Box Turtle Bulletin

The “Unbigoted” Argument in Favor of the Military ban on Gay Men

It seems that nearly every month provides ever more support for ending the strange Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy and allowing gay and lesbian military personnel to serve their country openly. And I do, at times, rhetorically wonder, “Is there anyone left who supports this discrimination?”

Of course there is. Conservative movie reviewer James Bowman is one such person and he has written an article for the Weekly Standard entitled Don’t Change ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ in which he argues against allowing gay people – or, rather, gay men – from serving their country.

Bowman’s secondary headline is “There are sound reasons–unbigoted ones–for our policy on gays in the military”, and I don’t think he intended this to be read as irony.

Indeed, Bowman is quite concerned about bigotry; or, rather, the perception of bigotry. Much of his article is not about the military at all but rather about the unfair tragedy that those who oppose equality for gay people are perceived as being bigoted. He, of course, never questions whether their motivations lie in animus but instead decries the unfairness of others who identify the motivation.

That is a reoccurring theme among anti-gay activists. Although those who fight for equality can at times be too quick to ascribe bigotry and homophobia to their opponents, that is not to suggest that bigotry is never at play. Yet the dismissal of bigotry – even as description for the most obviously hateful – has been a favorite tactic of late.

And anti-gay activists – frankly, many of whom are driven by desires that can only be described as bigoted in nature – have been rather successful in twisting the discussion away from whether their arguments have merit and instead towards whether an inspection of their motivations is “name-calling”. And it is that derailing of communication which is one reason why we seldom employ the term here at Box Turtle Bulletin.

In a strange twist, it appears that – like many other words that have become taboo in our culture – the word “bigot” can only now be used by those whom the word describes. And they are not content with removing “bigotry” and “homophobia” from the lexicon. Recently I was informed by a devoted anti-gay activist that even the term “anti-gay” is a slur.

But I still believe that one can look at an argument and see it for what it is. If the basis is logical, we can say so; but if the basis is in animus and stereotype and unfounded assumptions and is nothing but a shallow justification for a desire to discriminate, we can also be clear about the nature of that argument.

So let’s look at Bowman’s “unbigoted” argument:

Yet if reason were to be readmitted to the debate, we might find something in the history of military honor to justify the principle now enshrined in the law decreeing that “homosexuality is incompatible with military service.” We know that soldiering–I mean not training or support or peacekeeping or any of the myriad other things soldiers do, but facing enemy bullets–is inextricably bound up with ideas of masculinity. We also know that most heterosexual males’ ideas of masculinity are inextricably bound up with what we now call sexual orientation. In other words, “being a man” typically does mean for soldiers both being brave, stoic, etc.–and being heterosexual. Another way to put this is to say that honor, which is by the testimony of soldiers throughout the ages of the essence of military service, includes the honor of being known for heterosexuality, and that, for most heterosexual males, shame attends a reputation as much for homosexuality as for weakness or cowardice.

In other words, being in the military means being a man. And being a man means feeling contempt towards gay men.

Oh, but he’s not done with his unbigotry. Bowman speaks of the notion of a Band of Brothers and the way in which military service creates a brotherhood and engenders a deep love for one’s fellow serviceman.

And he makes the argument that gay servicemen would destroy this bond. And to do it he creates a strange assertion – one he oddly attributes to Brokeback Mountain: “the homosexual relationship is simply friendship carried to a higher power”.

Those who are not homosexuals have always resisted any simple equivalence between sexual love and friendship, not out of bigotry but at least partly because to grant it would be an abdication of their own right to love. Characteristically, the robust heterosexual, if told that close friendship with another man is only a degree away from homosexual relations with him, will back off the friendship. He knows, or believes, what it seems the homosexual cannot know or believe, or doesn’t want to know or believe, namely that the two sorts of love are different in kind and not just in degree.

This is a most peculiar argument. It says that because gay relationships are just really strong friendships and not equivalent to “erotic love between men and women”, therefore robust heterosexuals can’t be friends of gay men. They would fear that it’s just too gay.

So in summary, Bowman’s “unbigoted” argument is based on the following:

1. “Being a man” means experiencing contempt for gay men.
2. Robust heterosexuals fear any relationship that might be too close – just a matter of degree – to a homosexual relationship.

In other words, Bowman’s “unbigoted” argument is based on the assumption that heterosexual men – those who are robust and take pride in being a man – rightly fear and hold contempt for gay men.

And those are Bowman’s “sound reasons–unbigoted ones–for our policy on gays in the military”.

Obama To Speak At HRC Dinner

It’s eleven months after the election, and we still don’t have hate crimes protection. That was supposed to be the easy one. Now even that is in doubt. But we’re still gonna gather at his feet and be thankful for the crumbs, aren’t we?

President Obama will speak to a gathering of gay rights activists this weekend, a day before thousands of people are expected to march on Washington in a demonstration calling for greater legal protections for gays, lesbians and transgendered Americans.

Mr. Obama\’s appearance on Saturday at the annual dinner for the Human Rights Campaign, a leading gay rights advocacy group, represents a significant show of support for gay rights at a time when many prominent gay and lesbian activists have been questioning the president\’s commitment to their issues.

“Significant show of support”? How about something tangible we can really use, besides a great speech and a Salisbury steak.

James Hartline Knows The REAL REASON Chicago Lost The Olympics

You won’t read this in the mainstream media because its being held captive by the homosexual agenda. But the real reason Chicago lost the 2016 Summer Olympics — and James Hartline is the only one who knows this — is because he and others prayed away the games:

Because former homosexual James Hartline and the other Christians were willing to risk their lives for the Gospel while the world was glorifying homosexuality in Chicago, the Spirit of the Lord was released upon Chicago’s demonic gay agenda in 2006.

The Spirit of the Lord began contending with the anti-christ spirit inside the City of Chicago from that day forward. Thus, when President Barack Obama, Chicago Mayor Richard Daley and their armies of gay activist supporters in Boys Town attempt to square the reasons for their failure to garner an Olympic Bid for the Windy City, they had better recount the day that the Wind of the Holy Spirit was emparted into Chicago in 2006.

There he goes again, writing about himself in the third person. But given the choice between Rio de Janeiro and Chicago, I think Rio’s way gayer.

Obama’s Accomplishments

He killed a fly. Remember that?

Obama Chooses Inaction on DADT

Yesterday we told you of letters sent from the Senate Majority Leader to the President asking for his input on the repeal of the anti-gay military policy, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. At that time I pondered,

When others have appealed to the President to be proactive, he has dismissed his involvement saying that this is an issue for Congress. It will be interesting to see his response now that Congress has officially invited his input.

We now know the President’s answer: It’s too soon, maybe some other time, not now. (A/P)

President Barack Obama will focus “at the right time” on how to overturn the “don’t ask, don’t tell” ban on gays serving openly in the military, his national security adviser said Sunday.

Jones said Obama “has an awful lot on his desk. I know this is an issue that he intends to take on at the appropriate time. And he has already signaled that to the Defense Department. The Defense Department is doing the things it has to do to prepare, but at the right time, I’m sure the president will take it on.”

I sincerly hope that Congress will do what is right, fair, in the best interest of the military, and the will of the people and continue their plan of action to throw out the ban, despite delays and dismissals of this sort from our community’s “fierce advocate”.

Kevin Jennings, “Brewster,” and the Closet

(I’ve been extremely busy with work lately, which is why I haven’t been able to comment on this extremely important story. My apologies for my tardiness.)

Numerous anti-gay web sites have been hyperventilating about the appointment of Kevin Jennings, the former Executive Director for the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), to be the Assistant Deputy Secretary of the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools at the U.S. Department of Education. The loudest cries have centered on a story that Jennings has told many times in many forms, about an incident that happened when he was just starting out as a schoolteacher. There are several versions of the story floating around, but the one that anti-gay activists have fixated on goes like this:

And in my second job I wasn\’t sure how I wanted to deal with that. And I was in my first month on the job and I had an advisee named Brewster. Brewster was missing a lot of classes; he was in the boarding school so I said to his teacher, his first period teacher, I said, “next time Brewster misses a class I want you to tell me that he\’s missed that class and, uh, I will go find him.”

So I went and found Brewster one morning when she had called and he was asleep in his dorm room. And I said, “Brewster, what are you doing in there asleep?” And he said, “Well, I\’m tired.”

And I said, “Well we all are tired and we all got to school today.”

And he said, “Well I was out late last night.”

And I said, “What were you doing out late on a school night.”

And he said, “Well, I was in Boston…”

Boston was about 45 minutes from Concord. So I said, “What were you doing in Boston on a school night Brewster?”

He got very quiet, and he finally looked at me and said, “Well I met someone in the bus station bathroom and I went home with him.” High school sophomore, 15 years old. That was the only way he knew how to meet gay people.

I was a closeted gay teacher, 24 years old, didn\’t know what to say. I knew I should say something quickly so I finally said, My best friend had just died of AIDS the week before. I looked at Brewster and said, “You know, I hope you knew to use a condom.”

He said to me something I will never forget, He said “Why should I? My life isn\’t worth saving anyway.”

For most people, this story, taking place as it did in the late 1980s, would be about how critical it is for LGBT students to have someone they know they can turn to in safety and confidence. It is also a story that illustrates how a young man can be made so desperate coming of age in a culture that condemns everything about him. But for some, this was a story has become about an underage fifteen-year-old student having sex with an adult, and Jennings’ failure to report this “statutory rape” or “molestation” to authorities.

The problem with this story, like many stories in which the storyteller wishes to protect someone’s anonymity, is that many minor details end up being altered to ensure that the people in the story can’t be identified. And sometimes these alterations change with different tellings. Typically, you try to alter details which are immaterial to the purpose of the story (the student’s name, for example). Unfortunately, some of these alterations can be interpreted by some in ways which turn out to be materially important, but in ways that the storyteller may not have anticipated (like Brewster’s age). That appears to be what happened here.

In Jennings 2006 memoir Mama’s Boy, Preacher’s Son Brewster appears to be a boy name Robertson. In an essay Jennings wrote for Mitchell Gold’s Crisis: 40 Stories Revealing the Personal, Social, and Religious Pain and Trauma of Growing Up Gay in America, the boy’s name is Thompson. His name is unimportant, and clearly we have a case where Jennings is changing the student’s name in different tellings in order to hid his identity.

But it turns out that this detail about his age has ended up being important to those who want to use this story for a different purpose than Jennings intended. Sixteen is the age of consent for Massachusetts, although state law provides an exception of the two are close in age. In this version of the story I just cited, Jennings gave the student’s age as fifteen, but we don’t know the age of that “someone” at the bus station (who is assumed to be an adult).

But it appears that the student’s age might have been one of those details that Jennings was changing to protect the student’s identity. In most versions of the story, the student is simply identified as a sophomore and his age is not given. In other versions, and particularly in an important 2004 clarification by Jennings’ lawyer (PDF: 927KB/2 pages) when his issue first arose, the student’s age was given as sixteen. Furthermore, the story was clarified to indicate that Jennings had little information to believe that the student was actually having sex with an older man.

Now neither the student’s name nor his age were important elements to the story in terms of what that story was meant to illustrate (the importance of LGBT students having someone they can trust to turn to, the need for teachers to be able to deal with the special needs of LGBT students — more on that later). But one of those unimportant elements suddenly became vitally important for those who sought to take this story outside of its context.

Which is exactly what right-wing media has done. Fox News and The Washington Times have latched onto just one particular version of the story, the fifteen-year-old-Brewster version, as though it were gospel, while ignoring all the other versions including his 2004 clarification. And they ignored both its context and what seems to me a rather obvious attempt to hide the student’s identity by changing some of the details.

Fortunately, Media Matters for America has been able to track down “Brewster” and they obtained an image of his drivers license. That I.D. shows his birth date as July 31, 1971. Since the conversation took place in the fall of 1987, this would have made “Brewster” sixteen at the time and a legal adult. But more relevant than all that is this: a statement by “Brewster” himself:

Since I was of legal consent at the time, the fifteen-minute conversation I had with Mr. Jennings twenty-one years ago is of nobody’s concern but his and mine. However, since the Republican noise machine is so concerned about my “well-being” and that of America’s students, they’ll be relieved to know that I was not “inducted” into homosexuality, assaulted, raped, or sold into sexual slavery.

In 1988, I had taken a bus home for the weekend, and on the return trip met someone who was also gay. The next day, I had a conversation with Mr. Jennings about it. I had no sexual contact with anybody at the time, though I was entirely legally free to do so. I was a sixteen year-old going through something most of us have experienced: adolescence. I find it regrettable that the people who have the compassion and integrity to protect our nation’s students are themselves in need of protection from homophobic smear attacks. Were it not for Mr. Jennings’ courage and concern for my well-being at that time in my life, I doubt I’d be the proud gay man that I am today.

As they say, all’s well that ends well, but that doesn’t put this issue entirely to rest. There is still the matter of the particular advice that Jennings tossed off — “I hope you knew to use a condom.”

I think we can agree that this closeted, 24-year-old teacher’s advice was abysmal. “Brewster” really needed — and should have gotten — much better advice than that. I think we can all compose a large list of topics that they should have discussed.

That closeted teacher handled that situation very badly, but that shouldn’t have been surprising. Closeted people rarely handle situations touching on sexuality very well. I should know. I was closeted for the first forty years of my life, and in those years I said and did things that I am not at all proud of, things that I would never dream of doing today. The closet is a very insidious situation to be in.

And if people had paid attention to all of the versions of this story, they would have noticed that this was one of the principle lessons behind Jennings’ story. He screwed up and gave lousy advice, an admission he reinforced in a recent statement:

Twenty-one years later I can see how I should have handled the situation differently. I should have asked for more information and consulted legal or medical authorities. Teachers back then had little training and guidance about this kind of thing.

I think it’s important to know that “this kind of thing” isn’t just general information about sexual conduct among students which many teachers were trained on, but the particularly unique situations that LGBT students were in during that time. The year 1987 was at the very height of the AIDS crisis, and all of the hysterial that accompanied it. Politicians and popular pundits alike thought nothing about advocating that people with AIDS should be rounded up and quarantined. Homes of children with AIDS were being firebombed in Florida and people were regularly shunned everywhere else. Couple that with the presumption that everyone who was gay had AIDS (a presumption that persists in some quarters today), this placed an added stigma to everyone who was struggling to come to terms with their own sexuality.

And just to add to that, sodomy was a crime in Massachusetts in 1987, a “crime” that both the student and Jennings were potentially guilty of regardless of age of consent laws.This fact was very much on the minds of all LGBT people, especially closeted ones. I remember well in the late 1980s that Texas’ sodomy law was cited by the Dallas police department as justification for their ban on hiring LGBT officers. I remember that because I held a security clearance at the time, and worried about how that might affect my job. I needn’t have worried; by then sexual orientation wasn’t much of a factor in granting security clearances, but I didn’t know that. I wasn’t willing to take the risk of asking. One cannot discount the fears that these conditions placed on all LGBT people at that time, especially those in the closet. No wonder “Brewster” thought his life wasn’t worth saving.

When I was in high school, there was absolutely not one person I could trust to talk about what I was going through at that time — not one teacher, guidance counselor, or any other trustworthy adult. The climate was simply too hostile. And to demonstrate the depth of my sense of isolation, let me tell you a story where I’ll have to change someone’s name (but nothing else).

A good friend of mine in high school who was later diagnosed with schizophrenia was sent to see a psychiatrist because of his behavioral problems. That psychiatrist, noting that Will had not had any girlfriends yet (and is that any wonder, given the nature of his illness?) concluded that his problem was latent homosexuality. That psychiatrist then embarked on the blame-the-parents-based therapies that were popular at that time in order to try to cure him — even though by then, homosexuality was not considered a mental disorder. Not surprisingly, that course of treatment was futile because the diagnosis was completely wrong. Will isn’t gay and he never was. But I saw the disruptive effect that response had on his family, and I saw that Will only got worse when it was all said and done.

So not only could I not trust any teachers, but I knew I couldn’t even trust the so-called “experts.” For that day and time, I don’t think my situation was all that unique.

Which is why, as bad as Jennings’ advice was, I still think “Brewster” was lucky. The bad advice he got was far better than the alternative that he was likely to get from anyone else at that time. Better still, Jennings himself later came out of the closet and and founded GLSEN, and he has dedicated the rest of his career to making sure teachers today are better able to work with the “Brewsters” of the world. As hostile as this climate still is, LGBT students are better off in more schools today than we ever thought they would be two decades ago. And much of it began because of some bad advice given by a frightened, closeted teacher twenty-two years ago.

Maggie’s Anti-Biblical Marriage

Maggie Gallagher, as the head of the National Organization for Marriage, is quite fond of extolling the virtues of “traditional marriage.” And, for those uncertain as to what “traditional” means, her protege Carrie Prejean, lets us know that it is marriage which is “biblically correct.”

Well, when I was growing up in a “biblically correct” family, one of the scriptures often quoted to Christian kids of dating age was 2 Corinthians 6:14

Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols?

And lest any kids have any uncertainty about the application of that scripture or the meaning of “unequally yoked”, they were told in no uncertain terms that they were to only date other Christian kids. Marrying a non-Christian would be tragic.

It’s un-Biblical!
It’s un-traditional!
It’s Maggie’s marriage!

It turns out that for the last 17 years, Maggie has been married to Raman Srivastav, who just happens to be Hindu. Oh, my.

Well I guess we now know why Maggie un-traditionally uses her maiden name and why her husband is kept invisible.

Now I have no problem with Maggie being married to a person of any faith or no faith at all. But, then again, I don’t demand that marriage laws in this country be based on the Christian Bible.

(hat tip Bilerico)

Too Offensive for Mormon Eyes

The Deseret News is a Utah newspaper directed towards Mormon readership. It is, in a way, the sectarian version of the Salt Lake Tribune, sharing the same advertising handler and providing discounts for ad spots placed in both papers.

But the Deseret News is careful to shield its readers from advertising that could offend Mormon sensibilities. And this week it has rejected just such an ad,with a message so outrageous that it was sure to offend. (Salt Lake Tribune)

The wording of this ad:

“Bring Them in From the Plains”

From Despair to Hope

The Foundation for Reconciliation
at www.ldsapology.org
presents a Memorial Service, honoring LGBT suicide
victims as well as those who have successfully overcome
conflicts involving their sexual orientation and the LDS
Church. Join us for an evening of music and the spoken
word, including a special video appearance by actor
Will Swenson

Yes, this is an ad by a Mormon group seeking to gain dialogue with other Mormons. This ad makes no attack on the church nor does it contain language that is contradictory to church dogma. In fact, the foundation made effort to be non-offensive.

Peter Danzig, a Salt Lake City spokesman for the foundation, called the newspaper ad “innocuous.”

“There’s nothing anti-Mormon,” he said. “We tried to create an event that would be welcoming to everyone on either side of the issue.”

But the ad does express sympathy for those who killed themselves over conflict involving their sexual orientation, and the church can’t have that!

So when officials at the Mormon Church assure you that they don’t hate you just because you are gay, be very very skeptical.

Senate Asks Obama for Guidance on DADT

During his election campaign, President Obama committed to ending the military’s ban on openly gay servicemen. Since election, however, he has be reticent to champion this effort, at times appearing to favor inaction.

However, it is becoming rapidly apparent that if Obama is not embarrassed by the continuation of the policy, he’s about the only one who isn’t. Following closely on the heels of an opinion essay in the magazine of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Senate leadership seems to have finally decided that the time is right to begin the process.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D – Nevada) has now officially invited the President to weigh in on changing the policy. (A/P)

the Nevada Democrat is asking President Barack Obama and Defense Secretary Robert Gates to share their views and recommendations on the controversial policy.

In Sept. 24 letters to Obama and Gates, Reid also asked for a review of the cases of two U.S. officers who were discharged from the military because of their sexuality.

“At a time when we are fighting two wars, I do not believe we can afford to discharge any qualified individual who is willing to serve our country,” Reid wrote in identical letters to Obama and Gates that were obtained Friday by The Associated Press.

When others have appealed to the President to be proactive, he has dismissed his involvement saying that this is an issue for Congress. It will be interesting to see his response now that Congress has officially invited his input.

Marriage Bill Introduced in Illinois Senate

For several years now Greg Harris has been introducing a bill to legalize marriage in the Illinois House of Representatives. But for the first time, a Senator has introduced his bill into the other house. (Bay Windows)

A marriage equality bill called the “Equal Marriage Act” was introduced into the Illinois Senate by State Senator Heather Steans Oct. 1.

You may recall that in June the House did not act on a Civil Unions bill before them, killing it for that session. Now, whether or not this bill advances in the legislature, it has advanced the argument that same-sex couples are entitled to equal treatment under the law.

Prop 8 Campaign Attitudes to be Revealed

One of the arguments of the Olson/Boies legal team that is suing to overturn California’s Proposition 8, is that the motivation and intent behind the anti-gay marriage amendment was one of animus directed towards gay people as a group. This might prove to be an effective strategy; in Romer v. Evans, the Supreme Court of the United States threw out Colorado’s anti-gay Amendment 2 partly because it established a class of people in order to enact discrimination upon them.

To advance this argument, they subpoenaed the correspondence of the Yes on 8 campaign. Naturally, the campaign resisted, but Judge Vaughn Walker agreed with the Olson/Boies argument. (SJ Merc)

Denying a request to shield the information, U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker said the Protect Marriage campaign had failed to show that providing private e-mails, memos and reports would inhibit the political activities of gay marriage opponents or subject them to unbridled harassment.

“The First Amendment qualified privilege proponents seek to invoke, unlike the attorney-client privilege, for example, is not an absolute bar against disclosure,” Walker wrote in an 18-page order. “Rather, the First Amendment qualified privilege requires a balancing of the plaintiffs’ need for the information sought against proponents’ constitutional interests in claiming the privilege.”

The judge agreed with lawyers for two unmarried same-sex couples who have sued to strike down the ban, known as Proposition 8, that confidential communications between the campaign’s leaders and professional consultants could reveal a rationale for denying gays the right to wed that is relevant to the case.

The most relevant information will be in relation to what messages the campaign decided not to present to voters as this will put those they did use in perspective.

But I’m sure that the virulent homophobia and blind hate expressed in the communications will also go far to illuminate the attitudes of the campaign against marriage. Unless, of course, the Yes on 8 Campaign always spoke in loving terms about gay people and couples (hey, is that a pig I saw fly past my window?).

Time’s Running Out For Early Registration for 2009 Anti-Heterosexism Conference

Time is running out to save on early registration for the 2009 Anti-Heterosexism conference scheduled for Nov 20-22 in West Palm Beach, Florida. You can save $50 by registering by Monday, October 5th. On October 6th, conference fees go up from $145 to $195. This conference is sponsored by Soulforce, Beyond Ex-Gay,  Truth Wins Out, Equality Florida, the National Black Justice Coalition, and Box Turtle Bulletin.

So what is this “heterosexism” we’ll be talking about? Jeff Lutes, Executive Director for Soulforce, describes the conference this way:

First off, it\’s important to be clear that the title of the conference is the Anti-Heterosexism Conference, not anti-heterosexual. Heterosexism is the widespread assumption that heterosexual relationships are somehow superior to same-sex relationships, which leads to all kinds of abuse and discrimination against LGBT people. We want to highlight where heterosexism seeps into the social, cultural, religious and political fabric of society, and how we can begin to unravel its damaging consequences.

One way we see heterosexism come into play is in the attitudes which lead LGBT people to try to change their sexual orientation.These efforts are nearly always futile. The American Psychological Association recently issued a rigorous review of 83 studies on efforts to change sexual orientation conducted between 1960 and 2007, and they now advise psychologists to avoid telling their clients that therapy or other treatments can change them from gay to straight. With great effort, they may be able to modify their behavior, and they can always change their identity (“I’m not ‘gay’ anymore, even though I still like guys.”) But practitioners who offer ironclad promises to change sexual attractions are not only hiding the truth, but they are violating APA recommendations as well.

Mark Yarhouse, one half of the Jones and Yarhouse ex-gay study team whose work has been hailed by NARTH and Exodus as proof that “change is possible,” has conceded that the APA’s stance is correct.

“For me, in my own practice, I would not focus on change of orientation,” said Yarhouse, a psychologist and counselor who teaches at Regent, an evangelical Christian school.

…Yarhouse’sstudy focused on those who said their same-sex attractions collided with their religious beliefs. He said his research found that there was “modest” movement away from homosexuality among some Exodus participants, but categorical conversions to heterosexuality were rare.

Yarhouse recommended that counselors avoid uniformly steering struggling gays toward heterosexuality and focus instead on the best outcome for the individual.

That could include celibacy or exploring different faith groups with various attitudes toward gays and lesbians, he said.

NARTH completely rejects that finding, and are instead holding a conference in West Palm Beach to push their unscientific worldview. They are very skilled at getting media attention and putting on a professional face. And you can bet that they won’t exercise the kind of candor exhibited by Mark Yarhouse.

That’s why it’s extremely important for us to be there to present the facts behind efforts to change sexual orientation. Many of those in attendance will include those who tried to change but failed, including some who were former patients of NARTH co-founder, Joseph Nicolosi.

I hope you will join me and BTB contributors Gabriel Arana and Daniel Gonzales for three days of inspiring and informative workshops on the issues surrounding attempts to change sexual orientation and the heterosexist attitudes which underlie many of those attempts. Featured speakers are Dr. Sylvia Rhue, interim Executive Director of the National Black Justice Coalition, Dr. Jack Drescher, Distinguished Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association, and Rev. Deborah L. Johnson of Inner Light Ministries. Through the weekend, the conference will equip attendees from all across the country on ways in which they can challenge heterosexist attitudes and practices, understand the harms of conversion therapy efforts and the unscientific principles which propel them, and become strong advocates for LGBT equality.

Texas Judge Challenges Marriage Ban

From the Dallas News:

Dallas state District Judge Tena Callahan ruled that two men married out of state could divorce in Texas. She also stated that the Texas marriage ban violates the US Constitution.

Although the case is far from settled, and the state’s constitutional ban on gay marriage is a long way from being thrown out, Dallas state District Judge Tena Callahan’s ruling says the state prohibition of same-sex marriage violates the federal constitutional right to equal protection.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott had intervened in the two men’s divorce case, arguing that because a gay marriage isn’t recognized in Texas, a Texas court can’t dissolve one through divorce.

Callahan, a Democrat, denied the attorney general’s intervention and said her court “has jurisdiction to hear a suit for divorce filed by persons legally married in another jurisdiction.”

The political establishment in Texas will whip itself into a froth making sure that Callahan is reversed and gay people can return to being second class citizens, just as the Texas voters like it.

Reading Protects Gays

My knowledge of Reading, PA, is limited to the fact that it lent its name to the Reading Railroad, a property in Monopoly. But now I know this, as well (PGN):

The Reading City Council voted 6-1 on Sept. 28 to approve a nondiscrimination ordinance that extends protections to LGBT individuals in employment, credit, housing and public accommodations. Reading Mayor Thomas McMahon signed the bill into law that day, making Reading the 16th jurisdiction in the commonwealth to ban LGBT discrimination.

So if I ever have a chance to take a ride in Reading, I won’t pass go and I won’t demand $200. I’ll just enjoy that welcoming city.

Joint Chiefs Magazine: End DADT

The Joint Force Quarterly is he Joint Chiefs chairman\’s “flagship joint military and security studies journal.” It is full of informative articles such as “Measure, Manage, Win: The Case for Operational Energy Metrics” and “Radar versus Stealth: Passive Radar and the Future of U.S. Military Power.”

But the Quarter Four 2009 issue also prints the winning essays of the Secretary of Defense National Security Essay Competition. Various military educators associated with the National Defense University judge essays presented and this year’s winner is Col. Om Prakash, USAF, National War College, for his article The Efficacy of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (pdf).

Col. Prakash is not much impressed with the current policy. The Navy Times synopsizes his essay as follows:

“It is not time for the administration to reexamine the issue; rather, it is time for the administration to examine how to implement the repeal of the ban,” Prakash argues.

He bases that conclusion on several factors:

• The loss of some 12,500 personnel due to the “don\’t ask, don\’t tell” law since its implementation in 1994, and resulting financial impact and loss of skills.

• His conclusion that open service by gays would not degrade social cohesion.

• Polls of the general public that increasingly show acceptance of the concept.

• The difficulties commanders face in enforcing the ban.

• The fact that, by some estimates, about 65,000 gays now serve in the U.S. military.

The Times also notes

On Capitol Hill, a bill in the House, sponsored by Rep. Patrick Murphy, D-Pa., calls for outright repeal. The chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., has promised to hold the committee\’s first hearing on the issue in 16 years sometime this fall.

So we all have more comedy to look forward to from Elaine Donnelly.