School can be a difficult social environment for youngsters and young adults in college under the best of circumstances. If you are gay or lesbian, it is still not the best situation in many schools around the nation. This is from a survey by the organization GenderPAC:
A recent GenderPAC survey found that, of 651 students currently enrolled at US-based colleges and universities, 30% have been harassed or discriminated against on campus because they didn't fit expectations of masculinity or femininity; 13% have been harassed for using a restroom because they didn't fit expectations of masculinity or femininity; and 25% have felt unsafe in campus housing because they didn't fit expectations of masculinity or femininity.
GenderPAC also supported a University of Illinois study of 200 high school students in suburban Chicago. 62% of the students saw peers who weren’t masculine or feminine enough being called names and verbally harassed; 46% saw peers who weren’t masculine or feminine enough ostracized and excluded from groups; and 21% saw peers who weren’t masculine or feminine enough physically assaulted: pushed, shoved, or hit.
For those at schools without GenderSAFE protections, life can be unpleasant and sometimes dangerous. Students across the country have been mobilizing on their campuses to get the more inclusive policies and practices enacted.
More on the same theme is contained in this piece posted by Equality Texas:
Texas has never been known for stellar education.
However, there is a curriculum in Texas schools, available only to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer students. This curriculum includes the hallmarks of education, in contexts that are personally relevant to the student.
Our queer students learn READING - not just the classics, but reading between the lines.
Does that glare mean that a fellow classmate is having a bad day, or does that glare promise, "Hey, dyke, you just wait until after class and I'll teach you what you've got coming?"
Our queer students learn WRITING. We write to elected officials, pouring out our hearts to demand protection in our schools and receive a form letter in response, accompanied by the knowledge that no one is reading the reality of our grief. We write letters and journals full of fear, grief and pain. And, most tragically, queer students write suicide letters when daily abuse takes its toll.
Our queer students learn ARITHMETIC. We add cruel words, scars, tears, and bruises to sum up the value of our humanity in the eyes of our peers. We subtract daily from the list of people we can trust with our full selves.
Our queer students learn VOCABULARY. We learn that faggot, dyke, queer, deviant, and whore are synonyms for people like ourselves. We learn that these words outweigh words like friend, child, sister, brother, person, and human.
Our queer students get a daily education in how to DRESS for success. We learn to question, "If I wear this shirt today, will I be wearing a cast for the next eight weeks?" We learn to weigh our desire to be comfortable in our skin with the desire to avoid being beaten and forced into our lockers.
Our queer students learn ETHICS. We begin to understand that it is allowable for students to be beaten, harassed, even killed - as long as the students are queer. We learn there are teachers who look the other way to allow our peers to reinforce these lessons. We learn that rules of human decency do not apply when our dignity is concerned.
Our queer students learn about CIVICS and the function of government. We begin to understand that our elected officials don't care about the abuses we suffer, or if they do care, they can't be bothered to pass legislation to ensure our physical and emotional safety in our schools. We learn that our basic human dignity can be sacrificed at the altar of the anti-gay political agenda.
These lessons are teaching our students the depth of unfathomable pain.
We cannot pretend to be concerned with the quality of education in Texas unless we are willing to advocate for the protection and safety of ALL our students.
We need educational reform - not just a discussion of testing or class size, but rather a discussion of the most simple reality: students cannot learn if they are fearing for their lives.
Please join us in teaching ALL our students that they are valued and protected.
I can't imagine there's a more important lesson anyone could learn this school year.
August 28, 2007
Flumoxed By Protestant Churches' Fixation on Sexuality
That's the view of author and Columbia University professor Randall Balmer. He shares an ancedote in this post from the Washington Post/Newsweek "On Faith" section:
I continue to be flummoxed by the current fixation on homosexuality in Protestant denominations. Jesus himself said nothing about the matter, although he did affirm the Levitical proscriptions (which also, by the way, include prohibitions against the interbreeding of livestock and wearing garments made of two different kinds of fabric).
Jesus did talk about such issues as peacemaking and care for the poor and divorce. Regarding the latter, Jesus had nothing good to say, and he was pretty clear in his condemnations. Yet, curiously, that proscription against divorce has all but dropped out of view.
When I was researching "Thy Kingdom Come," I sat in on a gathering of conservative religious leaders as they were strategizing how to take control of mainline Protestant denominations. They were confident that the current struggle over the ordination of openly gay clergy and the ecclesiastical blessing same-sex unions would provide them the leverage they needed to wrest control of these denominations. For a day and a half in that Holiday Inn conference room, I heard almost nothing other than talk about sex.
Finally, toward the end of the gathering, I asked if I could pose a question. How many people in the room, I asked, had a theological objection to the ordination of women? One person out of twenty (an Episcopal woman!) raised her hand. I suggested that if this meeting had been taking place twenty or thirty years earlier they would be quoting the Bible in opposition to the ordination of women.
They were still a bit confused about my line of inquiry; I was trying to get at the historical contingency of our approaches to scripture. I guess what worries me about a gathering like this, I continued, is that if we had been meeting sixty years earlier or a hundred and sixty years earlier, when the issues of the day were, respectively, slavery and segregation, would I be sitting in this room quoting scripture to justify my support for slavery and segregation?
Long silence. “Well, this is different,” someone finally said.
Okay, I responded, how is it different?
Another long silence. “It’s just different.”
After another pause, the moderator suggested that we move on to the next report.
How many people's lives have been tragically damaged because they were "just different?"
I continue to be flummoxed by the current fixation on homosexuality in Protestant denominations. Jesus himself said nothing about the matter, although he did affirm the Levitical proscriptions (which also, by the way, include prohibitions against the interbreeding of livestock and wearing garments made of two different kinds of fabric).
Jesus did talk about such issues as peacemaking and care for the poor and divorce. Regarding the latter, Jesus had nothing good to say, and he was pretty clear in his condemnations. Yet, curiously, that proscription against divorce has all but dropped out of view.
When I was researching "Thy Kingdom Come," I sat in on a gathering of conservative religious leaders as they were strategizing how to take control of mainline Protestant denominations. They were confident that the current struggle over the ordination of openly gay clergy and the ecclesiastical blessing same-sex unions would provide them the leverage they needed to wrest control of these denominations. For a day and a half in that Holiday Inn conference room, I heard almost nothing other than talk about sex.
Finally, toward the end of the gathering, I asked if I could pose a question. How many people in the room, I asked, had a theological objection to the ordination of women? One person out of twenty (an Episcopal woman!) raised her hand. I suggested that if this meeting had been taking place twenty or thirty years earlier they would be quoting the Bible in opposition to the ordination of women.
They were still a bit confused about my line of inquiry; I was trying to get at the historical contingency of our approaches to scripture. I guess what worries me about a gathering like this, I continued, is that if we had been meeting sixty years earlier or a hundred and sixty years earlier, when the issues of the day were, respectively, slavery and segregation, would I be sitting in this room quoting scripture to justify my support for slavery and segregation?
Long silence. “Well, this is different,” someone finally said.
Okay, I responded, how is it different?
Another long silence. “It’s just different.”
After another pause, the moderator suggested that we move on to the next report.
How many people's lives have been tragically damaged because they were "just different?"
August 27, 2007
Vermont Mom Blasts Anti-Gays
Sometimes a person just can't take any more without blowing off some steam. That appears to be the case with this letter written by a lady in Vermont who has a gay son. The letter was posted on Family Pride (thanks to PageOneQ for the tip). I highly recommend reading the whole letter, but here are some excerpts:
Many letters have been sent to the Valley News concerning the homosexual menace in Vermont. I am the mother of a gay son and I’ve taken enough from you good people. I’m tired of your foolish rhetoric about the “homosexual agenda” and your allegations that accepting homosexuality is the same thing as advocating sex with children. You are cruel and ignorant. You have been robbing me of the joys of motherhood ever since my children were tiny.
My firstborn son started suffering at the hands of the moral little thugs from your moral, upright families from the time he was in the first grade. He was physically and verbally abused from first grade straight through high school because he was perceived to be gay.
You have the audacity to talk about protecting families and children from the homosexual menace, while you yourselves tear apart families and drive children to despair. I don’t know why my son is gay, but I do know that God didn’t put him, and millions like him, on this Earth to give you someone to abuse. God gave you brains so that you could think, and it’s about time you started doing that.
If you want to tout your own morality, you’d best come up with something more substantive than your heterosexuality. You did nothing to earn it; it was given to you. If you disagree, I would be interested in hearing your story, because my own heterosexuality was a blessing I received with no effort whatsoever on my part. It is so woven into the very soul of me that nothing could ever change it.
You use religion to abdicate your responsibility to be thinking human beings (emphasis mine). There are vast numbers of religious people who find your attitudes repugnant. God is not for the privileged majority, and God knows my son has committed no sin.
This is some seriously righteous anger, and I am thankful this lady directed it in a way that can be illuminating to others, especially those who accept their responsibility to be thinking human beings.
Many letters have been sent to the Valley News concerning the homosexual menace in Vermont. I am the mother of a gay son and I’ve taken enough from you good people. I’m tired of your foolish rhetoric about the “homosexual agenda” and your allegations that accepting homosexuality is the same thing as advocating sex with children. You are cruel and ignorant. You have been robbing me of the joys of motherhood ever since my children were tiny.
My firstborn son started suffering at the hands of the moral little thugs from your moral, upright families from the time he was in the first grade. He was physically and verbally abused from first grade straight through high school because he was perceived to be gay.
You have the audacity to talk about protecting families and children from the homosexual menace, while you yourselves tear apart families and drive children to despair. I don’t know why my son is gay, but I do know that God didn’t put him, and millions like him, on this Earth to give you someone to abuse. God gave you brains so that you could think, and it’s about time you started doing that.
If you want to tout your own morality, you’d best come up with something more substantive than your heterosexuality. You did nothing to earn it; it was given to you. If you disagree, I would be interested in hearing your story, because my own heterosexuality was a blessing I received with no effort whatsoever on my part. It is so woven into the very soul of me that nothing could ever change it.
You use religion to abdicate your responsibility to be thinking human beings (emphasis mine). There are vast numbers of religious people who find your attitudes repugnant. God is not for the privileged majority, and God knows my son has committed no sin.
This is some seriously righteous anger, and I am thankful this lady directed it in a way that can be illuminating to others, especially those who accept their responsibility to be thinking human beings.
Media coverage about backlash caused by "Civil Marriage is a Civil Right" signs
My post "So That's What It Feels Like" has received some attention in the local media. The story of how the sign promoting "Civil Marriage is a Civil Right" was stolen from my front yard was first picked up by the orgainzation sponsoring the campaign the sign represented, Equality Maryland. Executive Director Dan Furmansky sent out a press release titled "Backlash Felt by EQMD Sign Supporters" where he wrote about issues across the state with people stealing or vandalizing signs. Furmansky's point was that, if the campaign is upsetting opponents that much, that only shows its effectiveness.
I was also contacted by Joshua Lynsen, a reporter for the Washington Blade, to retell my incident. I was quoted in the subsequent article describing the backlash over the signs:
Among the campaign supporters who had their yard sign stolen is Jim Johnson of Rockville. Johnson, a 48-year-old straight man whose wife does gay ministry, said his sign was stolen July 28 by a neighbor who told him the sign was “littering up the neighborhood” when confronted.
“I think it comes down to a lack of respect,” he said. “That gentleman clearly didn’t respect anyone who was different from him.”
Johnson said he retrieved the sign from the trash bin it was thrown in, returned it to his yard and has not had any further troubles.
I can now cross "being quoted by a gay newspaper" off my list of things to do before I die. It was a recent addition.
I was also contacted by Joshua Lynsen, a reporter for the Washington Blade, to retell my incident. I was quoted in the subsequent article describing the backlash over the signs:
Among the campaign supporters who had their yard sign stolen is Jim Johnson of Rockville. Johnson, a 48-year-old straight man whose wife does gay ministry, said his sign was stolen July 28 by a neighbor who told him the sign was “littering up the neighborhood” when confronted.
“I think it comes down to a lack of respect,” he said. “That gentleman clearly didn’t respect anyone who was different from him.”
Johnson said he retrieved the sign from the trash bin it was thrown in, returned it to his yard and has not had any further troubles.
I can now cross "being quoted by a gay newspaper" off my list of things to do before I die. It was a recent addition.
August 26, 2007
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.
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.
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.
August 24, 2007
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.
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.
August 23, 2007
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.
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.
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.
August 22, 2007
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.
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.
August 21, 2007
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.
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.
August 19, 2007
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.
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.
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.
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.
August 17, 2007
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.
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?
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.
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.
August 16, 2007
"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.
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.
August 14, 2007
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.
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.
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.
August 13, 2007
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.
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.
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.
August 12, 2007
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.
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.
August 11, 2007
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.
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.
August 10, 2007
Welcome to the 14th Edition of the International Carnival of Pozitivities
I am pleased and honored to host the 14th Edition of the International Carnival of Pozitivities.
We are ALL living with HIV/AIDS. This is a carnival about living with HIV/AIDS and how HIV/AIDS has affected your life. This site assumes that HIV/AIDS is caused by a variety of HIV viruses, either wild strains or those generated from drug resistance, and is not a forum for those who do not believe that HIV causes AIDS. Your stories of life with HIV/AIDS, including your survival strategies, your medication issues, your friends or loved ones with HIV/AIDS, your efforts for the cause, in fact, anything to do with how you live positively will be accepted.
Here at Straight, Not Narrow, I write about issues that affect the GLBT community. As you can probably tell from the title of this blog, I am not gay myself, but my wife Pastor Brenda and I are deeply involved in mistering to GLBT people at our church, Believers Covenant Fellowship.
Brenda has been at it for about 20 years and introduced me to that ministry in 2004. We also work together on an Internet ministry project called the Affirming Christian Network, where we are gathering together different voices to speak to the GLBT community, both Christians and those who are seeking.
I ran across Ron Hudson's blog last year and, from that, learned about the ICP. We began corresponding on a regular basis, then I contacted him a while back asking for the opportunity to host an edition, which he was kind enough to allow me to do. I wanted to do this as a natural extension of a key princple of this blog--education. I believe many people who support homophobic practices in society and their churches do so more because of what they don't understand than because of what they think they do know. Education is one of the primary weapons against homophobia as it is against HIV/AIDS.
As you will see from the contributions to this, the 14th Edition of the International Carnival of Pozitivities, HIV/AIDS is a major global problem. There are numerous entries describing the horrible crisis over in Africa. Although the efforts of medical aid and prevention are still woefully short of where they need to be, there are still stories of hope and success on that continent, and you'll see some of those right here.
As is appropriate for such a far-reaching disease, the entries to the ICP come from people in different nations with different backgrounds that represent the diversity of the population affected by HIV/AIDS. I learned a lot about the world-wide impact of this disease from reading and watching the various contributions as I posted them here, and I'm sure you will too.
I would like to dedicate this edition of the ICP to the memories of those we know who succumbed to the disease and to the hope of those who currently deal with it every day of their lives.
The 15th Edition of the ICP will be hosted by Living Mindfully With HIV on September 10, 2007. You can visit the ICP homepage to see the schedule and hosts of future ICPs.
Karen Halls presents Alcoholism Signs - 15 Telltale Symptoms You Need to Know posted at Addiction Recovery Blog.
There are some very important and commonly occurring alcoholism signs that you should be well aware of if you think you or someone near to you might be having a problem with alcohol. Keep in mind that even if one of these alcoholism signs is present only one you or someone you love may be afflicted with and suffering from the disease of alcoholism.
Sokari presents thoughts that stop you from sleeping posted at Black Looks.
On Friday morning I received an email from a friend in Joburg – since I had left at the end of April she had lost three members of her family to AIDS. AIDs is another form of violence. 58% of people living with HIV in SA are women. Many of these women are positive because they were raped or because they had no power to refuse to have sex without a condom. They had no power to refuse their husbands or partners – refusing could lead to further violence – a kick, a punch, a stab, or a bunch or kicks, punches and stabs and being permanently disfigured, maimed or dead.
Dragonette presents The revolution will not be televised posted at NotPerfectAtAll.
Instead of focusing on isolating HIV people and insinuating our seperation from society, in a way that no other - infectious or not - sickness was isolated in the modern era, we should be getting a narrative that emphasizes that we are the very fabric of society, and we are not going anywhere because a virus has entered our bloodstream, whether it happened in a mass orgy or in a blood transfusion is completely irrelevant, what is insanely relevant is the enforcement of abstinence, the lack of affordable medication and treatment, and the lack of acceptance of the fact that poz people are part of society, just like people with cancer, Parkinson's or gingivitis are.
Dragonnette also presents No one........ posted at NotPerfectAtAll.
I am alone in a hospital bed in a dark room on the second floor of a huge hospital, I have HIV, the sun is shining outside, people are crowding the streets, and my life is gone, I am nothing, I disappear into a dot, I might even fall asleep, and then my dad enters. He opens the curtain and bends over and hugs me while I am curled in that bed, I cannot remember my dad hugging me in a bed, not even when I was little, I cannot remember my dad hugging me while I cried. One second I am a woman, going about my business in the big wide world, the next I am this, I have slipped back to a time I can't even remember.I am so thankful he is there.
Joe of Joe.My.God presents 20 Years Of ACT-UP In Photos posted at Joe. My. God.
A photographic retrospective of the work of Chuck Stollard covering the 20 years of ACT-UP's Los Angeles chapter will run June 16th -July 21st at LA's Drkrm Gallery:
Brian D. Morgan presents video from his presentation at the SC STD/HIV 2007 Convention posted at Brian "A little guy with a BIG heart!".
Jeannette Clariond presents Demarcation: Welcoming Guest Poet Jeannette Clariond of Mexico posted at 2sides2ron.
Jeannette L. Clariond is a poet and translator from Chihuahua, México. She holds a degree in Philosophy, and Masters Degrees in Spanish Literature, Methodology of Science and Master of Arts. When I thanked her for this contribution to the International Carnival of Pozitivities, Ms. Clariond wrote,"...poetry lives because it believes in suffering with others."
Farid de la Ossa presents Guest Artist: Farid de la Ossa of Colombia posted at 2sides2ron.
My name is Farid De La Ossa. I am a 31 year old Colombian artist living in the US who was diagnosed with HIV 4 months ago. The name of this piece is "Pansexuality" and it is based on the opportunity I have had to get to know transgenders and people dealing with different kinds of gender combinations of relationships in my stay in San Francisco (US).
Philip Javellana presents The NPF Newsbag: We're Going to Sydney! posted at The NPF Newsbag.
From July 17-25, NPF staff will be in Sydney, Australia conducting a training session for 50 international journalists on how to cover HIV/AIDS. We're working in collaboration with the International AIDS Society's 4th International Conference on HIV Pathogenesis, Treatment and Prevention.
Philip Javellana also presents Sydney 2007 Day 1: Living with HIV/AIDS posted at The NPF Newsbag.
For a look at the human side of the HIV epidemic, we worked with a local group, People Living with HIV/AIDS New South Wales, to bring in two men who have been living with the virus for the past 20 plus years. Peter Schlosser (left) and Tim Alderton are two Sydney natives who have lived through the history of the epidemic since the beginning. They shared their stories with us and took questions from the journalists.
Brian Finch presents July 13/07 How do I tell a thousand stories in one post? posted at acidrefluxweb.com.
With Frank translating I had a great conversation with these women. Let me put this into context, all of these women have been shunned in their communities, some have been living on the streets and had only street side vendors to make a few scraps of money. They feel rejected and only just begun to find each other for a source of support. Also, anti-retrovirals have only been widely available for three years.
For them it is amazing to talk to both of us openly. As we spoke about our lives these women completely opened up. We shared what it was like in Canada and in Rwanda the experiences of people living with HIV, being single and having the right to be in relationships and be married if we want to.
ACT UP Paris presents Act Up-Paris Abbott Blockade against Thailand : people with HIV/AIDS invite CEO to crisis resolution meeting posted at ACT UP Paris.
Today July 13 2007, The Thai Network of People living with HIV/AIDS and Act Up-Paris have invited Abbott Laboratories CEO Miles White to a conciliation meeting with a representative of the Thai government, during the International AIDS Conference in Sydney, on July 23 2007. This meeting aims to offer the drug company an opportunity to get out of the crisis in which it has dug itself since announcing a blockade of lifesaving medicines against the Thais, followed by a lawsuit against people with HIV for organizing an internet protest.
Page Bomar and Dr. Dave Wessner presents Microbicides: Empowering women posted at The AIDS Pandemic.
Current global AIDS statistics are staggering, to say the least. Approximately 40 million people worldwide are living with the disease, while 14,000 new infections occur each day. Women make up almost 50% of adult infections, but this figure is higher in sub-Saharan Africa, where women are 30% more likely to be HIV-positive than men.
Brian at Blogswana presents Motho ke motho ka motho yo mongwe posted at Blogswana.
Motho ke motho ka motho yo mongwe A person becomes human through his or her interaction with other people. In this month’s Vanity Fair Archbishop Desmond Tutu explains this same concept which he refers to as ubuntu.
Ubuntu is the essence of being human. And in our language a person is ubuntu, and ubuntu is a noun to speak about what it means to be human. We say a person is a person through other persons. You can’t be human in isolation. You are human only in relationships.
James Wortz presents Mindful Eating posted at LIVING MINDFULLY WITH HIV.
When we are mindful, we recognize what we are picking up. When we put it into our mouth, we know what we are putting into our mouth. When we chew it, we know what we are chewing. It's very simple.
Some of us, while looking at a piece of carrot, can see the whole cosmos in it, can see the sunshine in it, can see the earth in it. It has come from the whole cosmos for our nourishment.
You may like to smile to it before you put it in your mouth. When you chew it, you are aware that you are chewing a piece of carrot. Don't put anything else into your mouth, like your projects, your worries, your fear, just put the carrot in.
And when you chew, chew only the carrot, not your projects or your ideas. You are capable of living in the present moment, in the here and the now. It is simple, but you need some training to just enjoy the piece of carrot. This is a miracle.
Lorenzo presents barebacking is for haters? posted at god is brown.
As a (not so young anymore) Queer Xicano I have spent the last 10 years looking for my ancestors, many lost because of HIV/AIDS. I have dedicated myself professionally, artistically, academically and personally to supporting a movement to create a world free from such atrocities. Not a day goes by that I do not remember that through my veins flows the same virus that flowed through the veins of my ancestors. I must confess, however, that I am disappointed and saddened by some of the ways that we’re going about things.
Melody and Martha present Keeping medical records is the responsibility of the patient posted at The Nata village blog.
Gloria's record reflects her commitment to her treatment. Shehas pasted information about how AIDS can be transmitted and the importance of using a condom. This is just another way in which Gloria lives openly with this disease and at the same time educates others.
Giles Crouch presents Polygamy; Best Friend of HIV posted at Slimconomy.
But what is relevant to HIV is the concept of Polygamy. I've spoken of the cultural issues in South Africa, and many other parts of Africa related to men who have a wife and one or more mistresses, even a male partner in another Township nearby. In Western Africa however, it is more Polygamy, driven largely by the mix of Christianity and Animism in this part of the country. In Northern and Northeastern Africa, Islam has taken hold, which does not permit Polygamy. As a result, we do see somewhat less HIV/AIDS in this region, and much more in Western Africa
Jill Kingslea presents YouTube - Grassroots responses to HIV/AIDS, Swaziland posted at YouTube.
In Southern Africa, Swaziland is a nation of one million people. It is also home to the highest rates of HIV in the world. More than 42% of pregnant women test positive for the disease.
Warrior Scout presents dance hall days posted at kickin tina.
This passage defines precisely the message i hope to begin to leave as a gift for the gay men to follow me. come out- be who you are- but before you start the party and celebrate your sexuality and freedom, take the time to heal the wounds and scars you bring from all those years of deception, lies, and character assassinations. shine a light on them. don't hide them. this will hopefully help you lead a healthier and happier life.
therapydoc presents Can You Cry Too Many Tears? posted at Everyone Needs Therapy.
Sometimes it helps to look over your life and find the things that you forgot to cry for or weren't mature enough to cry for or had been taught that you shouldn't cry for, but you should have cried for when they happened. You should have cried at the time but you didn't.
Rich Ferguson presents YouTube - With This Kiss posted at YouTube. You can also check out Rich's home page.
With this kiss
There are revelations tattooed upon our lips
Revelations more easily read
On account of this silent pact with recognition
Where I'm beginning to see that we are slowly becoming healed
And this is not some medicine show down by the river
I'm not faking it, mistaking it, trying to rake in the bucks
From selling you some snake-oil of unfortified conviction
Just listen
Kh. Zahir Hossain presents Facing the Challenges of HIV/AIDS posted at 2sides2ron.
AIDS is no longer a problem of medication. It is a problem of development. It is not just an individual hardship. It also threatens to decimate the future prospects of poor countries, wiping away years of hard-won improvements in development indicators. As a result of the disease, many poor countries are witnessing a worsening in child survival rates, reduced life expectancy, crumbling and over-burdened health care systems, the breakdown of family structures and the decimation of a generation in the prime of their working lives.
Eric Seiwald presents Caring For the Whole Person posted at Fight AIDS. You can also check out his other site, Stop World Aids.
If you could go back in time to 1995, snatch a person with HIV or AIDS off the street and fast-foward him/her to 2007, he/she would be absolutely astonished at the changes that have taken place.
There's one thing our visitor form 1995 would recognize: most people with HIV focus on the virus as if it were the only health issue they need to care about. It's time for that to change! It's time for people with HIV to realize that the virus is only one part of their total health picture. It's time for people with HIV to start caring for the whole person.
Warrior Scout presents your gift is my song posted at kickin tina.
i have been working as a client advocate for persons living with hiv for two years now. it has been an eye-opening experience to say the least. more importantly is the heart opening that has been taking place in me the last two years as well. i have become aware of so many issues and details and circumstances in peoples lives that i previously was completely blind to. this is my song. and my song is knowing you.
Ron Hudson presents Your old prescription glasses are needed posted at 2sides2ron.
I found this heartbreaking post on the Nata Village Blog of Botswana recently and contacted Melody Jenkins of the group that publishes the blog. She and I discussed the need for prescription glasses (including sunglasses) for the elderly in her village and I decided to send out an appeal to you to donate any old prescription glasses that you might have around your home for these beautiful people.
Dianne M. Buxton presents Healthy Office Space Workouts posted at manifestingsuccess.
Highlighting the need for physical exercise as part of the holistic approach to healing, especially for long term survivors who tend to become sedentary and have need for muscle tone.
ANT presents CARE4U posted at The ANT Colony.
This pretty much sums it up. A little eye candy and some education. At the party Robert Gant, Thea Gill, Michele Clunie, Wilson Cruz, Daryl Stephens, and a ton of other stars. (That's Thea Gill and Michele Clunie from Queer as Folk who run up to me on the dance floor!)
We are ALL living with HIV/AIDS. This is a carnival about living with HIV/AIDS and how HIV/AIDS has affected your life. This site assumes that HIV/AIDS is caused by a variety of HIV viruses, either wild strains or those generated from drug resistance, and is not a forum for those who do not believe that HIV causes AIDS. Your stories of life with HIV/AIDS, including your survival strategies, your medication issues, your friends or loved ones with HIV/AIDS, your efforts for the cause, in fact, anything to do with how you live positively will be accepted.
Here at Straight, Not Narrow, I write about issues that affect the GLBT community. As you can probably tell from the title of this blog, I am not gay myself, but my wife Pastor Brenda and I are deeply involved in mistering to GLBT people at our church, Believers Covenant Fellowship.
Brenda has been at it for about 20 years and introduced me to that ministry in 2004. We also work together on an Internet ministry project called the Affirming Christian Network, where we are gathering together different voices to speak to the GLBT community, both Christians and those who are seeking.
I ran across Ron Hudson's blog last year and, from that, learned about the ICP. We began corresponding on a regular basis, then I contacted him a while back asking for the opportunity to host an edition, which he was kind enough to allow me to do. I wanted to do this as a natural extension of a key princple of this blog--education. I believe many people who support homophobic practices in society and their churches do so more because of what they don't understand than because of what they think they do know. Education is one of the primary weapons against homophobia as it is against HIV/AIDS.
As you will see from the contributions to this, the 14th Edition of the International Carnival of Pozitivities, HIV/AIDS is a major global problem. There are numerous entries describing the horrible crisis over in Africa. Although the efforts of medical aid and prevention are still woefully short of where they need to be, there are still stories of hope and success on that continent, and you'll see some of those right here.
As is appropriate for such a far-reaching disease, the entries to the ICP come from people in different nations with different backgrounds that represent the diversity of the population affected by HIV/AIDS. I learned a lot about the world-wide impact of this disease from reading and watching the various contributions as I posted them here, and I'm sure you will too.
I would like to dedicate this edition of the ICP to the memories of those we know who succumbed to the disease and to the hope of those who currently deal with it every day of their lives.
The 15th Edition of the ICP will be hosted by Living Mindfully With HIV on September 10, 2007. You can visit the ICP homepage to see the schedule and hosts of future ICPs.
Karen Halls presents Alcoholism Signs - 15 Telltale Symptoms You Need to Know posted at Addiction Recovery Blog.
There are some very important and commonly occurring alcoholism signs that you should be well aware of if you think you or someone near to you might be having a problem with alcohol. Keep in mind that even if one of these alcoholism signs is present only one you or someone you love may be afflicted with and suffering from the disease of alcoholism.
Sokari presents thoughts that stop you from sleeping posted at Black Looks.
On Friday morning I received an email from a friend in Joburg – since I had left at the end of April she had lost three members of her family to AIDS. AIDs is another form of violence. 58% of people living with HIV in SA are women. Many of these women are positive because they were raped or because they had no power to refuse to have sex without a condom. They had no power to refuse their husbands or partners – refusing could lead to further violence – a kick, a punch, a stab, or a bunch or kicks, punches and stabs and being permanently disfigured, maimed or dead.
Dragonette presents The revolution will not be televised posted at NotPerfectAtAll.
Instead of focusing on isolating HIV people and insinuating our seperation from society, in a way that no other - infectious or not - sickness was isolated in the modern era, we should be getting a narrative that emphasizes that we are the very fabric of society, and we are not going anywhere because a virus has entered our bloodstream, whether it happened in a mass orgy or in a blood transfusion is completely irrelevant, what is insanely relevant is the enforcement of abstinence, the lack of affordable medication and treatment, and the lack of acceptance of the fact that poz people are part of society, just like people with cancer, Parkinson's or gingivitis are.
Dragonnette also presents No one........ posted at NotPerfectAtAll.
I am alone in a hospital bed in a dark room on the second floor of a huge hospital, I have HIV, the sun is shining outside, people are crowding the streets, and my life is gone, I am nothing, I disappear into a dot, I might even fall asleep, and then my dad enters. He opens the curtain and bends over and hugs me while I am curled in that bed, I cannot remember my dad hugging me in a bed, not even when I was little, I cannot remember my dad hugging me while I cried. One second I am a woman, going about my business in the big wide world, the next I am this, I have slipped back to a time I can't even remember.I am so thankful he is there.
Joe of Joe.My.God presents 20 Years Of ACT-UP In Photos posted at Joe. My. God.
A photographic retrospective of the work of Chuck Stollard covering the 20 years of ACT-UP's Los Angeles chapter will run June 16th -July 21st at LA's Drkrm Gallery:
Brian D. Morgan presents video from his presentation at the SC STD/HIV 2007 Convention posted at Brian "A little guy with a BIG heart!".
Jeannette Clariond presents Demarcation: Welcoming Guest Poet Jeannette Clariond of Mexico posted at 2sides2ron.
Jeannette L. Clariond is a poet and translator from Chihuahua, México. She holds a degree in Philosophy, and Masters Degrees in Spanish Literature, Methodology of Science and Master of Arts. When I thanked her for this contribution to the International Carnival of Pozitivities, Ms. Clariond wrote,"...poetry lives because it believes in suffering with others."
Farid de la Ossa presents Guest Artist: Farid de la Ossa of Colombia posted at 2sides2ron.
My name is Farid De La Ossa. I am a 31 year old Colombian artist living in the US who was diagnosed with HIV 4 months ago. The name of this piece is "Pansexuality" and it is based on the opportunity I have had to get to know transgenders and people dealing with different kinds of gender combinations of relationships in my stay in San Francisco (US).
Philip Javellana presents The NPF Newsbag: We're Going to Sydney! posted at The NPF Newsbag.
From July 17-25, NPF staff will be in Sydney, Australia conducting a training session for 50 international journalists on how to cover HIV/AIDS. We're working in collaboration with the International AIDS Society's 4th International Conference on HIV Pathogenesis, Treatment and Prevention.
Philip Javellana also presents Sydney 2007 Day 1: Living with HIV/AIDS posted at The NPF Newsbag.
For a look at the human side of the HIV epidemic, we worked with a local group, People Living with HIV/AIDS New South Wales, to bring in two men who have been living with the virus for the past 20 plus years. Peter Schlosser (left) and Tim Alderton are two Sydney natives who have lived through the history of the epidemic since the beginning. They shared their stories with us and took questions from the journalists.
Brian Finch presents July 13/07 How do I tell a thousand stories in one post? posted at acidrefluxweb.com.
With Frank translating I had a great conversation with these women. Let me put this into context, all of these women have been shunned in their communities, some have been living on the streets and had only street side vendors to make a few scraps of money. They feel rejected and only just begun to find each other for a source of support. Also, anti-retrovirals have only been widely available for three years.
For them it is amazing to talk to both of us openly. As we spoke about our lives these women completely opened up. We shared what it was like in Canada and in Rwanda the experiences of people living with HIV, being single and having the right to be in relationships and be married if we want to.
ACT UP Paris presents Act Up-Paris Abbott Blockade against Thailand : people with HIV/AIDS invite CEO to crisis resolution meeting posted at ACT UP Paris.
Today July 13 2007, The Thai Network of People living with HIV/AIDS and Act Up-Paris have invited Abbott Laboratories CEO Miles White to a conciliation meeting with a representative of the Thai government, during the International AIDS Conference in Sydney, on July 23 2007. This meeting aims to offer the drug company an opportunity to get out of the crisis in which it has dug itself since announcing a blockade of lifesaving medicines against the Thais, followed by a lawsuit against people with HIV for organizing an internet protest.
Page Bomar and Dr. Dave Wessner presents Microbicides: Empowering women posted at The AIDS Pandemic.
Current global AIDS statistics are staggering, to say the least. Approximately 40 million people worldwide are living with the disease, while 14,000 new infections occur each day. Women make up almost 50% of adult infections, but this figure is higher in sub-Saharan Africa, where women are 30% more likely to be HIV-positive than men.
Brian at Blogswana presents Motho ke motho ka motho yo mongwe posted at Blogswana.
Motho ke motho ka motho yo mongwe A person becomes human through his or her interaction with other people. In this month’s Vanity Fair Archbishop Desmond Tutu explains this same concept which he refers to as ubuntu.
Ubuntu is the essence of being human. And in our language a person is ubuntu, and ubuntu is a noun to speak about what it means to be human. We say a person is a person through other persons. You can’t be human in isolation. You are human only in relationships.
James Wortz presents Mindful Eating posted at LIVING MINDFULLY WITH HIV.
When we are mindful, we recognize what we are picking up. When we put it into our mouth, we know what we are putting into our mouth. When we chew it, we know what we are chewing. It's very simple.
Some of us, while looking at a piece of carrot, can see the whole cosmos in it, can see the sunshine in it, can see the earth in it. It has come from the whole cosmos for our nourishment.
You may like to smile to it before you put it in your mouth. When you chew it, you are aware that you are chewing a piece of carrot. Don't put anything else into your mouth, like your projects, your worries, your fear, just put the carrot in.
And when you chew, chew only the carrot, not your projects or your ideas. You are capable of living in the present moment, in the here and the now. It is simple, but you need some training to just enjoy the piece of carrot. This is a miracle.
Lorenzo presents barebacking is for haters? posted at god is brown.
As a (not so young anymore) Queer Xicano I have spent the last 10 years looking for my ancestors, many lost because of HIV/AIDS. I have dedicated myself professionally, artistically, academically and personally to supporting a movement to create a world free from such atrocities. Not a day goes by that I do not remember that through my veins flows the same virus that flowed through the veins of my ancestors. I must confess, however, that I am disappointed and saddened by some of the ways that we’re going about things.
Melody and Martha present Keeping medical records is the responsibility of the patient posted at The Nata village blog.
Gloria's record reflects her commitment to her treatment. Shehas pasted information about how AIDS can be transmitted and the importance of using a condom. This is just another way in which Gloria lives openly with this disease and at the same time educates others.
Giles Crouch presents Polygamy; Best Friend of HIV posted at Slimconomy.
But what is relevant to HIV is the concept of Polygamy. I've spoken of the cultural issues in South Africa, and many other parts of Africa related to men who have a wife and one or more mistresses, even a male partner in another Township nearby. In Western Africa however, it is more Polygamy, driven largely by the mix of Christianity and Animism in this part of the country. In Northern and Northeastern Africa, Islam has taken hold, which does not permit Polygamy. As a result, we do see somewhat less HIV/AIDS in this region, and much more in Western Africa
Jill Kingslea presents YouTube - Grassroots responses to HIV/AIDS, Swaziland posted at YouTube.
In Southern Africa, Swaziland is a nation of one million people. It is also home to the highest rates of HIV in the world. More than 42% of pregnant women test positive for the disease.
Warrior Scout presents dance hall days posted at kickin tina.
This passage defines precisely the message i hope to begin to leave as a gift for the gay men to follow me. come out- be who you are- but before you start the party and celebrate your sexuality and freedom, take the time to heal the wounds and scars you bring from all those years of deception, lies, and character assassinations. shine a light on them. don't hide them. this will hopefully help you lead a healthier and happier life.
therapydoc presents Can You Cry Too Many Tears? posted at Everyone Needs Therapy.
Sometimes it helps to look over your life and find the things that you forgot to cry for or weren't mature enough to cry for or had been taught that you shouldn't cry for, but you should have cried for when they happened. You should have cried at the time but you didn't.
Rich Ferguson presents YouTube - With This Kiss posted at YouTube. You can also check out Rich's home page.
With this kiss
There are revelations tattooed upon our lips
Revelations more easily read
On account of this silent pact with recognition
Where I'm beginning to see that we are slowly becoming healed
And this is not some medicine show down by the river
I'm not faking it, mistaking it, trying to rake in the bucks
From selling you some snake-oil of unfortified conviction
Just listen
Kh. Zahir Hossain presents Facing the Challenges of HIV/AIDS posted at 2sides2ron.
AIDS is no longer a problem of medication. It is a problem of development. It is not just an individual hardship. It also threatens to decimate the future prospects of poor countries, wiping away years of hard-won improvements in development indicators. As a result of the disease, many poor countries are witnessing a worsening in child survival rates, reduced life expectancy, crumbling and over-burdened health care systems, the breakdown of family structures and the decimation of a generation in the prime of their working lives.
Eric Seiwald presents Caring For the Whole Person posted at Fight AIDS. You can also check out his other site, Stop World Aids.
If you could go back in time to 1995, snatch a person with HIV or AIDS off the street and fast-foward him/her to 2007, he/she would be absolutely astonished at the changes that have taken place.
There's one thing our visitor form 1995 would recognize: most people with HIV focus on the virus as if it were the only health issue they need to care about. It's time for that to change! It's time for people with HIV to realize that the virus is only one part of their total health picture. It's time for people with HIV to start caring for the whole person.
Warrior Scout presents your gift is my song posted at kickin tina.
i have been working as a client advocate for persons living with hiv for two years now. it has been an eye-opening experience to say the least. more importantly is the heart opening that has been taking place in me the last two years as well. i have become aware of so many issues and details and circumstances in peoples lives that i previously was completely blind to. this is my song. and my song is knowing you.
Ron Hudson presents Your old prescription glasses are needed posted at 2sides2ron.
I found this heartbreaking post on the Nata Village Blog of Botswana recently and contacted Melody Jenkins of the group that publishes the blog. She and I discussed the need for prescription glasses (including sunglasses) for the elderly in her village and I decided to send out an appeal to you to donate any old prescription glasses that you might have around your home for these beautiful people.
Dianne M. Buxton presents Healthy Office Space Workouts posted at manifestingsuccess.
Highlighting the need for physical exercise as part of the holistic approach to healing, especially for long term survivors who tend to become sedentary and have need for muscle tone.
ANT presents CARE4U posted at The ANT Colony.
This pretty much sums it up. A little eye candy and some education. At the party Robert Gant, Thea Gill, Michele Clunie, Wilson Cruz, Daryl Stephens, and a ton of other stars. (That's Thea Gill and Michele Clunie from Queer as Folk who run up to me on the dance floor!)
August 09, 2007
Thoughts on the HRC/LOGO Democratic Presidential Debate
You can watch replays of each candidate's appearance right here.
I loved the idea of the candidates appearing one at a time. These “debates,” especially the ones with several candidates, often turn into free-for-alls where people are talking over one another. This format gives each candidate an opportunity to state their case, eloquently or not, without having to fight for time against other candidates.
Obama proposed a robust civil union concept, but really didn’t explain why a different title was needed. Despite his protests to the contrary, it still came across as “separate but equal,” particularly ironic for an African-American to propose.
He did a good job of putting homophobia in the black community in perspective, pointing out much more serious issues they needed to worry about.
He slipped the question of comparing the 1960’s civil rights struggle to the current GLBT civil rights issues.
Overall: I went into this thinking that Obama was a good person but lacked enough depth and experience to be an effective, and nothing he said here changed my mind.
Edwards was very strong on equal coverage in health insurance, same-sex couple adoption, employment non-discrimination laws, don’t ask, don’t tell, and DOMA.
I personally enjoyed how he took out Ann Coulter, saying she plays to “the lowest common denominator” of people.
He said candidates should “speak out with strength and passion, not quietly and carefully.” Oh, if only someone would.
He backtracked somewhat on his anti-same-sex marriage comments, saying “I shouldn’t have said that,” but would not answer Joe Solmonese’s questions about what in his faith had him stop short of endorsing it.
Overall: Edwards came out strong in almost all areas of GLBT equality, much stronger than Obama, but still won’t budge on same-sex marriage. His views would be a huge step forward toward equality, but would stop short.
Kucinich gets perfect marks for his views on GLBT equality. He implied that he was a member of the HRC.
Melissa Etheridge fawned over him, pointing out how our nation needed a leader who would take a stand on issues just because it was right thing to do. She’s absolutely correct, but I feel compelled to point out that it’s a lot easier to do that when you’re polling around 1% of the vote. There’s not a lot to lose at that point.
Overall: Kucinich said, and I suspect truly believes, all the right things for his audience. Nice to hear, but ultimately irrelevant. At 1%, he can't make enough noise to force the leading candidates to respond to his lead.
Ravel has been playing somewhat of the curmudgeon role in previous debates and started out by pointing out that he had originally been left out of this debate until pressure was put on the HRC to allow him in, especially since he directly supports same-sex marriage.
He complained that the GLBT community is not supporting himself or Kucinich since they are the two candidates most strongly supporting their issues. Seems like a cheap shot to me since neither one of them have any chance of being elected, and most GLBT voters realize that.
Pastor Brenda points out that “in this country, you can’t be president unless you can play politics, and these guys (Kucinich and Ravel) would get eaten alive.”
He wants us to have drugs. Sounds like we could turn prisons into rehab facilities if he had his way.
Overall: Are you kidding? This guy makes Kucinich look like a front runner.
Richardson started out with “The nation is on a path toward full equality. It is the responsibility of a president to lead that effort.” He then talked up civil unions instead of marriage.
He is the first candidate to bring up hate crimes. How did we go over an hour into a presidential Q & A without that coming up?
He has had to spend some time on the defensive, the first candidate so far that had to do so. He tried to divert attention onto larger international issues and his recent track record as New Mexico governor, but he still sounded very defensive.
He whiffed badly on the question of whether he would sign a bill for same-sex marriage as governor, saying domestic partnerships are the same thing. Governor Richardson, they are NOT the same thing.
The camera showed some VERY negative body language from Melissa Etheridge and some glares from the studio audience.
He instinctively answered Ethridge’s question “do you think homosexuality is a choice or are you born that way?” with “a choice.” When she restated the question, he bobbed and weaved away from answering it.
Overall: Richardson would have fared better if he had stayed home. This was painful to watch.
I wasn’t impressed with Clinton’s answer about why she didn’t introduce legislation to repeal ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Although correct in saying they could not have gotten it through a Republican congress, I thought she spent too much time justifying her husband’s support of the law when it was first passed. Mike Rogers said it best in a column on The Huffington Post:
Lip service is good, but until one of the sitting US Senators running for president actually introduces a bill to repeal DADT I don't really want to hear it from them.
I’m glad that Solmonese followed up on her “leave it up to the states” line. She spoke strongly and eloquently against the Marriage Protection Act, but kept getting bogged down in policy detail. I also don’t feel that she made a good case for the old state’s rights line. I doubt she reduced Solmonese’s frustration about it, and I know she didn’t diminish mine.
Kudos to Melissa Ethridge for saying during the Clinton administration “our hearts were broken after all the promises made.” Senator Clinton was gracious in how she responded, but didn’t offer much of substance.
She did a good job in explaining her mistake in initially waffling on the question of the immorality after the bigoted remarks made by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. She also made one definitive statement when asked “would you put someone on the bench who was anti-gay?” Her response was an emphatic, unqualified “No!” She also said during her closing remarks that she would fight for hate crimes legislation.
Overall: Senator Clinton showed again that she is a polished politician and very much middle-of-the-road regarding GLBT rights. Don’t expect rapid movement toward GLBT equality from a Clinton presidency. Instead, there would be the potential of slow, gradual progress.
FINAL SUMMARY:
I doubt anything here moved the needle much one way for another, except maybe to hurt Richardson. Despite that, I believe this event lived up to the hype. Despite some fawning over the candidates for merely showing up, there were some hard hitting questions and positions were communicated more clearly than they normally are in the more standard form debate. I’m glad they had this event, and I’m glad they watched it.
I won’t hold my breath for the Republican party to follow suit.
Larry King Devoting Show to Transgenders
On Friday's Larry King Show (9 PM Eastern time), the topic will be transgenders:
Men who go under the knife to become women, women who become men. Inside the world of transgender people.
If you click here to go to the show's webpage, you'll find a link where you can e-mail in a question for Larry to ask his guests.
Men who go under the knife to become women, women who become men. Inside the world of transgender people.
If you click here to go to the show's webpage, you'll find a link where you can e-mail in a question for Larry to ask his guests.
August 07, 2007
Impact of LOGO Debate--Bigger Than One Might Think?
That's the opinion of John D'Emilio, a historian of gay history and professor at the University of Illinios. He was interviewed by MSNBC in their leadup to the debate:
Q: Only about four percent of the voting population is gay. Is the focus of a “gay debate” too narrow?
A: Well, four percent self-identified as gay or lesbian or bisexual. There are two points to make about that. First, there are still people who won’t self-identify, so the figure is probably a little bigger—maybe six percent. And we know that the six percent is not equally distributed around the country. Urban areas are more likely to have a higher percentage than rural ones. You’re going to have larger populations in the state of Massachusetts than you’re going to have in North Dakota. So in some states this forum might make a bigger difference than in others.
But second, I think same-sex marriage these days, and AIDS earlier in the ‘80s and ‘90s, demonstrated that lots of people have really strong feelings about gay issues. When you’re having a debate where the candidates are addressing these issues, there’s this four or five percent that are really concerned about it, but there’s also the larger population that finds it relevant. Some are concerned about it because they have family members who are gay; some are concerned because they’re religious and their religions say it’s wrong. I have no idea what the TV audience will be for this. The audience might not be large, but once it starts to circulate online and in the media, people will hear what the candidates were saying, and it will be relevant to a lot of people.
Click here to read the rest of the interview.
While I'm not going to do a play by play on the debate, I do plan to have some comments posted shortly after its over Thursday night.
Q: Only about four percent of the voting population is gay. Is the focus of a “gay debate” too narrow?
A: Well, four percent self-identified as gay or lesbian or bisexual. There are two points to make about that. First, there are still people who won’t self-identify, so the figure is probably a little bigger—maybe six percent. And we know that the six percent is not equally distributed around the country. Urban areas are more likely to have a higher percentage than rural ones. You’re going to have larger populations in the state of Massachusetts than you’re going to have in North Dakota. So in some states this forum might make a bigger difference than in others.
But second, I think same-sex marriage these days, and AIDS earlier in the ‘80s and ‘90s, demonstrated that lots of people have really strong feelings about gay issues. When you’re having a debate where the candidates are addressing these issues, there’s this four or five percent that are really concerned about it, but there’s also the larger population that finds it relevant. Some are concerned about it because they have family members who are gay; some are concerned because they’re religious and their religions say it’s wrong. I have no idea what the TV audience will be for this. The audience might not be large, but once it starts to circulate online and in the media, people will hear what the candidates were saying, and it will be relevant to a lot of people.
Click here to read the rest of the interview.
While I'm not going to do a play by play on the debate, I do plan to have some comments posted shortly after its over Thursday night.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
