Box Turtle Bulletin

Seattle Couple Threatened

God Hates F*gs!
Get the f**k out of our neighborhood.
The bible says God forbids men committing indecent act with other men.
Pack up your sh*t and get you gay sh*t out.
– KKK

That’s the note that wrapped a rock which was thrown through the windshield of a Seattle gay couple. Lyle Evans and Chris Ilovar were woken by the noise sometime after midnight Saturday morning.

We thought it was the cat. We thought it was sprinklers going off,” he said.

Ten minutes later, they heard the same sound again.

“I flew open the blinds in our bedroom and that’s when I saw shadows running down the street,” Ilovar said, “And I went, ‘Okay, something’s up.'”

While police reports officially call this an act of property damage and malicious harassment, the Evans and Ilovar said it’s pretty clear from the message left behind that this was a hate crime.

The suspect or suspects slashed all the tires on both men’s cars, as well as throwing two baseball-sized rocks — one through Ilovar’s passenger-side window, one through Evans’ rear windshield.

The couple have reportedly installed a new security system in their home the very next day. They have also installed a flagpole adorned with a rainbow flag.

MD Anti-Marriage Delegate Charged With Stealing To Pay For Her Own Wedding

Marriage for me but not for thee.

That’s the kind of headline I dream of writing, and today my dream came true. Maryland Delegate Tiffany T. Alston (D-Prince George’s Co), had cosponsored a bill to legalize marriage equality, but then abruptly changed her mind and voted against the bill she had cosponsored last spring when the bill went down to defeat. At around the same time, she indulged herself in the very same right that she denied other residents of her state by getting married. And to top it all off like like a cheap plastic figurine on a garish wedding cake, we learn that to help pay for that wedding — because she values marriage so much — Alston allegedly stole $3,560 in campaign funds:

Among other charges detailed Friday in a five-count indictment filed in Anne Arundel County Circuit Court (PDF: 876 KB/5 pages), Alston faces a charge of felony theft, which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a fine of $10,000. She also is charged with one count of misdemeanor theft, one count of fraudulent misappropriation by a fiduciary and two election law violations. The misdemeanor charge also carries a potential 18-month prison term.

“I emphatically deny any criminal wrong doing and look forward to the appropriate opportunity to address the accusations lodged against me,” she said in the statement.

We look forward to that as well.

The Daily Agenda for Monday, September 26

This is one of those days where I don’t really have anything agenda-ish. But rather than skipping the Agenda altogether, I wanted to share something that I ran across over the weekend as I was reading one of my favorite magazines. Peter Hessler writes in this week’s New Yorker about the pharmacist in the small western Colorado town of Nucla, a former uranium mining town that has fallen on hard times. Don Colcord has been the druggist there for more than thirty years. There’s a clinic in nearby Naturita with a doctor who comes in for two days a week. At all other times, the clinic’s physician’s assistant and  Colcord are what constitutes the medical establishment for miles around. Hessler’s account of Colcord’s work in his community is a paean to one man’s service to everyone he meets, whether it’s by keeping the town’s Fourth of July fireworks going every year, or by offering his medical advice and empathy to anyone who stops in his Apothecary Shoppe, or by relieving his struggling neighbors’ financial burdens when he forgives their tabs at his pharmacy, or just by being someone to talk to:

When outsiders come to town—loners, drifters—they often find their way to Don. A number of years ago, a man in his seventies named Tim Brick moved to Naturita and rented a mobile home. He placed special orders at the Apothecary Shoppe: echinacea, goldenseal, chamomile teas. He distrusted doctors, and often had Don check his blood pressure. It was high, and eventually Don persuaded him to get on regular medication. Soon, he was visiting every four or five days, mostly to talk.

Don referred to him as Mr. Brick. He had no other local friends, and he was cagey about his past, although certain details emerged over time. His birth name had been Penrose Brick—he was a descendant of the Penrose family, which came from Philadelphia and had made a fortune from mining claims around Cripple Creek. But for some reason Mr. Brick had been estranged from all his relatives for decades. He had changed his first name, and he had spent most of his working life as an auto mechanic.

One day, his mobile home was broken into, and thieves made off with some stock certificates. Mr. Brick had never used a broker—to him, they were just as untrustworthy as doctors—so he went to the Apothecary Shoppe for help. Before long, Don was making dozens of trips across Disappointment Valley, driving two hours each way, in order to get documents certified at the bank in Cortez, Colorado. Eventually, he sorted out Mr. Brick’s finances, but then the older man’s health began to decline. Don managed his care, helping him move out of various residences; on a couple of occasions, Mr. Brick lived at Don’s house for an extended stretch. At the age of ninety-one, Mr. Brick became seriously ill and went to see a doctor in Montrose. The doctor said that prostate cancer had spread to his stomach; with surgery, he might live another six months. Mr. Brick said he had never had surgery and he wasn’t going to start now.

Don spent the next night at the old man’s bedside. At one point in the evening, Mr. Brick was lucid enough to have a conversation. “I think you’re dying,” Don said.

“I’m not dying,” Mr. Brick said. “I’m just going to pray now.”

“Well, you better pray pretty hard,” Don said. “But I think you’re dying.” He asked if Mr. Brick needed to see a lawyer. The old man declined; he said his affairs were in order.

Don found a hospice nurse, and within two days Mr. Brick died. Don arranged a funeral Mass, and then he went through boxes of Mr. Brick’s effects. There was a collection of old highway maps, an antique cradle telephone, and a Catholic prayer stand. There were many photographs of naked men. Don found checkbooks under four different aliases. There were letters in Mr. Brick’s handwriting asking friends if they could introduce him to other men who were “of the same type as me.” But he must have lost courage, because those letters were never mailed. Don also found unopened letters that Mr. Brick’s mother had sent more than half a century ago. One contained a ten-dollar bill and a message begging her son to make contact. The bill, from the nineteen-forties, still looked brand-new, and seeing that crisp note made Don feel sad. Years ago, he had sensed that Mr. Brick was gay, and that this was the reason he was estranged from his family, but it wasn’t a conversation they ever had.

In his will, Mr. Brick left more than half a million dollars in cash and stock to the local druggist. After taxes and other expenses, it came to more than three hundred thousand dollars, which was almost exactly what the community owed Don Colcord. But Don didn’t seem to connect these events. He talked about all three subjects—neglecting his dying brother, offering credit to the townspeople, and helping Mr. Brick and receiving his gift—in different conversations that spanned more than a year. He probably never would have mentioned the money that was owed to him, but somebody in Nucla told me and I asked about it. From my perspective, it was tempting to apply a moral calculus, until everything added up to a neat story about redemption and reward in a former utopian community. But Don’s experiences seemed to have taught him that there is something solitary and unknowable about every human life. He saw connections of a different sort: these people and incidents were more like the spokes of a wheel. They didn’t touch directly, but each was linked to something bigger, and Don’s role was to try to keep the whole thing moving the best he could.

If you know of something that belongs on the agenda, please send it here. Don’t forget to include the basics: who, what, when, where, and URL (if available).

And feel free to consider this your open thread for the day. What’s happening in your world?

Google vs Bing vs Yahoo! in the Search for Santorum

That’s the claim that GOP presidential candidate Sen. Rick Santorum made last week, and Concerned Women for America’s Peggy Young Nance is working to spread the smear with the help of Fox News. Yesterday, she published this op-ed on Fox News claiming:

Former Senator Rick Santorum (R-Penn.) is the father of seven children, a devout Catholic, and current GOP presidential candidate.  But when someone types his name into the Google search box, the very first result that appears is a website detailing a sex act “by-product” named after the senator.  In fact, the Senator’s own website is the fourth result. By contrast, Rick Santorum’s website is the first result that both Yahoo and Bing give the user.

…Sen. Santorum said that he suspects “if something was up there like that about Joe Biden, they’d get rid of it. … To have a business allow that type of filth to be purveyed through their website or through their system is something that they say they can’t handle, but I suspect that’s not true.”

I tend to agree with the senator.  Why does Bing know that Rick Santorum’s own website is a better match than an explicitly sex-related site?

Nance might want to re-Bing and re-Yahoo! “Santorum”again. First up, Microsoft’s Bing, where you have to go all the way down to #8 before you find Sen. Santorum’s campaign web site:

Bing's search results as of 8:30 a.m. PDT on September 25 (Click to enlarge)

On Yahoo!, Santorum’s campaign web site made #7, including the obligatory news summary at the top. That news summary takes up a considerable amount of real estate, which pushes Santorum’s official web site nearly below the fold:

Yahoo!'s search results as of 8:30 a.m. PDT on September 25 (Click to enlarge)

Meanwhile, Google places Santorum’s campaign web site at #9, just below the fold. Which means that all three search engines place Santorum’s official campaign link within one position of each other:

Googles search results as of 8:30 a.m. PDT on September 25 (Click to enlarge)

Which means that in the world of Search Engine Optimization where it’s understood that the first couple of slots are where 70% of searchers click, Santorum’s Yahoo! problem and Bing problem are hardly better than his Google problem.

The Daily Agenda for Sunday, September 25

THE AGENDA:
Ugandan LGBT-Affirming Bishop To Speak: Washington, VA. Bishop Christopher Senyonjo, a former Anglican bishop in Uganda, will deliver the sermon at All Souls Memorial Episcopal Church (2300 Cathedral Ave., N.W.) in Washington Sunday at the church’s 11:00 a.m. High Mass. A reception will be held in the fellowship hall with a discussion forum at 12:30 following the service. It’s open and free to the public. Senyonjo, who’s straight and retired in 1998, is on what he’s dubbing the “Compass to Compassion Tour” in the U.S. in which he’s attempting to educate Americans about the persecution of LGBT Ugandans and gays in 75 other countries that face persecution and even death simply for being LGBT. You can read my interview with Bishop Senyonjo in three parts here, here, and here.

Joint Symposium on Transgender Health and Community: Atlanta, GA. The World Professional Association for Transgender Health’s biennial symposium, the Southern Comfort Conference, and the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association annual conference are all taking place this weekend in Atlanta, and organizers of all three events have chosen today come together for a remarkable joint session, “Transgender Beyond Disorder: Identity, Community, and Health.” The day-long event takes place this morning at the Emory University Conference Center beginning at 9:00 a.m. and continues through 7:15 p.m. with a closing wine and cheese reception.

Reception for ALL Military Families: Arlington, VA. The Military Partners and Families Coalition will conduct a “Beyond 61” reception to celebrate all military families at the Women in Military Service Memorial at Arlington National Cemetery. “Beyond 61” refers to the sixty-first day after the Pentagon certified the end of preparations for repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” which began a sixty-day countdown to the September 20 repeal. “Beyond 61” celebrates the silent partners and children who are the lifeline for LGBT servicemembers who can now step out from the shadows. The reception takes place from 2:00 to 3:30 p.m. EDT.

AIDS Walks Today: Brampton, ON; Calgary, AB; Corner Brook, NL; Dryden, ON; Halifax, NS; Louisville, KY; Oklahoma City, OK; Peterborough, ON; Regina, SK; San Diego, CA; St. John, NB; Thunder Bay, ON; Traverse City, MI; Windsor, ON and Winnipeg, MB.

Pride Celebrations Today: Peterborough, ON; St. Cloud, MN; Sunderland, UK.

Also This Weekend: Folsom Street Fair, San Francisco, CA.

J. Edgar Hoover and Clyde Tolson, together on vacation at the Del Mar Turf Club in Southern California in 1947.

TODAY IN HISTORY:
J. Edgar Hoover’s Personal Interest in Gay Movements Revealed: 1984. An earlier cache of secret files detailing FBI surveillance on gay people had been released two years earlier (see September 9), but that release offered only a small glimpse of the magnitude of governmental spying. It would take an ACLU lawsuit on behalf of the International Gay and Lesbian Archives (now the ONE National Gay and Lesbian Archives) for the more important cache to be released under the Freedom of Information Act. That later release consisted of more than 5,800 papers, most of it very boring details of gay pride picnics and parades, and photocopies of magazines that were publicly sold on newsstands. Most documents focused on the Mattachine Society and ONE Magazine, the first openly gay magazine in America.

But one interesting set of papers revealed J. Edgar Hoover’s interest in the gay movement. According to a memo dated January 26, 1956, the Los Angeles field office had been asked to check on the November 1955 issue of ONE, which talked about gay people who worked for Time and The New Yorker. The LA field office concluded that the articles statement was “baseless” and recommended that “no reply be made.”

But scrawled in handwriting below the typewritten recommendation was the sentence, “I think we should take this crowd and make them ‘put up or shut up’.” Markings indicated that the handwritten statement was made by Hoover’s chief aide and lifelong special “friend” Clyde Tolson. Hoover and Tolson worked closely together in the day, ate all their meals together in the evening, were seen socializing in nightclubs, and took vacations together. When Hoover died in 1971, Tolson inherited Hoover’s estate, and accepted the flag that draped Hoover’s coffin. Tolson’s grave is just a few discrete yards away from Hoover’s in Congressional Cemetery.

Hoover weighed in on the 1956 memo. Next to Tolson’s recommendation to keep the case files open and continue investigating was another inscription. “I concur,” it read, with the single letter “H” underneath. The next day, a telegram went to the Los Angeles office. “You are instructed to have two mature and experienced agents contact Freeman (the pseudonym for the article’s author), in the immediate future and tell him the bureau will not countenance such baseless charges appearing in this magazine, and for him to either ‘put up or shut up’.” It was signed, simply, “Hoover.”

If you know of something that belongs on the agenda, please send it here. Don’t forget to include the basics: who, what, when, where, and URL (if available).

And feel free to consider this your open thread for the day. What’s happening in your world?

Rick Santorum — Why Homophobia is a Psychological Disorder

People are missing the real story.

You’ve probably heard about Rick Santorum and the openly gay solider at the Republican debate.  Watch it here if you like, but so far the outcry has focused on the crowd booing an active-duty soldier just for being gay, the candidates’ failure to condemn the catcalls, and Santorum neglecting to the thank the soldier, as is customary, for his service.

Here’s what the right has claimed in response:

• Santorum did not hear the boos (possible, though at least one person onstage managed to).

• The boos came from an isolated source, and those nearby rebuked him (possible, though the lack of audio proof is unfortunate).

• Santorum’s failure to offer the traditional thanks for the soldier’s service was a meaningless oversight, and was NOT caused by the image  of man-on-dog sex that assaults him when he thinks of gays (doubtful, but possible).

• Conservatives have rebuked both the booer and the unreacting candidates (true).

• Santorum himself much later rebuked the booer and thanked the soldier for his service (true).

I’ll concede all that — really, I will — just to get it out of the way.  It obscures the real issue, what we ought to be calling out:  the idiocy of what Santorum actually said, and the way it shows how homophobia induces a genuine mental breakdown.

Look at three bits of his terrible answer. First:

The fact that they’re making a point to include it as a provision within the military that we’re going to recognize a group of people and give them a special privilege and removing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell…

Stop. A special privilege? Having a equal right to serve openly in the military is a special privilege? The right to mention your boyfriend, girlfriend, or spouse is a special privilege? Being treated just like your fellow soldiers is a special privilege?  If pressed to the wall and forced to classify this as idiocy or not idiocy, I’d have to choose…idiocy.

Continuing Santorum’s quote:

… removing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, I think tries to inject social policy into the military.

Stop. The irony and idiocy are singing in harmony. “Social policy”?  Banning gays from the military, imposing special silence requirements on them — that’s the social policy.

We ought to make this point more often. The default public policy, according to the Constitution, is equal treatment under the law. Period. You want to argue that the health of society requires anti-gay persecution? Go ahead (you’re wrong, but go ahead). Just remember — that’s the injection of social policy into the military, a political and cultural agenda being imposed by law.  Removing DADT, removing the ban on gays — that’s removing social policy from military matters.

Santorum wrapped up with this reason for re-imposing DADT:

…we would move forward in conformity to what was happening in the past, which is — sex is not an issue. It should not be an issue. Leave it alone. Keep it to yourself — whether you’re heterosexual or homosexual.

Wow!  That last sentence is an amazing and unexpected endorsement of equality. Combine it with his support for DADT, and you’ve got a Republican presidential hopeful declaring that straight soldiers shouldn’t be allowed to talk about getting laid, or their romantic interests, or their spouses, or their family life.  He wants to gag them just as he wants to gag gay and lesbian soldiers. He wants straight soldiers to keep silent on such things, “in conformity to what was happening in the past.”

Wait, stop, what?  This is idiocy all around.  He can’t possibly believe that  straight soldiers of years gone by were forbidden to conceal their straightness. And he can’t possibly believe that letting straights speak freely while silencing gays means treating all soldiers the same (“whether you’re heterosexual or homosexual”).  But he seems to be saying both of these idiotic things — and since they contradict each other, that makes for idiocy squared.

But perhaps Santorum himself is not an idiot.  Perhaps his terror of homosexuals is so intense that it renders his otherwise bright and agile mind  incapable of clear, simple thought.  Perhaps his feelings toward us create an intellectual dysfunction, an impairment, a narrowly-focused mental disability.

Perhaps. And if so, folks, it would make Rick Santorum prime evidence for why we call homophobia a psychological disorder.

Johnson “Embarrased” By Booing of American Soldier, Other Candidates Refuse To Comment

ABC News’ Emily Friedman rounds up the reactions of GOP presidential candidates to the booing by audience members of Stephen Hill, a gay American Soldier stationed in Iraq, who asked about the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” during Thursday night’s debate. On the night of the debate, Ambassador Jon Huntsman Jr. said he heard the booing and thought it was “unfortunate.” He later added, “We all wear the same uniform in America. We all salute the same flag I have two boys starting their journey in the U.S military. We should take more time to thank them for their services as opposed to finding differences based on background or orientation.”

After one news cycle passed, Sen. Rick Santorum claimed that he didn’t hear the booing (which was loud enough to actually create an echo in the vast hall in Orlando), and said he should have thanked the soldier for his service. At least that’s what he told Fox News. When speaking to ABC News, Santorum walked it backed a little.

“I didn’t hear it. I didn’t hear the boos,” Santorum told ABC News. “I heard the question and answered the question, so I’ve heard subsequently that happened. I’ve heard varied reports about whether they were booing the soldier or the policy.”

“I don’t know what they were booing,” he said. “If you can go out and find the people who were booing and find out if they were booing because a man was gay or because of a policy they don’t agree with.”

“You find out why they booed, and I’ll respond to your question,” he added.

Today, former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson said he was embarrassed by the episode:

“That’s not the Republican Party that I belong to,” said Johnson. “I’m embarrassed by someone who serves in the military and can’t express their sexuality. I am representing the Republican Party that is tolerant. And to me that shows an intolerance that I’m not a part of in any way whatsoever. ”

Johnson added that he could hear the boos from the stage and believes that the other candidates – despite Santorum’s denial – could as well.

That’s a second candidate who admitted he could hear the boos from the stage. Yet none of the nine candidates spoke up against the demonstrated disrepsect of an active-duty soldier stationed in Iraq, and none of them engaged in the time-honored Republican tradition of shoving each other out of the way in the race to thank that soldier for his service to the country.

And for six of those candidates, that silence continues through day three. Pizzaman Herman Cain refused to comment saying he didn’t want his comments “taken out of context.” Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann’s spokesperson refused to comment, as did the campaigns for former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, and Texas Gov. Rick Perry. Texas Rep. Ron Paul’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment.

Scott Lively Admits “Love The Sinner/Hate The Sin” Was Just A Ruse

Dropping the "Love the Sinner" line after discovering nobody believes him anyway.

Holocaust revisionist and two-time winner of the Southern Poverty Law Center’s hate group designation Scott Lively wrote in World Net Daily yesterday that the Culture War against gay people is “nearly lost” — and it’s all because “Christians” were sleeping:

Many Christians are only now awakening to the seriousness of the threat to our society posed by the homosexual movement. But, unfortunately for us all, it is only the sounding of the victory trumpets by “gay” activists that has stirred Christians from their slumber. The watchman’s walls have been broken and breached, the village is in flames, and triumphal “gay” culture warriors are leading a long string of young prisoners by their necks into the woods. Most disturbingly, many of the captives, including some of the children of these still sleepy-eyed Christian parents, seem happy to go.

I have long warned that the homosexuals agenda is not about tolerance but control. It started, of course, with a plea for tolerance, but then immediately shifted to a demand for acceptance and in due time to celebration of all things “gay.”

Lively, whose book, The Pink Swastika, fabricates the discredited argument that Nazism was, at its very core, a homosexual movement and that violent fascism inevitably follows whenever gays gain a modicum of protection and equality under the law, laments the passing of the days when teachers weren’t allowed to be gay:

I’m old enough to remember the debate about whether homosexuals should be allowed to be teachers at all, let alone allowed to punish students for disagreeing with the class-time advocacy of their sexual lifestyle. I remember the protestations from the pro-homosexual side, that “gays and lesbians just want the right to be left alone. They would NEVER interject their private lives into the classroom.” They all lied, and we believed them, and now our children and grandchildren are being forced to celebrate “gay” culture under penalty of law.

That is the end game for the “gays.” The final stage of their agenda, which has always been about taking control of things, is the power to punish dissent: to silence or crush their detractors. They only have this level of control in a few places yet, but they are moving fast to achieve it everywhere, and the momentum is on their side. And wherever they have it, they use it.

Lively also admits that “loving the sinner and hating this sin” was just a ruse all along, and it’s one that he now recognizes that we can all see right through it:

I’m not going to add here how much I really love homosexuals and just hate their sin. As a question of public policy it really shouldn’t matter what I think about the perpetrators, just whether I am telling the truth about their agenda. I don’t want to reinforce the ridiculous assumption that Christians need to offer a disclaimer to prove they aren’t haters. It wouldn’t mitigate their hostility toward me for saying it anyhow. Trust me.

Of course, Lively’s use of “love the sinner/hate the sin” has been nothing but an empty aphorism. In 2007, Lively spoke at a Watchmen On the Walls conference in Latvia, where he taught his audience to say “live the sinner but hate the sin” as a very specific battlefield tactic:

In America, the Christians have chosen a phrase that explains what we believe. And you may have heard this phrase. “We love the sinner, but hate the sin.” Amen? Okay. Say that with me. “We love the sinner, but hate the sin.” That must be your phrase because that will protect you from being misrepresented. And it will bring you in harmony with Christians around the world.

… You have to understand how this battle works. We follow the God of truth. They Holy Spirit, who is called the Spirit of Truth, lives inside of us. But our adversaries follow the father of lies. Scripture calls him the “father of lies.” They can’t tell the truth, and they to tell the truth because they don’t want people to listen to what we have to say. But we can’t say anything that would give them proof that what they teach is right… So we must be wise as serpents and innocent as doves. We won’t stop telling the truth, and they won’t stop telling the lies. But this is a war.

Scott Lively’s Abiding Truth Ministries has been on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s very short list of  anti-gay hate groups for a few years now.  Not only that but Lively is co-founder of Watchmen On the Walls, another identified hate group, and he has worked with Massachusetts-based MassResistance, yet another identified hate groups. In October, he will speak at a banquet for Peter LaBarbera’s Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, which is also listed in the SPLC’s very short list. In 2009, he unleashed what he called his “Nuclear Bomb” at an anti-gay conference in Kampala, Uganda, which sparked yet another round of anti-gay vigilantism and violence, culminating in the introduction of the draconian Anti-Homosexuality Bill in that nation’s Parliament.

This Is What DADT’s Repeal Looks Like In Military Regulations

DADT repeal: The real deal (click to download)

Whenever a change is made to official Defense Department regulations, a version of the new regulations goes out highlighting the changes being incorporated via strike-outs and color-coded additions. They do this so that changes to regulations are clearly communicated and cannot be overlooked. And so on September 20, 2011, on the day in which “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was officially repealed, a new DoD Instruction 1332.14 on Enlisted Administrative Separation went out incorporating “Change 2.” That change officially struck out “Homosexual Conduct” as a reason for separation from the military, and it struck out the entire section titled, “Guidelines for Fact-Finding Inquiries Into Homosexual Conduct.” You can download the entire regulation here (PDF: 376 KB/60 pages). Go ahead and do it. This document, with its sea of red strikeouts on pages 17-22 and 38-41, represents the historic end to the last legally mandated governmental witch hunt against gays and lesbians.

The Daily Agenda for Saturday, September 24

THE AGENDA (OURS):
Southern Comfort Conference/WPATH Symposium: Atlanta, GA. The World Professional Association for Transgender Health holds its biennial symposium beginning today and continuing through Wednesday, September 28. The symposium is being held in conjunction with Southern Comfort Conference, which takes place every year in Atlanta and is the largest and most famous transgender conference in the country. Southern Comfort began on Wednesday and continues through the weekend. The WPATH Symposium is open to professionals, students of transgender study and supporters, and covers every aspect of transgender health, from surgical procedure techniques to bullying and childhood abuse. On Sunday, Southern Comfort and the WPATH Symposium will hold a joint session with the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association, which is also having its annual convention in Atlanta. That session, “Transgender Beyond Disorder: Identity, Community, and Health,” will take place at the Emory University Conference Center beginning at 9:00 a.m.

Campus Pride College Fair and Prep Day: Chicago, IL. Campus Pride’s College Fair is an opportunity for LGBT students and their families to discuss educational opportunities with participating LGBT-affirming colleges and universities. The fair features expert advice about LGBT-friendly colleges, scholarship resources and even effective tips for campus visits. The Midwest Region College Fair takes place today at Chicago’s Center on Halstead, 3956 N. Halsted, and goes from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. More information can be found here. Future College Fairs will take place in Boston (Oct 7), Los Angeles (Oct 15) and New York (Nov 4).

AIDS Walks This Weekend: Albany, NY; Brampton, ON; Flint, MI; Calgary, AB; Corner Brook, NL; Dryden, ON; Grand Prairie, AB; Halifax, NS; Louisville, KY; Moncton, NB; Mt. Pleasant, MI; Oklahoma City, OK; Oshawa, ON; Ottawa, ON; Peterborough, ON; Red Deer, AB; Regina, SK; San Diego, CA; Seattle, WA; St. John, NB; Thunder Bay, ON; Traverse City, MI; Windsor, ON and Winnipeg, MB.

Pride Celebrations This Weekend: Holyoke, MA; Kaohsiung, Taiwan; Nelson Mandela Bay, South Africa; Peterborough, ON; Raleigh/Durham/Chapel Hill, NC; Richmond, VA; St. Cloud, MN; Soweto, South Africa; Sunderland, UK.

Also This Weekend: Folsom Street Fair, San Francisco, CA.

THE AGENDA (THEIRS):
Evergreen International Conference: Salt Lake City, UT. Evergreen International, the Mormon ex-gay organization, is holding its annual conference today. The plenary session features LDS elder Jay Jensen, of the First Quorum of the Seventy. The conference takes place from 8:30 to 4:30 at the Joseph Smith Memorial Building. David Pruden, Evergreen President, is also Vice President of Operations at the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), which is listed as a “trusted partner” of the Evergreen Conference.

A candlelight vigil at the Backstreet Cafe following the shooting.

TODAY IN HISTORY:
Mass Shooting in Gay Bar Kills One, Injures Six: 2000. Ronald Edward Gay spent his entire life hearing jokes about his surname. A former Vietnam vet, he become an alcohol and drug abuser, and had just been divorced for the sixth time. His children changed their last names, he claimed, to escape the jokes. So when he finally had had enough, he decided to turn it around and take it out not on his tormenters, but on those who he believed had ruined his name. On September 24, 2000, the fifty-three-year-old drifter walked into the Backstreet Cafe in Roanoke, Virginia, pulled a 9mm handgun from his black trench coat and opened fire. One of the bar’s patrons, Anna Sparks, described the terror. “The guy was standing there with a trench coat on, and the gun was going pop, pop, pop, pop, pop, and people were falling over everywhere, trying to get behind booths. He just stood there for a couple of seconds, then lowered the gun and walked out like nothing had happened.” When the shooting spree ended, Danny Lee Overstreet, 43, was dead in a pool of blood and six others were injured, one critically.

Danny Lee Overstreet (left), Ronald Edward Gay (right)

Gay had been at a different bar earlier that night asking where the city’s nearest gay bar was, telling patrons he wanted to shoot some gay people. One person gave him directions and then called the police, who arrived  at the Backstreet Cafe shortly after the shooting. They found Gay about two blocks away.  “He said he was shooting people to get rid of, in his term, ‘faggots,'” Lieutenant William Althoff of the Roanoke police was quoted as saying.  He told authorities that he became obsessed with fulfilling four “missions”: to stop corruption, to stop communism, the bring all Vietnam vets “out of the mountains”, and to stop the spread of AIDS by forcing all gay people to move to San Francisco. Gay pleaded guilty to first-degree murder and six malicious wounding charges and on July 23, 2001 was given to four life sentences.

If you know of something that belongs on the agenda, please send it here. Don’t forget to include the basics: who, what, when, where, and URL (if available).

And feel free to consider this your open thread for the day. What’s happening in your world?

Santorum Finally Gets Around to Condemning the Booing of an American Soldier, But He Totally Has A Good Excuse For Not Speaking Up Sooner

An entire news cycle has passed since the American people witnessed the spectacle of nine GOP presidential candidates remaining silent while audience members booed an American soldier during last night’s debate. Instead of speaking up against the outburst or even thanking Stephen Hill, who is currently stationed in Iraq, for his service, they stood in stone silence while Sen. Rick Santorum railed against the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” as “playing social experimentation with our military.” Their silence was all the more remarkable considering their willingness to interrupt each other on other topics throughout the debate.

After nearly a full day of mounting criticisms from the left, the right, and everywhere in between, Santorum finally got around to condemning the booing and, very belatedly, to thank him for his service. But only after he was asked directly about it. Furthermore, there was no hint of an apology for last night’s debacle:

Megyn Kelly: Now online this is getting a lot of attention, this video question from a gay soldier. I want to ask you not so much about your answer because you and I did that back and forth last night, but I want to ask you about people are now criticizing the audience last night for their reaction when they heard this video question. Let’s play just the video question:

Stephen Hill: … Iraq, I had to lie about who I was because I’m a gay soldier and I didn’t want to lose my job. My question is, under one of your presidencies do you intend to circumvent the progress that’s been made for gay and lesbian soldiers in the military? [Scattered booing]

Kelly: So there were a couple of boos in the audience. I mean there were five thousand people there. And now some people are criticizing you for not responding to it and Republicans for, you know, booing a gay soldier. Your response?

Santorum: Yeah. Well, I condemn the people who booed that gay soldier. That soldier is serving our country. I thank him for his service to our country. I’m sure he’s doing an excellent job. I hope he’s safe and I hope he returns safely and does his mission well. I have to admit, I seriously did not hear those boos. Had I heard them, I certainly would have commented on them, but, as you know, when you’re in that sort of environment, you’re sort of focused on the question and formulating your answer. I just didn’t hear those couple of boos that were out there, but certainly had I, I would have said that that was… I would have said don’t do that. This man is serving our country and we are to thank him for his service.”

I find his excuse that he didn’t hear the boos incredulous. The videotape shows the loudest booing clearly reverberating throughout the hall. It’s also telling that he was more focused on condemning gay people because of all of the sex, sex, and more frothy sex, that he imagines them having all the time in the barracks, in the showers, and on the parade grounds — and you know how much gay people love a good parade — than he was in undertaking the simple decency of thanking the soldier for his service.

Former Utah Gov. John Hunstman called the booing “unfortunate” last night following the debate, adding, “You know, we’re all Americans, and the fact that he is an American who put on the uniform says something good about him.” It would have been good if he had the courage to say that while still on the dais with the cameras rolling. Meanwhile, seven other GOP presidential candidates have continued their radio silence, both on the booing and their own neglect for thanking an American soldier.

Mark this day as a historic first: for the first time in the history of the Republic, not a single Republican freedom-loving, flag-saluting, allegiance-pledging, birth-certificate-waving patriotic presidential candidate tried to step over everyone else to be the first to thank an American soldier for his service to the country.

VP: Ugandan Gov’t In “Consultation with Stakeholders” About Anti-Homosexualty Bill

First, let’s begin with a definition of the word “stakeholders“:

1. (in gambling) An independent party with whom each of those who make a wager deposits the money or counters wagered
2. A person with an interest or concern in something, esp. a business
3. Denoting a type of organization or system in which all the members or participants are seen as having an interest in its success.

With that in mind, read this article in Thursday’s edition of Uganda’s pro-government newspaper New Vision, describing the visit of that nation’s Vice President Edward Ssekandi to New York to attend the United Nations General Assembly this week. While there, Ssekandi met with the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Johnnie Carson at Uganda Mission, where they talked about a variety of issues, including the status of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, which is rumored to be under consideration for reintroduction into Parliament. New Vision reports:

On the issue of homosexuality which Carson also raised, the Vice President explained that the government has not yet come up with a position on the issue adding that open objective consultation with stakeholders are still underway before a report is presented to government for decision.

Ssekandi doesn’t name the stakeholders involved with the consultation, but as far as I have been able to determine, the most important stakeholders of all — Uganda’s gay and lesbian community — have continued to be shut out of those “consultations.”

Prop 8 Proponents: still skurrred

As we noted yesterday, no anti-gay activists are actually frightened of gay people. None. Zero.

But they are very very frightened of the idea that clips of them defending anti-gay positions will be used in law schools, history lectures, and the like in the future. No one, not even a dedicated anti-gay activist, wants to have as their legacy the claims made in Perry v. Schwarzenegger. And no one wants to have video evidence of their claims being eviscerated – slowly, carefully, and completely with all the calmness and formality that a courtroom inspires.

“But please don’t let the world see me making a fool of myself” is not exactly the most compelling legal argument. So the Prop 8 Proponents are stuck with, “I’m skurrred of Teh Gheys. They’s out ta get me.”

And that was the argument that they presented to Judge Ware in seeking to keep the digital record sealed.

Defendant-Intervenors contend that “public dissemination of the [digital recording] could have a chilling effect on … expert witnesses’ willingness ‘to cooperate in any future proceeding.'”

Judge Ware didn’t buy it, finding it to be “unsupported hypothesis or conjecture”.

Upon review of the papers and after a hearing conducted on August 29, 2011, the Court concludes that no compelling reasons exist for continued sealing of the digital recording of the trial.

But we also found a few other gems in Ware’s ruling.

For example, we find that the Intervenor-Defendants (the Proponents) yet again failed to recognize the strategic importance of what was going on around them (my impression of lead attorney Charles Cooper has plummeted during this case). They didn’t object to Judge Walker making the video recording of the testimony part of the judicial record. While that is not an odd action, it is out of the ordinary and would have been the logical time to protest.

But once the recording was part of the record, courts must “start with a strong presumption in favor of access to court records”. Ooops. This left the Proponents needing to “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings”; and we all know that the Proponents don’t have any of those.

And one last item from the Ware ruling that is amusing. It appears that Cooper presented a brand new reason to keep the recordings secret: the Ninth Circuit Court judges might watch them. Yeah, I can see how that might be a problem for the Proponents.

But as for the witnesses and their monstrous fear of Teh Gheys, let’s see how much they are trembling in their boots. Here were the witnesses supporting Proposition 8:

Prof. Kenneth Miller – although Miller’s testimony in the case was first, it was not integral to the defense of Proposition 8 and it seems that he is happily teaching at Claremont McKenna College. As best I can determine he has not gone in hiding nor is he shaking in his books – though considering that he testified under oath that he disagreed with a book he himself had written the year before, perhaps he should be. I’ve inquired with Professor Miller and will inform you if it turns out that he is, in fact, terrified.

David Blankenhorn – David is a nice enough guy who thought that trial testimony just wanted his opinion on things. And as a supporter of gay rights generally, he thought his reasons for not quite going so far as marriage were good. And perhaps they are at a cocktail party, but not in court. He didn’t fare well under cross examination. I’ve inquired with him as well.

Hak-Shing William “Bill” Tam – Mr. Tam started as a witness for the defense and when they Proponents opted not to call him, our side did. Bill Tam was a most unusual witness and, in many ways, more of a victim of the Proponents than an ally. They had convinced poor Mr. Tam that the sky was falling and Teh Gheys were out to get his children.

Tam is one who probably has been impacted by his testimony. While its rather unlikely that any gay people have bothered him in any way, Tam probably feels some emotional consequence of his testimony. And if anyone is going to be living in terror of Teh Gheys, it is Mr. Tam. I wouldn’t be surprised if the fear mongering of the legal team has Mr. Tam taking precautions to protect this horrific (but nonexistent) threat against his life. I have not inquired with Mr. Tam.

Orthodox Priest Says Post-DADT Military Entered “New Dark Age”

Orthodox priest Alexander F.C. Webster, a retired Army Reserve chaplain, wrote this op-ed in Stars and Stripes::

On Sept. 20, 2011, a date that will live in infamy, the U.S. armed forces were deliberately and successfully attacked by advocates of the scourge of homosexuality. The elimination of the last vestige of moral restraint on sexual perversion in the U.S. military, commonly known as the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, ushers in a new Orwellian era in which the military leadership of our nation will proclaim the unnatural as natural, the unhealthy as healthy and the immoral as moral.

…As an Orthodox priest who still loves all of the troops I served as a chaplain for a quarter of a century, I pray that God the Holy Trinity will preserve and protect the U.S. armed forces — especially in this new Dark Age.

Anti-gay activists, still classy and keeping their heads about them…

Santorum Doubles Down on DADT, With No Apology Or Thanks To American Soldier

GOP presidential candidate Sen. Rick Santorum followed up his criticism last night of gays serving openly in the military. In last night’s GOP presidential debate, in which an American soldier currently stationed in Iraq was booed by members of the audience, Santorum called the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” an exercise in “social experimentation.” Today, he appeared on Fox News’  morning program Fox and Friends, in which he falsely claimed that other nations’ militaries which allow gay people to serve openly are mostly non-volunteer forces.

Q: I don’t know if he had the same idea with you about “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” but I do know that you disagree with President Obama, which by the way got rid of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” just a couple of days ago. Let’s listen to what you said last night:

Santorum, during the debate: …Any type of sexual activity has absolutely no place in the military and the fact that they are making a point to include it as a provision within the military that we are going to recognize a group of people and give them a special privilege in removing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,”  I think tries to inject social policy into the military and the military’s job is to do one thing and that is to defend our country. [Applause] … What we’re doing is playing social experimentation with our military right now, and that’s tragic. …

Q: So you would go back to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” if you become President?

Santorum: Absolutely. We haven’t even begun to see what the consequences of going to ‘DADT’ are going to be. The men and women who sign up for the military are now going to be placed in very difficult and uncomfortable personal situations, in very close quarter situations. Look, this is a volunteer military. In the other militaries where this has been tried by and large, have not been voluntary militaries. You’ve been required to serve. This is not, and so we’ve got to recruit people who would want to do this and now you’re going to put them in a very odd and uncomfortable environment. A lot of people, I believe are going to leave. I think a lot of folks aren’t going to join who otherwise would have joined, and that’s going to hurt our ratings, it’s going to hurt our ability to defend this country, and we shouldn’t be playing social experimentation. As I said last night, there is no role for playing sexual experimentation games in the United States military. This is about securing our country.

In fact, most of the militaries around the world which allow gays to serve openly are all volunteer forces, including Australia, Bahamas, Belgium, Britain, Canada, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden and Uruguay.

No mention was made about the booing of an active-duty American soldier by the debate audience. It is also the only time I can recall when an active-duty American servicemember appeared in a GOP debate who was not thanked for his service to our country. Andrew Sullivan reacts:

But somehow the fact that these indignities were heaped on a man risking his life to serve this country, a man ballsy enough to make that video, a man in the uniform of the United States … well, it tells me a couple of things. It tells me that these Republicans don’t actually deep down care for the troops, if that means gay troops. Their constant posturing military patriotism has its limits.

The shocking silence on the stage – the fact that no one challenged this outrage – also tells me that this kind of slur is not regarded as a big deal. When it came to it, even Santorum couldn’t sanction firing all those servicemembers who are now proudly out. But that’s because he was forced to focus not on his own Thomist abstractions, but on an actual person. Throughout Republican debates, gays are discussed as if we are never in the audience, never actually part of the society, never fully part of families, never worthy of even a scintilla of respect. When you boo a servicemember solely because he’s gay, you are saying he is beneath contempt, that nothing he does or has done can counterweigh the vileness of his sexual orientation.

Can you even begin to imagine the hissy fit we would be hearing right now if any American active-duty soldier currently stationed in Iraq had been booed at a Democratic debate?