News, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
Posts 
Posts via daily email:
Kerry Eleveld at The Advocate 
The FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.New Hampsure results silence NOM’s Maggie Gallagher
Timothy Kincaid
March 20th, 2010
On March 10th, National Organization for Marriage’s Maggie Gallagher was euphoric. She was joyously reporting that the residents of New Hampshire had voted to reject same-sex marriage (National Review Online)
Of the vote results reported by the Union-Leader, along with a couple from the Concord Monitor, seventeen towns approved and three rejected the article.
Voting for a marriage amendment were: Charlestown (620-305), Kingston (719-346), Milton (385-285), Littleton (912-627), Wakefield (504-242), Dunbarton (77-58), Kingston (719-346), Windham (1,428-832), Epsom (422-225), Bedford (2,783-1,040), Hampstead (1,190-499), Allenstown (383-198), Auburn, Swanzey (542-422), Stark (unanimously), Pittsburg (64-4), and Belmont.
Rejecting were Newhampton, Salisbury (30-27), and Northumberland (57-104).
This is a partial list; still looking for full electoral info.
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay! She chortled in her joy.
To understand what this means, we have to take a step back and look at how same-sex marriage came to New Hampshire and what these town votes mean.
New Hampshire is one of two states in which the legislature passed a bill which was signed by the governor which changed the family law code to allow same-sex couples to marry. This was not due to a lawsuit or other court action but was an act of the purest representative government.
To reverse this law, anti-gay activists have a few options.
They can vote for representatives who oppose marriage equality who could then repeal the law. But while it is possible for marriage rights to appear and disappear with the change (or whim) of the elected representatives, many legislators are hesitant to play so cavalierly with the lives of their constituents. Further, the representatives are aware that changing laws back and forth create complexities and legal confusion which would both make their jobs more difficult and open them up to criticism.
They can lobby for a change in the constitution, a one-time fix. However, New Hampshire does not have a initiative process and the constitution can only be changed in two ways.
The state has a provision by which a constitutional convention can be called. Every ten years (or by a majority of both houses) the people vote on whether to call a convention (the next vote is scheduled for 2012). Then delegates are elected and a convention convened. Amendments to the constitution require a 3/5 vote of the delegates and a 2/3 vote of the people. Anti-gay activists may encourage a “yes” vote on the next constitutional convention question.
The second method for changing the constitution for both houses, by a 3/5 vote, to place an amendment on the ballot. Such an amendment would require a 2/3 affirmative vote of the electorate. And it was towards the last method that the rhetoric of the anti-gay activists was directed. NOM (among others) sought to demonstrate that it was the will of the people that they be allowed to vote on the issue. And this was the focus of their language: marriage is too important to be decided by the legislature, it should have the input of the people.
NOM was hoping that folks who were moderate or even supportive of marriage would agree that a “people’s vote” was needed. And once it was on the ballot, they would dump tens of millions of dollars (from undisclosed sources) to fund a campaign of bald-faced lies and seek to enshrine the doctrines of some religious organizations into civil law.
To put pressure on the legislature and create an impression of public support, anti-gay activists used a political mechanism that is peculiar to New England states: the town meeting, a gathering of the residents to determine town business. They sought to have the towns demand of the state that the residents be allowed to vote on marriage equality.
There are (basically) two types of town meeting. A traditional type, which is a public gathering on the second Tuesday in March, works well for small communities. And, since 1995, the state has allowed a two-part meeting (called an SB2 Meeting) in which first a deliberate session is held, which creates wording, and then residents vote through polling places. These votes occur on the second Tuesday of March, April, or May. To get a matter up for consideration at a town meeting, concerned citizens can collect twenty-five signatures on a petition.
So anti-gay activists organized to have towns pass a non-binding resolution, an “opinion of the people”, if you will, to ask the legislature to “let us vote. And using the town meeting approach was actually a pretty smart move. Cities, such as Portsmouth or Dover, don’t have a non-binding resolution process, so any results would skew towards smaller towns or rural communities where conservative sentiment was more likely to thrive. Further, those fired up to “fight the homosexual agenda” were more likely to attend than residents who weren’t much interested either way.
The best scenario for anti-gay activists would be for each town to endorse the “let us vote” effort by 2/3 of the residents. This could allow NOM to spin the results as evidence that a constitutional amendment would pass and that residents demand their rights. But success would be a majority of voters – or a majority of towns – which would allow Maggie and Brian to claim that they speak for “the people”.
Even “a majority of those towns which voted”, while meaningless, would allow Maggie a press release (for NOM it’s all about perception and spin) and a “victory”. Any result which could be stretched to suggest that the legislators were out of touch with the residents of New Hampshire.
Thus the gloating comments she made at NRO.
But it seems that Maggie forgot to comment once the “full electoral info” was found. And she has good reason not to want to discuss the decisions of the New Hampshire towns.
Dean Barker at Blue Hampshire has compiled the votes to date, and here is what he found:
Traditional meetings:
28 towns supported the anti-gay effort
61 towns did not provide enough signatures
31 towns tabled the bill, refusing to even vote on it
33 towns voted “no” on the measure
1 town flipped the effort and voted to commend the state for supporting equality
SB2 Meetings:
31 towns supported the anti-gay effort
10 towns did not provide enough signatures
14 towns amended the language in the deliberative session, killing the petition
1 town flipped the effort but failed to vote to commend the state for supporting equality
There are 11 towns yet to decide. But of the 210 towns which could have supported the efforts of the anti-gay activists, only 59 chose to do so. Few of those were by a 2/3 vote.
Of course NOM and the other participants at LetNHVote are seeking to spin this as a victory. They simply don’t count the towns in which the motion was tabled or in which the deliberative sessions killed the effort, and claim that of the towns in which the residents did decide to vote, they won a majority.
But their claims ring a little hollow. It’s a bit like celebrating because the people inside the ice cream parlor voted that they like ice cream.
And for some reason, Maggie’s chortling has turned to silence.
Categories: Anti-Gay Activists
COMMENTS (13) | LINK
Mormon/Boy Scout sexual abuse problem
Timothy Kincaid
March 19th, 2010
Across the country boys bond in scouting, enjoying the experience of nature, learning social values, and earning recognition for doing good deeds. And the Boy Scouts of America provide a memorable and often rewarding experience for boys – provided that these boys are not same-sex attracted or skeptical about the Abrahamic God.
But for fourteen percent of Scouts, their experience could be more accurately described as religious training in the beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (the “Mormons”). Unlike a scouting group hosted by the local Methodist Church which meets in their basement, for the Mormons scouting is a part of the church, an official teaching mechanism that places theology as a higher priority than socialization. It serves not only for inculcating the beliefs of the church, but as an outreach tool.
Elder Robert Backman was recognized by the Boy Scouts of America in 1986 for his efforts in incorporating Scouting into the LDS Church’s Young Men organization. He is quoted in the Aaronic Priesthood Boy Scout Guide:
As you know, we are vitally concerned about our youth and feel that with the proper attention we can save many more than we are doing at the present time. I am convinced that Scouting is a mighty activity arm to hold these boys close while they learn to appreciate the honor of holding the priesthood of God.
…
If we do all else and lose the young man, we have failed in our sacred stewardship. We must not allow a separation of priesthood, Scouting, or athletics.
…
Every phase of the Scouting program should help young men and their leaders understand that Scouting activities are carried out to accomplish priesthood purposes.
For Mormons, family is a valued concept. But part of the definition of “family” is the concept of church brotherhood and the expectation that Mormons will raise their children to be integrated into the faith at a young age. Scouting is more of an expectation or obligation than an optional club.
And evidence is arising that the Boy Scouts of America may have taken steps to hide evidence of sexual abuse. And they may have done so for decades. (No. County Times)
The “perversion files,” a nickname the Boy Scouts are said to have used for the documents, have rarely been seen by the public, but that could all change in the coming weeks in an Oregon courtroom.
The lawyer for a man who was molested in the 1980s by a Scout leader has obtained about 1,000 Boy Scouts sex files and is expected to release some of them at a trial that began Wednesday. The lawyer says the files show how the Boy Scouts have covered up abuse for decades.
And it further appears that the Mormon Church may have played a roll in giving some predators access to children.
The lawsuit also named the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints because the Mormons acted as a charter organization, or sponsor, for the local Boy Scouts troop that included the victim. But the church has settled its portion of the case.
…
The Mormon bishop who also served as head of the Scout troop, Gordon McEwen, confronted Dykes after receiving a report of abuse by the mother of one boy in the troop in January 1983.In a video deposition played for the jury, the bishop said Dykes admitted abusing 17 boys. But McEwen said he contacted the parents of all 17 boys and the boys themselves, and none would confirm any abuse.
Dykes was arrested in 1983 and pleaded guilty to attempted sexual abuse, received probation and was ordered to stay away from children.
Clark told the jury Dykes continued with his scouting activities until he was arrested in July 1984 during a routine traffic stop while he was driving a van full of Scouts on a camping trip.
It has yet to be determined whether Mormons are a significant segment of the thousands of Boy Scout sexual abuse cases. But this is not the first time that the Church has been accused of enabling predators.
The three men, who are brothers now aged 39, 41 and 43, claim that William E. Knox, 65, a Mormon church and Boy Scouts leader, molested them repeatedly in Sunnyvale between 1977 and 1987.
A brother identified as John Doe 2, who now lives in Georgia, said, “I’m a victim and a survivor of childhood sexual abuse. It was devastating to me. I’ve been abused hundreds of times over several years.”
The brother alleged, “During the abuse, I told the church leadership responsible to protect me and they did nothing to protect me.”
The Idaho Falls Post Register chronicles a story of abuse at an LDS scouting camp in the 1990’s which boggles the mind.
1988 Brad Stowell, 16, admits to Blackfoot police, his mother and his LDS bishop that he molested a 6-year-old neighbor. He is sent to LDS Social Services counseling.
1988 Stowell is hired to teach first aid at Camp Little Lemhi. He has testified he started preying on campers that summer.
…
1991 Richard J. Scarborough reports to the national Boy Scouts of America that a child molester has been hired to work at Camp Little Lemhi.
January 1994 Richard Scarborough writes to the LDS church president, complaining that local church leaders are ignoring his warning about the pedophile in the LDS Scout troop.January 1995 Carol Scarborough tells Camp Little Lemhi program director Jim Summers that Brad Stowell molested a neighbor boy.
1995 Camp Little Lemhi director Richard Snow hires Stowell as aquatics director.
It continues in horrifying detail until Stowell is arrested in 1997 after repeated abuse.
And such abuse will continue for as long as the Scouts (and the Mormons and the Catholics and a whole host of other) continue to focus on and exclude gay people while ignoring the true source of the problem. They fear and expel gay men who are attracted to other adult men while ignoring the married, church going, men who secretly prey on available children of both sexes.
Now advocates for victims of child abuse are eagerly awaiting what the newly opened files will tell them. I’m certain that the Scouts are worried. I wonder if the LDS Church has reason to be concerned.
Anti-gay general’s comments infuriate the Dutch
Timothy Kincaid
March 19th, 2010
When Republicans on the Senate Armed Services Committee invited retired General Jack Sheehan to speak in opposition to allowing openly gay soldiers to serve in the US Military, they certainly didn’t think he would start an international incident with his comments. But as it has turned out, Sheehan’s comments have now become a point of anger, ire, and ridicule around the world.
Sheehan sought to counter one of the most compelling arguments for lifting the ban on gay servicemen: that many of our allies have done so without problem. He wanted to persuade committee members that, indeed, modern militaries that have “liberalized” their forces and allowed gay soldiers to serve have suffered dramatic consequences.
So Sheehan blamed one of Europe’s military blunders, the inept protection of a town in Bosnia by Dutch peace-keeping forces, on these liberalizing perspectives, and in particular the policy of including gay soldiers. And he claimed that he had this on the authority of Henk van der Breemen, the Netherlands Chief of Defense Staff.
The massacre of 8,000 men and boys at Srebrenica is an important event in the modern history and culture of the Dutch people. The Netherlands government commissioned a study and delved deeply into the causes which contributed to the inadequate defense, and the event led to the ouster of van der Breemen and eventually the resignation of Prime Minister Wim Kok. And while the Dutch take responsibility for their part in the tragedy, they rightly note that other nations share blame as well for not committing adequate resources and for not sending air response when requested.
To speak of this event – and to claim Dutch sources – from an outsider’s perspective was a most incautious action. And is was also unwise not to recognize that the Dutch pride themselves in their acceptance of gay people into the fabric of their culture and life and that they see statements that appear to be homophobic as boorish and personally offensive.
Though not exactly a parallel, testifying that the Dutch military leaders blamed the massacre at Srebrenica on gay Dutch soldiers is a bit like some foreign official claiming that Dwight Eisenhower had told him that the incarceration of Japanese-Americans was the fault of Jews. It is irrational, touches on matters of national shame, is deeply insulting and causes an immediate anger, disgust, and revulsion.
And, indeed, the Dutch have been deeply insulted. And have responded vehemently to deny any connection between the events in Bosnia and the Dutch policy of allowing gay soldiers.
The statement has been denounced by van der Breemen, who called it “absolute nonsense” and stated that he does not and never has shared Sheehan’s views on gay soldiers.
The Dutch Ambassador to the United States, Renée Jones-Bos, released a statement saying that she couldn’t disagree more.
I take pride in the fact that lesbians and gays have served openly and with distinction in the Dutch military forces for decades, such as in Afghanistan at the moment.
The military mission of Dutch UN soldiers at Srebrenica has been exhaustively studied and evaluated, nationally and internationally. There is nothing in these reports that suggests any relationship between gays serving in the military and the mass murder of Bosnian Muslims.
As we noted yesterday, the Dutch military was quick to respond. But the statements caught the attention of the Dutch people and the government of the Netherlands and seemed to slur the identity of the Dutch as a people. A reader informs us that the story was on the news all day and the claims elicited response from several officials. (New York Times)
The Dutch defense minister, Eimert van Middelkoop, added that the comments were, “scandalous and unbefitting a soldier.” Maxime Verhagen, the Dutch foreign minister, chimed in on Twitter, calling the explanation of what happened at Srebrenica “extremely strange.” Jan Kleian, the head of the Dutch military union ACOM, told Dutch television, “That man is just crazy.” He added, “That sounds harsh, but what else can I say, because it is complete nonsense.”
The anger and response went to the highest level of government (WaPo)
The Dutch prime minister Friday denounced as “irresponsible” a claim by a retired U.S. general that gay Dutch soldiers were partly to blame for allowing Europe’s worst massacre since World War II.
Dutch officials, from the Cabinet to the military, were outraged by retired Gen. John Sheehan’s remarks at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing in Washington, D.C., on Thursday.
But this story is not limited to US and Dutch media. Media from around the world, including many nations that are allies and whom allow openly gay soldiers, have picked up the retired general’s comments. And, as reported, they appear to show contempt for foreign militaries and for the soldiers who are fighting by our side in Afghanistan and Iraq.
So now we have an international incident. Now our perception around the world has been tarnished. And now our State Department has had its job made more difficult.
Categories: International, Military (Don't Ask, Don't Tell)
COMMENTS (19) | LINK
Ex-Gay Ministry Admits Sexual Abuse; Grateful At Not Being Found Out
Jim Burroway
March 19th, 2010
Andrew Comiskey, of the ex-gay group Desert Stream Ministries, posted an admission on his blog that a staffer at DSM was found to have sexually abused at least one teenager under their “care.” But instead of an apology to either the teenager, his family, Comiskey’s church or the ex-gay movement, Comiskey pens a strange, rambling post in which he portrays himself as a victim of a blackmail attempt and expresses gratitude that the entire episode escape public scrutiny in the press:
Before we as a ministry even knew what had actually happened, one relative of the boy, savvy in the ways of insurance, insisted on a face-to-face meeting with Jonathan Hunter and I. He wrote down an astronomical figure that he insisted we pay out to him, or else. He threatened to take the case to the press and a flamboyant celebrity lawyer in LA. (He assumed that our large and prominent new home–Vineyard Anaheim—had millions for such settlements).
The post goes on to express Comiskey’s anguish over the sad affair. Not the anguish for the molestation that the teens experienced, mind you, but the anguish of the humiliating police interrogations, anguish at being interrogated by their liability insurers and their lawyers., the anguish of facing church elders at Vinyard Anaheim (with which the ministry was affiliated at the time), and the anguish of losing a valued staffer who abused the teens. Apparently, the unnamed staffer was a key player in the ministry, as well as a close personal friend to Comiskey and his wife.
But what about the anguish the teens faced? And what about the anguish they must assuredly feel again should they come across this post? If Comiskey had an ounce of compassion for what those teens experienced, it’s hard to see it here. What possible good could a post like this serve anyone, except to aggrandize Comiskey’s own standing before a god who, according to Comiskey, saved his ministry from his enemies:
At the end of 3 years, the case was settled. Our insurance covered most of the costs. Our groups were reinstated at the Vineyard, with new boundaries and requirements intact. Not one story was printed about the tragedy. God spared us. His mercy leveled and sustained DSM.
Good for you, Andy. Your god smiled upon you. But God bless the teens who were left to pick up the pieces afterward.
According to a comment by Ex-Gay Watch’s David Roberts left at Love Is An Orientation, the incident described in the post occurred in 1997. Another allegation of sexual abuse was lodged five years later. In 2005, Comiskey moved his ministry to Kansas City, where he became associated with the extremist charismatic group known as the International House of Prayer. According to ex-gay Survivor Peterson Toscano, Desert Stream’s Living Waters program “uses extreme methods that involve forms of exorcism (deliverance/healing prayer) and rely on teachings that believe that people become gay through demonic influences and the sins of ancestors.” Desert Stream is an affiliated ministry of Exodus International.
[Hat tip: Love Is An Orientation and several BTB readers]
Lt. Daniel Choi Arrested In DADT Protest At White House
Jim Burroway
March 18th, 2010
Iraq war veteran Lt. Daniel Choi, whose discharge from the US Army under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” handcuffed himself to the White House fence this afternoon along with Capt. Jim Pietrangelo, who was discharged in 2004. Here is CNN’s coverage of that protest:
Choi and Pietrangelo had earlier attended a rally at Freedom Plaza organized by the Human Rights Campaign which featured comedienne Kathy Griffin. Griffin invited Choi, who had not been invited to speak, up to the stage to say a few words. Choi took the opportunity to invite participants at the rally to march with him and Pietrangelo to the White House.
Once they reached the White House shortly before 1:00 pm, Choi and Pietrangelo handcuffed themselves to the fence. They were quickly met by police and Secret Service. After a standoff of about an hour, police cut they two from the fence and placed them under arrest. A third advocate, Robin McGehee of GetEQUAL was also arrested.
Latest word is that Choi and Pietrangelo will be held in DC jail overnight and appear tomorrow in DC Superior Court. Observers say that it is highly unusual for a person to be arrested with “failure to obey a lawful order” and be held overnight. Typically such an individual makes bail and is released the same day. Why the delay?
In the best tradition of protests, that is where this story would end for the day, as unsatisfying an ending as it is right now. But wouldn’t you know it, whenever it comes to the gays, it seems there always has to be some squabbling going on somewhere. This one is playing out as an anti-HRC/pro-HRC tussle. Blogger John Avarosis describes the events at the HRC’s rally this way:
I was there, chronicled Dan from this morning’s preparation to his unexpected speech at the HRC rally (Joe Solmonese told him he couldn’t speak, Dan got Kathy Griffin to invite him on stage), to his march to the White House fence where he and Capt. James Pietrangelo (who was kicked out in 2004 for being gay) handcuffed themselves to the White House gate with hundreds of supporters chanting. It was an amazing scene. Griffin told Choi she’d march with him the White House, then she refused to go when he found her after rally. Solmonese reportedly gave Choi the thumbs up when Choi asked him if he’d march to the White House – Solmonese too was nowhere to be scene, and refused to go when Choi approached him after the HRC rally.
The HRC responded:
There’s been some confusion about Lt. Dan Choi’s role in the rally. As Joe Solmonese was walking to the stage, Lt. Choi asked Joe if he could have a speaking role. Joe explained that it wasn’t his sole decision to make on the spot given that there was already an established program that included Kathy Griffin, other organization and veterans. After Choi then spoke with Kathy Griffin, she agreed to bring him up on stage and speak to the crowd during her remarks.
Lt. Choi in his speech called on the crowd to march on the White House. Joe Solmonese along with Eric Alva and others felt it was important to stay and engage those at the rally in ways they can continue building the pressure needed for repeal. This does nothing to diminish the actions taken by Lt. Choi and others. This is the nature of social change and everyone has a role to play.
As for Kathy Griffin, we have this tweet:
It was my honor 2 share th podium w Lt Dan Choi today. I understand he’s been arrested in front of the White House. I dig that dude! Balls!
Categories: Advocacy, Military (Don't Ask, Don't Tell)
COMMENTS (23) | LINK
Another Baptist church not anti-gay enough for Texas
Timothy Kincaid
March 18th, 2010
The Royal Lane Baptist Church, has served congregants in North Dallas for the past five decades. Although gay member have long been a part of the church family, the board finally decided last month to go public with their welcome. They changed their website to say:
Royal Lane Baptist Church is an inclusive, multi-generational congregation joined in Christian community. We are a vibrant mosaic of varied racial identities, ethnicities, sexual orientations, and denominational backgrounds.
We affirm the sacredness, dignity, and equality of every man, woman, and child and honor each individual’s freedom to worship God and to respond to his or her unique call to ministry and service.
We celebrate worship that challenges the mind, stirs the heart, and lifts the spirit within the context of music, art, and liturgy to express what we can never fully say.
We covenant with one another to love authentically as Christ loved. We put this love into action by ministering in the world, ever alert to the voice of human need wherever it may be heard.
Royal Lane is an ecumenical Baptist congregation affiliated with The Cooperative Baptist Fellowship and The Baptist General Convention of Texas.
But not for long. Either the first paragraph or the last will have to be changed.
You see, the Baptist General Convention of Texas takes objection to vibrant mosaics and most certainly does NOT affirm the sacredness, dignity, and equality of every man, woman and child. The gay folks’ freedom to worship God is not honored by them at all. (Dallas News)
The BGCT’s long-held position is that homosexuality is a sin.
The Dallas-based BGCT has decided to place in escrow any funds sent from Royal Lane. It also has asked Royal Lane to remove from church publications any reference to BGCT affiliation.
Randel Everett, executive director of the BGCT, said those conditions will remain until the church says it agrees with the stance on homosexuality.
“It is my prayer that Royal Lane Baptist Church will take the appropriate action to return to these Texas Baptist values and restore its fellowship with the BGCT,” Everett said in a prepared statement.
If Royal Lane and its members choose to continue to define itself as a vibrant mosaic, it may come with some sacrifice.
The stakes are raised in Royal Lane’s case because its membership includes BGCT employees and a BGCT executive board member. BGCT employees must belong to an affiliated church, so a split with Royal Lane could force some to choose between workplace and worship place.
Because that’s what Jesus would want, right?
Sheehan blames Bosnian massacre on gay Dutch soldiers
Timothy Kincaid
March 18th, 2010
In a page right out of Scott Lively’s playbook, retired General John Sheehan assigns gay the blame for one of the world’s atrocities. This time, it’s the massacre of Bosnian Muslims at Srebrenica. (Herald Sun)
A RETIRED US general today said Dutch UN troops defending Srebrenica in the Bosnian war failed to prevent the 1995 genocide partly because their ranks included openly gay soldiers.
…
The chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Carl Levin, pressed him to clarify his comments about Srebrenica.“Did the Dutch leaders tell you it (the fall of Srebrenica) was because there were gay soldiers there?” asked an incredulous Senator Levin.
“Yes,” Gen Sheehan said and added: “They included that as part of the problem.”
Gen Sheehan, who retired from the military in 1997, said he had been told that by the former chief of staff of the Dutch army.
Nearly 8,000 Bosnian men and boys were slaughtered by the Serbs at Srebrenica. This assignment of blame to gay soldiers appears to be a new theory, one that was not discovered by the Dutch in their subsequent review of what went wrong.
Sheehan appeared to be arguing that the liberalization of the European militaries led to weakness and suggesting that allowing gay soldiers to serve resulted in sissy-boy soldiers. He didn’t share his views on how that worked in the Israeli army.
Senator Levin wasn’t having it and called Sheehan out on his biases. (Navy Times)
“I think we all remember Srebrenica,” Levin said. “Any effort to connect that failure on the part of the Dutch to the fact that they had homosexuals … is totally off target. I see no suggestion of that. It’s no more on point than the fact that they may have allowed African or Dutch-African or women” to serve.
“My comment was that the liberalization … ” Sheehan said.
Levin interrupted. “I agree with that,” he said. “They weren’t good in that respect. They were trained to be peacekeepers, not peace enforcers. … But to slide over from that into a suggestion that it had something to do with the fact that homosexuals were allowed in the Dutch army suggests that somehow or other homosexuals are not great fighters. … I think that is totally wrong.”
It will be interesting to hear the response of the Dutch government to Sheehan’s assertions. [Update: Dutch military officials have responded.]
Sheehan also shared his opinions on the attitudes of soldiers, decades after he was last in any position to know. (Stars and Stripes)
On Thursday, retired Marine Gen. John Sheehan, former head of U.S. Atlantic Command, told lawmakers he supports the yearlong review but believes researchers will conclude that such a change is detrimental to unit cohesion and morale.
“Military life is fundamentally different than civilian life,” he said. “Popular culture may have changed over the years, but military culture and responsibilities have changed very little.”
Sheehan said known homosexuals in units he commanded caused disruption for all his Marines, forcing troops to choose sides and creating fear among those who had to work closely with them.
Having presented an argument that is both outdated and bizarrely homophobic, I wonder if Sheehan has actually hurt his cause.
Categories: Military (Don't Ask, Don't Tell)
COMMENTS (23) | LINK
Ugandan LGBT Activist To Tour Eastern US
Jim Burroway
March 18th, 2010
I just received this announcement from the good folks at Political Research Associates. Unfortunately, I won’t be able to attend any of these events. But if you are anywhere near these venues, I strongly urge that you go and listen to Frank Mugisha of Sexual Minorities Uganda to talk about the connection between U.S. conservative religious forces and increased harassment of LGBT people in Uganda.
Frank Musgisha, Sexual Minorities Uganda (SMUG) spokesperson, will appear at several public events in New York City, Boston, and Washington, D.C. this month to explain the connection between U.S. conservative religious forces and increased harassment of LGBT people in Uganda .
Mr. Mugisha is visiting the United States to publicize the crisis in LGBT human rights in Uganda. Conservative religious leaders from the United States have targeted African nations such as Uganda, Kenya, and Nigeria as anti-gay arenas where they can encourage support of homophobic sentiment at home. African LGBT people have suffered discrimination in the form of “collateral damage” from these campaigns. While it is already illegal to be a homosexual in Uganda, pending legislation would make it punishable even to know an LGBT person and not to report them to the authorities.
Mr. Mugisha was among the first gay Ugandans to come out in order to challenge the myth that homosexuals do not exist in Uganda. The law that prohibits homosexuality in Uganda has successfully keeping LGBT people in the closet. He is among those whose names were printed in the Ugandan media, after which he lost jobs, friends and family. He has faced hostility, threats, arrests, intimidation, and discrimination for his fight for the recognition of gay rights in Uganda. Mr. Mugisha has worked internationally with religious leaders, NGOs, and diplomatic missions to stop the latest anti-homosexuality bill and is a moving speaker on international human rights.
He will be accompanied by Rev. Dr. Kapya Kaoma, author of the recent report published by Political Research Associates, Globalizing the Culture Wars: U.S. Conservatives, African Churches , and Homophobia. Rev. Kaoma attended the infamous anti-gay conference in Uganda in March 2009, collecting video footage undercover. He has appeared on the Rachel Maddow Show, been cited in media such as the New York Times, Time, and Newsweek, and he has testified before Congress and the UN on how US evangelicals are exporting homophobia to Africa.
Frank Mugisha appearances:
March 22; 6-7:30 pm
Astraea Foundation
116 East 16th St.
New York, NY 10003
(212) 529-8021
March 23; 7-9 pm
The Riverside Church
490 Riverside Drive
New York, NY 10027
(212) 870-6700
March 26; 7-9 pm
Harvard Epworth UMC Church
1555 Massachusetts Ave.
Cambridge, MA 02138
(617) 354-0837
March 27; 12-2 pm
Cathedral Church of St. Paul
138 Tremont St.
Boston, MA 02111
(617) 482-5800
March 30; 7-9 pm
Foundry UMC Church
1500 16th Street NW
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 332-4010
Gays Excluded From Some Clinical Trials
Jim Burroway
March 18th, 2010
It’s a common practice to limit participants in studies according to specific parameters set for by the researchers conducting the studies. Typically, these parameters may include such factors as age, gender, health history, ethnicity and other factors which may be specifically relevant to the study. A study of diabetes among Native Americans, for example, would be restricted to Native American populations. But three researchers with the Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia have learned that many studies restrict LGBT people from participating, and it appears that in many cases these exclusions may be unjustified.
According to a research letter published in the March 18 edition of the New England Journal of Medicine, Drs. Brian L. Engelston, Roland L. Dunbrack, Jr., and Michael J. Hall recently encountered some study proposals which explicitly excluded people in same-sex relationships. They decided to try to understand how common that exclusion is and what effects it may have in the body of research. They began by performing exploratory searches of the ClinicalTrials.gov database (which contains information on more than 80,000 studies) to identify the types of studies gay men and women were more likely to be excluded. This is what they found:
We found that when we performed searches using the terms “couples,” “erectile dysfunction,” and “hypoactive” (related to hypoactive sexual disorder), we identified 243 studies, of which 37 (15%) had explicit exclusionary language (Table 1). In these 243 studies, the results of Fisher’s exact tests indicated that industry-sponsored trials, multiregion trials (according to census definitions), and phase 3 trials were the most likely to exclude lesbians and gay men (P<0.05). Other variables, such as the year the study opened, whether the study is open to those over 65 years of age, and whether the study accepts healthy volunteers, were not associated with exclusionary criteria.
The researchers found that such exclusions weren’t uniform across the board. For example, when they used the search term “asthma” to examine 1019 studies, they found that none of them excluded lesbians or gay men.
It’s unclear what effect the exclusion of gays and lesbians from these three specific study areas would have. Studies identified using the search term “Couples”, for example, bring up 142 results covering a wide range of topics, including breast cancer and post-traumatic stress disorder. The search term “Erectile Dysfunction” brought up studies in prostate cancer and arterial disease. If a particular study intended to observe the effects that specific relationship dynamics might might have on, for example, breast cancer survivorship, it’s concievable that the researchers may wish to try to isolate that study’s results from possible differences such dynamics which may exist between heterosexual and same-sex couples. But on the other hand, it would be useful to know whether relationship characteristics of lesbian couples have the same effect on breast cancer survivorship as relationship characteristics of heterosexual couples.
Unfortunately, this brief research letter does not explore the impact these exclusions may have in our medical knowledge. It only identifies a potential problem, and not its scope or impact. The researchers limited their search to studies from which lesbians and gay men were excluded, and those from which they were not excluded. We don’t know if there were any studies in the database which focused exclusively on same-sex couples by excluding heterosexual couples. Nor do they quantify the number of studies which used relationship status or characteristics as an independent variable. These would be useful data points, but that information could only come from a larger, more extensive (and expensive) study.
But for the majority of medical studies, it is unlikely that these exclusions have much of a rational basis to begin with. One clinical trial of a drug to treat attention deficit–hyperactivity disorder required that participants be “in a reciprocal relationship with a person of the opposite sex,” the team found. It’s hard to imagine what kind of a justification would support excluding gays and lesbians from such a trial.
Egleston pointed out to the Associated Press that when researchers apply for federal grants for their work, they must explain why their study excludes participants based on gender, race or ethnicity. But no explanation for exclusion based on sexual orientation is needed. Furthermore:
Exclusion can become self-perpetuating: Researchers designing a study often “cut and paste” participation criteria from earlier trials on a similar subject. “It becomes the way it’s done,” and any bias gets repeated, Egleston said.
Our results indicate that exclusion of lesbians and gay men from clinical trials in the United States is not uncommon, particularly in studies with sexual function as an end point. It is likely that most gay and lesbian patients are unaware that their sexual orientation is being used as a screening factor for participation in clinical trials. Researchers should be held to careful scientific reasoning when they develop exclusion criteria that are based on sexual orientation.
Letters to the editor are not peer-reviewed.
San Diego candidate learns not to buddy up to ex-gay gadfly James Hartline
Timothy Kincaid
March 17th, 2010
It never pays to buddy up to ex-gay activist James Hartline. You’re going to get burned. Even if you agree with everything that Hartline supports, you have to be as extreme and wacky as he is or he’ll turn on you.
And San Diego City Council candidate Lorie Zapf has just found that out. Hartline is sharing some of their communications with the press. (Union-Tribune)
Hartline said he distributed the e-mail to media outlets this week because Zapf was not living up to his anti-gay standards.
It all started in 2006 when Zapf supported a candidate for City Council who endorsed the mayor who was known to be tolerant of gay people. Although she had attended church with him at Mission Valley, this was enough to lead Hartline to suspect Zapf’s anti-gay credentials. Or as Hartline tells it (in the third person):
It was because Hartline and Zapf knew each other at MVCF that Hartline began to email Zapf regarding her obviously hypocritical involvement with the campaigns of Judy Riddle, a member of the cult Mormon Church, and pro-homosexual San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders. Hartline could not understand at the time how Zapf could be involved in promoting Mormon candidates when MVCF had taught her that Mormonism is a cult. Equally perplexing for Hartline was the idea that Zapf was so involved with Jerry Sanders after the years Sanders had marched in San Diego’s pornographic gay pride parades.
Initially, Zapf attempted to manipulate Hartline in emails, telling Hartline that she was firmly in his camp on the homosexual issue. As Hartline responded with emails showing Zapf was compromising, she began to take a sinister turn, emailing Hartline’s pastors in an attempt to shut Hartline down. It appears by her responses in the recent Union Tribune article, that the sinister Zapf is once again replacing the “Aunt Bee” Lorie Zapf.
Hartline’s view of “compromising” is probably a bit different than yours. Zapf was pretty clear where she stood: (City Beat)
“I absolutely want to keep homosexuals out of public office and not be allowed to influence our schools, textbooks, altering marriage, children, and on and on”
…
“I like that you are trying to keep homosexuals and homosexual activists out of public office because we both know what the long term agenda is.”
…
“I do believe homosexuality is a sin. I have three homosexual first cousins. I love them all and would ‘be seen’ in a photo with them. I believe they all live in sin and frankly all are very unhappy people and had horrible childhoods as well.”
But hating the gay isn’t enough for Hartline. You have to be fire-breathing, take no prisoners, crazy-ass in your hating of the gay. But crazy-ass homophobia doesn’t sell with in San Diego. Yes, this is a Republican city, but it likes its Republicans to be either gay supportive or gay themselves.
So Zapf is now clarifying. She says that she didn’t mean gay people, per se, just gay activists (ya know, the gay folk who aren’t closeted, delusional, ex-gay, or like Roy Ashburn).
And she’s a victim. It was just taken out of context.
“This is what keeps good people from running for office,” she said. “Everyone’s got something. It’s going to be a little sentence plucked out, taken out of context … and then used against me to try to destroy me and my family.”
Zapf said voters should note that Hartline’s anger stems from her support of gays.
“The irony is that James Hartline, of all people, who is so rabidly anti-gay, is trying to hurt me because I’m not,” she said. “He doesn’t think I’m anti-gay enough. I’m not at all.”
Oh, I dunno, Lorie. I think you’re plenty anti-gay.
Even if you would ‘be seen’ in a photo with me.
Categories: Anti-Gay Activists, Government, Policy & Politics
COMMENTS (6) | LINK
New military survey on DADT
Timothy Kincaid
March 17th, 2010
In February, Lake Research Partners and American Viewpoint, on behalf of Vet Voice Foundation, conducted a telephone survey of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans about Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.
The methodology appears to be fairly decent, though the margin of error is a bit large.
Lake Research Partners and American Viewpoint designed and administered this survey, which was conducted by phone using professional interviewers. The survey reached a total of 510 veterans of Operation Iraqi Freedom (Iraq) and/or Operation Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan). The survey was conducted February 8-23, 2010. Telephone numbers for the sample were generated randomly from a military sample and a radius sample drawn from military bases in the United States. The margin of error for the total sample is +/- 4.4 percentage points.
But I do have some concerns about the demographic breakdown. As best I can tell, it does not appear to be representative of the military as a whole. It appears to over-represent white, male, and more highly educated personnel than what I’ve been able to identify as reflective of those serving. Nevertheless, it adds to the conversation.
This sample was:
45% Republican (or leaning) v. 20% Democrat (or leaning)
19% High school education, with 44% college graduate or post graduate
79% married
36% evangelical Christian
69% white, 16% black
58% think there were gay people in their most recent unit
Of this sample,
- 60% agree and 29% disagree with “Being gay or lesbian has little bearing on a service member’s ability to perform their duties.” This may be skewed by two lead up questions asking about race and gender having bearing.
- 73% are comfortable (37% very) and 23% are uncomfortable (7% very) “in the presence of gays and lesbians?”
- 34% favor (24% very); 36% oppose (29% very); and 30% aren’t sure about “allowing openly gay men and lesbian women to serve in the military”
- When asked to “describe your personal opinion if gay and lesbian people were allowed to serve openly in the military”, 73% said it would be acceptable (though 31% wouldn’t like it) and 25% said it would be unacceptable.
They also measured by age and found that “younger veterans lean toward favoring allowing gay men and lesbian women to serve openly while older veterans lean toward opposing the change, but there is little intensity in either direction.”
While I am not sure that this accurately reflects the views of our military, it does add to the growing recognition that soldiers care a lot less about the sexual orientation of their fellows than do Senators or Pentagon officials.
