Box Turtle Bulletin

The stupidest, craziest, most evil pro-life message ever

I’m not a fan of abortion. If you are a pregnant woman who wants my opinion (though why would you?), I’d advise against it.

But as a gay man I have so little at stake in the debate that my opinion is of little consequence. So, as I prefer to err on the side of freedom and in recognition that those who seek stricter abortion laws generally want to enact social sanctions on my existence, I fall into the ‘conditionally pro-choice’ category.

There are probably some restrictions on abortion that folks like me are willing to accept. But Mississippi’s proposed amendment is extreme and if they are trying to appeal to people like me, this has to be the least effective pro-life message possible. (AFA)

Ashley Sigrest claims that thirteen years ago she aborted a pregnancy that resulted from rape. Now, “after accepting Jesus as her Savior through a crisis pregnancy center”, she’s made an amazing discovery.

“My rape was nothing compared to what I did to my child,” she stated to the gallery. “What my rapist did to me does not compare to what I chose to do to my baby … out of shame, out of guilt, out of fear because of what a man did to me. Rape is no excuse for abortion.”

Rape is no excuse for abortion? Because pregnant rape victims are looking for an excuse?

The idea of forcing a rape victim to bear the child of her rapist is abhorrent. And the thought that a man could rape a woman and then have the legal right to bring claims against that woman and the resulting child sends chills down my spine. And to spin this as consistent with the demands of God is sickening.

If you nutcases on the right think that rape is just an “excuse”, then you are callous, cold, evil people and I want nothing to do with any deity you serve.

EQCA takes a smart step

I continue to believe that Equality California is a defunct organization that just hasn’t realized it yet. However, they have taken one step that I think is wise: (from a Send Us Money email)

So we are excited to share with you that, thanks to a generous leadership grant from the Evelyn and Walter Haas, Jr. Fund, we have engaged veteran LGBT civil rights leader and nonprofit advisor, Joan Garry to serve as EQCA’s chief strategy and transition consultant over the next few months to conduct a focused assessment of the organization, create an interim management plan and develop a short-term strategic plan that will serve as a roadmap for a new executive director search. Joan will be joined in this effort by Dr. Julie Anderson.

I respect Joan Garry. Back when GLAAD was changing Hollywood (instead of being the Word Police), Joan’s instinct and hard work was instrumental in ensuring that gay people on film were not just demeaning stereotypes.

Perhaps she and Anderson can find a purpose and focus for Equality California. But I’m still not betting on it.

The Daily Agenda for Wednesday, November 2

TODAY’S AGENDA:

AIDS Walks This Weekend: San Luis Obispo, CA.

Pride Celebrations This Weekend: Buenos Aries, Argentina and Palm Springs, CA.

Also This Weekend: REELING LGBT Film Festival, Chicago, IL; Invincible Truth, Hong Kong, China.

TODAY IN HISTORY:
Oregon’s Measure 9 Defeated: 1992. By a vote of 56-44%, voters in Oregon rejected Measure 9, which would have amended the state constitution to prohibit the expenditure of “monies or properties to promote, encourage or facilitate homosexuality, pedophilia, sadism or masochism.” This would have banned gay groups from using city parks or books about homosexuality in the public library. The measure was an effort of the Oregon Citizens Alliance, a conservative religious right group that was closely aligned with the Christian Coalition and was headed by Lon Mabon, with Scott Lively serving as his right hand man. The campaign for Measure 9 was particularly nasty, with the OCA releasing a graphic video depicting gays as universally debauched and corrupt, while extolling the virtues of two “ex-gays.” The campaign also saw Lively found guilty of using unreasonable force to remove a free-lance photographer from an OCA meeting which debuted the video. Typical of anything associated with Lively, the OCA refused to acknowledge the magnitude of Measure 9’s defeat, and vowed to return to the ballot box two years later. But Measure 19 in went down in flames in 1994 by a similar margin. A poll in December 1992 found that 57% of all Oregonians had an unfavorable view of the OCA, against only a 14% with a favorable view. Lively called the poll “flawed.”

Colorado’s Amendment 2 Passed: 1992. You win one, you lose one. That’s what happened in 1992. The same year in which Oregonians rejected Measure 9, voters in Colorado passed Amendment 2 to that state’s constitution which prohibited state and local governments or court from taking any action recognizing gays or lesbians as a protected class in anti-discrimination measures. The measure passed 60% to 40%. The Amendment immediately landed in court, with the State Supreme Court ruling that the measure couldn’t pass “strict scrutiny” under the Federal Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. When supporters appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, they ruled in 1995 in the landmark Romer v Evans that the measure didn’t even pass muster under a rational basis test. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, found that Amendment 2 went far beyond prohibiting “special rights” to gay people as supporters argued. It went further by actually disenfranchising gay people — and only gay people — from an important part of the political process. While everyone else could ask for redress from local governments and courts, gay people were singled out for being barred from that right of citizenship. “(Amendment 2) is at once too narrow and too broad,” he wrote. “It identifies persons by a single trait and then denies them protection across the board. The resulting disqualification of a class of persons from the right to seek specific protection from the law is unprecedented in our jurisprudence.”

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?

The purpose of marriage

Gage Raley, a good ol’ Texas Mennonite studying law in Japan has come up with his most excellent reason for denying civil marriage rights to gay folk. And it’s all based on the marital presumption of paternity.

Or so Mr. Raley informs us in a late-filed amicus brief to Perry v. Schwarzenegger. And Judge Walker’s ruling should be overturned.

Now first I’d like to congratulate Mr. Raley on a most informative essay. The history of the legal and social efforts to ensure that men support their offspring – going back as far as the first human who stood erect on her hind legs – is actually a fascinating read.

But sadly, it seems that young Gage is pursuing the wrong career. He should have chosen history so as to take advantage of his story telling skills. Because law requires logic, a tying of facts to consequences that reflect a process of thinking that can withstand and opponent’s review.

And, sadly…. well, let me just give you his premise.

Mr. Raley tells us that in the American judicial system, there is a maternal presumption of paternity whose purpose is to “provide every child with a legal father.” And, though he probably doesn’t realize it, for some dozens of pages he uses the word “father” in terms of the role he plays, providing for the survival of the child.

Interestingly, a great deal of attention is spent on the argument that a genetic father must be known in order to naturally trigger this provision (a biological imperative for the continuation of his genes). And marriage’s purpose was to tie the care of the child to the continuation of his lineage. The result being that through marriage a man knew who his children were (or, at least, thought he did).

But by page 47, Raley’s evolution of law has come to the point where legal requirements are as much in play as emotional ones. And it is there that he finally tells us what the marital presumption of paternity actually is: “presuming a woman’s husband to be the father of her children”.

Irrespective of biological reality, the legal father of a child, the one responsible for its care and needs, is presumed to be the mother’s husband at the time of the child’s birth. And that is true.

Even if the child is of another race, if the husband is sterile, and if everyone in town knows that they mother is carrying on an affair, that child’s father is presumed to be her husband. Follow me? Even if it is impossible for the man to actually be the genetic father of the child, in the eyes of the law, as long as no one disputes it, he is the father.

And while there are ways to void this presumption, if the father is aware but doesn’t act in a timely manner, then he will remain that child’s father. And if they divorce, he can be legally responsible for child care. Courts have upheld such rulings.

(And this is a presumption that is not entirely unfair to men. More than a few children have been born to fathers who cannot impregnate with the full intention and even participation of men who want to be a dad.)

And it is at his grand “and thus” moment that Mr. Raley beams and presents his smoking gun: in a same-sex marriage, there’s no man to be the presumptive father of the woman’s child. A state has an interest in ensuring that its children are cared for and, it is impossible for both parties in a same-sex marriage to be the genetic parents, then the legal presumption of paternity of a child born in such a union can’t apply and no one can be held liable for that child’s care.

Oh, but what Mr. Raley didn’t notice (the elephant which was not only in the room but tap dancing while playing a trumpet) is that it was for just such a purpose that the presumption of paternity (or, from the state’s perspective, the presumption of a legally obligated provider) came to be. This presumption assigns a provider even when the neighbors scoff at the notion. It’s a legal assumption, not a literal one.

And Mr. Raley apparently is unaware that legal presumption is one of the tools that gay couples use to establish parental rights in states that allow marriage equality. It gives the child a legal parent even when biology fails to do so.

So, Mr. Raley’s argument (like most of the arguments presented to defend Proposition 8) ultimately supports same-sex marriage. But it was a nice history lesson, nonetheless.

UPDATE: 11/3/11

It seems Mr. Raley made an eensie teensie mistake. In filing the brief, he states:

Both parties have granted their consent to the filing of this amicus brief.

Well, no. Not exactly. The Plaintiffs have a quite different perspective:

Plaintiffs-Appellees have not consented to the filing of Mr. Raley’s untimely brief. Rather, Plaintiffs-Appellees informed Mr. Raley that the parties previously had consented to those amicus briefs that complied with this Court’s rules. Because Mr. Raley’s brief is filed long after the deadline established by the Court for the submission of amicus briefs, it does not comply with the Court’s rules and Plaintiffs-Appellees do not consent to its filing.

Ooooosie.

The last of the first: Axel Axgil

Eigel and Axel Axgil. photo - Rex Wockner

There are few opportunities to be first at anything. And even fewer to be first at a truly revolutionary social declaration that would ultimately come to receive sanction in nearly all of Western Europe, much of the Americas, and which is growing to become the accepted minimum of civilized nations.

But Axel Axgil and Eigel Axgil were first.

In 1989, they were the first couple in the world to receive official state-sanctioned recognition under Denmark’s new Registered Partnership Law. This honor was in recognition of the decades long campaign for rights that the two had made their life’s work. Axel is credited for being the founder of the Danish gay rights movement in 1948.

Eigel passed away in 1995 and Axel left us on Saturday. In tribute, let’s consider the words of advice he gave in 1989:

“Be open. Come out. Keep fighting. This is the only way to move anything. If everyone comes out of the closet then this will happen everywhere.”

Chik-Fil-A’s Anti-Gay Contributions

Chick-Fil-A’s charitable arm, the WinShape Foundation, has received $7.8 million in funding from Chick-FilA, Inc. WinShape, which was founded by Chick-Fil-A’s founder and chairman S. Truett Cathy, turned around and gave more than $1.7 million to several anti-gay groups in 2009, including the Marriage and Family Legacy Fund ($994,199), Fellowship Of Christian Athletes ($480,000), National Christian Foundation ($240,000), Focus On The Family ($12,500) Eagle Forum ($5,000), Exodus International ($1,000), and Family “Research” Council ($1,000). Equality Matters has the details. Remember that the next time you’re hankering to “Eat Mor Chikin.”

Ugandan Presidential Advisor: Threats to Cut Aid Could Backfire

John Nagenda

Ugandan presidential adviser John Nagenda told the BBC that British threats to cut foreign aid to countries that do not respect gay rights could backfire on efforts to derail Uganda’s proposed Anti-Homosexuality Bill. Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron raised the issue again at the biennial Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in Perth, Australia. Nagenda reacted strongly to that warning:

Mr Nagenda accused Mr Cameron of showing an “ex-colonial mentality” and of treating Ugandans “like children”.

“Uganda is, if you remember, a sovereign state and we are tired of being given these lectures by people,” he told the BBC’s Newshour programme.

Nagenda, it should be remembered, is not a proponent of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill. He was the first major figure tied to the Ugandan government to come out against the bill when he published an op-ed in the pro-government New Vision in late 2009. He still says that he believed the bill won’t become law, but argues that given the country’s history under British colonial rule, Ugandans are particularly sensitive to perceived meddling by their former colonial masters:

“I believe it (the bill) will die a natural death. But this kind of ex-colonial mentality of saying: ‘You do this or I withdraw my aid’ will definitely make people extremely uncomfortable with being treated like children,” Mr Nagenda said.

African LGBT advocates have voiced similar concerns over Britain’s threat to cut aid. In a statement signed by several leading LGBT advocacy groups and individuals, they argue that threats to cut aid could have unintended consequences, partly by undermining the formation and growth of indigenous human rights groups:

The imposition of donor sanctions may be one way of seeking to improve the human rights situation in a country but does not, in and of itself, result in the improved protection of the rights of LGBTI people. Donor sanctions are by their nature coercive and reinforce the disproportionate power dynamics between donor countries and recipients. They are often based on assumptions about African sexualities and the needs of African LGBTI people. They disregard the agency of African civil society movements and political leadership. They also tend, as has been evidenced in Malawi, to exacerbate the environment of intolerance in which political leadership scapegoat LGBTI people for donor sanctions in an attempt to retain and reinforce national state sovereignty.

Further, the sanctions sustain the divide between the LGBTI and the broader civil society movement. In a context of general human rights violations, where women are almost as vulnerable as LGBTI people, or where health and food security are not guaranteed for anyone, singling out LGBTI issues emphasizes the idea that LGBTI rights are special rights and hierarchically more important than other rights. It also supports the commonly held notion that homosexuality is ‘unAfrican’ and a western-sponsored ‘idea’ and that countries like the UK will only act when ‘their interests’ have been threatened.

Lonely Planet Names Uganda Best Travel Destination for 2012

The writeup hardly speaks well of Uganda’s tourist attractions, but that doesn’t keep it from landing at the top of Lonely Planet’s top ten destinations for 2012:

1. Uganda

It’s taken nasty dictatorships and a brutal civil war to keep Uganda off the tourist radar, but stability is returning and it won’t be long before visitors come flocking back. After all, this is the source of the river Nile – that mythical place explorers sought since Roman times. It’s also where savannah meets the vast lakes of East Africa, and where snow-capped mountains bear down on sprawling jungles. Not so long ago, the tyrannical dictator and ‘Last King of Scotland’ Idi Amin helped hunt Uganda’s big game to the brink of extinction, but today the wildlife is returning with a vengeance. This year Uganda also celebrates the 50th anniversary of its independence; Kampala, one of Africa’s safest capital cities, is bound to see off the event with a bang. Still, Uganda still isn’t without its problems. Human rights abuses aren’t uncommon, and the country breathes a collective sigh whenever President Museveni thinks of another ruse to stay in power for a few more years. But now, as ever, explorers in search of the source of the Nile won’t leave disappointed.

Lonely Planet does append, almost as an afterthought, a snippet of a travel advisory from the UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office noting that Uganda has “very little social tolerance of homosexuality,” as evidence by “reactionary legislation that would further criminalise homosexuality and introduce the death penalty for some activity.”

Oh yeah, that. But hey, what do I know? I’m fifty, and my idea of roughing it is staying at a Best Western. Maybe reactionary legislation to kill off an entire class of people is the kind of “topicality, excitement, value and that special X-factor” that Lonely Planet writers look for. I remember that Cambodia in 1975 was also pretty exciting and topical — and there were no pesky lines of tour buses clogging the roads to Angkor Wat. You know how hipsters really hate that.

Lonely Planet readers, however, aren’t buying that line of thinking if the comments to the article are any indication. Maybe it’s time to say goodbye to the socially conscientious Lonely Planet we remember from our past. In 2007, the BBC bought a 75% stake in Lonely Planet and purchased the final 25% earlier this year, making Lonely Planet just one more property of BBC Wordlwide. And you may remember the Beeb getting into a terrible row in 2009 after posting an online question asking, “Should Homosexuals Face Execution?” An editor responded that he had thought long and hard about posing the question. Well, at least he thought about it. Unfortunately, genocidal blind spots seem to be their stock and trade.

The Daily Agenda for Tuesday, November 1

I have nothing for today. Maybe you know of something I should have known about. If you do and you’ve been holding out on me, please let us know in the comments.

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?

Halloween and sensitivities

As elsewhere, tonight the majority of residents of greater Los Angeles will watch TV and pass out candy to trick-or-treaters or go to parties thrown by work, church, families, or friends. The teens will flock to amusement parks, all of which try to outdo each other in the thrills and scares department.

But for many Angelinos, tonight has been the focus of a lot of time, planning, shopping and work.

Halloween is a very big ordeal here. While in much of the country Halloween is still seen as being primarily for children, here the gay community has adopted it as our very own unofficial holiday. Throw into the mix that Hollywood is home to an industry based on costume and that in this city image reigns supreme and Halloween takes on more importance than it might elsewhere.

So the city’s revelers won’t be at home waiting for the weekend. Rather, they will head out to one of two street fairs: Hollywood or West Hollywood. While the Hollywood festival bills itself as “kid friendly”, that is not the only difference. On Halloween, Hollywood Boulevard grooves to an urban street vibe and as the night progresses develops a slightly harder edge, while WeHo is a dancemix driven celebration of the absurd, wacky and tasteless (and more than a few simply fabulous illusions).

So parents have a choice, bring the kiddies to enjoy a night that is safer in the see-no-penis sense, or one that is safer in the see-no-fistfight sense. And it surprises me sometimes the number of parents who decide that they feel safer with their kids being exposed to gay men and women in downright vulgar costumes than to violence. Hundreds of thousands of people of all ages, races, and orientations converge on the street to make West Hollywood the heart of Halloween.

Sometimes the costumes go far beyond suggestive. For years, a staple has been the traffic cop at the corner directing the flow of pedestrians who is missing the butt out of her pants. And giant boobs and oversized penises – rubber, crafting foam, balloons, and sometimes real – are a certainty.

So at times I find myself wondering if we shouldn’t maybe tone it down some. But I don’t – yet – think it is necessary or even wise to do so.

Unlike Gay Pride, the Halloween Festival is not a declaration to the world about the gay community. It demands no attention and invites no judgment, it isn’t about us as a collective. It has no political element or statement about who we are. If anything, tonight is about who we are not.

And, after all, if exposed body parts offends your sensibilities, don’t come to West Hollywood on Halloween Night.

But nudity – real or comic – is not the only area where offense can be found. There will also be at least one Jesus, a flock of nuns, and politicians of various stripes (I expect more than a few Marcus and Michele Bachmanns). And there will be people decked out in costumes of other people’s cultures, using contrived “accents”, and playing on stereotypes.

Yet, for the most part, the offense gets a pass. And as cruelty is seldom the intention, it gets written off to ignorance or, perhaps, comedy.

But there is one rule that is observed, a rule I considered challenging this year – unless you are black, don’t come black. You can be Pharaohs with brown makeup, Aztecs in copper, or Greek Gods decked in bronzer (I’ve been all three), but do not show up in a costume of an African American of any age, gender, or period.

This rule developed as a result of Minstrel Shows, at one point the most popular entertainment form in the country. Minstrels were white men (though there were later black mintrels) who painted their faces black and delivered jokes, made bad puns, and sang songs written by or reflective of the style of African Americans.

Not altogether without positive characteristics, this art form introduced white America to black music (or, at least, a white impression of black music) and its influences can be seen today in a number of genres and the shows, which included both male and female characters played by men or male teens, kept alive a long “drag” tradition during the mid nineteenth century. And, more importantly, many shows in the 1830’s had themes which encouraged sympathy for black slaves and contributed to the emancipation movement.

However, many others were vicious or petty and deliberately portrayed African Americans as lazy and childlike and happiest when enslaved. And all minstrel shows, regardless of intent, relied on the assumption of white superiority and created or reinforced stereotypes of African Americans through the use of stock characters such as Lucy Long and Jim Crow. Considering their contribution to negative and demeaning attitudes, most African Americans consider minstrel shows and blackface to be emblematic of the racial inequalities experienced in this country.

Yet, even knowing the history and reason for the universal ban on going black for Halloween, I considered violating that rule.

A group of friends who always do Halloween together decided that this year’s them is “divas”. And they thought I’d make a good Whitney (from the “crack is wack” era). And I toyed with the idea.

Race, as defined in the United States, is fascinating and in many ways both amusing and frustrating. While racism is still active and present and far too easily identified when you look for it, social interaction and respect have made differences less charged and I wonder if it might be time to stop letting race be as restrictive as it has been.

I don’t think we are, as a people, anywhere near the place that blackface can be acceptable. The damage is still present.

But there is a difference between going on Halloween as “a black guy” and going as a specific person, such as Whitney Houston. The presentation is not about “being black” or “doing black things” but rather as a specific person with specific characteristics.

And it’s not exactly a drastic change. As my friend said, it’s just a couple spray tans from my own skin color.

But I thought about it. And asked myself how I’d feel about some straight guy being Carson Kressley for Halloween. It’s not like he could be that character without Carson’s flamboyance or over-the-top personality. And it could be too much. It could be offensive.

And just as a Carson Kressley impersonation could have all the stereotypical campiness of Carson with none of the charm that kept him on Dancing with the Stars for weeks (he too can’t dance), my Whitney could look an awful lot like “guy who darkened his skin and put on a dress”. In other words, it could rely too much on color to identify Whitney and too little on her own personal identifiable characteristics.

And I’m not the right person to make the call on when such a costume could be free of offense. I haven’t lived the black experience; store clerks don’t assume I’m there to steal, no one questions what I wear or drive, and I’ve not been the last one waited on in a restaurant.

I’ve never experienced being treated differently due to race. I’ve never even been – as my mother was just a generation before me – hesitant to admit my ethnic heritage. I don’t get to decide when is long enough.

So whether or not Black America is ready to tolerate a white guy playing black (as Tropic Thunder hints), I’m not the guy to pull it off. I would most certainly offend, and why do that.

So tonight I’m Cher. Half-Breed. Long hair, Indian headdress. My own skin.

I plan on touching my tongue to my upper lip, tossing my hair, and giving my best Cher-ala-Jack “whoooah.” And if anyone doesn’t like it, too bad.

This Is Not What An Apology Looks Like

Richard Cohen’s International Healing Foundation has issued something he calls an “apology,” which looks like it is little more than a gossamer-thin marketing gloss.

The International Healing Foundation has educated and counseled thousands of men, women and adolescents who experience unwanted same-sex attraction (SSA). However, on its 21^st anniversary, IHF apologized to the LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and questioning) community for years of unknowingly fueling anti-gay sentiment by simply stating, “Change is Possible.”

“We at IHF wish to offer a sincere, heartfelt apology to everyone in the LGBTQ community,” said IHF founder and director, Richard Cohen. “I apologize and ask forgiveness to those who were hurt by our message.” Cohen, a leading expert in the field of sexual orientation and married father of three, knows first-hand how it feels to be ostracized having lived a gay life.

Beginning today, IHF’s doors are wide open to everyone in the LGBTQ and straight communities. The new mission, “Coming Out Loved,” is the catalyst of true tolerance, real diversity, and equality for all. IHF staff will assist anyone who is conflicted about their sexuality and other challenging issues that arise for many in the gay community.

The assistance is available to anyone willing to take Cohen’s five steps. I have no idea how much the personal counseling sessions over the phone costs in step 2, but step 3 sets you back $375. Step 4, which looks like it will involve lots of hugging, will cost another $275 plus hotel expenses. Beware of the hugging though. That’s gotten him in trouble before. He was permanently expelled for life in 2003 from the American Counseling Association for multiple ethics violations.

As for Cohen’s supposed change in direction, it doesn’t take but a few clicks around his web site — still at “changeispossible.org” — to see that he is still peddling his unique brand of ex-gay messages, including his 2007 book “Gay Children, Straight Parents” which includes his own twelve-step program, complete with hugging, to turn gay children straight.

Apology not accepted.

Kidnapping Charges Dropped As Suspect Cooperates In Miller-Jenkins Case

The Advocate is reporting that kidnapping charges have been dropped against Mennonite minister Timothy “Timo” Miller, who was arrested last spring and charged with aiding and abetting in the kidnapping of Isabella Miller-Jenkins. Miller, who is not related to Lisa Miller or to Isabella, is reportedly cooperating with the ongoing investigation into the kidnapping:

In the Friday order, U.S. Attorney Tristram J. Coffin dropped the grand jury indictment against Timo Miller in the kidnapping.”In light of Timothy Miller’s role in the international parental [kidnapping], and his agreement to cooperate with the investigation of the United States government, including an agreement to return to the United States and to provide truthful testimony as requested in any proceedings in this matter, further prosecution is not in the interests of the United States at this time,” the order, signed by Coffin and U.S. district judge Christina M. Reiss, read.

Miller’s passport has since been returned. U.S. Attorney Coffin and Miller’s lead attorney, Jeff Conrad, could not be immediately reached for comment. Reached by phone, Jenkins’ attorney, Sarah Star, declined comment.

Miller was arrested in Alexandria, VA, for his role in providing plane tickets and shelter for Lisa Miller, who kidnapped Isabella Miller-Jenkins, now nine years old, as part of a custody fight with her former civil union partner Janet Jenkins. Miller is believed to have fled to Nicaragua shortly before a Vermont court awarded primary custody to Jenkins over Miller’s refusal to cooperate with Jenkins’s visitation rights. An FBI investigation revealed that Miller fled with considerable support from an employee and benefactor of Liberty University and Liberty Counsel, who provided for Miller’s legal defense, and with the encouragement from at least one ex-gay leader in the Lynchburg, Virginia area.

American Pastor, Former Counselor to Ted Haggard, Killed In Uganda Car Accident

Rev. Leo Godzich, associate pastor at Phoenix First Assembly of God and a member of Ted Haggard’s counseling team after his disgrace, has died in an automobile accident while in Uganda. Godzich ran NAME (National Association of Marriage Enhancement), and he was reportedly in Uganda on a speaking tour about marriage. In addition to being a part of Haggard’s “restoration team” who reportedly met with Haggard once a week for more than a year, Godzich had campaigned against a 1992 proposal to amend Phoenix’s anti-discrimination ordinance to include sexual orientation.

The Daily Agenda for Monday, October 31

TODAY IN HISTORY:
That Most Detestable, Horrid, and Abominable Crime Called Buggery: 1848. The following court record was entered:

The indictment against the prisoners was as follows: —

“Central Criminal Court, to wit the jurors for our Lady the Queen upon their oath present that Edwin Gatehouse, late of the parish of Lambeth, in the county of Surrey, and within the jurisdiction of the court, labourer, and William Dowley, late of the same place, labourer, being persons of depraved and unnatural dispositions,in the 12th year of the reign of our Sovereign Lady Victoria, by the grace of God of the united kingdom of England and Ireland, Queen, defender of the faith, with force of arms, at the parish aforesaid, in the county aforesaid, and within the jurisdiction of the said court, in a certain room there unlawfully and wickedly did meet, and were then together for the purpose of committing with each other that most detestable horrid, and abominable crime called buggery; and did then and there unlawfully and wickedly lay their hands upon each other with intent then and there feloniously, wickedly, diabolically, and against the order of nature to commit and perpetrate with each other the detestable, horrid, and abominable crime aforesaid. To the great displeasure of Almighty God, to the evil example of all others in the like case offending, and against the pace of our Lady the Queen, her crown and dignity. And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further present that the said Edwin Gatehouse and William Dowley, being such evil disposed persons as aforesaid, afterwards (to wit) on the day and year aforesaid, with force and arms at the parish aforesaid, in the county aforesaid, and within the jurisdiction of the said court, unlawfully and wickedly did meet, and then and there were together in a certain room for the purpose and with the intent of committing and perpetrating with each other these divers nasty, wicked, filthy, beastly, and unnatural acts and practices; and that the said Edwin Gatehouse and William Dowly, in pursuance of such purpose and intent, unlawfully, wickedly, and indecently did then and there expose their naked private parts to each other, and did also then and there place their hands upon and take hold of and feel the naked private parts of each other, with intent then and there to excite and stir up in the minds of each other divers filthy, beastly, and unnatural lusts and desires, to the great scandal and subversion of religion, morality, decency, and good order, and against hte peace of our Lady the Queen, her crown and dignity.”

At the close of the case for the prosecution, Ballantine, for the prisoner, Gatehouse, objected that neither of these counts disclosed any offense. The second count was clearly bad within the principle of the cases recently decided. It did not allege that the place where the exposure took place was public; and even if it was public, the exposure was only to one person, which was not sufficient. Indecency, to be criminal, must be in a public place, and in the sight of divers of her majesty’s subjects. The first count also was bad. It did not aver an attempt to commit buggery, but a mere intention accompanied by an act indicative of that intention. Such intention was not criminal. To constitute an offence, some act in pursuance of such intention, and as a commencement to the actual crime of buggery, must be shown.

The Common Sergeant. — The judges have not yet expressly decided that the second count is bad, but in accordance with the cases which have been decided, I think they would hold it to be bad. I shall therefore tell the jury that, as to that count, they must against acquit the prisoner. An intent to commit sodomy, must, I think, be charged and proved. But this is, in my opinion, done in the first count; and at present, I see no reason for holding that that count is bad. But before judgment is given, I will consult some of the judges; and if necessary, reserve the point for consideration of all judges.

The Jury found the prisoners Guilty on the first count.

Judgement was respited.

From Chris White’s Nineteenth-Century Writings on Homosexuality: A Sourcebook. In a footnote, the White writes, “I have been unable to determine the fates of Gatehouse and Dowley.”

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?

The Daily Agenda for Sunday, October 30

TODAY’S AGENDA:

Events Today: Diversity Weekend, Eureka Springs, AR; Out In Africa Film Festival, Cape Town and Johannesburg, South Africa; and Glasgay!, Glasgow, UK.

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?