From TransYouth Family Advocates:
Today, TransYouth Family Advocates (TYFA) launches the Amethyst Ribbon Campaign, an awareness project to battle suicide among transgender youth.
The Amethyst Ribbon Campaign was established as part of the Ian Benson Project. Ian was a 16-year old affirmed male who took his own life in October 2007. Ian’s mother, TYFA’s secretary/treasurer, hopes to help other children and families avoid the pain and struggles that can lead to suicide among trans youth.
“Transgender” (or the abbreviation “trans”) describes people whose gender identity or expression differs from expectations for their physical sex characteristics or sex assigned at birth. Recent estimates conclude approximately 1 in 500 people seek surgical reassignment during their lives, with many more expressing their gender in other ways. Studies suggest that among gay, lesbian, bisexual, and trans youth, 50% end up ideating or attempting suicide before adulthood.
TYFA President Shannon Garcia described the symbolism of the Amethyst Ribbon Campaign. “The brilliant violet color of amethyst is also a blend of the pink and blue traditionally used to designate the male/female binary. Amethyst is a precious gem, chosen to represent how precious trans children are to their families and friends.”
TYFA Executive Director Kim Pearson said, “Ian was our friend, he was the friend of our children, he was part of our hearts and the hearts of his family. To keep Ian’s memory alive, we will help other families and children by telling the stories of our children and families, to reach out to the other Ian’s of the world. We can help them and their families find the answers. In honor of Ian and all transgender people, we ask that you share this message and vision.”
TransYouth Family Advocates is a coalition of parents, friends and caring adults dedicated to educating and raising public awareness about the medical and cultural challenges faced by children with gender variant and gender questioning identities and the families who love them.
To learn more about the Amethyst Ribbon Campaign, please visit the TYFA website at www.imatyfa.org or call 1-888-IMA-TYFA. The site includes information and resources for trans youth and their families.
November 07, 2007
Gay Population Exploding in Red States
From PinkNews
An American sexual orientation think-tank has released a report that reveals a "gay demographic explosion" in some of America's most conservative regions.
It was found that the number of same-sex couples in the United States has quadrupled since 1990, about 21 times higher than increase of the population as a whole.
The biggest growth came in regions the study termed "Southern," "Midwest" and "Mountain," including Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arizona and Utah.
The conservative regions all showed above-average growth in the numbers of same-sex couples since 1990, while the liberal regions all showed below-average growth.
Similarly, state recognition of same-sex unions was found to be inversely related to the rate of migration.
States that legislated same-sex civil unions or marriage between 2000 and 2006 showed a below-average increase (23 percent, compared to the national rate of 31 percent).
States where same-sex marriage was prohibited during those years experienced an above-average (37 per cent) increase, the states where marriage bans were enacted via voter referendum showing the highest increase of all (41 per cent).
The researchers put the increase down to greater acceptance of LGBT couples nationwide, more LGBT people choosing to couple and co-habit, and more couples moving to the suburbs, in migration patterns that differ from the nation as a whole.
This editorial from the Los Angeles Times says this is a natural result of more acceptance of gays in American society.
Gates' research on U.S. Census data drives home a point that the gay vanguard has been wrestling with for a while: The hedonistic, transgressive, radical ethos (and stereotype) that once characterized gay culture doesn't represent reality anymore. The decline of urban coastal gay communities, the increase in the gay population in the interior U.S. and the overall diversification of the gay population are facts. What's more, Gates argues, these trends are a function of the growing acceptance of homosexuality among the American public.
Acceptance? Really? Has Gates forgotten about the 45 states that have laws or constitutional amendments barring same-sex marriage, or the anti-gay discrimination bill that is stalled in Congress and faces opposition from the White House?
Not at all. There is, he says, a vocal, virulent -- and sometimes violent -- anti-gay movement, but it doesn't negate decades of opinion surveys that show a marked increase in tolerance in most Americans' attitudes toward gays and lesbians. In 1998, for example, a Gallup poll found that only 33% of Americans thought that homosexual relations between consenting adults should be legal. By 2007, that figure had risen to 59%.
Growing acceptance of homosexuality means a decline in social stigma associated with same-sex relationships, and a consequent shift in the politics of coming out. The more people come out, the more accepting people are around them, and the more accepting the public becomes, the more people come out.
More and more people are realizing that GLBT people are just that--people. No matter how complicated homophobes try to make things, it reaslly is that simple.
An American sexual orientation think-tank has released a report that reveals a "gay demographic explosion" in some of America's most conservative regions.
It was found that the number of same-sex couples in the United States has quadrupled since 1990, about 21 times higher than increase of the population as a whole.
The biggest growth came in regions the study termed "Southern," "Midwest" and "Mountain," including Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arizona and Utah.
The conservative regions all showed above-average growth in the numbers of same-sex couples since 1990, while the liberal regions all showed below-average growth.
Similarly, state recognition of same-sex unions was found to be inversely related to the rate of migration.
States that legislated same-sex civil unions or marriage between 2000 and 2006 showed a below-average increase (23 percent, compared to the national rate of 31 percent).
States where same-sex marriage was prohibited during those years experienced an above-average (37 per cent) increase, the states where marriage bans were enacted via voter referendum showing the highest increase of all (41 per cent).
The researchers put the increase down to greater acceptance of LGBT couples nationwide, more LGBT people choosing to couple and co-habit, and more couples moving to the suburbs, in migration patterns that differ from the nation as a whole.
This editorial from the Los Angeles Times says this is a natural result of more acceptance of gays in American society.
Gates' research on U.S. Census data drives home a point that the gay vanguard has been wrestling with for a while: The hedonistic, transgressive, radical ethos (and stereotype) that once characterized gay culture doesn't represent reality anymore. The decline of urban coastal gay communities, the increase in the gay population in the interior U.S. and the overall diversification of the gay population are facts. What's more, Gates argues, these trends are a function of the growing acceptance of homosexuality among the American public.
Acceptance? Really? Has Gates forgotten about the 45 states that have laws or constitutional amendments barring same-sex marriage, or the anti-gay discrimination bill that is stalled in Congress and faces opposition from the White House?
Not at all. There is, he says, a vocal, virulent -- and sometimes violent -- anti-gay movement, but it doesn't negate decades of opinion surveys that show a marked increase in tolerance in most Americans' attitudes toward gays and lesbians. In 1998, for example, a Gallup poll found that only 33% of Americans thought that homosexual relations between consenting adults should be legal. By 2007, that figure had risen to 59%.
Growing acceptance of homosexuality means a decline in social stigma associated with same-sex relationships, and a consequent shift in the politics of coming out. The more people come out, the more accepting people are around them, and the more accepting the public becomes, the more people come out.
More and more people are realizing that GLBT people are just that--people. No matter how complicated homophobes try to make things, it reaslly is that simple.
November 06, 2007
LGBT Community Split on ENDA Strategy
What once appeared as if it could be a major victory for the LGBT community is instead becoming a major wedge issue. The exclusion of transgender people from the version of the bill that will likely be voted on later this week has caused LGBT activist groups to chose sides and perhaps burn some bridges. From 365gay.com.
The move to remove gender identity from the bill infuriated a large number of rights groups and several committee Democrats, including presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich refused to support the measure without the inclusion of protections for trans people.
Following the vote Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) proposed an amendment that would reinstate gender identity and secured the support of House leadership to introduce it when ENDA reaches the floor. (story)
Tuesday, however, it appeared there are not the votes to pass an all inclusive version of ENDA and in an open letter to members of Congress, HRC, the NAACP, the National Education Association, the National Employment Lawyers Association, the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the American Federation of State, County, Municipal Employees and a number of other groups said they would support ENDA without gender identity.
The letter says that it is "beyond dispute that transgender employees are particularly in need of those protections. They face far more pervasive and severe bias in the workplace and society as a whole."
But it goes on to say: "As civil rights organizations, however, we are no strangers to painful compromise in the quest for equal protection of the law for all Americans. From the Civil Rights Act of 1957 through the almost-passed District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007, legislative progress in the area of civil and human rights has almost always been incremental in nature. With each significant step toward progress, the civil rights community has also faced difficult and sometimes even agonizing tradeoffs. We have always recognized, however, that each legislative breakthrough has paved the way for additional progress in the future.
"With respect to ENDA, we take the same view.
I am on record here as agreeing with the above position, a belief I have not changed.
I have seen the opinion offered that, since there appears to be no chance that President Bush would sign this bill with or without the transgender provision, they might as well include it to make a statment of solidarity.
While I understand that logic, I have a hard time accepting what to me would be an exercise if futility. If there is a chance of getting something passed, do it. If not, work harder and lobby longer until there is enough support to pass it.
That's what I've heard as the reasoning for withdrawing the transgender provision from ENDA.
If congressional and LGBT activist leadership have done this for no legal benefit, I believe they not only won't have moved LGBT equality forward, the division caused within the community will have set it back.
The move to remove gender identity from the bill infuriated a large number of rights groups and several committee Democrats, including presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich refused to support the measure without the inclusion of protections for trans people.
Following the vote Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) proposed an amendment that would reinstate gender identity and secured the support of House leadership to introduce it when ENDA reaches the floor. (story)
Tuesday, however, it appeared there are not the votes to pass an all inclusive version of ENDA and in an open letter to members of Congress, HRC, the NAACP, the National Education Association, the National Employment Lawyers Association, the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the American Federation of State, County, Municipal Employees and a number of other groups said they would support ENDA without gender identity.
The letter says that it is "beyond dispute that transgender employees are particularly in need of those protections. They face far more pervasive and severe bias in the workplace and society as a whole."
But it goes on to say: "As civil rights organizations, however, we are no strangers to painful compromise in the quest for equal protection of the law for all Americans. From the Civil Rights Act of 1957 through the almost-passed District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007, legislative progress in the area of civil and human rights has almost always been incremental in nature. With each significant step toward progress, the civil rights community has also faced difficult and sometimes even agonizing tradeoffs. We have always recognized, however, that each legislative breakthrough has paved the way for additional progress in the future.
"With respect to ENDA, we take the same view.
I am on record here as agreeing with the above position, a belief I have not changed.
I have seen the opinion offered that, since there appears to be no chance that President Bush would sign this bill with or without the transgender provision, they might as well include it to make a statment of solidarity.
While I understand that logic, I have a hard time accepting what to me would be an exercise if futility. If there is a chance of getting something passed, do it. If not, work harder and lobby longer until there is enough support to pass it.
That's what I've heard as the reasoning for withdrawing the transgender provision from ENDA.
If congressional and LGBT activist leadership have done this for no legal benefit, I believe they not only won't have moved LGBT equality forward, the division caused within the community will have set it back.
November 05, 2007
I Love It When This Happens
I love it when publicly homophobic people have to deal with a gay child in their own home. That's the situation in this story from PinkNews:
The daughter of a vehemently anti-gay activist has revealed that she is a lesbian.
Claudia Contrada, whose mother Amy Contrada forms one half of the US hate group MassResistance, has stood up for young people struggling with homophobia in their homes or communities.
In 2005, Mrs Contrada attended a conference which advocated sending gay teenagers to conversion camps.
MassResistance is a homophobic organisation in Massachusetts, which has campaigned zealously against all pro-gay developments since its inception in 1995.
Describing her relationship with her mother, Claudia Contrada admits that "It's difficult."
"I am a lesbian, which my mom still does not get. She just says that I am confused.
Hopefully Mrs. Contrada loves her daughter enough to see through homophobia and learn a lesson about acceptance.
The daughter of a vehemently anti-gay activist has revealed that she is a lesbian.
Claudia Contrada, whose mother Amy Contrada forms one half of the US hate group MassResistance, has stood up for young people struggling with homophobia in their homes or communities.
In 2005, Mrs Contrada attended a conference which advocated sending gay teenagers to conversion camps.
MassResistance is a homophobic organisation in Massachusetts, which has campaigned zealously against all pro-gay developments since its inception in 1995.
Describing her relationship with her mother, Claudia Contrada admits that "It's difficult."
"I am a lesbian, which my mom still does not get. She just says that I am confused.
Hopefully Mrs. Contrada loves her daughter enough to see through homophobia and learn a lesson about acceptance.
Yes, I Do Have a Face
In an effort to make this blog a bit more personal, I'm posting a couple of photos to show you what I actually look like. I haven't been hiding, I just haven't fooled with uploading any pictures until now. The one on the left is of the beautiful Pastor Brenda and myself prior to our Christmas Eve worship service last year. I'm the one with the mustache. She loves me in purple, which was a primary color at our wedding (black and purple, Baltimore Ravens colors btw).
On the right is Pastor Brenda and I at the recent PFLAG national convention. I've grown a beard since then. I was previously hesitant to do so since I knew it would come out mostly white, and as I approach my 49th birthday next month, I didn't want to make myself look any older (coloring my hair, mustache, or beard is NOT an option I would consider). During a vacation we took in August, I had reached the point where I was comfortable enough to just let it grow, and I'm actually pretty happy with it. The knuckleheads I work with (I say that with love) now call me Big Foot, I suspect since none of them know how to spell Sasquatch.
Lesbian & Gay Recruiting Guide Available in the U.K.
American television likes to copy ideas from across the pond in Great Britian, and here's another idea that's worth brining over the continent. From PinkNews
The Labour and Conservative parties are among the organisations and businesses featured in the latest Stonewall guide for gay and lesbian job seekers.
The third Starting Out guide was launched last night at the University of London Students Union (ULU).
Representatives of many of the companies listed in the guide attended, as did LGB students from across the country.
At 322 pages, this year's Starting Out is the biggest so far, and a speaker at the launch expressed the hope that in years to come it will be the size of a phone book.
Police forces, the Royal Navy, the Royal Air Force, banks, government departments and agencies, fire and rescue services, local authorities, media companies, well-known high street retailers and third sector organisations all feature in the guide.
Ben Summerskill, speaking at last night's launch event, thanked ULU for their continued support and told the audience that in his student days meetings for gay people could not be held in students unions because it was too dangerous.
"This year's guide is remarkable," he said.
"We did a calculation yesterday that the companies and public sector organisations that feature in this year's guide between them employ more than 10% of the UK workforce.
"That means if you are young and lesbian or gay, you can have a real ambition to work for an employer who will value and nurture you in the years to come.
Valuing and nurturing gay and lesbian people is an idea that is gradually catching on.
You can view the guide here.
Stonewall's site is here.
The Labour and Conservative parties are among the organisations and businesses featured in the latest Stonewall guide for gay and lesbian job seekers.
The third Starting Out guide was launched last night at the University of London Students Union (ULU).
Representatives of many of the companies listed in the guide attended, as did LGB students from across the country.
At 322 pages, this year's Starting Out is the biggest so far, and a speaker at the launch expressed the hope that in years to come it will be the size of a phone book.
Police forces, the Royal Navy, the Royal Air Force, banks, government departments and agencies, fire and rescue services, local authorities, media companies, well-known high street retailers and third sector organisations all feature in the guide.
Ben Summerskill, speaking at last night's launch event, thanked ULU for their continued support and told the audience that in his student days meetings for gay people could not be held in students unions because it was too dangerous.
"This year's guide is remarkable," he said.
"We did a calculation yesterday that the companies and public sector organisations that feature in this year's guide between them employ more than 10% of the UK workforce.
"That means if you are young and lesbian or gay, you can have a real ambition to work for an employer who will value and nurture you in the years to come.
Valuing and nurturing gay and lesbian people is an idea that is gradually catching on.
You can view the guide here.
Stonewall's site is here.
November 04, 2007
Two Views From the Right on The Priority Given to Homophobia
Matt Barber, right-wing mouthpiece for the Concerned Women of America (I wonder why they couldn't they find a woman spokesperson, but I digress) and his somewhat more moderate brother Jared, debated the priority given to the perceived sinfulness of homosexuality. I'll post a couple of excerpts, first from Jared, then from Matt, and follow with my comments.
Jared:Christians, as a whole, focus too much on the homosexual issue alone. They attack it solely, denounce it, and live whichever way they please. Adultery, fornication, racism, pride, jealousy, selfish ambition, drunkenness; all of these immoral acts take to the background in view of homosexuality, and so we as Christians are set up as anti-gay instead of anti-immorality. We need to end our own hypocrisy, all of us, I as much as any, so that we can more blamelessly broach this subject and others.
Matt: Unlike the sin of homosexuality, the other sins you cite -- the sins of adultery, fornication, racism, pride, jealousy, selfish ambition and drunkenness -- do not have the benefit of a tremendously powerful and prosperous lobby which is blindly supported by people in positions of political influence, and other leftists in media and elsewhere who have been duped by the crafty and disingenuous rhetoric of "tolerance" and "diversity."
Proponents, practitioners and enablers of homosexual sin demand that we all renounce God's express condemnation of such conduct and embrace this spiritually and physically destructive behavior as virtuous -- as a wholly equal, alternative sexual "orientation." They believe that the only thing objectively immoral is to reckon there are things objectively immoral. Yet, when others find freedom from the homosexual lifestyle -- as untold thousands have done through the loving and redemptive power of Jesus Christ -- those former homosexuals are maliciously maligned for committing a betrayal most immoral. Like that popular hotel in California, "You can check out anytime you want, but you can never leave."
While of course disagreeing with the notion of homosexuality being inherently sinful, Jared offered a well balance view, calling out fundamentalists for ignoring their own sins and those of ones who believe as they do at the expense of dumping all their guilt on homosexuals.
Matt, of course, couldn't let that stand, offering the ludicrous, lame excuse of focusing on homosexuality essentially because it has a powerful political lobby. The countless thousands he refers to as finding "freedom from the homosexual lifestyle" are for the most part also nameless. Beyond the cottage industry of "ex-gays" who make a living holding seminars and being interviewed, there are few documented situations of people actually having their orientation changed. There are a larger number of celebate or delusional homosexuals who have chosen, mostly out of guilt or conviction by people like Matt Barber, to deny how God made them and live as a heterosexual.
Matt Barber's weak rationalization, assuming that's the best he could come up with, demonstrates that there is truly no good reason for the right wingers to jump all over gay issues, other than to divert attention from their own sins and shortcomings.
They may think they are coving up in their churches and right-wing organizations, but God knows who is a hypocrite and who isn't.
Jared:Christians, as a whole, focus too much on the homosexual issue alone. They attack it solely, denounce it, and live whichever way they please. Adultery, fornication, racism, pride, jealousy, selfish ambition, drunkenness; all of these immoral acts take to the background in view of homosexuality, and so we as Christians are set up as anti-gay instead of anti-immorality. We need to end our own hypocrisy, all of us, I as much as any, so that we can more blamelessly broach this subject and others.
Matt: Unlike the sin of homosexuality, the other sins you cite -- the sins of adultery, fornication, racism, pride, jealousy, selfish ambition and drunkenness -- do not have the benefit of a tremendously powerful and prosperous lobby which is blindly supported by people in positions of political influence, and other leftists in media and elsewhere who have been duped by the crafty and disingenuous rhetoric of "tolerance" and "diversity."
Proponents, practitioners and enablers of homosexual sin demand that we all renounce God's express condemnation of such conduct and embrace this spiritually and physically destructive behavior as virtuous -- as a wholly equal, alternative sexual "orientation." They believe that the only thing objectively immoral is to reckon there are things objectively immoral. Yet, when others find freedom from the homosexual lifestyle -- as untold thousands have done through the loving and redemptive power of Jesus Christ -- those former homosexuals are maliciously maligned for committing a betrayal most immoral. Like that popular hotel in California, "You can check out anytime you want, but you can never leave."
While of course disagreeing with the notion of homosexuality being inherently sinful, Jared offered a well balance view, calling out fundamentalists for ignoring their own sins and those of ones who believe as they do at the expense of dumping all their guilt on homosexuals.
Matt, of course, couldn't let that stand, offering the ludicrous, lame excuse of focusing on homosexuality essentially because it has a powerful political lobby. The countless thousands he refers to as finding "freedom from the homosexual lifestyle" are for the most part also nameless. Beyond the cottage industry of "ex-gays" who make a living holding seminars and being interviewed, there are few documented situations of people actually having their orientation changed. There are a larger number of celebate or delusional homosexuals who have chosen, mostly out of guilt or conviction by people like Matt Barber, to deny how God made them and live as a heterosexual.
Matt Barber's weak rationalization, assuming that's the best he could come up with, demonstrates that there is truly no good reason for the right wingers to jump all over gay issues, other than to divert attention from their own sins and shortcomings.
They may think they are coving up in their churches and right-wing organizations, but God knows who is a hypocrite and who isn't.
Black GLBT Forum in Boston Draws Mostly Whites
Boston has a reputation of being a racially divided city, but this story from Bay Windows has to be discouraging for those trying to get the African-American community more involved in GLBT equality issues.
At the start of a town hall meeting at Boston’s Club Café to discuss the relationship between the marriage movement and the black community, state Sen. Dianne Wilkerson wasted no time in pointing out the elephant in the room: While the town hall meeting featured a panel of black speakers and a black moderator, the 25-person crowd in the audience was overwhelmingly white. Wilkerson said the fact that so few people of color turned out for the event shows how much work the marriage equality movement must do going forward to reach out to communities of color. She referred to remarks made earlier in the evening by MassEquality board president David Wilson, who is black, that there had long been a perception by many in the community that the marriage movement was a white movement.
"I just want you to know that I think that it is not unusual that the audience makeup is what it is precisely because of what David has said. And so no one should take this as a sign of discouragement as much as affirmation of the work that we have to do," said Wilkerson.
She added that while marriage equality is an important topic, it is not the most pressing issue facing the black community in Boston."
But I do think that there are still many people of color, particularly in the LGBT community, who are still living their life and all of the issues that we have to deal with every day, and so an invitation to talk about this may not sound like something at the top of the list. It doesn’t mean that it’s not important. It just means there are a whole lot of other things that are on that plate," said Wilkerson.
I certainly don't blame Sen. Wilkerson for trying to put a positive spin on this, but this has to be disappointing. The Senator is right, they appears to be a LOT of work ahead to get the African-American community seriously engaged in working toward LGBT equality.
At the start of a town hall meeting at Boston’s Club Café to discuss the relationship between the marriage movement and the black community, state Sen. Dianne Wilkerson wasted no time in pointing out the elephant in the room: While the town hall meeting featured a panel of black speakers and a black moderator, the 25-person crowd in the audience was overwhelmingly white. Wilkerson said the fact that so few people of color turned out for the event shows how much work the marriage equality movement must do going forward to reach out to communities of color. She referred to remarks made earlier in the evening by MassEquality board president David Wilson, who is black, that there had long been a perception by many in the community that the marriage movement was a white movement.
"I just want you to know that I think that it is not unusual that the audience makeup is what it is precisely because of what David has said. And so no one should take this as a sign of discouragement as much as affirmation of the work that we have to do," said Wilkerson.
She added that while marriage equality is an important topic, it is not the most pressing issue facing the black community in Boston."
But I do think that there are still many people of color, particularly in the LGBT community, who are still living their life and all of the issues that we have to deal with every day, and so an invitation to talk about this may not sound like something at the top of the list. It doesn’t mean that it’s not important. It just means there are a whole lot of other things that are on that plate," said Wilkerson.
I certainly don't blame Sen. Wilkerson for trying to put a positive spin on this, but this has to be disappointing. The Senator is right, they appears to be a LOT of work ahead to get the African-American community seriously engaged in working toward LGBT equality.
November 03, 2007
Should Christians Vote for Non-Christians?
Here is one opinion that they should not from the AFA's One News Now:
Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney won the endorsement Monday of Senator Judd Gregg (R-New Hampshire). New Hampshire is a key primary state where Romney is currently leading. Romney has also garnered the endorsements of several high-profile evangelical Christians, including Dr. Bob Jones III, Mark DeMoss and Jay Sekulow.
Former Republican National Committee official John Lofton is co-host of The American View, a weekly radio show syndicated by Radio America. He contends Romney and other non-Christian candidates fail to meet scriptural requirements for men who occupy God-ordained civil government offices.
"This is ridiculous on its face to say that Christians can vote for non-Christians. It's Christ denial, its something that's very serious," he argues. "And in fact, in a way things have gotten even worse by saying that religion doesn't matter. Well, that's the same as saying, whether they know it or not, that Christ doesn't matter. He is the King of kings, he is the Lord of lords -- which means Lord over politics, and no Christian can be complicit in having an unbeliever, who God calls wicked, rule over us."
He says by voting for a candidate like Romney, whose faith teaches that Jesus is the spiritual brother of Lucifer, Christians are in effect putting their desire to win an election and defeat Hillary Clinton above their commitment to God's Word. Lofton also recently criticized National Right to Life founder Dr. Jack Willke for endorsing Romney even though the Mormon church teaches that "some exceptional circumstances may justify an abortion," including rape, incest, fetal deformities, and threats to "the life or health of the mother."
If I am voting for a pastor at my church, I want to have strong assurances that the individual is a Christian, but why does it matter so much in politics?
Beyond the insipid implication from this person that all Christians should be Republicans, there are recent examples that professing Christians don't make good presidents.
Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush were both very open about stating their beliefs in God, and by most objective accounts both men were incompetent presidents. Unquestionably, the United States was worse off when he left office than when he entered, and it seems certain the same situation will prevail when Bush mercifully completes his second term.
While a person's faith is critical in establishing their value system and, by extension, how they will approach issues of public policy, don't we essentially have to take them at their word regarding their Christianity? Just because someone professes to be a Christian doesn't mean they actually are one. Ultimately, only God knows with absolute certainty the status of a person's salvation. Voters can get a good inkling when a politician stands by their body of work and what they say, but there are also plenty of examples where those changed without warning once someone got elected.
Since we can't truly be sure what a politician stands for, especially in these days of focus groups and sound bites, the idea of making a candidate pass some type of Christian litums test seems quite shaky at best, outright foolish at worst.
Here's a thought--why don't we vote for candidates who show leadersihp and the possibility of being competent legislators.
You know, let's break the mold and try something different.
Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney won the endorsement Monday of Senator Judd Gregg (R-New Hampshire). New Hampshire is a key primary state where Romney is currently leading. Romney has also garnered the endorsements of several high-profile evangelical Christians, including Dr. Bob Jones III, Mark DeMoss and Jay Sekulow.
Former Republican National Committee official John Lofton is co-host of The American View, a weekly radio show syndicated by Radio America. He contends Romney and other non-Christian candidates fail to meet scriptural requirements for men who occupy God-ordained civil government offices.
"This is ridiculous on its face to say that Christians can vote for non-Christians. It's Christ denial, its something that's very serious," he argues. "And in fact, in a way things have gotten even worse by saying that religion doesn't matter. Well, that's the same as saying, whether they know it or not, that Christ doesn't matter. He is the King of kings, he is the Lord of lords -- which means Lord over politics, and no Christian can be complicit in having an unbeliever, who God calls wicked, rule over us."
He says by voting for a candidate like Romney, whose faith teaches that Jesus is the spiritual brother of Lucifer, Christians are in effect putting their desire to win an election and defeat Hillary Clinton above their commitment to God's Word. Lofton also recently criticized National Right to Life founder Dr. Jack Willke for endorsing Romney even though the Mormon church teaches that "some exceptional circumstances may justify an abortion," including rape, incest, fetal deformities, and threats to "the life or health of the mother."
If I am voting for a pastor at my church, I want to have strong assurances that the individual is a Christian, but why does it matter so much in politics?
Beyond the insipid implication from this person that all Christians should be Republicans, there are recent examples that professing Christians don't make good presidents.
Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush were both very open about stating their beliefs in God, and by most objective accounts both men were incompetent presidents. Unquestionably, the United States was worse off when he left office than when he entered, and it seems certain the same situation will prevail when Bush mercifully completes his second term.
While a person's faith is critical in establishing their value system and, by extension, how they will approach issues of public policy, don't we essentially have to take them at their word regarding their Christianity? Just because someone professes to be a Christian doesn't mean they actually are one. Ultimately, only God knows with absolute certainty the status of a person's salvation. Voters can get a good inkling when a politician stands by their body of work and what they say, but there are also plenty of examples where those changed without warning once someone got elected.
Since we can't truly be sure what a politician stands for, especially in these days of focus groups and sound bites, the idea of making a candidate pass some type of Christian litums test seems quite shaky at best, outright foolish at worst.
Here's a thought--why don't we vote for candidates who show leadersihp and the possibility of being competent legislators.
You know, let's break the mold and try something different.
November 02, 2007
Study Shows That Equality In the Workplace is a "Win-Win"
This results of this study just released by the Rockway Institute confirms what common sense should tell us--fear of discrimination in the workplace is bad while affirmation and equality is good:
A questionnaire study of more than 500 gay, lesbian and bisexual employees across the U.S. has found that “fears about disclosing a gay identity at work had an overwhelmingly negative relationship with their career and workplace experiences and with their psychological well-being.”
For those working in what they perceived as a non-supportive environment, the costs of non-disclosure were significant. “Those who feared more negative consequences to disclosure reported less job satisfaction, organizational commitment, satisfaction with opportunities for promotion, career commitment, and organization-based self-esteem and greater turnover intentions than those who feared less negative consequences,” wrote the researchers. “Those who feared more negative consequences reported more (job) role ambiguity, more (job) role conflict, and less workplace participation than those who feared less negative consequences,” the report continued. “LGB employees who feared more negative consequences also reported greater psychological strain than those who feared less negative consequences.” Psychological strain was described as stress-related symptoms experienced on the job, work-related depression, and work-related irritation.
“These findings fit with other research showing that more accepting work environments are associated with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) employees being healthier and more productive. The research also provides some additional facts concerning the need for public policies protecting against job discrimination,” said Robert-Jay Green, executive director of the Rockway Institute, a national center for LGBT research and public policy affiliated with Alliant International University. “Employees who are not afraid of being fired or held back from promotion because of their same-sex orientations are psychologically freer to put their full creative energies into work. This, in turn, saves employers’ time and money. It a win-win for all concerned.”
This should be a "duh" issue, but given the intensity of right-wing opposition to ENDA (the Employer Non-Discrimination Act currently before Congress), some hard data affirming these points is most welcome.
A questionnaire study of more than 500 gay, lesbian and bisexual employees across the U.S. has found that “fears about disclosing a gay identity at work had an overwhelmingly negative relationship with their career and workplace experiences and with their psychological well-being.”
For those working in what they perceived as a non-supportive environment, the costs of non-disclosure were significant. “Those who feared more negative consequences to disclosure reported less job satisfaction, organizational commitment, satisfaction with opportunities for promotion, career commitment, and organization-based self-esteem and greater turnover intentions than those who feared less negative consequences,” wrote the researchers. “Those who feared more negative consequences reported more (job) role ambiguity, more (job) role conflict, and less workplace participation than those who feared less negative consequences,” the report continued. “LGB employees who feared more negative consequences also reported greater psychological strain than those who feared less negative consequences.” Psychological strain was described as stress-related symptoms experienced on the job, work-related depression, and work-related irritation.
“These findings fit with other research showing that more accepting work environments are associated with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) employees being healthier and more productive. The research also provides some additional facts concerning the need for public policies protecting against job discrimination,” said Robert-Jay Green, executive director of the Rockway Institute, a national center for LGBT research and public policy affiliated with Alliant International University. “Employees who are not afraid of being fired or held back from promotion because of their same-sex orientations are psychologically freer to put their full creative energies into work. This, in turn, saves employers’ time and money. It a win-win for all concerned.”
This should be a "duh" issue, but given the intensity of right-wing opposition to ENDA (the Employer Non-Discrimination Act currently before Congress), some hard data affirming these points is most welcome.
Should We Engage in Debate or Try to Silence Opponents
Here's a convincing arguement for engagement.
From 365gay.com
Such engagement would have two potential benefits. First, it might help convince the opponents themselves—even if slowly and gradually. Second, it might help convince the fence-sitters who are watching, since they would receive “the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error” (in the words of the great liberal theorist John Stuart Mill). The more we confront the opposition head-on, the more obvious their fallacies become. That’s why I’m willing to travel the country with someone from Focus on the Family addressing the same bad arguments over and over again.
It was the hope for such engagement that led me to interrupt the Q&A in Baton Rouge to plead for some audience opposition. “Any critical questions for me? Please?” I asked no fewer than three times. It felt like announcing “last call” at the bar: “Last call…last call for traditionalists…” Finally, a woman took me up on my challenge—sort of:
“I’m a religious conservative,” she began gently. “And I appreciate your kindness to Glenn and to us. But I haven’t spoken up because I feel a lot of hostility from the audience. I think more of us would show up and speak up if we didn’t feel like we would automatically be shouted down.” She didn’t offer any question—just that observation.
I was both impressed and surprised—impressed by her courage in speaking against the (immediate) tide, and surprised that she found the audience hostile. I could recall no anger or viciousness from the various questioners. But since they were on my side, perhaps I simply failed to notice.
Her remarks spotlighted an important distinction: it’s one thing to silence your opponents; it’s quite another to convince them. And sometimes—perhaps often—silencing is done at the expense of convincing.
The social pressure that makes certain views “taboo” has its uses. But political reality indicates that it’s not yet time to halt the conversation over same-sex marriage—certainly not in Rhinelander or Baton Rouge. Strange as it sounds, we may sometimes need to work at making people more comfortable—not less—in voicing their opposition to us.
From 365gay.com
Such engagement would have two potential benefits. First, it might help convince the opponents themselves—even if slowly and gradually. Second, it might help convince the fence-sitters who are watching, since they would receive “the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error” (in the words of the great liberal theorist John Stuart Mill). The more we confront the opposition head-on, the more obvious their fallacies become. That’s why I’m willing to travel the country with someone from Focus on the Family addressing the same bad arguments over and over again.
It was the hope for such engagement that led me to interrupt the Q&A in Baton Rouge to plead for some audience opposition. “Any critical questions for me? Please?” I asked no fewer than three times. It felt like announcing “last call” at the bar: “Last call…last call for traditionalists…” Finally, a woman took me up on my challenge—sort of:
“I’m a religious conservative,” she began gently. “And I appreciate your kindness to Glenn and to us. But I haven’t spoken up because I feel a lot of hostility from the audience. I think more of us would show up and speak up if we didn’t feel like we would automatically be shouted down.” She didn’t offer any question—just that observation.
I was both impressed and surprised—impressed by her courage in speaking against the (immediate) tide, and surprised that she found the audience hostile. I could recall no anger or viciousness from the various questioners. But since they were on my side, perhaps I simply failed to notice.
Her remarks spotlighted an important distinction: it’s one thing to silence your opponents; it’s quite another to convince them. And sometimes—perhaps often—silencing is done at the expense of convincing.
The social pressure that makes certain views “taboo” has its uses. But political reality indicates that it’s not yet time to halt the conversation over same-sex marriage—certainly not in Rhinelander or Baton Rouge. Strange as it sounds, we may sometimes need to work at making people more comfortable—not less—in voicing their opposition to us.
November 01, 2007
Methodists Allow Transgender Minister to Stay in Pulpit
From the Christian Post:
A transgender minister is allowed to remain pastor of a Baltimore congregation, the United Methodist Church's highest council announced Tuesday.
The Judicial Council's ruling affirmed a decision by Baltimore-Washington Bishop John R. Schol last spring who reappointed the Rev. Drew Phoenix to St. John's of Baltimore City after the transgender minister underwent surgery and hormone therapy to become a male. Phoenix was formerly the Rev. Ann Gordon who had led the church for five years.
Local clergy in the Baltimore-Washington Conference had appealed Schol's decision to the United Methodist Judicial Council amid opposition. While the United Methodist Church bars self-avowed practicing clergy from ordination and does not support gay unions, according to the denomination's Book of Discipline, it says nothing about transgender clergy.
After considering whether to remove Phoenix from leadership, the Judicial Council decided to allow the transgender minister to stay on the job, referring to a church policy stating that a clergyperson in good standing can't be terminated without administrative or judicial action.
"The adjective placed in front of the noun 'clergyperson' does not matter," the council ruled. "What matters is that clergypersons, once ordained and admitted to membership in full connection, cannot have that standing changed without being accorded fair process."
"We at St. John’s UMC have a long history of supporting people through various life transitions," said the congregation, which boasts "inclusion" and "diversity," in a statement. "We love and support our pastor. Rev. Phoenix is an effective, professional pastor who has our deep and abiding respect."
God's anointing does not discriminate, that's something people do. Good job by the United Methodist Church!
A transgender minister is allowed to remain pastor of a Baltimore congregation, the United Methodist Church's highest council announced Tuesday.
The Judicial Council's ruling affirmed a decision by Baltimore-Washington Bishop John R. Schol last spring who reappointed the Rev. Drew Phoenix to St. John's of Baltimore City after the transgender minister underwent surgery and hormone therapy to become a male. Phoenix was formerly the Rev. Ann Gordon who had led the church for five years.
Local clergy in the Baltimore-Washington Conference had appealed Schol's decision to the United Methodist Judicial Council amid opposition. While the United Methodist Church bars self-avowed practicing clergy from ordination and does not support gay unions, according to the denomination's Book of Discipline, it says nothing about transgender clergy.
After considering whether to remove Phoenix from leadership, the Judicial Council decided to allow the transgender minister to stay on the job, referring to a church policy stating that a clergyperson in good standing can't be terminated without administrative or judicial action.
"The adjective placed in front of the noun 'clergyperson' does not matter," the council ruled. "What matters is that clergypersons, once ordained and admitted to membership in full connection, cannot have that standing changed without being accorded fair process."
"We at St. John’s UMC have a long history of supporting people through various life transitions," said the congregation, which boasts "inclusion" and "diversity," in a statement. "We love and support our pastor. Rev. Phoenix is an effective, professional pastor who has our deep and abiding respect."
God's anointing does not discriminate, that's something people do. Good job by the United Methodist Church!
African-American Leaders Step Up Against Homophobia In Maryland
More encouraging news from Baltimore, via the Baltimore Sun:
Elbridge James wasn't surprised when many of his fraternity brothers ridiculed him for supporting same-sex marriage.
But what James didn't expect was for a handful of his old college buddies to rise to his defense. They, too, believed that gays' and lesbians' battle for marriage is a matter of civil rights.
"We're talking about a black fraternity that has had issues with homophobia," he said. "But I think when you get the message out, and people start to listen, they realize the question is about respecting others' rights."
The experience gave James, former political action chairman for the Maryland National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, hope that more blacks are willing to support gay rights than conventional wisdom might indicate.
In an effort to raise the issue of gay unions within black communities around the state, James and other activists have formed the Maryland Black Family Alliance, a group of predominantly heterosexual African-American leaders pledging their support for same-sex marriage.
"There's a scarcity of information on this issue in the black community," said James, the group's director. "The black press doesn't cover it; talk radio doesn't cover it. ... We have this sort of 'don't ask, don't tell policy' in our community."
When I first saw the headline about a group focused on black support for gay marriage, I had mixed feelings. I was concerned that this might be an effort to splinter off the African-American GLBT community and for them to do their own thing, but I was relieved to see that this is apparently not their goal. Subdividing GLBT activists, already a small number, into racial groupings would only further dilute the strength of their message. On the other hand, a concerted effort to draw more African-Americans into the conversation could be a very positive thing, and I applaud these leaders for stepping out and initiating this group.
Here is a press release from the ACLU regarding the launch.
This blog post from BET points out that the leaders are mostly heterosexual. The comments below it point out the uphill struggle they have ahead of them.
Elbridge James wasn't surprised when many of his fraternity brothers ridiculed him for supporting same-sex marriage.
But what James didn't expect was for a handful of his old college buddies to rise to his defense. They, too, believed that gays' and lesbians' battle for marriage is a matter of civil rights.
"We're talking about a black fraternity that has had issues with homophobia," he said. "But I think when you get the message out, and people start to listen, they realize the question is about respecting others' rights."
The experience gave James, former political action chairman for the Maryland National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, hope that more blacks are willing to support gay rights than conventional wisdom might indicate.
In an effort to raise the issue of gay unions within black communities around the state, James and other activists have formed the Maryland Black Family Alliance, a group of predominantly heterosexual African-American leaders pledging their support for same-sex marriage.
"There's a scarcity of information on this issue in the black community," said James, the group's director. "The black press doesn't cover it; talk radio doesn't cover it. ... We have this sort of 'don't ask, don't tell policy' in our community."
When I first saw the headline about a group focused on black support for gay marriage, I had mixed feelings. I was concerned that this might be an effort to splinter off the African-American GLBT community and for them to do their own thing, but I was relieved to see that this is apparently not their goal. Subdividing GLBT activists, already a small number, into racial groupings would only further dilute the strength of their message. On the other hand, a concerted effort to draw more African-Americans into the conversation could be a very positive thing, and I applaud these leaders for stepping out and initiating this group.
Here is a press release from the ACLU regarding the launch.
This blog post from BET points out that the leaders are mostly heterosexual. The comments below it point out the uphill struggle they have ahead of them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
