Box Turtle Bulletin

Heterosexual Menace: A Mom’s Novel Approach To Conflict Resolution Between Children

Jim Burroway

July 3rd, 2009

Maggie Gallagher, in reaction to the Frank Lombard case, admits that she is very mistrustful of men adopting children. “I have a bias in favor of mothers,” she writes. “I have a suspicion (let me be frank — I’m not proud, but it’s true) of men who want to get close to children while depriving them of mothers.” I guess when it comes to raising children, mothers really know best. We can all probably learn some valuable lessons from moms on raising children.

Like this dilemma every parent faces. What do you do when your nine-year-old child is in the middle of a long-running dispute with one of her classmates?

Well if you’re a licensed clinical social worker and a classroom mother at your daughter’s elementary school, you post a sexually suggestive ad in the “Casual Encounters” section of Craigist. And when throngs of sex-seeking men answer the ad, you give them the phone number of your child’s antagonist.

It just makes sense, right?

That’s what Margery Tannenbaum thought. She placed the ad with the headline of “Looking for a good time? W4M21″ on Craiglist. The ad read, “I need a little affection. … I  am blonde and very cute! I’ll be waiting!”

Next thing you know her child’s arch-enemy’s mother had to field at least 50 calls from horny straight men in two days before changing her number. Tannenbaum also ordered at least eight magazine subscriptions, a book and a DVD to be sent to the child’s home.

Tannenbaum was arraigned on Thursday on charges of aggravated harassment and endangering the welfare of a child. Her defense lawyer — he’s probably straight too, but we haven’t confirmed that yet — called her a “good, hardworking professional.” He also says “this is being blown out of proportion.”

This is outrageous, so outrageous I think it calls for some LaBarbera-esqe typography. Heterosexuals will stop at nothing in their thirst for debauchery! If you think this latest example is beyond the pale, then I’ve got news for you: this barely scratches the surface. There’s more heterosexual menace here and in our report, “The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing the Myths.”

Update: News coverage of the Long Island mom accused of sending sex-crazed men to her daughter’s nine-year-old classmate is apparently lacking what some say is a key piece of information: the fact the alleged perpetrator is a heterosexual who lives with a “straight” man. Where’s the media frenzy? Why do all these reports hide that important fact?

Okay, I’ll stop with the red ink. It makes my eyes hurt.

LGBT Activists Call for March On Washington

This commentary is the opinion of the author and may not necessarily reflect those of other authors at Box Turtle Bulletin.

Jim Burroway

June 8th, 2009

There has been talk about this for some time now, but it has now hit the Associated Press:

An activist who worked alongside slain gay rights leader Harvey Milk announced plans Sunday for a march on Washington this fall to demand that Congress establish equality and marriage rights for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community.

Cleve Jones said the march planned for Oct. 11 will coincide with National Coming Out Day and launch a new chapter in the gay rights movement. He made the announcement during a rally at the annual Utah Pride Festival.“We seek nothing more and nothing less than equal protection in all matters governed by civil law in all 50 states,” Jones said.

I’m as excited about the prospect of a march as anyone can be. I would really love to go to this. That said however, I must question the wisdom of having a march on Washington this year.

First, there’s the timing. October 11 is Columbus Day. Congress won’t be in session and the President will be out of town. This raises the question: exactly who do we expect to hear us when we march? Who will receive our petitions or issue statements of support? Who will be held accountable before the press? With everyone gone for the holiday weekend, it will be all to easy for our representatives and President to duck responding to this since they will be on break and “unavailable.”

And guess what else will be unavailable? The National Mall. It was already booked for Columbus Day by three groups already expecting 135,000 people altogether. March organizers seemed to have forgotten to check this whopping detail.

Which brings up another question: who is organizing this thing? And how do they intend to pay for it? Calling for a march means that someone has to rent the stage, put up lights and sound, buy insurance, lease thousands of porta-potties, handle first aid services, deal with security, coordinate transportation, pay for publicity… you get the picture. It’s a huge undertaking. So far, there doesn’t seem to be an organized effort to make all of this happen.

As far as I can tell, this is a case of someone saying, hey, let’s meet up in Washington and it’ll all come together magically. Since the Mall’s not available, I recommend the Starbucks at 7th and E Streets Northwest. It’s close by and should be easy to find.

Well it doesn’t come together magically and it will cost a lot of money to pull off. Barely three weeks after the proposed March, Maine will likely be voting on whether they should keep their newly signed same-sex marriage law. Anti-gay activists have already promised to pour all they have into Maine to convince voters to scrap it. At a time when we should be putting all of our resources into Maine to keep that from happening, we will instead be spending a portion of our money for a march on Washington on a day when there won’t be anyone in town and the Mall will be occupied by other people who already have their permits in hand.

It will be a very empowering experience if we do march on Washington, but that experience will be fleeting. No one will be there that needs to hear us, and our money won’t go to Maine where it will be badly needed. And if we lose Maine, it will be nobody’s fault but our own. We need to forget the march for right now and remember Maine.

You don’t know how badly I want to march on Washington. I’m agry about the dithering at the White House and the cowardice in Congress. I want to march in the worst way. But if we go through with this, it will truly be in the worst way.

Update: Oh, and one more thing. You want to know what’s really dumb about this idea? If it goes forward, I can see myself doing everything I can to be there against my better judgment. If they can pull this off — and right now I don’t see how they can — it will be a huge event that I don’t think I’d want to miss. But I do have to ask, with Congress in recess and the President out of town, what would we hope to get out of it besides a huge party?

Heterosexual Menace: Fox Reality Show To Promote “Traditional” Marriages

Jim Burroway

June 6th, 2009

Arranged marriages, that is:

Production has already been completed on the pilot, which centers on a woman who is in her late 30s and is eager to get hitched. A group of friends and family are presented with five eligible men, and the group slowly picks off the guys until one is left standing.

As each man is booted out, the bride-to-be gets her first look (”Dating Game” style) at who she won’t be marrying. By the end of the episode, she finally meets the guy she’s going to marry — and the ceremony is held. Each week focuses on another potential coupling.

Federalism and Cheney’s gay marriage identity crisis

Gabriel Arana

June 1st, 2009

Speaking at the National Press Club, former Vice President Dick Cheney reiterated his support for gay marriage at a journalism awards ceremony.

Despite expressing support for gay marriage, Dick Cheney said he opposes federal recognition of gay marriage. It is an issue that he believes should be “regulated … at the state level.”

This is essentially a federalist argument—and a seeming compromise.

But there is an inherent contraction in Cheney’s gay rights position: he supports [CORRECTED: does not openly oppose] the “Defense of Marriage Act,” which precludes the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages performed in individual states. Before DoMA, federal recognition of marriages relied almost exclusively on the states, but this power was wrested from the states by the federal government in 1996, an inherently anti-federalist usurpation of state power.

(In fact, this is the central issue in a recent GLAD suit, filed in Boston, that challenges DoMA. GLAD is arguing that DoMA infringes on Constitutionally protected state sovereignty.)

For one to support gay marriage on a state-by-state basis—based on an appeal to federalism—and also support DoMA is unprincipled. Cheney’s silence on DoMA might be a pragmatic decision, a way of avoiding a national confrontation over gay rights. Maybe some of the inconsistency is a natural product of trying to reconcile his membership in one of the most virulently anti-gay administrations in recent memory while at the same time wanting, as parents do, for his children to be happy.

This commentary is the opinion of the author and may not necessarily reflect those of other authors at Box Turtle Bulletin.

Heterosexual Menace: Teaching Heterosexuality In The Public Schools

Jim Burroway

May 29th, 2009

If opposite-sex marriage becomes legal, then they’ll be teaching heterosexuality to your children in the public schools:

Radical heterosexualist Melissa Weber

A middle school teacher has been arrested after authorities said she had sexual trysts with a 14-year-old student in a Queens classroom after school.

Social studies teacher Melissa Weber was awaiting arraignment late Thursday on rape, sexual abuse and child endangerment charges. Prosecutors don’t know whether she has a lawyer, and no telephone number can be found for her home.

Prosecutors say Weber had sex with the boy seven times at M.S./I.S. 8 this month and last. Prosecutors say the teen’s mother heard about the liaison Wednesday and found hundreds of contacts with the 27-year-old teacher in her son’s cell phone.

There’s more heterosexual menace here and in our report, “The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing the Myths.”

What the Calif. Supreme Court said

Gabriel Arana

May 27th, 2009

The California Supreme Court’s decision yesterday centered not on a single question, but a few. Of the challenges to Prop. 8, the most salient was the procedural question of whether the effect of Prop. 8 was “big enough” to constitute a revision of the equal protection clause. I discuss the three issues the court considered as well as some related questions.

QUESTION 1: The judges were asked to decide whether Prop. 8 modified equal protection substantively enough to constitute a revision. Basically, the state’s Supreme Court found that NO, Prop. 8 did not constitute a fundamental revision of equal protection, which requires passage by the legislature and a public referendum, and therefore could stand as an amendment.

Instead, the measure carves out a narrow and limited exception to these state constitutional rights, reserving the official designation of the term “marriage” for the union of opposite-sex couples as a matter of state constitutional law, but leaving undisturbed all of the other extremely significant substantive aspects of a same-sex couple’s state constitutional right to establish an officially recognized and protected family relationship and the guarantee of equal protection of the laws.

The court is pointing out here that the only thing at stake here is the term “marriage.” Gays and lesbians retain all the rights granted by marriage in the state as articulated in In Re Marriage Cases, the decision which overturned the statutory ban on gay marriage last May. The court’s previous decision also elevated protections for gays and lesbians to the level offered to blacks and women; these protections, too, remain intact.

The passage of Prop. 8 has, according to the justices, “minimal effect on the governmental plan or framework of California that existed prior to the amendment” and therefore cannot be considered a revision to the state constitution. The judges relied heavily on this criteria — effect on governmental framework — in deciding that Prop. 8 was not a revision. They also considered the “qualitative” effect of Prop. 8 — how it affected the nature and credibility of the constitution — but fell back on the “qualitative” question of its concrete effects in deciding the matter.

Can rights be taken away by a simple majority vote?

The short answer is, yes. There have been many instances in which the California Supreme Court allowed a fundamental right to be altered in some way because of an amendment. For instance, after the court found in 1972 that the death penalty constituted “cruel and unusual punishment,” voters reinstated it by using a ballot measure. One point the justices brought up was that there have also been many instances in which a right was extended by amendment — why then, they reason, could it not be curtailed?

As many commentators have pointed out, the amendment process in California is liberal as compared to other states, which is part of the reason why hundreds of amendments to the state constitution (as opposed to 27 for the U.S. Constitution) have been enacted. More importantly, the justices pointed out, the California Constitution has no provision in it preventing an amendment that revises fundamental rights. Massachusetts, on the other hand, does; you can’t revise the state constitution’s Bill of Rights. It would also be another thing if we were talking about the U.S. Constitution.

It’s important to keep in mind that the constitutional structure of California government in part constrains what the judges can rule in favor of; unlike other state constitutions, California’s does little to stand in the way of majority rule. Even gay legal advocates thought this was a long shot.

Is this like “separate but equal”?

Yes and no. Many BTB readers have commented on how this decision is reminiscent of the “separate but equal” decision that allowed segregation to continue. I think it’s important to note that the right in question here is not really equivalent in scale to segregation. We are not talking about separate public accommodations — we’re talking about the right to a label, which, while culturally and politically significant, does not approach the rights in question in Plessy v. Ferguson. I am not saying I think the decision is just or fair, only that comparing it to “separate but equal” strikes me as a bit hyperbolic.

A larger question is whether we should be concentrating our efforts on the symbolic “civil unions” vs. “marriage” distinction when millions of gays and lesbians can still be legally fired for being gay, cannot adopt children, and have no rights comparable to those offered by marriage or civil unions in places like California.

QUESTION 2: The second argument the justices considered was whether Prop. 8 violated the “separation of powers” by allowing the electorate to decide on a matter already settled by the courts. The justices rejected this argument outright, saying that the California Constitution “explicitly recognizes the right of the people to amend their state Constitution.”

This argument was even more of a long shot than the first. It was basically saying that the electorate “usurped” the power of the judiciary.

QUESTION 3: The final question the judges considered was not proposed by Lambda Legal, which brought the case to the court, but by the state’s Attorney General. He argued that certain rights enshrined in the state constitution are “inalienable” and “not subject to ‘abrogation.’” Again, the justices fell back on the fact that the state constitution does not explicitly designate certain rights as such, as opposed to other constitutions that do.

The court’s decision is of course a personal regret, but I think the moral question of whether this is, in a sense, “right” is different from the legal question of whether Prop. 8 could be overturned. It is telling that the justices voted 6-1 in favor of upholding Prop. 8, though for the dissenting opinion one can look to the decision here (it’s at the end).

Phyllis Lyon: “It Will Be OK”

Jim Burroway

May 27th, 2009

LGBT civil rights pioneer Phyllis Lyon, along with her partner Del Martin, helpe to found the Daughters of Bilitis in San Francisco clear back in 1955. By then, Phyllis and Del had already been together for five years. Their concerns at that time were much simpler than marriage. People were regularly getting fired and thrown out of their homes for being gay. Besides, marriage was just not an option — not even something to fantasize about, as far as they were concerned.

But Phyllis and Del made history by becoming the first same-sex couple to be married in the state of California. They were first twice — once when Gavin Newsom began issuing licenses in 2004, and again for keeps after the California State Supreme Court ruled for same-sex marriage in 2008. Del passed away in August, a married woman.

Writing in the Los Angeles Times, Phyllis expressed her disappointment over Prop 8, but she knows that history is on our side:

I’m optimistic about the future. Look at all the states that have now done this. Boom. Boom. Boom. Boom. They may not all last. But it’s going to be all right. It may not be while I’m alive, but eventually it will work out that if two people want to get married, they can get married and it won’t matter to whom. We went through this before with people of color. It will be OK.

I share her optimism. She knows as well as anyone how far we’ve come. As I said yesterday, it’s time we took the long view because this has been long struggle. There will be setbacks, but there will be more victories. No one could have imagined ten hears ago that we’d where we are today. Prop 22, which limited marriage to opposite-sex couples in California, passed with a margin of 23% in 2000. Eight years later, Prop 8 passed with a margin of just over 4%.

Prop 8 is a huge disappointment today, and we are all justifiably angry that our rights can be put to a popular vote. No one else has had their rights stripped at the ballot box in the history of this republic. But there will be a time when we will look back on Prop 8 as a blip. Just remember how far we’ve come, and how close we are to achieving equality. And look at where we have equality today in places we never dreamed possible just a yeara ago, let alone nine years ago when Prop 22 passed by a landslide. It may not feel like it today, but we really are getting there. Take heart.

How Full Is Your Glass?

Jim Burroway

May 26th, 2009

The California Supreme Court gave us a half-and-half opinion today concerning same-sex marriage in that state. They upheld Proposition 8 as a valid state constitutional amendment, while also holding that the proposition’s passage does not retroactively invalidate the approximately 18,000 same-sex marriage that were solemnized last year. While it’s small consolation, it’s not nothing — especially to those who are married and had a very personal stake in the decision.

Given the tremendous gains we’ve seen in Iowa and the Northeast, this California setback is sobering if not unexpected. But we must remember that the advancement of civil rights for any marginalized group has never been a smooth progression. It has always been a history of fits and starts, advances and setbacks, defeats and victories. Ours has been no different.

So if you might be discouraged, I would encourage you to look at where we are today and compare it to where we started ten years ago. And ask yourself this: Where do you think we will be ten years from now? Just imagining that has me more energized than ever before.

Cameronesque Award: The Family “Research” Council

Jim Burroway

May 15th, 2009

The Family “Research” Council is engaging in some downright Cameronesque “research” in its latest fundraising appeal. In an email blast with “Save America’s Future” in the subject line, the FRC is begging its members to donate online “to help us stop liberal attacks on life, marriage and your religious liberty.” And what is the greatest danger to your religious:

Repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act . . . special rights for homosexuals, lesbians, transvestites, and transsexuals . . . ultimately silencing both pastors in their pulpits and Christian and conservative broadcasters.

And they site a very prestigious name to back up their claim:

Religious freedom? Not for you, if the Harvard International Law Journal is right:

“[S]cholars [are] now suggesting that even core religious practices . . .

can be regulated in the name of equality . . .”

“Regulate” your religious freedom? We can’t let that happen!

But wait a minute, doesn’t the United States still have a First Amendment guaranteeing the free exercise of religion? How did the editors of the Harvard International Law Journal miss that?

It turns out, they didn’t. The article the FRC is quoting from was written by Carolyn Evans and Beth Gaze, scholars at the Centre for Comparative Constitutional Studies, Melbourne Law School, Australia.

That’s right. Australia. The relevant quote — without the ellipses — is this:

On the other side, there is an increasingly powerful movement to subject religions to the full scope of discrimination laws, with some scholars now suggesting that even core religious practices (such as the ordination of clergy) can be regulated in the name of equality.[6] At present, exemptions are given to religious organizations in many non-discrimination laws,[7] but the scope of those exemptions is being reduced in many liberal democracies.[8]

Now most people never bother to look at footnotes. But the relevant footnote are very instructive — as footnotes always are:

[6] See Pru Goward, Address at the Ordination of Catholic Women Annual Conference, Melbourne: Women, Human Rights and Religion (Nov. 5-6, 2005), available at http://www.ocw.webcentral.com.au/ articles.htm; Cass R. Sunstein, On the Tension between Sex Equality and Religious Freedom, Public Law and Legal Theory Working Paper No. 167 (2007), available at http://www.ssrn.com/ abstract_id=995325; Cf. Reid Mortensen, Rendering to God and Caesar: Religion in Australian Discrimination Law, 18U. Queensland L. J. 208, 219 (1994-1995).

[7] See, e.g., anti-discrimination laws in the U.S. and the U.K.: Civil Rights Act of 1964 §§ 702 and 703, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-1 and 2000e-2; Equality Act 2006 (U.K.), §§ 50 and 57-60; Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 (U.K.) §§ 7 and 25.

[8] For example, in 2000 a European Directive (Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000) was issued that created quite strict limitations on the ability of EU member states to grant exemptions from anti-discrimination laws to religious employers.

Notice what’s happening. There are three scholars (two in Australia and one in Chicago) who believe that the state ought to regulate “core religious practice.” There are, of course, other scholars not cited who believe the opposite, and can back up their beliefs as well. But that doesn’t mean a court will go along with it.

The authors also cite the European Union in as attempting to impose such regulations. But the authors cite the United States as holding a body of laws which preserve religious freedom.

And when the authors go on to examine “core religious practice” (i.e. “selection and training of clergy, the language and symbolism of ritual, and the determination of membership of the religious community”) they conclude that religion enjoys a special claim to being exempted from the kinds of regulation that the FRC would have us fear.

It’s been a while since we awarded a Cameronesque award to anyone. But it’s been a while since we’ve seen such an outrageous example of misuse of the professional literature. The Family “Research” Council is now a two-time winner.

Obama’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” On Marriage

This commentary is the opinion of the author and may not necessarily reflect those of other authors at Box Turtle Bulletin

Jim Burroway

May 7th, 2009

When Pres. Barack Obama tried to quell the outrage over selecting Saddleback pastor Rick Warren to give the invocation at the Inauguration, Obama promised to be a “fierce advocate of equality for gay and Lesbian Americans.” But lately he hasn’t been so fierce. Obama has backtracked on his promise to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and a recent re-vamping of the White House web site on Civil Rights has dropped all mention of repealing the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

The silence on DOMA is particularly strange because during the Democratic primaries he used his stance on DOMA’s full repeal to distinguish himself from then-Sen. Hillary Clinton. She wanted to retain the provisions permitting states to refuse recognition of same-sex marriages performed in other states. He campaigned on its full repeal.

But since then, Obama has clammed up altogether as a number of states have taken action to recognize same-sex marriage. Iowa, Vermont, Connecticut, Maine, and possible New Hampshire — that’s quite a remarkable procession in just a few short weeks. It’s hard to imagine such a remarkable series of developments go unnoticed. But the phrase “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is quickly becoming an apt description for the White House’s approach to marriage:

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs was asked during the press briefing Wednesday if President Obama had any reaction to same-sex marriage becoming legal in Maine.

… Jake Tapper (The Advocate): Does the President or the White House have a reaction to the Governor of Maine signing a same-sex marriage bill?

Robert Gibbs: No, I think the President’s position on same-sex marriages has been talked about and discussed.

Tapper: He opposes same-sex marriage.

Gibbs: He supports civil unions.

Tapper: Does that mean that he’s going to say or do anything against what the citizens of Maine –

Gibbs: Not that I’m aware of. I think the President believes this is an issue that’s best addressed by the states.

This silence over marriage is just one example of Obama’s timidity where LGBT civil rights are concerned. Richard Socarides, who served as a Clinton White House staffer from 1991 to 1993 and was openly gay at the time, wrote in an op-ed in the Washington Post over the weekend asking what happened to our “fierce defender”?

I understand that the president has his hands full saving the economy. But across a broad spectrum of issues — including women’s rights, stem cell research and relations with Cuba — the Obama administration has shown a willingness to exploit this change moment to bring about dramatic reform.

So why not on gay rights? Where is our New Deal?

It is the memory of 1993’s gays-in-the-military debacle (and a desire never to repeat it) that has both the president’s advisers and policy advocates holding back, waiting for some magical “right time” to move boldly.

This is a bad strategy. President Obama will never have more political capital than he has now, and there will never be a better political environment to capitalize on. People are distracted by the economy and war, and they are unlikely to get stirred up by the right-wing rhetoric that has doomed efforts in the past.

The White House did release a statement urging passage of the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act, and that is not something that should go unnoticed. But Obama’s timidity on the more substantive gay issues is now getting noticed outside the gay press and blogosphere. The New York Times has noticed his absence today — and brought out a key inconsistency on his stance toward marriage:

Anything substantive he might say on same-sex marriage — after the Iowa ruling, the White House put out a statement saying the president “respects the decision” — would be endlessly parsed. If Mr. Obama were to embrace same-sex marriage, he would be seen as reversing a campaign position and alienating some moderate and religious voters he has courted.

…Mr. Obama supports a legislative repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, the 1996 law that said states need not recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. Opponents of same-sex marriage say that is an inconsistency.

Opponents aren’t the only ones who see this as an inconsistency. Your humble scribe does so as well. And with DOMA being deep-sixed from the White House Civil Rights web stite, my willingness to give Obama the benefit of the doubt shrinks proportionately.

In the past several weeks, there has been a remarkable sea-change on marriage equality. Four (possibly five) states are being added to the marriage equality column. This was unimaginable just a few months ago in the wake of California’s passage of Prop 8. But these remarkable development has been utterly invisible to the White House.

Obama promised bold leadership on these issues but we haven’t seen it. How can he be bold when he’s not even bothering to catch up?

Religion vs Sexuality: the right way to frame Donahoe’s dismissal?

Gabriel Arana

May 4th, 2009

Vis-à-vis the discussion on here about the student at Cornell who was dismissed from a leadership position at Chia Alpha Christian fellowship for being openly gay. The student government, which had temporarily suspended funding for the organization, reinstated it. Now one of our readers, who is also a student at Cornell, has written a short piece about this, which I think brings up an interesting point: Is it right to view this as a religion-sexuality conflict? I’d be interested to hear what our readers think.

I was greatly disappointed to read that the Student Assembly has decided to reinstate funding to Chi Alpha Christian Fellowship following the discriminatory acts committed against one of its own members. The rationale for this decision is alluded to in the text of the Student Assembly Financial Committee’s decision:

[I]n a case where religious pursuits conflict with sexual orientation, it is not clear which of the two categories should take priority.

The identification of the problem as being one between “religion” and “sexuality” was inappropriate and resulted in the SAFC’s inability to act on behalf of its constituency. Had the SAFC seen the problem as one between a “student” who had been discriminated against by a “student group,” perhaps they would been better able to evaluate the case for potential recourse against Chi Alpha. Their task in this case should have been to evaluate a discriminatory act by a student group and take appropriate action, not to attempt to reconcile years of umbrage between religion and sexuality.

Had the SAFC not burdened themselves with the weight of attempting to cure major social issues (perhaps swine flu on next week’s agenda?), they would have seen that revoking Chi Alpha’s funds was the most appropriate course of action.

The Executive Committee is reported as having recognized that, “it was unclear whether Chi Alpha violated the goals of the Cornell University [Commitment to] Diversity.” Having glanced at the University’s Commitment to Diversity, I see no ambiguity. Three of the four goals laid out in that document have clearly been violated by the Chi Alpha organization. Namely, “to ensure that the composition of …leadership reflects the composition of the broader society,” “to ensure that our community embraces and supports individuals from all… sexual orientation… groups in their chosen pursuits,” and “to ensure that individuals from all backgrounds achieve to their full potential.”

There is no question these tenets were violated by removing Chris Donohoe ’09 from his leadership position based solely on his sexual orientation. This further suggests that the SAFC has misidentified the issue at hand, and, in turn, their subsequent role in resolving the problem. It is clear from the University’s diversity statement that acts of discrimination and intolerance are not welcome on campus and offer the SAFC a solid basis for revoking Chi Sigma’s funding. Instead, we are currently faced with the reprehensible situation in which Chris continues to pay a student activity fee that funds an organization to which he is not allowed to contribute as a full and equal member. In an act of cowardice, the Student Assembly has failed to take action. The SAFC should revoke funding for Chi Alpha and send a clear message that our student activity fees will not be used to fund organizations that discriminate against members of the Cornell community whom they purport to serve.

— Patrick Ayscue

LaBarbera Award: Rep. Virginia Foxx

Jim Burroway

April 29th, 2009

Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) is our latest winner of the LaBarbera Award for her explanation of why she opposed the The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, otherwise known as the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act. That bill passed the House this afternoon.

During the debate leading up to the vote, Rep. Foxx lambasted the bill and the young man for whom the proposed legislation is named. While Matthew’s mother, Judy Shepard watched the debate from the House gallery, Foxx called Matthew’s hate crime murder a “hoax”:

The hate crimes bill that’s called the Matthew Shepard Bill is named after a very unfortunate incident that happened where a young man was killed, but we know that that young man was killed in the commitment of a robbery. It wasn’t because he was gay. This — the bill was named for him, hate crimes bill was named for him, but it’s really a hoax that that continues to be used as an excuse for passing these bills,” Foxx said from the floor of the House of Representatives.

A hoax? Really? That’s not what Laramie investigators found:

…[D]etectives dismissed the idea that the murder was the mere result of a robbery gone bad.

“Far from that!” scoffed Sgt. Rob DeBree, the chief investigator in the case. “They knew damn well he was gay … It started out as a robbery and burglary, and I sincerely believe the other activity was because he was gay.”

…[Convicted killer Russell] Henderson provided a detailed account of that plan. The killers identified Shepard as a lonely homosexual, an easy mark, and retreated to the bathroom to hatch their plot. Henderson made the first advance by whispering a come-on in Shepard’s ear, and “McKinney tried to feminize his voice to continue the lure,” DeBree said.

Laramie’s detectives and prosecutors had no doubts whatsoever that Matthew Shepard’s murder was a hate crime, and that he was specifically targeted because he was gay. The only hoax here is the reprehensible comment by Rep. Foxx. Making those comments in front of Matthew’s mother is beyond all measures of human decency. Which is exactly the sort of behavior we expect from a LaBarbera Award winner.

Sentinel Op-Ed on “Day of Truth”

Gabriel Arana

April 16th, 2009

There are opposing editorial pieces in today’s Orlando Sentinel about Exodus’ “Day of Truth.” On the “Day of Truth,” which takes place three days after the Day of Silence, Exodus encourages students to pass out note cards and wear t-shirts declaring the “truth” about homosexuality. They also offer to have a “conversation” about it.

One of the pieces is written by me, the other by Alan Chambers, president of Exodus International. The Sentinel doesn’t let you see opposing op-eds before they are printed, so I’d like to respond here.

Chambers’ tactic is to elicit sympathy for those “tormented by their sexuality”:

I hear from them every day. I hear about the jokes they endure from ignorant and unfeeling friends. I hear about the rejection they fear.

Then, he identifies the source:

I hear about the pressure they feel to identify themselves as gay and how that pressure conflicts with what they believe and know in their hearts.

So people struggling with their identity suffer because they are pressured to identify as gay? When distilled from the column, this sounds ridiculous, and it is. Students are of course mocked for being effeminate, but it’s not because they refuse to come out; it’s because being gay is stigmatized in many places. The real source of all the jokes is anti-gay animus like that espoused by Exodus International. They are making the problem worse, not better.

Here are Chambers’ hopes for the “Day of Truth”:

I hope they will talk about how everyone needs to be empowered with more information, not less. I hope they will talk about every person’s right to determine his own course in life. I hope they will talk about how to show compassion to their gay and lesbian peers. I hope they will talk about the thousands of men and women, like me, who are living beyond the gay life we once thought was our only future. It’s a conversation I wish I could have had back then.

Basically, Chambers thinks homosexuality is a sickness that others aren’t compassionate about. The solution? Send them to ex-gay therapy so they can fix it. The call for “more information” is incredibly disingenuous given that anti-gay groups like Exodus do everything they can to discredit scientific organizations that disagree with their views on homosexuality. This is false compassion; at heart, it’s borne of the prejudiced assumption that being gay is something wrong. Who wants to engage in a conversation about how they are disordered?

Chambers is trying to portray his movement as one that seeks to help people, but the website reveals their real aim: “to counter the homosexual agenda.”

LaBarbera Award: Bob Peters

Jim Burroway

April 9th, 2009

Morality In Media’s Bob Peters has something to say about the mass shooting in Binghamton, New York, in which a gunman stormed into an immigration aid center and murdered thirteen people before killing himself. In a press release commenting on the atrocity, Peters thinks he has connected the dots:

Connecting the Dots: The Link Between Gay Marriage and Mass Murders
On April 4 the NY Times ran adjacent front-page articles on the Iowa Supreme Court decision legalizing ‘gay marriage’ and the gunman who murdered 13 people in New York.

“…Having lived in New York City for more than 30 years, I am all too aware of the harm that firearms in the hands of criminals can cause. Having grown up in a small town in Illinois, where citizens owned guns without misusing them, I am also aware that guns aren’t the underlying problem. I am not an opponent of gun regulation; I am an opponent of making guns the scapegoat for mass murder.

“The underlying problem is that increasingly we live in a ‘post-Christian’ society, where Judeo-Christian faith and values have less and less influence. … This secular value system is also reflected in the ’sexual revolution,’ which is the driving force behind the push for ‘gay marriage;’ and the Iowa Supreme Court decision is another indication that despite all the damage this revolution has caused to children, adults, family life and society (think abortion, divorce, pornography, rape, sexual abuse of children, sexually transmitted diseases, trafficking in women and children, unwed teen mothers and more), it continues to advance relentlessly.”

Peters goes on to say, “It most certainly is not my intention to blame the epidemic of mass murders on the gay rights movement,” and yet his headline and reasoning does just that.The push for same-sex marriage and mass murder are of the same root, all tied up in one tidy, neat package.

So there you have it. Thirteen tragic deaths, fourteen grieving sets of families and friends. Exploit that to denounce gays and Peters has a full day’s work done — an effort that is certainly worthy of the LaBarbera Award.

[Hat tip: Warren Throckmorton]

Heterosexual Menace: Can’t Get Pregnant? Pimp Your Daughter

Jim Burroway

April 2nd, 2009

There’s more than one way to be pro-family. Like this couple from Pennsylvania:

A Uniontown woman accused of drugging a 13-year-old girl so a man could try to impregnate the teen said nothing Thursday as she was led to jail, but her minister said he feels that she is innocent of the charges. Uniontown police said Shana K. Brown, 32, and Duane Calloway, 40, concocted the plan to surreptitiously impregnate the girl because Brown can’t have more children.

…Brown, accompanied by her minister, turned herself in to police yesterday. She declined comment as she was led to jail in handcuffs. Her minister, the Rev. John Harris of Uniontown’s Church of God in Christ, said he believes Brown is innocent.

Calloway is also in custody. It’s good to know the couple have God on their side. What else are heterosexuals doing to protect the family? Find out here and in our report, “The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing the Myths.”

LaBarbera Award: Four Guys In Minnesota

Jim Burroway

March 18th, 2009

Our latest LaBarbera Award goes to a collective effort in Minnesota consisting of four fundamentalist leaders with the Minnesota Family Council. They held a press conference to explain what would happen if Minnesota doesn’t pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, civil unions and domestic partnerships:

“If everyone is a gay, this world will cease to exist in 10 years,” said Ikram ul-Huq, the imam and religious director of the Muslim Community Center of Bloomington.

“Homosexual unions are forbidden and cannot be licensed with the term marriage,” said Rabbi Moshe Feller, Shliach of the Rebbe to the Upper Midwest, a Chabad-Lubavitch sect of Hasidic Judaism.

“We see this as a pivotal issue to life, not just for our nation but the life we have known for 3,000 years,” said Tom Parrish, administrative pastor of Hope Lutheran Church. Parrish represents Hope Lutheran Church, whose senior pastor, Tom Brock, raised some eyebrows in 2003 when he insisted the 9/11 attacks were God’s wake-up call.

“That’s a lifestyle that God says is sinful,” Brock said of homosexuality in 2003. “Something happened to this nation in the ’60s,” he continued. “It’s just become more and more godless. I think God is going to judge us. I think 9/11 might be a wake-up call from God, saying America needs to repent.”

Another Christian pastor said life itself is at stake if same-sex marriage isn’t banned permanently. “This is not a political issue, or an issue of choice or rights. It is an issue of life,” said Andre Dukes, pastor of Shiloh Temple Ministries in Minneapolis.

Four guys from Minnesota, with a fifth from 2003 thrown in as a bonus.  My obvious favorite is Imam Cease-To-Exist. The others are pretty light weight in comparison, although Rev. Wake-Up-Call from 2003 is pretty good. That’s what you would call and oldie but goodie.

Maybe we should help them out. You can add your shocking predictions of what will happen in the comments. Here’s mine: Same-sex marriage will cause a run on fine china, leaving straight couples to pick from among the uglier, less desirable patterns.

Heterosexual Menace: Been There, Done That, Got the T-Shirt

Jim Burroway

March 18th, 2009

How’s this for a threat to marriage?

A Florida man wearing an “I ♥ My Marriage” t-shirt was arrested last night for allegedly choking his wife during an argument in their Tampa-area home. Bradley Gellert, a 32-year-old financial consultant, was busted by Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office deputies and booked into jail on a felony domestic battery by strangulation charge. According to a police report, Gellert, pictured in the mug shot, got into an argument with his wife and “screamed at the victim and threw numerous items.” He then allegedly “grabbed the victim’s neck and strangled her,” which “prevented the victim from breathing normally.”

The T-shirt was a merchandising item promoting a 2008 movie “Fireproof,” staring Kirk Cameron. The Christian-themed movie didn’t do much at the box office, but it apparently was a hit among evangelicals. It’s about a fireman who became born again and set out to save his failing marriage. Somehow I don’t think that message stuck with Gellert.

When Good Men Do Nothing

Jim Burroway

March 16th, 2009

Anti-gay activists are not all cut from the same cloth. There’s a broad spectrum of behavior among them, from the well-reasoned and considerate to the dangerously crazy. One can imagine a hierarchy of sorts: Those at the top of the hierarchy are the more reasonable ones who can generally see gays and lesbians as human beings and can usually address the debates with honesty and integrity, even as they continue to oppose policy proposals which are important for LGBT people. Only a few examples come to mind which fit that description (David Blankenhorn would be one). The most visible LGBT opponents, like Focus On the Family or the Family Research Council, sit recognizably below that top notch, but they are nevertheless well above the bottom rung of this hierarchy.

Now don’t get me wrong. Focus and FRC certainly fight against us at every turn, and they aren’t above lying and distorting to try to get their way. But one can imagine that there are steps they will not take, steps that those at the very bottom of our hierarchy have no qualms about taking.

Those who anchor themselves firmly at the bottom include those who have called for our execution (Paul Cameron), who rejoiced in our deaths (Fred Phelps), who excuse those who have killed some among us (Scott Lively), who tell everyone who will listen that the Nazi movement was a fully homosexual one (Lively, again), that it was the gay Nazis and not straight Nazis who harbored a special animosity towards Germany’s Jews (ditto), or that gay activists are all secret fascists determined to remake the world in the image of Nazi Germany (ditto again).

In other words, there are those whose purpose it is to stoke the fears and visceral hatred of ordinary people to prod them into doing the most extraordinary, horrific things — whether its killing a gay immigrant in Sacramento, flinging feces at gay worshipers at a church in Latvia, or hunting down LGBT people on the streets in Uganda.

However much we disagree with Exodus, FOTF, FRC and others, we must at least grudgingly recognize that there are many things which are beneath them.

Hatred Is An Extraordinary Thing
It is that recognition of this hierarchy of opposition which leads us here at BTB to refrain from using the word “hate” wherever possible. We use that word to describe people’s motivations only under the most rare and extraordinary circumstances because we recognize that the evil of hatred in its purest form is a most rare and extraordinary thing.

The Southern Poverty Law Center agrees. They list only twelve anti-gay hate groups across the country. Notice that Exodus, FOTF and FRC are not listed. That’s because the SPLC doesn’t label just anybody as a hate group based on policy positions. To be listed, the group must “go beyond mere disagreement with homosexuality by subjecting gays and lesbians to campaigns of personal vilification.”

There are only twelve groups on the SPLC’s list, which suggests to me that it’s pretty easy to avoid landing on it. But one man bears the unusual distinction of appearing on the list twice. Scott Lively is Abiding Truth Ministries, and he is also a co-founder of Watchmen On the Walls. As far as I know, he’s the only person to have inaugurated one-sixth of all the SPLC’s listed anti-gay hate groups in America. One really has to go out of one’s way to earn that rare position, but Lively has well earned his place.

Exodus International however has operated in a very different mode from Lively’s. They’ve tended to operate somewhere nearer to the Focus On the Family territory rather than than the Traditional Values Coalition territory in my anti-gay hierarchy. Exodus has worked vigorously against gay-supportive policy proposals, sometimes being less than candid about their own movement in the process. And Exodus International president Alan Chambers isn’t above deploying in a bit of rabble-rousing himself. When he spoke at the Family Impact Summit in 2006, Chambers described gay advocates as following an “evil agenda” while reminding his audience of the famous warning attributed to Edmund Burke: all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

But for the most part, Exodus tends to shy away from alarmist rhetoric, preferring instead to present a shiny, agreeable face for the ex-gay movement. While they’re not averse to the politics of personal vilification in front of selected audiences away from the spotlight, they’ve avoided completely immersing themselves in it to the degree that Lively has with such consistency.

Chambers: “I Do Care How People Are Impacted By My Words”
In early 2008, New Direction Executive Director Wendy Gritter gave a profound keynote address at the Exodus Leadership Conference, which she followed up with a heartfelt essay on Ex-Gay Watch. Wendy pointed to the distractions that politics placed on their work in the ex-gay movement, and she called upon ministries to become “pastorally-focused, not politically driven.” She also called on ex-gay leaders to express remorse for the harms they had done to clients and others in the gay community. Chambers, who just a few months earlier gave his rousing talk at the Family Impact Summit, appeared to have been touched by Wendy’s words, particularly in how the ex-gay movement impacts the gay community:

“What is said by gay activists is not lost on me. I do care how people are impacted by my words, actions and ministry. Ironically, I know the Lord uses every voice, suggestion, encouragement and criticism to shape me.”

That’s not to say the Exodus changed much since then. Despite eliminating the position of Director of Governmental Affairs, Exodus remains as engaged in the culture war today as it ever was. And yet for all of our vigorous disagreements with Exodus International, we believed that there were still places that Exodus would not go. Places too — dare I say it? — hateful for Exodus to enter.

I’ve heard Alan Chambers publicly denounce the hatred — yes, I said it — of Fred Phelps’ Westboro Baptist Church. He has done it in front of ex-gay audiences, and he did it at the much more hard-line Family Impact Summit — the same venue where Chambers delivered his “evil agenda” line. I personally witnessed Chambers denounce Phelps both without reservation and with conviction in front of an audience which, frankly, was only a little more moderate than a roomful of Phelps’s (judging by how many in the audience who were uncomfortably fidgeting with their Blackberrys as Chambers spoke). This tells me that Chambers recognizes that people are impacted not just by his words, but by Phelps’ words and others’ as well.

Doing Nothing
Exodus Board Member Don Schmierer worked alongside Lively in Kampala last week at a conference which lauded Uganda’s draconian criminal penalties against LGBT people and recommended a reinforcement of that law by forcing LGBT people into therapy. Exodus International president Alan Chambers applauded Schmierer’s participation, saying:

Unfortunately, Uganda as a country has demonstrated severe hostility towards homosexuals supporting criminalization of homosexual behavior and proposing compulsory therapy - positions that Exodus International unequivocally denounces. It is our sincere desire to offer an alternative message that encompasses a compassionate, biblical view of homosexuality not just here in America, but around the world. We applaud our board member’s attempt to convey these truths to a country in need.”

The problem, of course, is that there is no evidence whatsoever that Schmierer attempted to “convey these truths.” There’s no record that Schmierer spoke up against criminalization of homosexual behavior or compulsory therapy. But he didn’t do nothing. In fact, we have it on record that Schmierer did more than nothing. He pointedly deferred to Lively when asked about whether homosexuality was natural.

There are so many things wrong with this picture, it’s hard to know where to begin. Should we be more outraged over an Exodus leader lending legitimacy to Lively’s hate-inspired revisionist history — I no longer hesitate to use the word “hate” in this context – which Lively has been energetically spreading throughout the world? Or should we focus our anger over Schmierer’s deferring to Lively instead of addressing the precarious situation LGBT people find themselves in Uganda while he was actually there and on the ground? Or should we instead remain appalled that Chambers remained silent and watched as this episode unfolded for all to see?

I’ve pretty much come to expect just about anything from Lively. His rhetoric is extremely dangerous, especially in countries like Uganda where his relentless vilification of LGBT people finds fertile ground. But I didn’t expect Schmierer to remain silent while sharing the stage with the founder of two — two!– hate groups which conduct ”campaigns of personal vilification” against an entire community. And the last thing I expected from Chambers was to see him refuse to denounce Lively.

Chambers can denounce Phelps but not Lively. Why is that? Is it because Phelps is an easily dismissed clown while Lively has considerable influence in some quarters? Is it because Phelps is harmless because he lacks a measurable following, while Lively attracts large crowds when he speaks overseas? Or is it because Phelps has denounced Exodus as sharply as Exodus has denounced Phelps, but Lively is a colleague of Seattle pastor Ken Hutcherson — another Watchmen co-founder who Chambers counts among his close friends?

Chambers’s silence in the presence of a Holocaust revisionist is shocking because, irony of ironies, it is the Holocaust itself – the very tragic historical fact that Lively skewers to vilify gay people — that warns us about the consequences of good men doing nothing.

Click here to see BTB’s complete coverage of recent anti-gay developments in Uganda.

Heterosexual Menace: Recruitment In Daycare

Jim Burroway

March 16th, 2009

From Indiana:

A couple who ran a baby-sitting service out of their home videotaped themselves performing sex acts with children, some as young as 2 months old, police said Friday. Stephen E. Quick, 31, and Samantha Light, 25, both of Veedersburg in western Indiana, were being held on $100,000 bond in Fountain County Jail. Both faced preliminary charges of child molestation and child exploitation. Jail staff did not know whether either one had an attorney. Police who searched the couple’s home found a videotape depicting sex acts involving Quick and Light and at least four different children between the ages of 2 months and 6 years old, said Fountain County Sheriff’s Deputy Bob Kemp.

…Deputies seized several computers, cameras, a video camera, pornographic materials, drugs and drug paraphernalia. Several sex toys that appeared in the video were seized during a second search, police said.

I love the names Quick and Light. It almost sounds downright Christian somehow. There’s a video report here. And here they think we’re the ones recruiting!

I know it’s hard to keep up, but we try to keep tabs on all of the dangerous things those heterosexuals are doing here and in our report, “The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing the Myths.”

[Hat tip: BTB reader Louie]

Heterosexual Menace: Two Utah Teachers Seduce Same Young Boy

Jim Burroway

March 7th, 2009

Must be all that porn:

Two Bountiful Junior High School teachers are accused of sexually assaulting the same 13-year-old student, after their separate relationships with him spiraled from personal conversations to the exchange of sexual text messages and phone sex, authorities said.

On Friday, the Davis County Attorney’s Office filed first-degree felony charges of rape and sodomy on a child against Linda R. Nef, 46, and Valynne Bowers, 39.

Nef, a Utah studies teacher and cheerleading adviser, and Bowers, who teaches math, each confessed to having sex with the student, said Bountiful Police Lt. Randy Pickett. Until recently, the two teachers did not know about each other’s relationship with the same boy, Pickett said.

According to Utah law, these two teachers can fight it out over who wins the affections of the thirteen-year-old student in another five years. And according to Utah law, that then-eighteen-year-old can even pick one and marry her, conviction and all (assuming it comes to that). But same sex partners don’t have the right to even visit each other in the hospital if one should fall seriously ill.

You can read keep tabs on what those dangerous heterosexuals are up to here and in our report, “The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing the Myths.”

[Hat tip: reader Louie]