Box Turtle Bulletin

Newsweek’s Hit Piece on Murder Victim Larry King

This article expresses the opinion of the author and is not necessarily the opinion of other authors at Box Turtle Bulletin

Timothy Kincaid

July 21st, 2008

There are certain words and phrases that give a reader a sense of the perspective of the writer. And when discussing issues relating to orientation, some words and phrases suggest either a harsh hostility to gay people or a callous ignorance of our lives.

So it was with dismay that I read Ramin Setoodeh’s piece in Newsweek about the circumstances surrounding murder of Lawrence King. Setoodeh, in an effort to tell a “multilayered and complex” story, saw fit to use such language as “inappropriate, sometimes harmful, behavior”, “flaunted his sexuality”, “flamboyance”, and “pushed his rights”. These are all catch phrases that are most often heard from anti-gay activists when seeking to justify bigotry and discrimination.

Setoodeh uses these phrases to present a picture of Larry King, and one that is not complimentary. Unlike his murderer, Brandon McInerney, who “was smart” but “had his share of troubles”, for King the author had little good to say.

To Setoodeh, Larry was the primary source of disturbance on campus. He wore makeup and “thought nothing of chasing the boys around the school in [high heels], teetering as he ran.” He was “a troubled child who flaunted his sexuality and wielded it like a weapon”. “He went to school accessorized to the max” and would “sidle up to the popular boys’ table and say in a high-pitched voice, “Mind if I sit here?””

If there were any residents of Oxnard that didn’t view Larry as a prancing mincing menace intent on wreaking havoc on all around him, Setoodeh didn’t seem to find them. He found instead an attorney with a “gay panic” defense, a litigious adoptive father who resents the gay community for caring about Larry’s murder, and several teachers who objected to his effeminate ways.

In short, there’s very little in the Newsweek article that would not seem more at home on World Net Daily or a press release from the American Family Association.

And other than the briefest of disclaimers there is little to suggest that King was not fully to blame for his own death,. After all, he “sexually harassed” McInerney. He “was pushing as hard as he could, because he liked the attention”.

In addition to Larry King, there’s one other villain in Setoodeh’s tale. No, not the boy who pulled the trigger; he was being “bullied”, you see. The other responsible party is Joy Epstein, “a lesbian vice principal with a political agenda.” In Setoodeh’s words, “Some teachers believe that she was encouraging Larry’s flamboyance, to help further an “agenda,” as some put it.”

It may be that Ramin Setoodeh was limited by the nature of the legal system. While the defense attorney has an interest in pushing a “blame the school, blame the administration, blame the victim, blame anyone but McInerney” spin, the prosecution was not willing to try the case in the papers. And with Larry King’s allegedly abusive adoptive father motivated by his lawsuit against the school, there is no one left to speak for Larry.

Setoodeh may have let inexperience and limited input sway his judgment into writing a hit piece on the victim. He is, after all, an odd choice for an in depth article about social interactions in an elementary school. His prior articles appear to consist primarily of celebrity interviews and entertainment commentary.

But though Setoodeh had not written substantive work for Newsweek before this, it is not the first time that he has shown awkwardness around the subject of homosexuality.

In December of 2005, he phrased a question to Jake Gyllenhaal that makes presumptions about Gyllenhaal’s expertise on gay issues and also wild assumptions about what “people” believe.

“Brokeback Mountain” is a breakthrough movie. Why do you think people oppose gay marriage?

Similarly, his odd questioning of Clay Aiken and whether the Kelly Ripa incident was homophobic cut short his interview with the former American Idol star. In fact, I was surprised at how frequently the term “awkward” appears when googling Mr. Setoodeh. And often when it didn’t, it should have.

I don’t know Ramin Setoodeh’s orientation or his personal tastes or biases. Nor do I know his reasons for writing an article that serves as little more than a press release for the defense on this murder case.

But whatever his motivations, it is clear to me that he was tragically under-qualified for the job and his lack of experience showed in his use of language and in his final product.

LA Times Article on Methodist Support

Timothy Kincaid

July 18th, 2008

We told you earlier about the support that marriage equality is receiving from United Methodists in California. An anecdote shared by the Los Angeles Times may shed some light on at least one reason why these ministers are willing to face punishment from their national denomination in order to bring joy to the lives of gay couples.

The Rev. Sharon Rhodes-Wickett of Claremont United Methodist Church joined a retired deacon from her congregation to co-officiate at the July 5 wedding of two longtime members, Howard Yeager and Bill Charlton.

The wedding was held off site — at a Claremont complex for retired clergy and missionaries — to avoid violating the rule against such ceremonies in churches.

Rhodes-Wickett, who led the Lord’s Prayer and gave a homily, said she hoped to avoid discipline by stopping short of actually pronouncing the couple married. That action was performed by the retired deacon, who also signed the marriage license.

Rhodes-Wickett said she did not want Yeager and Charlton to leave her church to exchange vows.

“This is my flock,” she said, adding that the men have been together 40 years, 22 of them as members of her Claremont congregation. “It’s a matter of integrity and a matter of what it is to be a pastoral ministry.”

We as a community owe a debt of gratitude to Howard Yeager and Bill Charlton. As best I can tell neither man is an activist. But they have for at least the past 22 years been living activism with an impact that no form of marching or protest can achieve.

Is the Church Listening?

Michael King

July 11th, 2008

The following guest post is a book review by Michael King, Professor of Primary Care Psychiatry at University College London Medical School. He is the author of several studies on sexual orientation and mental health. In 2004, his report “Treatments of homosexuality in Britain in the 1950s — an oral history: the experience of professionals” appeared in the British Medical Journal, where it is available online for free.

The Anglican Communion and Homosexuality. A resource to enable listening and dialogue
Editor Phil Groves
June 2008
SPCK, London
pp xiii plus 322.

This edited volume has been published just in time for the 2008 Lambeth Conference, its stated purpose to “listen to the experience of homosexual persons”. The Anglican Communion’s listening exercise began at the last Lambeth Conference in 1998 and will inform its decisions on homosexuality in the laity and clergy alike.

As the editor himself notes, this book is a curious hotchpotch of chapters on scriptural interpretation, the role of religious tradition, how to listen and conduct a dialogue, the cultural dimension, the voices of gay and lesbian people and finally what is referred to as the witness of science. It is densely written and a challenge for anyone trying to get to grips with the Anglican Communion’s approach to listening.

A large part of the book is devoted to scriptural interpretation and the place of tradition, little of which is particularly new. Although the obviously sexual elements of scripture, such as the Song of Solomon, are discussed, generally the conclusions are banal. Most of the contributors shrink from accepting the fully erotic nature of many of these texts and are fairly unequivocal that homosexuality, or least same-sex behaviour, is not accepted by scripture. In classical heterosexist fashion, they make little of the suggestions that (just possibly) the intimate friendships between figures such as David and Jonathon or Ruth and Naomi might have contained a sexual element. The default assumption is heterosexual unless declared otherwise. We are told that although gay and lesbian people are “welcomed” by the Church, they are not “affirmed” in the sense that their partnerships might be valued. The choice offered is to be in the church and live by the rules of the Church. This means no possibility of same sex relationships. Concern is even expressed that “current political pressures” (read here gay lobby) will mean that gay and lesbian people will be denied their “human right” to seek therapy for their “unwanted same-sex attraction”. If God loves homosexuals, it seems that clues to his love won’t be found in scripture.

In contrast, God seems to love polygamists. Polygamy, we are told, was part of the tradition of ancient Israel and no Old Testament passage actually proscribes it. Polygamy in modern Kenya is even regarded benignly as arising from the “great strains on the practice of monogamy” in that society. Strains for men I presume. One is left with the distinct feeling that anything heterosexual, although not entirely welcome, is not entirely banned either. The stress is on heterosexual. Opposite sex in - same sex out. A recipe for exclusion.

Trailing at the end is the “witness of science” on the biological basis of sexuality. As scientists, we might welcome such an approach but before the Church changed its mind on slavery or women priests did it debate the biological basis for race and gender? I suspect not. It appears here because of homosexuality’s persisting image as a deviation from nature’s heterosexual plan. But never mind. Just what have these chapters to tell us? The first by David de Pomerai and Glyn Harrison is a reasonable enough summary of what neuroscience and genetics can tell us about homosexuality and is fair to the literature. The second by Glyn Harrison is of much lower quality. Here we have an academic psychiatrist bending over backwards to suggest, on the basis of the weakest sort of evidence, that sexual orientation can be changed. I suspect if he were reviewing evidence of similar quality for the efficacy of a new medication he would dismiss it out of hand. And so unsurprisingly, he finds what he sets out to find - namely that given enough willingness there are treatments out there to make homosexual people into heterosexuals, or at the very least stop them wanting sex.

But not all is valueless. Hidden away in all this dross are two chapters of gold (6 & 7) that make it worth taking a second look. They are crucial contributions because they are the only sections to contain the narratives of gay and lesbian people, Christian and non-Christian alike. These accounts resonate with the pain and struggle that lesbian and gay people have always experienced at the hands of the Church and wider society and the ways in which they have prevailed over them. If the whole book were dedicated to such stories then the Church might hear what it so badly needs to hear; the views and experiences of gays and lesbians and their families and friends - their stories, their faiths. Those bishops who are here at Lambeth this July need to read and ponder these accounts. They can safely disregard the rest.

Michael King
Professor of Primary Care Psychiatry
Department of Mental Health Sciences
University College London Medical School
Royal Free Campus
Rowland Hill Street
London NW3 2PF

Dobson Nominated for Radio Hall of Fame

Jim Burroway

July 9th, 2008

Imagine my surprise on learning that Focus on the Family’s James Dobson has been nominated to the Museum of Broadcast Communication’s Radio Hall of Fame. I wonder, is Father Charles Coughlin also a member? If so, then Dobson might make good company. But no, I don’t see Coughlin on the list, so I don’t see how Dobson deserves the honor. Not after such gems like this:

“Homosexuals are not monogamous. They want to destroy the institution of marriage. It will destroy marriage. It will destroy the Earth.”

Wayne Besen at Truth Wins Out is organizing a campaign to remove Dobson from consideration.

To fight back against this offensive decision, TWO strongly urges fair-minded people to take three actions. First, sign TWO’s formal request to have James Dobson removed from consideration. Second, contact Museum of Broadcast Communications CEO Bruce DuMont directly, brucedumont@museum.tv, to express your displeasure. Third, as an option, vote for nominees other than James Dobson or Laura Schlessinger (the general public may vote, and the other nominees are Bob Costas and Howard Stern). It is urgent to act now, as voting comes to a close on July 15.

For-Profit Fundraisers Rip Off Non-Profits and their Donors

Jim Burroway

July 6th, 2008

Private, for-profit companies which contract their services to non-profit organizations for fundraising have become a major rip-off, according to the Los Angeles Times this morning.

For-profit campaigns, which often employ telemarketing, mass mailings or one-time events, account for a small fraction of $223 billion in charitable giving each year in the United States. But they collect significant sums and help shape public perceptions of charities. Pairing computer-controlled dialing systems with low-wage workers, such firms can reach a large number of people in a short time.

But after these companies bills are paid, what’s left over? Often nothing. And yet the fundraising business is growing. Since 2000, the number of campaigns and amounts raised by for-profit firms has risen by about two-thirds in California alone.

To see how did your favorite LGBT charity do in California, here’s the list. GLAAD did the best, keeping a little over 70¢ of every dollar collected. Lambda Legal was very close behind at nearly 68¢. The Gay and Lesbian and Straight Education Network appears on the list twice, once under its full name, and once again under its initials. Combined, the two entities kept a little more than 59¢ of every dollar earned. Losers include the Horizon Foundation (8.6¢ of every dollar) and NGLTF (13.5¢ of every dollar, when combined with the NGLTF Foundation).

There is one caveat to these figures — they do not include fundraising which is conducted in-house.

Woman Sues Hospital For Keeping Her From Dying Partner

Jim Burroway

June 27th, 2008

Janice Langbehn is suing Jackson Memorial Hospital in Miami because hospital administrators refused to allow her access to her dying partner.

In February 2007, Ms. Langbehn, her partner Lisa Marie Pond, and three of their four children were in Florida preparing for a cruise to celebrate their eighteenth anniversary. But before the cruise could leave port, Ms. Pond suffered a massive stroke and was taken to Jackson Memorial. But hospital personnel refused to let Langbehn into Pond’s hospital room, even after a legal power of attorney was faxed to the hospital. Pond was pronounced dead of a brain aneurysm about eighteen hours after being admitted to the hospital. The only time Langbehn was allowed to see her partner was when a priest was giving her last rites.

Langbehn filed a federal lawsuit in Miami on Wednesday charging hospital employees with negligence and “intentional infliction of emotional distress.” The suit seeks damages in excess of $75,000. You can read Janice’s account of the ordeal here.

This is why marriage is so important. Hospitals like Jackson Memorial claim that because Langbehn wasn’t Ponds “immediate family,” they could ignore all evidence of their actually being one — even when presented with a legal power of attorney that anti-gay activists claim would make everything “equal” but separate.

Jackson Memorial Hospital is affiliated with the University of Miami, and touts itself as “one of America’s finest medical facilities.”

Lawrence vs. Texas Revisited

Jim Burroway

June 26th, 2008

Driver error led me to prematurely celebrate the five year anniversary of the Supreme Court ruling which struck down anti-sodomy laws across the nation. Dr. Gregory Herek apparently is in better control of his blogging software than I am of mine.

Dr. Herek is a prolific researcher and professor of psychology at U.C. Davis. Today he posted excerpts from a longer article he wrote to commemorate the ruling. In it, he explores the role that social science played in that ruling and what it tells us today in our current debates over same-sex marriage. He concludes:

Because current debates about law and policy concerning sexual orientation inevitably raise questions about the nature of intimate relationships, parenting, family dynamics, and the personal impact of sexual stigma – phenomena that have been extensively studied by behavioral and social scientists – psychologists and other behavioral scientists have an ongoing role to play in communicating our knowledge to policy makers, jurists, and the public.

By doing so, we will continue to fulfill our longstanding commitment to take the lead in removing the stigma historically attached to homosexuality and same-sex intimate relationships.

Like everything else Dr. Herek writes, this is well worth reading and bookmarking.

Today In History: The Rainbow Flag

Jim Burroway

June 25th, 2008

Today is the thirtieth anniversary of the debut of the Rainbow Gay Pride flag. The original flag, hand-dyed by Gilbert Baker, first flew in the San Francisco Gay Freedom Day parade on June 25, 1978. The original 1978 flag consisted of eight stripes, with each stripe assigned a specific meaning. From top to bottom, the stripes were:

• hot pink: sexuality
• red: life
• orange: healing
• yellow: sunlight
• green: nature
• turquoise: magic
• blue: serenity
• violet: spirit

After Harvey Milk’s assassination on November 27, 1978, demand for the flag went up sharply. But since hot pink fabric wasn’t available as a stock color, the top stripe was removed and the flag became a seven stripe flag. Then, the story goes, organizers planned to hang rainbow flags vertically from lamp posts for San Francisco’s 1979 pride celebration and they noticed that the lamp post would obscure the middle stripe. So the turquoise stripe was dropped and the rainbow flag has remained a six-stripe flag ever since.

The rainbow flag is now a world-wide symbol for LGBT communities everywhere, and it has come to mean many things to many different people. For some, it’s a gesture of visibility, a way of saying we’re here. For others, its a reminder of all that we’ve gone through as a community. And some in the LGBT community consider it a silly expression of separatism and self-segregation from society. Last October, Gilbert Baker penned an essay to explain what the flag meant to him. He describes growing up gay in Middle America and being harrassed while serving in Viet Nam. He was sent stateside to work as a nurse in San Francisco, where he met Harvey Milk:

Stationed in San Francisco as a nurse, I cared for the wounded. I also met my closet [sic] friend and mentor, Harvey Milk. Harvey had an aggressive charm that attracted the wicked and the wise. His charisma and fearlessness are at the heart of all I hold dear.

Harvey was a pioneer, a trailblazer, and with the community by his side, he became a San Francisco Supervisor. One day he said to me that we needed a logo, a symbol. We needed a positive image that could unite us. I sewed my own dresses, so why not a flag? At Harvey’s behest, I went about creating our Rainbow Flag. I had never felt so empowered, so free.

My liberation came at a painful cost. In the ultimate act of anti-gay violence, Harvey Milk and Mayor George Moscone were assassinated. The bullets were meant for Harvey, to silence him, and, by extension, every one of us. Uniting a community cost him his life.

I remember when I was still coming out how important it was for me to see it and know that it marked a place of safety and refuge. And even now, when I go to a strange town and I see a small sticker on a doorway or a car’s bumper, I know that I’m among friends.

The Winner of BTB’s SuperDads Contest

Jim Burroway

June 17th, 2008

Congratulations to Tony K! His entry was selected as the winner of BTB’s SuperDads contest. Since Tony already feels blessed, he asked that we donate the winnings to someone more in need.

So I decided to make a donation in Tony K’s honor to the Wingspan LGBT Community Center for Southern Arizona. Wingspan has a great array of services, most notably their anti-violence project (which includes hate crimes and domestic violence) and the great work they do with at-risk youth. They also have great health and wellness programs, senior programs, transgender support and advocacy, Latina/o outreach, and a public policy program. And since Wingpan has a fundraiser going on right now, this $35 gift is getting matched, dollar for dollar, by a generous donor.

If you missed them, you can read SuperDads essays from Tony K., Garrett, Ben, Jason, and me.

Dallas Prosecutor Claims Spittle is Deadly Weapon

Timothy Kincaid

June 4th, 2008

Willie Campbell is not a model citizen. He’s a homeless vagrant who has been in and out of prison and he regularly resists police efforts to enforce ordinances. But now Willie will not be bothering anyone but prison guards and inmates for a very long time. Willie was just given a 35 year sentence (Dallas Morning News).

For spitting.

You see, Willie has HIV and he spit at a police officer with some of his spittal landing in the officer’s mouth and eye.

Prosecutors convinced a Dallas County jury this week that HIV-positive saliva should be considered a deadly weapon.

Now you, I, and the Centers for Disease Control all know that there have been no known cases of HIV transmittal by means of spittle. And surely the Dallas County presecutor knew that as well.

She just didn’t care.

But Dallas County prosecutor Jenni Morse, who handled Mr. Campbell’s case, said any risk level is sufficient for the deadly weapon finding used during the trial.

“No matter how minuscule, there is some risk,” said Ms. Morse. “That means there is the possibility of causing serious bodily injury or death,” the legal definition of a deadly weapon.

No matter how miniscule? By that standard, there is nothing that would not be a deadly weapon. What about cigarette smoke? Or sneezing?

But how fairly did the jury treat this “deadly weapon” of spittal? Interestingly, we have a comparison.

Mr. Campbell’s sentence was nearly double that given the same day to a man being tried in a courtroom next door. That man, De Leon Vanegas Jr., was sentenced to 18 years in prison for giving “cheese” heroin to a 15-year-old boy who died after using the drug. The jury in that case declared heroin a deadly weapon.

I believe that Jenni Morse is unethical. In her zeal to “put away a bad guy” she was willing to deceive a jury and play on fears and stereotypes. She doesn’t seem concerned in the slightest that she has heightened false fears and made the lives of all HIV positive citizens more difficult.

Who cares? She got her guy. He’s off the streets.

Now I agree that Campbell is a nuisance. And he most certainly should be charged with any crimes he committed. But criminalizing HIV status is, to me, a greater threat to the citizens than is sleeping on a sidewalk and spitting on an officer.

Transgender Non-Discrimination Bill Passes New York Assembly

Jim Burroway

June 4th, 2008

Many people have argued that the state of Transgender advocacy is at about where LGB (without the T) advocacy was ten or twenty years ago. Which makes this development especially important. On June 3, the state assembly voted overwhelmingly (102-33!) to to amend the state’s human rights law to include anti-discrimination protections for gender identity and expression.

The bill’s prospects in the Senate are uncertain, where Republicans hold a slim majority. Gov. Paterson has indicated that he will sign the bill if it reaches his desk.

California Anti-Gay Marriage Initiative has Enough Signatures

Timothy Kincaid

June 2nd, 2008

The total number of signatures required to place the anti-gay marriage amendment to the California Constitution on the ballot is 694,354. The procedure is to have the county clerks test a sample of the signatures and if the extrapolated valid signatures exceed 110% of the signatures required, then it is assumed that enough signatures were received.

The total number of extrapolated signatures required is 763,790.

Currently, the Secretary of State is reporting that there are at least 732,860 valid signatures with several counties as yet unreported. The initiative supporters require another 30,930 valid signatures of the 175,124 signatures yet to be tested. I think we can say with certainty that adequate signatures were collected.

In the next few months, each of us should consider what we are willing to sacrifice to help in the effort to ensure that gay couples in California retain the right to be treated equally under the law. This issue is closely divided in the state and anything you can give to help appeal to the decency of everyday Californians will be needed.

Ten State Attorney Generals ask California Supreme Court to Stay Marriage Decision

Timothy Kincaid

May 30th, 2008

The Attorneys General for the states of Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, South Carolina, South Dakota and Utah have petitioned the Supreme Court of California to stay their marriage equality decision (place it on hold) until November. They argue that citizens of other states will marry in California and come home to sue their own state for recognition.

“We reasonably believe an inevitable result of such ‘marriage tourism’ will be a steep increase in litigation of the recognition issue in our courts,” Utah Attorney General Mark L. Shurtleff wrote in the brief submitted on behalf of the 10 states.

However their argument fails on three fronts.

First, they assume that voters in November will reverse this decision. That result is not a foregone conclusion. And there is no reason to believe that these Attorneys General would be any more prepared for ‘marriage tourism’ in November than they are today; it’s hardly been a secret that the Supreme Court was considering this case. And if they aren’t prepared, then they have no right to punish gay couples for their own ineptitude.

Second, the federal DOMA provides states protection from just such a challenge. If there is any challenge, it would be to federal law, and federal law is not going to change between now and November.

Third, the California decision has not raised any new risk to their states’ entrenched discrimination. There is nothing to stop a legally married Massachusetts couple from moving to New Hampshire today and suing for recognition.

Arnold Schwarzenegger, the Governor of California, and Jerry Brown, the Attorney General of California, agree that this issue has been resolved and oppose a stay. Marriage equality is supported by the California Lieutenant Governor, the California Senate, the California House, and a majority of the California voters.

So to you outsiders I say: Go home. You are not Californians. Your constitution is not our constitution. Your laws are not our laws. Your values are not our values. Your biases are not our biases. Stop being meddlesome busy-bodies and leave the citizens of the State of California alone.

Transgender Advocates’ Statements on APA DSM Workgroups

Jim Burroway

May 30th, 2008

The American Psychiatric Association has convened several panels to discuss revisions to the Diagnostics and Statistical Manual (DSM), which is currently in its fourth edition (DSM-IV). It’s a standard practice for the APA to revise the manual every decade or so in order to incorporate knowledge generated by more current research.

The APA has begun the work of compiling the data for DSM-V, and that process has sparked several strange rumors around the Internet that really didn’t ring true with me. According to a few of these rumors, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) is poised to either reinstate homosexuality in the Diagnostics and Statistical Manual (DSM), or that the APA was going to decide to approve of sexual reorientation therapy. There is nothing however to suggest that anything like that will be happening.

But most of these rumors surround the diagnosis of Gender Identity Disorder (GID), which is of particular interest to the transgender community. These rumors are centered around two researchers who have been appointed to some of the working groups: Kenneth Zucker, who chairs the Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders work group, and Ray Blanchard, who chairs the Paraphilias subworkgroup under Zucker.

To understand transgender people’s concern about these two appointments, some background is in order. Kenneth Zucker and Ray Blanchard are associated with the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto, Canada. This center resulted from the merger of four mental health centers, one of which was the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry. The Clarke Institute was the referral agency for transgender clients who wanted to surgically transition.

Many transgender clients found their treatment in the hands of the Clarke Institute degrading and offensive, feelings which were greatly magnified by the Institute’s main mission of treating sex offenders. Transgender clients often describe inappropriate and degrading tests and experiences at the institute. In fact, feelings run so deeply about the Clarke Institute that some transgender advocates have dubbed it “Jurassic Clarke.”, while others append the adjective “notorious” in front of the Institute’s name so routinely that one might be tempted to think that its official name was The Notorious Clarke Institute.

Because of the Clarke Institute’s history, virtually anything emanating from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health is suspect among the transgender community, and those suspicions often radiate to the rest of the LGBT community.

Associations with the Clarke Institute however isn’t the only source of transgender advocates’ concerns. Also controversial are some of Blanchard’s theories on MtF transgender etiology that he calls “autogynephilia,”which many people find deeply offensive and off the mark. (Blanchard, on the other hand, is a leading researcher into what he believes to be the biological causes of male homosexuality.) Also controversial is Zucker’s approach to treating transgender clients, which involves counseling the client to take on behaviors and attitudes which are considered to be more socially appropriate to that person’s biological sex. This is an approach which raises alarm bells among gays and lesbians who recognize the parallels to sexual reorientation therapies, which may be the source of the rumors concerning homosexuality and sexual reorientation therapy that I mentioned earlier.

Today, we have a statement from four Transgender advocacy groups, which will hopefully provide some clarification on Zucker’s and Blanchard’s role in the DSM-V revision.

Statement from:

National Center for Transgender Equality (NCTE)
Transgender Law and Policy Institute (TLPI)
Transgender Law Center (TLC)
Transgender Youth Family Allies (TYFA)

On May 1, 2008, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) announced the composition of work groups to review scientific advances and research-based information to develop the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V). The composition and scope of the work group on Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders and two subgroups are of great interest to transgender people and therefore to our organizations.

Though no consensus exists among transgender people about whether and how a GID diagnosis should be in the DSM-V, there is certainly agreement that decisions made by the APA about transgender and gender non-conforming people will deeply affect the lives of millions of transgender adults, adolescents and children.

We have met with and strongly encouraged the APA to closely adhere to its stated commitment to scientific process regarding diagnosis of transgender people. We are confident that a fair, unbiased review of current knowledge can result in a DSM-V that can move society toward a more rational and humane understanding of transgender people.

We encourage our transgender brothers and sisters to approach this issue with thoughtful consideration of all available information. To that end, we encourage transgender people and allies to remember that:

The naming of this working group on May 1 was not the commencement of advocacy around rethinking or revision of the GID diagnosis. Thoughtful advocates, within and without the APA, have been working on this issue for several years and they will continue to do so for several more, through at least 2012 when the DSM-V is finalized. We look forward to strengthening our relationships and positive communication channels with the many APA-affiliated professionals who are knowledgeable and understanding of transgender issues.

It is inconceivable that in the 21st century any credible scientist or medical professional would recommend any discredited treatment that would attempt to change a person’s core gender identity or sexual orientation. Such treatments have no empirical basis and are harmful. Importantly though, the DSM consists of diagnoses and not treatments. As such, the DSM-V will not offer any treatment recommendations for transgender people of any age.

The APA has created several mechanisms for thoughtful input into the DSM revision process from mental health professionals as well as laypeople affected by the DSM. We encourage transgender people and allies, especially mental health professionals, to utilize these systems to appropriately impact the process. In particular the APA has created a website through which written comments can be submitted. Additionally, as the DSM-V development process advances, working groups are charged with seeking the counsel and input of various advisers who will be selected from various clinicians, academics and other stakeholders. We will advocate for the inclusion of fair-minded advisors who are committed to providing only scientific, fair, reasonable and humane input. We are hopeful that these systems will help provide sufficient information to assure a fair and scientific process for the creation of the DSM-V.

Public acceptance of transgender people and anti-discrimination protections have been advancing swiftly. This is in large part due to scientific and medical advances, but also to the assertive, vigilant and intelligent activism of thousands of transgender people and our allies. While transgender people’s history with the psychiatric and medical professions has been, at times, fraught with misunderstanding and tainted by bigotry, we are optimistic that current and developing scientific research and clinical data will further the understanding of transgender issues among health care professionals and the public.

National Center for Transgender Equality (NCTE)
www.nctequality.org

Transgender Law and Policy Institute (TLPI)
www.transgenderlaw.org

Transgender Law Center (TLC)
www.transgenderlawcenter.org

Transgender Youth Family Allies (TYFA)
www.imatyfa.org

Poll on California Marriage Not Encouraging

Timothy Kincaid

May 27th, 2008

The LA Times took a poll on public response to the California Supreme Court’s decision to invalidate the ban on same-sex marriage. The response was:

29% - Strongly approve
12% - Somewhat approve
10% - Somewhat disapprove
42% - Strongly disapprove
7% - Don’t know

And as to whether they would support an amendment to reverse the decision (registered voters)

54% - For
35% - Against
10% - Don’t know
1% - Would not vote

The Times found this to be inconclusive

the poll suggests the outcome of the proposed amendment is far from certain. Overall, it was leading 54% to 35% among registered voters. But because ballot measures on controversial topics often lose support during the course of a campaign, strategists typically want to start out well above the 50% support level.

However, if we compare the polling to the vote on Proposition 22 - an anti-gay marriage legislative initiative on the Spring 2000 ballot - it is hard to maintain a rosy view of the future. Seven months before the election, polling showed support at 57%, opposition at 39% and uncertainty at 4%. The month before the election, 5% had moved from support to uncertain. But on election day, 61% of those who went to the polls voted to restrict the rights of their gay neighbors.

If the same pattern holds, in November this new anti-gay amendment will also pass by significant numbers.

But there is one card we hold that we did not have eight years ago. Unless the court issues a stay, Californians will not be asked to prohibit possible future marriages, they will be asked whether lives that have been joined should be put asunder. It ceases to be abstract and becomes personal.

So I ask this of you fellow gay Californians who are considering taking this step: Invite your friends and relatives. It may break your budget to double your guest list but do it anyway. Even if you have to limit yourself to cake and punch in the church’s rec hall. Even if you really don’t want to see Aunt Edna and hear her snide remarks on your special day, invite her anyway. Invite everyone and anyone that might be even slightly happy for you.

And be certain that your minister tells those present that “forever hold your peace” means that they have to support this union, in person and at the ballot box, and they are obligated to do what they can to keep it together, happy, and legal. Marriage is not just a commitment between two people. It is also a commitment between the couple and the community.

Aunt Edna may not like gay marriage. But make sure she is invested in your gay marriage. Make your marriage matter to your friends, your family, and your neighbors. Give them a reason to vote against this discriminatory amendment.

Principal Resigns Over Gay-Straight Alliance

Jim Burroway

May 22nd, 2008

Irmo, S.C. High School Principal Eddie Walker announced that he will resign, following the creation of a Gay-Straight Alliance (GSA) club at his school over his objections. That announcement came after the school district determined that he had not grounds to prevent the club’s formation.

Walker’s stated objections to the club were based on his own personal religious convictions. He also falsely accused the GSA of encouraging sexual behavior:

In fact our sex education curriculum is abstinence based. I feel the formation of a Gay/Straight Alliance Club at Irmo High school implies that students joining the club will have chosen to or will choose to engage in sexual activity with members of the same sex, opposite sex, or members of both sexes.

Gay-Straight Alliances have been established in hundreds of school districts across the country to provide a safe place for LGBT students and their allies, where they can find support and guidance. One student who attended a high school with a GSA remarked:

People used to make fun of and beat up gay people, just because they were different. This is actually a program to make everyone feel that they belong.”

I think Principal Walker made the right decision. If there’s someone who doesn’t belong at Irmo High School, it’s him. Not the LGBT students who attend his school.

Portland Elects Gay Mayor

Jim Burroway

May 21st, 2008

Portland elected Sam Adams to be the city’s mayor yesterday, making Portland the largest city so far to elect an openly gay city executive. As of 11:33 PDT last night, he was leading his closest rival, businessman Sho Dozono by a margin of 58% to 34% with 77% of the votes counted.

“I’m running not to be a gay mayor, but a great mayor,” he said after giving his victory speech last night. “But I’m very cognizant, very aware that I’m the first openly gay mayor of a major American city. That’s a real honor”

Make It Personal

Timothy Kincaid

May 16th, 2008

It’s far easier to deny rights to them than it is to you.

Them, those un-named faceless homosexuals out there in San Francisco, are foreign and strange and we don’t care what they want. But you, the person we know and love, well we don’t like disappointing you.

Today Ellen Degeneres made gay marriage personal. She announced that she and Portia de Rossi plan to marry. The response: a standing ovation.

Now some of her viewers may not really approve in the abstract of state sanctioned marriage between persons of the same sex, but how can you not be happy for Ellen?

We all have an audience. We all have people who want to be happy for us.

Take Dan Pinello and Lee Nissensohn. These guys aren’t celebrities. But they found a way to introduce themselves to their neighbors and become a face and a name in the marriage equality debate.

Dan and Lee were arested for trespassing on April 28 when they refused to leave Oyster Bay Town Hall at closing time after officials politely rebuffed the couple’s request for a marriage license. And now when some New Yorkers think of gay marriage, they think of those two middle aged professionals with a weakness for stray cats.

You don’t have to announce your engagement on a popular talk show. You don’t have to get arrested or even speak to a newspaper. But your grocer and your autorepairman and your dentist all vote. For them you can give marriage equality your face and name.

Jay Bakker and Soulforce Meet With Joel Osteen

Timothy Kincaid

May 14th, 2008

For Jay Bakker, growing up as the son of Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker was more than a little chaotic. Until the collapse of their Christian media empire in 1987, his parents were superstars. But at age 13, his father went to prison, the family’s closest friends denounced them, and Jay’s world changed completely.

Perhaps it is this unique experience of having been at the crest of the conservative Christian world only to feel betrayed that has allowed Jay to question the purpose and meaning of his Christian faith. And Jay’s openness has left him with conclusions and direction that are unlike many others in that world.

One area of disagreement is with whom God accepts and welcomes. A careful study of scripture led Jay to conclude that many of those who are not welcome in the pews of most churches are those whom God most seeks to know. And in revisiting scripture and the nature of God, Jay came to believe that homosexuality is not sin.

Jay now is joining Soulforce to take that message on the road in an effort called The American Family Outing. And because of his history and his connections, Jay has access to religious leaders that most gay people cannot dream of.

The first stop was in Houston, TX at the megachurch of Joel Osteen. There Bakker was able to arrange for a meeting with Osteen. From the Houston Chronicle

Bakker said Osteen was most gracious, had chairs reserved for the LGBT community Sunday morning and made time to meet after the 11 a.m. service.

During their chat, the two men agreed to disagree.

“I don’t think homosexuality is a sin, and they do,” Bakker said, “but it was very nice of Joel to introduce me to his family. I met Joel’s wife and mother, and they were just great. … I’m really grateful.”

Don Iloff, Lakewood’s chief of communications, agreed the visits and meetings went well.

“Dodie Osteen, Joel’s mother, wanted to meet Jay,” Iloff said.

“She knew him as a little boy. And everybody liked Tammy Faye and Jim, Jay’s dad. He has his flaws but … ”

Iloff said it was a pleasure to host members of the LGBT community at Lakewood. “They’re very, very sweet people. They’re the nicest people. I didn’t expect anything else, really.”

The communications chief also said members of the LGBT community are welcome at Lakewood, but he and the Osteens don’t have much more to say on the subject of sexuality.

While it would have been phenominal had Osteen take the opportunity to requestion his theology, his response is nonetheless encouraging and to be welcomed. As more people in the conservative evangelical Christian movement come to know gay people and their allies, the stereotypes can drop away and the animosity diminish. And while we can differ on the interpretation and application of Paul’s conflation of Greek words in an epistle to a church in Rome 2,000 years ago, I hope we can do so without engaging in Culture War.

I am very appreciative of the work that Soulforce does. And I am very appreciative that a straight preacher is willing to see that his mission to spread the Gospel includes using his family name to gain access to some religious leaders who would drive gay men and women away from their faith.

I wish them much continued success in their campaign.

AZ House Approves Anti-Marriage Amendment Proposal

Jim Burroway

May 12th, 2008

We’ve just learned that thirty-three members of the Arizona House of Representatives approved SCR1042, the proposed anti-marriage amendment. The resolution passed 33-25, with two representatives not voting. You can see how each representative voted here. The battle now moves to the Senate. If SCR1042 passes the Senate, the proposed anti-marriage amendment goes onto the ballot for November’s general election.

Now it’s time for Arizona residents to shift their attention to their state Senator.If you don’t know who your Senator is, the Equality Arizona web site can find him or her for you and provide you with phone numbers and contact information. You can call directly, or you can even send a message via Equality Arizona. They’ve made it extremely easy to do this.