Box Turtle Bulletin

Military Times poll shows sharp decline in support for DADT

Timothy Kincaid

February 7th, 2010

The Military Times is a newspaper targeted at career military personnel. For the past several years the paper has been surveying its readership on the issue of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Tomorrow they will be releasing the latest results and today they pre-reported the findings.

Opposition to gays serving openly in the military has declined sharply among those wearing the uniform today, the Military Times newspapers will report Monday.

An exclusive survey of some 3,000 active-duty troops shows such opposition has fallen sharply from nearly two-thirds (65 percent) in 2004 to about half (51 percent) today. The survey results appear Monday in Army Times, Air Force Times, Navy Times and Marine Corps Times.

Those opposed to open service will likely latch onto this survey, ignore the trend, and claim that this is conclusive proof that half of America’s servicemen do not want to work with gay soldiers. But, as we noted in 2008, this survey is not even close to being representative of military personnel. In fact, only 47% of the survey participants are currently members of the military.

This latest survey, however is closer to reflecting servicepersons as a whole. The respondants in this year’s poll were on average 4 years younger than those in 2008. And the drop in support for the DADT policy between 2008 and 2010 nearly mirrors that in the drop in percentage of participants over the age of 40, about 10%.

The new survey is also more extensive than prior years. It asks a number of additional questions relating to gay service personnel. After deleting the veterans, lawmakers, family members and others, the following can be gleaned from this non-representative study:

• 95% of participants identify as heterosexual. Around 2% identify as gay or bisexual and the rest ticked the “decline to answer” option.
• Attitude about allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military:

14% strongly favor
15% favor
19% neutral
15% oppose
36% strongly oppose

• Of those who oppose open service, 54% believe that sexual oriention is a choice while only 34% of those who favor open service have that belief.
• If the ban were overturned, about 38% believe that gay couples should receive the same benefits as straight couples and about 44% oppose the idea.
• The most challenging issues for the military should the policy be overturned are believe to be reducing harassment against openly gay personnel, and reducing violence and hate crimes against gay personnel.
• 56% know that there are gay people in their unit, 17% do not believe that there are and the rest aren’t certain.
• Of those who found out about a gay person in their unit, 2% reported them up the chain of command.

There were also a number of subsets of if-then questions which sought to get opinions about levels of comfort or discomfort. I did not attempt to make meaning of them.

Based on this non-representative survey, it would appear that about half of career military service personnel are opposed to open service, about one third strongly opposed. However, very few are actually willing to end a fellow soldier’s career when the subject becomes personal rather than theoretical.

Our condolences to the Burke family

Timothy Kincaid

February 6th, 2010

In November 2009, Brendan Burke came out to the world. He had come out to his famous hockey coach father Brian Burke two years earlier.

Burke’s story was happy in that it revealed that a sport as drenched in testosterone as hockey could accept Brandon with a shrug. His father, his coach, an his team were all supportive and even when reporters went searching for a story they could not find anyone in hockey willing to be disrespectful to him.

On Friday, Brendan Burke was in a fatal accident. While driving on a treacherous snowy road in Michigan Indiana, his vehicle slid sideways into the path of a truck and he and his passenger were both killed.

But Brandon Burke will be remembered for being brave. And for helping to illustrate to the next generation of hockey kids that homophobia need not be part of the sports world and helping to dispell the stereotype that gay men cannot be physically tough competitors.

Our thoughts and prayers go out to his family, friends, and teammates at this time of their grief.

“Family” Leader Reportedly Confirms Opposition to Uganda’s Anti-Gay BIll

Jim Burroway

February 6th, 2010

That’s according to Warren Throckmorton, who spoke with Doug Coe at the National Prayer Breakfast. Coe is the leader of the secretive Evangelical organization known as the Fellowship, or the Family.

Mr. Coe told me in the interview that he believes Jesus loves all people regardless of sexual orientation. He and other Fellowship leaders told me that imposing the death penalty and criminalization of homosexuality is contrary to the principles of love and compassion that Jesus taught and lived and upon whose life and teachings the Fellowship is based. Furthermore, the National Prayer Breakfast movement’s mission is to build bridges of understanding between all people, religions and beliefs.

While I think Warren is a trustworthy source on this, I reserve a great deal of caution about the depth of Coe’s opposition to Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill. How committed is he in his opposition? Instead of relying on intermediaries, why hasn’t he made a public appearance or released a statement under his own name to that affect? Is he willing to put at risk his ties to the powerful Ugandan political establishment, including Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni himself, to press his opposition? Or will he moderate his message to something considerably milder — perhaps even with a wink — in order to preserve his ties to Uganda’s powerful elite?

When one asks, “What would Jesus do?” in this Jesus-plus-nothing paradigm that is the heart of Coe’s teaching, the answer should be obvious. Jesus put his entire life at risk when he overturned the moneychangers’ tables in the Temple, and they weren’t even thinking about killing anyone. They were just exercising the free market. But right now, it’s Ugandan citizens who have everything at risk, while Coe and the Fellowship have ventured little. I would however be very thrilled to post whatever direct response Doug Coe would like to give.

Click here to see BTB’s complete coverage of recent anti-gay developments in Uganda.

Michigan Christians sue because the Matthew Shepherd Act restricts their rights. They must want to violently attack gay people

Timothy Kincaid

February 5th, 2010

Hate crimes, as defined by Federal law, are violent crimes that are motivated by a victim’s actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. The Matthew Shepard Act is very clear that it relates to violent crimes, not to preaching:

(3) CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prohibit any constitutionally protected speech, expressive conduct or activities (regardless of whether compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief), including the exercise of religion protected by the First Amendment and peaceful picketing or demonstration. The Constitution does not protect speech, conduct or activities consisting of planning for, conspiring to commit, or committing an act of violence.

(4) FREE EXPRESSION- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to allow prosecution based solely upon an individual’s expression of racial, religious, political, or other beliefs or solely upon an individual’s membership in a group advocating or espousing such beliefs.

However, the Thomas Moor Law Group has filed a lawsuit on the behalf of some “Christians” who feel that this law restricts them from observing their faith. (Christian Post)

Four Christians on Tuesday filed a federal lawsuit challenging the recently enacted Hate Crimes Prevention Act, arguing that it seeks to criminalize deeply held religious beliefs that are in opposition to homosexuality.

The 27-page long complaint was submitted by the Thomas More Law Center on behalf of Gary Glenn of the American Family Association of Michigan and Pastors Levon Yuille, James Combs, and Rene B. Ouellette, who are also based in Michigan. It names U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr., as the defendant.

We must assume that the Thomas More Law Center has read the law. And because the law has no effect on their rights to belief or expression of belief, the only logical conclusion is that these four Christians wish to plan for, conspire to commit, or commit an act of violence.

Or, perhaps, this is just another example of folks who think that because “homosexual acts, according to Scripture, are acts of grave depravity that are intrinsically disordered and are contrary to the natural law” then their religion trumps civil law.

Sometimes I can’t figure out if they are arrogant and opposed the basic principles of civil liberties and equality or if they really truly wish they were free to beat us in the streets.

AZ Senator Jack Harper discusses the details of a gay soldier’s life (without permission) in order to advance his anti-gay agenda

Timothy Kincaid

February 5th, 2010

Arizona’s anti-gay State Senator Jack Harper felt it necessary to go to the floor of the statehouse on an issue over which that body has no say: the open service of gay military personnel. He had to warn everyone of just what would happen if, gasp, gay people were allowed to tell the truth.

They’ll smoke pot, go AWOL and infect their roommates with HIV. Because gay people are individualists and can’t “come together for the good of the unit” (a rather unfortunate choice of words).

The text of Senator Harper’s monologue.

I’d like to tell a story about one of my experiences in the Military and how it um, how it related to the President’s speech last night. I understand the President will be making a um, a push to allow gays to openly serve in the military. And, uh, from my experience this is, uh, this is a mistake.

Back in 1989 when I was in the first infantry division, I got there in 1988, and we were in old barracks and we were moving into new barracks and went from bays to two-man rooms. And, um, sergeant first class of my platoon wanted me to room with a person that we all knew was a homosexual.

And I said, “Sergeant, if I have to room with him I’m going to turn him in.” So he ended up assigning another soldier to serve, um to room with this person.

Specialist Rollins was the individual. Specialist Rollins was quite an individualist. I think that might have been the biggest problem cuz when you’re in the military you’re about, you’re supposed to be about putting your personality aside and coming together as a unit for the good of the unit, for the good of the country. And being an individualist there is not room for in the Military.

Specialist Rollins at the time, one time tested positive for THC which means he was smoking pot. He got an Article 15, lost a stripe, and had to do seven days of extra duty. Another time PFC Rolling went AWOL for a number of days. Our platoon had to go down and inventory his stuff including his personal effects which were very evident that he was openly homosexual.

After PFC Rollins was eventually captured he was court-martialed out, not because he was homosexual but because he had gone AWOL.

Um, being an individualist does not match well with being in the Military. You’re supposed to conform to the standards and come together as a unit for the good of the unit and for the good of the country.

Now, after Rollins had been court-martialed out of the military, his roommate had PCS, Permanent Change of Station, gone on to another thing. About a month later, cuz I was the uh, the battalion sid burse clerk which means I ran the computer that kept the database of the grade changes, positions, things like that, rank. Uh, the uh, medics came to me and said we have a person that tested positive for, uh, for HIV and we only have the last four of his social security number and we need to look him up. It was the person who had roomed with PFC Rollins. Now this was a promiscuous soldier so it might not have been that he had a relationship with Rollins.

But, ah, we had problems from the beginning because we decided that we would not turn in someone who was openly serving in the military that was a homosexual, that we knew to be a homosexual. We tried to be tolerant, but it didn’t work. It didn’t work for our platoon, it didn’t work for the first infantry division, and it will not work for the United States of America.

Thank you

I can’t even begin to discuss how inappropriate it is for a state senator to go to the floor of the senate and discuss the military career and life of another person. By name.

This is beyond foul, and he should be censured.

Albania rejects Marriage Equality

Timothy Kincaid

February 5th, 2010

Last July we reported that Albania, a secular Muslim Balkan nation, was considering legalizing same-sex marriage. The Prime Minister announced his party will propose a law making the change.

Sadly, this did not come to be. However, a law was passed which outlawed discrimination. (PinkNews)

A gay rights law passed in Albania yesterday will outlaw homophobic discrimination but will not allow same-sex marriage.

The law gives protection to citizens against discrimination on grounds of gender, race, colour, ethnicity, religion and sexual orientation.

This change, though disappointing, was welcomed. (Reuters)

‘This law is not simply a fulfilment of requirements that Albania has undertaken for European Union integration and visa liberalisation. Above all, it is a victory for democracy and for human rights for all Albanians,’ the LGBT community said. The group hoped that Berisha would eventually keep his promise to legalise same-sex marriage.

Altin Azizaj, who runs the Children Rights Centre and had fought with parliamentarians over the role of a commissioner to monitor the law, said public and, most importantly, private institutions were now bound to respect human rights.

Don’t Be Fooled By Changes To Uganda’s Anti-Gay Law

Jim Burroway

February 5th, 2010

BBC is reporting again what so many other media outlets have said over the past several months, that Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill will likely be changed before Parliament takes it up again for its second reading. There really isn’t much new here, so don’t get too excited. We’ve been hearing these suggestions since October but the only hints of change have been to drop the death penalty. Given the broad scope of the bill, that’s barely tinkering around the edges. Pardon me while I repeat myself, but we must never loose sight of the breathtaking scope of the bill. In its current form, it would:

• Expand the definitions for homosexual acts, making conviction easier. Current law requires evidence of penetration. The new law would expand the definition of homosexual activity to”touch(ing) another person with the intention of committing the act of homosexuality.” Touching itself is defined as “touching—(a) with any part of the body; (b) with anything else; (c) through anything; and in particular includes touching amounting to penetration of any sexual organ. anus or mouth.”
• Affirm Uganda’s lifetime imprisonment for those convicted of homosexuality.
• Define a new crime of “aggravated homosexuality” for those who engage in sex with someone under the age of 18, who are HIV-positive, who is a “repeat offender” (so broadly defined as to include anyone who has had a relationship with more than one person, or who had sex with the same person more than once), or who had sex with a disabled person (consensual or not). The penalty for “aggravated homosexuality” is death by hanging.
• Require anyone arrested on suspicion of homosexuality to undergo HIV testing to determine the individual’s qualification for prosecution of “aggravated homosexuality.”
• Criminalize “attempted homosexuality” with imprisonment for seven years.
• Criminalize “promoting” homosexuality with fines and imprisonment for between five and seven years. This overly-broad provision would criminalize all speech and peaceful assembly for those who advocate on behalf of LGBT citizens in Uganda . It would also criminalize any attempt to repeal or modify the law in the future, as those moves could also be seen as “promoting” homosexuality.
• Criminalize “aiding and abetting homosexuality” with seven years imprisonment. This provision could be used against anyone extending counseling, medical care, or otherwise providing aide gay people.
• Criminalize the act of obtaining a same-sex marriage abroad with lifetime imprisonment.
• Add a clause which forces friends or family members to report LGBT persons to police within 24-hours of learning about that individual’s homosexuality or face fines or imprisonment for up to three years.
• Penalize people who run “brothels” with five to seven years imprisonment for renting to LGBT people. However, it defines a brothel as “a house, room, set of rooms or place of any kind for the purposes of homosexuality” instead of the more normal definition of a place where commercial sex work takes place. Anyone’s bedroom would be a “brothel” under this definition, placing landlords and hotel owners in jeopardy for renting to LGBT people.
• Add an extra-territorial and extradition provisions, allowing Uganda to prosecute LGBT Ugandans living abroad.
• Void all international treaties, agreements and human rights obligations which conflict with this bill.

So let’s not pretend that their talk of changing the bill is at all meaningful. But that is what the Ugandan government appears intent on doing: drop the death penalty, maybe tinker with a few other provisions and pass the bulk of the legislation into law. And right now, that appears inevitable.

The only real question remaining is whether President Yoweri Museveni will sign the bill into law. It is widely believed that the bill’s introduction as a Private Member’s bill rather than an official government bill is mere theater, requiring the same suspension of disbelief it takes to think of Ugandaas a functioning democracy. The government can claim that it had nothing to do with the bill (which it does) while continuing to defend it as an exercize in Uganda’s national sovereignty (which it does) — all of which plays very well with its intended audiences in Uganda. MB DAvid Bahati, who interoduced the bill, has been pillaried for doing so. But he’s just an actor, and to blame him for the bill is like blaming Anthony Hopkins for mass murder. But the final outcome, as is true with all dramas, depends on where the director wants to take this sad play, and that director is Mr. Museveni himself.

There’s a very good reason Secretary of State Hillary Clinton mentioned Museveni by name at yesterday’s National Prayer Breakfast. She spoke to truth that everyone knows but many haven’t acknowledged yet. It’s a difficult thing for them to do. After all, Museveni has been widely praised in the west as a political reformer. But Uganda is, practically speaking, a one-party state where Museveni routinely denies media access to opposition politicians, arrests peaceful opposition demonstrators, charges news reporters with libel when they write critical stories about him, and packs the supposedly independent Electoral Commission with his cronies.

So to say that he’s a reformer who upholds the principles of democracy and freedom, you’d have to ignore the fact that he has held onto power for twenty-four years and he’s not leaving anytime soon. Clinton, by mentioning him by name, broke the cognitive dissonance that Museveni’s supporters and apologists in the west have clung to for so long, and she revealed the simple truth to it all: It all depends on Museveni.

Click here to see BTB’s complete coverage of recent anti-gay developments in Uganda.

LaBarbera Award: AFA’s Bryan Fischer

Timothy Kincaid

February 4th, 2010

The American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer has a blog commentary today about the problems with that Lawrence v. Texas. Homosexuality should be illegal; it would make life easier. If gay folk were all just declared felons, then all of those pesky issues with civil rights and freedoms would just go away.

Think for a moment of the current social controversies that could potentially be avoided if homosexual conduct was still against the law.

Gays in the military: problem solved. We shouldn’t make a place for habitual felons in the armed forces. End of discussion, end of controversy. If someone objects, ask them which other felonies the military ought to overlook in screening recruits.

Gay marriage: problem solved. We should never legalize unions between any two people when the union is forged specifically to engage in felony behavior. Would we sanction, for instance, the formation of a corporation whose stated purpose was to import illegal drugs?

Gay indoctrination in the schools: problem solved. We don’t want to raise a generation of schoolchildren to believe that felony behavior is perfectly appropriate. That’s why we spend so much money warning students about the danger of drugs.

Hate crimes laws: problem solved. We wouldn’t throw a pastor in jail for saying that illegal behavior is not only illegal but also immoral. For instance, he’s free to say that murder is not only contrary to man’s law but also to God’s law. End of the threat to freedom of religion and speech.

Special rights for homosexuals in the workplace: problem solved. No employer should be forced to hire admitted felons to work for him. End of the threat to freedom of religion and freedom of association in the marketplace.

But why stop with the homosexual felons? Why not apply this solution to other social undesirables.

Two months ago, Fischer identified another group that were getting all uppity and trying to be treated just like real people.

It is time, I suggest, to stop the practice of allowing Muslims to serve in the U.S. military. The reason is simple: the more devout a Muslim is, the more of a threat he is to national security. Devout Muslims, who accept the teachings of the Prophet as divinely inspired, believe it is their duty to kill infidels.

Well, that issue has a little problem with the First Amendment. The whole establishment of religion thingy says that the military can’t determine who gets to serve based on religion.

But we can get around that; just declare all Muslims to be felons. Problem solved. We shouldn’t make a place for habitual felons in the armed forces. End of discussion, end of controversy.

Ya know, this could be a really effective tool.

Take the dangerous issue of African Americans wanting to get a fair trial and states executing criminals solely because they are white.

Put simply, there is no evidence to suggest that blacks aren’t committing the majority of homicides in general and first degree murders in particular. Nor is there any evidence to suggest that proponents of affirmative action will demand that we begin to execute more blacks to make up for their present under-representation in American death chambers. And we can safely say they are under-represented by ignoring their representation in the general population (an irrelevant 12%) and looking at their representation among the population of killers (a relevant 55%).

Solution: declare all African Americans to be felons. Not only would that return black men to their proper place in the social order (and proper treatment by the judicial system), but it would solve indoctrination in schools, hate crimes, and special rights in the workplace all in one fell swoop.

But, you know, why hold back. We should just make socialists, atheists, feminists, and the poor all to be felons. If we define it broadly enough, we could make American a wonderful place again for straight, white, Southern Baptist land-owning men, like our founding fathers intended.

Now I know that we might have a small problem for a while with our crime rates. I mean there would be an awful lot of felons in the country at first. But we could just rightly apply the death penalty for dangerous felons; and then we wouldn’t have ACLU types going on and on about jail overcrowding.

And if someone objects, ask them which other felonies the country ought to overlook.

“Super Uncle” theory gets support from study

Timothy Kincaid

February 4th, 2010

Those who study the etiology of sexual orientation know that genetics is not fully responsible for whether or not a man is gay. Other factors which are hypothesized to play a roll including either biological conditions (e.g. in utero hormone levels), natural environmental influences (early childhood infections), psychological influences, and many others.

But the results of twin studies have long since indicated that for at least some gay men, part of the causation of their orientation is due to genetics.

However, evolutionary biologists have been uncertain as to why this would be. Knowing that men who are primarily same-sex attracted and not opposite-sex attracted are less likely to reproduce, what evolutionary advantage would these genes have and how would they have carried for millions of generations without dying out?

One theory is that the advantages of having a small number of men without children of their own would be adequate to advantage the shared genes of their siblings, “super uncles” as it were. Now it appears that at least one study provides some credibility to that idea. (Montreal Gazette)

Interestingly, the study was conducted by someone who set out to prove it wrong. Paul Vasey, associate professor in the University of Lethbridge’s department of psychology, went to Samoa to study the fa’afafine [men who were raised female] to provide the conclusive evidence that the “super uncle” theory could be discarded. He found the opposite.

Researchers conducting similar studies in the U.S. and England did not find any supporting evidence for the theory, said Vasey. “So I thought, ‘Well, I’ll do it in a non-Western culture and chances are I’m going to find exactly the same results and it’ll be the nail in the coffin for this hypothesis,’” he said.
…
Vasey found that the fa’afafine said they were significantly more willing to help kin, yet much less interested in helping children who aren’t family — providing the first evidence to support the “kin selection hypothesis.”

It would be ill advised to draw too many conclusions based on this one study. And directly equating of fa’afafine to gay men in the West is a rather large leap.

However, this does provide additional data to inform the ongoing question as to why some people find themselves attracted to the same sex and others do not.

Ugandan Ethics Minister to Obama: “Ouch!!! Stop That!”

Jim Burroway

February 4th, 2010

With unprecidented speed, Uganda’s Ethics and Integrity Minister James Nsaba Buturo quickly lashed out at President Barack Obama’s denunciation of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill that is now before Uganda’s Parliament. President Obama called the bill “odious” earlier today during an address at the National Prayer Breakfast. Buturo very quickly shot back that Obama’s statement was “unacceptable” interference:

“Somebody should tell President Obama that the parliament is doing its legislative duty in the interest of the people of Uganda,” James Nsaba Buturo, Ugandan minister of ethics and integrity, told AFP.

…”Members of parliament have a constitutional duty to choose between what the people of Uganda want and what others want, and I am sure they will choose what the people of Uganda want,” he said.”

President Obama finished his remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast at 9:25 am, Washington, D.C. locak time. Kampala is eight hours ahead, which would be about 5:25 pm local time there. The AFP’s report came out “seven hours ago” as I write this, which would put this report at about ten-ish am Washington time, or six-ish pm Kampala time, perhaps 7:00 pm at the very latest. That’s not much time for Buturo to hear Obama’s remarks, react to it to a reporter, and have the reporter file his story with AFP. That kind of quick reaction is extremely rare, which can only mean one thing: Obama’s statement landed a solid blow. It may not be a fatal hit, but Uganda’s political leadership definitely felt it.

Click here to see BTB’s complete coverage of recent anti-gay developments in Uganda.

Meet New Mexico’s cowards and enemies of equality

Timothy Kincaid

February 4th, 2010

What do you do when you want to kill a bill and you don’t want any publicity for your action? Well, if you are a New Mexico Legislator you can use a procedural tactic.

New Mexico’s legislature meets for 30 days in even numbered years. So if you tie up a bill in committee after committee, you just run out of time. Which is what cowards and enemies of equality are seeking to do with New Mexico’s domestic partnership law. (New Mexico Independent)

Before sending the legislation on to Senate Judiciary Committee a 5-4 vote, the Senate Public Affairs Committee approved sending the 816-page bill to a third committee, the kiss of death during a 30-day session.

A bill that must go before three committees for hearings in either the House or Senate during a 30-day budget session is seen as having too much to overcome to survive the session.

The bill does have one powerful advocate in Governor, Bill Richardson (D) (LA Times).

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson is pushing for a vote by all state senators on a proposal to allow domestic partnerships.

Richardson said Wednesday he doesn’t want the bill to get bottled up in a Senate committee this session. The bill has cleared one committee but needs to get through two more to reach the Senate floor.

But even with the Governor’s support, the timing is difficult.

So those who sought to hide from the needs of gay citizens and shield their cowardice and animosity behind procedure may well succeed. However, as I don’t wish to reward their efforts at scurrying into the shadows, I want to introduce you to the cowards and enemies of equality in New Mexico:

Tim Eichenberg – Democrat
Senate District 15 – Albuquerque
Vice Chair of the Public Affairs Committee

On his website Eichenberg says

People dislike politicians for their self-serving agendas, their double-speak and for not honoring their commitments.

A healthy, robust democracy is one in which legislators listen to and are beholden solely to the voters in their districts — not big campaign donors and lobbyists.

In 2009 Eichenberg voted for domestic partnerships. This year he voted to have it disappear in commmittee. I guess that just makes Eichenberg a cynical politician. This is his first term. Let’s hope it’s his last.

Vernon Asbill – Republican
Senate District 34 – Carlsbad

On his website he lists the issues that he believes are a priority for his constituents.

• Family Values
This is a combination of many factors, mainly the preservation of our lifestyle and culture. These values are deeply rooted and need to be nurtured, instilled in our children and passed from generation to generation.

At least you know where you stand with Asbill. His family’s values will always trump your family’s civil rights.

Mark Boitano – Republican
Senate District 18 – Albuquerque

He believes that “Religious faith and practice is an essential civil right and religious groups are important advocates in a pluralistic society.”

His views also link to the Fatherhood and Marriage Leadership Institute and he is somewhat obsessed with making sure that marriages be protected, advanced and given governmental advantage and financial preferences.

Gay Kernan – Republican
Senate District 42 – Hobbs

Gay seems to have no online presence. But she is a consistent vote for discrimination and inequality.

She hates treating all citizens equally.

Gay Kernan wants all of the rights that New Mexico has to offer. It’s a pity she cares nothing about what other gays may want.

George K Munoz – Democrat
Senate District 4 – Gallup

Munoz also voted against civil equality last year.

If this guy has an internet presence, I can’t find it. The only link I found to a campaign website led to an obsolete site. (Maybe he’s afraid of going on record about anything.)

I guess George Munoz is the male, Hispanic, Democratic version of Gay Kernan.

So now you know the New Mexico state senators who oppose equality but are too cowardly to do it by means of a public vote.

Sen. Hatch “clarifies” that he meant the opposite of what he said about DADT

Timothy Kincaid

February 4th, 2010

Senator Hatch (Mormon – UT), is now uncomfortable with having told Andrea Mitchell that he had an open mind on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Perhaps his church informed him that his position was in opposition to changing the policy or perhaps the Republican Party clarified for him exactly what he thinks, but whatever the reason, Senator Hatch wishes the public to know that his vote will be in opposition to the change irrespective of the requests of the Pentagon, the position of the Commander in Chief, the findings of the study, or the wishes of the populace.

His church’s paper, the Deseret News, helped set the record straight.

“It’s deeply regrettable that liberal groups are misconstruing my position on ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ for activist purposes. I certainly do not support repealing this policy,” Hatch’s statement on Thursday said.

I guess little ol’ “liberal” me must have misconstrued his position when I posted the video and typed out this words verbatim. I suppose I should have realized that he meant exactly the opposite of what he said. Sen. Orrin Hatch is not “at least open to the idea” of being “willing to vote for the change.”

Or, to put it in politician-speak:

“What I said was that I want to see Adm. Mullen’s report. This is a controversial issue with inflamed passions on both sides,” Hatch said.

“Over the years, the views of the military officers and experts, whom I respect, have said that repealing ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ would make life for our troops more difficult — especially as our armed forces wage a global war on terrorism,” Hatch said.

He added, “I always try to be fair and stand by what’s right and that is why I look forward to reviewing the admiral’s report.”

Somehow “I look forward to reviewing” seems a bit disingenuous when coupled with “I do not support” and “experts, whom I trust”. One gets the sense that the ‘review’ will be a search for items to criticize rather than an impassioned desire to do what is right and correct.

I’m uncertain whether this is an indication that the Republican Party wishes to present a unified front in opposition to the change. But if that is the case, it will only serve to further entrench the party as recalcitrant, obstructionist, and hopelessly in servitude to a tiny fraction of socially ultra-conservative activists.

Polls have shown that a majority of the public, a majority of Republicans and a majority of conservatives all favor doing away with Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. But it seems that Sen. Orrin Hatch no longer dances to the tune of conservative Republicans; he now only dances when the subset of social extremists play.

Sadly for Senator Hatch, it must be increasingly difficult to look in the mirror and say, “I just plain do not believe in prejudice of any kind” or “I just want to do what is right”.

Obama Calls Uganda’s Anti-Gay Bill “Odious”

Jim Burroway

February 4th, 2010

Update: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton also denounced the bill. See below.

President Barack Obama, speaking today at the National Prayer Breakfast, denounced the draconian Anti-Homosexuality Bill that is currently before Uganda’s Parliament as “odious.” In prepared remarks, in which Obama talked about the essential role of civility in a functioning democracy, Obama said:

We may disagree about gay marriage, but surely we can agree that it is unconscionable to target gays and lesbians for who they are — whether it’s here in the United States or, as Hillary mentioned, more extremely in odious laws that are being proposed most recently in Uganda.

Uganda’s proposed anti-gay law is sponsored by MP David Bahati, who has ties with the secretive Evangelical group known as the Family, the same group that organizes the National Prayer Breakfast. Since those connections to Bahati became known, the Family has been scrambling  to distance itself from the legislation.

Update: One feature of the National Prayer Breakfast is that the main speakers are always the President of the United States and an unannounced surprise keynote speaker. This year, that keynote speaker was Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. She also used that platform to denounce Uganda’s proposed legislation:

Every time I travel, I raise the plight of girls and women, and make it clear that we expect to see changes. And I recently called President Museveni, who I have known through the Prayer Breakfast, and expressed the strongest concerns about a law being considered in the Parliament of Uganda.

Think Progress has posted video excerpts from C-SPAN Obama’s and Clinton’s remarks:

Click here to see BTB’s complete coverage of recent anti-gay developments in Uganda.

Miami Beach Police harrass gay witness to their brutality

Timothy Kincaid

February 3rd, 2010

Miami Beach Officers Frankly Forte and Elliot Hazzi were going about their business of kicking an unarmed man in the head when they realized that they were being observed. By a gay man, of all people.

So they approached Harold Strickland, pushed him to the ground, tied his hands behind his back and screamed homophobic slurs at him. They said they were sick of the f**ing f**gots in the neighborhood so they decided to arrest him for “attempting to break into cars”.

Unfortunately for Forte and Hazzi, Strickland was on the phone with a 911 operator reporting the beating he was witnessing when they decided that he would be target number two. And the tape of the call corroborates Strickland’s call up until the point where the officers demanded to know who he was and what he was doing there. At the time they “observed him” breaking the law, he was face down in their custody being subjected to police brutality.

The officers are still on duty.

Let me repeat, the officers are still on duty. And I can’t help but wonder why the 911 call did not immediately generate a top level investigation. Were I on a jury, the lack of concern on the part of the city would weigh heavily on my determining of just how much to award Mr. Strickland.

It’s no wonder that the gay community is fleeing Miami Beach. They have decided that they’d rather have thugs and monsters than “f**ing f**gots” for. I wonder how that’s working out for them.