The 11-Year-Old Who Rocked Hampton Roads Pride Block Party

I will be posted photos shortly from yesterday's PrideFest event which unfortunately had to close early due to violent thunderstorms that moved into the area halfway through the event. However, a friend on the Pride Board just shared this Youtube video that I found very touching.  What is ironic is that at one point, we were dancing close to him.  He was having a ball.  This is his mother's post that goes with the video:

My son Quin is 11, he has Asperger Syndrome and has been bullied for being different. When he heard we were going to the Pride Block Party at the Scope Center, here in Norfolk, Virginia, to celebrate the passage of national equal marriage he asked to come. "I relate to not being accepted, bullied and having to not be who you really are," he said. "I'm happy the law is changed. I'm happy people can be who they really are and love who they really love. Let's party!"
And he sure did.

Quin's enthusism and happiness was shared by the thousands of others who were at the block party.  It was an amazing event.  There was far more joy and kindness towards others at the event than what you see in most church services, especially Southern Baptist services, I suspect.

GOP and Far Right: Constitutional Rights for Only Some Americans

While Phyllis Schlafly was penning her batshitery, a Fox News commentator got to the heart of what the wing nuts and their political whores in the Republican Party really want: limiting full constitutional rights to only some citizens.  Yes, you guessed it.  Limit such rights to white conservative Christians who are "real Americans."  The rest of us, including gays who already have been deprived of equality under the civil laws in most states, would be given whatever scraps are thrown to us.   Media Matters looks at the segment on Fox News where Brian Kilmeade put this agenda on full display.   Fortunately, Fox News legal analyst Peter Johnson, Jr.,  gave much needed push back against this shredding of the U. S. Constitution.  Here are excerpts:

KILMEADE: Although many consider him an enemy, according to the White House, the remaining suspect, the remaining suspect, in the Boston Marathon attack will not be considered an enemy combatant. But will justice now be served anyway and how will the civil liberties be affected? He is now a American citizen. Fox News legal analyst Peter Johnson, Jr. here. Peter: when we talked yesterday, we didn't know what the administration was going to do. Now we know. Not an enemy combatant and he was already Mirandized so the whole public safety issue is out the window. Next thing you know, a high profile defense attorney will be waltzing in here, making a zillion dollars off of him.

KILMEADE: What do we do? We sit there -- F.B.I. Interrogators sit down with him for a week or two until they feel as though they got accurate information.

JOHNSON: Do you believe in indefinite detention of Americans? Because I don't. I don't believe we should detain -- No matter how loathsome, disgusting, vile, contemptible.
KILMEADE: Two different issues.

JOHNSON: No, it's the same issue, an American issue. No, no, no. Either we believe in the Constitution or we don't believe in the Constitution.

KILMEADE: Not everyone is worthy of the constitutional rights that we have.

JOHNSON: Senator Graham is an expert on military commission and on the law of war.

KILMEADE: Yes.

JOHNSON: But what he's saying is, let's suspend civil rights and constitutional law.

KILMEADE: For public safety.

JOHNSON: In this particular case and then later we'll reinstate it. Now, what if someone decides to do that to Brian Kilmeade, or maybe his family?

KILMEADE: What if? I'm not blowing up the subway! I'm not doing it -- neither is your family.

JOHNSON.: It's not the president's determination nor Senator Graham's nor anyone else other than a U.S. attorney to decide how someone will charged or will they be charged. I believe in the public safety exception. I believe in doing everything we can to get terrorists. But at the same time, I'm saying: don't let the terrorists trample our rights going forward.

Kathleen Parker - who will probably receive threats from the "real American" crowd - gives similar push back to this agenda in a column in the Washington Post.  Here are highlights:

Whom do we hate when the enemy is a composite of our own diverse ecosystem? When “them” is “us?”

Our Boston (alleged) mass murderers were foreign-born, but the younger brother is an U.S. citizen. (The older brother, who died in a police shootout, was a permanent resident.) Given that one in eight U.S. residents is foreign-born, according to the Census Bureau, it is difficult to infer that being born abroad makes one more likely to become an anti-American terrorist.

[T]his is not a comparative religion seminar but an examination of the difficulties ahead as we wrestle acquired biases into submission and resist the urge to demonize groups of people. Discrimination is a life-saving tool in the jungle — steer clear of the hyenas — but it has no place in American jurisprudence. A U.S. citizen gets the full slate of equal rights and responsibilities, including a presumption of innocence, no matter which God he invokes.

Thus, although it is tempting to declare the surviving Boston suspect an “enemy combatant,” as suggested by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), it is essentially a means to deny rights accorded any other citizen who commits a crime. The only justification now would be that the suspect is believed to be Muslim, which isn’t a crime, or that he and his brother may have found inspiration among others of like intent.

Once we begin to discriminate in the assignment of rights to citizens and legal residents based on their thoughts, religious affiliation, assemblage — or our own assumptions — we risk becoming our own worst enemy.

At this juncture, the light-skinned, foreign-born, Muslim-leaning brothers who are suspected of inflicting terror on Boston fit neatly into no category we can define with certainty other than evil, which is, sadly, the unique provenance of the human race. Rooting it out will require more than tighter security or better immigration laws.

Parker is correct.  That doesn't mean her views will sit well with the Christofascists and Tea Party crowd in the GOP base.

Appeals Court Upholds Firing of College Official Over Anti-Gay Op-Ed

Why does it seem that while claiming that it is gays who want special rights it is actually the Christianists who want special rights?  The special right to bully at will, the right to stigmatize and denigrate others without consequence, and, in the case of Crystal Dixon (pictured at left), to ignore the responsibilities at the University of Toledo and engage in an anti-gay rant in an op-ed in the Toledo Free Press.  This demand by Christianists boils down to an incredible level of selfishness and open contempt for the rights of others.  The Christianists believe that their rights and beliefs trump everything and everyone else.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, however, ruled otherwise and affirmed the University of Toledo's decision to fire Ms. Dixon from her position as a high-level human-resources administrator.  The Chronicle of Higher Education looks at the slap down delivered to Dixon and by extension other self-centered bigots like her.  Here are excerpts"

In a ruling handed down on Monday, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the administrator's column "contradicted the very policies she was charged with creating, promoting, and enforcing," and cannot be excused as merely a statement of her own views as a private citizen. The panel affirmed a lower court's decision to dismiss the administrator's lawsuit accusing the public university of violating her constitutional rights by firing her.

At the center of the case was an opinion essay that Crystal Dixon, who had been the university's interim associate vice president for human resources, published in the Toledo Free Press in April 2008. In it, she wrote that she takes "great umbrage at the notion that those choosing the homosexual lifestyle are 'civil-rights victims.'" She argued that she "cannot wake up tomorrow and not be a black woman" because she is biologically and genetically such "as my creator intended." But, she said, "daily, thousands of homosexuals make a life decision to leave the gay lifestyle" with the help of groups such as Exodus International, which claim to be able to help people overcome homosexual desires.

She was fired after a hearing in which she stood by her views but argued that they did not affect her performance as a human-resources administrator, citing her recent decisions to hire "one, possibly two practicing homosexuals" in her own department.

In upholding the dismissal of Ms. Dixon's lawsuit, the federal appeals court said she differed from other employees cited in her equal-protection claim in that her speech, and not theirs, contradicted university policies. The appeals panel said her essay "spoke on policy issues related directly to her position at the university," and the government's interests as an employer outweighed her free-speech interests in the dispute.

Note how Dixon cited the fraudulent bullshit disseminated by the "ex-gay" crowd to support he bigotry.  That alone in my view makes it clear that the woman is too ignorant to hold any senior university opinion.  We can expect shrieking and flying spittle to engulf the professional Christian set who will falsely claim Christians are being persecuted when in fact it is they who are doing the persecuting.

Berenstain Bears Distances Itself from Chick-fil-A

After having been kicked to the curb by the Jim Henson Company and the Muppets, Chick fil-A has moved to use a series of books from the Berenstain Bears series instead of the Muppet puppets.  Apparently, the Berenstain Bears are less than pleased to find themselves associated with bigotry and discrimination.  What to do?  Place at statement on their website and Facebook page distancing themselves from the Kids Meal deal:

Our publisher, HarperCollins, is marketing several of their Berenstain Bears titles through a kids' meal promotion at Chick-Fil-A scheduled for August. This program was in development for over a year. We were unaware of any controversy involving Chick-Fil-A until July 25th.

The Berenstain family does not at this time have control over whether this program proceeds or not. We hope those concerned about this issue will direct their comments toward HarperCollins and Chick-Fil-A.

 

 

The Cathy family is entitled to believe whatever they want.  Meanwhile, the rest of us are free to call them out and condemn bigotry when we see it.

The Muppets Dump Chick Fil-A

The Cathy family that owns Chick Fil-A have suffered another PR failure.  The Jim Henson Company, which owns the Muppet brand is severing relations with Chick Fil-A.  The Cathys loudly insist that they are free to believe what they want and to run their business any way they want to.  All of which is true.  But so are other business owners and it is encouraging to see a number of companies and organizations exercising their rights and distancing themselves from the hate and bigotry displayed by the Cathy family and their company.  This from The Jim Henson Company's Facebook page:

The Jim Henson Company has celebrated and embraced diversity and inclusiveness for over fifty years and we have notified Chick-Fil-A that we do not wish to partner with them on any future endeavors. Lisa Henson, our CEO is personally a strong supporter of gay marriage and has directed us to donate the payment we received from Chick-Fil-A to GLAAD. (http://www.glaad.org/)

I particularly like the fact that proceeds from Chick Fil-A are being given to GLAAD.   It's a nice extra slap in the face to Chick Fil-A.  How long will it take for AFA to cite this as another example of anti-Christian persecution?

9th Circuit to Release Opinion Today on Request for Enbanc Hearing

Despite going down in flames so far on almost every front, the Christianists - perhaps Christian Taliban is a more fitting label - supporting California's Proposition 8 have continued to do all they can to delay the likely demise of Proposition 8 as an unconstitutional law.  There latest effort has been to request a so-called hearing enbanc by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit affirmed the district court ruling striking down the anti-gay measure passed thanks to the efforts of NOM, the Mormon Church and the Catholic Church hierarchy.  Today the 9th Circuit will release an opinion either denying the Christianists request and affirming the district court or allowing for an enbanc hearing.  Prop 8 Trial Tracker looks at what may happen in today's ruling.  Here are highlights:

Here’s where things stand right now: the Ninth Circuit, in a decision by a three-judge panel has affirmed Judge Walker’s decision striking down Proposition 8 as unconstitutional, albeit on narrower grounds than he did. Then, the proponents of Proposition 8 asked the Ninth Circuit for an en banc rehearing, to vacate their decision and put the case before a larger panel of judges on the Ninth Circuit. We have been waiting for the judges to decide whether they will grant the en banc rehearing and start the whole process over, or let the three-judge panel’s decision written by Judge Reinhardt stand.

Tomorrow, we will likely find out what the judges decided regarding the en banc hearing. If they voted to rehear the case, the current narrowly-written decision by Judge Reinhardt goes away and a new panel will convene, featuring a random selection of ten judges with the addition of Chief Judge Kozinski overseeing the proceedings. There would be new briefings and oral arguments in the case at that point, so the process would be long and drawn out.

After new briefing and new argument and new deliberations over the decision, they would issue a new and final decision in the case that could then result in a petition for certiorari (or ‘review’) at the Supreme Court. Depending on what the final decision ruled, it’s unclear whether the Supreme Court would take up the case or not.

Alternatively, tomorrow the Ninth Circuit could issue an order saying that en banc rehearing was denied. If that happens, Judge Reinhardt’s narrow opinion stands, and the proponents of Proposition 8 can then petition for certiorari at the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court were to deny review, the Ninth Circuit’s decision would stand, and Proposition 8 would be struck down. Gay and lesbian couples would be allowed to marry in California. If the Supreme Court grants review, there will be briefing and oral argument and a decision next year.

While a more broadly worded ruling striking down Prop 8 would be nice, I'll settle for a narrow affirming of the district court order.   A resumption of same sex marriages would go a long way to disprove the lies and predictions of the sky falling that were prevalent in the district court trial where in the final analysis the Christofascists had nothing to support their case other than religious belief - something that has no place in the civil laws.

Why Are Only Humans Homophobic? My Vote is Religion

While the Christianists rant, rave and spray spittle when confronted with the reality that homosexuality is seen across the animal kingdom - something that under cuts their efforts to blame gays on bad parenting and other invented psychobabble - the fact is that hundreds of species exhibit homosexual behavior. More importantly, only in humans does one find homophobia and mistreatment of individuals who are attracted to those of the same sex. Thus, the argument that homosexuality is "unnatural" and against the laws of nature quickly falls apart. So what cause humans to be unique in this mistreatment of other individuals? In my opinion, it's summed up in one word: religion. And if one knows accurate and true history, the development of religion and religious dogma often had little with supposed divine inspiration but instead involved uneducated and superstitious peoples (a) trying to explain the world, (ii) defining their own tribe(s) and differentiating themselves from the "other," and (c) providing a basis for the insecure to feel superior to others. Nature and so-called natural law often had little involvement and primitive social structure and circumstances were instead controlling. An article in Slate looks at the homophobia free nature of the rest of the animal kingdom. Here are highlights:

In an interview with CNN’s Piers Morgan on Sunday, former Growing Pains star Kirk Cameron called homosexuality “unnatural,” and a behavior that is “ultimately destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization.” We’ve heard that many species of nonhuman animals engage in gay sex, which calls into question the first part of Cameron’s statement. But what about the practice of shunning gays—can animals be homophobic too?

Not as far as we know. Homosexual behavior has been documented in hundreds of animal species, but the same does not hold for gay-bashing. For starters, few animals are exclusively gay. Two female Japanese macaques might have playful sex with each other on Tuesday, then mate with males on Wednesday. Pairs of male elephants sometimes form years-long companionships that include sexual activity, while their heterosexual couplings tend to be one-night stands. For these and many other species, sexual preferences seem to be fluid rather than binary: Gay sex doesn’t make them gay, and straight sex doesn’t make them straight. In these cases, the concept of homophobia simply doesn’t apply.

Still, it’s possible that a social grouping of animals would ostracize a member for engaging in even a single act of gay sex. Indeed, members of nonhuman species have been known to shun members of their social groups on account of certain specific behaviors. A 1995 study described a young adult chimpanzee that refused to grunt submissively and seemed to bully females; eight other males assaulted him and exiled him from the group for three months. It’s not inconceivable that unwanted sexual advances, homosexual or otherwise, might warrant the same harsh treatment; it simply hasn’t been documented.

What evidence we do have suggests that no such policing of sexual behavior exists. . . . . Researchers believe that gay sex is even rewarded in certain species. For bonobos, sexual activity serves as an instrument of social harmony: It reinforces bonds and keeps the peace. For instance, when a female bonobo migrates into a new group, she often ingratiates herself to the clan’s other ladies by having a lot of sex with them. Far from being shunned, this homosexual behavior is welcomed. And former Stanford researcher Joan Roughgarden has argued that among male bighorn sheep bisexuality may be the norm; those that don’t participate end up as outcasts.

Mankind likes to view itself as superior to the rest of the animal kingdom, but perhaps we've got it backwards. If anything is "unnatural" it would seem to be the Christofascists and anti-gay Islamic fundamentalist who are unnatural. Sadly, they allow ignorance and superstition to continue to control their lives and provide a salve to their fragile egos. Not to mention allowing them to avoid having to think for themselves - perhaps the most frightening issue of all to most of the Christianists.

Hampton Roads/Virginia's Achilles Heel - Social Backwardness

Both the Virginia Pilot and Daily Press are awash today with articles and columns about economic doom and gloom and the impacts that defense budget cuts could have on the Hampton Roads region and the Commonwealth of Virginia as a whole. Missing from the conversation is the elephant in the room that is a major obstacle to the recruitment of progressive and innovative entrepreneurial businesses: social policy backwardness and religious based bigotry. While Northern Virginia has flourished largely because of nearby Washington, D.C., and its bountiful government jobs and social progressiveness, the remainder of the Commonwealth is largely a different world where government policy under the current GOP/Christian Right administration is dictated as much by The Family Foundation, a falsely named Christian Right quasi-hate group, as by anything else. Add to that reality the sad fact that many people in the rest of the nation - and the world - think of Pat Robertson/Regent University and/or Jerry Falwell/Liberty University (and Matt Barber and Matt Staver) when they hear the name "Virginia." In short, not an image that would entice very many innovative and future facing businesses to want to relocate to the Commonwealth or Hampton Roads in particular.

What does Hampton Roads do to counter this unappealing image? Basically little or nothing. One hears much about the need to "diversify" the economy, but the mind set remains largely unchanged with no one willing to counter the regular pandering to Christianist sensibilities. Bigotry and religious based prejudice goes unchallenged. Local cities and representatives in the General Assembly do nothing to condemn the poison coming out of Richmond and the offices of Governor Bob "Taliban Bob" McDonnell and Attorney General Ken "Kookinelli" Cuccinelli who have brought Virginia vast amounts of negative news coverage around the globe.

Yes, the City of Richmond has begun to chase the LGBT tourism dollar by adding an LGBT page to its visitors and convention bureau webpage, but the sad truth is that nothing is improving for LGBT Virginians. We remain 4th class citizens with no recognition of their relationships, no employment non-discrimination protections, burdened by anti-gay adoption regulations, and faced with the fact that many large Virginia based corporations refuse to offer any type of domestic partner benefits. Candidly, I can't in good conscious recommend that anyone who is LGBT - or progressive for that matter - move to the state.

I've written before about socially conservative states falling behind economically. Bigotry, be it racially based or religiously based, is not good for business. Localities and the state can offer all the incentives to businesses that they want, but when the social atmosphere in the state remains one where progress and forward thinking people will find the state uninviting, such incentives will do little to "seal the deal" for corporate relocation. To prosper, Virginia and Hampton Roads need to place equality for all citizens and the embrace of modernity ahead of appeasing backward thinking religious conservatives.

New Jersey Anti-Bullying Law Kicks In Today

Just about all of us have been bullied at some point in school. I know I certainly experienced being called a fag and other anti-gay epithets even as I tried to desperately through my teens and long thereafter to convince myself that"it wasn't really true." And I certainly contemplated suicide many, many times although I did not actively pursue that "solution" until many years later. No one should have to withstand daily abuse and bullying in the nation's public schools. Here in Virginia, anti-bullying statutes are a joke and school administrators and staff feel totally free to turn their backs on victims of bullying and do nothing because there are no real consequences. New Jersey has decided on a far different approach under a new law that becomes effective today. There's a great deal of whining going on as reported in the New York Times and all too typically, school administrators are balking at the new requirements and complaining that they don't have funding for anti-bullying training. I'm sorry, but I have little sympathy for such complaints and had school personnel been doing their jobs to protect all students in the first place, the law would have been unnecessary. The message to administrators, teachers, coaches and students is simple: bullying will not be tolerated and that there will be severe consequences for those who fail to back the policy. Perhaps New Jersey has gone too far, but it's a far better approach than Virginia's do nothing approach. Here are highlights from the Times story:

Under a new state law in New Jersey, lunch-line bullies in the East Hanover schools can be reported to the police by their classmates this fall through anonymous tips to the Crimestoppers hot line. . . . And at North Hunterdon High School, students will be told that there is no such thing as an innocent bystander when it comes to bullying: if they see it, they have a responsibility to try to stop it.

But while many parents and educators welcome the efforts to curb bullying both on campus and online, some superintendents and school board members across New Jersey say the new law, which takes effect Sept. 1, reaches much too far, and complain that they have been given no additional resources to meet its mandates. The law, known as the Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights, is considered the toughest legislation against bullying in the nation.

it demands that all public schools adopt comprehensive antibullying policies (there are 18 pages of “required components”), increase staff training and adhere to tight deadlines for reporting episodes.

Each school must designate an antibullying specialist to investigate complaints; each district must, in turn, have an antibullying coordinator; and the State Education Department will evaluate every effort, posting grades on its Web site. Superintendents said that educators who failed to comply could lose their licenses.

The law also requires districts to appoint a safety team at each school, made up of teachers, staff members and parents, to review complaints. It orders principals to begin an investigation within one school day of a bullying episode, and superintendents to provide reports to Trenton twice a year detailing all episodes. Statewide, there were 2,846 such reports in 2008-9, the most recent year for which a total was available.

Even districts that have long made antibullying programs a priority are preparing to step up their efforts, in response to the greater reporting demands. “This gives a definite timeline,” the Westfield superintendent, Margaret Dolan, said, noting the new one-day requirement. “Before, our rule was you need to do it as quickly as possible.”

But Dr. Dolan cautioned that an unintended consequence of the new law could be that students, or their parents, will find it easier to label minor squabbles bullying than to find ways to work out their differences.

No system will be perfect, but it's far past time that abusive students - and their often equally bigoted parents - cease having a license to make the lives of others a living Hell.

More Pretty Words from Obama on Pride Month

When it comes to voicing "pretty words" about LGBT equality, Barack Obama doesn't hold back and likes to toot his own horn. The problem is, however, when action is required, Obama must be dragged along screaming to be forced to act. The repeal measure for DADT is a case in point. LGBT activism and refusal to shut up forced his hand, not his burning support for LGBT Americans. I suspect that behind the scenes something similar motivated the Justice Department decision to cease defending DOMA. When it comes to CIVIL LAW marriage, Obama continues to put his personal sensibilities ahead of full civil law equality. With today marking the beginning of Pride Month, Obama issued a statement which in my view should be taken with a grain of salt at best. I am more impressed by strong actions than by "pretty words." Here are snippets of Obama's statement via The Advocate:
*
The story of America's Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) community is the story of our fathers and sons, our mothers and daughters, and our friends and neighbors who continue the task of making our country a more perfect Union," reads the statement. "It is a story about the struggle to realize the great American promise that all people can live with dignity and fairness under the law. Each June, we commemorate the courageous individuals who have fought to achieve this promise for LGBT Americans, and we rededicate ourselves to the pursuit of equal rights for all, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.
*
"Since taking office, my Administration has made significant progress towards achieving equality for LGBT Americans. Last December, I was proud to sign the repeal of the discriminatory 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy.
*
"My Administration has also taken steps to eliminate discrimination against LGBT Americans in Federal housing programs and to give LGBT Americans the right to visit their loved ones in the hospital. We have made clear through executive branch nondiscrimination policies that discrimination on the basis of gender identity in the Federal workplace will not be tolerated.
*
No one should be harmed because of who they are or who they love, and my Administration has mobilized unprecedented public commitments from countries around the world to join in the fight against hate and homophobia."
*
Is Obama better than the Chimperator? Most definitely. But he could do so much more and use his "bloody pulpit" far more to fight homophobia - especially that found in the black community.

Coming Out - The New York Times' Interactive Page

I'm a bit behind the curve on mentioning this new feature at the New York Times: an interactive page where LGBT youth can tell their stories. Many of the stories so far sound all too familiar to LGBT readers. My hope is that some - assuming they will take the time to read these stories - may have their minds opened and realize that we are just as human as anyone else and stop to think about the damage homophobia and toxic forms of Christianity inflict daily on so many. For those who haven't done so, I urge you to read some of the submissions. Sadly, those who hate us and most need to read the stories of these young lives are among the least likely to read the stories. I suspect that don't want to know the misery they cause - usually in the name of God. One story struck a chord with me in that it describes much of my youth (except I never tried to talk to anyone because I was too afraid to do so):
*
I grew up in Columbus, Ohio and thought I was the only gay boy in the world. I tried to talk with a lady at church but she would never let me finish a sentence, probably knowing what I wanted to say. I felt alienated and alone and this lasted for many years until I got to Los Angeles when I was in my late 20s.
*
I look at the many avenues for young people these days and wish we had some of those avenues back then, but I feel good about myself now. After a number of years of active alcoholism, partly because I felt so bad about myself that I had to get "high" to relax, I found a way out of that life of self condemnation into self acceptance. I came out to my parents when I was in my 30s and we had a good relationship until they passed away.
*
My advice for teens and those older than teens, to hang in there and find where you are wanted and loved and go there. To anyone thinking about suicide, I ask you to try to make contact with someone about how you feel. No matter how difficult that might be, compare it to suicide and you will find it something you can do. And God be with you; God really does love us you know. If He didn't why did he make us so cute?
*
So, okay. Maybe I didn't get the cute part as much as some. But to my many closeted readers, I cannot stress too much the difference coming to self-acceptance makes in one's life. I wasted so many years hating myself and sometimes making life less good for those around me. As I've said before, if your church condemns you, find another one. Don't buy into the hate and vitriol that define today's Christianity.

Prop 8 Supporters Getting Slimy and Desperate

Earlier I wrote about the sleazy and despicable effort of Proposition 8 supporters to have the District Court ruling in Perry v. Schwarzenegger thrown out because Judge Walker has confirmed that he is gay. I also commented on the very dangerous precedent such an action would have in terms of barring many judges from hearing cases where disgruntled litigants would then be open to direct personal attacks on the judge and try to show bias or some conflict of interest. Fortunately, many legal scholars are attacking the Prop. 8 defenders and their slimy legal counsel. One column in the Washington Post by Adam Serwer does a good job at looking at the dangerous direction such charges might lead to for the courts if such homophobic attacks were allowed to succeed. Here are highlights:
*
Supporters of Prop 8 were dealt a blow last year when Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that there is no empirical basis for the notion that same-sex marriages harm heterosexual marriages and therefore no compelling interest in preventing gays and lesbians from getting married.
*
Yesterday, same-sex marriage opponents filed a motion to have Walker’s ruling vacated, on the grounds that his being gay and in a long-term relationship amounts to a conflict of interest that should have forced him to recuse himself: Given that Chief Judge Walker was in a committed, long-term, same-sex relationship throughout this case (and for many years before the case commenced), it is clear that his “impartiality might reasonably [have been] questioned” from the outset.
*
This argument is too clever by half, and relies on the same faulty argument put forth originally in defense of Prop 8: The qualitative judgment that same-sex relationships are inferior. Opponents of same-sex marriage are arguing, in effect, that because Walker was in a long term same-sex relationship, he stood to benefit personally from Prop 8 being overturned.
*
The problem is that this same logic could be applied to a straight, married judge hearing the case. After all, supporters of the same-sex marriage ban are arguing that marriage equality is so damaging to the institution of marriage that the government has a vital interest in making sure gays and lesbians can’t get married. That means that a straight, married judge couldn’t be expected to be impartial, either . . . Therefore, a heterosexual, married judge could be seen as having just as much “skin in the game” as Judge Walker.
*
The notion that Walker’s ruling should be vacated is build on the flimsy assumption that gays and lesbians are different from heterosexuals in a manner that justifies denying them their fundamental rights. It’s also built on an unstated but core conservative view of the courts — that judicial “impartiality” is best defined as viewing the law through the cultural prism of a heterosexual, conservative white Christian judge. That’s partly why the impartiality Justice Sonya Sotomayor was viewed as suspect from the outset.
*
The real problem faced by Prop 8 supporters real problem is that their case is profoundly weak, and relies almost entirely on archaic and rapidly eroding social prejudices against homosexuality.
*
Conversely, Prop 8 opponents were able to demonstrate, in vivid detail, precisely how they were personally hurt by California’s decision to deny gays and lesbians their fundamental rights.
*
Now Prop 8 supporters are reduced to arguing, essentially, that Walker’s ruling should be vacated because he is gay. Aside from the faulty legal reasoning, supporters of the law aren’t doing themselves any favors when it comes to convincing anyone that their position on marriage amounts to anything other than prejudice.

Baltimore Sun: Gay Marriage - Justice Delayed

Like many, I am saddened that the Maryland House of Delegates failed to pass legislation that would have brought marriage equality to that state. Instead, religious based bigotry maddeningly carried the day with black legislators acting as water carriers for racist white Christianists bearing some of the final responsibility for the measure's failure to pass. The Baltimore Sun looks at the debacle and aptly describes the situation as a delay of justice for same sex couples. Personally, I am so over the special privileges granted to one intolerant religious view that I increasingly believe the world would be a better place if Christianity - at least as practiced by the Christianist - were a dead religion. Here are highlights from the Baltimore Sun editorial:
*
The outside pressure from churches and others that oppose the legislation, which had been muted during the Senate debate, came on in full force as the issue moved toward a vote in the House.

*
The issue is not dead; if vote tallies change, the bill could theoretically be brought back to the floor, though House Speaker Michael E. Busch indicated he doesn't expect that to happen. But advocates should also bear in mind that although this year appeared from the beginning like a magical opportunity, it is not the only one. Nothing will change between now and 2012 other than the steady growth in the public's acceptance of true equal rights for all. And perhaps proponents could enlist some high-profile help. In the wake of the House's action, Gov. Martin O'Malley issued a statement saying he had hoped to sign a same-sex marriage bill and that he remains "committed to working with all Marylanders to ensure that rights are protected for … everyone."
*
Justice has been delayed, but it has not been defeated.

*

My message to black legislators: non-discrimination is a two way street. If you want others to put aside bigotry and prejudice, you need to start doing so yourself. Until you do that, you are hypocrites. Not to mention demonstrating your own ignorance as you do the bidding of groups that would prefer to see you denigrated just as gays are denigrated.

No One Cared He Was Gay Except The Pentagon - A Soldier's Memoriam

In light of the bullshit taking place at the Naval Nuclear Power Training Command near Charleston, South Carolina, a post done by my friend Lyndon Evans - one of the first LGBT bloggers I got to know when I started this blog nearly four years ago - is all the more poignant. It honors a gay soldier killed in Afghanistan. It also shows the toxic evil of allowing personal religious based bigotry to hold sway in the U. S. military such as is apparently the case of Capt. Thomas W. Bailey pictured in my prior post. Lyndon's post (which has been cross posted by Pam Spaulding as well) looks at the sacrifice made by Cpl. Andrew Wilfahrt age 31 (pictured at right). Here is Lyndon's post from Focus on the Rainbow in its entirety (the bold faced emphasis is mine):
*
There were days I hated being a reporter or news/sportscaster as that was when I had to report on tragedy or death. All these many years later I have come full circle because today I hate my vocation as a journalist blogger.
*
I could have ignored this story, wrote something more palatable to ones senses or not posted at all today. But that would have been the easy way and going against the mission of this blog to focus on one person, issue or event in the Rainbow a day at a time.
*
Back then I would report such stories often with a damp eye. Today will be no different as I write this except you won’t hear my voice crack as I once spoke into a microphone.
*
It was a week ago today in the Kandahar province of Afghanistan that Cpl. Andrew Wilfahrt age 31 was killed during an attack on his unit by insurgents with an IED. Wilfahrt was from Rosemount, Minnesota and this past Friday Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton ordered that yesterday all flags be lowered to half-staff to honor the state’s fallen son. A celebration of Cpl. Wilfahrt’s life was celebrated Friday at the Ft. Snelling Officers’ Club. He was a proud member of the 3rd platoon 552nd MP Battalion U.S. Army serving on patrol at the time of his death. But there is more to this story.
*
Up until the time some two years ago when Wilfahrt decided to enlist he was an out and proud gay man. But with finding himself in the quandary of wanting to serve his Country and the policy of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, he decided for the sake of pursuing his wish to join the Army he would go back into the closet so he could protect the Constitution and all of us the American citizens. That is quite an irony. Protect the Constitution and a Nation which at best holds him as second class person and a military ready to kick him out.
*
In a radio inteview the other day his mother Lori Wilfahrt spoke to reporter Cathy Wurzer of Minnesota Public Radio (you can hear the interview and read it here) and when Wurzer asked her if she was concerned about her son being gay and in the military she replied, It did a lot. I think it concerned him as well. He spent a lot of time thinking about it and he came to terms with it. He knew he would have to go back in the closet, that he would have to keep that to himself. And he did, for at least part of his stay in the Army. But when I talked to him (or when he wrote maybe) when he was in Afghanistan, he said nobody cares. He said, ‘Everybody knows, nobody cares.’ He said, ‘Even the really conservative, religious types, they didn’t care either.’

*
Nobody cared that Cpl. Andrew Wilfahrt was gay. Not the enemy, not his fellow soliders, only the Pentagon. Rest In Peace Corporal.
*
It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived. – General George S. Patton.
*

The Evil of Bigotry Loses Another Big Battle

A column in the San Antonio press looks at how history will view the demise of Don't Ask Don't Tell and in the process looks at the reality that the USA on many fronts has been a follower as opposed to a leader in granting civil rights for all of its citizens. Unfortunately, this legacy of being a follower rather than a leader in equality and freedom is not a new phenomenon. Indeed, Canada (in 1807) and European countries (France in 1794; Germany in 18o7; Spain in 1811; the Netherlands in 1814; Greece in 1822; British Empire in 1833) abolished slavery decades before the bloody contest of the Civil War decided the issue in America and, even then, segregation and discrimination remained the norm - certainly in the South - in much of America for another century. The same too holds for anti-gay bigotry where other nations have outstripped the supposed beacon of liberty which the USA pretends to be. Here are column highlights:
*
[H]istory will record one Obama achievement with the appropriate drum roll and without caveats, and that is the repeal of the Don t Ask, Don t Tell legislation that banned gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military. It took 17 years from its passage for the courts to recognize that DADT is an unconstitutional infringement of the civil rights of gay people.
*
In terms of social policy, the end of DADT takes its place amidst other historic milestones, notably Truman s desegregation order and the Supreme Court s 1954 decision in Brown v Board of Education to integrate the nation s public schools. For Obama, repeal of DADT is a campaign promise kept that will help him redeem his liberal bona fides.
*
Americans like to think we re on the side of the angels when it comes to protecting individual freedom and civil rights, but history tells us we re often late to the party. Other industrialized countries did away with slavery way before we did, and without the bloodshed of a civil war. Britain outlawed the practice in the early 1800s. America lagged behind in granting women the right to vote, and women are still under-represented in elective office at every level.
*
One of the arguments against ending DADT is based on religion objections. Christian traditionalists think homosexuality is wrong and cite passages in the Bible to back up their belief. America was founded on the basis of religious freedom yet when there is discrimination against gays and lesbians it is often done in the name of religion.
*
We shouldn t be surprised that people hide behind religion. Critics of giving women the vote could find theological support for their belief that women should be in a subordinate role. Discriminating against people of color has a long history of justification and rationalization, some religiously based, some just plain ignorant.
*
Much of the world must look at us with bemusement that we took so long to reach the conclusion that sexual orientation is irrelevant to the ability of men and women to form a fighting force. The greatest armies in the world made peace with differing sexual orientations a long time ago. Israel tops the list with an enviable army that deals with existential threats every day.
*
In a new century with different social challenges, the military is shouldering a generational transformation in the way gay people are regarded, and Obama, like Truman before him, will get full credit. It will be recorded that the evil of bigotry lost a big battle in 2010.

Why Gays Are Good for Business

I have written here and here about how backwards the Hampton Roads area is socially and culturally and its overall unwillingness to embrace diversity and tolerance. With a population of 1,658,292 people one would be inclined to expect a somewhat sophisticated population, but old ideas and too much deference and pandering to conservative religious elements continue to plague the area. Added to this is smothering atmosphere is the self-imposed closet that haunts the large numbers of gays in the local military forces under DADT - a phenomenon that spills over into the private employment sector as well. The result: a brain drain of the college educated and a natural reluctance on the part of progressive businesses to locate in the area.

*

Some have recognized that things need to change if the area is to prosper long term. As a result, in January, 2011, a group of senior communication, public information and public affairs professionals from government, military, key employers, businesses, colleges and universities will hold a meeting to discuss and collaborate on issues that will hopefully help address the negative findings of a Brookings Institute study that found Hampton Roads to be “old, slow and not too bright” and in need of action to address “brain drain” and a lack of economic AND cultural diversity.

*

Given this background, I found this video clip from the NGLCC national dinner - which I had the privilege of attending as a representative of HRBOR, currently the only NLGCC affiliated chamber of commerce in Virginia - to be of interest. It looks at why gays are good for business. Would that more of the business community and political leadership would buy into this concept. Here's the clip.:

Exodus Affiliate in Canada Targeted for Loss of Tax-Exempt Status

A few months back this blog noted with approval that the New Zealand's Charities Commission had declined a request from Exodus for renewed registration as a charitable entity. The Commission rather bluntly stated that it found nothing charitable or educational in Exodus' discredited propaganda and programs marketing the myth that sexual orientation can be changed. Now, Canada may be poised to take a similar step - something that the USA ought to do as well since all LEGITIMATE mental health and medical associations condemn Exodus' reparative therapy "ministries" as unethical. Of course, such a move would require that the IRS cease giving special rights to Christianist organizations - something the Liar-in-Chief lacks the backbone to direct. Here are highlights from CBC News on Exodus' hopefully losing battle north of our border:
*
An international religious group that claims to help men and women "overcome" their homosexuality is generating controversy because of its charitable status in Canada. . . . "Our issue is that they purport to be able to cure homosexuality. Homosexuality is not an mental illness," said Matthew McLauchlin, co-chair of the federal NDP's Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Committee.
*
"If all we were talking about was promoting a certain religious view of homosexuality we wouldn't be having this conversation," he said. "They are promoting something that's directly against the public interest." McLauchlin, who ran for the NDP in three federal elections, said the Quebec wing of the NDP unanimously adopted a position to strip the organization of its charitable status at a convention in Gatineau on Nov. 20.
*
"It can issue tax receipts for donations, but in our opinion it violates provisions of the Canada Revenue Agency that says that registered charities must offer a tangible public benefit," said McLauchlin. Dr. Karine Igartua, the director of emergency psychiatric services at the Montreal University Health Centre, worries that the type of counselling offered by Exodus may do more harm than good.
*
A CRA spokesperson sent an email explaining how organizations obtain charitable status but declined a request for an interview, citing Section 241 of the Income Tax Act which "precludes the CRA from discussing the particular affairs of a registered charity."

Bob McDonnell Again Proves He's a Bigoted Ass

Last night's Legends Gala to benefit Equality Virginia was a wonderful event and attendees seemed to truly have a wonderful time. Folks REALLY got into the masquerade theme as the picture of the individual honorees and a past honoree at left demonstrates. As a member of the Legends committee that put on the event, will confess that I am definitely glad to have the event now successfully behind us. In addition to being a fundraiser for EV, the event honors local "legends" who have worked in the community, both the LGBT community and the wider community, to expand equality and justice for all Virginians. I believe that it is important that those who give of themselves year after year be recognized for their contributions.

*

Which brings me to the title of this post. In past years when asked, the Office of the Governor has supplied a signed proclamation congratulating the honorees. In the grand scheme of things, it is an innocuous request and one would think a public office holder would be more than happy to honor outstanding citizens. But sadly, not this year with Bob "Taliban Bob" McDonnell in the Governor's mansion. It seems that in Taliban Bob's mind not only should LGBT Virginians not receive the same legal rights as other citizens, but they don't even merit the courtesy of congratulations routinely dispensed by the Governor's Office to all types of citizens either. Since Taliban Bob refused to honor the Legends honorees this year, I wanted to to highlight them. First, some highlights on our individual honorees, Laurel Quarberg and Sarah Munford:
*
Both Laurel and Sarah have been active members and supporters of Equality Virginia since its days as Virginians for Justice in the early 80’s, with Laurel serving on the Board of Directors for several terms.
*
They have been strong supporters of Access Aids since its early years, co-hosting several “Dinner is Served” events and serving as ambassadors for “Dining Out for Life.” The New Leaf was a founding member of HRBOR, the Hampton Roads Business Outreach, the only LGBT The Chamber of Commerce in Virginia, and they have been involved with Candii and Access Aides since the late 80’s.
*
The two have hosted several fundraisers at their shop, asking area restaurants and retailers to donate food and gifts for a dinner and auction. Among their successful efforts were a “Flamingo Auction” for the SPCA, (raising over $7,000), a dinner for Funds for 9/11 Victims (raising over $12,000) and a 2005 dinner for victims of Hurricane Katrina (raising over $8,000). Recently their home was on the Virginia Garden Tour, with funds raised helping support the maintenance of Virginia Gardens and Historic Sites.
*
They donate their time and floral designs to The Virginia Symphony, The Chrysler Museum, The Virginia Stage Company, The Virginia Opera, Horizons, the YWCA, “Dress for Success”, and many other community organizations and educational institutions.
*
As you can see, they are amazing women. But in Bob McDonnell's Virginia, no amount of good deeds compensates for one's failure to be straight. Besides these individual honorees, Taliban Bob also slighted an entire church congregation. The community organization honoree this year was St. Mark's Episcopal Church. Here are some highlights on this wonderful and accepting congregation:
*
Proudly accepting the very first EV Legends Community Award, lead by Reverend Peggy Buelow is St. Mark’s Episcopal Church of Hampton, Virginia. For more than 20 years, St. Mark’s has opened its doors to everyone, creating a truly inclusive congregation.
*
The congregation is involved in the LGBT community and serves as members of Equality Virginia, HRBOR, a regular sponsor for Out in the Park and an active member of ACCESS Aids.

*

Taliban Bob, you are truly a bigoted ass.

New York Times: Don’t Stay the ‘Don’t Ask’ Ruling - As Obama Uses FOTF Talking Points

I continue to be furious with the liar-in-chief's decision to appeal the rulings in Log Cabin Republicans . v. United States and, based on the calls into Michelangelo Signorile's show on Friday which I listened to yesterday, my anger seems to be the norm. Personally, I believe that I will NEVER, EVER support Obama again. The man is a liar and a spineless bastard. As Michelangelo noted, there WERE warning signs that too many of us, including myself, ignored. Yes, Obama/Biden is better than McCain/Palin, but in retrospect we should have seen the betrayals coming. His spinelessness and failure to deliver on promises in my view was a major cause of the GOP sweep in Virginia last year and I suspect we will see the same thing in Congress within a few weeks. We voted for a leader and got a weak kneed follower instead. Now, the liar-in-chief wants to stay the injunction against discharges under DADT and uses talking points straight from Focus on the Family as part of the justification. The New York Times makes a case for why the injunction should not be stayed. Here are highlights:
*
The Obama administration has conjured up some inflated fears to justify its decision to appeal an injunction that brought a screeching halt to investigations and discharges of gay men and women serving in the military.
*
To hear the administration tell it, lifting the prohibition on gay men and lesbians openly serving in uniform would undermine global combat operations. In truth, the real potential for harm is to gay service members if the injunction is held in abeyance.
*
As justification, the administration made overheated claims that a precipitous change in wartime would have adverse effects on morale, good order, discipline and unit cohesion. Those are the same specious arguments used to justify the benighted policy in the first place. The administration wants to leave it in place while it finishes a study on how to carry out a repeal.
*
Clifford Stanley, the under secretary of defense for personnel and readiness, said in a court filing that ending the antigay policy would require training, and reworking regulations on issues like housing, benefits and standards of conduct. He said the Army had to consider the “rights and obligations of the chaplain corps.” Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said the military had to consider whether barracks should be segregated and whether partners of gay soldiers should have benefits. This sounds disturbingly like the creation of a “separate but equal” system.
*
Judge Phillips has hit on a simpler, more equitable solution: just stop enforcing “don’t ask, don’t tell.” It has done more to harm military readiness than her injunction possibly could.
*
Meanwhile, a piece in the Christian Post gives us an idea of who Obama is really favoring in his Judas like behavior, and it's not the folks that put his sorry ass in office. Words do not adequately express how over I am of Christianist having special rights that trump all else. Here's a sampling of the bullshit Obama and the Department of Defense are favoring and in some cases parroting:
*
Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for Focus on the Family, said the appeal is “mixed good news” because he fears for the future protection of DADT.
*
Hausknecht fears that a federal ruling in favor of repealing DADT will hamper military chaplains and Christian soldiers from expressing their faith.
*
“Any kind of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell repeal puts the religious liberties of chaplains at risk,” he highlighted.
*
In an openly gay and lesbian military, he said chaplains may be forced to adopt a condoning stance to homosexuality or face discipline. Similarly, Hausknecht said of soldiers, “If they talk about their faith with other soldiers, will those soldiers be disciplined?”
*
He believes DADT attacks are “establishing a new religion [in the military] that is pro-homosexuality.” A permanent injunction, he said, will give homosexuality “a moral rubber stamp of approval from the U.S. government.”
*
Yes, that's right. Obama's DOD is using Focus on the Family talking points to justify staying Judge Phillips' injunction. Things don't get much more fucked up than that.

Gay Teen Suicide, Homophobia, Bullying and the Elephant in the Room: Religious Based Bigotry

In the aftermath of a cluster of gay teen suicides, there has been a great deal of commentary and discussion in the media, both LGBT and mainstream, about bullying and its destructiveness. An number of bloggers and commentators have skirted around the issue without addressing the force that is the underlying force behind all of the homophobia and bullying: religious belief. And in particular, conservative Christian religious belief which has come to hold special rights in what is supposed to be a secular society and a governmental system that grants no special privileges to any particular religious denomination or dogma. These special rights take many forms ranging from prayers opening public meetings where invoking the name of Christ is allowed no matter who in the public is offended to laws that enshrine conservative Christian beliefs in the civil laws. Such laws include, but are not limited to Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and/or laws that continue to protect LGBT citizens from forms of discrimination prohibited by state and federal law when the targets of discrimination are literally everyone else in America except LGBT citizens.
*

The principal proponents of anti-gay bullying – whether or not they have the honesty to admit it - are conservative religious leaders such as Pope Benedict who has described gays as "intrinsically disordered" toward "an objective moral evil," Richard Land and Albert Mohler of the Southern Baptist Convention. and, of course, professional Christians such as Maggie Gallagher, Tony Perkins and down low pastor Eddie Long who enrich themselves in large part by peddling anti-gay hatred. Jeremy Hooper has challenged their role in the “culture wars,” but in my view these individuals and their organizations and institutions border on accessories to murder and need to be called out as such. The constant anti-gay drum beat that these individuals and organizations disseminate is damaging in two ways: (1) it sends a message that anti-gay bigotry and bullying and other forms of anti-gay abuse are totally acceptable, and (2) it tells gay youth – and older gays as well – that they are damaged garbage unacceptable to the larger society. When one hears this message routinely and witnesses even the President of the United States and a strong plurality in the U.S. Senate lacking the integrity and resolve to end legalized discrimination and prejudice such as that embodied in DADT, the emotional and psychological damage to the targeted group can be lethal. Indeed, suicide comes to appear to be an attractive option. Believe e, I know of what I speak as one who has had two serious suicide attempts driven largely by the brutalization I experienced from a prejudiced legal system.
*

Sadly, most courts - far too many politicians – lack the courage and respect for the U.S. Constitution to end the special rights given to anti-gay religious beliefs. A few courts have, however, recognized that Christianist religious beliefs should not shape the CIVIL laws. One such court was the Iowa Supreme Court in Varnum v. Brien, No. 07–1499, filed April 3, 2009, where that Court recognized that the underlying animus against homosexuals in general and in the facts before the Court in Varnum - gay marriage - is religious based. The Iowa Supreme Court stated in relevant part as follows:

*
While unexpressed, religious sentiment most likely motivates many, if not most, opponents of same-sex civil marriage and perhaps even shapes the views of those people who may accept gay and lesbian unions but find the notion of same-sex marriage unsettling. . . . Consequently, we address the religious undercurrent propelling the same-sex marriage debate as a means to fully explain our rationale for rejecting the dual-gender requirement of the marriage statute.
*
State government can have no religious views, either directly or indirectly, expressed through its legislation. . . . This proposition is the essence of the separation of church and state. As a result, civil marriage must be judged under our constitutional standards of equal protection and not under religious doctrines or the religious views of individuals. This approach does not disrespect or denigrate the religious views of many Iowans who may strongly believe in marriage as a dual-gender union, but considers, as we must, only the constitutional rights of all people, as expressed by the promise of equal protection for all.

*
We in the LGBT community and the larger society can dance all around the issue of bullying, but in the context of anti-gay bullying, we will never solve the problem until we take on the driving force behind the phenomenon head on: religious based bigotry and the improper enshrining of such bigotry in the nation’s laws be it in the form of DADT or the deliberate exclusion of non-discrimination protections to LGBT citizens whether it be on the employment front, housing and accommodations or other everyday issues.

*
When looked at from this perspective, as a nation, the United States must decide whether it will live up to the promises of the Constitution granting all citizens religious freedom and barring religious tests or not. If Barack Obama and others lack the spine to demand that the Constitution be made paramount, then this nation becomes in many ways little more than a hypocritical farce. We condemn Islamic extremists and their effort to impose their warped religious beliefs on all, yet we allow our homer grown equivalents to do precisely what we claim to condemn. Meanwhile, expect the suicide deaths to continue. There is truly no way to end homophobia and anti-gay bigotry without taking on toxic forms of religious belief head on and that includes condemning Christianists as a clear and present danger to to constitutional government.