take away?  The next time you hear of a parent rejecting an LGBT child, know that the evil lies with the parent who is intellectually lazy and more worried about what others may think of them than what is best for their child.  It is the ultimate form of selfishness.  

Science Triumphs Over Religion: Depathologizing Homosexuality

Being gay and of a generation that still recalls the era when homosexuality was classified as a form of mental illness and was classified as such in the American Psychiatric Association's (APA's) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) - which certainly played a strong role in my refusal to accept my sexual orientation for many years - I find the role that science played in depathologizing sexual orientation.  Jack Drescher, MD, Clinical Professor of Psychiatry, New York Medical College
and Adjunct Professor, New York University, has a piece in Behavior Sciences Journal that looks at the original, principally Christian, religious basis for anti-gay and then tracks the scientific developments and research that ultimately brought an end to the treatment of homosexuality as a "disease" or "mental illness" outside of Christofascist circles.  Here are some article excepts:

Rigid gender beliefs usually flourish in fundamentalist, religious communities where any information or alternative explanations that might challenge implicit and explicit assumptions are unwelcome. When entering the realms of gender and sexuality, it is not unusual to encounter another form of binary thinking: “morality tales” about whether certain kinds of thoughts, feelings, or behaviors are “good or bad” or, in some cases, whether they are “good or evil” [14–16]. The good/bad binary is not confined to religion alone, as the language of morality is inevitably found, for example, in theories about the “causes” of homosexuality.

For much of Western history, official pronouncements on the meanings of same-sex behaviors were primarily the province of religions, many of which deemed homosexuality to be morally “bad” [36]. However, as 19th century Western culture shifted power from religious to secular authority, same-sex behaviors, like other “sins,” received increased scrutiny from the law, medicine, psychiatry, sexology, and human rights activism. Eventually, religious categories like demonic possession, drunkenness, and sodomy were transformed into the scientific categories of insanity, alcoholism, and homosexuality.

Thus, the modern history of homosexuality usually begins in the mid-19th century, most notably with the writings of Karl Heinrich Ulrichs [21]. Trained in law, theology, and history, he might be considered an early gay rights advocate who wrote a series of political tracts criticizing German laws criminalizing same sex relationships between men. He hypothesized that some men were born with a woman’s spirit trapped in their bodies and that these men constituted a third sex he named urnings. He also defined a woman who we would today call a lesbian as urningin, a man’s spirit trapped in the body of a woman.

Freud saw expressions of adult homosexual behavior as caused by “arrested” psychosexual development, a theory of immaturity. Toward the end of his life, Freud wrote “Homosexuality is assuredly no advantage, but it is nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation; it cannot be classified as an illness; we consider it to be a variation of the sexual function, produced by a certain arrest of sexual development” [39], (p. 423). This belief made him pessimistic about efforts to change a homosexual orientation to a heterosexual one: “In general, to undertake to convert a fully developed homosexual into a heterosexual does not offer much more prospect of success than the reverse, except that for good practical reasons the latter is never attempted”

As psychiatrists, physicians, and psychologists tried to “cure” homosexuality, sex researchers of the mid-20th century instead studied a wider spectrum of individuals that included non-patient populations. Psychiatrists and other clinicians drew conclusions from a skewed sample of patients seeking treatment for homosexuality or other difficulties and then wrote up their findings of this self-selected group as case reports. Some theories about homosexuality were based on studies of prison populations. Sexologists, on the other hand, did field studies in which they went out and recruited large numbers of non-patient subjects in the general population.

The most important research in this area was that of Alfred Kinsey and his collaborators, published in two headline-generating reports [22,23]. The Kinsey reports, surveying thousands of people who were not psychiatric patients, found homosexuality to be more common in the general population than was generally believed, although his now-famous “10%” statistic is today believed to be closer to 1%–4% [46]. This finding was sharply at odds with psychiatric claims of the time that homosexuality was extremely rare in the general population. Ford and Beach’s [47] study of diverse cultures and of animal behaviors, confirmed Kinsey’s view that homosexuality was more common than psychiatry maintained and that it was found regularly in nature. In the late 1950s, Evelyn Hooker [24], a psychologist, published a study Behav. Sci. 2015, 5 570 in which she compared psychological test results of 30 gay men with 30 heterosexual controls, none of whom were psychiatric patients. Her study found no more signs of psychological disturbances in the gay male group, a finding that refuted psychiatric beliefs of her time that all gay men had severe psychological disturbances.

[I]f homosexuality was no longer considered an illness, and if one did not literally accept biblical prohibitions against it, and if gay people are able and prepared to function as productive citizens, then what is wrong with being gay? Additionally, if there is nothing wrong with being gay, what moral and legal principles should the larger society endorse in helping gay people openly live their lives?

The result, in many countries, eventually led, among other things, to (1) the repeal of sodomy laws that criminalized homosexuality; (2) the enactment of laws protecting the human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people in society and the workplace; (3) the ability of LGBT personnel to serve openly in the military; (4) marriage equality and civil unions in an ever growing number of countries; (5) the facilitation of gay parents’ adoption rights; (6) the easing of gay spouses’ rights of inheritance; and (7) an ever increasing number of religious denominations that would allow openly gay people to serve as clergy. 

Most importantly, in medicine, psychiatry, and other mental health professions, removing the diagnosis from the DSM led to an important shift from asking questions about “what causes homosexuality?” and “how can we treat it?” to focusing instead on the health and mental health needs of LGBT patient populations.

Many young gays have no idea of the mental anguish I and others suffered in our teens and early twenties as we feared being labeled mentally ill.  Add to this the poison of religious brainwashing and it is little wonder that I remained closeted for years and contemplated suicide constantly.   I am thankful that science saved me from the hate, ignorance and bigotry of religion.

What Would You Do If Your Child Was Gay?

In follow up on a theme from yesterday, we have arrived in perhaps the most difficult time of the year for many in the LGBT community as they face either family acceptance or rejection.  Many of our friends who have experienced the latter or have no family close by, have gone on to create their own "family" and have moved on emotionally - one group of friends is having a large Thanksgiving dinner today (see image at left) at a friend's home that we affectionately call "the country club."  A new video from YouTube channel Culture Beats asks people from around the world, "what would you do if your child was gay?"  Some responses are encouraging, others are not.  As is always the case, religion is seemingly the evil that fuels anti-gay animus.  Towleroad looks at the video findings:

The people interviewed are both young and old and come from all different corners of the world.

Many indicated they would support their children if they were gay while others shared more disturbing reactions. A woman from Austria remarked, “You can’t do anything about it because it is not a decision he makes. He was born with this kind of orientation.” Meanwhile, a woman from the United Arab Emirates had almost the exact opposite reaction. “I will kill him,” she said.

An Irish couple touted their country’s recent nationwide referendum on same-sex marriage, saying they were very proud to be the first nation to pass marriage equality by a popular vote. Of having a gay son, the man from Ireland said, “I’d like to understand how he feels…I would wish that he could find happiness.”

A woman from the former Soviet republic of Georgia seemed to get it: “You cannot change him. He’ll live his life so let him live his life.” And, perhaps most surprisingly, a woman from Russia urged tolerance, saying, “God say that we can’t judge.”

One Iranian man, however, lamented the possibility of having a gay child, saying, “I would probably be sad…But maybe I would accept it in the end. You cannot get rid of your children. But I would not be happy, no.” And for a woman from Azerbaijan, she would “be very upset” and would consult a doctor to “see why he’s gay”–if it’s “his hormones, then it’s from God. If it’s because of society, then I will help him,” she said.

 My take away?  A world without religion would be a far, far better place.

As the gay haters of the American evangelical Christian and professional Christian crowd (and their political whores in the GOP) continue to rant and rail against gays and work to obstruct anti-bullying initiatives, it is comforting to realize that they are losing the war.  Especially among the younger generations.  At a recent anti-bullying event in the United Kingdom, Prince William joined the growing throng of those who condemn homophobia and religious based bullying.  The Daily Mail looks at the event which will no doubt cause wailing fromt he dying far right Christofascists in the UK.  Here are highlights:  

William took part in a training session at Hammersmith Academy in West London focusing on cyber-bullying and Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transsexual bullying. 

During an hour-long training session William vowed that if he saw anyone bullying a lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender‎ person he would step in and confront the abuser after comforting the victim.

'I would try to confront, to tackle the person. I usually find myself right in in the middle of problems so that's pretty much where I'd be,' he said during an LGBT session where participants were asked to stand on one side if they would comfort the victim, on another if they would confront the perpetrator, or at the back if they would adopt another strategy.

‎His support for confronting the homophobic bully was hailed as the 'embodiment' of Princess Diana's legacy and a landmark moment by Tom Broughton, 17, who had told the Duke of Cambridge how an anonymous online stalker had urged him to kill himself after he came out as gay when he was in his final year of secondary school.

This is about bringing bullying into the open and creating a network of communication, which allows people to speak up and speak out.  'It's a real honour and privilege to have Prince William here recognising the issue and highlighting awareness of it.'

Alex Holmes, the head of the Diana Award's Anti-Bullying Campaign, said: 'The very fact that William is adding his weight to quite complex issues such as LGBT bullying and cyberbullying has already made a difference. 'We've seen calls to the charity this morning because the duke is standing up to bullying people are coming forward.

Religious Extremism - Words Can Be Just As Dangerous As Knives

Annette in action

One of the principal forces opposing the civil rights of LGBT citizens are the "godly folk" and the professional Christian set who live off of the ignorance and bigotry of their parishioners and, of course, the GOP base, like leeches and other parasites.  To keep the money flowing it, it is crucial that the sheeple be convinced that they are under attack and that their "rights" are threatened.  As the prior post notes, one favored target is the black community (and by extension all other non-whites).  Another favored target is the LGBT community.   And in order to fan the requisite paranoia and fear, all kinds of hate words are the principal currency.   Facebook friend and fellow activist Annette Gross looks at how dangerous such hate words can be in a piece in Huffington Post.  Here are highlights:

For the past week, the City of Goshen, Indiana has been a hot-bed of debate about whether the City Council should grant civil protections to its LGBT citizens. Goshen mayor Allan Kauffman brought up the conversation at the end of the city council meeting on Tuesday, May 19, handing out copies of the city's 2009 failed amendment.

Mayor Kauffman also said that he does not want anyone who lives outside of the city to provide input at the meeting. That can be a problem for Eric Miller, executive director of Advance America, a right-wing organization that claims it is devoted to protecting the constitution and the family.

On Tuesday, July 14, Miller spoke to a crowd of about 100 people at Calvary Assembly church. He stated that, "The homosexual agenda has now come to Elkhart County. These two ordinances (Goshen and Elkhart) are wrong. These two ordinances need to be defeated."

Eric Miller has long been a foe of LGBT Hoosiers. He was one of the proponents to have same-sex marriage banned in Indiana by way of a state constitutional amendment. He testified at every hearing at the Statehouse in order to push his agenda. He also was present in 2005 when the Marion County City Council debated inserting sexual orientation and gender identity into their Human Rights Ordinance. He was one of the people seen with Governor Pence when Pence signed RFRA behind closed doors.

Eric Miller claims that he is trying to protect families. He falsely claims that churches and businesses could face punishment or legal problems if they refused to take part in a gay marriage ceremony. We know these are scare tactics. Miller warns repeatedly of the "homosexual agenda."
He [Miller] uses religion to push his agenda. He has been known to bus people from all over the state to hearings on same-sex marriage and LGBT equality.  Miller uses words to make his points. But words hurt -- just as much as violence can hurt. So my question is -- where does this go? Last week we saw an Orthodox Jewish man stab six people at the Jerusalem Pride Parade.

There is no excuse for killing anyone in the name of religion. And there is no excuse for telling lies and mistruths in the name of religion. When I look at people like Eric Miller, I get scared. He may not be wielding a knife or a gun, but his words can have an impact on those who believe them. Words have been known to lead people to do dangerous things. How far will people go? I cannot imagine going to any house of worship to listen to words of hatred and discrimination.  

What will they say to stop LGBT Hoosiers from gaining these rights? What ideas will they put in peoples' heads?

We have to be vigilant. Not only do we have to write letters and speak with our legislators -- we have to call out the religious zealots who will deny our friends and loved ones the rights they deserve. We need to talk to our religious leaders -- those clergy who support equality and fairness. We need to urge them to call out people who hurt others in the name of religion.

I have watched Eric Miller and his friends Curt Smith (from the Indiana Family Institute) and Micah Clark (from the American Family Association of Indiana) for the past ten years as they push their messages of discrimination. It is about time we call them out and not allow them to hijack the good that religion really is. Religious extremism is dangerous -- whether by using knives and guns -- or by using words. 

People like Miller are dangerous.  And Annette is right - we need to call on the "good Christians" and other gay friendly faith leaders to get off their butts and end their silence.  Bad things happen when good people remain silent. 

DOJ Brief Urges Nationwide End To Same-Sex Marriage Bans

Conclusion of the DOJ brief

With all kinds of groups, individuals and corporations - e.g., the people's brief (which I have joined) and Mayors for Marriage brief and 379 corporations - filing amicus briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court urging that bans on same sex marriage be struck down nationwide, the Christofascists must be sweating bullets and directing their typical lies and hate towards a growing circle of "enemies of marriage."  The Obama administration now joins the list that has filed a brief with the Court urging the court to find a constitutional right to same sex marriage under the U. S. Constitution.  A piece in BuzzFeed looks at the filing (the full brief can be found here).  Here are excerpts:

The United States government on Friday urged the Supreme Court to strike down state bans on same-sex couples’ marriages across the country, concluding, “There is no adequate justification for such a discriminatory and injurious exercise of state power.”

The filing in the cases challenging bans in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee represented nearly the end of a long path for the Obama administration on the issue, which began with President Obama opposing marriage rights for same-sex couples and his administration defending the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.

On Friday, the Justice Department — which stopped defending the constitutionality of DOMA in February 2011 — told the Supreme Court, “The marriage bans challenged in these cases impermissibly exclude lesbian and gay couples from the rights, responsibilities, and status of civil marriage. These facially discriminatory laws impose concrete harms on same-sex couples and send the inescapable message that same-sex couples and their children are second-class families, unworthy of the recognition and benefits that opposite-sex couples take for granted.”  . . . . “The bans cannot be reconciled with the fundamental constitutional guarantee of ‘equal protection of the laws.’”

Specifically, the administration noted, “The President and Attorney General have determined that classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to heightened scrutiny.” That decision, made when the administration shifted gears on DOMA in 2011, would — if adopted by the Supreme Court — mean that laws and governmental policies that classify people based on sexual orientation should be viewed by courts with additional skepticism.  

As the piece notes, the states’ briefs defending the bans are due March 27, supportive amicus briefs due by the next Friday, and the oral arguments in the case are set for April 28.  I can just imagine the batshitery that will be found in the anti-gay amicus briefs.  It will no doubt be religious extremism and insanity on display.