Box Turtle Bulletin
News and commentary about the anti-gay lobby“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
News and commentary about the anti-gay lobbyAugust 20th, 2007
At the height of the AIDS crisis, on December 10, 1989, several dozen activists from ACT-UP violated the sanctity of St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York to protest Cardinal O’Connor’s policies and activism about AIDS, particularly his opposition to the distribution of condoms. They threw condoms at the altar and chained themselves to pews.
This event was considered to be an outrage and I think most gay people would agree that it was an embarrassment and a blight on the history of gay activism. Anti-gays used this as an example that “homosexuals hate God” and were attacking good Christian folk in their place of worship, and from time to time it is still brought up.
Now it seems that some anti-gays have decided to adopt the tactic. From the Columbus Dispatch:
A conservative Christian values group has been interrupting services at two central Ohio churches to protest their support for homosexuality.
I think it is worth noting that the response of the pro-gay congregations was a vast improvement over that of Cardinal O’Connor.
The pastor said he was proud of the way his congregation responded to the interruption, and he asked them to pray that the hearts of the Minutemen would be open.
Latest Posts
Featured Reports
In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.
When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.
In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.
On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.
Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"
At last, the truth can now be told.
Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!
And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.
Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.
Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.
Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.
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.
“Google” is a trademark of Google Inc.
© Box Turtle Bulletin. All Rights Reserved.
Posts 
Posts via daily email:
Martin Lanigan
August 20th, 2007
I think a bit of context is warranted.
As I recall in the late 1980’s there was a great deal of stigmatization of people with AIDS. People were dying, the disease was not well understood, and treatment options were few. Then as now, a great deal of this stigma was being generated by religious leaders.
Activism and consciousness raising are seldom pretty. Protest tactics from the outside all look unruly. I believe we should judge these events by the content of the ideas that motivate the participants.
I wonder – if the target of these non-violent protests were civic buildings – instead of religious buildings – whether or not you would still consider this activism an “outrage”?
Anthony Venn-Brown
August 20th, 2007
Whilst I applaude passionate people who want to make a difference in this world (I am one of them I hope)……I think we do need to be strategic and not just reactionary. From reading this report I think that actions such as these ….that are disrectful of others… harms our cause and only re-inforces the beliefs of others that the gay community has an aggressive agenda to usurp the rights of others instead of seeking equal rights.
There are times we might have to apologise for the behaviour of a family member. this is one time I’d like to say sorry…..it was inappropriate.
we need to think what about what actions will advance the cause and what might set it back
homer
August 20th, 2007
I had a friend who attended the Cardinal O’Connor protest (I still have the poster he carried). I totally disagree with you that it was an “embarrassment and a blight on the history of gay activism.”
Cardinal O’Connor was very politically connected in NYC. He pushed politicans to set policy based upon his conservative religious views. No condoms. No sex education that mentioned gays. Limited HIV funding for gay groups that promoted safe sex. And so on.
Something had to be done. So why not take the protest to the source? Yes, it was controversial. But it was very, very effective because it was so shocking. People talked about it and wondered why people were willing to protest at a church.
You know, if everyone sat around and protested nicely, nothing would ever have changed. ActUp was a powerful force in getting money for HIV prevention and research. Many thousands of people are alive today because a small group of men and women were courageous enough to be “an embarrassment and a blight.”
quo
August 21st, 2007
I’d like to see some actual evidence that the St. Patrick’s Cathedral protest saved people’s lives, Homer.
Evidence that other tactics, tactics which would not have had the effect of making gay activists look like rampaging nihilists, would not have been effective would also be good.
Willie Hewes
August 21st, 2007
I think it’s important to consider the time and the circumstances of that protest. And of this new protest by the Minutemen.
The protest by Act-Up was about a community of people getting shat on by the powerful and sanctimonious. They were socially ostracised, and they were dying – while the target(s) of the protest didn’t stop at not lifting a finger, but actively tied down other people’s fingers. Yes, the protest was ugly, but these were extreme circumstances.
The protest by the Minutemen is not about the marginalisation of a social group; there are no lives at stake here. This is about church doctrine. “This church teaches something MY church doesn’t agree with, so we’ll go and disrupt their service.”
What the C—!?
Why the hell would this church even be concerned about what some other church teaches? Isn’t freedom of religion one of the ‘pro-family’ movement’s favourite slogans? Shall we get some Jews to picket at their church with posters saying “G-d hates bacon”? WTF!
Seriously, this is getting more ridiculous by the day. My money’s on the gays. :p
Jim Burroway
August 21st, 2007
I do not believe it is acceptable to interrupt a religious service, whether it was Act-Up or the Minutemen. Either double standards apply or they don’t. It seems straightforward to me.
I’d also note that when Jesus upset the moneychangers at the temple, that shocking act of civil disobedience took place outside the sanctuary, not inside.
There is effectively shocking action, and there is mere lashing out. Act-Up performed many acts of civil disobedience that were quite effective. By chaining themselves in front of pharmaceutical companies, they shamed then companies to lower prices for AIDS meds and shamed the FDA into approving a fast-track approach to approving drugs.
Those acts got people talking — important people who were in a position of changing the way things were being done. I see no evidence that what Act-Up did at St. Patrick’s had any affect whatsoever except provide fuel for anti-gay bigots by confirming their worst stereotypes.
Where’s the evidence that it was effective? Is it in the Church’s stance on condoms today versus 25 years ago? It’s stance on homosexuality today versus 25 years ago?
I’m all for shocking protest when it is effective. Chaining themselves in front of drug companies was highly effective. Offending religious sensibilities of ordinary chuchgoers was not. It merely hardens them to their previously held positions, as the Minutemen will soon find out.
Martin Lanigan
August 21st, 2007
Anthony & quo
You both seem to be promoting a privleged position for religion.
IMO there is room for a range of tactics within any rights movement.
I think that it is entirely valid to challenge the content of specific religious ideas, and I have seen many fine examples of this on this web site. This tactic, however, has its limitations. Eventually, all parties simply retreat into their unassailable dogmas, and the general taboo of not crtiquing religion is upheld.
I also think that there is room enough to challenge the legitamcy of religion itself. I know this an uncomfortable concept – even for religious moderates. It may be (I have no concrete evidence to support this hypothesis) that fundamentalists will only discard their most egregious homophobic ideas if they see it as a choice between hanging on to homophobia, and preserving the legitamcy of religion itself. My guess is they will jetison homophobia to protect religious legitimacy.
IMO religious ideas change only when those ideas are confronted by extinction.
In any case, my question in the first post remains unanswered:
“I wonder – if the target of these non-violent protests were civic buildings – instead of religious buildings – whether or not you would still consider this activism an “outrageâ€?”
I might add, if not, why not?
homer
August 21st, 2007
Quo- if you read my comment you will notice that I did not say that the O’Connor protest saved anyone’s life. The intended effect was to get attention on the Catholic Church and O’Connor’s stance on HIV funding and education. It worked, obviously, if that event is remembered 20 some years later.
Jim- I disagree with you about interupting church services. In some cases it may be necessary. The mother of a friend of mine got up in the middle of a Baptist minister’s sermon against homosexuality and made a very public statement by walking out and slamming the door loudly. Her act of protest was very effective at raising the issue that just because the minister was a bigot, that one did not have to listen to him or support him. If more people spoke out in church, I wonder whether you would see some changes.
And when people like O’Connor have such strong political ties, and use those ties to coerce politicians to make rules that hurt a group they don’t like, why isn’t it wrong to confront them on their own turf. Yes, some feelings may get hurt. But hurt feelings seldom kill, whereas church-supported policies can and have killed.
Timothy Kincaid
August 21st, 2007
Martin,
I’m all for critique of religion. I have no problem with you challenging religion and its legitimacy altogether. Question, challenge, argue, protest, debate, or blaspheme if you like.
But I am not for the disruption of services. I consider the violation of that which others hold to be sacred to be abhorent. And desecration of the sacred is vile.
Further, I believe that anyone who seeks to use force to change the religious beliefs of others to be despicable. And threatening the religion of others with extinction is not something I would EVER support.
This is EXACTLY what went on during in Inquisition. It was evil then and what you are proposing is evil now. There is no acceptable “range of tactics” that can include such a notion.
And your question is not valid. I have no problem with non-violent protest of buildings, religious or civic. But this was not a protest of a religious building. The 4500 people outside were doing that and I have no problem with them. My problem is with those who went inside and disrupted a service.
I’m sorry if this seems like a harsh response. But if you think that is acceptable to perform religious terrorism, I’m not sure we share the same value for human rights.
Timothy Kincaid
August 21st, 2007
I disagree with you about interupting church services. In some cases it may be necessary. The mother of a friend of mine got up in the middle of a Baptist minister’s sermon against homosexuality and made a very public statement by walking out and slamming the door loudly. Her act of protest was very effective at raising the issue that just because the minister was a bigot, that one did not have to listen to him or support him. If more people spoke out in church, I wonder whether you would see some changes.
homer,
There is a sharp distinction between what your mother’s friend did – as part of a body of believers – and what the protesters did by invading a service.
Personally, I think what your mother’s friend did was selfish and childish, but it was within the confines of “family” (as churches tend to see themselves). The differince is between a child saying “I WON’T eat my brussels sprouts” and stomping away and some stranger charging into the house and throwing food on the floor.
Often those who don’t value religion in their own lives have little respect for it in others. I think that is sad.
homer
August 21st, 2007
Timothy you say “Often those who don’t value religion in their own lives have little respect for it in others.”
Since when have religious people shown respect for atheists? According to a recent poll, atheists are the least liked group of people in the United States. And more specifically, how do you know that the Act Up members who disrupted O’Connor were atheists?
I’m also amazed that my friend’s mother is “selfish and childish” because she expressed her opinion during a sermon in a non-verbal manner. In the Southern Baptist church she attended, women were expected (required) to obey the men. If she had spoken to the minister after the sermon, no one would have ever known that she disagreed with him. She did what she could do, under the circumstances. Calling her selfish and childish is uncalled for.
Martin Lanigan
August 21st, 2007
Timothy,
Thank you for your forthright response.
Firstly, I don’t appreciate your strawman argumentation. I approach this board in a respectful and sincere manner.
Secondly, I did not advocate the extinction of religion. I am not sure it is even possible. I did, however, suggest that challenging some religious ideas with extinction seemed to be the only way to change some of those ideas. For example, Gallileo’s heliocentrism challenged the prevailing cosmology of the church. The church only changed after being “forced” to do so.
Not sure why religious services may not be protested. As a society, we seem to allow the non-violent protest of all other kinds of assemblies (including government and legislature). Your distinction is unclear to me. By your logic, anything that offends a believer can be stifled. Is this not what happened with the Danish cartoons of mohammed? Either religion can be challenged completely or it cannot.
The fact that you have no problem with religious services is irrelevant. While I concede religion provides comfort and aid to some, it also carries a high price. Citizens in North America support religions through various tax exemptions and tax credits. Yet some of these religions use this privilege to sow division and hate in the body politic. I think few here would disagree that gays and lesbians have been the favoured scapegoat for far too long.
Timothy Kincaid
August 21st, 2007
Martin,
Perhaps I misread what you were saying. When you said “forced” I presumed you meant by force.
And I do believe religious services may be protested. But I do not think they can be disrupted. Surely you can see the distinction (which I’ve now made three times).
The fact that you think religion requires a high price is fine. You can advocate for changing tax law, you can disavow the division of hate in the body politic, you can decry the scapegoating of gays and lesbians.
You cannot, however, disrupt religious services be they christian, jewish, pagan, athiest (if there is such a thing), or any other practice of faith.
Sorry, but I’m adamant on that. I believe that to be a human rights issue.
Martin Lanigan
August 21st, 2007
Timothy,
I would argue that disruption is a form of protest.
As long as the disruption is non-violent and it is proportionate to the provocation, then I think that it may be acceptable. It may not be legal, it may not be pretty, but it may be morally acceptable in some cases.
As others have pointed out, “why not take the fight to the source”?
I can see no rational reason why religious institutions should be the only institution in our society that may not be the object of peaceful protest via disruption. You see this as a question of human rights, I see it as a case of special pleading.
Peterson Toscano
August 21st, 2007
Do I even dare jump into all of this?
Okay, here goes.
I think it can be completely appropriate to disrupt a religious service as a form of protest and public witness. Churches are private property, so do protesters run the risk of arrest though.
I lived right outside of NYC during the time of the ACT-UP protest at St Pat’s. It was a DESPERATE time in NYC. Gay men were died left and right–a modern day plague. Really horrific and the Catholic Church did nothing to help even after repeated pleas.
In my newest play, “The Re-Education of George W. Bush” I have my character Marvin, a Long Island Jew for Jesus, Bush supporter and ex-gay, tell a story about Brother Ralph, a guest preacher that ministered at Marvin’s pentecostal church.
At one point Brother Ralph “went down in the Spirit” and lay on the altar moaning and shaking. The church went into high praise mode thinking God had something special for them.
Turns out, Brother Ralph was having a stroke and eventually they figured this out. The ambulance came and an all-night prayer meeting began. Marvin prayed with all his might believing God would spare this man of God and restore him to health, but the next day Marvin got a call telling him that Brother Ralph “went home to be with the Lord.”
In tears Marvin recounts this part of the story and asks the critical question, “How could we be there in the house of the Lord, worshiping Jesus, with this man is dying right in front of our eyes, and we don’t even know what is going on?”
How indeed.
Sometimes church needs to get disrupted so that people can be reminded of what matters most. Coming from a Quaker tradition these days, I go to a service where anyone can speak up if they believe they have a word from the Lord. (In fact, George Fox disrupted many a service in his day) These words can be quite inconvenient and disrupt the flow of the sweet quiet spiritual experience I may want. But sometimes a message needs to break through to bring disquiet.
If a minister or priest will not speak that message, in fact, refuses to even acknowledge that there is a message after people have come to him/her pleading to look at the critical issue at hand, then yes, I think it is not only appropriate, but actually a spiritual act to disrupt a service to wake people up from their slumber.
Now as to the Minutemen, seems they are just being ugly and contrary (although they may imagine themselves to be bringing forth a righteous word.) The question is how do we respond when our enemies spit in our faces and say all manner of evil against us because they refuse to see God in us?
This is a wonderful challenge for LGBT-affirming churches. And even the disruption is an opportunity to build a stronger community and to wake people up from their slumber. We still have much work to do, and folks busting into our worship services reveals this fact.
Just like the early Church, we bind together and grow strong in times of crisis and attack. There are far too many LGBT people living quiet lives staying out of the fray hoping that things will simply get better as a matter of course. If we seem to be ashamed of ourselves, people will treat us shamefully. That is not to blame the victim, but to acknowledge that we have the power to help turn the tide in the US and elsewhere.
Jim Burroway
August 21st, 2007
Hmmm…
Lots of opinions expressed. Good discussion.
My point about double standards stand however. For each of the justifications that we’ve made in defense of Act-up’s action at St. Patrick’s (and by the way, my mind is not changed on that one), similarly heartfelt and principled arguments can be made in the Minutemen’s defense. Not that I would agree with those arguments, but they certainly can be made.
And so my next question is this: Those of you who felt that Act-Up had a “right” or “obligation” to do what they did, how do the Minutemen not have that same right — or even obligation if their convictions compel them to do so?
Peterson Toscano
August 21st, 2007
Jim, I don’t see it as double-standards. If I understand correctly, the Act-Up people were already trying to communicate to the Archbishop, but he would not come to the table. This is a classic example of non-violet direct action.
The Minutemen had initiated no such dialog. They weren’t trying to get people to the table. They simply wanted to make a point. There is a big difference.
Peterson Toscano
August 21st, 2007
um, I meant non-violent. Lord knows Act Up was very violet, well at least lavender.
Steve
August 21st, 2007
There is also the difference that ACT-UP did what it did because people were suffering and dying, and the Cardinal’s policies and political dealings were not only not helping but actively making things worse. The Minutemen have not even tried to make such a claim. I don’t think it’s a double standard to claim that “People are dying, and you are not helping but making it worse” has a higher claim to legitimacy for disrupting a service than “we disagree with your denomination’s stance on this or that theological issue.”
Timothy Kincaid
August 21st, 2007
I think that the Minutemen United would make precisely the claim that “People are dying, and you are not helping but making it worseâ€.
Ironically, those are almost exactly the words used by Mayor Jim Naugle in Ft. Lauderdale in his attack today on gay people:
“I think Broward County is forever changed from this exercise,” he said. “We are going to have less of this activity and I think we’re going to save some lives in this county.”
We must be careful to realize that situational ethics where my actions are justified by my cause – because it is holy – is not an approach unfamiliar to those who oppose us. If their actions are immoral, then we can hardly justify our own.
The point of this posting was to illustrate the hypocrisy of those who were horrified by the ACT-UP action yet not bothered at all by this very similar behavior on the part of anti-gay churches. Sadly, I fear they are not alone.
Timothy Kincaid
August 22nd, 2007
I apologize if any of my language above appeared to be directed as a personal assault and if anyone was offended. That was not my intent.
Martin Lanigan
August 22nd, 2007
Notwithstanding the outrageous hyperbole directed at me yesterday by Mr. Kincaid, I will risk offering the following observations:
• One cannot judge the morality of a protest merely by the tactics employed. After all, an anti-abortion protest may outwardly appear similar to a pro-life protest. In order to assess the morality of the protest, one must examine the content of the ideas motivating the participants, as well as the protest response relative to the provocation. Is the protest proportionate to the provocation? Labelling this as “situational ethics†and dismissing it as such is not a valid argument.
• Religious concerns are not absolute. Society sometimes overrides religious concerns when the principle of greater harm comes into play (e.g. Jehova Witness minors are sometimes ordered by the court to receive blood transfusions).
• The Minutemen are protesting a church with whom they have doctrinal differences. I assume that they believe that pro-homosexual doctrine endangers the spiritual welfare/life of the congregants. Otherwise, why would they protest a church? If their argument really concerns physical health, then they have chosen a poor protest target.
• The ACT Up participants protested at a church because they believed the church’s leadership was engaging in activities that harmed people’s physical lives. It appears that Mr. Kincaid does not disagrees with this conclusion, he only quibbles with the protest method of disrupting a sacred religious service.
In the end, it seems reasonable to say that harm to spiritual life is not equivalent to harm to physical life. Spiritual harm can be overridden as a valid concern since it is not demonstrable. Doctrinal differences are a dime a dozen among many denominations. Someone’s religious dogma is always in conflict with some other person’s absolutely true religious dogma. So what?
Mr. Kincaid’s argument inherently attempts to conflate spiritual harm with physical harm to hide the paucity of the argument. The harm principle is one way to critique the Minutmen and to distinguish their actions from ACT UP. As others have already pointed out, the Minutemen may also be critiqued because they are inconsistent in their principles. If they stand for religious tolerance, then they are in conflict with that principle when they protest a religious service conducted by people with whom they have doctrinal differences. This is commonly referred to as “hypocrisyâ€.
Leave A Comment