GLBT Moms: Adopt or Conceive?

That is an intriguing question in today's society, and writer Maggie Quale shared her personal experience with it on The Advocate.com:


Here’s what the beating heart sounds like in my tortured head: Hundreds of thousands of children need families. Thump. Our planet is overcrowded and every new person strains our already strained resources. Thump. The world is violent, unstable, and so on. Thump. Conversely, someone needs to produce those kids who are destined to become productive global citizens. Someone needs to be the voice of tolerance and love and inspire positive change. Thump thump. The arguments are compelling and timeless—and they’re driving me mad.


And suddenly the biggest contradiction of all hits me. What if it’s not about whether we should adopt or get pregnant? What if I actually feel selfish out of some lingering internalized homophobia? Like, the reason it's so difficult to have a baby is because I'm not supposed to, that it's wrong. Perhaps it’s really the resonance of my mother’s Catholic background haunting me and reminding me that infertility is a dictum from God. Perhaps my desire to adopt is not about my own desire, but rather me trying to prove that I’m a good person to the straight world. Silence.


Being queer or unpartnered or infertile shouldn’t exclude me from the miracle of pregnancy if that’s what I choose. Finally, wishing I were someone else won’t change who I am or make me happier. That’s coming-out lesson number 1.

So you know what my answer is? Yes, it is selfish. Whether I like it or not, there are always conceivably more helpful and loving choices I could make. But that doesn’t mean it’s wrong. The bottom line is that I love being a mother. I thrive on every single exhausting, endless moment and I’m ready for a gazillion more. But maybe I’ve got to admit that not all of my impulses are perfectly selfless—and that is OK. Maybe just being me is OK. Maybe now the thumping will stop and Kim and I will get some sleep.


I have some personal experience with the conceive vs. adopt question. My late wife Bette and I tried to have a child, were unable to naturally, tried fertility treatments which also failed, and then considered adoption but were financially unable to do that either. By the time we were, we were both well into our 40's and her health wasn't good, so we decided to drop it, although that issue haunted her through her final days.


I wholeheartedly support the right of gay and lesbian people to have kids, both by giving birth and adoption. From my perspective, I would side toward the points Ms. Quayle made in the first paragraph about the existing overpopulation--this planet does not need anyone to go out of their way to make babies, enough are popping out as it is. However, I would never promote the idea of denying anyone who felt they had the calling to be a parent to deny themselves the opportunity.


The world has enough room for babies who are wanted and who will be loved, regardless of the gender or number of parents involved.

Dr. Albert Mohler Jr. on Courage

Dr. Mohler, is one of the staunchest anti-gay ministry leaders around. You may remember a few months ago when I shared with you his idea of developing a way to "cure" homosexual babies while still in the womb. Hit latest uttering was published in the "On Faith" section of the Washington Post website. I'm posting it here in its entireity followed by my comments:

A Failure of Courage
Churches and denominations that invite or allow their standards to be openly violated institutionalize hypocrisy. This usually indicates that the church lacks both the courage to change the standards and the conviction to enforce them.

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America [ELCA] has voted to encourage its bishops not to take punitive action against ministers who violate the denomination's ban on active homosexuals in the ministry. Last year, the Presbyterian Church USA [PCUSA] took a similar action, allowing local jurisdictions (presbyteries) to ordain candidates for ministry who violate a similar policy. Both cases represent tragic failures of leadership. Both churches failed to maintain their own standards and lacked the courage or consensus to change them.

All this is further evidence of why the liberal denominations are in such a decline in terms of membership and influence. These churches are divided between liberals who push constantly for doctrinal changes and conservatives who are determined to keep standards they believe to be mandated by the Bible. The conservatives are losing.

The liberals are pushing for the full normalization of homosexuality. This runs right into conflict with biblical prohibitions and clashes with the standards of these churches. Liberals in these two denominations dominate the landscape in the seminaries and church bureaucracies, but they have not yet been able to muster adequate support to change the policies. Conservatives are losing a battle akin to theological trench warfare. The big battles are lost an inch at a time.

Bishops, presbyteries, and congregations are charged to maintain the doctrines and standards of the church. When a bishop or presbytery or congregation fails in this task the whole church suffers. When this failure is made a matter of policy, the entire church embraces hypocrisy. When bishops are encouraged to allow doctrines and standards to be violated, they are encouraged to violate the integrity of their office. The same holds true for presbyteries or congregations, depending on the form of church government.

This process does not start with issues of sexuality, of course. Long before these churches faced controversies over sexuality, they had already allowed the doctrinal foundations of their churches to be eroded and compromised.

In other words, a "don't ask, don't tell" policy on doctrine preceded a "don't ask, don't tell" policy on matters of sexuality.

The only means of recovery is repentance and an affirmation of biblical authority. "Don't ask, don't tell" just doesn't work in church.

Here is a copy of the e-mail I sent to Dr. Mohler in response.

I am writing this in response to your essay in the Washington Post titled "A Failure of Courage,"
your latest attempt to diminish and marginalize an entire section of God's creation, homosexuals.

I've read numerous pieces like this you've written and seen you on television touting the same line, showing a smugness and assuredness that leaves no possibility of error or, worse, indicates intentional misinterpretation of scripture to suit your personal prejudices.

I suspect it is not difficult to take this approach with a group of people when you're sitting at a computer screen or looking into a television camera. In those situations, they are a nameless, faceless abstract concept; the homosexuals.

Have you ever gone to a house of worship with a congregation that is predominantly gay and lesbian? Have you ever looked them in the eye, one person at a time, and spewed your message of how God condemns their "lifestyle," even those who are in long-term committed relationships (something straight ministers seem to be having more and more problem sustaining themselves). Have you witnessed gay Christians soaking in the Holy Spirit, speaking words from the Lord, and told them that it is all an illusion?

You write about the courage of the church in your latest essay, do YOU have the courage to come to my church, Believers Covenant Fellowship, in northern Virginia and worship with us? Do you have the courage to take a chance that you might experience a truly enlightening spiritual experience with a group of homosexuals that all have names and faces?

I have the courage to make this challenge to you and give you the opportunity to look me in the eye and tell me that my GLBT brothers and sisters do not deserve the right to stand with you and me in full fellowship in God's kingdom. My pastor, Dale Jarrett, enthusiastically endorses this challege and invites you to join us in our worship, 11:00 AM every Sunday.

I'm sure you wouldn't want to waste your time with a small congretation like ours, so to make the trip worth your time, we will make sure to capture the service on video, especially the part where you talk to Apostle Jarrett and myself afterward to share your thoughts on our worship experience. We will then post it on You Tube so you can have a substantial audience.

Do you have enough courage to venture into apparently unknown territory? I hope so. My GLBT brothers and sisters would welcome the opportunity to show you a side of God your writing indicates that you have not expereicned.

Sincerely,

Jim Johnson
www.straightnotnarrow.org

I'll let everyone know if I receive any type of response to this e-mail. You can contact Dr. Mohler at mail@albertmohler.com if you would like to share your thoughts on his views of the GLBT community.

Are "Ex-Gays" Also Anti-Gay?

Based on their recent rhetoric following the concurrent Ex-Gay Survivors conference and the annual Exodus International convention in California, Alan Chambers and representatives of the ex-gay proponent Exodus organization wanted people to think that.


According to this post from Box Turtle Bulletin, they are not backing that up with their actions.


A “pro-family” crowd is gathering in Florida next month at something called the Family Impact Summit to “inform and empower involved Christian citizenship”. They’ll be talking about religious freedom, racial reconciliation, global warming (is it global whining?), and life issues. Oh yes, and homosexuality.


And who will be there? The speakers list includes some of the most strident homophobes in the conservative movement. Let me be clear - these are not just people who oppose homosexuality or same-sex couples for religious reasons. No, these are people who actively seek to dehumize gay persons by using derogatory language, lies, and false accusations. These are people who regularly campaign to exclude gay persons from the civil liberties and freedoms that they demand for themselves.


The post provides a detail listing that reads like a rogues gallery of homophobia. Check out the link if you're curious.


Along with this virtual Who’s Who of Homophobia there are a number of other speakers who seem to have been selected due to the one thing they have in common – extremist credentials. Surely, no one who is seeking to reach out to same-sex attracted people would want to have anything to do with this hate-fest.

Yet into that mix are added Scott Davis, Mike Ensley, and Alan Chambers of Exodus International.


Wait!! Really??


But aren’t these the same guys who claim over and over and over that the church needs to welcome homosexuals and help them reclaim their heterosexuality? Don’t they say that anti-gay language and bigotry have to go?


Huh? How does that fit with joining in a conference of noted homophobes which seems obsessed with a political agenda against the rights of gay people?


Good question. None of those men have taken up the offer made on the post to respond.


A rational person can easily conclude that Chambers et al weren't exactly sincere with their claims of embracing gay people. Sounds like they just wanted to combat the negative PR they got during the ex-gay survivor conference.


Let's see how they spin this.

LA Times Editorial: Hate Crimes' Bill Threat to Preaching the Gospel "Ridiculous"

An op-ed piece in the LA Times, written by an expert on the subject of free speech, effectively skewers evangelicals' objection to the hate crimes legislation on deck for consideration by the U. S. Senate (it has already passed in the House).

A coalition of conservative African American pastors has aggressively lobbied against this legislation on the premise that it would make it unlawful for them to preach that homosexuality is a sin. Bishop Harry R. Jackson Jr., pastor of the Hope Christian Church in College Park, Md., for example, has asserted that the act would "keep the church from preaching the Gospel."

This objection to the legislation is fanciful.

the legislation expressly provides that "nothing in this act . . . shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected" by the 1st Amendment. In other words -- indeed, in the most explicit words possible -- the act could not be applied to the pastors unless their sermons are unprotected by the 1st Amendment, a concept that is impossible to imagine.

The 1st Amendment protects the right of Nazis to march in Skokie, the right of racists to assert that blacks are inferior, the right of atheists to denounce Christianity and the right of homophobes to condemn homosexuality. The argument of the pastors that the proposed legislation in any way threatens their right to preach their version of the Gospel is, to be frank, ridiculous.

Beyond leaders of the church using misinformation and outright lies to try and defeat this bill, I want to raise another point here.

Bishop Jackson has invested a lot of effort into gaining publicity for his opposition to this legislation. He has a right to do that. I wonder, though, how he could have used that time differently tending to his congregation and community. I am very familiar with the area Bishop Jackson's church is located in. There are a LOT of needs in the community and, I suspect, his congregation, that a church could help meet. They appear to have numerous initiatives already existing, but there are still many people whose needs, both spiritual and material, that are not being met.

Of course, that wouldn't be as effective to help sell the inventory of books listed on the church's website, nor would it book passengers on the 3-day Bahamas cruise the church is advertising.

Why the Democrats Should NOT Shut Up About Gays and Marriage

A few days ago I posted an essay from The New Republic which held the view that Democratic presidential candiates should shut up about same-sex marriage in order to improve the chance of one of them getting elected.


The New Republic has published a rebuttal by Evan Wolfson, the executive director of Freedom To Marry.


I have recommended that candidates be authentic and direct about their values and the policies of fairness that flow from them not just because it is the right thing to do, but because it is also in their interest to do so. If candidates want to spend less time talking about gays and marriage, and more time talking about other questions, the best way to do that is to simply stand on clear principle, and explain that they are for equality in marriage because marriage matters and equality is right for all Americans. Then they can move on, rather than open themselves to countless follow-up questions on policies and positions that are incoherent or inauthentic. They could focus their campaigns on the real problems facing the country, the problems, by the way, that will determine the votes of most Americans, rather than the difference between civil union and the freedom to marry. Evasive answers fall short not just as politics, but as policy, and raise broader concerns about candidates' values, character, and leadership.


The truth is that Democrats, progressives, fair-minded Republicans, and other friends and potential allies will never be anti-gay enough to quiet their opponents. Democrats who don't support the freedom to marry fail in both directions: embracing the separate, unequal, and ultimately unworkable patchwork of civil unions while running from their party's historic commitment to fairness and inclusion. The abandonment of any effort to persuade the center on big questions has, for more than a decade now, ceded ground and power to the right-wing. Silence and evasion have harmed couples and their kids, and also our country.


As public support for marriage equality continues to evolve, Democrats, thus already perceived as the party of "gay marriage," have a winning issue on their hands, one that evokes the best traditions of their party--fairness and inclusion. The conversation will not stop. Candidates who want to move on to other questions ought to get the freedom to marry question right--for their sake as well as the country's.


It is easy to be cynical and think that Wolfson appeals to politicians to act as a matter of principle because that principle matches the viewpoint Wolfson has worked so hard to promote, but that doesn't mean it isn't right.


I think Wolfson's points about being able to move beyond the marriage question by making a clear-cut definitive statement on the issue and the idea of, whether people agree or disagree with it at least there would be respect for someone taking a stand are both dead on.


Sadly, I would be shocked it his wishes became reality, at least in this election cycle.

Seven Straight Nights For Equality

Atticus Circle and Soulforce are pleased to introduce Seven Straight Nights for Equal Rights, a national event that will provide straight Americans with opportunities to do justice and motivate new allies to stand up and be counted for equal rights.

Seven Straight Nights is a coordinated campaign of overnight vigils led by straight allies. It will sweep across cities throughout the nation during the week of October 7-13, 2007, gaining momentum as more states participate in the event.

The vigils are led by families, individuals, or groups, and focus on their personal decision to speak out on behalf of LGBT equality. Depending on the state, the leaders will either offer thanks for the state's positive policy record or issue a call to action on pertinent issues such as hate crimes, employment discrimination, and marriage equality.

The organizers of this event approached me to participate, and if something gets organized in my state (Maryland) I will do so enthusiastically. I have shared my disagreement with Souforce's methods that involve civil disobedience and people getting arrested, but that is not a part of the plan for this activity. It is designed as a show of solidarity by straight allies supporting their GLBT brothers and sisters.

There are currently eleven states that will be represented in this event. You can find the list and more detailed information about 7SN at the official website. If your state is not represented and you know of anyone who would want to organize and be part of this event, it's not too late. You can contact the organizers at info@sevenstraightnights.org or call 512-450-5188.

I'll be profiling some of the state leaders, straight advocates for GLBT equality, between now and the event.

Washington DC Black Church Becomes Battleground for Same-Sex Unions

This from the Washington Post:

Never in a "million years" did Robert Renix think he would find a Baptist church that would accept someone like him: a black Baptist gay man. Never mind one that would allow what happened one Saturday last month, when a tuxedo-clad Renix stood in front of the pulpit at Covenant Baptist Church in Anacostia, exchanging vows with his partner, Antonio Long.

It didn't turn out to be that simple, though.

About 140 members jammed into the fellowship hall a few weeks later for a tense meeting about the recent decision of Covenant co-pastors Dennis and Christine Wiley to conduct same-sex union ceremonies. Some expressed their opposition through Bible verses, saying they were worried that Covenant was getting a reputation as a "gay church." Others wept as they defended the Wileys, said people who were there.

For years, disputes over homosexuality have convulsed predominantly white Protestant denominations -- Lutheran, Methodist, Episcopalian and Presbyterian -- but they have only recently hit black churches.

"It's going to be a real challenge," said the Rev. Carlton W. Veazey, minister at Fellowship Baptist Church in the District and founder of the annual National Black Religious Summit on Sexuality. "We're just beginning to really deal with it."

Most major historically black denominations have taken strong stances against homosexuality.

The National Baptist Convention USA Inc., the nation's largest predominantly black denomination, and the African Methodist Episcopal Church forbid clergy from officiating at ceremonies for same-sex couples, and Pentecostal denominations such as the Church of God in Christ consider homosexuality a sin. The Progressive National Baptist Convention, of which Covenant Baptist is a member, has not taken a stand on homosexuality or same-sex unions.

The Wileys say the backlash in their church caught them by surprise. For years, they have preached that homosexuality is not a sin. Despite the objections, they performed another same-sex union ceremony Aug. 10, for a lesbian couple.

Although the Wileys face opposition, they say they believe they are being called by God to preach acceptance of gays as part of the social justice agenda long embraced by black churches.

"We, as African Americans, should be the last people in the world, based on our history, to turn around and oppress others," said Dennis Wiley, who took over as Covenant's pastor from his father, the Rev. H. Wesley Wiley, 22 years ago.

Kudos to the Wileys for literally practicing what they preach. They took a stand on what they believed was the right thing to do and are sticking with it, something that is all too rare in our society.

There is much more detail in the Washington Post article I linked to, using Covenant Baptist Church as a case study in how black churches, even ones that profess to be gay affirming, deal with the reality of same-sex unions; not very well, it appears.

Could Democratic Presidential Candidates be Right in Not Pushing for Gay Marriage?

James Kirchick believes they are in this column published in The New Republic, and he supports his point very well:


During last week's gay issues forum, broadcast on the cable television station LOGO and sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), all of the Democratic presidential candidates expressed their support for legal equality for gays via civil unions. But, with the exceptions of former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel and Congressman Dennis Kucinich, they opposed calling those relationships marriage.


This seeming hypocrisy doesn't sit well with gay rights advocates. Evan Wolfson, head of the Freedom to Marry coalition and one of the intellectual fathers of gay marriage, says that, just as previous American presidents made the civil rights struggle into a national issue through the power of "moral suasion," presidential candidates ought to voice support for gay marriage today because it "creates a political, cultural and moral space for America to rise to fairness." HRC's vice president of programs, David M. Smith, says that "The most important role the presidency plays in public policy debates is the bully pulpit, to sway public opinion." And as HRC President Joe Solmonese put it after the debate, "The next president must be committed to not only doing what's achievable, but also what's right."


It would certainly be refreshing to hear a leading presidential candidate come out in favor of "what's right" and support gay marriage. But gay marriage advocates are actually doing their cause a disservice by pushing the Democratic candidates on the issue.


Kirchick reviews the national polls that still show a majority of people are against full marriage rights for same-sex couples and points out that the granting of marriage licenses is still under the jurisdiction of the individual states, not the federal government. He suggests a different approach than what many GLBT advocates are calling for:


But in the present climate, asking that presidential candidates support same-sex marriage--while serving an important moral purpose--demands a significant political sacrifice. At most, gays should expect a president to act as a bulwark against congressional attempts to limit their rights and to support congressional attempts to defend those rights. This means pledging to repeal anti-gay laws like the Defense of Marriage Act and Don't Ask, Don't Tell and to sign pro-gay ones like the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which all of the Democratic candidates have explicitly promised to do. Seeing the Democrats squirm on the issue of gay marriage may make for good political theater, but it does not make good politics.


Those actions would certainly be important steps toward equality, at least removing some of the largest barriers. However, I'm not sure I trust a politician who does not believe in his heart that GLBT people should completely have the same rights as heterosexuals to take these steps. If they don't believe in equality, then how far will they really go?


That is one of the difficult questions the GLBT community and their advocates must answer when choosing which presidential candidate to support in 2008. I don't have a clear choice at this point, and I suspect many of you don't either.

"How Open Is Your Office?"

Perhaps one of the more difficult decisions a GLBT person has to make is whether or not to come out at their place of employment and, if so, how many people do they want to be in the loop?


Here is an article from Forbes magazine that covers this topic in some detail:


Many workplaces now have nondiscrimination policies and same-sex partner benefits. But people interviewed for this article say that deciding to come out at the office and then figuring out how to do it comfortably is an issue they deal with every time they switch jobs. Obviously there is not a one-size-fits-all method. But several people who came out at the office say
certain things have worked for them.


Click here to find out what they are.



Thanks to the Triangle Foundation in Michigan for the tip.

Embracing the Label of "Bigot"

That's not something I would relish, but Roman Catholic activist Patricia McKeever is apparently quite happy about being nominated for the U.K.'s Stonewall "Bigot of the Year."

Ms McKeever's Stonewall nomination reads:

"The secretive editor of the Catholic Truth website and newsletter, she co-ordinates a relentless campaign to 'name and shame' gay Catholic priests, and has been widely condemned for conducting a 'witch-hunt.'"

McKeever responded:

"I have been informed that I am shortlisted for your "award" of "Bigot of the Year" - quite an honour! However, you really mustn't believe all you read in the papers.

"I am not conducting a witch-hunt; our newsletter team reacts to the various concerns (church issues) put to us by our readers and reporting on sexually active priests or priests who contravene Church law by supporting the homosexual lifestyle has been a tiny fraction of our work to date.

"Anyway, I just wanted to set the record straight but I repeat, I am honoured to be considered "Bigot of the Year" by your organisation which seeks to repress all who dare to criticise your lifestyle.

Here is the definition of bigot from the Merriam-Webster website:

: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

Yep, it certainly appears that Ms. McKeever is worthy of consideration for this "award," although if I'm representing a church I'd wonder if I should be recognized as demonstrating hatred instead of love.

Christian Leaders as Political Operatives

That continues to be a concern, and some (including me) believe a violation of IRS regulations.


Recently, Wiley Drake, the pastor of First Southern Baptist Church in Buena Park, California and second vice president of the Southern Baptist Convention, endorsed republican candidate Mike Huckabee for president. He did so in a press release made on church stationary and referenced his title with the SBC.


From Beliefnet.com:


"Federal tax law is clear," said the Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United.


"Churches and other nonprofits may not endorse candidates if they want to keep their tax exemption. I am confident that the vast majority of Americans do not want to see their houses of worship politicized."


I hope Rev. Lynn is right, he usually is. I know I agree with him.


Drake responded on Tuesday. "In light of the recent attack from the enemies of God I ask the children of God to go into action with Imprecatory Prayer, especially against Americans United for Separation of Church and State."


I had to look up what an imprecatory prayer was, figuring is wasn't good. I was right. After checking several sources, the consensus is that an imprecatory prayer is akin to a curse, wishing misfortune on others, seeking some twisted form of what they perceive to be appropriate judgement from God for their offenses.


Yeah, this is the kind of guy I want to endorse my favorite presidential candidate (if I had one yet). Well, while he's busy praying against a legitimate non-profit organization, Drake is breaking the law with his political endorsement. I'm sure he will have a way to justify it, these kind of people always seem to, but it speaks poorly of his church for supporting him and the Southern Baptist Convention for having him in a position of leadership.


Maybe the IRS can lead him into paying taxes like other political operatives are required to do.

Detail on the Arlington High Point Church Gay Funeral Controversy

Everything you could possibly want to know about this situation can be found at Bene Diction Blogs On, he did a wonderful and very thorough job of researching both sides of this story, and there are clearly two sides to it.

Here is a brief summary:

46 year old Cecil Sinclair died Monday August 6, 2007 from a surgical infection. He was Fort Worth native, graduated from Sam Houston High School in Arlington in 1979 and from Stephen F. Austin State University in Nacogdoches. He was a Navy veteran of Desert Storm. An Arlington High Point unnamed staff member arrives at the hospital after he dies and offers to hold his memorial service at the church. Cecil’s brother Lee is a janitor at the church, which had been praying for Cecil since he became ill six years ago. Eva Bowers, Cecil’s mother, a nurse, moved in to care for Cecil a year prior to his death. The family accepts the church offer and preparations begin for a video, food, and the memorial. The memorial was scheduled for Thursday, August 9, 2007.

Tuesday August 7, 2007, Cecil’s sister Kathleen Wright, works with two church AV staff to prepare the photos. Paul Wagner’s statement says 83 pictures were submitted, and there was one photo which could be considered offensive. It was removed, and at no time did the family ask it be included.The two AV church staff did not say anything to the family about any other photos. Paul Wagner says the AV director received a written note from Cecil’s mother Eva Bowers giving her permission to “use his judgement” if he had a problem with any of them.He said he could edit or crop the photos, so there wouldn’t be a problem.

Wednesday August 8, 2007 Cecil Howard Sinclair’s obituary was published.Wednesday August 8, 2007 Arlington High Point Church pulled it’s invitation to hold the service.

That's when the proverbial poo-poo hit the fan. Faced with public criticism about retracting it's offer to host the funeral, the church went into full spin mode and very effectively turned public opinion back in its favor. One example of that is this article from The Christian Post titled "Texas Megachurch Harassed for Refusing to Host Pro-Gay Memorial."

As Bene Diction writes, the family reports that the church was not truthful about its reason for recanting the offer to hold the funeral and apparently greatly exaggerated the "inappropriate" content to be presented during the funeral. This information greatly degrades the postion of the church "taking a stand on principle." According to the information Bene Diction gathered, the church tried to simply weasel out of holding the service, then when faced with some backlash turn it into a PR situation.

Sort of easy to forget that a family lost a loved one here, isn't it? It's bad enough they had to mourn, they also had to cope with a public campaign to smear the deceased.

So tell me again why some GLBT people are predisposed to mistrust the church?

Montgomery County Could Be Isolated in Teaching on Homosexuality

That's the well-supported conclusion reached in this article in the New York Times.


Montgomery is a mostly well-educated, politically liberal enclave. But opponents of the new curriculum, portrayed as a vocal minority by school officials, may be more in sync with the mood of parents nationally.

According to a 2004 national poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation, Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government and National Public Radio, roughly three out of four parents say it is appropriate for high schools to teach about homosexuality, but about half say it is appropriate in middle school.


When asked about the issue in greater detail, more than 50 percent of high school and middle school parents supported teaching what homosexuality is about “without discussing whether it is wrong or acceptable.” Only 8 percent of high school parents and 4 percent of middle school parents said schools should teach “that homosexuality is acceptable.” The survey had a margin of error of 6 percentage points.

Montgomery County may be ahead of the country on sex education, but it may also just be out there, stranded on its own.


I've written about this before, but for those of you who don't know, the Montgomery County I'm referring to is in Washington, DC suburbs of Maryland, and I also happen to live there. If you want some background on the limited cirriculum that is scheduled to be taught this coming school year, check out the NY Times article.


Thanks to Teach The Facts, the advocacy organization that helped get this cirriculum put in place, for the link.

"Sometimes, a writer is called to stand up for something"

That's a quote from Andrew Sullivan, who called out Washington Post writer and LOGO/HRC Presidential Forum questioner Jonathan Capehart for not advocating for same-sex marriage in his writing. In fact, in this column from Monday's Post, Capehart gave the candidates a pass on not supporting it themselves:

I don't fault Clinton, Sen. Barack Obama or former senator John Edwards for their opposition to gay marriage, even if their explanations leave me scratching my head. Clinton's mantra that this is a states' rights issue, while logical, makes this descendant of slaves just a bit uncomfortable. Edwards backed off using his Southern Baptist upbringing to justify his opposition. But I still find it hard to believe his opposition is real since his no-nonsense wife, Elizabeth, and daughter Cate are in favor of gay marriage. And I can't even point to a reason Obama is against it, other than his oft-stated belief that marriage is between a man and a woman.

But that's okay. Look, they've all committed to snagging for the gay community as many as possible of the more than 1,100 federal rights and responsibilities that come with civil marriage that are now denied to committed same-sex couples. Isn't that what everyone's fighting for in the first place? Like it or not, it's a good start, and if one of these Democrats succeeds in winning the White House, he or she should be pushed to fulfill that promise.

And here's something else to think about before some of y'all fill my e-mail inbox with petty putdowns: Republican pursuers of the White House rejected their invitations to talk to the gay community about the issues important to it. Chances are that if they're not interested in talking to you during the campaign, they will be even less inclined to do so if they win.

Isn't the fact that writers like Capehart excuse candidates for coming up short on supporting GLBT equality make it easier for them to do so? The media does influence public opinion--not always a good thing but true nonetheless. Obviously not all journalists, even GLBT ones, are in position to wave the rainbow flag to support same-sex marriage and all other civil rights currently denied to members of the GLBT community, but Capehart clearly had an opportunity here and instead punted.

Sullivan's take was:

Sigh. Capehart's one of the good guys, he's an excellent journalist, and he played a role in getting Bloomberg to back marriage equality. But sometimes movements are too pragmatic for their own good. Sometimes, a writer is called to stand up for something, rather than defend those who cannot stand for what's right. Too many gay activists in Washington have flunked that test. If we are not passionate about our own equality, how do we expect straight politicians to be?

In today's America, most politicians are not leaders, they are followers, servants to opinion polls. The needles move on those polls when advocates have the opportunity to get their voices heard by large numbers of people. If those voices aren't strong and stand up for principles, then voters won't either. If voters don't demand change, today's politicians certainly aren't going to initiate it themselves.

Ethnic Cleansing In Europe--One Politician Wants It

Just when you think civilization has come so far, we get people like this:


From 365gay.com


A call by the deputy mayor of Treviso for the ethnic cleansing of gays from the region, in the north of Italy, has sparked a mass demonstration.

Nearly a thousand people turned out in front of the city hall on the weekend to demand the resignation of Giancarlo Gentilini.


Last week the rightwing politician told a local television station that he would order police to put an end to gay cruising which he claimed was out of control.


"I will immediately give orders to my forces so that they can carry out an ethnic cleansing of faggots," Gentilini told the station in an interview.


"The faggots must go to other [places] where they are welcome. Here in Treviso there is no chance for faggots or the like."


The politician's remarks brought back memories of the Mussolini dictatorship where Jews, gays and other minorities were rounded up and sent to concentration camps - mostly in Axis-controlled countries where many died during World War Two.


Nothing like the good old days, is there? Yes, there are still people in positions of power (though fortunately this politician didn't weild a whole lot of it) who just ooze hatred toward people different than them. I'm glad to see the people there wasted little time in demonstrating and showing him that those views would not be tolerated.


How many think like that but keep their mounts shut? I fear is it more than we would ever like to admit.

Lutherans End Punishment for Pastors in Same-Sex Relationship

From Reuters:


Homosexual Lutheran clergy who are in sexual relationships will be able to serve as pastors, the largest U.S. Lutheran body said on Saturday.


The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) passed a resolution at its annual assembly urging bishops to refrain from disciplining pastors who are in "faithful committed same-gender relationships. "


The resolution passed by a vote of 538-431.


"The Church ... has just said 'Do not do punishments' ," said Phil Soucy, spokesman for Lutherans Concerned, a gay-lesbian rights group within the church. "That is huge."


The ELCA, which has 4.8 million members, had previously allowed gays to serve as pastors so long as they abstained from sexual relations.


The conference also instructed a committee that is developing a social statement on sexuality to further investigate the issue. The committee is scheduled to release its report in 2009.


Since the ELCA was founded in 1988, the group has ordered three pastors in gay relationships to be removed from their ministries. The most recent case was decided in July when the ELCA's committee on appeals voted to remove an openly gay pastor from St. John's Lutheran Church in Atlanta.


This is obviously encouraging, but the Lutherans are hardly overwhelmingly embracing this situation. A 538-431 vote means there is still quite a split in the church, and as the Christian Post reports, the day before the delegation had voted down a measure that would have ended the ban. That means that a ban still exists, but it is not enforceable with punishment.


That is not a situation that will lead to peace within the denomination and bears watching as time goes forward.

Giving the Right More Ammunition

I posted yesterday on the subject of not giving opponents of GLBT equality the opportunity to play themselves as victims. Here is another story that gives the right-wing more ammunition to damage the credibility of the GLBT community.

You've probably heard by now about four San Diego firefighters who were allegedly ordered to ride a fire engine as representatives of the department in the San Diego pride event last month. It was a common occurence for the SDFD to be represented in the parade, and the lesbian fire chief assigned four apparently straight and unwilling men to participate in this year's activities.

So of course they are now preparing to sue the city for having to endure "three hours of vulgar sexual harassment." No doubt the Thomas Moore Law Center, who is the legal representation of the firemen, latched onto this and, dare I say, fanned the flames for all it's worth.

From the Christian Post:

“‘Participation’ should be a voluntary act,” argued Brian Rooney, an attorney and director of communications at TMLC, in a released statement. “[T]hese four firefighters had no choice in the matter and that is wrong no matter what one’s sexual orientation.”

Unfortunately, he has a point.

"Even the homosexual community should be outraged and ashamed of the sexual harassment these firemen were forced to endure,” Rooney added.

“To say that this parade was sexually charged is an understatement,” commented Matt Barber, Concerned Women for America (CWA)’s policy director for cultural issues, in a statement.

Although most local papers reporting on the parade made no mention of the lewd and offensive behavior that characterized the parade, Barber noted that the event and other events like it “are simply pagan celebrations of hedonism and sexual deviancy.”

Although I have no doubt they are exaggerating, from what I've learned about pride parades, they're probably not totally making the story up either.

Two critical issues come up here that will allow the right to gain a lot of propaganda mileage out of what is, really, a very minor issue.

First, it seems to me that the fire chief should have tried to find four firemen who wouldn't have a problem participating in the event. If these men are telling the truth, they made it known that they did not want to do this and forcing them to do so was begging for trouble.

Second is the general nature of the pride parades. I do have some understanding of people wanting to express themselves in a manner that neither I or others find comfortable or appropriate. It seems to me, however, that the exhibitionists I believe can be found at every big city pride parade need to think a little less about themselves and more about others in the GLBT community. Their behavior only gives bigots and homophobes more ammunition to preach hatred and discrimination, and does so in a very public setting.

Can people just take a look at the big picture here? Obviously the right wing won't, instead making this issue, as they do so well, into a major event to galvanize support against perceived hedonistic GLBT people and get their fellow homophobes to dig deeper into their wallets to support the cause.

Knowing that, participants in events celebrating the pride of the GLBT community need to take some ownership of their own destiny. If you want equality, you need to be saavy enough not to give you opponents something to use against you. If you don't care about equal rights for yourself and others like you, then you don't have enough pride to warrant participating in these events. Save the drama and theater for the clubs.

Focus on the Family Supporting AIDS Benefit Race

I don't get a chance very often to say something positive about the folks at Focus on the Family within the context of this blog, but I have that chance now and I'm happy to jump on it.


Focus on the Family is supporting a local bike race in it's home base of Colorado Springs that is raising money for AIDS relief.


"We are all thrilled to death," said Linda Boedeker, executive director of the AIDS project. "We were also a little bit surprised."


I bet they were.


There seems to be the perception that (because) AIDS is seen as typically associated with the gay community, that Focus on the Family wouldn't care for these people," said Devin Knuckles, a spokesman for Focus on the Family.


"It's kind of hurtful," Knuckles said. "It's our mission to help people who need help."
Boedeker said that Focus on the Family's participation belies its local reputation for not supporting the gay community or many local events.


"We have had some complaints," Boedeker said. "There are a lot of people (who) think that Focus on Family must have an agenda. ... I think they are trying to do what's right in their community."


Ryan Acker, executive director of the Pikes Peak Gay and Lesbian Community Center, said Focus on the Family's involvement in the race raised some serious questions.

"There's no doubt that Focus on Family has harmed many individuals and families in the community with their anti-gay rhetoric," Acker said. "There are many who feel they don't have a role here.

"I think that Focus on the Family's stepping up to the plate to help is the right thing to do," Acker said.


"They're only friendly to certain kinds of families," Citizens Project interim executive director Barb Van Hoy said of Focus.

"They are often a divisive force here," Van Hoy said. "But I think any participation that is going to help people who are hurting is a good thing.


Obviously one small step forward by Focus on the Family won't heal the deep hurt they have inflicted upon the GLBT community, but I'm glad to see the Colorado Spring activists, while acknowledging that, taking the high road and accepting their involvement in this event.


When it comes to helping people, it's time to look beyond grievances, no matter how justified they are, and focus on bringing the greatest benefit possible.

Don't Create Right-Wing "Victims"

People who display right-wing bigotry just LOVE to play the victim. I found another example of it in this column by Sandy Rios, a host on WYLL, a Christian talk radio station in Chicago. She had condemned the San Diego Padres allowing the San Diego Pride organization to have a block of tickets on the same night as a family event, "Floppy Hat NIght," was scheduled. It was not billed as a "Gay Pride" event like Ms. Rios erroneously stated in her column.

Anyway, she received some negative comments.....and relished every word of them.

Please do us all a favor … get raped and then killed. You rancid, filthy ___.” That’s a direct quote from an e-mail I received after appearing on “The O’Reilly Factor.”

“You are a shameful disgrace and hate monger,” penned another in response to my statement that homosexuality is an unhealthy, life-shortening lifestyle that should not be promoted by the Padres to children.

This woman appears to be a pure homophobe, subscribing to the narrow-minded view that acknowledging the existence of gays and lesbians in "promoting them to the children." Homophobes love being able to portray themselves as victims of those supporting, wait for it, "the homosexual agenda."

Ms. Rios' received further attention for her remarks and went into full martyr mode:

For such “hate” I was named runner up for the “Worst Person in the World” by MSNBC’s Keith Olberman. This kind of vulgarity, exaggeration and the not-so-veiled threats are nothing new to those of us who dare speak the truth to a world turned upside down. Homosexual activists have propagated their deceptive message so effectively that their own community tragically believes they cannot change, they have no choice—and that people who oppose their “choice” hate them.

While I will never enjoy death threats and vulgar accusations, I know they can, at times, be the natural response of evil to truth. Committed Christ-followers for centuries gave their lives rather than be silenced. Can we not bear these comparatively little consequences in our own lost generation? Yes, we can.

You see, responding to these people with hate is like throwing gasoline on a fire. It energizes them and gives them an excuse to claim to the moral high ground. As you can see from Ms. Rios' comments, she spins the situation into her just trying to help save people, but some ingrates were very mean to her.

She also writes:

What does God hate? Religious phonies … liars … deceivers. Jesus drove them from the temple with a whip. He reserved his harshest comments for false teachers … calling them “blind guides … hypocrites … open-throated graves.”

She wrote this about Fred Phelps, but in my opinion it clearly applies to those who preach the type of judgement and condemnation toward the GLBT community that she spews herself.

Please don't e-mail her and tell her that though. It will just encourage her.

Instead, tell GLBT people you know or their friends and/or families who don't accept them as they are that those hateful, bigoted words are not of God, they are from people. God has a place for the GLBT person in His kingdom, and they don't have to stop being GLBT to get there.

Pastor Brenda has taught me that you will not win an arguement with someone like Sandy Rios. Her mind appears to be shut tight on that issue. Don't waste your time with her--save it for someone who needs to hear the true message of God's love and would benefit by receiving it.

GLBT People Are Not Issues, They Are Human Beings

That's the point eloquently stated by Joan Garry, the former long-time director of GLAAD, in this column on the Huffington Post.

It's unusual when a line from a play or film sticks with you but I think we all carry a handful of them around with us. I've been thinking about one in particular recently -- from the Bernard Pomerance play, The Elephant Man. In a painful wail, John Merrick begs for those around him to see, understand and accept his humanity. "I am not an animal -- I am a human being."

Throughout this presidential nominations process, I have come to see that I too have something to wail. "I am not an issue -- I am a human being.

The leading Democratic candidates know the drill too. They've got an entire inventory of 'real moments' and use them often to emphasize their policy point. There are names, there are faces. But gay and lesbian Americans do not have names or faces in stump speeches, debates or interviews. We are referenced only in the abstract.

Have you ever heard Hillary, Barack or John mention a name of anyone they know or have met who is gay or lesbian? Has John Edwards ever used his "Two Americas" paradigm to assess gay vs. straight America? Has Barack ever told a story about meeting with a lesbian couple (using real names) who want the right to marry and then make a direct correlation with his own parents' struggle as an interracial couple? Has Hillary ever talked about how she would feel if Chelsea's significant other was not Mark but Martha?

OK, I know. For these candidates, I am seen as a hot potato. I am a political football. I am a vote the Democrats can take for granted. I am a wedge. I am a potential liability. And I am not naïve. I understand the nature of politics and the realities of the political landscape. I recognize that I am all of the things listed above.

But I am not abstract -- I am real. For decades, the gay rights movement has worked to be visible, to be out, to be real -- recognizing that the opposition's strategy is all about abstraction. It's troubling to see our own candidates feeding right into that.

GLBT advocacy is the most effective when the issues are represented by a human face. Until our political leaders take that approach, GLBT equality in the laws of our nation will continue to be an uphill struggle won in small increments.