Box Turtle Bulletin

Babeu wins sheriff nomination

Three months ago Paul Babeu dropped out of the race for Congress amidst a bit of a media circus. It went something like this:

The Phoenix New Times ran a story claiming that Babeu, as Sheriff of Pinal County, threatened to have a former boyfriend deported to Mexico if he disclosed their relationship. The paper demanding an investigation. Babeu responded by announcing that he is indeed gay but that the rest of their charges were false.

After a few more stories it became clear that the New Times was under the impression that by outing Babeu they could end his political career and that the boyfriend story was a vehicle to that end.

Especially disconcerting was an article ran by the New Times which consisted, frankly, of homophobic gay baiting. They ran a shirtless picture of Babeu from a dating website (calling it “sexually explicit”) and posted a picture of him in his underwear which was not on the site (provided by his former boyfriend – a man whose identity they and other media sought to shield). They insinuated that membership in a gay dating site should result in his being fired, equating it to porn production.

The New Times also sought quotes from his primary opponents, particularly State Senator Ron Gould, who ran an ad saying that Washington needs “a straight shooter”. They finally lost all credibility (with me, anyway) when they started running “caption that photo” contests with the pictures given to them by Babeu’s ex-beau.

Additional allegations arose about him dating a former student in Massachusetts. And a panel was assigned the task of looking at the whole mess. On May 11, he dropped out of the congressional race. I pretty much thought at that point that the Phoenix New Times had accomplished their goal and that Paul Babeu’s life in politics was over.

But to their surprise – and mine – his very conservative constituents did not denounce him. Instead, many seemed to rally around him and offer support. Rather than give up on public life, Babeu seems to have decided to broker for even stronger power in Pinal County. Choosing to run again for the office of Sheriff, he formed an alliance with a fellow Republican running for county attorney and a few county supervisor candidates.

And it seems that the Republican voters of Pinal County didn’t much care that Babeu is gay, supports marriage equality, and has a hook-up site membership. They overwhelmingly nominated him for reelection, giving him over 60% of the vote against three opponents. His political allies had mixed results, and “straight shooter” Gould lost the primary, so – depending on how the vote goes in November – it appears that Babeu has come out of the situation with increased influence.

The New Times is plenty bitter about Babeu’s win.

How Not To Create A Fallen Villain

There is a really exciting story making its way around the Internet right now. It has all of the elements we love in a story: forbidden sex, child victims, hypocrisy, and a heaping dose of schadenfreude thrown into the mix. Here’s how The Examiner pumps the story:

Caleb Hesse, 52, is a well known anti-gay activist and former elementary school teacher. He has been charged with four lewd acts on a child. The investigation is in its early stages and incidents of abuse going back to 1987 have been reported, but that is by no means a cut off point for Hesse’s abusive history and authorities are encouraging anyone with knowledge of past abuses to please contact them. Some of Hesse’s victims may now be 40+ years old.

Back-To-Stonwall puts it this way:

A longtime anti-gay activist, California Prop 8 donor,  and  elementary school teacher was taken into custody on August 17th after admitting inappropriate contact with young boys.Caleb Douglas Hesse, a teacher for the Morongo Unified School District since 1987 (most recently, he was teaching first grade at Friendly Hills Elementary School in Joshua Tree) and a longtime youth volunteer with the virulently homophobic Evangelical Free Church of Yucca Valley, has  confessed to sexually abusing “numerous underage boys,” with authorities believe the crimes occurred between the early 1980’s and as recently as a week ago.”

Raw Story, which as far as I can tell, did the best to try to put the pieces together, was somewhat more restrained, at least in its lede:

Anti-LGBT Prop 8 activist confesses to molesting young boys

A Yucca Valley, California man associated with the anti-LGBT ballot initiative Proposition 8 has confessed to the molestation of multiple young boys over the course of decades.  According to the Wisconsin Gazette, Caleb Edward Hesse, 52, a first grade teacher and youth volunteer, has been arraigned on 4 felony counts of lewd conduct upon a child.  The San Bernadino District Attorney’s office has said that more charges are pending as the case develops and more victims come forward.

I’m always baffled whenever I see a web site reporting on events in San Bernardino, California by citing a news article from a Wisconsin web site. As it happens, the San Bernardino Sun has a fairly decent rundown. Hesse went to the sheriff’s office last Wednesdayand confessed that he had “inappropriate contact” with an unknown number of boys. The paper reported that Hesse had been an employee at the Morongo Unified School District since 1987, where he most recently worked as a first-grade teacher in Joshua Tree. He also worked as a youth volunteer at the local Evangelical Free Church in Yucca Valley since the early 1980s. Consequently, investigators were unable to provide an estimate on how many child sexual abuse victims might be involved in this case. When Hesse appeared before a judge on Monday, he recanted his confession and entered a plea of not guilty. Hess faces anywhere from eight years to life in prison if he is convicted.

So where is the gay activist angle in all this?  Raw Story put these two pieces of information together:

The Gazette has found that Hesse donated in 2008 to the campaign supporting the anti-LGBT ballot initiative Proposition 8.  He was also the owner of ProtectMarriage.com, a now-defunct Prop 8 fundraising site, according to LGBT news service Gayopolis. (sic)

Sure enough, a search of Prop 8 donors shows that Hesse made a donation to support Prop 8: a one-time donation of $100. Along with, I’m sure, several other fiends, felonsand degenerates of all stripes mixed in among the many millions who contributed to both sides of the campaign. Spend a few hours looking around and I’m sure you can find a similar number of anti-Prop 8 contributors at the $100 level with sinister skeletons in their proverbial closets. It’s bound to happen. Flogging Hesse’s story as an example of who our opponents are is fun, certainly. I’ve had my share of fun with similar stories. But that’s not what we’re being asked to do here. We’re expected to take seriously the notion that Hess, “a well-known anti-gay activist,” is really all that.

And what about that “anti-gay activist” part? If he’s well-known, I can’t find any evidence of his “well-known activism” prior to his arrest. Raw Story pins his “activism” to “owning” the ProtectMarriage.com web site “according to LGBT news service Gayopolis (sic).” But go ahead and click on the link. It doesn’t go to any evidence that he owns ProtectMarriage.com. Instead, the link just goes to Gayapolis’s “About” page, which shows that it isn’t a news service but is a general-purpose portal provides LGBT “internet-based community services” for small businesses.

And who own ProtectMarriage.com? Actually, that’s an easy one to answer:

Registrant:
   ProtectMarriage.com
   P.O. Box 161359
   Sacramento, CA 95816-2849
   United States

   Registered through: GoDaddy.com, LLC (http://www.godaddy.com)
   Domain Name: PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM
      Created on: 24-May-02
      Expires on: 24-May-13
      Last Updated on: 25-Jun-12

   Administrative Contact:
      Marriage, Protect  protectmarriage@protectmarriage.com
      ProtectMarriage.com
      P.O. Box 161359
      Sacramento, CA 95816-2849
      United States
      +1.9166083065

   Technical Contact:
      Marriage, Protect  protectmarriage@protectmarriage.com
      ProtectMarriage.com
      P.O. Box 161359
      Sacramento, CA 95816-2849
      United States
      +1.9166083065

In other words, it’s exactly who you would expect it to be. It is owned by Protect Marriage, the main political group that was responsible for passing Proposition 8 in 2008.

So in the end, there are two ways to deal with this story. I could have made it an Heterosexual Menace story in which a we have evidence of yet another “pro-family values” guy exhibits a very elastic notion of what it means to be “pro-family.” And on an ordinary day, I might have done just that, just for the fun of it. As I said, I love schadenfreude as much as the next guy, and I love nothing better than to see anti-gay activists exposed for the pond-scum that many of them are. And make no mistake about it, if the charges against Hesse are proved, then he is the bond-scummiest of them all. But he’s no activist.

But that’s not the story that’s being pumped on the internet. We’re being asked to take seriously that this is a big fish that represents a huge stink emmanating from our opponents. But in looking into this, that just not something I can go along with because, in truth, he is, at best, a small-time minnow whose only reason for being spotlighted like this is because there are people who really, really, really want this nobody-who-nobody-else-ever-heard-of-before-until-now to take on much greater significance than the situation deserves. They want Hesse to be the face of Tony Perkins and Brian Brown. But Tony Perkins and Brian Brown already have plenty of face for us to deal with. We’re small, petty, and just plain silly when we try to invent new super-villains out of whole cloth. I think we can safely leave the chum like Hesse to the California legal system.

NZ legislature overwhelmingly votes for marriage

In the first of three votes, the New Zealand parliament has overwhelmingly voted for marriage. (NZTV)

Labour MP Louisa Wall’s Marriage Amendment Bill was passed with 78 in favour and 40 against.

This margin suggests that there is a quite good chance that the bill will make it through all three readings to become law before the end of the year.

The motivation for the action is fascinating, and reflects comments I’ve read in a number of foreign news sources in the past several month. (WaPo)

The proposed changes here can be directly traced back to Obama’s declaration in May in support of gay marriage. That prompted center-right Prime Minister John Key to break his long silence on the issue by saying he was “not personally opposed” to the idea. Then lawmaker Louisa Wall, from the opposition Labour Party, put forward a bill she had previously drafted.

“If I’m really honest, I think the catalyst was around Obama’s announcement, and then obviously our prime minister came out very early in support, as did the leader of my party, David Shearer,” Wall told The Associated Press. “The timing was right.”

It may well turn out that the President’s evolution on marriage may impact equality globally sooner than it does locally.

The Daily Agenda for Wednesday, August 29

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.

Edward Carpenter and George Merrill

TODAY’S BIRTHDAY:
Edward Carpenter: 1844. Britain would be a very different place without him, and so would the LGBT world. Carpenter was a very influential poet, philosopher, anthologist, nudist, feminist, pacifist, and early gay activist. He was as leading proponent of socialism, and helped to found Britain’s Labour Party. Reading Walt Whitman’s Leaves of Grass in the 1860’s was a huge revelation for him, with Whitman’s dreams of “a brotherhood of manly love.” Carpenter’s 1889 book Civilisation, Its Cause and Cure argued that civilization is a form of disease which no society ever survived more than a thousand years before collapsing. His cure involved a closer relationship with the land and a greater sense of our own development as individuals. He very much practiced what he preached, living among tenant farmers and other working class workers.

Carpenter was relatively open about his homosexuality, which was a remarkable accomplishment. Unlike Oscar Wilde, who was arrested and imprisoned for his “vice,” Carpenter escaped scandal and arrest, even though he had moved in with the man who would be his partner for the rest of his life, George Merrill, in Millthorpe.  Carpenter befriended Walt Whitman, E.M. Forster, Havelock Ellis, John Addington Symonds, and several other early pioneers in the nascent gay community. Carpenter and Merrill’s relationship would serve as the model for Forster’s homoerotic novel, Maurice and, hetersexualized, for D.H. Lawrence’s Lady Chatterley’s Lover. Carpenter’s groundbreaking 1908 book, The Intermediate Sex: A Study of Some Transitional Types of Men and Women, would become a foundational text for future LGBT movements. He wrote that because “intermediate types” (his preferred term for gay people; he hated “homosexual” because of what he called its “bastardization” of the Latin and Greek) were free of gender limitations, they were uniquely qualified for bringing about greater gender equality and equal rights for women. Carpenter’s writings would later inspire Harry Hay to found the Mattachine Society in Los Angeles, and thus spark a new gay rights movement half a world away.

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 Passes Ex-Gay Therapy Restrictions

The California Assembly today, in a 51-21 vote, approved a significantly scaled-back measure to ban licensed therapists in the state of California from providing Sexual Orientation Change Efforts (SOCE) to minors under the age of eighteen. The bill must now go back to the Senate to be reconciled with a much broader version of the bill which passed that chamber last May. The scope of the bill was significantly reduced in order to win the approval of several state mental health professional organizations.

When the bill was first introduced into the Senate, there were additional provisions which would have required that adults undergoing SOCE to sign a state-mandated informed consent form, and it would have left therapists open to fines of $$5,000 or “actual damages, or statutory damages” if the client later determined that he or she had been harmed by the therapy or if the therapist had contravened California’s restrictions on SOCE. Due to objections form several mental health organizations, the state-mandated informed consent form was dropped, and the fines were eliminated in favor of a new clause which subjects the licensed therapist “to discipline by the licensing entity for that mental health provider.” The bill affects licensed therapists only. It does not affect religious-based ex-gay ministries or unlicensed pastors, counselors or self-described “life coaches.”

Due to the opposition to the original bill by mental health professional organizations, it is expected that the House version of the bill will go back to the Senate for approval rather than having a compromise bill being worked out between the two chambers. After Senate approval, it will then go on to Gov. Jerry Brown’s desk for his signature. He has not yet indicated his position on the bill.

Arrest made in gay church arson; Sheriff sides with arsonist

From 10TV.com

They caught the guy who burned the historic South Bloomingville Christian Church to the ground. And when confronted by the Sheriff’s department he told them that it wasn’t a hate crime against the gay-friendly church, but in response to his being sexually assaulted by one of them there homos “connected with” the church.

And that was good enough for the Sheriff:

“I believe it brings some closure to the area that wasn’t, per se, a hate crime, as the bishop portrayed it to be,” North said. “It was more a revenge crime for what the suspect had endured in 2011.

Now if the arsonist was assaulted last year then I support prosecution against whomever assaulted him. After all, if true then “what the suspect had endured in 2011” should be punished. And the Sheriff didn’t mention whether there was going to be an arrest for sexual assault.

But somehow I very much doubt it. There’s just something in his voice that suggests to me that any accusation against one of them there homos was proof enough – not enough for arrest, of course, but enough to justify arson.

GOP endorses extremist platform

The Republican Party has now released it’s “emphatically approved” platform for 2012. It is as nasty as you thought. No, actually, it’s worse.

You can read it here but the following provisions are the ones which most directly impact the gay community (emphasis throughout is added):

From the section on the economy

Reform the tax code by reducing marginal tax rates by 20 percent across-the-board in a revenue-neutral manner; Eliminate the taxes on interest, dividends, and capital gains altogether for lower and middle-income taxpayers; End the Death Tax; and Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax.

One of the few points in this document which could positively impact gay people. In those states in which marriage is not recognized, the inheritance tax unfairly taxes same-sex spouses but not opposite sex spouses. Even in marriage states the IRS has insisted on taxing same-sex spouse inheritance. This was successfully challenged in New York, and is currently expected to be heard by the Supreme Court.

While there are other recourses or methods to correct the inequality, should the SCOTUS fail to require that the Federal Government recognize state marriages, this proposed repeal would level the field by eliminating the inheritance tax altogether. And that’s pretty much where the good stuff ends.

From the section on the Restoration of Constitutional Government:

In the spirit of the Constitution, we consider discrimination based on sex, race, age, religion, creed, disability, or national origin unacceptable and immoral. We will strongly enforce anti-discrimination statutes and ask all to join us in rejecting the forces of hatred and bigotry and in denouncing all who practice or promote racism, anti-Semitism, ethnic prejudice, or religious intolerance. We support efforts to help low-income individuals get a fair chance based on their potential and individual merit; but we reject preferences, quotas, and set-asides as the best or sole methods through which fairness can be achieved, whether in government, education, or corporate boardrooms. In a free society, the primary role of government is to protect the God-given, inalienable, inherent rights of its citizens, including the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Merit, ability, aptitude, and results should be the factors that determine advancement in our society.

The language of this paragraph – when inspected closely – endorses discrimination against gay and transgender people.

We learn early on that bigotry and discrimination are as active in what isn’t said as in what is. When everyone in the room is praised in some way except you even a child knows that it is personal. You have been isolated and set aside for dissimilar treatment. You didn’t get the cookie, your school didn’t get repainted, all the people who look like you didn’t get scholarships. Nothing has to be said.

And, similarly, we know that when the list of all of those against whom discrimination is opposed includes all the usual targets of discrimination except you, you know that it wasn’t an oversight.

It means that the 2012 Republican Party does not oppose discrimination against you.

A Restoration of Constitutional Order: Congress and the Executive (Top)

We salute Republican Members of the House of Representatives for enshrining in the Rules of the House the requirement that every bill must cite the provision of the Constitution which permits its introduction. Their adherence to the Constitution stands in stark contrast to the antipathy toward the Constitution demonstrated by the current Administration and its Senate allies by appointing “czars” to evade the confirmation process, making unlawful “recess” appointments when the Senate is not in recess, using executive orders to bypass the separation of powers and its checks and balances, encouraging illegal actions by regulatory agencies from the NLRB to the EPA, openly and notoriously displaying contempt for Congress, the Judiciary, and the Constitutional prerogatives of the individual States, refusing to defend the nation’s laws in federal courts or enforce them on the streets, ignoring the legal requirement for legislative enactment of an annual budget, gutting welfare reform by unilaterally removing its statutory work requirement, buying senatorial votes with special favors, and evading the legal requirement for congressional consultation regarding troop commitments overseas. A Republican President and Republican Senate will join House Republicans in living by the rule of law, the foundation of the American Republic.

That “defend the nation’s laws” part is in reference to the determination by the Attorney General and the Justice Department that the Defense of Marriage Act violates the Constitution.

Defending Marriage Against An Activist Judiciary

A serious threat to our country’s constitutional order, perhaps even more dangerous than presidential malfeasance, is an activist judiciary, in which some judges usurp the powers reserved to other branches of government. A blatant example has been the court-ordered redefinition of marriage in several States. This is more than a matter of warring legal concepts and ideals. It is an assault on the foundations of our society, challenging the institution which, for thousands of years in virtually every civilization, has been entrusted with the rearing of children and the transmission of cultural values.

A Sacred Contract: Defense of Marriage

That is why Congressional Republicans took the lead in enacting the Defense of Marriage Act, affirming the right of States and the federal government not to recognize same-sex relationships licensed in other jurisdictions. The current Administration’s open defiance of this constitutional principle – in its handling of immigration cases, in federal personnel benefits, in allowing a same-sex marriage at a military base, and in refusing to defend DOMA in the courts – makes a mockery of the President’s inaugural oath. We commend the United States House of Representatives and State Attorneys General who have defended these laws when they have been attacked in the courts. We reaffirm our support for a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. We applaud the citizens of the majority of States which have enshrined in their constitutions the traditional concept of marriage, and we support the campaigns underway in several other States to do so.

We’ve already discussed this at length.

From their section on The First Amendment:

The most offensive instance of this war on religion has been the current Administration’s attempt to compel faith-related institutions, as well as believing individuals, to contravene their deeply held religious, moral, or ethical beliefs regarding health services, traditional marriage, or abortion. This forcible secularization of religious and religiously affiliated organizations, including faith-based hospitals and colleges, has been in tandem with the current Administration’s audacity in declaring which faith-related activities are, or are not, protected by the First Amendment – an unprecedented aggression repudiated by a unanimous Supreme Court in its Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC decision. We pledge to respect the religious beliefs and rights of conscience of all Americans and to safeguard the independence of their institutions from government. We support the public display of the Ten Commandments as a reflection of our history and of our country’s Judeo-Christian heritage, and we affirm the right of students to engage in prayer at public school events in public schools and to have equal access to public schools and other public facilities to accommodate religious freedom in the public square. We assert every citizen’s right to apply religious values to public policy and the right of faith-based organizations to participate fully in public programs without renouncing their beliefs, removing religious symbols, or submitting to government-imposed hiring practices. We oppose government discrimination against businesses due to religious views. We support the First Amendment right of freedom of association of the Boy Scouts of America and other service organizations whose values are under assault and condemn the State blacklisting of religious groups which decline to arrange adoptions by same-sex couples. We condemn the hate campaigns, threats of violence, and vandalism by proponents of same-sex marriage against advocates of traditional marriage and call for a federal investigation into attempts to deny religious believers their civil rights.

That is not only absurd, it is a declaration of outright war on gay people. You will notice that they DO NOT condemn the hate campaigns, threats of violence, and vandalism that proponents of “traditional marriage” actually engage in on an ongoing basis. In other words, saying unkind things about Chick-Fil-A is condemned by the GOP. Burning down the gay-supportive South Bloomingdale Christian Church is not.

And it is laughable that these “lower taxes, no government spending” folk are all lined up at the trough demanding that they can hold on to their “beliefs” and “participate fully in public programs” as well.

Judicial Activism: A Threat to the U.S. Constitution

Despite improvements as a result of Republican nominations to the judiciary, some judges in the federal courts remain far afield from their constitutional limitations. The U.S. Constitution is the law of the land. Judicial activism which includes reliance on foreign law or unratified treaties undermines American law. The sole solution, apart from impeachment, is the appointment of constitutionalist jurists, who will interpret the law as it was originally intended rather than make it. That is both a presidential responsibility, in selecting judicial candidates, and a senatorial responsibility, in confirming them. We urge Republican Senators to do all in their power to prevent the elevation of additional leftist ideologues to the courts, particularly in the waning days of the current Administration. In addition to appointing activist judges, the current Administration has included an activist and highly partisan Department of Justice. With a Republican Administration, the Department will stop suing States for exercising those powers reserved to the States, will stop abusing its preclearance authority to block photo-ID voting laws, and will fulfill its responsibility to defend all federal laws in court, including the Defense of Marriage Act.

They just can’t get enough of that, can they?

Preserving and Protecting Traditional Marriage

The institution of marriage is the foundation of civil society. Its success as an institution will determine our success as a nation. It has been proven by both experience and endless social science studies that traditional marriage is best for children. Children raised in intact married families are more likely to attend college, are physically and emotionally healthier, are less likely to use drugs or alcohol, engage in crime, or get pregnant outside of marriage. The success of marriage directly impacts the economic well-being of individuals. Furthermore, the future of marriage affects freedom. The lack of family formation not only leads to more government costs, but also to more government control over the lives of its citizens in all aspects. We recognize and honor the courageous efforts of those who bear the many burdens of parenting alone, even as we believe that marriage, the union of one man and one woman must be upheld as the national standard, a goal to stand for, encourage, and promote through laws governing marriage. We embrace the principle that all Americans should be treated with respect and dignity.

Just in case you missed it elsewhere. Cuz this party wouldn’t want you to accidentally think that they agree with the VAST MAJORITY of the American people who support either marriage (over half) or civil unions (another third).

Adoption and Foster Care

Families formed or enlarged by adoption strengthen our communities and ennoble our nation. We applaud the Republican legislative initiatives that led to a significant increase in adoptions in recent years, and we call upon the private sector to consider the needs of adoptive families on a par with others. Any restructuring of the federal tax code should recognize the financial impact of the adoption process and the commitment made by adoptive families. The nation’s foster care system remains a necessary fallback for youngsters from troubled families. Because of reforms initiated by many States, the number of foster children has declined to just over 400,000. A major problem of the system is its lack of support, financial and otherwise, for teens who age out of foster care and into a world in which many are not prepared to go it alone. We urge States to work with the faith-based and other community groups which reach out to these young people in need.

I’m sure it wasn’t intended, but this would be beneficial to same-sex families, many of whom adopt. Other than the “faith-based” crack, this is actually a pretty good position.

Supporting Federal Healthcare Research and Development

We support federal investment in healthcare delivery systems and solutions creating innovative means to provide greater, more cost-effective access to high quality healthcare. We also support federal investment in basic and applied biomedical research, especially the neuroscience research that may hold great potential for dealing with diseases and disorders such as Autism, Alzheimer’s, and Parkinson’s. If we are to make significant headway against breast and prostate cancer, diabetes, and other killers, research must consider the special needs of formerly neglected groups.

This is a roundabout way of saying that the party no longer wishes to fund research on HIV/AIDS. That’s reason enough to question their wisdom. At a time when we are on the verge of a breakthrough, with the possibility of the elimination of transmission – if not a complete cure – is at the doorstep, that’s when the GOP wants to focus on Autism and Alzheimers?

This platform is far too extreme for Gerald Ford or George Bush, Sr. And I’ve recently heard commentators say that Ronald Reagan could not be comfortable in this crowd. But with this step they show themselves to be too extreme to be the party of George W. Bush, who – if nothing else – did see the importance of HIV/AIDS programs.

Protecting Individual Conscience in Healthcare

No healthcare professional or organization should ever be required to perform, provide for, withhold, or refer for a medical service against their conscience. This is especially true of the religious organizations which deliver a major portion of America’s healthcare, a service rooted in the charity of faith communities. We do not believe, however, that healthcare providers should be allowed to withhold services because the healthcare provider believes the patient’s life is not worth living. We support the ability of all organizations to provide, purchase, or enroll in healthcare coverage consistent with their religious, moral or ethical convictions without discrimination or penalty. We likewise support the right of parents to consent to medical treatment for their children, including mental health treatment, drug treatment, and treatment involving pregnancy, contraceptives and abortion. We urge enactment of pending legislation that would require parental consent to transport girls across state lines for abortions.

I suspect that this is a direct dig at California’s proposed law to ban reparative therapy for minors.

Under Supporting our Troops

The spiritual welfare of our troops and retired service members should be a priority of our national leadership. With military suicides running at the rate of one a day, with post-service medical conditions, including addiction and mental illness, and with the financial stress and homelessness that is often related to these factors, there is an urgent need for the kind of counseling that faith-based institutions can best provide. We support rights of conscience and religious freedom for military chaplains and people of faith. A Republican Commander in Chief will protect religious independence of military chaplains and will not tolerate attempts to ban Bibles or religious symbols from military facilities. We will enforce and defend in court the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in the Armed Forces as well as in the civilian world.

Funny… the chaplains have no problems with DOMA as enforced on base. But I guess “rights of conscience and religious freedom” means the GOP’s right to dictate what their conscience will tell them and religious freedom is only the freedom to support some religious positions.

You know, it won’t be very long until a majority of the religious people in this country not only support gay rights, but do so out of their firm religious conviction. I doubt we’ll be hearing much about religious freedom then.

From the section on International Assistance

Foreign aid should serve our national interest, an essential part of which is the peaceful development of less advanced and vulnerable societies in critical parts of the world. Assistance should be seen as an alternative means of keeping the peace, far less costly in both dollars and human lives than military engagement. The economic success and political progress of former aid recipients, from Latin America to East Asia, has justified our investment in their future. U.S. aid should be based on the model of the Millennium Challenge Corporation, for which foreign governments must, in effect, compete for the dollars by showing respect for the rule of law, free enterprise, and measurable results. In short, aid money should follow positive outcomes, not pleas for more cash in the same corrupt official pockets.

I included this because when taken with the following statement, it’s shocking:

The effectiveness of our foreign aid has been limited by the cultural agenda of the current Administration, attempting to impose on foreign countries, especially the peoples of Africa, legalized abortion and the homosexual rights agenda. At the same time, faith-based groups – the sector that has had the best track record in promoting lasting development – have been excluded from grants because they will not conform to the administration’s social agenda. We will reverse this tragic course, encourage more involvement by the most effective aid organizations, and trust developing peoples to build their future from the ground up.

You get that? The “rule of law” excludes “the homosexual rights agenda”. God, this is an evil document.

I have tremendous respect for Log Cabin for their efforts to fight within the Republican Party and make inroads where they can. But I am glad that I didn’t have to sit in a room with people who seriously can spout this stuff without recognizing the venom and bile that it is.

It’s not just the anti-gay stuff.

Yes, there are some decent clauses and a few ideas that I found reflect some of my own. But then there are those truly mind-numbingly strident statements (on immigration, for example) that leave you wondering just who on Earth they are appealing to. And those by far outweigh any common sense – or even principled conservative approach – that can be gleaned.

Overall, the document seems out-of-touch and extremist and reflective of the views of people that I simply can’t fathom – and I’ve met some pretty unusual people. It’s an angry rant by an increasingly isolated people who seem to mistrust and resent the rest of the world around them; and no one more so than those of us who are gay.

Tasmanian marriage bill introduced

From ABC’s Lateline:

Tasmania is a step closer to becoming the first state in Australia to legalise gay marriage.

The Premier, Lara Giddings, today tabled a marriage equality bill in State Parliament.

It is expected to pass the Lower House easily, but may have a devil of a time in the Upper House.

(While in American politics to “table” means to defer action on a bill until some future time, in Australia it means to bring it to the table for consideration).

“Two gay guys walk into a mosque… they were never heard from again!” Ha, ha ha! (Undercover at NOM)

Carlos Maza attended a weekend conference on defending “natural marriage” sponsored by NOM. It’s a sad, infuriating, and frightening account, giving the lie to NOM’s claim that they aren’t anti-gay, just pro-tradition.

Maza includes a wealth of links, as well, creating a great compendium of NOM’s general egregiousness.

Have look.

The Daily Agenda for Tuesday, August 28

San Francisco's Black Cat Cafe at 710 Montgomery St.

TODAY IN HISTORY:
California Gay Bars Given Very Brief Reprieve: 1951. The Black Cat Cafe was one of San Francisco’s more enduring institutions. Opened originally after the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, the dance hall and host of raunchy vaudeville-style acts came under police scrutiny as it earned a reputation as a center of prostitution. It closed during the Prohibition era, but was re-opened again in 1933 by the same owners when the booze started flowing again. After World War II, the Black Cat became a watering hole for the Beat crowd and for a growing gay clientele, and by the 1950s, the bar was placed on the Armed Forces Disciplinary Control Board’s list of forbidden establishments for military personnel. The bar had also been the target of a steady stream of police harassment. In 1951, the cafe’s owner, Sol Stoumen, was charged with “keeping a disorderly house” and the State Board of Equalization, which was then responsible for regulating the sale of alcohol, suspended the Black Cat’s liquor license indefinitely. Stouman sued, and on August 28, 1951, the California Supreme Court ruled in Stoumen v. Reilly that “something more must be shown that many of his patrons were homosexuals” before the bar could be closed down.

The Black Cat Cafe is now an upscale tapas bar.

The case is one of the earliest legal affirmations of gay rights, but there was a clause in that ruling that made it an extraordinarily limited one. The court added that the bar could be closed with “proof of the commission of illegal or immoral acts on the premises.” Because homosexuality was illegal in California (along with every other state and territory), the state still had broad powers to act against gay establishments. It just needed the proper legislation to do so. Three years later, the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (CABC) was established via a constitutional amendment, and the California Assembly passed legislation authorizing it to shut down any “resort [for] sexual perverts.” The Black Cat continued to be the target of raids and mass arrests until 1963, when the CABC revoked its liquor license right before its annual Halloween party. Stouman was already in debt from past legal battles and could no longer afford to keep fighting. The Black Cat limped along a few months more as a non-alcoholic venue before closing down permanently in February of 1964.

TODAY’S BIRTHDAY:
Karl Heinrich Ulrichs: 1825. If anyone can claim the mantle of being the very first gay rights advocate of the modern age, that title would likely go to the native of the Kingdom of Hanover, Karl Heinrich Ulrichs. When he was very little, he remembered wanting to be a girl and preferring to play with girls, but as often happens (though not always) when a very young boy like him hits puberty, his leanings moved toward homosexuality rather than a transgender identity. He went on to study law and theology at Göttingen University and history at Berlin University. He became a legal adviser for a district court in Hanover, but was dismissed when his homosexuality became known. That led him to declare himself, openly, an Urning. A word he coined in the 1860’s, he described the Urning as a “male-bodied person with a female psyche” who is sexually attracted to men and not women. He also coined Urningin for a “female-bodied person with a male psyche,” and Urningthum came to mean homosexuality itself.

Ulrichs devised an entire system of classification based on different combinations of attractions and gender roles, and more importantly, he set about to develop a robust argument for the legalization of homosexuality. Between 1864 and 1880, he published a series of twelve tracts which he collectively called, Research on the Riddle of Man-Manly Love, and his writings kept him in trouble with the law. His books were banned and confiscated in Saxony, Prussia, and Berlin. In 1867 after the formation of a united Germany, he became the first homosexual to address the Association of German Jurists in Munich on the need to reform German laws against homosexuality. He was shouted down but remained undeterred. In 1870, he published Araxes: a Call to Free the Nature of the Urning from Penal Law, in which he wrote:

The Urning, too, is a person. He, too, therefore, has inalienable rights. His sexual orientation is a right established by nature. Legislators have no right to veto nature; no right to persecute nature in the course of its work; no right to torture living creatures who are subject to those drives nature gave them.

The Urning is also a citizen. He, too, has civil rights; and according to these rights, the state has certain duties to fulfill as well. The state does not have the right to act on whimsy or for the sheer love of persecution. The state is not authorized, as in the past, to treat Urnings as outside the pale of the law.

…. Uranian love is in any instance no real crime. All indications of such are lacking. It is not even shameful, decadent or wicked, simply because it is the fulfillment of a law of nature. It is reckoned as one of the many imagined crimes that have defaced Europe’s law books to the shame of civilized people. To criminalize it appears, therefore, to be an injustice officially perpetrated. Just because Urnings are unfortunate enough to be a small minority, no damage can be done to their inalienable rights and to their civil rights. The law of liberty in the constitutional state also has to consider its minorities.

By 1879, Ulrichs decided that he had done all he could do in Germany and went into self-imposed exile in Italy. He later wrote, “Until my dying day I will look back with pride that I found the courage to come face to face in battle against the spectre which for time immemorial has been injecting poison into me and into men of my nature. Many have been driven to suicide because all their happiness in life was tainted. Indeed, I am proud that I found the courage to deal the initial blow to the hydra of public contempt.”

Nancy Kulp: 1921. Her name is not exactly a household name today, but her character from The Beverly Hillbillies, Miss Jane Hathaway, lives on in re-runs. Kulp began life as a journalist for The Miami Beach Tropics, writing celebrity profiles while studying English and French at the University of Miami. In 1944, she left academic life to enlist in the U.S. Naval Reserves and served in World War II as a member of the WAVES (Women Accepted for Volunteer Emergency Service), where she was highly decorated. She married relatively late for her time (at the age of thirty) and divorced ten years later.

Shortly after she married, she moved to Hollywood and began her career as an actress, appearing in several movies including Shane, A Star Is Born, The Three Faces of Eve, and The Parent Trap. Her characters were what we today would call a geek. On television, she inevitably played the spinster. One reviewer called her the homeliest girl in television and said she had the “face of a shriveled balloon, the figure of a string of spaghetti and the voice of a bullfrog in mating season.” But her straitlaced approach to comedy made her an ideal “straight man,” so to speak, for the other zanier characters around her.

In 1984, she went home to Port Royal, Pennsylvania and ran for Congress as a Democrat. To her great dismay, her opponent, Bud Shuster, picked up the endorsement of Beverly Hillbillies costar Buddy Ebsen, who recorded a radio commercial denouncing her as “too liberal.” Kulp lost, picking up only a third of the vote.

In a 1989 interview, Kulp finally came out as a lesbian in an interview: “As long as you reproduce my reply word for word, and the question, you may use it… I’d appreciate it if you’d let me phrase the question. There is more than one way. Here’s how I would ask it: ‘Do you think that opposites attract?’ My own reply would be that I’m the other sort – I find that birds of a feather flock together. That answers your question.” She died in 1991 of cancer.

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 Boozey Bishop of San Francisco

..was arrested in San Diego for DWI:

The archbishop-elect of San Francisco for the Roman Catholic Church was arrested and jailed Saturday in San Diego on suspicion of drunken driving, police said Monday. Bishop Salvatore J. Cordileone, 56, who was appointed archbishop in July, was taken into custody at 12:26 a.m. after being stopped at a DUI checkpoint near San Diego State University, police said.

Cordileone is the Catholic Church’s main point-man in its opposition to civil marriage equality. Often called “the father of Proposition 8,” Cordileone has also served as an ecclesiastical advisor to the Catholic ex-gay group, Courage. Last month, Pope Benedict XVI named Cordileone as the new head of the San Francisco archdiocese.

Cordileone was booked on a misdemeanor charge of driving while intoxicated. He was released from jail after posting $2,500 bail. He is scheduled to be arraigned on October 9, just five days after he is scheduled to be officially installed as Archbishop of San Francisco. He had told The Chronicle that he was “kind of frustrated” that his opposition to same-sex marriage drew such heavy notice. So look at it this way: for the time being we’ll have something else to talk about.

World marriage race is on

It has been a while since a nation offered equal access to its marriage laws to its gay citizens. The first, in 2001, was the Netherlands, followed by Belgium in 2003. There was a spate of laws in 2005-2006 which brought equality to Spain, Canada, and South Africa and again in 2009-1010 in Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Portugal and Argentina.

This year did give us Denmark, but as that nation had long had civil unions and there was virtually zero controversy, it didn’t feel much like an advancement or victory. And in Mexico there has been a bit of a creeping equality with certain states granting marriage while others recognized those marriages to some extent or other. Throw in sporadic US recognition and Israel which recognizes foreign but not local same-sex weddings, and the nation-count gets difficult.

But we are now on the verge of some very clear, nation-wide, publicly debated, votes over marriage. And it seems from this vantage point that we are likely to win in at least a few of them.

Scotland – While all of the United Kingdom is predicted to move from civil unions to marriage equality, Scotland – one of four that make up the UK – is seeking to be the first.

However, the Catholic Church is putting up quite a stink about it. On Sunday the nation’s Catholic Churches, led by Cardinal Keith O’Brien, preached against the change. The Church of Scotland is also opposed, though less vocally.

The government confirmed yesterday that they fully intend to continue with the effort. (UK Net)

A Scottish Government official confirmed ministers would press ahead with the plans, as “we believe it is the right thing to do”.

They added: “There is significant support for legislation across Scotland and in the Scottish parliament – with the leaders of all of the other parties represented in parliament also in favour of same-sex marriage.”

The first ceremonies are expected to be at the start of 2015. Currently gay Scots have civil unions.

France – with the election of the socialist government in France, it has been anticipated that marriage equality would follow. Now that appears to have a date. (Pink News)

Prime Minister, Jean-Marc Ayrault, had previously announced in parliament that gay couples would be permitted to marry and adopt children in 2013. He addressed members of the Socialist Party on Saturday:

“In October, we will send a bill to the National Assembly and the Senate to allow same-sex couples to marry. It would also allow them to form families and adopt children.”

The idea has support of about two thirds of the populace. Currently, France allows PACS, about the weakest of all forms of partner recognition.

Ireland – The UK’s nearest neighbor seems to be taking a strange direction on marriage. Equality is very popular in the Catholic country (oh how that must irritate Papa Ratzi), and polls at around three-quarters. But they are at a standstill. The national conversation seems to be, “Oh, yes. We all support same-sex marriage… but we can’t pass it because of the constitution.”

It seems that Article 41 in the Irish Constitution says, “The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of marriage, on which the family is founded, and to protect it against attack.” And while I see nothing there to prohibit marriage or family included spouses of the same-sex, the politicians do.

So in July the government set a committee with the task of studying marriage and coming back in a year to advise whether to have a constitutional convention to amend the constitution to allow equality. In the meanwhile same-sex Irish couples can enjoy civil partnerships.

New Zealand – coming from out of the blue, New Zealand is moving at a dashing pace. I don’t know NZ law well, but if I understand it correctly, the MPs first vote on whether a bill should be sent to committee.

Labour MP Louisa Wall has a bill coming forward on Thursday which has the support of the Prime Minister. A count of MPs shows that more than half have committed to voting for the bill in the first round – and only a few have stated their intent to oppose the opening vote.

I’m tempted to try some sheep joke here, but I’m sure I’d flub it and piss off some Kiwis so I’ll pass. But if you are a fan of wacky sci-fi horror comedy, check out Black Sheep.

Australia – this continent/nation is one of the reasons that I’ve put off writing this commentary for so long. It seems that with every week there’s a new twist and I haven’t had time to keep up with them all.

Here’s a very basic primer: The Labor Party (centre-left) and the Liberal party (centre-right) have roughly the same number of representatives. However, the Labor Party was able to form a coalition government with the Greens, which put them in power.

Within the country, marriage equality has very strong support. And within the Labor Party it has majority support – with the notable exception of the Prime Minister Julia Gillard, who seems obstinately determined to stand in its way. Party members, who had been loyally making excuses seem to be increasingly impatient with Gillard and the Greens a seizing the opportunity to push marriage pretty hard.

Over the years some states – particularly the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) – have attempted to enact civil unions or some form of couple recognition that has a ceremonial aspect. But the Federal government has been determined to disallow any recognition of this sort and has used their power to squelch it as much as possible in the states. They insist on a registry instead, sort of like for fishing licenses or building permits.

But the states are tired of playing along and are taking stronger action to force the Federal government’s hand. And as equality has the support of the populace, opposition by the Feds could be politically disastrous.

On Wednesday, the ACT legislature beefed up the civil union laws to allow for a ceremonial aspect. Tasmania and South Australian political leaders have vowed that they will go for marriage laws and Tasmania’s Lower House vote could come as early as this week. There are two marriage bills before the Federal government.

Nepal – if this country ever gets around to amending its Constitution (it has been in a sort of political limbo for the past several years), it is expected that marriage equality will be included. The Nepalese don’t seem to have a strong opposition to the idea.

GOP reportedly sides with incarceration and execution of gay Africans

Think Progress has posted a portion of what they claim is the GOP platform on foreign aid. If this is an accurate and complete statement, then the Republican Party has, in effect, assured African nations that if they return to power, the US will not oppose the horrific mistreatment of gay Africans.

The effectiveness of our foreign aid has been limited by the cultural agenda of the current Administration, attempting to impose on foreign countries, especially the peoples of Africa, legalized abortion and the homosexual rights agenda. At the same time, faith-based groups — the sector that has had the best track record in promoting lasting development — have been excluded from grants because they will not conform to the administration’s social agenda. We will reverse this tragic course, encourage more involvement by the most effective aid organizations, and trust developing peoples to build their future from the ground up.

In Africa – other than South Africa – “the homosexual rights agenda” is not about marriage or adoption or other matters of civil equality. It’s about not being murdered in the street, it’s about being able to meet without police crackdowns, it’s about not being thrown in jail for decades, it’s about not being executed by your government for “repeat offenders”, it’s about existence.

And it is this that is “the administration’s social agenda”. The Obama administration has taken efforts to require that those nations who receive US taxpayer dollars treat their citizens with some small measure of respect.

With this platform, the GOP will “reverse this tragic course… and trust developing peoples to build their future from the ground up.”

You want to throw gay people in jail for 14 year in Malawi? We trust you. You want to pass legislation in Uganda to execute gay people, like couples, who “repeat” the “offense” of having sex with each other? We trust you. You want to incarcerate anyone who “aids or abets” same-sex unions in Nigeria? We trust you.

Yes, I know that the platform has no bearing on the policies of the candidates. Yes, I know that both parties tend to turn the platform over to the less-mainstream members and ignore it thereafter.

But this is extreme. This is the sort of policy statement that really can’t be interpreted to be anything other than horrific. And if the Republican Party members leave this in their platform when it is voted on from the floor this week, it will result in shock and embarrassment when regular people, good ol’ voters, just normal family folks who aren’t really all that concerned about gay people either way hear what it means.

Because it’s one thing to “disagree about the definition of marriage”. It’s quite something else to endorse the execution of people for being gay.

The Daily Agenda for Monday, August 27

TODAY’S BIRTHDAY:
Tom Ford: 1961. He definitely has a for making his own way. After studying architecture at Parsons The New School for Design, he got his first fashion design job in 1986 with American Designer Cathy Hardwick through knowing what to say as well as what not to say. He said that he attended The New School’s Parson division, but left it unsaid that he was’t a product of its famous fashion design program. But he did know how to give the right answer when she asked what designers he admired. “Armani and Chanel,” Ford replied. Hardwick recalled, “Months later I asked him why he said that, and he said, ‘Because you were wearing something Armani’. Is it any wonder he got the job?”

Two years later, he moved to Perry Ellis in 1988, but was eager to move away from American design. Meanwhile, his partner, journalist Richard Buckley, had recently recovered from cancer, and the two were eager for a drastic change of scenery. As luck would have it, Gucci was struggling and needed to overhaul its women’s ready-to-wear lines, but no major designer would come near the nearly-bankrupt firm. Ford and Buckley moved to Milan and Ford quickly took over not just the women’s ready-to-wear line, but menswear and shoes in rapid succession. By 1992, he was also responsible for fragrances, image, advertising and store design, and the following year he was in charge of eleven product lines. In the process. Between 1995 and 1996, sales at Gucci nearly doubled and the company went public. When Gucci bought Yves Saint Laurent in 2000, Ford became its creative directer as well.

By 2004, Gucci was valued at $10 billion, but Ford and Gucci’s management fell into disagreements over artistic control of the group. That’s often the reason given for Ford to cash in his chips to leave Gucci. But it also marks a marked change in Ford’s creative life as well. In March of 2005, he announced that he was opening his own film production company, and he made his directorial debut with 2009’s A Single Man, based on the novel by Christopher Isherwood. In 2005, Ford re-entered the fashion world with the establishment of the TOM FORD brand, which opened his flagship store in New York City two years later. There are now 49 TOM FORD stores around the the world. Ford and his partner currently split their time between homes in Los Angeles, London and Santa Fe.

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?

Anti-Marriage Equality Group Accidentally Creates Pro-Equality Video

This video is from a group opposing same-sex marriage, but how on earth can it be interpreted as anything but an argument for letting same-sex parents marry?

The fact that they can’t see they’re destroying their own argument is another sign that they can’t win this thing in the long haul. Something is blinding them to their own truth. Call it bigotry, hate, homophobia, or silliness. Eventually, truth will out — especially when they’re the ones promoting it.