Box Turtle Bulletin

Sometimes Freud Was Right

A man with issues.

On Monday, Marine reservist Jasen Bruce attacked a visiting Greek Orthodox priest with a tire iron after the priest asked him for directions. Bruce originally claimed that he attacked Rev. Alexois Marakis, whose English is poor, because he thought the man was an Islamic terrorist. Now Bruce, who’s also a beefcake model, is changing his story. He’s switching to the gay panic defense, claiming the priest tried to grab his genitals.

How many issues can you count in that paragraph?

Catholic Cardinals around the country funded Maine’s Yes on 1 Campaign

From the St. Lewis Post Dispatch

Campaign finance records for a ballot measure that last week defeated a law legalizing gay marriage in Maine show that the St. Louis Archdiocese contributed $10,000 toward that effort.

Only two other dioceses in the country – Phoenix and Philadelphia – contributed more ($50,000). The dioceses of Newark, NJ and Youngstown, Ohio also contributed $10,000.
…
The Catholic church led the charge to reject the new law. In the quarter leading up to the vote, 45 dioceses around the country contributed a total of $180, 550 to the effort, according to the campaign finance records.

You have to wonder whether the poor Catholic widow in St. Lewis who sacrificed to give to her church knew that her money was going to pay for a political campaign in Maine. Or if the Methodist Maine voter knew that the campaign of lies being fed to him was funded by out-of-state Catholic diocese.

In time, American opinion on the civil rights and freedoms of gay citizens will become strongly supportive. I cannot imagine that it will reflect well on the Catholic Church that it spent church funds to fund campaigns designed to deny rights to some Americans.

Although today many “conservatives” can hide behind popular opinion or social status quo, in 20 years it will be very difficult for the Catholic Church to explain how its actions taken this year can be viewed in any context other than religious oppression and bigotry.

And even today, some may find themselves questioning the priorities of the church.

The contribution from the St. Louis Archdiocese was received by the Portland diocese on July 16.

Less than a month earlier, on June 22, the archdiocese eliminated four positions at Catholic Charities, the largest private provider of social services in Missouri. Catholic Charities president, Monsignor Mark Ullrich, said at the time that the job cuts were “due to our need to economically downsize.”

Choosing exclusionary politics over care for the poor does not yield itself to many PR successes. And if that religious institution wasn’t so dedicated to causing harm to my life, I would feel pity.

Australian Capital enacts civil unions, again

In September we reported that the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) was prepared to yet again stand up to federal lawmakers in defense of the territory’s gay citizens.

Twice before the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) has voted for local legally-binding ceremonies of civil unions and twice before the federal government has reversed their decision.

So, yet again, they are passing legislation.

And now they have done so (Herald Sun)

AN ACT Greens Bill to legalise civil ceremonies between same sex couples has been passed by the Territory’s Parliament.

The Bill allows gay and lesbian couples to create their civil partnerships through a legally-binding ceremony before friends and family.

“This legislation is another step along the road to full equality for same sex couples in Australia, and we are delighted that the assembly has passed it today,” ACT Greens MLA Shane Rattenbury, who drafted the Bill, said in a statement.

Although a much welcome confirmation of support, this bill may be vetoed by the federal government. Yet it is such efforts, though they may appear futile, that ultimately win equality.

Every time that an anti-gay politician has to explain why the will of the local constituents must be thwarted in order deny equality to part of the population, the less credible such claims appear. And every time that a federal government is seen as pressing down on local control, the less righteous their cause can seem.

In time, even those disinclined towards civil equality can tire of making claims that they know in their heart are baseless and cruel. And then we win.

NY Senate marriage vote within 50 days

Governor Paterson is telling media that the Democratic Senate leadership has promised a vote on marriage equality in the NY Senate before the end of the year. (Daily News)

Flanked by four rank-and-file Senate Democrats and ESPA Executive Director Alan Van Capelle, Gov. David Paterson this evening announced there will be a gay marriage vote at “a date not certain between now and the end of the year.”

“This is the first time that the Senate leadership has indicated that it will support a vote on marriage equality,” Paterson said during Red Room press conference that followed a meeting at which the question of bringing the bill to the floor to fail tonight was yet again discussed – and apparently rejected.

“This is a stunning and very happy development in this process,” the governor continued. “…I will continue to place marriage equality on any special sessions that I call on Monday and Tuesday because I feel that the bill should be debated immediately. However, I have profound respect for the leadership of the Senate and the process that they took to bring us to this vote.”

To the extent that the promises of the NY Senate leadership have any credibility whatsoever, this is very good news. Even if we do not win this vote, we will know the names of those individuals who are unwilling to treat all New Yorkers with dignity and equality.

And the Senate leadership will also get a valuable opportunity to explain to the community exactly how the community benefited from working so hard and spending so much money to achieve a Democratic majority in the Senate. Considering the willingness of New York gays to see the advancement of the community as more important than partisan power games or the career advancement of politicians, this should be a fascinating conversation.

Nigerian calls on Anglican Communion to oppose Ugandan “Kill Gays” bill

Before the current efforts to enact draconian punishment in Uganda for being gay, there was a similar effort in Nigeria. In that African nation, Anglican Archbishop Peter Akinola led the charge for enhanced sanctions which, as does the Ugandan bill, criminalized speech and association. And some leaders in the Church of Nigeria even called for the death of gay men and women.

Although many conservative American Christians revere free speech and free association as being nearly a Christian tenet in their home country, few were outraged by this anti-freedom effort on the part of anti-gay African clerics. In fact, just as in Uganda, it was influential conservative American Christians who lent their credibility to those who called for the restriction on basic human rights. In the United States, Akinola became a hero and a rallying figure for anti-gay Anglicans. Some churches who left the Episcopal Church declared themselves to be under Akinola’s authority.

And gay Nigerians did suffer under the Church of Nigeria’s influence. Especially gay Nigerian Christians who dared speak against the church’s incivility. One gay Anglican in a leadership position, Davis Mac-Iyalla, fled for his life and has since been vocal in making Western Anglicans more aware of the blind hatred towards gay and lesbian Christians within some African churches that is driving the Anglican Communion towards a schism.

Now Mac-Iyalla is confronting the Anglican Church about its inaction in the face of church sanctioned evil in Uganda. He is unwilling to write this off as a “difference of opinion” or a local cultural peculiarity. Mac-Iyalla is directing his call to those most responsible for the Anglican Church’s inaction, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams and the primates of Anglican Churches around the world.

In an open letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury and primates of the Anglican Communion published by The Guardian, Mac-Iyalla calls the Church out to follow its own commitments:

I would like to remind you that the Lambeth Resolution 10 in 1978 recognised the need for pastoral concern for those who are homosexual. Resolution I.10 from 1998 commits the communion “to listen to the experience of homosexual persons and we wish to assure them that they are loved by God and that all baptised, believing and faithful persons, regardless of sexual orientation, are full members of the Body of Christ.” It also condemned the “irrational fear” of homosexuality and called on the communion to assure homosexual people that “they are loved by God.”

Legislation of the kind proposed in Uganda is based on irrational hatred and a desire to entrench the stigmatisation of LGBT people. There is no place for love, understanding or acceptance in such laws. As such, the Church of England has a duty to condemn the anti-homosexuality legislation and put pressure on those MPs who support such laws. Whatever the divisions within the communion about homosexuality as a moral issue, Anglicans should unite in condemnation of violent persecution and discrimination of LGBT people whoever and wherever they are, particularly when it is carried out in the name of Jesus Christ.

With the publication of this letter in a major UK newspaper, Williams can no longer pretend that he is unaware of the situation in Uganda. Nor that he is ignorant of the part that the Church of Uganda, a member of the Anglican Communion, is playing there.

I do not envy Rowan Williams. It cannot be easy to preside over a body in which one segment seeks to treat gay people as they would like to be treated and the other seems intent on defining their identity by the extent to which they hate and abuse gay people. It must be frustrating and challenging to know that the largest, most vibrant, and growing segment of your communion is one which is charged by fear, animosity, and hostility towards a powerless minority.

But we are not judged by our administration of easy solutions. Rather, the measure of a man is his response to challenges in difficult times. And so far, Williams seems to have adopted a Chamberlainian model for administration. He appears to seek appeasement of evil and conciliation of haters out of fear that he would oversee a breakup of the world’s second largest church.

But Williams needs to recognize that history is not kind to those who choose the easy course over that which is right, who allow the bigotry of the majority to dictate the terms of life for the persecuted. Especially if you do so in the name of religion.

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

Dan Savage On Defining the Institution of Marriage

Ft. Worth Adds Transgenders to Non-Discrimination Ordinance

Ft. Worth City Council last night expanded the city’s non-discrimination ordinance to include transgender people by a 6-3 vote. City council also discussed a broader range of issues important to the LGBT community, including offering domestic-partner benefits and expanding the city health insurance plan to cover gender reassignment procedures, including sex changes. Discussions were contentious, both inside the packed hall and outside, where protesters from both sides had gathered. The Dallas Voice reports:

There were no arrests or major physical altercations, but there was plenty of taunting and some heated verbal exchanges. Participants from both sides later accused the other of elbowing and pushing, and one of the counterprotesters admitted to ripping a gay Pride flag.

LDS Church Supports Salt Lake LGBT Protections

 Yes, you read that right:

Hours after the LDS Church announced its support Tuesday night of proposed Salt Lake City ordinances aimed at protecting gay and transgender residents from discrimination in housing and employment, the City Council unanimously approved the measures.

“The church supports these ordinances,” spokesman Michael Otterson told the council, “because they are fair and reasonable and do not do violence to the institution of marriage.”

The Mormon church has come under withering criticism over its overwhelming support in passing California’s Proposition 8, which stripped LGBT couples in that state the right to marry. The LDS’s massive efforts have led some to dub Prop 8 “The Mormon Amendment.” In addition to overall criticism, that campaign also proved to be highly divisive within the church itself.

Last year in the wake of that criticism, LDS leaders said that they had no problem with non-marriage related protections for LGBT people. In August 2008, the church issued a statement titled “The Divine Institution of Marriage” in which church leaders claimed to support “rights regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights.” That spawned the “Common Ground” initiative, which consisted of a set of LGBT protections based on the LDS statement. But the LDS church turned around and blocked every single proposal in the state legislature which they had earlier said they could support.

LGBT leaders in Salt Lake City hail last night’s vote as a historic step, and the result of several months of quiet, behind-the-scenes meetings with church leaders. But noting that four-fifths of Utah’s LGBT citizens live outside the city, they vow to reintroduce the Common Ground proposals in the state legislature again this year.

Why the sudden turnaround after the Common Ground initiative failed to even make it out of committee in the state legislature last year? There are a couple of possibilities. First, Salt Lake City is not a Mormon bastion as the rest of the state is. Many former LDS people who wrote in to BTB this morning believe that this ordinance would have passed without LDS support. After all, this is the same city that has already instituted a domestic partnership registry. So by coming out in support of this ordinance, the reasoning goes, the church is able to turn what would have been seen as a defeat into positive publicity.

Meanwhile, others speculate that Senate Majority Leader Harry Ried (D-NV) and former presidential candidate Mitt Romney, both Mormons, may have played a hand. At any rate, the real test will be when the Common Ground initiative is brought back to the state legislature again next year.

According to the Salt Lake Tribune, the ordinances passed last night would:

• Forbid housing and employment discrimination based on a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity in Salt Lake City.
• Exempt religious organizations, businesses with fewer than 15 employees and some small landlords. (The exemptions mirror those in state and federal laws.)
• “Not create any special rights or privileges,” the ordinances state, because “every person has a sexual orientation and a gender identity.”
• Create a complaint and investigation process. The complaint could be resolved through mediation or a fine of up to $1,000.
• Not create a “private right of action” to sue over alleged discrimination.
• Require annual reports by the city’s Human Rights Commission on the effectiveness of the statutes.

Rhode Island Won’t Even Protect Dead Gays

Rhode Island Governor Carcieri (R) today vetoed a bill that would add domestic partners to the list of people who are allowed to make funeral arrangements for each other. Citing the qualifying factors for a domestic partnership, Gov. Carcieri said in his veto statement:

A one (1) year time period for any relationship is not a sufficient length of duration to establish a serious, lasting bond between two (2) individuals to supplant the surviving individual over traditional family members relative to the sensitive personal traditions and issues regarding funeral arrangements, burial rights, and disposal of human remains. Many casual relationships last for longer than a year.

True, he has us there. Newt Gingrich’s first casual marriage lasted nineteen years, as did his second known casual relationship. His third casual relationship is nine years and counting, but if his current “wife” expires before their relationship does, Gingrich will be fully empowered to determine the disposal of her human remains.

Gov. Carcieri concluded:

…Finally, this bill represents a disturbing trend over the past few years of the incremental erosion of the principles surrounding traditional marriage, which is not the preferred way to approach this issue. If the General Assembly believes it would like to address the issue of domestic partnerships, it should place the issue on the ballot and let the people of the state of Rhode Island decide.”

AFA’s Bryan Fischer Proposes Sectarian Cleansing of US Military

AFA's Bryan Fischer speaking at the 2009 Value Voters Summit

This is shocking even by usual American Family Association “standards.”  Here’s what the AFA’s Bryan Fischer is saying:

It 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. Yesterday’s massacre is living proof.  And yesterday’s incident is not the first fragging incident involving a Muslim taking out his fellow U.S. soldiers.

Of course, most U.S. Muslims don’t shoot up their fellow soldiers. Fine. As soon as Muslims give us a foolproof way to identify their jihadis from their moderates, we’ll go back to allowing them to serve. You tell us who the ones are that we have to worry about, prove you’re right, and Muslims can once again serve. Until that day comes, we simply cannot afford the risk. You invent a jihadi-detector that works every time it’s used, and we’ll welcome you back with open arms.

Let’s contrast Fischer’s statement to the 1942 US Government propaganda film “Japanese Relocation” (wikipedia / youtube):

We knew that some among them [Japanese Americans] were potentially dangerous but no one knew what would happen among this concentrated population if Japanese forces should try and invade our shores. Military authorities therefore determined that all of them, citizens and aliens alike would have to move.

Near the end of the film:

[This current story of Japanese internment] will be fully told only when circumstances permit the loyal American citizens once again to enjoy the freedom we in this country cherish and when the disloyal, we hope, have left this country for good. In the mean time we are setting a standard for the rest of the world in the treatment for people who may have loyalties to an enemy nation, we are protecting ourselves without violating the principals of Christian decency.  We won’t change this fundamental decency no matter what our enemies do.

via Joe.My.God

Liberty Counsel and The Peter call the FBI

You know how anti-gay activists can rant all day long about the (imagined) evils of homosexuality? How they can make up nonsense and stretch every fetish by some lone gay person into evidence of depravity and perversity? You know how no lie is too extreme, no accusation too foul, no denunciation beyond the bar?

And you know how for those who live day in and day out in a constant state of anti-gay hysteria that any comment, however ironic or benign, that is remotely critical of the bile and venom they spew is an Attack On Christianity, America, and Jesus Himself?

Sadly, some of these nuts have started to believe their own rantings. And to act on them.

Joe. My. God. reports of a reaction by Peter LaBarbera to some comments made on his website.

In response to “Fritz”, a commenter, warning that if social equality is not achieved democratically then some gay extremists might respond with violence, “Tex” said:

“Fritz … you say this like it\’s a bad thing?

“Maybe a bit of well-organized terrorism is just what we need, er, I mean ‘civil disobedience.\'”

Is the comment tacky? Yes.
Is it silly? Yes.
Is it a credible threat of terrorism? Only a fool would think so.

But LaBarbera is a fool. Because he either believes his own rhetoric or he has decided to use the Federal Bureau of Investigation as his own personal political plaything.

From LaBarbera’s Americans for Truth About Homosexuality site:

The pro-family Christian defense organization Liberty Counsel has contacted the FBI regarding the threatening post.

Peter is accustomed to wild exaggeration and seeking to use any means possible to present himself as a martyr to the nefarious machinations of a sinister gay agenda. And he’s used to those in authority rolling their eyes and laughing off his extremism and hyperbole.

But I think that by involving the FBI he may have overplayed his hand.

The FBI is not known for their sense of humor. And they do not lightly take efforts to distract them from their real job of protecting the nation. Peter’s bogus claims of “terrorism” may work well on an emailed fundraising appeal, but distractions of this sort are not likely to be viewed benignly by overworked investigators.

If, of course, the FBI was really called. LaBarbera isn’t exactly known for his honesty or integrity.

Majority of military personnel do not support DADT

Researchers from the RAND Corporation and the University of Florida have released a new study that finds that support for the anti-gay Don’t Ask – Don’t Tell policy continues to slip among military personnel.

Here is an abstract of the study, as published online by the journal Armed Forces and Society.

U.S. policy banning openly gay and lesbian personnel from serving in its military rests on the belief that heterosexual discomfort with lesbian and gay service members in an integrated environment would degrade unit cohesion and readiness. To inform this policy, data from a 2006 survey of Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans are analyzed in this study. Views of these war veterans are consistent with prior surveys of military personnel showing declining support for the policy: from about 75 percent in 1993 to 40 percent in this survey. Among the demographic and military experience variables analyzed, comfort level with lesbian and gay people was the strongest correlate of attitudes toward the ban. War veterans indicated that the strongest argument against the ban is that sexual orientation is unrelated to job performance and that the strongest argument in favor of the ban is a projected negative impact on unit cohesion. However, analyses of these war veterans\’ ratings of unit cohesion and readiness revealed that knowing a gay or lesbian unit member is not uniquely associated with cohesion or readiness; instead, the quality of leaders, the quality of equipment, and the quality of training are the critical factors associated with unit cohesion and readiness.

As of 2006, attitudes were:

The study found that just 40 percent of the military members surveyed expressed support for the policy, while 28 percent opposed it and 33 percent were neutral—less support than seen in previous surveys.

About 20 percent of those polled said they were aware of a gay or lesbian member in their unit, and about half of those said their presence was well known. In addition, three-quarters of those surveyed said they felt comfortable or very comfortable in the presence of gays or lesbians, according to the study.

The survey sample included personnel from all service branches and from a mix of ranks and occupations. It was designed to reflect the views of soldiers who had served in Iraq and Afghanistan, most of whom were still on active duty.

Which further supports my rhetorical question, if active service personnel don’t support this failed policy, than who (other than Elaine Donnelly and the Administration) does?

Thanks, Doc

You have a new ally for your health, physically and mentally. It’s your doctor.

From the A/P

The nation’s largest doctors’ group has agreed to join efforts to repeal the military’s ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy.

The American Medical Association also voted to declare that gay marriage bans contribute to health disparities for gay couples and their children.

They base their decision on the difficulties caused to both doctors and patients by these illogical policies and laws.

Already, I can hear anti-gay activists thinking:

Those wacky activist doctors trying to legislate from the, um, surgery room. What do they know about health, anyway? Vote, I say, let “the people” vote on what causes health disparities just like we vote on who gets civil rights.

The DNC Boycott: Count Me In

Frustration is boiling over concerning the Democratic Party’s ongoing neglect of LGBT issues. The latest insult to injury? The Democratic National Committee and Organizing for America set emails to Mainers urging them to vote, but didn’t ask them to vote against Question 1. In fact, the email didn’t mention Question 1 at all. The DNC then sent another email urgently asking Mainers to get involved right away in … wait for it … New Jersey! 

When John Averosis at AmericaBlog contacted the DNC about the emails, he got the classic run-around. They first denied targeting Mainers to help with the New Jersey gubernatorial election, and then admitted that they lied about it.

This is just the latest in a long list of grievances and slights that have been building up since last November. That’s why several bloggers led by Avarosis and Joe Sudbay at AmericaBlog are banding together for a “Don’t Ask, Don’t Give” campaign to urge doners to stop donating to the DNC:

It’s really more of a “pause,” than a boycott. Boycotts sounds so final, and angry. Whereas this campaign is temporary, and is only meant to help some friends – President Obama and the Democratic party – who have lost their way. We are hopeful that via this campaign, our friends will keep their promises.

So please sign the Petition and take a Pledge to no longer donate to the DNC, Organizing for America, or the Obama campaign until the President and the Democratic party keep their promises to the gay community, our families, and our friends.

This was launched yesterday. I haven’t taken the pulse of the other contributors at BTB, so I can’t speak for them. But I support this wholeheartedly. One of the DNC’s most loyal constituencies — and among the most reliable sources for cash and sweat equity — has been taken for granted for far too long. The goals of the “pause” are pretty simple:

We are asking voters to pledge to withhold contributions to the Democratic National Committee, Organizing for America, and the Obama campaign until the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) is passed, Don\’t Ask Don\’t Tell (DADT) is repealed, and the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is repealed -– all of which President Obama repeatedly promised to do if elected.

…Candidate Obama promised during the campaign to be the gay community\’s “fierce advocate.” He and the Democratic party have not kept their promise.

Longtime LGBT activist David Mixner is on board with the boycott, along with Andy Towle, Michael Goff, Dan Savage, Pam Spaulding, Robin Tyler, Paul Sousa, Bil Browning, Jane Hamsher and Michaelangelo Signorile. Interestingly, even the Human Rights Campaign appears to have tacitly endorsed the boycott, in an email response to David Dayen at Firedog Lake:

“Individual donors should always make their own careful assessments of how to spend limited political contributions. We all need to focus on the legislative priorities identified by AmericaBlog and with whatever tactic individuals decide to employ, the ultimate objective needs to be securing the votes we need to move our legislative agenda forward.”

You can sign the petition and take the pledge here, and you can spread the word to your friends and family here.

Update: No NY Marriage Vote Today

News sources are starting to report that gay marriage won’t come to a vote in New York today. Gov. David Patterson had called an extraordinary session of the legislature to deal with the state’s budget crisis; a gay-marriage vote during the session was widely expected. A few things have stalled the bill, including the uncertainty of passage and the fact that its lead sponsor in the legislature, Tom Duane, has been out the past few days (his mother passed away).