Friday Morning Male Beauty

Gay Suicide and Pastoral Malpractice

I do not hold back on expressing my view that over the course of history I believe that religion and religious belief have likely caused more harm than good and are directly responsible for countless deaths.  While some Christian denominations seem to be trying to move away from their toxic and often deadly pasts, others like the Roman Catholic Church and the Southern Baptist Convention appear to be moving in the opposite direction and increasing their vitriol against non-believers and those they claim their  myth based dogmas condemn.   It goes without saying that LGBT individuals of all ages continue to be a preferred target for hatred and stigmatization by the self-congratulatory, self-anointed  godly folks.  A piece in Religion Dispatches looks at the phenomenon in the wake of the suicide death of 17 year old Josh Pacheco, who killed himself because of constant anti-gay bullying.  Bullying that is encouraged and made respectable by the incessant mantra coming from far too many pulpits.   And bullying that  isn't restricted to physical violence.  Truth be told, most LGBT individuals experience persistent psychological violence - again almost exclusively because of the anti-gay jihad of fear and hate based religious denominations such as the Catholic Church and the Southern Baptists and, of course, the Mormon Church.  Here are some excerpts:

I don’t know Josh or his family. And I’ve never even been to Michigan.  But every queer person knows Josh Pacheco. Josh was a junior in high school and had just told his mother that he was gay. Like so many mothers, she wasn’t too surprised and was very supportive of her son. What did surprise her—what she didn’t know until very recently—was that Josh was the victim of persistent physical bullying and verbal harassment at school. Her son was a victim of violence.

“Queer” is not synonymous with “suicide,” as it has begun to seem. Not every queer person is on the brink of despair and self-destruction. Not every queer person is bullied by their peers or rejected by their parents. Not every queer person is vulnerable to depression or has a suicide plan at the ready.
But queer suicide should alarm us. It should keep us up at night. 

Violence against queer people runs much deeper than physical bullying, verbal harassment, or even hate crime murder. It is a violence that takes place at the level of the psyche, the soul—at the very level at which our sense of “self” is constructed within our relation to society.

It is a type of violence that cannot be assessed by examining bruises. Violence against queer people in any form is an ideologically aggravated, theologically intensified violence— legitimated by a discourse about queer people that is already embedded in the lives of both attacker and victim.
Insults like “fag,” often combined with physical assault, name the queer self as sick, sinful, or an object of disgust and derision—images that swirl in social consciousness long before blows are brought to bear upon a queer body.
 
Every queer person knows Josh Pacheco. Not every queer person grew up being pushed into lockers and teased at school like Josh. Not every queer person contemplates suicide. But the effects of insult and hatred that write themselves onto our bodies mark the life of every queer person. Every one of us is familiar with the kind of violence that psychiatrist Marie-France Hirigoyen so aptly calls “stalking the soul.”  Josh’s last note read, “I’m sorry I wasn’t able to be strong enough.”

As I said in a Religion Dispatches article after the spate of highly publicized bullying-related gay teen suicides back in 2010, anti-gay bullying is a theological issue. But, to be clear, queer suicide is more than a theological “issue.” It is an indicator of rampant ministerial malpractice.

By ministerial malpractice, I mean the negligent attitudes of clergy and congregations concerning the violence being enacted upon queer lives—not just the violence of bullying, but the persistent injury to the bodies, psyches, and souls of queer people.

By ministerial malpractice, I mean the youth minister who invites representatives of “ex-gay” ministries to speak to teenagers because these “practices of love” are theologically responsible, despite evidence of their destructive power.

By ministerial malpractice, I mean the pastor who knows the realities of violence enacted upon queer lives and is deeply concerned, but who, nevertheless, avoids any mention of sexuality in the pulpit so as not to upset parishioners.

By ministerial malpractice, I mean the theological scholar who prevaricates in public when asked about concerns of justice for queer lives—not even out of a sense of personal conviction on the matter, but in order to protect a public career: speaking invitations, book deals.

By ministerial malpractice, I mean the congregation that skirts around open discussions of queer affirmation, inclusion, and justice because they don’t want to become a “gay church” or (more liberally) they don’t want to be “defined by that one issue.”

The difficulty is that I know these people and these churches, and so does every reader of this article. More difficult is the realization that those of us who live and work in a religious context are the only ones capable of providing accountability for ministerial malpractice. 

I for one will not hold my breath waiting for anti-gay churches and congregations and the insidious professional Christian class to cease their violence both physical and psychological against LGBT people.  Instead I will try to educate people about the truth about those of us in the LGBT community and, with luck, more and more of these people will do what seems to be the trend with the "nones" and younger voters: see religion for the evil that it too often is and simply walk away. 

Pope Benedict XVI Blesses Backer of "Kill the Gays Bill" at the Vatican

As noted numerous times on this blog, few individuals personify the moral bankruptcy of the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy more than the current occupant of the throne of St. Peter, Pope Benedict XVI.  Not only was he a Hitler Youth and member of the Nazi Army years ago, but Benedict XVI was documented to have engaged in the same type of cover ups and reassignments of know predatory priests that landed Monsignor Lynn of the Philadelphia archdiocese.  Now, Benedict has taken his repulsive, morally bankrupt anti-gay agenda to new heights.  How, one might ask?  By solicitously blessing Ugandan Parliament Speaker Rebecca Kadaga while she was at the Vatican even as she is pushing for passage of a bill that would send some LGBT individuals to prison for life even if the death penalty is ultimately stripped from Uganda's horrific bill endorsed by hate groups and Christofascist demagogue like Scott Lively, the author of the untethered from reality volume called The Pink Swastika which seeks to lay blame for the Holocaust and the Nazi regime on gays.  The website for the Uganda Parliament brags about the papal blessing.  Here are highlights:

Pope Benedict XVI has given blessings to Uganda Parliament Speaker Rt.Hon. Rebecca Kadaga during a mass attended by thousands of pilgrims at the Vatican Wednesday.

Kadaga who led a delegation of Ugandan legislators to the Vatican expressed delight at meeting the Pope and visiting St Peter’s Basilicca.

MPs Paula Turyahikayo,ElijahOkupa,AbduKatuntu,BettiAmongi, and Chris Baryomunsi who accompanied the Speaker were also delighted by the golden moment noting that their faith had been renewed by the Pope’s blessings.

Joe Jervis at Joe My God sums the situation up very succinctly:

And there you have it. A blessing from the Pope upon the woman who wants you executed. It can't get any plainer than that, can it?

Would that Benedict XVI had cared a fraction as much about ridding the Catholic clergy of child rapists as he does about eradicating gays from the face of the earth and encouraging undisguised violence against LGBT individuals.  As noted before, I suspect that there is a special place in Hell reserved for Benedict XVI as well as  Ms. Kadaga.  I am dumbfounded as to how any LGBT individual can remain a Catholic in light of the Church's anti-gay jihad.  One might just as well be a masochist who likes a touch of sadomasochism thrown in for good measure.

More Evidence That Gays Won the Election for Obama

With the general populace becoming more accepting of LGBT citizens and a plurality supporting same sex marriage, the Republican Party is increasingly setting itself up for electoral defeat by licking the boots of the Christofascists and subscribing to their anti-gay jihad.   Analysis of the vote in four states, including Virginia, confirms that but for the GOP's near total alienation of LGBT voters (in Virginia, Obama received 76% of the LGBT vote), shows that the lopsided pro-Obama LGBT vote is what allowed Obama to win all four states.  Here are highlights:

There are states with large and visible LGBT populations where marriage equality may present a more formidable challenge. Had LGBT voters not cast their ballots in Ohio and Florida, Governor Romney would have won those states. 

If the LGBT vote in Virginia had been less lopsided in President Obama's favor and more evenly split between the two candidates, Governor Romney would have also won that state. All three states have sufficiently large LGBT populations to influence a close election, but none have sexual orientation or gender identity anti-discrimination laws nor any relationship recognition rights for same-sex couples.

With Ken Cuccinelli about to be crowned as the GOP candidate for governor in 2013, the Virginia GOP will likely even further alienate LGBT voters and shifted even a higher percentage of the LGBT vote to the Democrats.  The Virginia GOP's continued willingness to prostitute itself to hate merchants at The Family Foundation will hopefully help see Cuccinelli defeated in 2013.

Thursday Morning Male Beauty

Homosexuality at Wingnut Patrick Henry College?

Virginia sadly has more than its share of loony bin crazy educational institutions including Pat Robertson's Regent University and the late Jerry Falwell's Liberty University.  But perhaps the craziest of all is Patrick Henry College ("PHC") located in Purcellville, Virginia, which is an Evangelical institution with an enrollment of approximately 325.  Patrick Henry College was founded by home school champion Mike Farris, a failed right wing politician, who takes Kool-Aid drinking to nearly unknown levels.  Now, Farris is acting like Iran's Ahmadinejad (Farris is indeed just as crazy and extreme) and claiming that homosexuality cannot possible exist at his bizarre Christianist institution.  The firestorm started back in July when three anonymous writers with ties to the school launched a controversial blog titled Queer at Patrick Henry College. Frankly, I am not surprised that closet cases exist at PHC.  Friends who used to live in Lynchburg, the home of Liberty University, have related how the gay chat rooms and hook up sites were always filled with married Liberty faculty members and Liberty students.  The Loudoun Times looks at this entertaining controversy.  Here are highlights:

Gay students at Patrick Henry College in Purcellville don’t exist. They can’t exist.  So says Dr. Michael Farris, the college’s founder and chancellor.  It’s simple, really. Homosexuals can’t exist at Patrick Henry College because the students sign an honor code, Farris claimed. “[Homosexuals] could not sign our honor code,” Farris said, adding that he considers the actions of gay men and women “sinful.” “Part of the honor code is to be sexually pure,” he added.

So you can imagine the chancellor’s consternation when he learned of Queer at Patrick Henry College, a six-month-old, provocatively-titled blog operated by three pseudonymous writers – all of whom graduated from or have taken classes at the school.

Queer at Patrick Henry College’s intent is to be a “safe online space for closeted students and alumni to share thoughts about LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and questioning) issues, without the risk of school punishment,” according to one of the blog’s founders, who goes by the nom de plume Kate Kane.

“Currently there are three contributors, though we are in contact with other students and graduates who are LGBTQ or identify as straight allies,” Kane said.  Kane and co-founder Alan Scott told the Times-Mirror the reasons for anonymity range from not yet “coming out” to friends and family to professional connections to the school.

The pseudonyms were not chosen by accident. Katherine Kane is the name of “Batwoman” in DC Comics. Kane’s character has received attention for being arguably the most prominent LGBT superhero. Alan Scott is the fictional name of DC Comics’ Golden Age “Green Lantern,” who was recently reintroduced in the series as a gay superhero. The third regular blogger at Queer at Patrick Henry, Captain Jack, takes the name of Jack Harkness, a character from the BBC’s “Doctor Who” and its spinoff “Torchwood.” Harkness is the first non-heterosexual character in televised “Doctor Who.” 

Dr. Farris is not a fan. On Dec. 1 the chancellor sent a message to Queer at Patrick Henry through Facebook.   “This page is in violation of our copyright of the name Patrick Henry College,” Farris wrote. “... you must remove this page at once. On Monday, we will began (sic) the legal steps to seek removal from Facebook and from the courts if necessary. In the process of this matter we can seek discovery from Facebook to learn your identity and seek damages from you as permitted by law. The best thing for all concerned is for you to simply remove this page.”  The next day, Farris withdrew his legal bluff. Again through Facebook, the chancellor and constitutional lawyer stated: “After further consultation, I withdraw my note from yesterday. While we believe in the inappropriate nature of the use of our trademarked name, we believe that litigation is not appropriate.”

But Farris’ correspondence had already put in motion a stirring week on campus, according to people familiar with the situation.  A  source close to the college, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, told the Times-Mirror the blog was “all anyone [was] talking about” on campus.

Upon launching Queer at Patrick Henry (queerPHC.wordpress.com), Kane and Scott were inspired by blogs at other Christian colleges, namely BJUnity at Bob Jones University in upstate South Carolina. Kane and Scott recalled wishing there was a similar support network and outlet for Patrick Henry College students that felt they had no one to talk with about sexuality and the range of emotions that go with realizing one is gay.  “Since we didn’t see any other PHC students or alumni stepping forward to create such a network, we decided to start QPHC,” Kane said.

Known as a favorite institution for Evangelical parents and their children, Patrick Henry College has an estimated enrollment of 325, many of which were homeschooled in their pre-college years. In addition to the college, Farris is the founder of the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA), which maintains a close connection with the school – the Purcellville campus serves as the HSLDA headquarters.

 

Scott said he knows numerous students who have experienced feelings of isolation and loneliness because of their sexuality. The college can feel “very oppressive at times,” he said, which is why the blog is so essential.  “Queer at Patrick Henry wants to make sure [students] know theyaren’t alone and that it is possible to both accept one’s queerness and continue strongly in one’s faith,” Scott said.

In his comments to the Times-Mirror, Farris made clear Patrick Henry College is not a friendly environment for homosexuals.

One question naturally comes to mind when considering Patrick Henry College and gay rights and tolerance: “Why would an openly gay, bisexual or transgender person, or someone who’s questioning their sexuality, choose to attend a hard-line Christian institution?”  "It’ s a good question,” Kane said. “And there are a few answers ... I know for me, if my parents were going to sign off on a loan for school, it had to be fundamentalist college.” (Farris said he does not consider the school to be “fundamentalist.”) 

Scott and other sources maintain a surge of conversations about gay issues have come about since word of Farris’ threat spread.  “I remain hopeful for the possibility of more positive interactions with [administration] in the future,” Scott said. “I look forward to when it is possible to have mature, open, honest and loving conversation about LGBTQ issues at PHC without students or alumni experiencing fear of reprisal, rejection, or shaming.” 

In my opinion, few people are more unhinged from reality than Mike Farris.  I love it that Queer at Patrick Henry is forcing Farris to have at least some slight experience with reality and the fact that God made some of us gay notwithstanding the writings of ignorant Neolithic herders that Farris embraces as the literal truth.

The GOP's Continued War on Workers

In the wake of their 2012 election losses many Republicans through their actions are making it clear that their real goal is to return America to the Gilded Age - a time when unions did not exist, working conditions were dangerous and employee benefits like health insurance were unknown.  Indeed, it seems that they would embrace working conditions that resulted in the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory inferno a hundred years ago.  Why else would the GOP be pushing for so-called "right to work" laws that guarantee that corporations can pay workers less, strip away benefits, and send more workers on a road to serfdom?  While some in the GOP are figuring out that the GOP war on workers, women, gays, immigrants and minorities isn't going to lead to improved electoral results in the future, most seem only too happy continuing to trying to drag America back to the often brutal 19th Century.  An op-ed in the Washington Post looks at the phenomenon.  Here are excerpts:

There is, unfortunately, another school of thought on the right that rejects adjusting to a new electorate and to circumstances very different from the ones that Ronald Reagan inherited in 1980. Strategies for future victories are based on a naked use of government power to alter the political playing field in a way that diminishes the political influence of groups likely to be hostile to the conservative agenda.

The tea party movement cast itself as an authentic grass-roots expression of democracy, and in some ways it was. But the conservative legislatures it swept into office in so many states in 2010 took decidedly anti-democratic actions aimed at reducing the size of the electorate through a variety of voter-suppression measures — hard-to-obtain voter IDs, shorter early-voting periods, new barriers to voter registration drives and long ballots that slowed the lines on Election Day.

Now comes Michigan’s new right-to-work law, passed Tuesday in a travesty of normal democratic deliberation. This effort to weaken unions would be problematic in any event. The moral case for unions is that they give bargaining strength to workers who would have far less capacity to improve their wages and benefits negotiating as individuals. Further gutting unions is the last thing we need to do at a time when the income gap is growing.

But beyond that, the way Gov. Rick Snyder (R) and the Republican Michigan Legislature rushed right-to-work through a lame-duck session was insidious. The anti-union crowd waited until after the election to pass it.

The political motivation here is obvious. Union families are the premier cross-racial Democratic constituency. Nationwide, President Obama carried union households by 18 points but non-union households by only one point — a “union gap” of 17 points. In Michigan, the union gap was an astonishing 32 points: Obama won union households 66 percent to 33 percent, the rest of the electorate by 50 percent to 49 percent.

But the most disturbing aspect of the Michigan power grab is what it says about where the conservative argument may go. Those willing to expand the appeal of conservatism by refreshing it will face opposition from those who would try to make new thinking unnecessary. They’d simply rig the rules to chip away at the political capacity of groups that don’t buy into conservative orthodoxy. 

Increasingly, I do not see how a truly moral person can be a part of today's GOP.  I guess I shouldn't be surprised, however, since no one is more lacking in true morality than the Christofascists in the GOP base who talk about moral values but are best defined by their contempt for and hatred of others.  

More Wednesday Male Beauty

Palmetto Queen, Lindsey Graham Bashes Gays

The hypocrisy of likely closeted GOP queens seems to have no limits.  A case in point, South Carolina's 57 year old,  totally not-gay, never been married U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham.   Isn't it funny how the loudest homophobes - think former Congressman Ed Schrock, former Senator Larry Craig, and of course Ted Haggard - always seem to be the ones caught soliciting or engaging in gay sex on the down-low or in public rest rooms.  A piece at The New Civil Rights Movement looks at the anti-gay bullshit spouted by the Palmetto Queen yesterday.  Here are highlights:

Republican U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham last night used polygamy and murder to define the boundaries of the “debate” on same-sex marriage, just as Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia used murder and bestiality to define the area of debate in which same-sex marriage should exist.

Invoking issues like murder, bestiality, and polygamy is offensive and wholly facetious, and ”facile,” as Piers Morgan responded. Senator Graham also blamed the media for the public’s embrace of marriage equality, and — when all was said and done — stated he believes the states should have the right to decide who marries and who does not, especially because in his home state of South Carolina, religion is the reason “we’re not going to change the definition of traditional marriage.”

Graham, who says the media paints LGBT people as funny, charming, and kind” — as if that’s problematic — says he doesn’t “hate,” he just feels “traditional marriage” is “best for society,” and challenged CNN host Piers Morgan to pass a constitutional amendment if he wants same-sex couples to be able to marry. Morgan attacked Senators Graham, McCain, and Lieberman as “unAmerican” for their views on marriage equality.

It’s time for more people to have the good sense to take the tone and approach of Princeton freshman Duncan Hosie, who this week won accolades for personally speaking  up — in the same room — to Scalia for his usage of murder, bestiality, and other inappropriate references when discussing the right of same-sex couple to civil marriage.

One can only hope that like Schrock, Craig and Haggard,  Graham will ultimately be "outed" and his rank hypocrisy exposed for all to see.

Outside of the GOP Bubble, Americans Believe Obama Has a Mandate

The delusions that continue to exist in the fantasy world inside the GOP bubble are amazing. Take for instance the House Republican's belief that they have a popular mandate to oppose the Obama/Democrat tax and budget proposals.  In the real world, a new Bloomberg survey finds that a majority of Americans, in fact, believe the exact opposite of the alternate reality within the GOP its Tea Party affiliate.  Indeed, Obama's overall approval numbers have increased and some 65% of Americans believe that Obama has a clear mandate.  Here are some highlights from Bloomberg:

President Barack Obama won the public argument over taxes so decisively that almost half of Republicans now say he has an election mandate to raise rates on the rich. 

Majorities of about 2-to-1 also read the election results as an endorsement of Obama’s pledge to protect Social Security and Medicare benefits, according to a Bloomberg National Poll of 1,000 adults conducted Dec. 7-10. 

The president’s job approval strengthened to 53 percent from 49 percent in September. The last time he enjoyed that level of public backing was December 2009, when his job approval was 54 percent. 

The combined findings give Obama “an opportunity to negotiate from a position of strength,” said Ann Selzer, the founder of Selzer & Co., a Des Moines, Iowa-based firm that conducted the poll. “This is what the public is saying he was elected to do.” 

The election “was basically a referendum that wealthy people could and would pay more,” said poll respondent Jim Johnson, 66, of Littleton, Colorado, a retired telecommunications executive and a Republican who voted for Mitt Romney. “It was perfectly clear. That was Obama’s stance throughout the election.” 

Poll respondent Gerald Watts, 75, of Lake Quivira, Kansas, a retired engineer and another Republican who voted for Romney, read the election results the same way.  “Every time we listened to him on TV, he’d start talking about raising taxes on the rich -- every news conference, every time he went up in front of a group,” said Watts. “He didn’t want to talk about anything else.” 

Even so, the differences among congressional Republicans on taxes, with Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee the latest to break from his leaders to call for raising rates on high earners, reflect a division among the party ranks. Fifty-three percent of Republicans say the election didn’t give Obama a mandate on taxes.

Public sentiment also strengthens the president’s position on entitlements. A 64 percent majority says Obama can claim a mandate to protect Social Security from “substantial budget cuts” and 62 percent see a voter directive to prevent “fundamental change” in Medicare.  

A 57 percent majority of Americans say voters gave a go- ahead on an overhaul of immigration law to provide a path to legal status for illegal immigrants, one of the administration’s priorities in its second term. Fifty-eight percent of political independents see an immigration mandate. 

Republican respondents’ differ, with 63 percent rejecting the idea that Obama’s victory implies public support for legislation enabling legal status for undocumented immigrants.

Andrew Sullivan has telling remarks on the GOP's refusal to accept reality:

The longer the Congressional Republicans remain in denial about this, the more isolated they will become.  .   .   .   .   These two men[the one's quoted in Bloomberg, above]  are smack in the middle of the GOP's current demographics. And, unlike the foam-flecked mouth-pieces on Fox, they are admirably civic in their understanding of politics. Listen to them, Mr Speaker. And lead.