News, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
Posts 
Posts via daily email:
United Church of Christ Pastors Celebrate Marriage Equality
Timothy Kincaid
May 17th, 2008
The United Church of Christ, along with the Reform Jewish movement and many other religious organizations, believe that their morality their desire to know God requires that they serve justice to those around them. They believe that denying equality to gay persons is not just bad politics, it’s bad religion.
In my review of recent news stories, especially those about the intesection of sexuality and religion, I’ve noticed that there is an increasing willingness for pastors, rabbis and other persons of faith to step forward and declare that religious conservatives do not speak for God. Often these voices for equality come from the UCC.
The General Synod of the United Church of Christ was among the hundreds of churches, pastors, synagogues, and other religious organizations that attached their name and their support to this lawsuit. And they joyously report the news on the UCC website.
The Rev. Kevin A. Johnson, pastor of Bloom in the Desert Ministries (UCC/United Methodist) in Palm Springs, Calif., emphasized that today’s ruling is a continuation of the ways in which marriage has been redefined for the better over the centuries.
“Because of the positive ruling today in California, progress continues,” Johnson said. “Marriage equality for all continues our historical progress toward recognizing that love and responsibility are the keys to quality marriages, not unfair laws based on racial integrity, which were struck down in 1967 but remained in some states until 2000, and sexual orientation, like we have now.”
This is indeed a good week for gay individuals and couples. The decision by the California Supreme Court is monumental and not quickly forgotten.
But in our joy, let us recall that this victory does not just belong to gays. This is a time of jubulation and celebration for all persons who fight in the battle for dignity, equality, and justice.
Schwarzenegger: CA has Bigger Fish to Fry than to Ban Gay Marriage
Timothy Kincaid
May 15th, 2008
In an interview with the Sacramento Bee the CA Governor spoke against the anti-gay-marriage initiative that may be on the Novemeber ballot.
“I think we have bigger fish to fry than do people have a right, if they are gay, to get married or not,” Schwarzenegger said. “I think that we should think about fixing the budget system and think about fixing the health care system and rebuilding California.”
He didn’t commit to a campaign schedule against the initiative
The Republican governor told The Bee’s editorial board he would not commit to campaigning against the proposed initiative, though he said he will make it clear that he is against it in other ways. He called the initiative a “big mistake.”
As many of the Governor’s staff are gay and are in committed relationships, I suggest that one way that Schwarzenegger could make it clear might be to officiate at a wedding.
Marriage Rights Around the World
Timothy Kincaid
May 15th, 2008
The following countries offer some form of recognition to same-sex couples:
Marriage
Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, United States (Massachusetts, California)
Civil Unions
New Zealand, Brazil (Rio Grande do Sul), Argentina (Buenos Aires, Rio Negro), Mexico (Coahuila), Uruguay, United States (Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, New Jersey)
Registered Partnership or Domestic Partnership
Denmark, Greenland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, Finland, Luxembourg, , Slovenia, United Kingdom, Czech Republic, Italy (City of Padua), Switzerland, Hungary, Australia (Tazmania), United States (Maine, Washington, Oregon)
Other Methods of Limited Recognition
France (PACS), Germany (Life Partnership), Croatia (Law of Same-Sex Relationships), Andorra (Stable Union of a Couple), Mexico (Mexico City - PACS), Columbia (Common-law marriage inheritance rights), Israel (Limited recognition of foreign legal arrangements), United States (Hawaii - Reciprocal Benefits; New York - recognition of out-of-state legal marriages)
Although recognition is in a rapid state of change, this is my best understanding of the current rights provided. Several nations are in the process of adding or revising recognition.
CA Gay Marriage Provided by Republican Judges
Timothy Kincaid
May 15th, 2008
One of the favorite arguments of anti-gays used to discredit judicial decisions in favor of equality is to dismiss the judges as “liberal activists”. This is why you must vote Republican, they declare.
But history shows that judges are often quite good at setting aside partisan positioning when they are entrusted with the task of measuring whether the law applies equally to all citizens. Often judges appointed by Democrats have ruled conservatively and judges appointed by Republicans have been liberal in their interpretation of the application of law.
Already anti-gays are whining and seeing this as motivation for conservative presidential votes
“It’s hard to see how this will end up helping Democrats,” Amar said before the ruling. “It feeds into a kind of perception that this is what liberal activist judges do.”
But just who are those liberal activist judges that voted for marriage equality in California?
Ronald M. George, (since 1991), Chief Justice (elevated in 1996)
Republican, appointed by Gov. Pete Wilson (R)
First judicial appointment by Gov. Ronald Reagan (R)
Joyce L. Kennard, (since 1989), Associate Justice
Republican, appointed by Gov. George Deukmejian (R)
Carlos R. Moreno, (since 2001), Associate Justice
Democrat, appointed by Gov. Gray Davis (D)
First judicial appointment by Gov. George Deukmejian (R)
Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, (since 1994), Associate Justice
Republican, appointed by Gov. Pete Wilson (R)
Say what they will about this court decision, no one can claim that this was the result of liberal activist Democratic appointments.
Governator Supports Gay Marriage
Timothy Kincaid
May 15th, 2008
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger issued a statement on the Supreme Court’s decision. From the San Jose Mercury News.
“I respect the court’s decision and as governor, I will uphold its ruling,” Schwarzenegger said within minutes of the ruling. “Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling.”
Sally Kern is a Little Confused
Timothy Kincaid
May 14th, 2008
If you are an anti-gay activist, sometimes you have to be careful not to sound like a loon. Sadly, Sally Kern isn’t very skilled at that task.
Never one to pass an opportunity to spout a homophobic rant, Sally just had to respond when she heard that Lambda Legal has assigned May 15 as “Clock in for Equality Day” and is encouraging folks to take a pledge to oppose discrimination.
Well, if it’s gay folks doing it, Sally objects. Even if that makes her seem a bit confused.
The Oklahoman reports
“Over and over again, the homosexuals say we don’t have an agenda. This just shows there is an agenda,” Kern said.
But when the agenda is promoting workplace fairness for gays and lesbians, Sally can’t just come out and say she’s opposed to fairness. So she clarifies.
“There should not be discrimination of anyone. I’m not for discrimination,” Kern said. But the attempt to mobilize people on behalf of gays and lesbians is evidence of an organized effort by what Kern described as “radical homosexual rights groups.”
OK. So Sally isn’t for discrimination, she just doesn’t want anyone to organize against it. And she wants people to “become more active in social policy fights” to fight against an agenda with which she finds a common goal.
Poor Sally, she’s stuck between two instincts. She wants to be hateful to gay people… but she just doesn’t want to sound cruel. So instead she sounds like an idiot.
And this woman votes in the Oklahoma legislature.
See also:
Sally Kern’s Economic Fallout
Exodus’ Local Ministry Aligns with Sally Kern
Kern Speaks to College Republicans
Sally Kern’s Meeting with PFLAG on Tape
Certified Cameronite: Sally Kern
Kern Speaks to College Republicans
Sally Kern: Out of Context? The Complete Transcript
We Be Jammin’
Muslims and Gays United
OK State Rep. Sally Kern’s Son is “Straight and Not Gay”
Sally Kern Exaggerates Death Threats
A Letter to Sally Kern
LaBarbera Award: Oklahoma State Rep. Sally Kern
(hat tip reader Stefano Armanino)
Obama Supporter to Marry Bush Daughter
Timothy Kincaid
May 10th, 2008
Tonight Jenna Bush, the daughter of President Bush, will marry Henry Hager in a ceremony at the president’s ranch. Officiating will be Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell.
This is an unusual selection in that Caldwell has endorsed Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and will be campaigning for him. Caldwell, whose church had supported an ex-gay ministry, raised concerns in January among some gay Democrats about Obama’s commitment to equality.
Jenna Bush released a book in September of last year about the personal experience of a young woman in Latin America living with AIDS and her opinions about the efficacy of “abstinance only” education differ from those of her father.
We wish the young couple all happiness and hope that Jenna’s wedding day goes without a hitch.
Times Are Changing, Even In Red States
Jim Burroway
May 8th, 2008
Pam Spaulding is passing on some very good news this morning. She learned that the Alabama House of Representatives passed the Hate Crimes Bill by a vote of 46 to 44, mostly along party lines. Similar legislation was defeated last year. Also passed unanimously was an anti-bullying measure.
The ultimate fate of these two bills remains uncertain as they now go to the Senate. But as Pam notes, this is huge progress.
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Doesn’t Defend DADT
Timothy Kincaid
May 7th, 2008
One of the defenses made in support of continuing the military’s anti-gay Don’t Ask - Don’t Tell policy is that senior military strategists oppose gay soldiers from serving openly. Well, it doesn’t get more senior than the Chairman of the Joint Cheifs of Staff.
Speaking at West Point this weekend, Admiral Michael Mullen was asked his opinion about the impact if the incoming administration were to be supportive of gay servicemembers. According to PinkNews,
Speaking to graduating cadets at West Point military academy on Sunday, Admiral Mike Mullen said that the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy enacted by Congress in 1993 is a law that the Armed Forces follow.
“Should the law change, the military will carry that out too,” he said.
This is the second time that Mullen has appeared unfazed by the notion of openly gay soldiers. During his confirmation he told the Senate,
“I really think it is for the American people to come forward, really through this body, to both debate that policy and make changes, if that’s appropriate.
“I’d love to have Congress make its own decisions with respect to considering repeal.”
Without the public support of military leaders or prominant politicians, it is surely only a short time before this misguided policy is scrapped for good.
Congratulations Amanda Simpson
Jim Burroway
May 2nd, 2008
I have the distinct pleasure of knowing Tucson’s own Amanda Simpson. She is not only a truly amazing, dynamic woman, but she’s a genuine trailblazer as well. She’s as been a local activist and former member of the City of Tucson Commission on GLBT Issues, and she was the first transgender nominee to run for the Arizona House of Representatives.
So I was tickled pink to learn that she was selected to be an at-large delegate to this year’s Democratic National Convention in Denver, Colorado. She will be there as a delegate for Sen. Hillary Clinton, and she “will fully support and work to elect” whoever wins the nomination.
Please indulge me as I give a personal shout out to Amanda. Congratulations!
The Dishonesty of Elaine Donnelly
Timothy Kincaid
May 1st, 2008
Elaine Donnelly has made it her life’s mission to return the military to the 1930’s. Through her Center for Military Readiness, she agitates against gays in the military and women in combat.
While gay people make her shudder, women are grudgingly acceptable in the service - as long as they don’t fight. It’s just not very lady-like, ya know.
But while Donnelly actively campaigns to reduce equal opportunities for women in the Military Service, you’d never know that from her new anti-gay campaign. On her new website established “build an online army” to fight against “gay activists”, there’s no reference to Donnelly’s hostility towards “Pentagon feminists” or any other anti-woman policies she espouses.
Instead, Donnelly states her purpose as “Support for Military Men and Women“. [emphasis mine]
Perhaps she realizes that being both anti-woman and anti-gay may seem just a little too hateful even for those who might support her agenda of restricting the Military to heterosexuals.
And like so many anti-gays, Elaine Donnelly has given up even the slightest shred of integrity she may have ever held. To Donnelly truth is subjective and honesty inconvenient.
See Also:
Personal Cruelty
Time Magazine Relies on Non-Representative Poll Pushed by Anti-Gay Activist
More Evidence that DADT is Dead
American Family Association Picks Up The “Ailing General” Theme
How NOT to Write an Article
This commentary is the opinion of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other authors at this site.
Timothy Kincaid
April 22nd, 2008
If one were to write, say, an article about gay Republicans, one might think it smart to interview a living breathing gay Republican. With about a quarter of self-identified gay voters pulling the Republican lever, and with Log Cabin Republicans operating a full time office, these are hardly elusive folks hiding in the shadows.
Yet Charles Kaiser managed to write a piece for Out Magazine without input from a single gay Republican. An excerpt from Washington’s Gay War:
Welcome to gay Washington in the 21st century, where the gay Democrats are proud and out on the Hill and in the lobbying firms on K Street, while many gay Republicans still cower in the closet until they trip themselves up with off-color instant messages to teenage pages, or conduct unbecoming to a United States senator in an airport bathroom.
It really doesn’t improve much as it goes along. Kaiser’s imaginary Washington doesn’t contain Jim Kolbe or any of the many openly gay Republican staffers. Nor does it have any of the many Democrats who are closeted. Riddled with ancient anecdotes and wild assumptions, it has about as much resemblance to “gay Washington in the 21st century” as it does to Narnia. Washington Blade’s Chris Crane perhaps said it best:
The result was a 2,800-word, one-sided hack job that failed to report even one single new fact.
I doubt that Kaiser set out with the intent of maligning a huge chunk of the community. I suspect he is simply a victim of his own limited experiences. Not knowing gay Republicans, he cannot fathom why such a creature would exist. So his article included the opinions of “people like us”, not those oddities.
And in the process he embarrassed himself and his magazine.
But Kaiser’s article can provide a lesson to us all. I have been guilty of writing from the perspective of ignorance and misunderstanding. We have all made assumptions about the motivations and intentions of others, especially those who we perceive as anti-gay, and in the process painted wide swathes of people with the same brush.
I like to believe that at Box Turtle Bulletin we try to avoid presumptions and stereotypes to the best of our abilities. But this incident has served for me as a reminder that care should be taken to avoid making broad declarations about those with whom I am not familiar.
Fit For Military Service
Timothy Kincaid
April 21st, 2008
The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) reports on the morals waivers granted to potential soldiers. The Military believes the following is acceptable within the history of their servicemember:
- manslaughter
- kidnapping or abduction
- rape, sexual assault, criminal sexual assault, incest or other sex crimes
- indecent acts or liberties with a child
- terrorist threats including bomb threats
But what would cause the complete and utter breakdown in military cohesiveness? What is that one thing that good southern Christian boys would be unable to overlook due to their upbringing and moral character? What is worse than a killer, rapist, child molester or terrorist?
They must be getting answers from Sally Kern.
The Politics of Anti-Marriage Amendments
Jim Burroway
April 21st, 2008
Arizona became the first state in the union to defeat an anti-marriage amendment in 2006. Thats when voters gave the thumbs down to Proposition 107, which sought to enshrine marriage inequality into the state constitution, with 48.2% voting “yes” and 51.8% “no” (PDF: 220KB/18 pages). Now legislators in the Arizona House appear poised to approve a measure to put another anti-marriage amendment on the ballot for 2008. Some of those legislators who are reportedly leaning towards approving the measure represent districts which voted against the 2006 proposal, bucking the wisdom of their own constituents.
Let’s take the 30th legislative district as an example. The 30th spans the eastern part of Pima County (including Tucson’s eastern suburbs) and dips down to cover the northern half of Santa Cruz county and a small bite of Cochise County. This is a lightly suburban and rural district.
The way the Arizona House is set up, there are two representatives for each legislative district. Voters are asked to choose two names from a slate of candidates, and the top two vote winners are elected to seats in that district. For the 30th district, voters in 2006 chose Marian McClure (R, 36%) and Jonathan Paton (R, 34%) over Clarence Boykins (D, 30%). McClure and Paton are two of the legislators who are expected to vote to place the 2008 anti-marriage measure on the ballot.
You might think that those voters in the 30th really like their conservative Republicans, and in Arizona that’s often the case. But things aren’t always so straightforward here in the independent-minded West. A careful analysis of all the individual voting precincts which make up the 30th reveals that Arizona voters are perfectly capable of thinking for themselves and don’t need party labels or outside pressure groups to tell them how to vote.
It turns out that those very same voters who sent McClure and Paton to the statehouse also chose Janet Napolitano (D, 62.6%) over Len Munsil (R, 37.4%) for governor, and they preferred Gabrielle Giffords (D, 51.5%) over Randy Graf (R, 48.5%) for the U.S. Congress. Rep. Giffords now represents Rep. Jim Kolbe’s (R) seat. Kolbe, you may remember, retired in 2006 after continuing to represent his district for some ten years after coming out as gay.
And those voters did not like the idea of having inequality written into the state constitution, with 52.5% voting against Prop 107 and only 47.5% voting for it. This means that voters in this suburban and rural district defeated Prop 107 by a wider margin than did voters statewide.
If McClure and Paton had been paying any attention to their own constituents, we wouldn’t be hearing about their intentions to vote next week against their own district’s wishes. But right now, it appears that they intend to ignore the very voters who sent them to the statehouse, and they will instead vote to permanently disenfranchise thousands of Arizona citizens — those same family members, friends and neighbors who the voters of the 30th district stood up for in 2006. Arizona is definitely changing. It’s time for our legislators to start paying attention.
Colorado Senate Passes Discrimination Law
Timothy Kincaid
April 18th, 2008
Today the Colorado Senate expanded anti-gay discrimination protections.
The measure (Senate Bill 200) takes the state’s current anti-discrimination laws and adds sexual orientation to the list of things, such as race or national origin, that can’t be considered. It would be illegal to deny gays and lesbians everything from apartment rentals and a seat in a restaurant to burial plots.
This is a preliminary vote and a second vote is required before it goes to the House.
Opponents argued that they saw no evidence of discrimination against gay people. Un-huh. Guess you ain’t been lookin’.
Blade Asks What Happened in Maryland
Timothy Kincaid
April 18th, 2008
In January I noted that Maryland was ideally situated to provide marriage equality. A poll had been taken which revealed that 58% of residents supported gay marriage or civil unions. And the Democratic Party was fully in control of all legislation.
Maryland’s legislature is predominantly Democrat with a 33 to 14 advantage in the State Senate and 103 to 36 in the House. The leaders of both chambers are Democrats, as is the Governor.
Legislation was introduced in both houses - with significant support - to bring about marriage equality. One legislator even called the bluff of those who think marriage is a religious institution, offering to have the state only provide civil unions to both heterosexual and homosexual couples.
But four months later, gay couples received nothing more than the right to tranfer property and the right to make medical and burial decisions.
The Washington Blade asks “Why”?
What happened to marriage in Maryland?
Gay activists in Maryland had high hopes for this legislative session. Marriage rights seemed, for the first time, within reach. But the session ended last week with only token pro-gay measures approved. Joshua Lynsen talks to the key players to find out what went wrong.
See Also:
Maryland Passes Limited Rights for Gay Couples
Maryland Balances Budget by Taxing Gay Widows
Maryland Senator Muse Champions Bigotry
Maryland AG Endorses Marriage Equality
Maryland Legislator Calls Anti-Gay Bluff
Maryland Introduces Bill to Legalize Same-Sex Marriage - Are Democrats Committed to Equality?
Maryland Marriage Poll
Investigation into Fired Justice Department Employee
Timothy Kincaid
April 17th, 2008
NPR raised questions recently about whether Assistant U.S. Attorney Leslie A. Hagen was fired due to a rumor that she was a lesbian. Now it appears that an investigation has been opened.
When NPR first reported Hagen’s case earlier this month, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) asked the Inspector General’s Office and the Office of Professional Responsibility to confirm that they were looking into Hagen’s case.
Leahy and Specter — the top Democrat and Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee — received their response Monday night.
In a letter dated April 14, Glenn Fine of the Inspector General’s Office and H. Marshall Jarrett of the Office of Professional Responsibility said they are looking into whether Hagen was “discriminated against in employment decisions on the basis of alleged sexual orientation or other improper factors.”
The Washington Blade questioned Elaine Kaplan, who served as head of the U.S. Office of Special Counsel during the Clinton administration. Kaplan explained that while Clinton’s executive order - which still stands - prohibited sexual orientation discrimination, the current head of the Office of Special Counsel, Scott Bloch, has created a definition that is essentially toothless.
It’s unlikely that the Office of Special Counsel would take action in the Hagen case because it involves alleged discrimination based on her sexual orientation, not a specific “homosexual act,” Kaplan said.
But somehow I suspect that neither Leahy or Specter will accept duplicitous responses to their inquiries. Specter, in particular, can get quite cranky if he feels that some bureaucrat is not adequately addressing his committee’s concerns.
A Noble Common Trait
Timothy Kincaid
April 16th, 2008
What do the following all have in common?
Gerald Ford, 38th President of the United States
Bill Clinton, 42nd President of the United States
Dick Cheney, 46th Vice President; Secretary of Defense, Bush Sr. Administration
Barry Goldwater (”Mr. Conservative”), 1964 Republican Presidential Candidate, Senator (R - AZ), Chairman of Committee on Armed Services
William Cohen, Senator (R - MA), Secretary of Defense, Clinton Administration
Colin Powell, Secretary of State, Bush Jr., Chairman of the Joint Cheifs of Staff, Bush Sr.
John Shalikashvili, Chairman of the Joint Cheifs of Staff, Clinton administration
Lawrence J. Korb, Assistance Secretary of Defense, Reagan administration
Alan K. Simpson, Senator (R - WY), Chairman of the Veterans’ Affairs Committee, member of Iraq Study Group
All of the above public servants have an impressive knowledge of the strengths and weaknesses of the United States Military. All of them love their country and want policies that best serve the nation and its armed services.
And all of the about have at some point expressed at least a lack of convinction in the laws that keep gay men and women from serving openly. Many have been outspoken advocates for eliminating this antiquated discrimination.
Of course there are a great many more within Government and without who have varying levels of experience in or with the military who agree. And the general public is overwhelmingly in support of eliminating Don’t Ask - Don’t Tell. In fact, it’s hard to find anyone to stand up for the merits of the policy.
Its day has passed. So it’s up to us to remind Congress to do both the popular thing and the right thing and toss this moldering pile of bias in the trash bin of history.
Illinois Civil Unions Not Looking Very Promising
Timothy Kincaid
April 16th, 2008
In February we reported that Rep. Harris and Sen. Koehler had introduced legislation to bring about civil unions in Illinois. Chicagoist.com gives us an update
There are currently two bills in the General Assembly to recognize civil unions in Illinois, House Bill 1826 and Senate Bill 2436. State Rep. Greg Harris (D Chicago), sponsor of the house bill said that they are close to the 60 votes needed. The sponsor of the Senate bill, David Koehler (D Peoria), says he is waiting to see what happens in the House before going forward.
While I appreciate Rep. Harris’ enthusiasm and hope that his vote count is correct, another recent vote count suggests that this is probably just wishful thinking.
This week another bill that would impact gay couples was before the House
The measure involves pension benefits that surviving spouses can collect after a teacher dies. The change would have allowed gay teachers to give survivor benefits to their partners, just as married couples can.
Although this would have had no financial impact on the state (teachers pay for the policies) the house voted 67 to 43 against this bill.
Now I may be wrong, but to me it seems that there can only be one reason for denying gay teachers the ability to leave their survivor benefits to their partners; and that’s because they are gay. And I’m just not very hopeful that a legislative body that so dislikes gay people that they won’t let them arrange for their own survivor benefits will suddenly champion civil unions.
Meanwhile, anti-gays are moving ahead in their efforts to change their constitution to exclude gay couples entirely.
Protect Marriage Illinois has been circulating petitions to put an advisory referendum on the ballot in Illinois this fall. If they succeed, voters would be asked if the General Assembly should propose an amendment to the state constitution that reads “To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as marriage or similar union for any purpose.”
Kentucky Votes for LIMITED Information on Holocaust
Timothy Kincaid
April 16th, 2008
The legislature in Kentucky has voted to assist in the educatation of students about the Holocaust and genocide.
The resolution would direct the Department of Education to make curriculum materials available for optional use in public schools by March 2009.
The material would be part of the Kentucky Program of Studies, which has state approval but is not required.
Oh, but not ALL victims of the Holocaust.
The Senate deleted a clause in the House version that cited other people the Nazis deemed “undesirable” because of their “race, nationality, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation, religion, and political ideology.”
Whitaker said he received indications earlier in the session that the reference to sexual orientation was a “red flag” that could have endangered the bill.
It truly amazes me that some people refuse to provide accurate information about the Holocaust lest someone somewhere may know that gay people were also victims of Nazi mentality.
I’m truly flabergasted.
