The Florida GLBT Deomcratic Caucus met on Saturday, seeking equal rights and focusing on electing Democrats even if they don't support all of the gay issues.
According to this AP report posted on Southern Voice, "Gay activists believe they need to support Democrats opposed to gay marriage for the sake of seeking change on issues that affect a broader range of Americans. 'This is not the time to take our marbles and go home, there are too many issues at stake,' said Brian Bond, executive director of the Democratic National Committee's Gay & Lesbian Leadership Council. "
This flies in the face of rhetoric often used against those proported to supoort "the homosexual agenda." I think this is a wonderful example of at least one group of political activists that can see beyond their personal goals and embrace the big picture of what is happening in the entire United States. It's too bad this is increasingly rare on both sides of the isle.
As the AP reports, "Republican Party of Florida spokesman Jeff Sadosky disputed contentions that Republicans use the issue like gay marriage and flag burning to divide. 'I have a problem with defining them as wedge issues when the majority of Americans feel just the same,' he said. 'We welcome anyone and everyone, the Republican Party is a big tent party, but at the same time we do believe certain things and one of those things is that marriage is a commitment between one man and one woman."
What Mr. Sadosky fails to address, though, is that in a recent poll conducted by FOX News, people think the most important issues facing the country are Iraq, the economy, and health care. That hardly seems to justify all the energy spent on trying to constitutionalize a ban on same-sex marriage.
I'd also like to see a gay person stroll into that "big tent" uninvited. I wouldn't recommend it.
July 16, 2006
July 13, 2006
Gay Parents and Gender-Bending Children
This article in The Advocate talks about two parents who sought out family therapy because their five-year old son likes to play with dolls and dressing up in little princess gowns. The twist to this story, though, is that the little boy has two lesbian momies. This quote is the crux of the story:
"We need to ask ourselves, as LGBT parents, what it is that we fear for our children who cross gender boundaries. Cross-gender behavior can be very anxiety provoking for parents; we may be embarrassed or frightened by a son’s overt femininity or a daughter’s masculine expression. Indeed, we also might be more fiercely protective of our children, living as we all do with the ghosts of our own queer childhoods. We are often torn between wanting to give our children room for self-expression and wanting to protect them from being teased. It is a rare LGBT parent that does not succumb, at least sometimes, to the fear that we are hurting our children because we are queer, especially regarding the development of their sexual and gender identities."
Some same-sex parent families apparently so closely resemble "traditional" ones that they also have a similar phobia about rasing a gay child.
"We need to ask ourselves, as LGBT parents, what it is that we fear for our children who cross gender boundaries. Cross-gender behavior can be very anxiety provoking for parents; we may be embarrassed or frightened by a son’s overt femininity or a daughter’s masculine expression. Indeed, we also might be more fiercely protective of our children, living as we all do with the ghosts of our own queer childhoods. We are often torn between wanting to give our children room for self-expression and wanting to protect them from being teased. It is a rare LGBT parent that does not succumb, at least sometimes, to the fear that we are hurting our children because we are queer, especially regarding the development of their sexual and gender identities."
Some same-sex parent families apparently so closely resemble "traditional" ones that they also have a similar phobia about rasing a gay child.
Which Traditional Marriage?
Stephanie Coontz, the Director of Research and Public Education for the Council of Contemporary Families, has a fascinating article up on the organization's website. She asks the question "Which Traditional Marriage?"
It is an intriguing question. One of the main arguements in favor of banning same-sex marriage is to "protect traditional marriage."
The Catholic Church did not make marriage a sacrament until the year 1215, and their were no official wedding ceremonies until 1563. There was not even a marriage license in England until 1754. It was only 130 years ago that husbands still had the legal right to physically beat or iimprison their wives. Would our society really be better off if it had protected THAT traditional marriage?
It is an intriguing question. One of the main arguements in favor of banning same-sex marriage is to "protect traditional marriage."
The Catholic Church did not make marriage a sacrament until the year 1215, and their were no official wedding ceremonies until 1563. There was not even a marriage license in England until 1754. It was only 130 years ago that husbands still had the legal right to physically beat or iimprison their wives. Would our society really be better off if it had protected THAT traditional marriage?
July 11, 2006
"The Cooptation of Christianity"
The following article first appeared in The Sacramento Valley Mirror, in Dr. Jerry Maneker's column "Christianity and Society", on July 1st, 2006. It is reprinted here with Dr. Maneker's permission. Dr. Maneker write the excellent blog "Christian LGBT Rights.org" and, I'm proud to say, is a regular visitor here. I appreciate his sharing this article with me so I can share it with you. I strongly agree with his thoughts.
“It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man.” (Psalm 118:8) This people draw nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” (Matthew 15:8-9).
One of the definitions of the term, “co-opt” is the following: “to assimilate or win over into a larger group.” (Random House Webster’s College Dictionary, 1997) It is quite easy to be co-opted by all sorts of rewards for conformity to the status quo, to the ways and means of virtually all institutions in secular society. Indeed, to its detriment, the Church may be seen to have gladly allowed itself to be co-opted resulting in the great loss of members in mainline churches, and the loss of many intelligent, sensitive people both from the Church and from even the likelihood of them taking Christianity seriously enough to even consider it as a viable way to have a relationship with God. Indeed, the cooptation of Christianity, frequently resulting in no Christianity at all, may well have had the effect of having many people not even want to consider God at all in their daily lives!
Rhetoric that is called “Christian” is frequently a downright embarrassment in its hateful stupidity and studied ignorance where godliness is considered to be synonymous with rank prejudice, xenophobia (fear and/or hatred of foreigners, and anyone or anything viewed as different from the person him/herself and his/her ways of doing things) and, increasingly, blatant advocacy of discrimination.
For example, as you know, I have a burning passion for full and equal civil and sacramental rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people. That passion mirrors that which I had in the 1950’s and 60’s in regard to the rights of Afro-Americans. When I read and hear hateful rhetoric, which contributes to suicides, bashings, and murders of our gay brothers and sisters, I can’t help but recall the naked hate on the faces of professing Christians who carried placards and screamed at little black children going to a hitherto white elementary school, all the while citing select and distorted biblical passages to justify their prejudice and hate.
What makes the current climate of hate, as with the climate of hate that existed during the civil rights era, so tragic and shameful is the brutal fact that the major impetus for that hate, the rhetoric that fuels that hate, is largely coming from the leadership and their blind followers in most of Christianity’s denominations. Clearly, some denominations are much more moderate than others in their hateful rhetoric and animus. However, apart from the United Church of Christ (ads for which the major networks won’t air because they are deemed to be “too controversial”), I am not aware of any mainline denomination that seeks full civil and sacramental rights for gay people.
Jesus seems to make it very clear that divorce is only to be had in cases of fornication, and that when one divorces and remarries, he or she is committing adultery. (Matthew 5:32) Yet, if “the sanctity of marriage” and “the well-being of the family” are the real concerns of clergy and others who rail against same-sex marriage, why don’t they deal with the actual threat to those institutions: our very high heterosexual divorce rate, and not deal with same-sex relationships that have absolutely nothing to do with these institutions? The reason they don’t spew their rhetoric (nor should they) concerning this rational reason for the threats to marriage and the family is that many in their congregations are divorced and have re-married and the clergy don’t want to bite the hands that feed them when it comes time for the offertory.
Diverting our attention from the real threats to marriage and the family by scape-goating a minority group that, by any stretch of a rational imagination, has absolutely nothing to do with those threats, are tactics that most clergy use to please most of their constituents, just as many politicians scapegoat gay people to hustle votes and for purposes of diverting attention from a failed foreign policy and innumerable domestic fiscal and other policies that have considerably eroded quality of life and civil liberties in this country.
The Church is called upon to be the voice of the poor, the displaced, the marginalized, the hurting, and be a vehicle of compassion and ministry to see to it that our light so shines that God is given the glory for our ministries of love. However, the “Church” has allowed itself to be co-opted by opportunistic politicians and clergy where the name of God is used to hurt, demean, condemn, discriminate, ostracize, and even kill others.
That co-optation has ignored the prophetic voice of the Holy Spirit who puts love in the hearts of all those who have Jesus in their hearts, and that is one reason why I strongly feel that we are entering a post-denominational age where God’s love will trump the Church’s co-optation by the most reactionary forces in our society, and where Christians worthy of the name will, once again, not be embarrassed by the selling out of Christianity by those who have eagerly sought to align themselves with opportunistic and reactionary secular and “religious” forces in society.
“It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man.” (Psalm 118:8) This people draw nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” (Matthew 15:8-9).
One of the definitions of the term, “co-opt” is the following: “to assimilate or win over into a larger group.” (Random House Webster’s College Dictionary, 1997) It is quite easy to be co-opted by all sorts of rewards for conformity to the status quo, to the ways and means of virtually all institutions in secular society. Indeed, to its detriment, the Church may be seen to have gladly allowed itself to be co-opted resulting in the great loss of members in mainline churches, and the loss of many intelligent, sensitive people both from the Church and from even the likelihood of them taking Christianity seriously enough to even consider it as a viable way to have a relationship with God. Indeed, the cooptation of Christianity, frequently resulting in no Christianity at all, may well have had the effect of having many people not even want to consider God at all in their daily lives!
Rhetoric that is called “Christian” is frequently a downright embarrassment in its hateful stupidity and studied ignorance where godliness is considered to be synonymous with rank prejudice, xenophobia (fear and/or hatred of foreigners, and anyone or anything viewed as different from the person him/herself and his/her ways of doing things) and, increasingly, blatant advocacy of discrimination.
For example, as you know, I have a burning passion for full and equal civil and sacramental rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people. That passion mirrors that which I had in the 1950’s and 60’s in regard to the rights of Afro-Americans. When I read and hear hateful rhetoric, which contributes to suicides, bashings, and murders of our gay brothers and sisters, I can’t help but recall the naked hate on the faces of professing Christians who carried placards and screamed at little black children going to a hitherto white elementary school, all the while citing select and distorted biblical passages to justify their prejudice and hate.
What makes the current climate of hate, as with the climate of hate that existed during the civil rights era, so tragic and shameful is the brutal fact that the major impetus for that hate, the rhetoric that fuels that hate, is largely coming from the leadership and their blind followers in most of Christianity’s denominations. Clearly, some denominations are much more moderate than others in their hateful rhetoric and animus. However, apart from the United Church of Christ (ads for which the major networks won’t air because they are deemed to be “too controversial”), I am not aware of any mainline denomination that seeks full civil and sacramental rights for gay people.
Jesus seems to make it very clear that divorce is only to be had in cases of fornication, and that when one divorces and remarries, he or she is committing adultery. (Matthew 5:32) Yet, if “the sanctity of marriage” and “the well-being of the family” are the real concerns of clergy and others who rail against same-sex marriage, why don’t they deal with the actual threat to those institutions: our very high heterosexual divorce rate, and not deal with same-sex relationships that have absolutely nothing to do with these institutions? The reason they don’t spew their rhetoric (nor should they) concerning this rational reason for the threats to marriage and the family is that many in their congregations are divorced and have re-married and the clergy don’t want to bite the hands that feed them when it comes time for the offertory.
Diverting our attention from the real threats to marriage and the family by scape-goating a minority group that, by any stretch of a rational imagination, has absolutely nothing to do with those threats, are tactics that most clergy use to please most of their constituents, just as many politicians scapegoat gay people to hustle votes and for purposes of diverting attention from a failed foreign policy and innumerable domestic fiscal and other policies that have considerably eroded quality of life and civil liberties in this country.
The Church is called upon to be the voice of the poor, the displaced, the marginalized, the hurting, and be a vehicle of compassion and ministry to see to it that our light so shines that God is given the glory for our ministries of love. However, the “Church” has allowed itself to be co-opted by opportunistic politicians and clergy where the name of God is used to hurt, demean, condemn, discriminate, ostracize, and even kill others.
That co-optation has ignored the prophetic voice of the Holy Spirit who puts love in the hearts of all those who have Jesus in their hearts, and that is one reason why I strongly feel that we are entering a post-denominational age where God’s love will trump the Church’s co-optation by the most reactionary forces in our society, and where Christians worthy of the name will, once again, not be embarrassed by the selling out of Christianity by those who have eagerly sought to align themselves with opportunistic and reactionary secular and “religious” forces in society.
July 10, 2006
"Bringing the Church to the Courtroom
Today's Washington Post contained a front-page story about the Alliance Defense Fund. If you have not heard of them, you need to. This was a group founded by, among others, James Dobson and James Kennedy, two men who are sworn enemies of GLBT equality.
The ADF fancies itself as the answer to the American Civil Liberties Union, defending their view of the Bible and trying to get that enforced in the United States court systems.
Gary S. McCaleb, the director of the ADF's litigation team, who perceives "clear hostility to Christian thought," says "What we see is an overarching agenda from the left wing and the pro-homosexual groups." That right GLBT community--they want to be your worst nightmare.
Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, says, " They're not for some form of generic religious freedom. They're for Christian superiority, that Christians take over the courts."
Make no mistake folks, the ADF and people who support their agenda, are not seeking an equal voice in the courts--they want to be THE voice. Those like me who support equality for ALL people need to get behind the ACLU and any other group who will pick up the sword and fight for the GLBT community.
The ADF fancies itself as the answer to the American Civil Liberties Union, defending their view of the Bible and trying to get that enforced in the United States court systems.
Gary S. McCaleb, the director of the ADF's litigation team, who perceives "clear hostility to Christian thought," says "What we see is an overarching agenda from the left wing and the pro-homosexual groups." That right GLBT community--they want to be your worst nightmare.
Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, says, " They're not for some form of generic religious freedom. They're for Christian superiority, that Christians take over the courts."
Make no mistake folks, the ADF and people who support their agenda, are not seeking an equal voice in the courts--they want to be THE voice. Those like me who support equality for ALL people need to get behind the ACLU and any other group who will pick up the sword and fight for the GLBT community.
Two Different Takes on "Liberal Christianity"
CBS News ran this piece on their Evening News broadcast called "Religion Taking a Left Turn." They talk to several leaders of the emerging "religious left" including Tony Campolo and Jim Wallis. Their focus appears to be on issues like poverty, child care, the environment, and ending the war in Iraq. Let's see, that's helping the poor, caring for children and our natural resources, and promoting peace. Sounds like good Jesus stuff to me, and certainly a lot better then what is being spewed by the Religious Right.
Taking another approach is Charlotte Allen, an editor for Beliefnet, a conservative religious news source. In an op-ed piece she wrote for the Los Angeles Times, Allen states her belief that the declining membership in more moderate-to-liberal denominations, such as the Episcopals and Presbyterians, is due to "blurred doctrine and softened moral precepts."
If the majority rules in the United States, which is what I believe she is implying (and is also an increasingly common Religious Right arguement), then why worry about proselytizing nations where Islam and Hinduism is practiced by the overwhelming majority? These days, a majority in popular opinion often points more to the resources that side has to make their point and influuence people than it does the merit of what they are saying.
Taking another approach is Charlotte Allen, an editor for Beliefnet, a conservative religious news source. In an op-ed piece she wrote for the Los Angeles Times, Allen states her belief that the declining membership in more moderate-to-liberal denominations, such as the Episcopals and Presbyterians, is due to "blurred doctrine and softened moral precepts."
If the majority rules in the United States, which is what I believe she is implying (and is also an increasingly common Religious Right arguement), then why worry about proselytizing nations where Islam and Hinduism is practiced by the overwhelming majority? These days, a majority in popular opinion often points more to the resources that side has to make their point and influuence people than it does the merit of what they are saying.
July 08, 2006
The Top Ten Religious Right Power Brokers
If you visit this blog regularly (thanks if you do), you notice I don't go very long without writing about one of what I think of as the "unholy trinity," Pat Robertson, James Dobson, and Jerry Falwell. There are times I wonder if I actually do focus on these men and their organizations too much, but then I see something like this, a listing of the top Religious Right power brokers.
Those three men account for six positions on the top ten as ranked by Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network is #1 and his American Center for Law and Justice is #6. Dobson's Focus on the Family is #2 and his Family Research Council is #7. He was also one of the founders of the #4 ranked Alliance Defense Fund. Falwell's ministry is ranked #8 and one of my other favorite targets, the American Family Association, is ranked #5.
It strikes me that the top ten organizations, which were ranked according to reported 2005 income, accounted for nearly $450 million combined. That kind of money will buy a lot of broadcast time, print a lot of books and pamphlets, and hold a lot of conferences.
There is a good summary of each organization in the report I link to, including James Kennedy's Coral Ridge Ministries (#3), Concerned Women for America (#9), and the Traditional Values Coalition (#10).
Tim and Beverly LaHaye founded the CWA, but LaHaye is probably better know for his "Left Behind" series of novels and the growing media empire based on them. Tim LaHaye used to be an associate pastor at a church I belonged to in the late 1980's--Montrose Baptist Church in Rockville, Maryland. He was a dynamic preacher, but needless to say my view of life and Christ have grown since then. LaHaye's bank account has grown dramatically during that time too.
BTW, did you know that all you homosexual activists have Mao Tse Tung as your hero? The Rev. Louis Sheldon, founder of the Traditional Values Coalition, does. Can he really believe all of the crap he says?
Typical Religious Right Rhetoric
Dr. Jerry Falwell was celebrating the ruling against same-sex marriage in New York in his most recent weekly e-mail message. To sum things up, he wrote this:
"But I have a question: if “every couple in a loving and committed relationship” should be afforded the right to marry, then do we not need to also allow bigamists, polygamists, Man-Boy Love Association members and all others in “alternative” relationships to marry? And if we do not afford them the same right, who are we to bar their inclusion into a diverse society? Of course, this is a nonsensical argument, but no more so than the attempt by homosexuals to gain the right to marry"
Isn't that typical. When you can't win a logical or intellectual arguement, you try to reach into the raw, base instincts of people. You try to promulgate fear, even if the assertions you use to do so are not based in fact. It doesn't matter if that is actually the nonsensical arguement itself as long as it makes people afraid and, out of that fear, they act the way you want them to. That is often the policy of the Republican Party in this country just as it is the Religious Right (often the standard bearers for the Republicans; or is the other way around? It's hard to tell anymore).
As effective as this approach is, just imagine if that's how Jesus had presented the gospel to people. Think how many more people would have accepted Him.
Think of how that would have diminished Christianity.
Look at how these modern day fearmongers diminish Christianity. Fortunately, they can't diminish Jesus.
"But I have a question: if “every couple in a loving and committed relationship” should be afforded the right to marry, then do we not need to also allow bigamists, polygamists, Man-Boy Love Association members and all others in “alternative” relationships to marry? And if we do not afford them the same right, who are we to bar their inclusion into a diverse society? Of course, this is a nonsensical argument, but no more so than the attempt by homosexuals to gain the right to marry"
Isn't that typical. When you can't win a logical or intellectual arguement, you try to reach into the raw, base instincts of people. You try to promulgate fear, even if the assertions you use to do so are not based in fact. It doesn't matter if that is actually the nonsensical arguement itself as long as it makes people afraid and, out of that fear, they act the way you want them to. That is often the policy of the Republican Party in this country just as it is the Religious Right (often the standard bearers for the Republicans; or is the other way around? It's hard to tell anymore).
As effective as this approach is, just imagine if that's how Jesus had presented the gospel to people. Think how many more people would have accepted Him.
Think of how that would have diminished Christianity.
Look at how these modern day fearmongers diminish Christianity. Fortunately, they can't diminish Jesus.
A Very Personal Struggle
My fellow blogger Peterson Toscano is sharing the struggle his friend Marvin is going through with his sexuality. Marvin has reached the point where he is moving to Memphis so he can attend Love In Action, one of the more notorious ex-gay groups.
Marvin has contriubted a number of audio blog posts giving some insight to what is going on in his heart and mind as he moves toward this crossroads in his life. Peterson wrote what I felt is a warm, loving letter of encouragement to him, sharing his own experneices in an ex-gay camp.
I share this with you because, if you are interested in what leads someone to submit themselves to the ex-gay treatment, this series of posts will certainly shed some light on it.
Marvin has contriubted a number of audio blog posts giving some insight to what is going on in his heart and mind as he moves toward this crossroads in his life. Peterson wrote what I felt is a warm, loving letter of encouragement to him, sharing his own experneices in an ex-gay camp.
I share this with you because, if you are interested in what leads someone to submit themselves to the ex-gay treatment, this series of posts will certainly shed some light on it.
July 06, 2006
NY Court Rules Against Gay Marriage
The supporters of equal rights for the GLBT coummunity lost a round in that ongoing battle today when the New York Court of Appeals ruled that same-sex marriage is not allowed under state law. The opinion was written by Judge Robert Smith. In it, he wrote "We do not predict what people will think generations from now, but we believe the present generation should have a chance to decide the issue through its elected representatives."
I can't help but wonder if all the rhetoric put out in the public domain by right-wing opponents of same-sex marriage about "activist judges" may have affected one or two of the votes on the court, which voted 4-2 on this ruling. In dissenting, Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye wrote, "I am confident that future generations will look back on today’s decision as an unfortunate misstep.”
Alan Van Capelle, Executive Director of Empire State Pride Agenda, responded to the ruling with this challenge, "Today's decision is far from the end of the battle for New York's lesbian and gay families. The Court has had its say, and now it is time for our elected officials to stand against discrimination and support marriage equality. Today, the Pride Agenda begins a campaign to press Albany to pass a marriage bill in 2007. For two years, legislators have waited for the Court to rule on this issue. It's now time for Albany to lead."
Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese was resolute, "“Every couple in a loving and committed relationship should be able to obtain the legal protections that only come with marriage. We know that the struggle for equality is never quick or easy, but history has taught us that with determination, debate and devotion — the side of progress ultimately prevails. We will continue to move forward.”
Matt Foreman, Executive Director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, lashed out at the court, “Today’s tortured and intellectually strained decision is beyond disappointing. It is insulting to gay and lesbian people and our families. It is an egregious departure from the New York Court of Appeals’ long and proud tradition of advancing liberty and dismantling discrimination. It is a disgrace to the constitution and the people of New York.'
The Family Research Council's Vice President for Policy, Peter Sprigg, on the other hand, was feeling rather chipper, "The New York court reasonably concluded that the legislature has a legitimate interest in promoting responsible procreation and can 'rationally' believe that children need both a mother and a father. The court's well-reasoned ruling is a shining example for other courts across the nation. As we await rulings in several other states, we can only hope that other courts will exercise similar judicial restraint and avoid substituting their own social policy preferences for those of the legislatures and the people."
American Family Association Center for Law and Policy chief counsel Steve Crampton sees the decision as a "major blow” to the “radical homosexual effort to reconstitute the moral framework of our nation.” He added, "“For years the homosexuals have used the courts to get what they could never get through the democratic process; in New York, at least, they will have to seek change the old-fashioned way.”
Remember, courts that agree with the right wing are good, those who disagree are radical activists. Or are the radical activists on the right wing side and courts who disagree with them concerned about equality and fairness? Sadly, I could probably quote the response to that question from each of the officials I quoted here nearly verbatim.
I can't help but wonder if all the rhetoric put out in the public domain by right-wing opponents of same-sex marriage about "activist judges" may have affected one or two of the votes on the court, which voted 4-2 on this ruling. In dissenting, Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye wrote, "I am confident that future generations will look back on today’s decision as an unfortunate misstep.”
Alan Van Capelle, Executive Director of Empire State Pride Agenda, responded to the ruling with this challenge, "Today's decision is far from the end of the battle for New York's lesbian and gay families. The Court has had its say, and now it is time for our elected officials to stand against discrimination and support marriage equality. Today, the Pride Agenda begins a campaign to press Albany to pass a marriage bill in 2007. For two years, legislators have waited for the Court to rule on this issue. It's now time for Albany to lead."
Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese was resolute, "“Every couple in a loving and committed relationship should be able to obtain the legal protections that only come with marriage. We know that the struggle for equality is never quick or easy, but history has taught us that with determination, debate and devotion — the side of progress ultimately prevails. We will continue to move forward.”
Matt Foreman, Executive Director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, lashed out at the court, “Today’s tortured and intellectually strained decision is beyond disappointing. It is insulting to gay and lesbian people and our families. It is an egregious departure from the New York Court of Appeals’ long and proud tradition of advancing liberty and dismantling discrimination. It is a disgrace to the constitution and the people of New York.'
The Family Research Council's Vice President for Policy, Peter Sprigg, on the other hand, was feeling rather chipper, "The New York court reasonably concluded that the legislature has a legitimate interest in promoting responsible procreation and can 'rationally' believe that children need both a mother and a father. The court's well-reasoned ruling is a shining example for other courts across the nation. As we await rulings in several other states, we can only hope that other courts will exercise similar judicial restraint and avoid substituting their own social policy preferences for those of the legislatures and the people."
American Family Association Center for Law and Policy chief counsel Steve Crampton sees the decision as a "major blow” to the “radical homosexual effort to reconstitute the moral framework of our nation.” He added, "“For years the homosexuals have used the courts to get what they could never get through the democratic process; in New York, at least, they will have to seek change the old-fashioned way.”
Remember, courts that agree with the right wing are good, those who disagree are radical activists. Or are the radical activists on the right wing side and courts who disagree with them concerned about equality and fairness? Sadly, I could probably quote the response to that question from each of the officials I quoted here nearly verbatim.
July 04, 2006
"Vote for Jesus"
Given that today is Independence Day in the United States (for those of you who saw the movie, it's always a bit of a relief when another one goes by without alien attack) I thought linking to this column was appropriate.
The writer, a Baptist pastor in Alabama whom I have linked to before, talks about how Jesus and faith are now tools to be used by politicians, especially when their poll numbers need a bump.
Mr. Evans writes:
"With the Marriage Protection amendment to the Alabama state constitution, marriages in our state are now secure from the ravages of the so-called "gay agenda." We haven't figured out yet how to save marriage from what actually threatens marriage—I guess that will require yet another amendment in some future campaign."
"I wish more candidates in political races would invoke the name of Jesus by championing the causes he cared about most."
".....there is a danger, from all segments of the political spectrum, of so politicizing Jesus that we empty him of his true significance in our lives."
There is wisdom here for candidates and voters regardless of political party affiliation.
The writer, a Baptist pastor in Alabama whom I have linked to before, talks about how Jesus and faith are now tools to be used by politicians, especially when their poll numbers need a bump.
Mr. Evans writes:
"With the Marriage Protection amendment to the Alabama state constitution, marriages in our state are now secure from the ravages of the so-called "gay agenda." We haven't figured out yet how to save marriage from what actually threatens marriage—I guess that will require yet another amendment in some future campaign."
"I wish more candidates in political races would invoke the name of Jesus by championing the causes he cared about most."
".....there is a danger, from all segments of the political spectrum, of so politicizing Jesus that we empty him of his true significance in our lives."
There is wisdom here for candidates and voters regardless of political party affiliation.
July 03, 2006
Sports: Times are a Changing
I ran across this interesting feature in the New York Daily News that chronicles several items regarding the place of homosexuality in the sports world.
The article was motivated by the passive denial by New York Giants' defensive end Michael Strachan to accusations by his soon-to-be ex-wife that he was having a romantic relationship with another man. They compared this to New York Mets' star cather Mike Piazza calling a press conference to deny that he was gay.
The piece also talks about the head lacrosse coach at the University of Missouri. He recently came out, and the school responded by offering to extend his contract. His players, at least initially, weren't too thrilled with it and the coach, Kyle Hawkins, is still considering whether he will stay at the school.
There is also a summary of the history of "the gay issue" in sports.
The piece also references a site called Out Sports, which is the best site I have found covering gays and sports. If that is something you might be interested in, I recommend you check it out.
The article was motivated by the passive denial by New York Giants' defensive end Michael Strachan to accusations by his soon-to-be ex-wife that he was having a romantic relationship with another man. They compared this to New York Mets' star cather Mike Piazza calling a press conference to deny that he was gay.
The piece also talks about the head lacrosse coach at the University of Missouri. He recently came out, and the school responded by offering to extend his contract. His players, at least initially, weren't too thrilled with it and the coach, Kyle Hawkins, is still considering whether he will stay at the school.
There is also a summary of the history of "the gay issue" in sports.
The piece also references a site called Out Sports, which is the best site I have found covering gays and sports. If that is something you might be interested in, I recommend you check it out.
July 02, 2006
"Progress on gay rights leaves politicians in the dust"
That's the title of this essay by Joe Solmonese, the president of the Human Rights Campaign. He points out that for the first time, a majority of Fortune 500 companies are now offering domestic partner health insurance benefits to their employees. Here are some excerpts:
"The private sector continues to be far ahead of the political debate. While elected officials continue to dwell on the "politics" of equal protections and rights, business leaders are encouraging fairness for their employees."
"America's workplaces and schools are a microcosm of the country. They are places where people from different walks of life -- all religions, races, income levels, sexual orientations and gender identities -- are thrown together and told to make it work. They're doing just that and these policies and benefits are helping employers and employees succeed."
"Unfortunately, many political leaders are far behind business leaders in promoting and implementing fair and equitable policies for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans. Sadly, we see some politicians attacking our families and exploiting anti-gay prejudice for political purposes -- which results in fueling that prejudice and dividing our country."
The comments posted on this piece are also worth reading and span a wide range of viewpoints.
July 01, 2006
Gazette Column on Gays Called Vile, Hateful, Ill-informed"
Earlier this week, I commented on a column in the local (for me) Montgomery County, Maryland Gazette newspaper where their political columnist, Blair Lee, compared gays to pedophiles and serial killers. I expressed my outrage and I had plenty of company doing so. I directed my thoughts to Mr. Lee (I have not received a reply), but plenty of Gazette readers contacted the paper to express their outrage.
Here are a few I found particularly interesting:
"Just what is it about gays and lesbians that threaten Mr. Lee so much?"
"His ill-informed, ignorant, bigoted rants are an exact equivalent to the cases he makes about hostile speech directed at women and blacks. It is pitiful that he does not realize or understand the comparisons."
"As most extremists do, Mr. Lee excuses his condemnation and vilification of a group of American citizens by wrapping his argument up in religion. If it’s about religion, it can’t possibly be bigotry, hatred or discrimination, can it? "
"If such a vicious piece were written about any other minority group, would they be published?"
There are many more good thoughts the Gazette posted that are worth taking the time to read.
Here are a few I found particularly interesting:
"Just what is it about gays and lesbians that threaten Mr. Lee so much?"
"His ill-informed, ignorant, bigoted rants are an exact equivalent to the cases he makes about hostile speech directed at women and blacks. It is pitiful that he does not realize or understand the comparisons."
"As most extremists do, Mr. Lee excuses his condemnation and vilification of a group of American citizens by wrapping his argument up in religion. If it’s about religion, it can’t possibly be bigotry, hatred or discrimination, can it? "
"If such a vicious piece were written about any other minority group, would they be published?"
There are many more good thoughts the Gazette posted that are worth taking the time to read.
June 30, 2006
Know That You Can Hear the Call of God
In my latest essay for Gay Christian Outreach, I use the scripture of 1 Samuel 3:2-10 as my text to show how ALL of us can hear the call of God.
June 29, 2006
Dobson: Media Provides Cover For Assault on Traditional Marriage
Dr. James Dobson, chairman of Focus on the Family and an arch-enemy of GLBT equality, has written an essay that was posted on CNN.com.
There is actually one point where I agree with Dr. Dobson. He referred here to the recent vote in the U. S. Senate that failed to bring the Marriage Protection Act to the floor:
"As for the senators who voted against the amendment, the excuses they gave were pitiful. Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Michigan, Sen. Lincoln Chafee, R-Rhode Island, Sen. Mark Dayton, D-Minnesota, Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, Sen. Judd Gregg, R-New Hampshire, and many others thought they had the perfect alibi. They claimed that the issue should be handled at the state level. What hypocrisy!
All of these senators are smart enough to know that, first, it would create utter chaos to have 50 different definitions of marriage in one country, where every state is required by the Constitution to support the laws of the other 49. Come on, Senator McCain and company. You and your colleagues know better than that."
I totally agree with that point. If same-sex marriage is okay in Massachusetts, it should be okay in Texas. Expousing states rights is often congressional code for not having enough guts to take a stand on an issue.
Most of Dr. Dosbon's justification for prohibiting same-sex marriage is public opinion polls. If we allowed all of society's issues to be decided by a public vote, I doubt we would like the results. For example, there would probably still be slaves in the south and women would not have the right to vote, or many rights at all. I'm also very confident that Dr. Dobson won't feel the same way when opinion polls shift in favor of same-sex marriage, but by then he'll blame the media, as he does here for the Senate vote.
Dobson and others of his ilk keep talking about the "destruction" or "weakening" of the institution of marriage if men are allowed to marry other men, or women marrying other women, but they seldom if ever tell us why. If two gay men having the right to marry weakens my marriage to Brenda, that would say a lot more about the weak foundation our marriage had than it would the gay men.
CNN.com also posted some comments to Dobson's article. As usual in public forums, the most thoughtful responses came from those who favor same-sex marriage. This again, in my opinion, shows just how little substance there is to the arguement against other than quoting tradition.
Of course, Dr. Dobson would probably find a way to blame the media for that too.
There is actually one point where I agree with Dr. Dobson. He referred here to the recent vote in the U. S. Senate that failed to bring the Marriage Protection Act to the floor:
"As for the senators who voted against the amendment, the excuses they gave were pitiful. Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Michigan, Sen. Lincoln Chafee, R-Rhode Island, Sen. Mark Dayton, D-Minnesota, Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, Sen. Judd Gregg, R-New Hampshire, and many others thought they had the perfect alibi. They claimed that the issue should be handled at the state level. What hypocrisy!
All of these senators are smart enough to know that, first, it would create utter chaos to have 50 different definitions of marriage in one country, where every state is required by the Constitution to support the laws of the other 49. Come on, Senator McCain and company. You and your colleagues know better than that."
I totally agree with that point. If same-sex marriage is okay in Massachusetts, it should be okay in Texas. Expousing states rights is often congressional code for not having enough guts to take a stand on an issue.
Most of Dr. Dosbon's justification for prohibiting same-sex marriage is public opinion polls. If we allowed all of society's issues to be decided by a public vote, I doubt we would like the results. For example, there would probably still be slaves in the south and women would not have the right to vote, or many rights at all. I'm also very confident that Dr. Dobson won't feel the same way when opinion polls shift in favor of same-sex marriage, but by then he'll blame the media, as he does here for the Senate vote.
Dobson and others of his ilk keep talking about the "destruction" or "weakening" of the institution of marriage if men are allowed to marry other men, or women marrying other women, but they seldom if ever tell us why. If two gay men having the right to marry weakens my marriage to Brenda, that would say a lot more about the weak foundation our marriage had than it would the gay men.
CNN.com also posted some comments to Dobson's article. As usual in public forums, the most thoughtful responses came from those who favor same-sex marriage. This again, in my opinion, shows just how little substance there is to the arguement against other than quoting tradition.
Of course, Dr. Dobson would probably find a way to blame the media for that too.
June 28, 2006
Responding to Stupdity and/or Bigotry
The good folks at Equality Maryland alerted me to this column written in the local Montgomery County, Maryland Gazette newspaper.
The writer, Blair Lee, is a longtime pundit on area politics. He was upset about Maryland Governor Robert Ehrlich removing Robert Smith from the local Metro transportation board because he referred to homosexuality as "deviant behavior" based on his Catholic faith.
Lee believed this was simply a case of opportunistic Democrats trying to cause trouble for a Republican governor who is up for reelection, and he is certainly entitled to that opinion. He is not entitled to this one, however:
"But the homosexual lobby is desperately and relentlessly trying to parlay the public’s tolerance into the acceptance of homosexuality as normal. After all, if God made homosexuals then homosexuality must be normal, right? Sorry, just because God created you doesn’t mean you’re normal. God created pedophiles and serial killers, too."
I expressed my outrage at this statement directly to Mr. Lee, and I'm publishing that e-mail here:
Dear Mr. Lee,
I have read your columns over the years in the various newspapers where they have appeared and respect your take on local politics. Even when I have disagreed with you views, I found them to be clearly stated and well supported.
Unfortunately, in your 6/23 column in the Gazette, you strayed from your area of expertise and showed ignorance at best, intolerance and bigotry at worst. You wrote:
But the homosexual lobby is desperately and relentlessly trying to parlay the public’s tolerance into the acceptance of homosexuality as normal. After all, if God made homosexuals then homosexuality must be normal, right? Sorry, just because God created you doesn’t mean you’re normal. God created pedophiles and serial killers, too.
Comparing homosexuals' place in society to pedophiles and serial killers is offensive and repugnant. I happen to be straight myself, but my brother and several members of my church family who I love very much are homosexual. I deeply resent you grouping these wonderful people in with murders.
Just so you know, many of the "perponderance of American religions" you refer to once treated women and blacks as lesser citizens. They grew beyond that as hopefully they will grow beyond their condemnation of homosexuality today.
I hope you show better judgement in your future columns and stick to politics. Leave the larger issues to those who have a grasp on reality.
Jim Johnson
www.straightnotnarrow.org
I encourage anyone who reads the column and agrees with me to send Mr. Lee an e-mail. His address is at the bottom of the page.
The writer, Blair Lee, is a longtime pundit on area politics. He was upset about Maryland Governor Robert Ehrlich removing Robert Smith from the local Metro transportation board because he referred to homosexuality as "deviant behavior" based on his Catholic faith.
Lee believed this was simply a case of opportunistic Democrats trying to cause trouble for a Republican governor who is up for reelection, and he is certainly entitled to that opinion. He is not entitled to this one, however:
"But the homosexual lobby is desperately and relentlessly trying to parlay the public’s tolerance into the acceptance of homosexuality as normal. After all, if God made homosexuals then homosexuality must be normal, right? Sorry, just because God created you doesn’t mean you’re normal. God created pedophiles and serial killers, too."
I expressed my outrage at this statement directly to Mr. Lee, and I'm publishing that e-mail here:
Dear Mr. Lee,
I have read your columns over the years in the various newspapers where they have appeared and respect your take on local politics. Even when I have disagreed with you views, I found them to be clearly stated and well supported.
Unfortunately, in your 6/23 column in the Gazette, you strayed from your area of expertise and showed ignorance at best, intolerance and bigotry at worst. You wrote:
But the homosexual lobby is desperately and relentlessly trying to parlay the public’s tolerance into the acceptance of homosexuality as normal. After all, if God made homosexuals then homosexuality must be normal, right? Sorry, just because God created you doesn’t mean you’re normal. God created pedophiles and serial killers, too.
Comparing homosexuals' place in society to pedophiles and serial killers is offensive and repugnant. I happen to be straight myself, but my brother and several members of my church family who I love very much are homosexual. I deeply resent you grouping these wonderful people in with murders.
Just so you know, many of the "perponderance of American religions" you refer to once treated women and blacks as lesser citizens. They grew beyond that as hopefully they will grow beyond their condemnation of homosexuality today.
I hope you show better judgement in your future columns and stick to politics. Leave the larger issues to those who have a grasp on reality.
Jim Johnson
www.straightnotnarrow.org
I encourage anyone who reads the column and agrees with me to send Mr. Lee an e-mail. His address is at the bottom of the page.
June 27, 2006
BBC: Do You Have the Right to Be Gay?
Thanks to PageOne Q, I saw this posted on the BBC (British Broadcasting Corp) website. Some Nigerians living in London were hosting an international day of prayer in support of gay and lesbian people living in Nigeria. Motivated by this, the BBC posed the question, "Do You Have the Right to Be Gay?"
An interesting cross-section of people responded with the predictable mix of answers. Here are a couple that I thought were noteworthy:
People (whether heterosexual, homosexual or asexual) should exhibit their sexuality (or lack of it) within their bedrooms. By the same token, governments have no business peering into people's bedrooms. However, there should be zero tolerance for discrimination when a person's sexuality becomes public knowledge, for whatever reason. Governments, particularly those in Africa, have more pressing problems, e.g., healthcare and poverty reduction.
Akpan, Kent, UK/Nigeria
Of course people have a right to be gay. It is a basic matter of respect for the individual. Those who would stop homosexuality or punish gays, anywhere in the world, are simply evil. We must not compromise, or allow for cultural relativity. That would be as bad as compromising with Al-Quaeda.
Richard, London, UK
I am an African lesbian. My sexual orientation is me, how can there be any debate about whether I have a right to be what I am? Heterosexual Africans should wake up to the truth.
Chris Smith,
Then, from the other side.....
The culture of Africa forbids same sex marriage. The fact that it is practised in other continents does not make it right. Africans, let's respect and defend our culture.
Daniel Bassah, Accra - Ghana
The bible says that it is an abomination. It is a dirty game. It is dangerous to humankind. The first time I saw a man kissing another man on Tv, I vomited the whole day.
rickie89, USA
Anyone has a right to be gay, lesbian or even bisexual. It's based on individual preference. What bothers me about the whole ordeal is the gay and lesbian community's eagerness at shoving their adopted lifestyles down our throats. Homosexuality and lesbianism shouldn't be gathering as much momentum as the media has accorded them.
Lara Ladejobi, USA
The debate goes on worldwide.
An interesting cross-section of people responded with the predictable mix of answers. Here are a couple that I thought were noteworthy:
People (whether heterosexual, homosexual or asexual) should exhibit their sexuality (or lack of it) within their bedrooms. By the same token, governments have no business peering into people's bedrooms. However, there should be zero tolerance for discrimination when a person's sexuality becomes public knowledge, for whatever reason. Governments, particularly those in Africa, have more pressing problems, e.g., healthcare and poverty reduction.
Akpan, Kent, UK/Nigeria
Of course people have a right to be gay. It is a basic matter of respect for the individual. Those who would stop homosexuality or punish gays, anywhere in the world, are simply evil. We must not compromise, or allow for cultural relativity. That would be as bad as compromising with Al-Quaeda.
Richard, London, UK
I am an African lesbian. My sexual orientation is me, how can there be any debate about whether I have a right to be what I am? Heterosexual Africans should wake up to the truth.
Chris Smith,
Then, from the other side.....
The culture of Africa forbids same sex marriage. The fact that it is practised in other continents does not make it right. Africans, let's respect and defend our culture.
Daniel Bassah, Accra - Ghana
The bible says that it is an abomination. It is a dirty game. It is dangerous to humankind. The first time I saw a man kissing another man on Tv, I vomited the whole day.
rickie89, USA
Anyone has a right to be gay, lesbian or even bisexual. It's based on individual preference. What bothers me about the whole ordeal is the gay and lesbian community's eagerness at shoving their adopted lifestyles down our throats. Homosexuality and lesbianism shouldn't be gathering as much momentum as the media has accorded them.
Lara Ladejobi, USA
The debate goes on worldwide.
June 26, 2006
Not Everybody Loves a Parade
I love my satellite radios (yes, I have BOTH XM and Sirius, what a radio whore I am), but occasionally some really aggravating noise comes out of it. That happened today, when I was surfing and ran across Fox Talk Radio.
The host was someone named Spencer Hayes, who was substituting for John Gibson. He was sharing the trauma he experienced this past weekend when he saw part of the Gay Pride parade in San Francisco. He kept going on about how he had to cover his five-year old son’s eyes because of, among other things, someone dressed as a dancing vagina.
The point Hayes was trying to make was how he felt “displays” like that set gay rights back 20, 30, even 50 years. He claimed to be a supporter of gay rights, at least before this weekend, but he made two statements that clearly exposed his prejudice to the contrary.
First, he questioned why anyone would be proud of being gay and need a day to express it. After all, he reasoned, he didn’t wake up every morning bursting with pride about being heterosexual. Of course, he probably never had anyone call him a sinner destined for hell because he was hetero. Hayes has probably never had political campaigns designed to limit his civil rights or restrict his rights to marry the person he loves. If so, he would probably have understood how important it is to the gay community to express pride in who they are despite what many of them have been told all of their lives.
I called in to the show and was put on the air, where the host again showed how oblivious he was to anything relating to GLBT people. I made the point that the exhibitionists at the Gay Pride parade weren’t any more representative of the gay community than Mardi Gras was of heterosexuals. I felt he was holding all gay people accountable for the actions of a few, which I equated to my having to answer for the debauchery in New Orleans. I also reminded the host that there was no more such thing as the “homosexual lifestyle” as there was a “heterosexual lifestyle.”
Hayes said that all you see at Mardi Gras was some girls lifting up their shirts and exposing their breasts while at the parade he saw two men wearing tutus, which was clearly worse. What! The only difference is, I suppose, is that he likes women’s breasts but doesn’t much care for men in tutus.
The worst part of Mr. Hayes’ ranting is that he was not entirely wrong. There are plenty of people who use events like the Pride parades and the exhibitionists who practice outrageous behavior in them to discredit the entire homosexual community. When a minority movement is trying to improve its traction, activities that strongly alienate a sector of their target demographic are not helpful.
Clearly, some of the participants in these events aren’t worried about anybody’s rights except their own opportunity to act out in whatever way pleases them. Unfortunately, behavior like this is not limited to any specific sexual orientation.
The host was someone named Spencer Hayes, who was substituting for John Gibson. He was sharing the trauma he experienced this past weekend when he saw part of the Gay Pride parade in San Francisco. He kept going on about how he had to cover his five-year old son’s eyes because of, among other things, someone dressed as a dancing vagina.
The point Hayes was trying to make was how he felt “displays” like that set gay rights back 20, 30, even 50 years. He claimed to be a supporter of gay rights, at least before this weekend, but he made two statements that clearly exposed his prejudice to the contrary.
First, he questioned why anyone would be proud of being gay and need a day to express it. After all, he reasoned, he didn’t wake up every morning bursting with pride about being heterosexual. Of course, he probably never had anyone call him a sinner destined for hell because he was hetero. Hayes has probably never had political campaigns designed to limit his civil rights or restrict his rights to marry the person he loves. If so, he would probably have understood how important it is to the gay community to express pride in who they are despite what many of them have been told all of their lives.
I called in to the show and was put on the air, where the host again showed how oblivious he was to anything relating to GLBT people. I made the point that the exhibitionists at the Gay Pride parade weren’t any more representative of the gay community than Mardi Gras was of heterosexuals. I felt he was holding all gay people accountable for the actions of a few, which I equated to my having to answer for the debauchery in New Orleans. I also reminded the host that there was no more such thing as the “homosexual lifestyle” as there was a “heterosexual lifestyle.”
Hayes said that all you see at Mardi Gras was some girls lifting up their shirts and exposing their breasts while at the parade he saw two men wearing tutus, which was clearly worse. What! The only difference is, I suppose, is that he likes women’s breasts but doesn’t much care for men in tutus.
The worst part of Mr. Hayes’ ranting is that he was not entirely wrong. There are plenty of people who use events like the Pride parades and the exhibitionists who practice outrageous behavior in them to discredit the entire homosexual community. When a minority movement is trying to improve its traction, activities that strongly alienate a sector of their target demographic are not helpful.
Clearly, some of the participants in these events aren’t worried about anybody’s rights except their own opportunity to act out in whatever way pleases them. Unfortunately, behavior like this is not limited to any specific sexual orientation.
June 25, 2006
Muslim Gays Seek Lesbians For Wives
Apparently Christians aren't the only ones who feel pushed into marriage to hide their homosexuality. According to this article from the Washington Post, this is also a trend among Muslims, even those in the United States.
"Marriages of convenience are the result of gay Muslims wanting to avoid emotional and physical harm to themselves," says Muhammed Ali, a board member of Homan, a Los Angeles-based support group for gay Iranians.
Yes, there is a support group for gay Iranians. I bet you didn't know that, did you?
The article states, "Homosexuality is a crime punishable by death in much of the Islamic world. In Iran last year, two gay teenagers were publicly executed, while in Afghanistan, the Taliban government would torture homosexuals by collapsing walls on them. Though gay Muslims in America don't have such fears, they still seek out marriages of convenience as a way of staying in the closet. Many of them worry about being ostracized from their families if their secret is revealed."
Here is a quote for you, "Homosexuality is a moral disorder. It is a moral disease, a sin and corruption. . . . No person is born homosexual, just like no one is born a thief, a liar or murderer," he said. "People acquire these evil habits due to a lack of proper guidance and education."
No, that's not James Dobson or Pat Robertson talking. The quote came from Muzammil Siddiqi of the Islamic Society of North America.
I wonder if Dobson can line up Siddiqi for his next "Love Won Out" conference?
"Marriages of convenience are the result of gay Muslims wanting to avoid emotional and physical harm to themselves," says Muhammed Ali, a board member of Homan, a Los Angeles-based support group for gay Iranians.
Yes, there is a support group for gay Iranians. I bet you didn't know that, did you?
The article states, "Homosexuality is a crime punishable by death in much of the Islamic world. In Iran last year, two gay teenagers were publicly executed, while in Afghanistan, the Taliban government would torture homosexuals by collapsing walls on them. Though gay Muslims in America don't have such fears, they still seek out marriages of convenience as a way of staying in the closet. Many of them worry about being ostracized from their families if their secret is revealed."
Here is a quote for you, "Homosexuality is a moral disorder. It is a moral disease, a sin and corruption. . . . No person is born homosexual, just like no one is born a thief, a liar or murderer," he said. "People acquire these evil habits due to a lack of proper guidance and education."
No, that's not James Dobson or Pat Robertson talking. The quote came from Muzammil Siddiqi of the Islamic Society of North America.
I wonder if Dobson can line up Siddiqi for his next "Love Won Out" conference?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
