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!)
August 10, 2007
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.
Another Self-Loathing Gay Politican
Florida state representative Bob Allen has been charged with soliciting a male undercover policeman and lamely claims it happened because he was scared.
In a taped statement and other documents released last week, Allen, 48, told police that he was intimidated into offering sex.
"I certainly wasn't there to have sex with anybody and certainly wasn't there to exchange money for it," the Sentinel quoted him as saying.
Rather, he said, "this was a pretty stocky black guy, and there was nothing but other black guys around in the park," Allen said. He said he feared he "was about to be a statistic."
Titusville police told the Sentinel that they were investigating a nearby condo burglary when they saw a disheveled, unshaved man enter and leave the park restroom three times. They decided to send in Officer Danny Kavanaugh.
In a statement Kavanaugh said he was drying his hands in a stall when Allen peered—twice—over the stall door, then joined Kavanaugh inside.
"This is kind of a public place, isn't it?" Kavanaugh quoted Allen as saying, according to the Sentinel. Allen then suggested "going across the bridge; it's quieter over there."
Yeah, that's just what I would do. If I was intimidated because I was surrounded by large African-American men, the first thing I would do is offer to have sex with them. What straight man wouldn't do that?
It's one thing for someone to do something stupid, but it's even worse when he comes up with some pitiful excuse and insults everyone's intelligence in the process.
Of course, it goes without saying that he had a strong anti-gay record in the Florida legislature.
I pity someone like Rep. Allen who apparently can't be honest about, or with, themselves, but I feel even sorrier for the people he is supposed to represent.
Especially if they happen to be gay.
In a taped statement and other documents released last week, Allen, 48, told police that he was intimidated into offering sex.
"I certainly wasn't there to have sex with anybody and certainly wasn't there to exchange money for it," the Sentinel quoted him as saying.
Rather, he said, "this was a pretty stocky black guy, and there was nothing but other black guys around in the park," Allen said. He said he feared he "was about to be a statistic."
Titusville police told the Sentinel that they were investigating a nearby condo burglary when they saw a disheveled, unshaved man enter and leave the park restroom three times. They decided to send in Officer Danny Kavanaugh.
In a statement Kavanaugh said he was drying his hands in a stall when Allen peered—twice—over the stall door, then joined Kavanaugh inside.
"This is kind of a public place, isn't it?" Kavanaugh quoted Allen as saying, according to the Sentinel. Allen then suggested "going across the bridge; it's quieter over there."
Yeah, that's just what I would do. If I was intimidated because I was surrounded by large African-American men, the first thing I would do is offer to have sex with them. What straight man wouldn't do that?
It's one thing for someone to do something stupid, but it's even worse when he comes up with some pitiful excuse and insults everyone's intelligence in the process.
Of course, it goes without saying that he had a strong anti-gay record in the Florida legislature.
I pity someone like Rep. Allen who apparently can't be honest about, or with, themselves, but I feel even sorrier for the people he is supposed to represent.
Especially if they happen to be gay.
August 06, 2007
The Winner in Thursday Night's Debate? The GLBT Community
This article on The Huffington Post points out that what is said during Thursday night's Democratic presidential debate on the LOGO network is not nearly as important as the fact that all the candidates will be there saying it.
What's important about the Human Rights Campaign-sponsored debate is its mere occurrence. If the Dems are confident enough to tackle gay issues head-on for a full hour, it means they're no longer worried that the Republicans will throw it back in their faces. They're not afraid, and more importantly, they're betting voters aren't afraid either.
During the 2004 presidential elections George Bush was able to make a lot of headway by scaring moderate voters with the twin specters of activist judges and the impending doom of traditional marriage. The Massachusetts Supreme Court gay marriage ruling had just been handed down, and Bush, eyeing re-election, called it "arbitrary" and "undermining" to families. Nobody knew what might happen if gay partnerships were made legal -- and Republicans worked to make this unknown quantity as frightening as possible.
As real-life experiments with equal gay rights are carried out federally and locally all over the world, the GOP can no longer count on the issue to scare voters to the ballot box. It may be that the long-term results in those places are not what gay activists would hope for, but in the short term, growing familiarity with the issue is working in their favor. The Democratic presidential candidates, sensing this change, have come out of their shells to talk about the issue openly and comfortably. It will no longer be an ignored plank in their broad platforms, as it was in 2004 when John Kerry rarely addressed his support of civil unions until after Bush suggested a federal amendment banning same sex marriage.
This time around, the Democratic candidates have already been more vocal about their positions. During Thursday's HRC debate, nobody is likely to say anything shocking or new. But for supporters of gay rights and marriage equality, merely having a debate says it all.
Even four years ago, having this debate would have seemed farfetched. For people waiting year after year to gain equal rights, I understand why that may not seem like a big deal, but it is.
What's important about the Human Rights Campaign-sponsored debate is its mere occurrence. If the Dems are confident enough to tackle gay issues head-on for a full hour, it means they're no longer worried that the Republicans will throw it back in their faces. They're not afraid, and more importantly, they're betting voters aren't afraid either.
During the 2004 presidential elections George Bush was able to make a lot of headway by scaring moderate voters with the twin specters of activist judges and the impending doom of traditional marriage. The Massachusetts Supreme Court gay marriage ruling had just been handed down, and Bush, eyeing re-election, called it "arbitrary" and "undermining" to families. Nobody knew what might happen if gay partnerships were made legal -- and Republicans worked to make this unknown quantity as frightening as possible.
As real-life experiments with equal gay rights are carried out federally and locally all over the world, the GOP can no longer count on the issue to scare voters to the ballot box. It may be that the long-term results in those places are not what gay activists would hope for, but in the short term, growing familiarity with the issue is working in their favor. The Democratic presidential candidates, sensing this change, have come out of their shells to talk about the issue openly and comfortably. It will no longer be an ignored plank in their broad platforms, as it was in 2004 when John Kerry rarely addressed his support of civil unions until after Bush suggested a federal amendment banning same sex marriage.
This time around, the Democratic candidates have already been more vocal about their positions. During Thursday's HRC debate, nobody is likely to say anything shocking or new. But for supporters of gay rights and marriage equality, merely having a debate says it all.
Even four years ago, having this debate would have seemed farfetched. For people waiting year after year to gain equal rights, I understand why that may not seem like a big deal, but it is.
August 05, 2007
Verbally Abusing Gay People Un-American
If that sounds a bit extreme, check out this excerpt from an op-ed in the Kansas City Star:
People who direct this word disparagingly at someone else do so because they feel superior to that person. Whether it comes from their sense of morality, masculinity or some other reason, those who call other people “fags” feel justified because they believe their rights outweigh those of their victims.
We weren’t causing a disturbance. We weren’t breaking any laws. We were simply waiting to cross a street. Still, this stranger felt it was OK to verbally abuse us.
This smug supremacy over other people’s rights is evident in more than just calling someone a name. It’s noticeable in ongoing efforts to prevent gender and sexual orientation from being added as covered categories in the federal hate-crimes law, in discussions over whether same-sex couples should be allowed to adopt and raise children, in limiting marriage rights to only heterosexual couples, and in allowing workplaces to dismiss employees because of their sexual orientation.
When America allows someone’s personal beliefs to reign over another’s, we have handcuffed our nation’s ability to grant freedoms.
Instead, we’re limiting them. Whether it’s the freedom to walk a sidewalk without fear of ridicule or the freedom to have you and your partner’s love legally recognized, it doesn’t matter.
What matters is that we as a nation must live up to the pledge to “promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity,” as written in our Constitution.
So the next time you consider the use of the three-letter f-word, remember that it’s more than just a word. It’s a reminder that some people think their rights cancel out someone else’s.
Thanks to PageOneQ for the tip.
People who direct this word disparagingly at someone else do so because they feel superior to that person. Whether it comes from their sense of morality, masculinity or some other reason, those who call other people “fags” feel justified because they believe their rights outweigh those of their victims.
We weren’t causing a disturbance. We weren’t breaking any laws. We were simply waiting to cross a street. Still, this stranger felt it was OK to verbally abuse us.
This smug supremacy over other people’s rights is evident in more than just calling someone a name. It’s noticeable in ongoing efforts to prevent gender and sexual orientation from being added as covered categories in the federal hate-crimes law, in discussions over whether same-sex couples should be allowed to adopt and raise children, in limiting marriage rights to only heterosexual couples, and in allowing workplaces to dismiss employees because of their sexual orientation.
When America allows someone’s personal beliefs to reign over another’s, we have handcuffed our nation’s ability to grant freedoms.
Instead, we’re limiting them. Whether it’s the freedom to walk a sidewalk without fear of ridicule or the freedom to have you and your partner’s love legally recognized, it doesn’t matter.
What matters is that we as a nation must live up to the pledge to “promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity,” as written in our Constitution.
So the next time you consider the use of the three-letter f-word, remember that it’s more than just a word. It’s a reminder that some people think their rights cancel out someone else’s.
Thanks to PageOneQ for the tip.
August 04, 2007
Positive Movement in Two Key States
I'm posting about two stories here that show where the battles for GLBT equality are really being fought; on a state-by-state level. In two of those states, California and Virginia, attitudes are changing and progress could be made.
The Bay Area Reporter tells us that there was some movement from Republicans in the California state legislature toward the direction of equal rights in this year's session.
A surprising change has occurred with Republican lawmakers during this year's legislative session in Sacramento. They are voicing less dissent to LGBT legislation, and some GOP members are casting "aye" votes when it comes to certain gay rights measures.
The actions of the minority party in the state Capitol have not gone unnoticed. Last week the Assembly passed on a 70-1 vote a resolution urging Congress and President Bush to pass LGBT-inclusive federal hates crimes legislation.
Immediately afterward, Equality California, the statewide LGBT advocacy group, noted in a press release that the resolution passed with "historic bipartisan support." Joining 46 Democrats were 24 Republicans in favor of the measure, the most bipartisan support ever received in the California Legislature for a measure affecting the LGBT community, according to EQCA.
Meanwhile, the Washington Blade reports that there is some hope for a breakthrough in Virginia, a staunchly anti-gay state:
It might take five years, but Virginia could eventually see its anti-gay marriage amendment modified to clear the way for domestic partnerships or civil unions, according to a speaker at a gay rights conference here last weekend.
David Lampo, vice president of the Log Cabin Republicans of Virginia, told the Blade that improving the climate in the state for gays can be done through individual bills in a piecemeal fashion.
“I think if we can do some of these issues a baby step at a time we should get them through,” he said. “It might take longer, but hopefully in five years we can get the marriage amendment modified and at least have domestic partnerships and civil unions so we’re not constitutionally prohibited like we are now.”
Lampo said there are plenty of interim measures that could advance gay rights in the notoriously anti-gay state. One strategy is to broaden support for gay issues by reaching out to different groups, especially those that would benefit from non-discrimination policies and domestic partnership benefits, especially universities.
“If we got that accomplished it will be a great boon,” he said.
The Log Cabin Republicans were also cited in the story about progress in the California GOP. A while back I asked how a gay person could be active in the Republican party, and I received some thoughtful responses that express the view that working for change from within was a viable option that could make a difference.
While I am still somewhat sceptical of that approach, these are two examples of where it might actually be working that way.
The Bay Area Reporter tells us that there was some movement from Republicans in the California state legislature toward the direction of equal rights in this year's session.
A surprising change has occurred with Republican lawmakers during this year's legislative session in Sacramento. They are voicing less dissent to LGBT legislation, and some GOP members are casting "aye" votes when it comes to certain gay rights measures.
The actions of the minority party in the state Capitol have not gone unnoticed. Last week the Assembly passed on a 70-1 vote a resolution urging Congress and President Bush to pass LGBT-inclusive federal hates crimes legislation.
Immediately afterward, Equality California, the statewide LGBT advocacy group, noted in a press release that the resolution passed with "historic bipartisan support." Joining 46 Democrats were 24 Republicans in favor of the measure, the most bipartisan support ever received in the California Legislature for a measure affecting the LGBT community, according to EQCA.
Meanwhile, the Washington Blade reports that there is some hope for a breakthrough in Virginia, a staunchly anti-gay state:
It might take five years, but Virginia could eventually see its anti-gay marriage amendment modified to clear the way for domestic partnerships or civil unions, according to a speaker at a gay rights conference here last weekend.
David Lampo, vice president of the Log Cabin Republicans of Virginia, told the Blade that improving the climate in the state for gays can be done through individual bills in a piecemeal fashion.
“I think if we can do some of these issues a baby step at a time we should get them through,” he said. “It might take longer, but hopefully in five years we can get the marriage amendment modified and at least have domestic partnerships and civil unions so we’re not constitutionally prohibited like we are now.”
Lampo said there are plenty of interim measures that could advance gay rights in the notoriously anti-gay state. One strategy is to broaden support for gay issues by reaching out to different groups, especially those that would benefit from non-discrimination policies and domestic partnership benefits, especially universities.
“If we got that accomplished it will be a great boon,” he said.
The Log Cabin Republicans were also cited in the story about progress in the California GOP. A while back I asked how a gay person could be active in the Republican party, and I received some thoughtful responses that express the view that working for change from within was a viable option that could make a difference.
While I am still somewhat sceptical of that approach, these are two examples of where it might actually be working that way.
August 03, 2007
Democratic Movement on Gay Rights
Yesterday I wrote about how viable Democratic (and, of course Republican) presidential candidates are sidestepping the issue of same-sex marriage. However, this article from The Politico (a political newspaper in Washington, DC) indicates that the Democrats are stepping up to the plate on other GLBT issues:
The Democrats' apparent newfound confidence on gay issues -- a confidence, to be fair, that hasn't yet been tested by general election pressures -- has two sources. There's a broad cultural shift, indicated by polling, toward public support for gay rights.
And the shift comes as Democrats feel confident that Republicans -- weakened and tied to an unpopular war in Iraq -- will be unable to turn gay rights into the high-profile wedge issue it was in 2004.
"It's a very different time four years later," said the president of Human Rights Campaign, Joe Solmonese, whose group also sponsored a debate in 2003 that was attended by all the leading candidates other than then-Sen. John Edwards.
"It's the American people and these candidates being in a more enlightened place on (gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender) issues. And it's an emboldened view that the electorate is not going to let this field stray away from what really matters to the American people."
It will be interesting to see how far the candidates will go during the HRC/Logo Network televised debate on Thursday, August 9th. It will be even more interesting to see, if one of them is elected, how they then back it up with action.
There is a spirited debate going on tagged to The Politico article that is worth checking out and participating in.
The Democrats' apparent newfound confidence on gay issues -- a confidence, to be fair, that hasn't yet been tested by general election pressures -- has two sources. There's a broad cultural shift, indicated by polling, toward public support for gay rights.
And the shift comes as Democrats feel confident that Republicans -- weakened and tied to an unpopular war in Iraq -- will be unable to turn gay rights into the high-profile wedge issue it was in 2004.
"It's a very different time four years later," said the president of Human Rights Campaign, Joe Solmonese, whose group also sponsored a debate in 2003 that was attended by all the leading candidates other than then-Sen. John Edwards.
"It's the American people and these candidates being in a more enlightened place on (gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender) issues. And it's an emboldened view that the electorate is not going to let this field stray away from what really matters to the American people."
It will be interesting to see how far the candidates will go during the HRC/Logo Network televised debate on Thursday, August 9th. It will be even more interesting to see, if one of them is elected, how they then back it up with action.
There is a spirited debate going on tagged to The Politico article that is worth checking out and participating in.
August 02, 2007
Calling Out the Presidential Candidates
That's what Matt Foreman, Executive Director of the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, did in this post on the Task Force's blog, OutSpoken. Here are some excerpts.
The Democratic candidates for president, as a group and individually, express more support for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) issues and legislative and policy initiatives to improve our lives than any prior set of presidential candidates in the history of American politics. These new standards of support for LGBT people are worthy of our applause, our appreciation and our accolades.
Since 1980, we have suffered the gross indignities of defamations and slanders from a ravenous and rapacious right-wing anti-gay movement, a veritable industry churning out anti-LGBT propaganda at every turn. We endured the AIDS epidemic and the Reagan administration’s cruel indifference while our people fell to illness and then to death. We saw the U.S. Supreme Court uphold state laws that branded us criminals for our sexuality. We have been clubbed by an onslaught of ballot questions that put our lives up to popular vote. Time and again, we’vebeen thrown under the political bus by politicians either in the White House or those who want to get there.
All of this misery has been exacerbated exponentially by the spinelessness or unwillingness of all but a few national leaders to take a stand for us and denounce the animus unleashed on us. Many of our “friends” have simply looked the other way.
We bear our scars and yet remain unbowed. But, we are still waiting for the country’s political leadership to defend our right to live and thrive as a matter of principle, not parse our dreams as a matter of misguided political calculation.
We deserve and we must demand from the Democratic 2008 presidential candidates the simple and straightforward statement that our humanity requires full respect and fair treatment by all and, further, an equally simple and straightforward condemnation of those who seek to use our lives for political gain. This needs to be said in front of all audiences — not just in front of us.
We need leadership. We need strength of vision. And we need to know that the promises of reform come from the candidates' understanding of LGBT people as inseparable from the national community in which we live. There can be no more equivocating or silence about the goodness of our personhood, our families, our relationships. Period.
The Democratic candidates for president, as a group and individually, express more support for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) issues and legislative and policy initiatives to improve our lives than any prior set of presidential candidates in the history of American politics. These new standards of support for LGBT people are worthy of our applause, our appreciation and our accolades.
Since 1980, we have suffered the gross indignities of defamations and slanders from a ravenous and rapacious right-wing anti-gay movement, a veritable industry churning out anti-LGBT propaganda at every turn. We endured the AIDS epidemic and the Reagan administration’s cruel indifference while our people fell to illness and then to death. We saw the U.S. Supreme Court uphold state laws that branded us criminals for our sexuality. We have been clubbed by an onslaught of ballot questions that put our lives up to popular vote. Time and again, we’vebeen thrown under the political bus by politicians either in the White House or those who want to get there.
All of this misery has been exacerbated exponentially by the spinelessness or unwillingness of all but a few national leaders to take a stand for us and denounce the animus unleashed on us. Many of our “friends” have simply looked the other way.
We bear our scars and yet remain unbowed. But, we are still waiting for the country’s political leadership to defend our right to live and thrive as a matter of principle, not parse our dreams as a matter of misguided political calculation.
We deserve and we must demand from the Democratic 2008 presidential candidates the simple and straightforward statement that our humanity requires full respect and fair treatment by all and, further, an equally simple and straightforward condemnation of those who seek to use our lives for political gain. This needs to be said in front of all audiences — not just in front of us.
We need leadership. We need strength of vision. And we need to know that the promises of reform come from the candidates' understanding of LGBT people as inseparable from the national community in which we live. There can be no more equivocating or silence about the goodness of our personhood, our families, our relationships. Period.
There's plenty more to read in the full blog entry. It's time for the Deomcratic party to stop taking the GLBT vote for granted and earn it. It's also time for someone, anyone with even the slimest chance of getting elected (sorry, Dennis Kucinich, that leaves you out) to take a stand based on what's right, not what polls the best.
They would have my vote and enthusiastic endorsement. At this point, I'm waiting but not holding my breath.
August 01, 2007
Is the Church Producing Athiests?
That's the concern raised in this piece from the Christian Post.
"...some of the recurring questions young adults struggle with but churches often fail to address include the formation and development of the Bible, the presence of evil and suffering in the world, and the question of inspiration and inerrancy.
“In large part, it happens when the church leadership is completely unaware that their members – and not necessarily just the young members – have questions at all,” explained Horvath to The Christian Post. “And [they] continue merrily along thinking that to retain the youth they just need to be entertained.”
Young people question whether they should trust the Bible since it “is so old,” and are not satisfied with the simple answer that they should trust it because God wrote it. Horvath explains that though they understand that to be the Christian position, they want to know how they can be sure of that.
I'm sure one of the more challenging questions young people are asking is why does the church hate homosexuals. As most readers here know, there isn't much of an answer except to cherry pick a few isolated scripture verses, and even then it presents an arguement that doesn't go much beyond "God says so, and so do we."
What I think is an even tougher issue for young people to reconcile is the hypocrisy of church leaders preaching love while they practice bigotry and discrimination, preaching peace while supporting a president who promotes a senseless war, and preaching giving while idolizing material possessions.
If that's all I had to go on, I'd probably have trouble believing there really was a God myself, at least the one the church would be trying to shove down my throat while reaching for my checkbook at the same time.
Fortunately, the God in the Bible doesn't discriminate. He truly loves peace, and he is not materialistic. Christians who understand that need to set an example to support what God truly is. We need to let people see Him through how we live our lives; imperfectly to be sure, but still demonstrating the goodness of Jesus, the New Testament God. We all have the opportunity to live under that covenant.
In today's society, it's no wonder young people don't find the Old Testament God all that appealing. There are churches, and I'm proud to belong to one of them, Believers Covenant Fellowship, that preaches about Jesus and encourages people to go out into the world and live like Him. That way we can help lead people through all that smoke most of the larger demoninations are blowing and show them how to reach out to our true Lord and Savior.
"...some of the recurring questions young adults struggle with but churches often fail to address include the formation and development of the Bible, the presence of evil and suffering in the world, and the question of inspiration and inerrancy.
“In large part, it happens when the church leadership is completely unaware that their members – and not necessarily just the young members – have questions at all,” explained Horvath to The Christian Post. “And [they] continue merrily along thinking that to retain the youth they just need to be entertained.”
Young people question whether they should trust the Bible since it “is so old,” and are not satisfied with the simple answer that they should trust it because God wrote it. Horvath explains that though they understand that to be the Christian position, they want to know how they can be sure of that.
I'm sure one of the more challenging questions young people are asking is why does the church hate homosexuals. As most readers here know, there isn't much of an answer except to cherry pick a few isolated scripture verses, and even then it presents an arguement that doesn't go much beyond "God says so, and so do we."
What I think is an even tougher issue for young people to reconcile is the hypocrisy of church leaders preaching love while they practice bigotry and discrimination, preaching peace while supporting a president who promotes a senseless war, and preaching giving while idolizing material possessions.
If that's all I had to go on, I'd probably have trouble believing there really was a God myself, at least the one the church would be trying to shove down my throat while reaching for my checkbook at the same time.
Fortunately, the God in the Bible doesn't discriminate. He truly loves peace, and he is not materialistic. Christians who understand that need to set an example to support what God truly is. We need to let people see Him through how we live our lives; imperfectly to be sure, but still demonstrating the goodness of Jesus, the New Testament God. We all have the opportunity to live under that covenant.
In today's society, it's no wonder young people don't find the Old Testament God all that appealing. There are churches, and I'm proud to belong to one of them, Believers Covenant Fellowship, that preaches about Jesus and encourages people to go out into the world and live like Him. That way we can help lead people through all that smoke most of the larger demoninations are blowing and show them how to reach out to our true Lord and Savior.
July 31, 2007
Activism Pays Off in New Jersey
From The New York Blade:
After persuasion from New Jersey's governor and attorney general, United Parcel Service of America announced Monday that it would extend health insurance benefits to the civil union partners of gay employees.
The policy change has to do with New Jersey's civil unions law, which took effect in February, and seeks to give gay couples the same rights in the state as married couples.
Gov. Jon S. Corzine sent Atlanta-based UPS a letter on July 20 asking the shipping giant to change its stance.
The company had previously said that civil union partners were legally different from spouses, and therefore, the partners were not entitled to the same benefits that spouses of the company's hourly workers receive.
Gay rights advocates say UPS's legal interpretation was faulty.
They say that many other employers, though, have taken the same stance. The advocates maintain that gay couples would get equal treatment only if they are allowed to marry.
UPS spokesman Norman Black said the company is reviewing its policies in Connecticut and Vermont, which also offer civil unions.
Management and administrative staff in the company nationwide already receive domestic partnership benefits.
Before Monday, the company had said it would extend them to all its hourly union workers, but couldn't outside its collective bargaining agreement. So, only hourly employees in Massachusetts, where gay marriage is legal, received the benefits for their partners.
You can bet that this change of course by UPS was also influenced by the advocacy efforts of groups like Garden State Equality and Lambda Legal among others. Kudos to them and Governor Corzine for their continued efforts to see that the laws of New Jersey are properly enforced.
Lambda Legal has more on their website about this decision and the civil union laws in New Jersey. Click here to read that information.
After persuasion from New Jersey's governor and attorney general, United Parcel Service of America announced Monday that it would extend health insurance benefits to the civil union partners of gay employees.
The policy change has to do with New Jersey's civil unions law, which took effect in February, and seeks to give gay couples the same rights in the state as married couples.
Gov. Jon S. Corzine sent Atlanta-based UPS a letter on July 20 asking the shipping giant to change its stance.
The company had previously said that civil union partners were legally different from spouses, and therefore, the partners were not entitled to the same benefits that spouses of the company's hourly workers receive.
Gay rights advocates say UPS's legal interpretation was faulty.
They say that many other employers, though, have taken the same stance. The advocates maintain that gay couples would get equal treatment only if they are allowed to marry.
UPS spokesman Norman Black said the company is reviewing its policies in Connecticut and Vermont, which also offer civil unions.
Management and administrative staff in the company nationwide already receive domestic partnership benefits.
Before Monday, the company had said it would extend them to all its hourly union workers, but couldn't outside its collective bargaining agreement. So, only hourly employees in Massachusetts, where gay marriage is legal, received the benefits for their partners.
You can bet that this change of course by UPS was also influenced by the advocacy efforts of groups like Garden State Equality and Lambda Legal among others. Kudos to them and Governor Corzine for their continued efforts to see that the laws of New Jersey are properly enforced.
Lambda Legal has more on their website about this decision and the civil union laws in New Jersey. Click here to read that information.
July 30, 2007
Human Rights Are Not a Bargaining Chip
I ran across this piece on Talk to Action which I couldn't agree with more. I hope you do too. Here's the key points for me:
Human Rights are Not Political Commodities
We understand the same First Amendment that guarantees separation of church and state guarantees the rights of Christian conservatives to defend their views in the public square, and to seek redress of grievances through a variety of political and social channels.
In recent months, however, we have seen indications that some in the leadership of the Democratic Party, and some of its candidates for public office, are seeking the votes of Christian conservatives by suggesting there is room to compromise on reproductive rights and gay rights.
While public debates over social issues are a sign of a healthy democracy; we do not believe is proper for politicians to negotiate away basic human rights for any group of people in the United States.
The problem is not “gay rights” or “gay marriage.” The problem is building a society where the basic human rights of all people are respected and defended. Under the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, there is no such thing as “Special Rights.” When some Christian conservatives claim that gay people want “Special Rights,” it is a falsehood. Our rights, and the rights of our friends, relatives, and neighbors in LGBTQ communities, are not political commodities to be traded for votes.
They shouldn't be, anyway. When you are deciding who to vote for in the 2008 elections, I hope you try to find someone who would not make that kind of trade.
Human Rights are Not Political Commodities
We understand the same First Amendment that guarantees separation of church and state guarantees the rights of Christian conservatives to defend their views in the public square, and to seek redress of grievances through a variety of political and social channels.
In recent months, however, we have seen indications that some in the leadership of the Democratic Party, and some of its candidates for public office, are seeking the votes of Christian conservatives by suggesting there is room to compromise on reproductive rights and gay rights.
While public debates over social issues are a sign of a healthy democracy; we do not believe is proper for politicians to negotiate away basic human rights for any group of people in the United States.
The problem is not “gay rights” or “gay marriage.” The problem is building a society where the basic human rights of all people are respected and defended. Under the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, there is no such thing as “Special Rights.” When some Christian conservatives claim that gay people want “Special Rights,” it is a falsehood. Our rights, and the rights of our friends, relatives, and neighbors in LGBTQ communities, are not political commodities to be traded for votes.
They shouldn't be, anyway. When you are deciding who to vote for in the 2008 elections, I hope you try to find someone who would not make that kind of trade.
July 29, 2007
Younger Gay Athletes Coming Out in Locker Rooms
While the atmosphere in professional sports locker rooms is still perceived as being too homophobic for athletes to be comfortable coming out as gay, the attitudes among high school and college athletes and their teammates appears to be changing and becoming more accepting.
A 2007 Gallup poll found that 57% of Americans viewed homosexuality as an "acceptable alternative lifestyle," an increase of 11 percentage points from four years ago. The percentage was higher among 18- to 29-year-olds.
Almost three-quarters of heterosexual adults said they would not change their feelings toward a favorite male athlete if he came out, according to a recent survey by Harris Interactive and Witeck-Combs Communications.
"It's not like the old days," said David Kopay, a former National Football League player who stirred controversy by announcing he was homosexual in 1975.
This article from the Los Angeles Times chronicles the coming out of several young athletes, some of whom still faced prejudice but are all handling it and glad they did come out.
Thanks to PageOneQ for the tip.
A 2007 Gallup poll found that 57% of Americans viewed homosexuality as an "acceptable alternative lifestyle," an increase of 11 percentage points from four years ago. The percentage was higher among 18- to 29-year-olds.
Almost three-quarters of heterosexual adults said they would not change their feelings toward a favorite male athlete if he came out, according to a recent survey by Harris Interactive and Witeck-Combs Communications.
"It's not like the old days," said David Kopay, a former National Football League player who stirred controversy by announcing he was homosexual in 1975.
This article from the Los Angeles Times chronicles the coming out of several young athletes, some of whom still faced prejudice but are all handling it and glad they did come out.
Thanks to PageOneQ for the tip.
July 28, 2007
So That's What It Feels Like
I had my first direct, mild, brush with bigotry tonight, and it happened at my home.
I was sitting in our family room with Pastor Brenda and happened to see an unfamiliar man walk up our driveway. He was walking his dog and had something in his hand that he was taking to the neighbor's recycle bin. I recognized the item as the sign we've been displaying in our yard for several weeks from Equality Maryland that says, "Civil Marriage is a Civil Right." There is also a website supporting that campaign.
I shot out of the house and confronted the elderly man who had apparently walked past our yard, picked up the sign, and deposited it in the trash. He said, noteably without making eye contact with me, that the sign was "littering up the neighborhood."
I told him "No it isn't, it is expressing an opinion. You had no right to throw it away." Rather than taking an opportunity to engage in dialogue, forget the apology he owed me, he slinked away to his home further down the street.
It's easy to be a bigot when no one is watching, isn't it? Not quite as easy when someone calls you on it. It's pretty hard to respect someone like that too.
I was sitting in our family room with Pastor Brenda and happened to see an unfamiliar man walk up our driveway. He was walking his dog and had something in his hand that he was taking to the neighbor's recycle bin. I recognized the item as the sign we've been displaying in our yard for several weeks from Equality Maryland that says, "Civil Marriage is a Civil Right." There is also a website supporting that campaign.
I shot out of the house and confronted the elderly man who had apparently walked past our yard, picked up the sign, and deposited it in the trash. He said, noteably without making eye contact with me, that the sign was "littering up the neighborhood."
I told him "No it isn't, it is expressing an opinion. You had no right to throw it away." Rather than taking an opportunity to engage in dialogue, forget the apology he owed me, he slinked away to his home further down the street.
It's easy to be a bigot when no one is watching, isn't it? Not quite as easy when someone calls you on it. It's pretty hard to respect someone like that too.
"Why Come Out?"
That's the question asked by Alex Blaze at The Bilerico Project. He has the data to indicate it's not so you can get ahead in the world:
Considering that, when adjusted for occupation and several other factors, the Task Force found that gay men make about 83% what the average straight man does, I really can't blame someone for being closeted. This UCLA study found that same-sex couples of either sex made about $12,000 less than their straight counterparts and were about 23% less likely to have a college degree. In fact, GLSEN found that LGBT-identified high school students were about twice as likely to not have any sort of post-secondary education on the mind.
And that's just when it comes to economic success. Queer-identified people are still more likely to be victims of violence, more likely to to be turned away from homeless shelters, more likely to be ostracized from their families. For what? A label?
How often have you heard people talk about how gay couples are always so affluent? Surely some are, but according to those statistics they have a lesser chance of being so than a straight couple.
So we're back at the main question of "Why come out?" It seems to be inviting a whole lot of trouble for not so much return. Of course, there are other ways to measure that return in terms of ethics and honesty, comfortability with one's identity, and slightly more psychic coherence, but those material disadvantages to coming out can be quite strong.
Well, I'm not planning on jumping back in the closet at this age, even though the system punishes people who are out and I don't see that changing anytime soon.
Are the material and economic benefits of staying in the closet worth it? It would be easy for me to say no because I don't have to face that decision myself. I do feel strongly, however, that someone living a lie, regardless of what that lie is, is doing more damage to themselves in the long run than all of society put together can inflict upon them.
Denying any of the gifts God gave you, even if one of them is being gay, will leave you short of realizing His plan for your life. Even if the road He lays out has a lot of potholes in it, He promised us it is still the best path to take for our lives.
Considering that, when adjusted for occupation and several other factors, the Task Force found that gay men make about 83% what the average straight man does, I really can't blame someone for being closeted. This UCLA study found that same-sex couples of either sex made about $12,000 less than their straight counterparts and were about 23% less likely to have a college degree. In fact, GLSEN found that LGBT-identified high school students were about twice as likely to not have any sort of post-secondary education on the mind.
And that's just when it comes to economic success. Queer-identified people are still more likely to be victims of violence, more likely to to be turned away from homeless shelters, more likely to be ostracized from their families. For what? A label?
How often have you heard people talk about how gay couples are always so affluent? Surely some are, but according to those statistics they have a lesser chance of being so than a straight couple.
So we're back at the main question of "Why come out?" It seems to be inviting a whole lot of trouble for not so much return. Of course, there are other ways to measure that return in terms of ethics and honesty, comfortability with one's identity, and slightly more psychic coherence, but those material disadvantages to coming out can be quite strong.
Well, I'm not planning on jumping back in the closet at this age, even though the system punishes people who are out and I don't see that changing anytime soon.
Are the material and economic benefits of staying in the closet worth it? It would be easy for me to say no because I don't have to face that decision myself. I do feel strongly, however, that someone living a lie, regardless of what that lie is, is doing more damage to themselves in the long run than all of society put together can inflict upon them.
Denying any of the gifts God gave you, even if one of them is being gay, will leave you short of realizing His plan for your life. Even if the road He lays out has a lot of potholes in it, He promised us it is still the best path to take for our lives.
July 27, 2007
"'Trans'-forming Corporate America
In another example of business stepping far ahead of legislators in the acceptance of LGBT people, Fortune magazine posted an article about the T; how companies are becoming more progressive in handling employment situations with transgender people.
A 2007 "State of the Workplace" report just published by the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) says that 125 of the Fortune 500 companies now specifically prohibit job discrimination against transgender employees. Five years ago, only 15 of the Fortune 500 promised to protect transgender people from on-the-job bias.
Just in the last 18 months, defense contractors Honeywell, Boeing (Charts, Fortune 500) and Northrop Grumman (Charts, Fortune 500), automakers Ford and General Motors (Charts, Fortune 500), hotel firms Hilton (Charts, Fortune 500), Starwood and Marriott (Charts, Fortune 500) and Internet giants Yahoo and Google (Charts, Fortune 500) have added protections for transgender workers. About 70 big companies offer comprehensive medical coverage for transgender employees, including those in transition, according to the HRC.
Why the change?
"This is a direct result of the organizing that employees have done on the issue of sexual orientation," says Daryl Herrschaft, who oversees the HRC's workplace project. As gay and lesbian employees form internal networking and lobbying groups, they have been able to persuade their employers to protect transgender rights as well.
Broader social forces are also at work. Movies like "Boys Don't Cry" (1999) and "Transmerica" (2005) exposed transgender characters to audiences. Last spring, Newsweek published a cover story called "The Mystery of Gender," and an L.A. Times sportswriter named Mike Penner told his readers that he would take a vacation and return as a woman, Christine Daniels.
I've written this before regarding corporations establishing policies aimed at preventing discrimination toward gay and lesbian employees, but the point is worth repeating: as a rule businesses are not going to take measures that are not in their best interest.
My experience has taught me that good employees are hard to find, so it is worth maintaining positive relationships with them, even if they used to wear a coat and tie and now wear a dress. More and more companies are seeing the value of doing just that.
A 2007 "State of the Workplace" report just published by the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) says that 125 of the Fortune 500 companies now specifically prohibit job discrimination against transgender employees. Five years ago, only 15 of the Fortune 500 promised to protect transgender people from on-the-job bias.
Just in the last 18 months, defense contractors Honeywell, Boeing (Charts, Fortune 500) and Northrop Grumman (Charts, Fortune 500), automakers Ford and General Motors (Charts, Fortune 500), hotel firms Hilton (Charts, Fortune 500), Starwood and Marriott (Charts, Fortune 500) and Internet giants Yahoo and Google (Charts, Fortune 500) have added protections for transgender workers. About 70 big companies offer comprehensive medical coverage for transgender employees, including those in transition, according to the HRC.
Why the change?
"This is a direct result of the organizing that employees have done on the issue of sexual orientation," says Daryl Herrschaft, who oversees the HRC's workplace project. As gay and lesbian employees form internal networking and lobbying groups, they have been able to persuade their employers to protect transgender rights as well.
Broader social forces are also at work. Movies like "Boys Don't Cry" (1999) and "Transmerica" (2005) exposed transgender characters to audiences. Last spring, Newsweek published a cover story called "The Mystery of Gender," and an L.A. Times sportswriter named Mike Penner told his readers that he would take a vacation and return as a woman, Christine Daniels.
I've written this before regarding corporations establishing policies aimed at preventing discrimination toward gay and lesbian employees, but the point is worth repeating: as a rule businesses are not going to take measures that are not in their best interest.
My experience has taught me that good employees are hard to find, so it is worth maintaining positive relationships with them, even if they used to wear a coat and tie and now wear a dress. More and more companies are seeing the value of doing just that.
Will Lutherans Abolish Celibacy Requirement for Gay & Lesbian Clergy?
From the Chicago Sun-Times via Religion Headlines.
The Lutheran pastor soon to be bishop of the Metropolitan Chicago Synod wants his denomination to lift a celibacy requirement for gay and lesbian clergy.
"That's where I think the church is going," Bishop-elect Wayne Miller of Aurora said. "That's where I think it needs to go."
Eventually, gay and lesbian clergy in monogamous, same-sex relationships could be allowed to serve.
He's hoping the change will come next month in Chicago, where the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America is conducting its churchwide assembly. Nearly a third of the denomination's 65 synods are asking for a policy shift in clergy standards.
John Roberts of Chicago also hopes it could lead to the reinstatement of gay clergy removed from ministry. He says he was ousted as pastor of a Michigan church in the 1990s after he confided to his bishop that he was gay.
"He gave me 11 days to leave the parish and not tell anyone," the 58-year-old Roberts said. "I still feel that call to pastoral ministry."
With 4.8 million baptized members, the ELCA, with headquarters in Chicago, is the nation's seventh-largest denomination. The Metropolitan Chicago Synod includes 217 congregations in Cook, DuPage, Kane and Lake counties.
Even with this restrictive policy, the Lutheran church is ahead of most mainline denominations. Hopefully they will continue to be led forward by people like John Roberts.
Click here to read the entire article, including a capsule summary of where the major denominations stand on ordaining gays and lesbians.
The Lutheran pastor soon to be bishop of the Metropolitan Chicago Synod wants his denomination to lift a celibacy requirement for gay and lesbian clergy.
"That's where I think the church is going," Bishop-elect Wayne Miller of Aurora said. "That's where I think it needs to go."
Eventually, gay and lesbian clergy in monogamous, same-sex relationships could be allowed to serve.
He's hoping the change will come next month in Chicago, where the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America is conducting its churchwide assembly. Nearly a third of the denomination's 65 synods are asking for a policy shift in clergy standards.
John Roberts of Chicago also hopes it could lead to the reinstatement of gay clergy removed from ministry. He says he was ousted as pastor of a Michigan church in the 1990s after he confided to his bishop that he was gay.
"He gave me 11 days to leave the parish and not tell anyone," the 58-year-old Roberts said. "I still feel that call to pastoral ministry."
With 4.8 million baptized members, the ELCA, with headquarters in Chicago, is the nation's seventh-largest denomination. The Metropolitan Chicago Synod includes 217 congregations in Cook, DuPage, Kane and Lake counties.
Even with this restrictive policy, the Lutheran church is ahead of most mainline denominations. Hopefully they will continue to be led forward by people like John Roberts.
Click here to read the entire article, including a capsule summary of where the major denominations stand on ordaining gays and lesbians.
July 26, 2007
Baptists Try For Unity Without Pro Gay Groups
From the Christian Post:
Two pro-gay national Baptist organizations have been denied official participation in an upcoming milestone gathering focused on Baptist unity.
The Association of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists (AWAB) and the Baptist Peace Fellowship of North America, both of which openly affirm gays and lesbians in the life of the national bodies, were told they cannot participate as an organization in the "Celebration of a New Baptist Covenant" in January 2008. Members of the two bodies, however, can participate as individuals.
The New Baptist Covenant is an effort spearheaded by former president Jimmy Carter and Bill Underwood, president of Mercer University in Atlanta, to counter the "negative" Baptist image presented in the media and to demonstrate Baptist unity around social causes such as poverty and AIDS as well as evangelism. Carter has expressed concern that the most common opinion about Baptist is that they cannot get along.
Ken Pennings, executive director of the AWAB, argued, "Here we are at a critical juncture when Baptists of all stripes are coming together to take a strong stand for justice for all of God's children, and the very people in American society being scapegoated and marginalized the most … are not going to be invited to participate.”
The AWAB and the Baptist Peace Fellowship had applied for membership in the North American Baptist Fellowship and asked to be included as sponsors of the upcoming pan-Baptist gathering, according to Stanford. The NABF executive committee denied their membership which excludes them from being official sponsors of the new covenant.
“This really is more like the Old Covenant than the New Covenant,” Pennings said, according to ABP. “Why would we want to participate in this? There’s nothing new about this; it’s the same old exclusion.”
A popular misconception here is that all baptists fall under the heading of Sothern Baptists (who are not participating in this effort either). Sadly, the group that is excluding the pro-gay organizations are considered to be less conservative than the SBC (most things are), yet is still not open to considering acceptance of GLBT people.
You can't have true unity and exclude a group at the same time, that's just common sense and an understanding of what the word unity means. What a shame.
Here is the entire article from the Christian Post.
Two pro-gay national Baptist organizations have been denied official participation in an upcoming milestone gathering focused on Baptist unity.
The Association of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists (AWAB) and the Baptist Peace Fellowship of North America, both of which openly affirm gays and lesbians in the life of the national bodies, were told they cannot participate as an organization in the "Celebration of a New Baptist Covenant" in January 2008. Members of the two bodies, however, can participate as individuals.
The New Baptist Covenant is an effort spearheaded by former president Jimmy Carter and Bill Underwood, president of Mercer University in Atlanta, to counter the "negative" Baptist image presented in the media and to demonstrate Baptist unity around social causes such as poverty and AIDS as well as evangelism. Carter has expressed concern that the most common opinion about Baptist is that they cannot get along.
Ken Pennings, executive director of the AWAB, argued, "Here we are at a critical juncture when Baptists of all stripes are coming together to take a strong stand for justice for all of God's children, and the very people in American society being scapegoated and marginalized the most … are not going to be invited to participate.”
The AWAB and the Baptist Peace Fellowship had applied for membership in the North American Baptist Fellowship and asked to be included as sponsors of the upcoming pan-Baptist gathering, according to Stanford. The NABF executive committee denied their membership which excludes them from being official sponsors of the new covenant.
“This really is more like the Old Covenant than the New Covenant,” Pennings said, according to ABP. “Why would we want to participate in this? There’s nothing new about this; it’s the same old exclusion.”
A popular misconception here is that all baptists fall under the heading of Sothern Baptists (who are not participating in this effort either). Sadly, the group that is excluding the pro-gay organizations are considered to be less conservative than the SBC (most things are), yet is still not open to considering acceptance of GLBT people.
You can't have true unity and exclude a group at the same time, that's just common sense and an understanding of what the word unity means. What a shame.
Here is the entire article from the Christian Post.
July 23, 2007
Thanks for your support!
I sincerely and deeply appreciate all of the loving, caring messages you folks have left regarding the recent passing of my brother. From good friends like Sharone & Erica to those of you who I have never met, all your prayers, well wishes, and support are cherrished.
My brother's memorial service will be Tuesday, and I will return home Wednesday. I should be back blogging on a regular basis by Thursday night. I would love your continued support and prayers, especially for Mike who has to adjust being without the person he shared his life with for nearly eleven years.
My brother's memorial service will be Tuesday, and I will return home Wednesday. I should be back blogging on a regular basis by Thursday night. I would love your continued support and prayers, especially for Mike who has to adjust being without the person he shared his life with for nearly eleven years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
