Taking the HRC to Task on ENDA Flip-Flop

In his most recent column, activist and writer Wayne Besen both defends the Human Rights Campaign's position in the GLBT community and slams their changing position on the inclusion of gender identity as a protect group in ENDA.



Whether you like it or not, HRC has built the best - or at least most financially viable - mousetrap. America is a free country, and if HRC detractors think they can do better - there is nothing stopping them from marching up to Capitol Hill and making it happen.



Now that I have taken a swipe at the irrational HRC haters, the organization has earned some legitimate criticism on their handling of the ENDA debate. They have made an absolute mess of the situation and damaged their reputation and credibility as an honest powerbroker.



For starters, Executive Director Joe Solmonese told a packed room of transgender people at the Southern Comfort Conference in September that HRC would oppose any version of ENDA that doesn't include protection for transgender people.



What is unacceptable, is for HRC to tell a packed house of transgender people that they will stand up for them - and then pull the rug out when the going gets tough. The promise of inclusion should never have been made unless HRC intended to keep its word.In full spin mode, HRC is claiming that they are simply adjusting their position to new facts on the ground - meaning they polled Congress and they won't pass a trans-inclusive bill.



HRC needs to learn to take a position and stick to it - or they can expect chronic detractors to stick it to HRC. A little honesty will go a long way in defusing battles that damage the entire community and divide our collective energies. There are those - like myself - who appreciate HRC as our voice in Washington. However, the organization is at its best when this voice is not coming from both sides of its mouth.

I have a face too...Imagine that!

Taking a lead from my dear friend, Jim, I am uploading a picture of myself and my lovely partner, Erica.

This was taken last weekend when we were visiting friends. I'm the one in shorts and sandals. We're in SE Texas and it's 60 degrees or warmer these days!

Erica is quick to point out that she doesn't agree with everything I believe, especially about abortion, so just know that going into it. Smile.

So, enjoy the pic. Have a great day and I'll write soon.

Sharone

Campaign Battles Transgender Youth Suicide

From TransYouth Family Advocates:


Today, TransYouth Family Advocates (TYFA) launches the Amethyst Ribbon Campaign, an awareness project to battle suicide among transgender youth.

The Amethyst Ribbon Campaign was established as part of the Ian Benson Project. Ian was a 16-year old affirmed male who took his own life in October 2007. Ian’s mother, TYFA’s secretary/treasurer, hopes to help other children and families avoid the pain and struggles that can lead to suicide among trans youth.


“Transgender” (or the abbreviation “trans”) describes people whose gender identity or expression differs from expectations for their physical sex characteristics or sex assigned at birth. Recent estimates conclude approximately 1 in 500 people seek surgical reassignment during their lives, with many more expressing their gender in other ways. Studies suggest that among gay, lesbian, bisexual, and trans youth, 50% end up ideating or attempting suicide before adulthood.


TYFA President Shannon Garcia described the symbolism of the Amethyst Ribbon Campaign. “The brilliant violet color of amethyst is also a blend of the pink and blue traditionally used to designate the male/female binary. Amethyst is a precious gem, chosen to represent how precious trans children are to their families and friends.”


TYFA Executive Director Kim Pearson said, “Ian was our friend, he was the friend of our children, he was part of our hearts and the hearts of his family. To keep Ian’s memory alive, we will help other families and children by telling the stories of our children and families, to reach out to the other Ian’s of the world. We can help them and their families find the answers. In honor of Ian and all transgender people, we ask that you share this message and vision.”


TransYouth Family Advocates is a coalition of parents, friends and caring adults dedicated to educating and raising public awareness about the medical and cultural challenges faced by children with gender variant and gender questioning identities and the families who love them.


To learn more about the Amethyst Ribbon Campaign, please visit the TYFA website at www.imatyfa.org or call 1-888-IMA-TYFA. The site includes information and resources for trans youth and their families.

Gay Population Exploding in Red States

From PinkNews


An American sexual orientation think-tank has released a report that reveals a "gay demographic explosion" in some of America's most conservative regions.


It was found that the number of same-sex couples in the United States has quadrupled since 1990, about 21 times higher than increase of the population as a whole.


The biggest growth came in regions the study termed "Southern," "Midwest" and "Mountain," including Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arizona and Utah.


The conservative regions all showed above-average growth in the numbers of same-sex couples since 1990, while the liberal regions all showed below-average growth.


Similarly, state recognition of same-sex unions was found to be inversely related to the rate of migration.


States that legislated same-sex civil unions or marriage between 2000 and 2006 showed a below-average increase (23 percent, compared to the national rate of 31 percent).


States where same-sex marriage was prohibited during those years experienced an above-average (37 per cent) increase, the states where marriage bans were enacted via voter referendum showing the highest increase of all (41 per cent).


The researchers put the increase down to greater acceptance of LGBT couples nationwide, more LGBT people choosing to couple and co-habit, and more couples moving to the suburbs, in migration patterns that differ from the nation as a whole.

This editorial from the Los Angeles Times says this is a natural result of more acceptance of gays in American society.

Gates' research on U.S. Census data drives home a point that the gay vanguard has been wrestling with for a while: The hedonistic, transgressive, radical ethos (and stereotype) that once characterized gay culture doesn't represent reality anymore. The decline of urban coastal gay communities, the increase in the gay population in the interior U.S. and the overall diversification of the gay population are facts. What's more, Gates argues, these trends are a function of the growing acceptance of homosexuality among the American public.

Acceptance? Really? Has Gates forgotten about the 45 states that have laws or constitutional amendments barring same-sex marriage, or the anti-gay discrimination bill that is stalled in Congress and faces opposition from the White House?

Not at all. There is, he says, a vocal, virulent -- and sometimes violent -- anti-gay movement, but it doesn't negate decades of opinion surveys that show a marked increase in tolerance in most Americans' attitudes toward gays and lesbians. In 1998, for example, a Gallup poll found that only 33% of Americans thought that homosexual relations between consenting adults should be legal. By 2007, that figure had risen to 59%.

Growing acceptance of homosexuality means a decline in social stigma associated with same-sex relationships, and a consequent shift in the politics of coming out. The more people come out, the more accepting people are around them, and the more accepting the public becomes, the more people come out.

More and more people are realizing that GLBT people are just that--people. No matter how complicated homophobes try to make things, it reaslly is that simple.

LGBT Community Split on ENDA Strategy

What once appeared as if it could be a major victory for the LGBT community is instead becoming a major wedge issue. The exclusion of transgender people from the version of the bill that will likely be voted on later this week has caused LGBT activist groups to chose sides and perhaps burn some bridges. From 365gay.com.

The move to remove gender identity from the bill infuriated a large number of rights groups and several committee Democrats, including presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich refused to support the measure without the inclusion of protections for trans people.

Following the vote Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) proposed an amendment that would reinstate gender identity and secured the support of House leadership to introduce it when ENDA reaches the floor. (story)

Tuesday, however, it appeared there are not the votes to pass an all inclusive version of ENDA and in an open letter to members of Congress, HRC, the NAACP, the National Education Association, the National Employment Lawyers Association, the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the American Federation of State, County, Municipal Employees and a number of other groups said they would support ENDA without gender identity.

The letter says that it is "beyond dispute that transgender employees are particularly in need of those protections. They face far more pervasive and severe bias in the workplace and society as a whole."

But it goes on to say: "As civil rights organizations, however, we are no strangers to painful compromise in the quest for equal protection of the law for all Americans. From the Civil Rights Act of 1957 through the almost-passed District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007, legislative progress in the area of civil and human rights has almost always been incremental in nature. With each significant step toward progress, the civil rights community has also faced difficult and sometimes even agonizing tradeoffs. We have always recognized, however, that each legislative breakthrough has paved the way for additional progress in the future.

"With respect to ENDA, we take the same view.

I am on record here as agreeing with the above position, a belief I have not changed.

I have seen the opinion offered that, since there appears to be no chance that President Bush would sign this bill with or without the transgender provision, they might as well include it to make a statment of solidarity.

While I understand that logic, I have a hard time accepting what to me would be an exercise if futility. If there is a chance of getting something passed, do it. If not, work harder and lobby longer until there is enough support to pass it.

That's what I've heard as the reasoning for withdrawing the transgender provision from ENDA.

If congressional and LGBT activist leadership have done this for no legal benefit, I believe they not only won't have moved LGBT equality forward, the division caused within the community will have set it back.

I Love It When This Happens

I love it when publicly homophobic people have to deal with a gay child in their own home. That's the situation in this story from PinkNews:

The daughter of a vehemently anti-gay activist has revealed that she is a lesbian.

Claudia Contrada, whose mother Amy Contrada forms one half of the US hate group MassResistance, has stood up for young people struggling with homophobia in their homes or communities.

In 2005, Mrs Contrada attended a conference which advocated sending gay teenagers to conversion camps.

MassResistance is a homophobic organisation in Massachusetts, which has campaigned zealously against all pro-gay developments since its inception in 1995.

Describing her relationship with her mother, Claudia Contrada admits that "It's difficult."

"I am a lesbian, which my mom still does not get. She just says that I am confused.

Hopefully Mrs. Contrada loves her daughter enough to see through homophobia and learn a lesson about acceptance.

Yes, I Do Have a Face

In an effort to make this blog a bit more personal, I'm posting a couple of photos to show you what I actually look like. I haven't been hiding, I just haven't fooled with uploading any pictures until now. The one on the left is of the beautiful Pastor Brenda and myself prior to our Christmas Eve worship service last year. I'm the one with the mustache. She loves me in purple, which was a primary color at our wedding (black and purple, Baltimore Ravens colors btw).

On the right is Pastor Brenda and I at the recent PFLAG national convention. I've grown a beard since then. I was previously hesitant to do so since I knew it would come out mostly white, and as I approach my 49th birthday next month, I didn't want to make myself look any older (coloring my hair, mustache, or beard is NOT an option I would consider). During a vacation we took in August, I had reached the point where I was comfortable enough to just let it grow, and I'm actually pretty happy with it. The knuckleheads I work with (I say that with love) now call me Big Foot, I suspect since none of them know how to spell Sasquatch.

Lesbian & Gay Recruiting Guide Available in the U.K.

American television likes to copy ideas from across the pond in Great Britian, and here's another idea that's worth brining over the continent. From PinkNews


The Labour and Conservative parties are among the organisations and businesses featured in the latest Stonewall guide for gay and lesbian job seekers.


The third Starting Out guide was launched last night at the University of London Students Union (ULU).


Representatives of many of the companies listed in the guide attended, as did LGB students from across the country.


At 322 pages, this year's Starting Out is the biggest so far, and a speaker at the launch expressed the hope that in years to come it will be the size of a phone book.


Police forces, the Royal Navy, the Royal Air Force, banks, government departments and agencies, fire and rescue services, local authorities, media companies, well-known high street retailers and third sector organisations all feature in the guide.


Ben Summerskill, speaking at last night's launch event, thanked ULU for their continued support and told the audience that in his student days meetings for gay people could not be held in students unions because it was too dangerous.


"This year's guide is remarkable," he said.


"We did a calculation yesterday that the companies and public sector organisations that feature in this year's guide between them employ more than 10% of the UK workforce.


"That means if you are young and lesbian or gay, you can have a real ambition to work for an employer who will value and nurture you in the years to come.


Valuing and nurturing gay and lesbian people is an idea that is gradually catching on.


You can view the guide here.


Stonewall's site is here.

Two Views From the Right on The Priority Given to Homophobia

Matt Barber, right-wing mouthpiece for the Concerned Women of America (I wonder why they couldn't they find a woman spokesperson, but I digress) and his somewhat more moderate brother Jared, debated the priority given to the perceived sinfulness of homosexuality. I'll post a couple of excerpts, first from Jared, then from Matt, and follow with my comments.

Jared:Christians, as a whole, focus too much on the homosexual issue alone. They attack it solely, denounce it, and live whichever way they please. Adultery, fornication, racism, pride, jealousy, selfish ambition, drunkenness; all of these immoral acts take to the background in view of homosexuality, and so we as Christians are set up as anti-gay instead of anti-immorality. We need to end our own hypocrisy, all of us, I as much as any, so that we can more blamelessly broach this subject and others.

Matt: Unlike the sin of homosexuality, the other sins you cite -- the sins of adultery, fornication, racism, pride, jealousy, selfish ambition and drunkenness -- do not have the benefit of a tremendously powerful and prosperous lobby which is blindly supported by people in positions of political influence, and other leftists in media and elsewhere who have been duped by the crafty and disingenuous rhetoric of "tolerance" and "diversity."

Proponents, practitioners and enablers of homosexual sin demand that we all renounce God's express condemnation of such conduct and embrace this spiritually and physically destructive behavior as virtuous -- as a wholly equal, alternative sexual "orientation." They believe that the only thing objectively immoral is to reckon there are things objectively immoral. Yet, when others find freedom from the homosexual lifestyle -- as untold thousands have done through the loving and redemptive power of Jesus Christ -- those former homosexuals are maliciously maligned for committing a betrayal most immoral. Like that popular hotel in California, "You can check out anytime you want, but you can never leave."

While of course disagreeing with the notion of homosexuality being inherently sinful, Jared offered a well balance view, calling out fundamentalists for ignoring their own sins and those of ones who believe as they do at the expense of dumping all their guilt on homosexuals.

Matt, of course, couldn't let that stand, offering the ludicrous, lame excuse of focusing on homosexuality essentially because it has a powerful political lobby. The countless thousands he refers to as finding "freedom from the homosexual lifestyle" are for the most part also nameless. Beyond the cottage industry of "ex-gays" who make a living holding seminars and being interviewed, there are few documented situations of people actually having their orientation changed. There are a larger number of celebate or delusional homosexuals who have chosen, mostly out of guilt or conviction by people like Matt Barber, to deny how God made them and live as a heterosexual.

Matt Barber's weak rationalization, assuming that's the best he could come up with, demonstrates that there is truly no good reason for the right wingers to jump all over gay issues, other than to divert attention from their own sins and shortcomings.

They may think they are coving up in their churches and right-wing organizations, but God knows who is a hypocrite and who isn't.

Black GLBT Forum in Boston Draws Mostly Whites

Boston has a reputation of being a racially divided city, but this story from Bay Windows has to be discouraging for those trying to get the African-American community more involved in GLBT equality issues.

At the start of a town hall meeting at Boston’s Club Café to discuss the relationship between the marriage movement and the black community, state Sen. Dianne Wilkerson wasted no time in pointing out the elephant in the room: While the town hall meeting featured a panel of black speakers and a black moderator, the 25-person crowd in the audience was overwhelmingly white. Wilkerson said the fact that so few people of color turned out for the event shows how much work the marriage equality movement must do going forward to reach out to communities of color. She referred to remarks made earlier in the evening by MassEquality board president David Wilson, who is black, that there had long been a perception by many in the community that the marriage movement was a white movement.



"I just want you to know that I think that it is not unusual that the audience makeup is what it is precisely because of what David has said. And so no one should take this as a sign of discouragement as much as affirmation of the work that we have to do," said Wilkerson.



She added that while marriage equality is an important topic, it is not the most pressing issue facing the black community in Boston."



But I do think that there are still many people of color, particularly in the LGBT community, who are still living their life and all of the issues that we have to deal with every day, and so an invitation to talk about this may not sound like something at the top of the list. It doesn’t mean that it’s not important. It just means there are a whole lot of other things that are on that plate," said Wilkerson.



I certainly don't blame Sen. Wilkerson for trying to put a positive spin on this, but this has to be disappointing. The Senator is right, they appears to be a LOT of work ahead to get the African-American community seriously engaged in working toward LGBT equality.

Should Christians Vote for Non-Christians?

Here is one opinion that they should not from the AFA's One News Now:

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney won the endorsement Monday of Senator Judd Gregg (R-New Hampshire). New Hampshire is a key primary state where Romney is currently leading. Romney has also garnered the endorsements of several high-profile evangelical Christians, including Dr. Bob Jones III, Mark DeMoss and Jay Sekulow.
Former Republican National Committee official John Lofton is co-host of The American View, a weekly radio show syndicated by Radio America. He contends Romney and other non-Christian candidates fail to meet scriptural requirements for men who occupy God-ordained civil government offices.

"This is ridiculous on its face to say that Christians can vote for non-Christians. It's Christ denial, its something that's very serious," he argues. "And in fact, in a way things have gotten even worse by saying that religion doesn't matter. Well, that's the same as saying, whether they know it or not, that Christ doesn't matter. He is the King of kings, he is the Lord of lords -- which means Lord over politics, and no Christian can be complicit in having an unbeliever, who God calls wicked, rule over us."

He says by voting for a candidate like Romney, whose faith teaches that Jesus is the spiritual brother of Lucifer, Christians are in effect putting their desire to win an election and defeat Hillary Clinton above their commitment to God's Word. Lofton also recently criticized National Right to Life founder Dr. Jack Willke for endorsing Romney even though the Mormon church teaches that "some exceptional circumstances may justify an abortion," including rape, incest, fetal deformities, and threats to "the life or health of the mother."

If I am voting for a pastor at my church, I want to have strong assurances that the individual is a Christian, but why does it matter so much in politics?

Beyond the insipid implication from this person that all Christians should be Republicans, there are recent examples that professing Christians don't make good presidents.

Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush were both very open about stating their beliefs in God, and by most objective accounts both men were incompetent presidents. Unquestionably, the United States was worse off when he left office than when he entered, and it seems certain the same situation will prevail when Bush mercifully completes his second term.

While a person's faith is critical in establishing their value system and, by extension, how they will approach issues of public policy, don't we essentially have to take them at their word regarding their Christianity? Just because someone professes to be a Christian doesn't mean they actually are one. Ultimately, only God knows with absolute certainty the status of a person's salvation. Voters can get a good inkling when a politician stands by their body of work and what they say, but there are also plenty of examples where those changed without warning once someone got elected.

Since we can't truly be sure what a politician stands for, especially in these days of focus groups and sound bites, the idea of making a candidate pass some type of Christian litums test seems quite shaky at best, outright foolish at worst.

Here's a thought--why don't we vote for candidates who show leadersihp and the possibility of being competent legislators.

You know, let's break the mold and try something different.

Study Shows That Equality In the Workplace is a "Win-Win"

This results of this study just released by the Rockway Institute confirms what common sense should tell us--fear of discrimination in the workplace is bad while affirmation and equality is good:

A questionnaire study of more than 500 gay, lesbian and bisexual employees across the U.S. has found that “fears about disclosing a gay identity at work had an overwhelmingly negative relationship with their career and workplace experiences and with their psychological well-being.”

For those working in what they perceived as a non-supportive environment, the costs of non-disclosure were significant. “Those who feared more negative consequences to disclosure reported less job satisfaction, organizational commitment, satisfaction with opportunities for promotion, career commitment, and organization-based self-esteem and greater turnover intentions than those who feared less negative consequences,” wrote the researchers. “Those who feared more negative consequences reported more (job) role ambiguity, more (job) role conflict, and less workplace participation than those who feared less negative consequences,” the report continued. “LGB employees who feared more negative consequences also reported greater psychological strain than those who feared less negative consequences.” Psychological strain was described as stress-related symptoms experienced on the job, work-related depression, and work-related irritation.

“These findings fit with other research showing that more accepting work environments are associated with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) employees being healthier and more productive. The research also provides some additional facts concerning the need for public policies protecting against job discrimination,” said Robert-Jay Green, executive director of the Rockway Institute, a national center for LGBT research and public policy affiliated with Alliant International University. “Employees who are not afraid of being fired or held back from promotion because of their same-sex orientations are psychologically freer to put their full creative energies into work. This, in turn, saves employers’ time and money. It a win-win for all concerned.”

This should be a "duh" issue, but given the intensity of right-wing opposition to ENDA (the Employer Non-Discrimination Act currently before Congress), some hard data affirming these points is most welcome.

Should We Engage in Debate or Try to Silence Opponents

Here's a convincing arguement for engagement.


From 365gay.com


Such engagement would have two potential benefits. First, it might help convince the opponents themselves—even if slowly and gradually. Second, it might help convince the fence-sitters who are watching, since they would receive “the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error” (in the words of the great liberal theorist John Stuart Mill). The more we confront the opposition head-on, the more obvious their fallacies become. That’s why I’m willing to travel the country with someone from Focus on the Family addressing the same bad arguments over and over again.


It was the hope for such engagement that led me to interrupt the Q&A in Baton Rouge to plead for some audience opposition. “Any critical questions for me? Please?” I asked no fewer than three times. It felt like announcing “last call” at the bar: “Last call…last call for traditionalists…” Finally, a woman took me up on my challenge—sort of:


“I’m a religious conservative,” she began gently. “And I appreciate your kindness to Glenn and to us. But I haven’t spoken up because I feel a lot of hostility from the audience. I think more of us would show up and speak up if we didn’t feel like we would automatically be shouted down.” She didn’t offer any question—just that observation.



I was both impressed and surprised—impressed by her courage in speaking against the (immediate) tide, and surprised that she found the audience hostile. I could recall no anger or viciousness from the various questioners. But since they were on my side, perhaps I simply failed to notice.



Her remarks spotlighted an important distinction: it’s one thing to silence your opponents; it’s quite another to convince them. And sometimes—perhaps often—silencing is done at the expense of convincing.



The social pressure that makes certain views “taboo” has its uses. But political reality indicates that it’s not yet time to halt the conversation over same-sex marriage—certainly not in Rhinelander or Baton Rouge. Strange as it sounds, we may sometimes need to work at making people more comfortable—not less—in voicing their opposition to us.

Methodists Allow Transgender Minister to Stay in Pulpit

From the Christian Post:

A transgender minister is allowed to remain pastor of a Baltimore congregation, the United Methodist Church's highest council announced Tuesday.

The Judicial Council's ruling affirmed a decision by Baltimore-Washington Bishop John R. Schol last spring who reappointed the Rev. Drew Phoenix to St. John's of Baltimore City after the transgender minister underwent surgery and hormone therapy to become a male. Phoenix was formerly the Rev. Ann Gordon who had led the church for five years.

Local clergy in the Baltimore-Washington Conference had appealed Schol's decision to the United Methodist Judicial Council amid opposition. While the United Methodist Church bars self-avowed practicing clergy from ordination and does not support gay unions, according to the denomination's Book of Discipline, it says nothing about transgender clergy.

After considering whether to remove Phoenix from leadership, the Judicial Council decided to allow the transgender minister to stay on the job, referring to a church policy stating that a clergyperson in good standing can't be terminated without administrative or judicial action.

"The adjective placed in front of the noun 'clergyperson' does not matter," the council ruled. "What matters is that clergypersons, once ordained and admitted to membership in full connection, cannot have that standing changed without being accorded fair process."

"We at St. John’s UMC have a long history of supporting people through various life transitions," said the congregation, which boasts "inclusion" and "diversity," in a statement. "We love and support our pastor. Rev. Phoenix is an effective, professional pastor who has our deep and abiding respect."

God's anointing does not discriminate, that's something people do. Good job by the United Methodist Church!

African-American Leaders Step Up Against Homophobia In Maryland

More encouraging news from Baltimore, via the Baltimore Sun:



Elbridge James wasn't surprised when many of his fraternity brothers ridiculed him for supporting same-sex marriage.



But what James didn't expect was for a handful of his old college buddies to rise to his defense. They, too, believed that gays' and lesbians' battle for marriage is a matter of civil rights.



"We're talking about a black fraternity that has had issues with homophobia," he said. "But I think when you get the message out, and people start to listen, they realize the question is about respecting others' rights."



The experience gave James, former political action chairman for the Maryland National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, hope that more blacks are willing to support gay rights than conventional wisdom might indicate.



In an effort to raise the issue of gay unions within black communities around the state, James and other activists have formed the Maryland Black Family Alliance, a group of predominantly heterosexual African-American leaders pledging their support for same-sex marriage.



"There's a scarcity of information on this issue in the black community," said James, the group's director. "The black press doesn't cover it; talk radio doesn't cover it. ... We have this sort of 'don't ask, don't tell policy' in our community."



When I first saw the headline about a group focused on black support for gay marriage, I had mixed feelings. I was concerned that this might be an effort to splinter off the African-American GLBT community and for them to do their own thing, but I was relieved to see that this is apparently not their goal. Subdividing GLBT activists, already a small number, into racial groupings would only further dilute the strength of their message. On the other hand, a concerted effort to draw more African-Americans into the conversation could be a very positive thing, and I applaud these leaders for stepping out and initiating this group.



Here is a press release from the ACLU regarding the launch.



This blog post from BET points out that the leaders are mostly heterosexual. The comments below it point out the uphill struggle they have ahead of them.

Who Said You Can't Find Justice These Days?

Fred Phelps and his church (mostly relatives) of right-wing extremists lost a lawsuit in Baltimore, Maryland today and now owe the father of a serviceman who's funeral they picketed $10.9 million. From CNN.com:

A grieving father won a nearly $11 million verdict Wednesday against a fundamentalist Kansas church that pickets military funerals in the belief that the war in Iraq is a punishment for the nation's tolerance of homosexuality.

Albert Snyder of York, Pennsylvania, sued the Westboro Baptist Church for unspecified damages after members demonstrated at the March 2006 funeral of his son, Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, who was killed in Iraq.

The jury first awarded $2.9 million in compensatory damages. It returned later in the afternoon with its decision to award $6 million in punitive damages for invasion of privacy and $2 million for causing emotional distress.

U.S. District Judge Richard Bennett noted the size of the award for compensating damages "far exceeds the net worth of the defendants," according to financial statements filed with the court.

Here's the part that really gets me:

Earlier, church members staged a demonstration outside the federal courthouse.

Church founder Fred Phelps held a sign reading "God is your enemy," while Shirley Phelps-Roper stood on an American flag and carried a sign that read "God hates fag enablers."

Members of the group sang "God Hates America" to the tune of "God Bless America."

Hopefully pretty soon they won't have a pot left to pee in. Even if they don't learn any lesson from this, at least it will be more difficult for them to inflict pain on people like Albert Snyder.

Right Wing Nut Blames Gays for California Wildfires

I suppose it was only a matter of time. From Ethics Daily:


A controversial anti-abortion activist says California wildfires are God's judgment on a new anti-discrimination law that some conservative Christians say promotes homosexuality in public schools.

"Last week I groaned when I read how Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a bill into law in California which foisted homosexuality upon the children of that state through the state school system," Matt Trewhella of Missionaries to the Preborn wrote in an e-mail quoted on liberal Web sites Hot Flash Report and Talk2Action.

Trewhella said the bill, SB777--also called the California Student Civil Rights Act--signed into law Oct. 13 "clearly redefines (perverts) what sexuality is, as well as promotes the legitimacy of homosexuality upon children starting from kindergarten on up."

"Seven days later, on October 20th, wildfires broke out across California in several places," Trewhella continued, describing widespread damages that prompted President Bush to declare a state of emergency.

"Do you think they will see it as a warning from the Lord for their calling evil good?" he asked. "Do you think they will be able to connect the dots? I won't be holding my breath."

I've got a better idea pal--go ahead and hold your breath.



Trewhella, a pastor from Milwaukee, is no stranger to controversy. In 1993 the FBI investigated him for making a statement that authorities took as a veiled threat to assassinate doctors who perform abortions.

Not long after the Columbine High School massacre in 1999, he made headlines when members of his Mercy Seat Christian Church distributed a bullet-shaped, pro-gun flier at Milwaukee schools.

In addition to his belief that the Bible supports gun ownership, Trewhella also has written that Christians should not obtain a state marriage license, because in doing so they place themselves under jurisdiction of unbiblical laws, and that property taxes are immoral.



Clowns like this wouldn't bother me except for the way they warp scripture and claim God's name when they spew their hate. People who don't know any better, in this case especially gay people, actually think this represents what Christianity is all about.


Nothing could be further from the truth, and those of us who DO know better need to make sure we let as many people know that as possible.

Acceptance Growing Among Families of GLBT Kids In Catholic Church

From Deb Price's syndicated column (via the Washington Blade):


A groundbreaking report by Fortunate Families, based on its survey of 229 Catholic parents with gay children, concludes: "Parents love their (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) children, and they love their church. But they do not see their love, or God's unconditional love, reflected in how the institutional church relates to their LGBT sons and daughters." (Go to: fortunatefamilies.com.)

Catholic parents now learning their child is gay report higher initial levels of comfort than parents who learned five or more years ago. And Catholic parents who know another parent with a gay son or daughter are "significantly more comfortable" with their child's orientation than are isolated parents.


The parents are far more likely to call gay-friendly P-FLAG, New Ways Ministry and Fortunate Families "very helpful" than to say that about their parishes.


One mom with a gay son lamented, "I do not feel the Catholic Church offers any support with our children. I remain a Catholic only because of the Mass and the Eucharist."



At the recent PFLAG national convention, I had the opportunity to chat with the co-founders of Fortunate Families, Casey and Mary Ellen Lopata from Rochester, NY. Mary Ellen wrote a book titled "Fortunate Families," which their organization was spun off from. In the book, she write about their family's nine-year struggle to reconcile their son's gayness with their church.



From the same perspective I've asked the question here how someone could be gay and republican, I asked them how they could have a gay child and still be Catholic. The answer did not come easily, but it was very similar to the mom quoted above. They love their church, they love their son, and instead of losing their relationship with either one, they decided to work toward bringing them together.



The Lopatas also stressed how helpful they found it when they realized they weren't the only family in the church with a gay child. Not feeling isolated was an important step toward accepting their new reality when their son came out to them. That led them to start Fortunate Families and help other Catholic families avoid that type of isolation.



God bless them for their efforts, and I hope they bear fruit.

Obama and the "Ex-Gay' Gospel Singer

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has taken a lot of heat for including "ex-gay" gospel singer Donnie McClurkin in the South Carolina performance of his campaign's "Embrace the Change" gospel series.

Rightly so.

Here is an excerpt from McClurkin's comments at the concert from CNN:

McClurkin has said that homosexuality is a choice and that he overcame homosexual desires through prayer, comments that drew fire from gay and lesbian activists and caught the Obama campaign, which has been using faith to reach out to African-American voters, off guard.

The Grammy-winning singer said Sunday his words had been "twisted."

"Don't call me a bigot or anti-gay, when I have been touched by the same feelings," McClurkin went on. "When I have suffered with the same feelings. Don't call me a homophobe, when I love everybody … Don't tell me that I stand up and I say vile words against the gay community because I don't. I don't speak against the homosexual. I tell you that God delivered me from homosexuality."

McCurkin also took time to say that homosexuality was a sin, least there be any doubt where he stood on that point.

Why did Obama stick with McClurkin's participation in this event even after GLBT activists raised such a stink about it? Also from the CNN report:

A September poll conducted by Winthrop University and ETV showed that 74 percent of South Carolina African-Americans believe homosexuality is "unacceptable."

In my opinion, that's all you need to know. While Obama publicly restated his support for the GLBT community, he sold them down the river to the South Carolina African-American community and round up some votes in a critical primary state.

This is just the latest example of a politician pandering to people's faith in order to get their votes. I guess Obama is overcoming his inexperience and learning how to play the game.

Too bad.

Sexual Orientation as an Issue in a Political Race

A candidate's sexual orientation does not determine whether he or she will make an effective council member. Nor does a candidate's political party affiliation.



It always good to see that in a major newspaper, but especially good to find it in the Fort-Worth (TX) Star-Telegram. Since Texas is not known as a particularly progressive state (after all, it gave us President George W. Bush and I, for one, can hardly wait to give him back), it speaks to the fact that even in the so-called "Bible Belt" of the south and southwest, attitudes are changing and acceptance of GLBT people is growing.



The quote was in an editorial that slammed Fort Worth City Councilman Chuck Silcox, who made an issue out of the fact that one of his opponents in an upcoming election is gay. From the Star-Telegram:



"We have two people of opposite partisan politics, opposite philosophical persuasions and opposite sexual orientations."


"I didn't tell you which one was homosexual," Silcox said as the crowd laughed. Pointing to Turner, Silcox continued: "He's married to a female, and the other's married to a male. You make your own mind up."



Silcox later said he raised the issue because he believes that the Star-Telegram's coverage of the race has not mentioned that Burns is gay.


"The Star-Telegram doesn't talk about it. They don't put the negative out there," he said.



"Every damn article that was written about Louis McBee mentioned that he was gay. I'm just [angry] about the way that the Star-Telegram has treated this."


McBee has been quoted or featured in 21 articles, according to Star-Telegram archives. One report in May 2006, when McBee was running for the City Council District 4 seat, mentioned his sexual orientation. Danny Scarth won the election.



Do all Texas republicans so blatantly ignore facts and make up their own? I hope it's just the President and this guy.



Kudos to the Star-Telegram for bringing forward facts and for slapping Councilman Silcox down for trying to make his opponent's homosexuality into a liability.

Introducting a New Contributor

Hi there. My name is Sharone Belt. Some of you have read comments that I've written on this blog in the past few years.

I am writing today to introduce myself as a new contributor to this blog. Thank you, Jim, for inviting me to be more involved in the blog. I appreciate the opportunity to share my thoughts and ideas with your readers.

I am 41 years old and live with my partner of 14 years, Erica. We have been living in Texas, but will be moving back to the Washington, DC area in the next few months and are happy to be "coming home". We are renewing our membership at Believers Covenant Fellowship when we return. We were members of the church for about 7 years before leaving almost 2 years ago to move out of the area.

Jim and I became fast friends when his then girlfriend, Brenda, introduced us at church. He has a big heart and a quick wit, so we had a lot in common. Our shared vision for sharing God's love to GLBT people in particular was something that helped us bond early on. We both have a passion for writing our thoughts when we have strong emotions about a news story, personal situation, etc.

While Jim is an awesome advocate for us, I think that I can bring a different sensibility to this blog since I am gay myself. I also have some beliefs and convictions that are unique. For one thing, I was a Republican most of my life. I only became an Independent last year out of disgust for the Republican Party's constant problem with integrity as well as it's catering to the religious right. I am also a person who believes abortion on demand to be detrimental to the women, men, and children involved. It's not a real popular view, especially with my GLBT friends!

Well, that's about it for now. I just wanted to share a little bit about me. I'll write more as time goes on. I hope that you enjoy my take on things.

God bless.

Sharone

Sharone has spent time working with Equality Virginia and was a GLBT activist well before I even addressed those issues. I'm happy to have her as part of this blog and looking forward to her contributions.

Gays in Singapore Can't Be In the "Mainstream Way of Life"

That appears to be the official position of the Singapore government, which according to this article from PinkNews is just now getting around to legalizing oral and anal sex between two consenting opposite-sex adults in private. Needless to say, any sexual activity among homosexuals is against the law in that nation.

At the forefront of keeping the status quo in that area is Ho Peng Kee, a Law and Home Affairs Minister:

Mr Ho said yesterday that the ban on "gross indecency" will remain in place and male homosexuals still face up to two years in prison for gay sex.

"Repealing section 377A will be contentious and may send a wrong signal that the government is encouraging and endorsing the homosexual lifestyle as part of our mainstream way of life," he said, according to AFP.

He added that the push for decriminalisation of homosexual acts in the city state of nearly five million people had been contentious and that the majority find them "offensive and distasteful."

The authorities have not brought anyone up on charges of gross indecency for several years and the country has an active gay scene.

Based on that last statement, the Singapore government's actions appear to be mainly symbolic, but it is some really nasty symbolism.

Mr. Ho is probably right saying that the majority of resident of his nation find homsexual acts offensive and distasteful. I believe that is true in the United States--I find the mental image of two men having sex very distateful. That being said, however, I will fight for their right to do so, and the fact that they can has ABSOLUTELY NO IMPACT ON MY LIFE.

The PinkNews article shows that scare tactics predicting the end of civilization as it is currently known if GLBT people are granted more legal rights is not restricted to the U. S. I am sure it is as big a load of crap over there as it is here, and I suspect more of the citizens of Singapore know it just as most Americans do.

Nations like Singapore will continue to stick to their rigid restrictions of GLBT people's legal rights, but they won't be able to control their behavior. Laws like that are just about as effective as prohabition was in American back in the 1920's. Fortunately, our leaders knew enough to repeal those laws, and eventually wiser, more accepting people will abolish these types of laws in other nations too.

Most Christians Left of Right-Wing

Despite their best efforts to marginalize people not like them, the religious right is slipping toward becoming marginalized itself. This column from the Washington Post's "On Faith" series expresses the view that most Christians, not to mention the general population, have political views well to the left of the religious right.

It should come as no surprise that a recent opinion poll among younger people shows great skepticism if not outright resistance to Christianity. Given the preponderance of mainstream media reporting on a minority of U.S. Christians such attitudes make sense.

I suspect these young opinion poll takers are responding to what I call a political philosophy masquerading as gospel that is wrapped in religious rhetoric and painted red, white and blue.

One of its chief cheerleaders is Ann Coulter. She has dismissed most of the Bible and the words of Jesus defending the poor, the widow, the prisoner—the least among us—and spewed her venom that has little or nothing to do with orthodox Christianity. But Ms. Coulter and her ilk are the ones to whom the media gives most of its attention.

The majority of faithful Christians in the U.S. have nothing to do with James Dobson and his Focus on the Family, Tony Perkins and his Family Research Council or John Hagee and his Christians United for Israel.

Most American Christians struggle each week to apply Biblical truths in their daily lives. They seek to follow the words and actions of Jesus reminding his followers about taking care of the widow and the orphan, the hungry, welcoming the stranger, clothing the naked and visiting the prisoner.

What really threatens the extreme right is our member churches' ability to disagree on many issues yet come together on such matters as living wage, racism, health care, justice for women, and an unjust war in Iraq. It is a multi-partisan organization that threatens those who are “triumphal dominationalists” such as Ms. Coulter. Those who are convinced they’re right and everyone else is wrong feel undermined when people who differ are able to cooperate and collaborate.

But isn’t that what America was supposed to be about? Weren’t we founded to offer freedom of religion and not be dominated by one particular group? There are some signs that the toxic message of the extreme right of American Christians may be faltering. I hope so.

So do I. No religion and no individual has all the answers. It's only by listening and sharing with others that we learn. Education, however, is the enemy of the black and white world religious right zealots live in. It's a very small world, much smaller than the one me and most people I know live in.

"For The Bible Tells Me So"

I have not seen this movie, but I've heard many wonderful things about it. Here is information from the official website.

Can the love between two people ever be an abomination? Is the chasm separating gays and lesbians and Christianity too wide to cross? Is the Bible an excuse to hate?

Winner of the Audience Award for Best Documentary at the Seattle International Film Festival, Dan Karslake's provocative, entertaining documentary brilliantly reconciles homosexuality and Biblical scripture, and in the process reveals that Church-sanctioned anti-gay bias is based almost solely upon a significant (and often malicious) misinterpretation of the Bible. As the film notes, most Christians live their lives today without feeling obliged to kill anyone who works on the Sabbath or eats shrimp (as a literal reading of scripture dictates).

Through the experiences of five very normal, very Christian, very American families -- including those of former House Majority Leader Richard Gephardt and Episcopalian Bishop Gene Robinson -- we discover how insightful people of faith handle the realization of having a gay child. Informed by such respected voices as Bishop Desmond Tutu, Harvard's Peter Gomes, Orthodox Rabbi Steve Greenberg and Reverend Jimmy Creech, FOR THE BIBLE TELLS ME SO offers healing, clarity and understanding to anyone caught in the crosshairs of scripture and sexual identity.


From PageOneQ, here is the video and a transcript of former Congressman Dick Gephardt and his daughter Chrissy who both appear in the movie.


I don't know when I will get a chance to see this movie myself and offer a review, but I would encourage any of my readers who do get a chance to view it to share their opinions in the comments section of this post.

Thoughts on the "Values Voters" Concept

Last weekend, an all-star team of right-wing bigots gathered in Washington DC at the "Value Voters Summit" to swap stories and plan strategy on how to gain more political power, or at least avoid losing more than they have the last couple of years. It was ironic that this event was held concurrently to the incredible worship and celebration weekend we had at my church with GLBT ministers from around the nation and Canada.

Anyway, I saw a couple of essays about the whole "Values Voter" concept that I thought were worth sharing. The first one is from the Chicago Tribune:

The right's hold on "values" is now so strong that most news coverage I saw and heard about last weekend's second annual "Values Voter Summit" of Christian conservatives didn't even bother to nestle the word dubiously inside real or implied quotation marks. Fewer than 1 in 10 recent accounts of the summit I found in a national news database bothered to put "so-called" in front of the first reference to "values voters."

It's galling. I mean, sure, the activists who assembled in Washington vote in accordance to their values. So do I. So do you, reader, no matter where you fall on the political spectrum.

Anyone who casts a ballot is a "values voter." And to allow one group to squat on that title is to concede without a fight that their values are, if not superior to others' values, then at least stronger and more important to them than the flimsy ethical whims of their ideological foes.

There is clearly an air of superiority and arrogance when folks like James Dobson, Tony Perkins, and Gary Bauer get together to chew the fat. Love and compassion for people not cut out of the same mold as them, however, is scarcer than a liberal gay person.

I also ran across this piece from the Roanoke Times:

As Bishop T.D. Jakes has observed, good political leaders don't have to be Christians, and good Christians don't always make good leaders. But if someone campaigns under "Christian values," I'm looking for kindness, respect (even for the opponent) and faith -- not fear.

Maybe these values are difficult to maintain in the heat of politics today. Chuck Colson, on a recent "Focus on the Family" radio broadcast, noted that values voters "have lost respect for the people in politics -- and rightly so."

But that disrespect can begin long before an election, when glossy campaign ads hit our mailboxes attacking the opponent as a contemptible villain and featuring the most demeaning photo obtainable -- usually from video footage and blurred, like a bank-robber caught on somebody's security camera.

But there are hidden costs in yoking this kind of derision to the term "Christian values."

First, it denigrates not just the opponent, but the voter, who is assumed to be unintelligent, ignorant of the actual Christian message and as mean-spirited as the ad's creators. Hence, I've heard many people, disgusted by a season's attack ads, declare they would not vote. Others, like me, are pleased to go vote for the candidate who ran a respectful campaign.

As for "Christian," the cost of hinging that word to derisive personal attacks doesn't enhance Christian values, but in fact devalues the Christian message.

If Jesus was running a political campaign, He wouldn't be tearing anyone down. He wouldn't be lecturing on restricting people's rights. He wants people's live to have more, be fuller, not to limit them or take things away. He came to Earth to give people hope.

How many politicians, especially ones wearing the "Christian Values" mantle, do that for you these days?

Religious Leader With a Big Mouth

As I train for the pastorate, I am reminded that one of the important things that a pastor, a leader of the faithful, needs to know is when to keep his mouth shut.

According to this article from Ethics Today, that is a fundamental lesson that Frank Page, the president of the Southern Baptist Convention, either forgot or never learned:
Unless presidential candidates want a spiritual smack down, they should avoid talking to Southern Baptist Convention president Frank Page, who failed to retain the pastoral confidentiality of two conversations and then boasted to other pastors about his soul-winning ways. In both cases, Page elevated his own evangelistic credentials and degraded the spiritual character of candidates.

The SBC leader bragged to a gathering of Southern Baptist fundamentalist pastors in Oklahoma that in a private, two-hour meeting with Rudy Giuliani, a Roman Catholic, that he "shared Christ with him."

Page's perception about Giuliani's lack of Christian faith was so strong that at the end of the meeting he recounted: "Rudy, I'm not going to leave this place unless I give you an opportunity to pray with me to receive Jesus as your savior. Would you do that with me Rudy?"

Page said Giuliani rejected his invitation to salvation: "He said, 'No, Frank, I'm not ready to do that. My daddy knows Jesus like that, but I'm not ready for that.'"

Undeterred, Page, the pastor of First Baptist Church in Taylors, S.C., said he gave Giuliani his cell phone number and encouraged him to call when he was ready to talk about Jesus.

Baptist theological exclusivity also found expression in Page's recollection to the Oklahoma preachers of his face-to-face question to Sen. John McCain, a professing Episcopalian who attends a Southern Baptist church that leans towards moderation. Page claimed he asked, "Who owns your soul, John McCain?

Folks, this is not about sincerely seeking a spiritual breakthrough for these candidates. This is a leader of a large Christian denomination going out of his way to show everyone how important he is. "Look at me, look at me," his actions and words shout. How would you like to be a member of his church and need pastoral counseling, where confidentiality is at least as strong a requirement as psychological counseling, if not more so?

A person would probably be safe going to Page if they weren't famous, but it is very disturbing to see a leader violate pastoral ethics, not to mention failing miserably to display the humility of Christ.

More from the article:

As the Christian Right leaders haggle over whether the Republican presidential nominee needs to be a real Christian, Christian pastors should prioritize the confidentiality of private spiritual discussions over the potential for political gain.

Power does corrupt, and political power is one of the most tempting mistresses. For what a person gains from power in the world, that and more is usually lost in spiritual power and the ability to be a true, effective, servant for Christ.

Especially when you can't keep your mouth shut.

Christians Need to Think Like a Gay Fish

I saw an essay from Rick Warren, the Purpose Driven Life author, that really resonated with me:

If you’re going to be good at fishing, you’ve got to learn to think like a fish. If you’re going to be an effective fisher of men, you’ve got to think like a lost person. Here’s the problem. Unfortunately, the longer you are a Christian, the less you think like an unbeliever. I don’t think like a non-Christian; I think like a Christian. In fact, I think like a pastor. That’s even worse! It’s two generations removed from the people I want to reach.

You can tell just how differently pastors think than lost people when you look at church advertisements in the newspaper. You’ll see advertisements like, “Preaching the inspired, inerrant Word of God.” Who will that appeal to? I know what the inspired, inerrant Word of God is. In fact I believe in it. I’d die for the inspired, inerrant Word. But non-Christians don’t care about your view of inspiration.

Or you’ll see a church advertise “Holy Spirit services.” That’s going to scare people away! Non-Christians don’t know what you mean by the Holy Spirit. Is that Casper the Friendly Ghost? You must learn to think – and communicate – like a non-believer if you are going to communicate the Gospel to them.

In their attempts to reach unchurched homosexuals, most mainline churches not only refuse to even attempt to think like the fish they're catching, they insist the fish (lost GLBT people) think like a fisherman, jump up into the boat, and open wide so they can get a hook slipped into their mouths. Now what fish with any sense would do that? Only one with a death wish.

So often the few gays who do submit to the teachings of fundamentalist churches want to die, or at least the gay part of them. If they don't want it to die, they feel the need to hide who they really are to gain at least a superficial level of acceptance.

So why is it that these churches can't reach more gay people?

Because they don't try. They expect gay people to reach for them. Given the terms that are usually set, it is irrational to think many of them would. Of course, that assumes churches are sincerely open to homosexual members, even ones who are closeted or trying to "change". I don't think that is a safe assumption--some do, many don't.

It's churches like mine who think like a (sometimes gay) fish that catch some. I have already run across a lot of GLBT people who were astonished that there are actually open and affirming churches available to them.

There are lots of gay fish out there to catch for Christ, lost lives to save. As Rick Warren wrote, we just need to remember what our lives were like before we knew Him and meet people where they are. The power of the Gospel will do the rest.

Philadelphia Stands Up to Discrimination, AFA Has a Hissy Fit

This is an excerpt from the latest American Family Association e-mail blast:

The city of Philadelphia has decided to punish the Boy Scouts of America because it will not allow homosexuals to serve as Scout Leaders. City officials said they will charge the Cradle of Liberty Scouts Council $200,000 a year to use the city-owned headquarters. The Council was paying $1 per year (since 1928). The city owns the land on which the Council's 1928 Beaux Arts building sits.

The city says it is charging the scouts $200,000 a year because the scouts discriminate against homosexuals. But the city finds nothing wrong with their discrimination against the scouts because of the scouts' belief.

First, kudos to the city of Philadelphia for not subsidizing discrimination. The Boy Scouts (of which I was a member many eons ago) or any private organization has no entitlement to a rent subsidy by a local government. I have no problem if a city decides to give one to an organization considered to benefit the community, which the Boy Scouts does in numerous ways, but a government should NOT subsidize discrimination, also something the Boy Scouts do. It bothers me that the city of Philadelphia let this go on as long as they did, but at least that mistake has been corrected.

The last line of the quote from the AFA just floors me. They twist this action of not funding discrimination by the city of Philadelphia into a form of discrimination itself. Sadly, this is just another example of the warped sense of reality leaders of the religious right have acquired. Also, this was not a snap decision as AFA's e-mail would imply. According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, there have been discussions going on between the city and the Boy Scout chapter since May.

Taking a stand against an organization because they exclude a group of people from their activities is not discrimination--it's taking an admirable moral position and standing up for equality for ALL people. The Scouts have won their legal right to discriminate in a 2000 Supreme Court decision, but they do not have the right to have it supported by taxpayers.

Could There Be Wide-Spread Homosexuality Among Catholic Priests

I give you a moment to get over the shock of the premise of that question. Seriously, though, a recent scandal in Rome has prompted a new inquiry into investigating gay priests according to this report from Newsweek.



The case has raised questions about the extent of homosexuality in the Vatican. Those who dismiss Stenico's explanation believe the priest may be part of a small "underground" gay community of Vatican officials. Some officials readily admit such a community exists, but according to one, "it's not a formal network through which they are able to protect themselves." Others have long regarded Rome as a haven for gay priests, sent to the Vatican because they would not survive in a parish. "Rome's famous for it," said one parish priest in Italy who asked not to be named. "They've got to go somewhere, and so are given something innocuous to do in Rome." For some, that perception was underscored last year, when a senior ranking monsignor was involved in a high-speed police chase after being pulled over in a Rome district known for male prostitution.



Ultimately I suspect this will only result in more unwanted publicity for an organization that really didn't need any more, the Roman Catholic church. Let's face it, the church has trouble attracting priests these days anyway, and given their requirement of celibacy, who do you THINK would be most likely to sign up for that? Not anyone who wants to have sex with women, that's for sure. If they start outing priests, the church's doctrine would require them to be removed from the priesthood, and one would think there would HAVE to be an awful lot of open spots they would be unable to fill.



I just don't see it happening, but either way there there will probably be yet another black eye for the Roman Catholic church to deal with.

Do Open and Affirming Churches Want to Be "Gay Churches?"

That's something I've been curious about ever since the first time I walked into my church nearly three years ago. When Pastor Brenda first invited me to Believers Covenant Fellowship, knowing that it was predominantly made up of gay and lesbian people, I wondered how they would accept a straight guy. From the first moment, I was shown nothing but love and acceptance, but I then wondered if they were an exception or if that was common among similar type churches.

I had an opportunity to discuss that with several people in GLBT ministry last night in preparation for our church's special Fall Renewal weekend (check out our website if you live near Northern Virginia--it will be a truly special spiritual experience). We have a number of guest ministers visiting from across the nation and Canada, and several of us met for dinner last night. As always at Apostle Dale's home, he wound up at the piano leading us in a spirited round of old time hymns and contemporary worship songs, but there was also some informal sharing time where we were swapping stories and sharing our different perspectives.

Pastor Brenda and I spent some time with Pastors Debbie and Sue from Living Water Fellowship in Kenmore, Washington (we are also happy to have them as our houseguests this weekend) and Pastor Dylan of Rainbow Community Church in Vancouver, British Columbia. Along with being wonderful people of God, they have also led their churches to be among the first affiliates of the Affirming Christian Network Internet ministry that Pastor Brenda and I have started.

At one point, the discussion turned to the makeup of our churches, and one point really jumped out at me.....no one there wanted to have a "gay church." Open and affirming to GLBT people, of course, but not one that excluded straight people either. I was really struck by the passion of their desire to have their congregations more inclusive of straight people. There was no interest of developing a sub-culture, which from my distant perspective it appears many African-American churches have done. I believe that does exist among some gay-affirming churches (I'm told of some experiences of straight people being unwelcome in Metropolitan Community Churches), but our group of Pentecostal style, Charismatic bible believing churches does want everyone to share worship together and share the love of Jesus on equal footing.

It was just more affirmation that I'm with the group I need to be with, the group that God wants me to be in ministry with. Funny how God works that way, isn't it?

I'm sure I have more to share from our Fall Renewal over the next few days. We've been anticipating this event for months and are expecting excitingspiritual revival to pour over us.

Healing from Hurts Administered by "The Church"

Allow me to take a moment to add my perspective to one of the points I frequently hear from GLBT people—“I’ve had such a bad experience with the church.” I understand that and have heard some real horror stories. Many GLBT people would not allow you to drag them into a church at gunpoint. At the PFLAG convention Pastor Brenda and I attended last week, you could even see some of the straight family members veer away from our table when they noticed we were from a church.

It is critical to make this point. “The church” does not truly exist. Christianity has been splintered off to where there are very few basic concepts that all denominations would agree on. I listened to a recorded presentation from a Billy Graham Evangelistic Association Evangelism Training Conference that was very illuminating. The speaker broke down doctrine into three categories; foundation, conviction, and preference.

The list of items under foundation, those indisputable facts taken directly from scripture, were very short and did not venture much past Jesus being the Son of God and being resurrected from the dead. Convictions were beliefs that, while biblically based, were not indisputable. Preferences are mostly differences in how to approach worship; styles of music, types of prayers, etc.

The speaker pointed out that most conflict in churches (and he was speaking to an audience identified as being comprised of people from 59 different denominations) was caused by differences in conviction and preference. More importantly, he stated that it was the foundational beliefs and ONLY those that determined a person’s eternal destination—whether they would go to heaven or hell.

I bring that up here specifically for those who have been deeply wounded by their church experiences. If someone has told you that you would go to hell because you acted upon your homosexual experiences, they were speaking on their convictions, and convictions, being subject to interpretation of the scripture, can be wrong. If someone has called you an abomination, that was also from their convictions; how they read a passage from the Bible.

Ultimately, you relationship with narrow-minded people spewing judgment and condemnation in God’s name is just that, a relationship with people. All that ultimately matters is your relationship, and it is exactly that, a relationship, with Jesus Christ. If you have been in a church where people, even a pastor, told you that you could not have unless you renounced your homosexuality, they did that based on a conviction, not a fundamental fact.

There are churches like mine that, instead of pushing you away from God or requiring you to change, will teach you how to draw close, how to feel His love, and find the peace you have been seeking your entire life. Only Christ can heal the scars that hateful people have administered to your psyche, perhaps down to your very soul. I assure you, from first hand experience, that there are people in other churches that will love you as you are, where you are, and show you the path to receive the love that Jesus is so eager to give you.

The next time you hear someone state “the church’s” position on homosexuality, remember they are speaking only for THEIR church. There are others who will love you, nurture you, and accept you as God made you.

If you are seeking a church like that, I would be glad to help. Drop me a note at straight_notnarrow@yahoo.com.

Can Right Wing Operatives Gain Just a Touch of Perspective?

Here is the latest push from the Liberty Counsel, the right-wing legal activist organization spawned by the late Jerry Falwell's Liberty University. From One News Now, the reporting arm of the American Family Association:


A Christian legal organization has launched a petition drive asking Radio Disney to stop censoring the word "God" from advertising promoting the new movie, The Ten Commandments.


Liberty Counsel founder Mat Staver says he recently received a copy of an email from a Radio Disney advertising executive that instructed that the phrase "chosen by God" be omitted from ads playing on the network. The animated movie by Promenade Pictures opens this Friday in theaters nationwide.


During the previews to the movie, Staver appears in a three-minute video promoting the film, talking about the importance of the Ten Commandments to the modern legal system. He says it is shocking that Radio Disney would censor the word "God" from ads promoting the movie.


"This movie is an epic. It is obviously part and parcel that God is part of this movie, that God chose Moses to lead His people out of bondage and gave him the Ten Commandments that have profoundly influenced our notions of right and wrong," the attorney states. "Yet to censor God from the Ten Commandments is actually just unbelievable. So we are asking people around the country to make their voice known."


Staver encourages people to sign the online petition, found on the Liberty Counsel website, and to call Radio Disney to protest the policy. He says his organization plans to flood Radio Disney's email with the petitions and that the quicker people sign the petitions, the quicker they will be sent.


Are you kidding me? I will grant that it does seem odd to promote a movie about the Ten Commandments without using God, if that is indeed the case. Fair enough.


It sickens me, however, that whenever the religious right has their very sensitive senibilities offended, their tender feathers ruffled, they have to become a nuisance to whoever they deem to be the offending party. The AFA is also famous for doing this, and have already sent out e-mails about "defending Christmas."


Is God truly diminished by His name being omitted from the advertising of a movie about, well, Him? Is he that easily offended? I doubt it, but apparently there are plenty of people willing to take offense in His name and defend His honor.


I just wish they could take all of that energy and put it toward something constructive like collecting coats for the homeless with the cold weather coming up soon, or working to expand health care for children in this nation instead of fighting to restrict it.


You know, the kind of work Jesus would be doing if he walked the earth right now.

"Ex-Gay Harm: Let Me Count the Ways"

One of the most contentious points in the ongoing debate regarding the concept of becoming an "ex-gay" is that of the amount of harm the process can do to someone seeking to be changed but not realizing any perceptible difference after going through counseling, sometimes after spending years of their life and thousands of dollars trying to rid themselves of homosexual attractions. They are often motivated by familes or churches telling them they are "aborations to God" or sexual deviants, among other lovely things.

I have not come across anyone who has provided a more intimate, up-close, and personal view into this than Peterson Toscano. Peterson is an entertainer, blogger, and activist who journeyed through a personal hell trying to get to the point where he could be comfortable living as a straight man. That effort failed miserably, and he has devoted much time and energy to helping others avoid the pain he went through. He cofounded the organization "Beyond Ex-Gay" to reach out to more people than he could individually.

I share this with you because Peterson has posted a blog entry titled, "Ex-Gay Harm: Let Me Count the Ways" and was kind enough to share it with me:

In the past 4.5 years I have been in contact with over 1000 ex-gay survivors. These are people who pursued ex-gay experiences, either on their own, or more often, assisted by others like a therapist, minister, ex-gay program. They attempted to change or suppress their sexual orientation and may have referred to themselves as ex-gays or simply strugglers or by some other name.

Through hearing their stories (some of which are posted on Beyond Ex-Gay--bXg) and in unpacking my own ex-gay journey, I have begun to understand the many ways people can be harmed by their ex-gay experiences. Many of us also received certain benefits from our ex-gay experiences, but in most cases the harm outweighs the good.

I realize that the ex-gay experience is not the only culprit in bringing harm. The anti-gay church and a homophobic society and in many cases one's own family contributes to the damage. But what the ex-gay experience does is deepen that harm by offering hope for some sort of change or freedom. Led by sincere and caring people, our ex-gay programs, therapists and ministers encouraged us and because of their kindness and sincerity, we often pressed on long after we realized the it was not working. Only afterwards did we began to understand the trauma we introduced into our lives as a result of submitting to ex-gay experiences.

Below is a list of categories outlining areas of harm along with brief descriptions for each. I invite ex-gay survivors to leave comments with specific examples and further explanations for any of the categories that resonate for them. They can even add new categories.

(warning: this can be heavy stuff to look at, so before you do, make sure you feel somewhat prepared and aware that this might bring up stuff for you)

If you are confused about how to handle same-sex attractions you are experiencing and have considered pursuing the "ex-gay" route, it is imparitive that you click through to Peterson's blog entry and not just read it, but study what he writes and decide if you really want to subject yourself to some if not all of the damaging issues that can manifest during that therapy/counseling.

If you are someone who has encouraged a person to take this path, or if you have supported an ex-gay ministry in the past, I emplore you to carefully review Peterson's post and reconsider your approach.

Religious Right Flexing Its Muscle in Australia

America is not the only nation where the religous right is working to influence policy and elections. Focusing on a campaign against gay equality, there is a like minded group, the Australian Christian Lobby, rising down under that is trying to influence the upcoming general election.

From PinkNews

The Australian Christina Lobby is committed to fighting gay equality.

"We reject HREOC's attempts to normalise same-sex relationships by extending the definition of de facto marriage and redefining parenthood.

"Such a move plays directly into the hands of activists whose long-term aim has been to redefine marriage and family," the group said in a pre-election statement.

That phrase, "normalis(z)e same-sex relationships", always pisses me off, with the clear implication that people with same-sex orientations are abnormal, which in the minds of religious right zealots means not like them.

It's sad to see that bigotry in God's name is not limited to this continent. Hopefully GLBT advocates in Australia will be able to push back and not let this organization gain an even stronger foothold than it appears they already have.

This Just In: Christians Considered Judgemental and Anti-Gay

The Barna Group has released results of a survey conducted among people ages 16-29 that reveals a very negative perception of Christians and Christianity in general.

From the USA Today:

Majorities of young people in America describe modern-day Christianity as judgmental, hypocritical and anti-gay. What's more, many Christians don't even want to call themselves "Christian" because of the baggage that accompanies the label.

A new book based on research by the California-based research firm The Barna Group found that church attitudes about people in general and gays in particular are driving a negative image of the Christian faith among people ages 16-29.

"The Christian community's ability to take the high road and help to deal with some of the challenges that this (anti-gay) perception represents may be the ... defining response of the Christian church in the next decade," said David Kinnaman, Barna Group president and author of the book, UnChristian: What a New Generation Really Thinks About Christianity.

"The anti-homosexual perception has now become sort of the Geiger counter of Christians' ability to love and work with people."

This is a very strong final statement and one that I strongly agree with. Christ did not show any indication of witholding his love from someone based on their sexual orientation, yet many Christians do just that under the guise of "hate the sin, love the sinner." Guess what part of that comes across the most clearly to people? I've said this before but it bears repeating; we are a LOT better at hating than loving, and if try to combine the two, hate will invariably rule the day.

If people can not clearly see the light of Christ in the life and through the actions of a Christian, that is way off the mark from the example Jesus set for us to live by.

Apparently people notice that.

Has Gay Inclusiveness Gone Too Far Too Fast?

That provocative question is the topic of a column at Salon.com by John Aravosis, a longtime gay rights advocate and editor of Americablog.



I have a sense that over the past decade the trans revolution was imposed on the gay community from outside, or at least above, and thus it never stuck with a large number of gays who weren't running national organizations, weren't activists, or weren't living in liberal gay enclaves like San Francisco and New York. Sure, many of the rest of us accepted de facto that transgendered people were members of the community, but only because our leaders kept telling us it was so. A lot of gays have been scratching their heads for 10 years trying to figure out what they have in common with transsexuals, or at the very least why transgendered people qualify as our siblings rather than our cousins. It's a fair question, but one we know we dare not ask. It is simply not p.c. in the gay community to question how and why the T got added on to the LGB, let alone ask what I as a gay man have in common with a man who wants to cut off his penis, surgically construct a vagina, and become a woman. I'm not passing judgment, I respect transgendered people and sympathize with their cause, but I simply don't get how I am just as closely related to a transsexual (who is often not gay) as I am to a lesbian (who is). Is it wrong for me to simply ask why?



No, it's not wrong to ask the question. Actually, it's a very good one.



I support transgendered rights. But I'm not naive. If there are still lingering questions in the gay community about gender identity 10 years after our leaders embraced the T -- and there are -- then imagine how conflicted straight members of Congress are when asked to pass a civil rights bill for a woman who used to be a man. We're not talking right and wrong here, we're talking political reality. Our own community is still grappling with this issue. Yet we expect members of Congress, who took 30 years to embrace a gay ENDA, to welcome the T's into the bill in only five months.



That's why James Dobson, Tony Perkins and the men at the Concerned Women for America are so hell-bent on defeating ENDA. To the religious right, ENDA without gender identity isn't a weak, meaningless bill fraught with loopholes. Our enemies know that passage of any federal gay civil rights legislation is a legislative and cultural milestone that would make it that much easier for all of us -- gays and lesbians, bisexuals and eventually even the transgendered -- to realize all of our civil rights in our lifetime.



I agree with Aravosis about the political reality of ENDA (as I've previously written here), but there is another important question that he does not address--if transgender people can't partner up with gays and lesbians, then who WILL advocate for them? I fear the answer is no one, and, if left to fend for themselves, they wouldn't even register a blip on the political radar.

Now wouldn't that be a step BACK for civil rights?

"Are Christians Contributing to Unbelief?"

That's the question asked in this article on The Christian Post by conservative writer S. Michael Craven.

Could it be that our own actions are causing the religiously-inclined but nonetheless lost to doubt the existence of God? Is it possible that the Church is pushing people toward unbelief by virtue of its approach to culture and the world? Has Christianity become so politically defined that true faith and the person of Jesus Christ is obscured in the minds of many? Is it possible that Christians are conducting themselves in such a way that the spiritually seeking are looking anywhere but to Christ? I don't know for sure but I certainly think it is possible and that is enough to make me examine my self in light of these questions. It should cause us all to examine ourselves.

From the balance of Mr. Craven's article, I would surmise that his idea of corrective action is quite different from mine, but I do take some consolation that someone of the conservative ilk is even asking those questions.

I firmly believe the hatefulness and judgementalism of right-wing, anti-gay Christians is a big factor in the recent trend of atheisim becoming cool. If people are going to accept the existence of God, not to mention take him as their Lord and Savior, they need to see the light of Christ through people's lives. If they see something different on a consistent basis, then I can understand how they come to believe that God either does not exist or is impotent and of no value to them.

In Matthew 5:16, Jesus says in the Sermon on the Mount:

.....let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.

If the light is not there in our lives, yet we claim to follow Jesus, then what is there for others to praise?

Not much, and that's a serious problem. If you profess to be a Christian, let me suggest you take a look in the mirror and try to understand how others see you. If they aren't seeing the light of Christ through your life, it's time to change the bulb and let it shine brightly.

It DOES make a difference.