Box Turtle Bulletin

Anti-Gay Contradictions: Who Are the Extremists Here, Anyway?

Our anti-gay opponents scatter arguments like lawn seed, tossing them out by the handful and seeing which take root, with little concern for what’s actually true. That’s why the movement is such an intellectual tangle. This is part of a series pointing out the contradictions you trip over when you step back and pay attention to their whole big field of weeds.

Contradiction 5: Gays are radical extremists who don’t support radical extremism.

The National Organization for against something-something Marriage is funny in a buffoonish, Keystone Kops kind of way. They like to call us radicals and extremists, but then they trip themselves up by proving the opposite. Here’s their president, Brian Brown:

Maybe [the failure of gay Republicans at the convention] has something to do with another truth the media doesn’t report: even gay people don’t think gay marriage is their most urgent problem.

That’s right: a new Harris interactive poll touted by GOProud shows just 6 percent of gay voters named same-sex marriage as their top issue!

I’m not surprised. Personally, this radical extremist places a higher priority on, for example, not going to war with Iran. Or making sure children don’t starve. I simply think we work for those goals while still seeking justice and legal equality for everyone.

No, the radical extremists aren’t on our side so much. It’s the NOM royalty like Maggie Gallagher and Kirk Cameron and Frank Turek who think homosexuality and same-sex marriage are a threat to western civilization.

So let’s sum up NOM’s world view:

• Marriage equality advocates are extreme fanatics who recognize that there are more important things in the world than same-sex marriage.

• And marriage equality opponents are civil, rational folk who think giving marriage to a tiny subset of law-abiding adults will destroy civilization.

Poor Brian Brown. He’s got so many talking points to keep track of he can’t even tell when they contradict each other. But that’s okay. We’ll keep watch for him.

Priest/Psychologist Apologizes for Blaming Sex Abuse On Victims While Catholic Paper Censors His Offending Remarks

On Monday, The National Catholic Register published an interview with popular Catholic speaker and television personality Fr. Benedict Groeschel in which the Capuchin friar blamed much of the Church’s sexual abuse scandals on the young boys themselves. “A lot of the cases, the youngster — 14, 16, 18 — is the seducer,” he told The Register’s interviewer. These were remarkable statements coming from Groeschel, who has a Ph.D in psychology from Columbia University, has taught psychology at several Catholic Universities, and who has counseled priests accused of sexual misconduct as well as provided psychological screening for applicants to Catholic seminaries. On Wednesday, The Register removed Groeschel’s interview from its web site, and sometime late yesterday, replaced it with the following statements from the order that Groeschel founded and from Groeschel himself:

Statement from the Community of the Franciscan Friars of the Renewal:

The Community of the Franciscan Friars of the Renewal sincerely apologizes for the comments made by Fr. Benedict Groeschel in an interview released August 27 by the National Catholic Register. In that interview, Fr. Benedict made comments that were inappropriate and untrue. A child is never responsible for abuse. Any abuser of a child is always responsible, especially a priest. Sexual abuse of a minor is a terrible crime and should always be treated as such. We are sorry for any pain his comments may have caused. Fr. Benedict has dedicated his life to helping others and these comments were completely out of character. He never intended to excuse abuse or implicate the victims. We hope that these unfortunate statements will not overshadow the great good Fr. Benedict has done in housing countless homeless people, feeding innumerable poor families, and bringing healing, peace and encouragement to so many.

Fr Benedict helped found our community 25 years ago with the hope of bringing the healing peace of Jesus Christ to our wounded world. Our desire has always been to lift-up humanity and never to hurt. About seven years ago Fr. Benedict was struck by a car and was in a coma for over a month. In recent months his health, memory and cognitive ability have been failing. He has been in and out of the hospital. Due to his declining health and inability to care for himself, Fr. Benedict had moved to a location where he could rest and be relieved of his responsibilities. Although these factors do not excuse his comments, they help us understand how such a compassionate man could have said something so wrong, so insensitive, and so out of character. Our prayers are with all those who have been hurt by his comments, especially victims of sexual abuse.

Statement from Fr Benedict:

I apologize for my comments. I did not intend to blame the victim. A priest (or anyone else) who abuses a minor is always wrong and is always responsible. My mind and my way of expressing myself are not as clear as they used to be. I have spent my life trying to help others the best that I could. I deeply regret any harm I have caused to anyone.

The National Catholic Register pulled down its interview with Groeschel and replaced it with statement from Editor in Chief Jeanette R. De Melo, calling the decision to publish the interview “an editorial mistake, for which we sincerely apologize.” It is still unclear exactly what De Mel0 is apologizing for however. Is she apologizing to The Register’s readers? I cannot imagine how that should warrant an apology. It’s the journalistic responsibility of every news organization to not censor the people they interview, which The Register certainly didn’t do (at least not until they chose to pull down the entire interview). As far as The Register is concerned, the interview happened, but readers now don’t get to read it to see what the fuss is about. It seems instead that De Melo is apologizing to Groeschel for publishing his remarks uncensored — or perhaps to EWTN, the Catholic television channel which airs Groeschel’s programs and owns The National Catholic Register.

At any rate, when I wrote yesterday’s post, I could only find an edited, condensed version of Groeschel’s remarks on underage sexual abuse. Late last night, I found his remarks in their full context at the ultra-conservative Renew America web site. Because The National Catholic Register is behaving less like a newspaper and more like a propaganda organ by not allowing its readers to read the original interview alongside Groeschel’s apology and the statement from his order, I am repeating Groeschel’s full remarks below:

[Interviewer]: Part of your work here at Trinity has been working with priests involved in abuse, no?

[Father Groeschel]: A little bit, yes; but you know, in those cases, they have to leave. And some of them profoundly — profoundly — penitential, horrified. People have this picture in their minds of a person planning to — a psychopath. But that’s not the case. Suppose you have a man having a nervous breakdown, and a youngster comes after him. A lot of the cases, the youngster — 14, 16, 18 — is the seducer.

[Interviewer]: Why would that be?

[Father Greoschel]: Well, it’s not so hard to see — a kid looking for a father and didn’t have his own — and they won’t be planning to get into heavy-duty sex, but almost romantic, embracing, kissing, perhaps sleeping but not having intercourse or anything like that.

It’s an understandable thing, and you know where you find it, among other clergy or important people; you look at teachers, attorneys, judges, social workers. Generally, if they get involved, it’s heterosexually, and if it’s a priest, he leaves and gets married — that’s the usual thing — and gets a dispensation. A lot of priests leave quickly, get civilly married and then apply for the dispensation, which takes about three years.

But there are the relatively rare cases where a priest is involved in a homosexual way with a minor. I think the statistic I read recently in a secular psychology review was about 2%. Would that be true of other clergy? Would it be true of doctors, lawyers, coaches?

Here’s this poor guy — [Penn State football coach Jerry] Sandusky — it went on for years. Interesting: Why didn’t anyone say anything? Apparently, a number of kids knew about it and didn’t break the ice. Well, you know, until recent years, people did not register in their minds that it was a crime. It was a moral failure, scandalous; but they didn’t think of it in terms of legal things.

If you go back 10 or 15 years ago with different sexual difficulties — except for rape or violence — it was very rarely brought as a civil crime. Nobody thought of it that way. Sometimes statutory rape would be — but only if the girl pushed her case. Parents wouldn’t touch it. People backed off, for years, on sexual cases. I’m not sure why.

I think perhaps part of the reason would be an embarrassment, that it brings the case out into the open, and the girl’s name is there, or people will figure out what’s there, or the youngster involved — you know, it’s not put in the paper, but everybody knows; they’re talking about it.

At this point, (when) any priest, any clergyman, any social worker, any teacher, any responsible person in society would become involved in a single sexual act — not necessarily intercourse — they’re done. And I’m inclined to think, on their first offense, they should not go to jail because their intention was not committing a crime.

The Daily Agenda for Friday, August 31

TODAY’S AGENDA:
Pride Celebrations This Weekend: Atlanta, GA (Black Pride); Brighton, UK; Calgary, AB; Cardiff, UK; Duluth, MN; Grimsby, UK; Leicester, UK; Oakland, CA; and Québec City, QB.

Other Events This Weekend: Splash Days, Austin, TX; Burning Man, Black Rock Desert, NV; Show-Me State Rodeo, Cleveland, MO; Southern Decadence, New Orleans, LA.

Mayor Abe Aronovitz

TODAY IN HISTORY:
Miami’s Mayor Expresses Impatience Over “Deviates”: 1954. It had been five days since Miami Mayor Abe Aronovitz went on the radio to blast city manager E.A. Evans and police chief Walter Headley for failing to drive all of the homosexuals out of town (see Aug 26). Never mind that both Evans and Headley themselves were out of town on vacation when Aronovitz took to the airwaves. But now that Evans was back (Headley was still on vacation), Aronovitz called Evans on the carpet and threatened to introduce a resolution for his dismissal if the city manager failed to get rid of the city’s known gay bars. Evans, who was clearly feeling the heat, promised to get right on it and “put pervert hangouts out of business by tomorrow.” Tune in tomorrow to see how that went.

TODAY’S BIRTHDAY:
Del Marquis: 1977. Jake Sheers had already formed Scissor Sisters when they were looking for a guitarist, and the guy Jake was dating had a friend who was looking for the gig. Derek Gruen answered the call, adopted the stage name of Del Marquis, and the rest of history. Scissor Sisters went on to fame on the strength of their cover of Pink Floyd’s “Comfortably Numb,” followed by their own string of hits in 2004 which did well mainly on the British charts, but their popularity in the U.S. was blunted by Wal-Mart’s refusal to stock their eponymous debut album. They objected to the single “Tits On the Radio” a “snarling, swaggering attack on conservatism.” The band refused to record a “clean” version. Since 2008, Del Marquis began releasing his own solo material, which you can hear on his web site. Meanwhile, Scissor Sisters have just released their latest album, Magic Hour, and they are currently on a world tour with stops in Russia, Australia, Japan, Indonesia, and Europe.

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?

California’s Ex-Gay Therapy Restrictions Go To Gov. Brown

As expected, the California Senate quickly approved the stripped down version of the proposed restrictions on ex-gay therapy for minors by licensed therapists that passed the House on Monday. The bill is now headed to Gov. Jerry Brown’s desk. Brown has not indicated whether he will sign the bill or not.

The bill, known as S.B 1172, prohibits California’s licensed professionals from offering Sexual Orientation Change Efforts (SOCE) to minors under the age of eighteen. Unlike earlier versions of the bill, the state of California will not enforce the ban. That task will fall to the professional organization responsible for licensing the mental health professional. And also unlike earlier versions of the bill, no penalties or sanctions are specified; they are left up to the licensing organization to determine. Unlicensed organizations and individuals — religious-based ex-gay ministries, pastors, unlicensed counselors and life coaches, etc. — are not subject to the ban on providing SOCE for minors.

Bad news for Washington Catholic hierarchy

The electioneering laws in Washington are fairly strict. No anonymous donations, no secret deals, no hidden signatories, and no bundling.

“Bundling” is where a special interest group will get around donation limitations by collecting checks from individual people and present them together so the recipient knows that they really are all related to a single cause. But bundling also has another purpose, to let special interest groups know just who is a loyal participant and who needs to cough up or lose influence.

And the latest effort by Catholic hierarchy to fund opposition to Washington’s Referendum 74 (which validates the state’s equal marriage law) has been deemed to be bundling. The Church had planned on passing the plate next weekend to collect parishioner dollars to oppose equality. (News Tribune)

The diocese’s chief of staff, Monsignor Robert Siler, said Tuesday that the expected collection was set for Sept. 8-9.

But Lori Anderson, a spokeswoman for the state’s Public Disclosure Commission, said no organization can be an intermediary for a contribution. The church can hand out envelopes at Mass, but a member of Preserve Washington has to be on hand to collect them, or parishioners must send them in individually.

Now I know a thing or two about contributions. And one of the things I know is that when Father Dogma passes the plate and everyone is watching, there’s a lot of social pressure to give, and give generously. But when you take home an envelope, find your checkbook, hunt up that pack of stamps you bought in 2009, address and mail the whole thing off to the campaign office – all out of the sight of Father Dogma and that annoying Thelma who thinks she so holy and always watches to see what you give – the impetus to contribute is significantly lower.

Now it is likely that the campaign will have volunteers at most of the Catholic churches next weekend. But even that isn’t quite the same as presenting your envelope to Father Dogma at the end of services.

And the campaign is counting on this cash. Donations have been sparse.

Yet again, French Quarter spared

If God keeps sending hurricanes to punish Teh Gheys for Southern Decadence, he has an odd way of administering them. (USA Today)

New Orleans’ historic French Quarter appeared to have dodged the worst of Isaac. Downed tree limbs, minor flooding at intersections and a brief electrical outage overnight were the main problems confronting the residents who stayed.

“Honestly, man, it’s just been rain,” said Huggington “Huggy” Behr, manager of Flanagan’s Pub, which remained open through the night. “To us, we’ve seen the worst, so it’s business as usual.”

New Orleans businesses fretted that the lingering storm would hamper this weekend’s three-day Southern Decadence gay celebration, which organizers say draws up to 100,000 visitors. Round-the-clock activities are scheduled, mostly around the dozen French Quarter bars and adjoining neighborhood.

Catholic Priest/Psychologist: It’s The Kids’ Fault (UPDATED)

[UPDATE: When this post was originally written, I didn’t have access to the full portion of the interview. The web site Renew America however has the unedited version. I have replaced the original truncated the fuller version. Because the National Catholic Register removed the interview from their web site, I think it is important to preserve it here, particularly since in the broader context, I find his remarks even more shocking.]

Fr. Benedict Groeschel, the 79-year-old founder of the Franciscan Friars of the Renewal, is not just a curmudgeonly New Jersey-born and -accented Capuchin monk. He is also a long-time television personality on the Catholic television network EWTN and popular speaker among American Catholicism’s conservative set.

But he’s not just a Franciscan priest, he’s also Dr. Benedict Groeschel, having earned a Ph.D in Psychology from Columbia University back in 1971, when homosexuality was still considered a mental illness by the APA. At the invitation of New York’s Terrence Cardinal Cooke, Groeschel helped to found Courage, the Catholic ex-gay ministry, with Fr. John Harvey in 1980. In 1988, Groeschel wrote The Courage to Be Chaste, a guidebook for living with “same-sex attraction,” and in 1996, he wrote the introduction to Harvey’s Truth about Homosexuality: The Cry of the Faithful and 2007’s Homosexuality and the Catholic Church.  As one of the Church’s acknowledged “experts” on sexuality, Groeschel was called upon by east coast dioceses, including the Boston Archdiocese, to perform psychological screenings to candidates for the priesthood. He has also been called upon to counsel Catholic priests who were accused of sexual improprieties — including those who had sex with minors — with disasterous results. Nevertheless, he was honored in 2011 by the Catholic Psychotherapy Association’s Lifetime Achievement Award.

I think it’s important to understand all of that before reading what Groeschel told the National Catholic Register this week:

[Interviewer]: Part of your work here at Trinity has been working with priests involved in abuse, no?

[Father Groeschel]: A little bit, yes; but you know, in those cases, they have to leave. And some of them profoundly — profoundly — penitential, horrified. People have this picture in their minds of a person planning to — a psychopath. But that’s not the case. Suppose you have a man having a nervous breakdown, and a youngster comes after him. A lot of the cases, the youngster — 14, 16, 18 — is the seducer.

[Interviewer]: Why would that be?

[Father Greoschel]: Well, it’s not so hard to see — a kid looking for a father and didn’t have his own — and they won’t be planning to get into heavy-duty sex, but almost romantic, embracing, kissing, perhaps sleeping but not having intercourse or anything like that.

It’s an understandable thing, and you know where you find it, among other clergy or important people; you look at teachers, attorneys, judges, social workers. Generally, if they get involved, it’s heterosexually, and if it’s a priest, he leaves and gets married — that’s the usual thing — and gets a dispensation. A lot of priests leave quickly, get civilly married and then apply for the dispensation, which takes about three years.

But there are the relatively rare cases where a priest is involved in a homosexual way with a minor. I think the statistic I read recently in a secular psychology review was about 2%. Would that be true of other clergy? Would it be true of doctors, lawyers, coaches?

Here’s this poor guy — [Penn State football coach Jerry] Sandusky — it went on for years. Interesting: Why didn’t anyone say anything? Apparently, a number of kids knew about it and didn’t break the ice. Well, you know, until recent years, people did not register in their minds that it was a crime. It was a moral failure, scandalous; but they didn’t think of it in terms of legal things.

If you go back 10 or 15 years ago with different sexual difficulties — except for rape or violence — it was very rarely brought as a civil crime. Nobody thought of it that way. Sometimes statutory rape would be — but only if the girl pushed her case. Parents wouldn’t touch it. People backed off, for years, on sexual cases. I’m not sure why.

I think perhaps part of the reason would be an embarrassment, that it brings the case out into the open, and the girl’s name is there, or people will figure out what’s there, or the youngster involved — you know, it’s not put in the paper, but everybody knows; they’re talking about it.

At this point, (when) any priest, any clergyman, any social worker, any teacher, any responsible person in society would become involved in a single sexual act — not necessarily intercourse — they’re done. And I’m inclined to think, on their first offense, they should not go to jail because their intention was not committing a crime.

The Register yesterday removed the article from its online presence yesterday, but not before Tom Roberts at the other NCR, National Catholic Reporter, got wind of it:

The paper in which the interview appeared – the National Catholic Register – was once owned by the Legion of Christ. Don’t go looking into their files for any truth on the life of the late Marciel Maciel Degollado, founder of the order, at least while the publication was under control of the Legion. It has since been sold – part of the selloff of the order’s assets – to EWTN. …

Certainly Fr. Groeschel knows that Maciel, who lived a variety of lives and was ultimately sanctioned by the Vatican, not only molested his own young seminarians, but had children by at least two women.

The testimony of Maciel’s victims is abundant. His behavior was monstrous, and not because little boys were seducing him. He exemplifies that side of the clerical culture that is both calculating and deceptive – he had many fooled, including a pope – and that is far more the heart of the problem than seductive kids.

Moments ago, the Register’s editor placed the following note at the URL where the interview was originally posted:

Child sexual abuse is never excusable. The editors of the National Catholic Register apologize for publishing without clarification or challenge Father Benedict Groeschel’s comments that seem to suggest that the child is somehow responsible for abuse. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our publication of that comment was an editorial mistake, for which we sincerely apologize. Given Father Benedict’s stellar history over many years, we released his interview without our usual screening and oversight. We have removed the story. We have sought clarification from Father Benedict.

Jeanette R. De Melo
Editor in Chief

But since Groeschel’s unedited comments is now news, why not make them available alongside whatever correction or clarification that he wishes to make? I’m not sure who it is that Ms. De Melo’s sincerely apologizing to: the readers who learned something new about Groeschel, or to one of EWTN’s more popular television personalities himself.

Tasmania’s Lower House Passes Marriage Equality

The ABC is reporting that Tasmania’s House of Assembly has approved a bill which will allow same-sex couples to marry. The 13-11 vote came after four hours of debate, with the Labor Speaker Michael Polley abandoning his party and the Greens to join 10 Liberals to oppose the measure. The debate itself was lopsided, with Greens MP Kim Booth, attacking Liberal Party members for remaining silent during the debate. The only Liberal to speak, Leader Will Hodgman, said only that the party was unified in opposing the measure while denying that party members were barred from a conscience vote.

The bill now goes to the Legislative Council, Tasmania’s upper house, for consideration in September. The ABC reports that the marriage equality bill “will have a harder path through the Upper House where some MPs are yet to declare their support.”

(Australians, as you know, speak a completely foreign language. Contrary to Americans’ usage of the term “liberal,” Australia’s Liberal Party derives its name from the early 1900’s understanding of economic liberalism, akin to other English speaking countries talking about “free markets.” The Liberal Party, economically and socially, is somewhat similar to the Republican Party in the U.S., although unlike the GOP, the Liberals haven’t purged their moderate wing to the same degree.)

The Daily Agenda for Thursday, August 30

TODAY’S AGENDA:
Pride Celebrations This Weekend: Atlanta, GA (Black Pride); Brighton, UK; Calgary, AB; Cardiff, UK; Duluth, MN; Grimsby, UK; Leicester, UK; Oakland, CA; and Québec City, QB.

Other Events This Weekend: Splash Days, Austin, TX; Burning Man, Black Rock Desert, NV; Show-Me State Rodeo, Cleveland, MO; Southern Decadence, New Orleans, LA.

TODAY IN HISTORY:
The Adjustment of Male Overt Homosexuals: 1956. As the annual American Psychological Association Convention got underway in Chicago, the body heard UCLA’s Dr. Evelyn Hooker read a paper which, over time, would shake the foundation of the mental health insistence that homosexuality was a mental disorder. Psychiatry’s opinion of homosexuality was both clear and curt: the first edition of the Diagnostics and Statistics Manual (DSM), which defined mental illnesses for the American Psychiatric Association, defined “Sexual Deviation” as a Sociopathic Personality Disturbance, which included “pathologic behavior, such as homosexuality, transvestism, pedophilia, fetishism and sexual sadism (including rape, sexual assault, mutilation).” The APA’s dim view of homosexuality was, at that time, backed up with more than a half-century’s worth of serious study of the subject. Unfortunately, each and every paper on homosexuality that had been published concerned itself with people exhibiting homosexual behavior in prisons and reform schools, or among psychiatric patients, many of whom also suffered other mental illnesses such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and depression. Until 1956, not one paper or research project looked systematically at gay men and women who were living contented and productive lives. As far as the mental health professions were concerned, they didn’t exist, their nonexistence was for the simple reason that they hadn’t been documented.

But Dr. Hooker had an altogether different view of gay people. As a research assistant at UCLA’s psychology department, she became acquainted with Los Angeles’s gay community through one of her students. As Hooker’s social circle widened within the gay community, that student challenged her: “We have let you see us as we are, and now, it is your scientific duty to make a study of people like us.” This was at the peak of Sen. Joseph McCarthy’s red and lavender scare, and when Hooker applied for a grant with the National Institute of Mental Health, her chances of getting funding was considered a long shot. An NIMH representative personally flew to L.A. to make sure she was legitimate (and not a lesbian). She won the grant and began assembling a group of thirty gay men who had never been in therapy or in trouble with the law through contacts with the Mattachine Society and the staff of ONE Magazine. Finding thirty gay men willing to participate during the McCarthy era was hard enough; she also had trouble finding thirty straight men with whom she could painstakingly match to the gay men according to age, education, and IQ.

Once she assembled her study sample, she administered three psychological tests: The Thematic Apperciption Test (TAT), which was used to provide information about a subject’s views of the self, the world, and interpersonal relationships; the Make-A-Picture-Story (MAPS), in which subjects were asked to describe a story based on cut-out figures they selected and placed in a setting; and the Rorschach test, in which subjects are asked to identify what they see in a series of abstract inkblots. All three tests were popular in the 1950s as methods for assessing personality and mental disorders — and they were used particularly for diagnosing homosexuality. But rather than assessing the test results herself — after all, she knew who was gay and who wasn’t — she turned them over to a panel of three judges, each of them known experts in each of the tests. (One of the examiners was Edwin Shneidman, who was the creator of the MAPS test.) To everyone’s surprise, none of them could find any differences between the members of the study. As Hooker wrote in her groundbreaking paper:

As a judge compared the matched protocols, he would frequently comment, “There are no clues;” or, “These are so similar that you are out to skin us alive;” or, “It is a forced choice;” or, “I just have to guess.” The difficulty of the task was reflected not only in the comments of the judges but also in the results. Judge “A” correctly identified 17 of the 30 pairs, and Judge “B” 18 of the 30. Thus neither judge was able to do better than chance. In seven pairs both judges were incorrect, that is, identifying the homosexual as the heterosexual, and vice versa; in twelve pairs, correct; and in the remaining eleven they disagreed.

The degree to which the judges disagreed or got their diagnoses wrong was very entertaining. Man #16, depending on the judge and the test he was evaluating, was identified as a “strong, superior and wise” straight man, and by another as “the most heterosexual-looking homosexual I have ever seen.” A judge said of Man #50, “Except for a little too much emphasis on conquest in heterosexual relations, he is well adjusted and smooth.” Both men were gay.

When she presented the results of the study to the APA in Chicago, the findings came under withering criticism. Some criticized her for studying members of homophile groups who were probably were better adjusted than those who weren’t. Others criticized her for relying on such a small sample. But to Hooker, such criticisms actually supported her point:

But would we not, in this case, be dealing with a different question, namely, “How many homosexuals, as compared with heterosexuals, are average or better in adjustment, and how many were worse than average?” It seems to me that for the present investigation the question is whether homosexuality is necessarily a symptom of pathology. All we need is a single case in which the answer is negative.

Her paper, Adjustment of the Male Overt Homosexual, was published the following March in the Journal of Projective Techniques and Personality Assessment, and she would follow that with a number of other follow-up papers reinforcing these findings. In 1967, she chaired the NIMH Task Force on Homosexuality, which recommended the decriminalization of homosexuality and its removal from the APA’s list of mental disorders. The APA would not act on that recommendation until 1973, and it would take thirty-five years before the U.S. Supreme Court would finally release gay men and women from the threat of imprisonment.

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?

Invisible support

In an article entitled “GOP friendlier to gay community — at least behind the scenes“, CNN tells the story of Barbara Ann Fenton and Themis Klarides who propose and seconded, respectively, a proposal that the GOP platform endorse civil unions. It seems to tell a tale of party bosses and right wing activists who craft the voice of the party to be ragingly anti-gay, and delegates who don’t all necessarily agree.

Check out the article and see what you think.

Fenton said after the meeting she had only one disturbing run-in.

“One person did come up and tell me I should renounce my Catholicism — that what I was spewing was pure evil,” Fenton said. “It was hard to keep a straight face.”

But for the most part, the reaction she received from other delegates and Republican staffers was positive. She said she felt that behind the scenes, the party was much more supportive.

“People kept buying me drinks and kept coming up to me saying how they wanted to support my group for doing this. I don’t have a group,” Fenton said. “Some people asked me if I was gay. I told them you could still be for gay rights and be a heterosexual. I don’t think that’s political suicide. If it was, I wouldn’t be a part of this party.”

She said, “One guy even dropped a note in my lap. I thought I was going to get bashed with some nasty note, like you’d get in fifth grade. But what it said essentially was, ‘I’m in the closet. Thank you so much for this.’

“People may now realize you can be gay and still be welcome in the GOP party.”

Personally, I’m decidedly less optimistic than Fenton.

It’s official: we won Prop 8

From the amended order closing Perry v. Schwarzenegger:

“…judgment is hereby entered in favor of: (1) Plaintiffs Kristin M. Perry; Sandra B. Stier; Paul T. Katami; and Jeffrey J. Zarrillo; and (2) Plaintiff-Intervenor City and County of San Francisco and against: (1) Defendants Arnold Schwarzenegger; Edmund G. Brown, Jr.; Mark B. Horton; Linette Scott; Patrick O’Connell; Dean C. Logan; Kamala D. Harris; and Howard Backer; and (2) Defendant-Intervenors Dennis Hollingsworth; Gail J. Knight; Martin F. Gutierrez; Hak-Shing William Tam; Mark A. Jansson; and ProtectMarriage.com.”

What does this mean? Nothing really. The Supreme Court still has to weigh in on whether or not to hear the challenge and, if so, whether to uphold the decision.

But it’s awfully nice to read, anyway.

Lesbian couple suing for adoption rights are told that they have the wrong issue

April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse, both nurses, have three children: (Detroit News)

DeBoer adopted a girl, born in February 2010 to a 19-year-old mother.

Rowse, meanwhile, adopted two boys, ages 3 and 2. One was surrendered by his biological mother and the other was abandoned by his mother, a drug-addicted prostitute

But Michigan state law will not allow them to adopt the children jointly, thus giving the children the extra rights and security that come from two-parent adoption (which are considerable). They asked U.S. District Court Judge Bernard A. Friedman, a 68 year-old Reagan appointee, to overturn the state’s law as unconstitutional.

He said, “no”. Or, at least, “not yet”. Because they really were focusing on the wrong issue:

Friedman said Wednesday he’d consider arguments from both sides before rendering his decision, but will first allow the plaintiffs ten days to consider amending their complaint to include a challenge to the state’s ban on same-sex marriages.

“That’s the underlying issue,” Friedman told attorneys, noting that he’s “not suggesting they do it.”

“Both arguments are about marriage and how broad or narrow it should be. That’s the bottom line.”

Oh. Well, come to think of it, that would be the real issue, wouldn’t it?

Of course, just because Judge Friedman correctly noted the real discrimination issue doesn’t mean that he will find the ban unconstitutional. But it does suggest that he correctly understands DeBoer and Rowse’s underlying problem. So I think it is at least likely that he’s sympathetic to giving the marriage issue a fair hearing. And we seldom need more than a fair hearing to point out the obvious.

How very fascinating it would be for DeBoer and Rowse to sue for adoption rights only to find that they’ve overturned the state’s marriage ban.

The Republican Convention, circa 1992

20 years ago, at another Republican National Convention, Mary Fisher stood up to say that “the AIDS virus is not a political creature” and challenged her party to see her as “one with the lonely gay man sheltering a flickering candle from the cold wind of his family’s rejection.”

It’s not far-fetched to believe that George W. Bush’s record on worldwide HIV/AIDS (called PEPFAR, the “President’s Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief”) was partly inspired by this amazing speech given when his father was up for re-election. In 2012, however, “HIV” and “AIDS” do not exist in the party platform in terms of US-based efforts (PEPFAR’s focus is Africa); instead, where the platform mentions publicly-funded research it says that “research must consider the special needs of formerly neglected groups” and lists things like “breast and prostate cancer, diabetes and other killers.” If HIV/AIDS were implied here, it is at the very least unclear and, by any reckoning, an obvious repudiation of Mary Fisher’s call to action.

This year, the Log Cabin Republicans in their most recent National Update in July had this to say:

As Republicans it is time to recommit to the defense of life and liberty and renew the fight against the HIV/AIDS epidemic. This month the International AIDS Conference was held in Washington, DC, focusing on the need to fight complacency, particularly among gay and bisexual men. Despite medical advances, LGBT minorities continue to be devastated by the crisis.  While GOP leaders work to rein in government spending, funding for HIV/AIDS programs should remain the priority they were to the Bush administration.

Strong words and yet, thus far in Tampa, not a word has been breathed about HIV/AIDS. The focus for LCR in addition to a full page ad in Tampa has instead been on marriage equality.

Globe compares 2008 and 2012 Republican Party platforms

The Boston Globe compares certain statements within the GOP Party platforms between 2008 and 2012:

GAYS IN THE MILITARY

2008: “We affirm . . . the benefits of traditional military culture and the incompatibility of homosexuality with military service.”

2012: “We will support an objective and open-minded review of the current Administration’s management of military personnel policies and will correct problems with appropriate administrative, legal, or legislative action.”

and

MARRIAGE

2008: “Because our children’s future is best preserved within the traditional understanding of marriage, we call for a constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage as a union of a man and a woman, so that judges cannot make other arrangements equivalent to it.”

2012: “We reaffirm our support for a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.”

Those two quotes (out of five) might look as though they are less egregious. But I think that in context, and when including the other segments I discussed yesterday, it would be hard to make a case for much improvement. I think “more subtle” might be the best that could be said.

GOProud may have found its purpose

I’m not a big fan of GOProud, an organization of one or two gay Republicans and their friends.

They only exist because they broke off from Log Cabin over LCR’s goal of trying to make the party more inclusive for gay people. They thought the goals should be limited to getting any Republican elected, no matter how anti-gay, and ranting about “the Gay Left”. (And by “Gay Left” they mean pretty much anyone who isn’t a GOProud member.)

In other words, they exist solely as an organization that opposes those gay people – in all parties – who are working for my rights.

But it seems that they did throw a decent party last night and had something like 500 GOP delegates show up. And while that isn’t astonishing and marvelous, I guess it’s something.

And this might do some incremental good. After all, for many people, the first time they ever consider gay people as real and deserving of consideration is in a social setting. Hey, it’s possible.

So maybe that’s what GOProud should do: throw parties.

Maybe they could just shut-up and serve cocktails. Because all buddying up with those who deride us (like Ann Coulter) and the sniping at gay activists fighting for my rights is really getting old.