Box Turtle Bulletin

Mississippi AG: “The Churchgoing Public Was Duped” Into Supporting Anti-LGBT “Religious Freedom” Bill

Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood

Mississippi’s lawmakers got their collective heads handed to them on a plate late Thursday when Federal District judge Carlton Reeves issued his blistering injunction that prevented Mississippi’s so-called “Religious Freedom” right-to-discriminate law from taking effect. Injunctions are typically brief, and the three lawsuits that have been brought against the state of Mississippi are still due to have their day in court. But Reeves’s 60-page order read far more like a final ruling than an injunction, leaving little doubt about where these cases are headed.

Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood, the state’s only Democrat to hold a state-wide elective office, now says he doesn’t know whether he will appeal the judge’s injunction. “I can’t pick my clients,” he wrote in a statement, “but I can speak for myself as a named defendant in this lawsuit. The fact is that the churchgoing public was duped into believing that HB1523 protected religious freedoms.”

While Hood said state attorneys will evaluate the judge’s decision to determine whether to appeal the case that “could cost the state hundreds of thousands of dollars.” But the rest of his statement made it pretty clear that he was not inclined to appeal:

I believe in the free exercise of religion and there will be a case in the future in which the U.S. Supreme Court will better define our religious rights.  This case, however, is not that vehicle.

You can read Hood’s full statement after the jump

Ex-Pope Benedict Took On The Gay Lobby And Won, Says Ex-Pope Benedict

We haven’t had a living ex-pope who became ex-pope of his own volition in more than 700 years, and we haven’t had an ex-pope’s post-poping memoirs in, like a kajillion. But we’ll have that soon. The Pope Formerly Known As Benedict XVI is due to publish his memoir, The Last Conversation, on September 9. The Italian newspaper, Corriere della Sera has the Italian newspaper rights for the book’s excerpts, and today ran a long article which, according to Reuters, discusses Benedict’s exploits against a “gay lobby” in the Vatican:

In the book, Benedict says that he came to know of the presence of a “gay lobby” made up of four or five people who were seeking to influence Vatican decisions. The article says Benedict says he managed to “break up this power group”.

…The Church has maintained its centuries-long opposition to homosexual acts.

But rights campaigners have long said many gay people work for the Vatican and Church sources have said they suspect that some have banded together to support each other’s careers and influence decisions in the bureaucracy.

Benedict, who now has the title “emeritus pope,” has always maintained that he made his choice to leave freely and Corriere says that in the book Benedict “again denies blackmail or pressure”.

His Prada shoes declined to comment for this story.

North Carolina Lawmakers Plot Raid Of Disaster Relief Fund to Defend HB 2

When the next hurricane or flood hits North Carolina and state residents turn to the state’s disaster relief coffers, they’ll find it half a million dollars poorer than it should be:

North Carolina lawmakers took steps Thursday to set aside a half-million dollars for the legal defense of a law limiting protections for LGBT people as a judge sought to streamline a cluster of lawsuits it has inspired.

Republican lawmakers were mapping out the end of the session, including possible changes to the law known as House Bill 2, which has attracted high-profile critics including the NBA. The session could end this weekend.

But there was no appetite to change the provision requiring transgender people to use restrooms corresponding to the sex on their birth certificate in schools, universities and many other public buildings. The law also excludes sexual orientation and gender identity from statewide anti-discrimination protections.

…The Senate also approved a plan to give McCrory’s office $500,000 to defend the law in court, by transferring money from a disaster relief fund. The measure still must pass the House.

The NBA had scheduled its 2017 All-Star game in Charlotte before the law was enacted earlier this year. Yesterday, the Charlotte Hornets and the NBA issued a joint statement saying that the minor changes to HB 2 that have been floated aren’t enough. While Republican Gov. Pat McCrory is trying to find some minimal changes to the law that might keep the All Star game in town while still keeping anti-LGBT lawmakers in his own party happy, he has no problem with trying to take advantage of whole episode in a re-eleaction campaign pitch:

A spokesman for McCrory’s re-election campaign, Ricky Diaz, later said in an email: “Any Democrat standing with the Human Rights Campaign and other out-of-state liberal interest groups by refusing any compromise is attempting to drive the NBA All-Star Game from North Carolina.”

Federal Judge: Mississippi’s Right-To-Discriminate Law Was Designed “To Put LGBT Citizens Back In Their Place”

Mississippi’s so-called “religious freedom” law, HB 1523, was due to go into effect at midnight last night. It would have allowed individuals, religious organizations and businesses to deny services to LGBT people based on “sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions.” The law also would have allowed county clerks to selectively refuse to issue marriage licenses on those same grounds. Late Thursday night, just before the law was due to go into effect, Federal District judge Carlton Reeves found that because it violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, the plaintiffs had a very high likelihood of prevailing in their lawsuit. He then issued an injunction preventing the law from going into effect.

It should be remembered that this isn’t a final ruling on the lawsuit itself, which is actually the combination of three separate lawsuits challenging HB 1523. That lawsuit is still going to go forward, and the state of Mississippi can still mount a defense of HB 1523 and, in theory at least, prevail. But Judge Reeves’s 60-page opinion certainly reads more like a final ruling than an injunction, and it demonstrates the deep hole the state’s lawyers are in. I think this paragraph sums it all up very nicely:

In physics, every action has its equal and opposite reaction. In politics, every action has its predictable overreaction. Politicians reacted to the Hawaiian proceedings with DOMA and mini-DOMAs. Lawrence and Goodridge birthed the state constitutional amendments. And now Obergefell has led to HB 1523.

As Judge Reeves put it, that overreaction in HB 1523 was twofold. First, section 2 singled out only three specific religious beliefs being eligible for special legal protections:

(a) Marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman;

(b) Sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage; and

(c) Male (man) or female (woman) refer to an individual’s immutable biological sex as objectively determined by anatomy and genetics at time of birth

And then it said that the state would not prosecute any “discrimination” cases is that discrimination was done on the basis of any of those three specific beliefs. Judge Reeves found that:

“Discrimination” is defined broadly. It covers consequences in the realm of taxation, employment, benefits, court proceedings, licenses, financial grants, and so on. In other words, the State of Mississippi will not tax you, penalize you, fire you, deny you a contract, withhold a diploma or license, modify a custody agreement, or retaliate against you, among many other enumerated things, for your § 2 beliefs.

After providing a detailed analysis of the plaintiff’s standing to sue and that state officials were appropriately named as defendants, and that it was proper to sue before the law went into effect, he then dismantled, one by one, each of the state’s arguments supporting HB 1523. Some of the language he uses is pretty strong. For example, the state actually claims that the law didn’t single out a group of people for special treatment because it didn’t actually mention LGBT people:

The State then claims that HB 1523 “is about the people of conscience who need the  protection of H.B. 1523, and does not ‘target’ Plaintiffs.” 31 Docket No. 30, at 3, in Barber. The argument is unsupported by the record. It is also inconceivable that a discriminatory law can stand merely because creative legislative drafting limited the number of times it mentioned the targeted group. The Court cannot imagine upholding a statute that favored men simply because the statute did not mention women.

…The title, text, and history of HB 1523 indicate that the bill was the State’s attempt to put LGBT citizens back in their place after Obergefell. The majority of Mississippians were granted special rights to not serve LGBT citizens, and were immunized from the consequences of their actions. LGBT Mississippians, in turn, were “put in a solitary class with respect to transactions and relations in both the private and governmental spheres” to symbolize their second-class status. … As in Romer, Windsor, and Obergefell, this “status-based enactment” deprived LGBT citizens of equal treatment and equal dignity under the law.

Before turning to the bill’s violation of the religious establishment clause in the First Amendment, Judge Reeves embarked on a rather lengthy dissertation on how the First Amendment came into being because, what with Mississippi being Mississippi, people there tend to think “that the Establishment Clause is a technicality that lets atheists and members of minority religions thwart their majority (Christian) rule. The public may be surprised to know the true origins of the Establishment Clause,” which was, originally, “to protect Christians from other Christians,” with other faiths included in subsequent court decisions. Because some religious denominations blessed same-sex marriages, HB 1523 favored some denominations over others. More than that, it favored some specific religious doctrines over others:

In this case, moreover, it is difficult to see the compelling government interest in favoring three enumerated religious beliefs over others. “[T]he goal of basic ‘fairness’ is hardly furthered  by the Act’s discriminatory preference” for one set of beliefs. Edwards, 482 U.S. at 588. It is not within our tradition to respect one clerk’s religious objection to issuing a same-sex marriage license, but refuse another clerk’s religious objection to issuing a marriage license to a formerly-divorced person. The government is not in a position to referee the validity of Leviticus 18:22 (“Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”) versus Leviticus 21:14 (“A widow, or a divorced woman, or profane, or an harlot, these shall he not take.”)

Reeves was sixty pages into his opinion and he was just getting warmed up. Unfortunately, he was running out of time — the law was due to go into effect in just a few hours. And since this isn’t a final opinion for the case, he just left the remainder of his arguments for another time:

F. Other Considerations

The plaintiffs have made other First Amendment arguments and noted a preemption theory concerning 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In light of the substantive claims addressed above, and appreciating “the haste that is often necessary” in preliminary injunction proceedings, the Court declines to take up those other theories of relief at this time. Monumental Task Comm., Inc v. Foxx, — F. Supp. 3d —, 2016 WL 311822, at *3 (E.D. La. Jan. 26, 2016)

Reeves’s injunction orders “that the defendants; their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys; and any other persons who are in active concert or participation with the defendants or their officers, agents, servants, employees, or attorneys; are hereby preliminarily enjoined from enacting or enforcing HB 1523.”

UN Human Rights Council Creates Its First LGBT Rights Watchdog

The United Nations Human Rights Council has voted to create its first official independent expert on LGBT affairs in a 23-18 vote, with 6 abstentions. The position, officially known as a Special Rapporteur, represents the first time the United Nations has created a formal position to monitor violence and discrimination against LGBT people around the world. The Advocate explains:

This is a major victory for LGBTQ rights advocates who have long been pressing for the creation of this position. Independent experts, or special rapporteurs (known as “special procedures”), are part of the U.N. system but are technically independent. They have been called the “crown jewels” of the human rights system because of their outsized influence in the international human rights landscape and the expanse of their roles engaging governments, civil society, and more.

…At minimum, the new position will help ensure that LGBTQ rights remain in the international spotlight and are integrated into the portfolios of both public officials and diplomats. The independent expert can also play a crucial role in sharing best practices concerning the protection of the human rights of LGBTQ persons among the U.N.’s 193 member states.

J. Lester Feder lists several amendments to the resolution added by Pakistan on behalf of almost all of the members of the Organization for Islamic Cooperation (Albania was the sole IOC member to formally oppose the group’s proposals):

These include a few amendments, including a handful that urge respect for local values, “religious sensitivities,” or domestic politics. Another amendment suggests the resolution undermines universal human rights values to “impose concepts or notions pertaining to social matters, including private individual conduct.”

An additional amendment condemned “coercive measures” to change national policies, a slap at donor nations that have adjusted international aid in response to anti-LGBT laws. The U.S. and some European governments adjusted their aid to Uganda following its adoption of a sweeping anti-LGBT law in 2014, and the World Bank also suspended a major loan in response.

Pentagon Ends Ban On Transgender Service Members

Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter this afternoon announced that “effective immediately,” the ban on openly transgender service members in the military has come to an end:

“The Defense Department and the military need to avail ourselves of all talent possible in order to remain what we are now — the finest fighting force the world has ever known,” Carter said Thursday at the Pentagon.

“We don’t want barriers unrelated to a person’s qualification to serve preventing us from recruiting or retaining the soldier, sailor, airman or marine who can best accomplish the mission. We have to have access to 100% of America’s population,” he added.

“Although relatively few in number, we’re talking about talented and trained Americans who are serving their country with honor and distinction,” he said. “We want to take the opportunity to retain people whose talent we’ve invested in and who’ve proven themselves.”

Carter said the decision was “a matter of principle.”

“Americans who want to serve and meet our standards should be afforded the opportunity to compete,” he said.

The ban’s lifting comes after about a year of study, and it will take another nine month to implement all of the policy changes needed. That nine-month plan includes providing transition-related care and beefing up the armed services non-discrimination policies:

By Oct. 1, the Pentagon will create training handbook, medical protocol and “guidance for changing a service member’s gender in the Defense Eligibility Enrollment System (DEERS),” Carter’s announcement said. “At this point, the services will be required to provide medically necessary care and treatment to transgender service members according to the medical protocol and guidance, and may begin changing gender markers in DEERS.”

The reality, Carter said, is that there are already transgender people serving in the military, and the Pentagon owes it to them to care for them and give commanders guidance.

…The decision to lift the ban was not entirely welcome on Capitol Hill. Rep. Mac Thornberry, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee and a Texas Republican, asked Carter pointed, specific questions last year about how removing the ban would improve military readiness, including its cost and effect on morale. A letter in response to Thornberry from the Pentagon, obtained by USA TODAY, thanked him for his interest but provided no specific answers.

Carter called the decision to end the ban his own, which was why the military’s top uniformed officers, such as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford, was not appearing with him to announce the change.

How Will Today’s Republican Party Mark The One Month Anniversary of the Pulse Gay Night Club Massacre?

By holding hearings on a bill allowing discrimination against LGBT people. That’s how:

The House Committee on Oversight & Government Reform is set to hold a hearing on the First Amendment Defense Act amid pressure from anti-LGBT advocates, including the anti-gay National Organization for Marriage, to move forward with the legislation.

…Introduced by Rep. Raul Labrador (R-Idaho) in the U.S. House and Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) in the U.S. Senate, the First Amendment Defense Act has the purported purpose of preventing federal government action against individuals and businesses that oppose same-sex marriage for religious reasons. Critics say it essentially carves out a legal exemption for anti-LGBT discrimination.

…A senior Hill staffer, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the committee sent out invitations to witnesses on the conservative side designating July 12 as the date of the hearing. The staffer declined to share a copy of the invite with the Washington Blade.

So, there you have it. On the one month anniversary of the massacre killing 49 people and wounding 53 more at a gay night club, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives will mark the solemn occasion by doing NOM’s bidding. Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) is the committee chair whose brilliant idea it was to schedule this fine piece of anti-gay animus on that date. Invited witnesses include the usual suspects from the Alliance Defending Freedom and the Witherspoon Institute. By the way, here’s NOM’s fundraising pitch sent out earlier today:

Friends — I just met with my team and learned we are seriously behind our fundraising goals for the first half of the year, which ends at midnight on Thursday.

In fact, unless we get contributions from 3,050 supporters in the next 48 hours I’m going to have to cut our budget right as we head into one of the most important periods ever for the fight for marriage and religious liberty.

You can make a difference! Donate Today!

I have to be honest, we’ve never been in a bigger hole and I am freaking out. In the past, we had reserves saved up to help cushion a shortfall, but our reserves are gone.

Not only are we looking at major fights in the next few months, including pushing for passage of the First Amendment Defense Act, but we’re headed into the slowest time of year for fundraising as families take time off for vacations and travel.

Don’t worry NOM. The Republican Party is coming to your rescue.

Morelos Lawmakers Approve Constitutional Changes To Enact Marriage Equality

via @MorelosCongreso on Twitter

Such is the nature of Mexico’s famously opaque political machinations that it’s really hard to tell what’s really happening. The Congress of the state of Mexico was due to meet yesterday evening to formally validate a package of state constitutional changes to provide full marriage equality. But when religious anti-gay protesters took over and occupied the Congress’s Plenary Hall, lawmakers convened in an alternate location and ratified the constitutional reforms.

Changes to the state’s constitution requires either tacit or active agreement from the majority of the states thirty-two Ayuntamientos (local governments or municipalities). Municipalities can either vote for, against, or abstain from voting. If an ayuntameiento abstains from voting, then that vote is taken as a yes vote. Taken this way, seventeen votes would be needed to defeat a constitutional change. According the tally adopted by the state congress, there were 12 votes in favor, 15 against, and 5 effectively approved by not voting officially.

Declaran válido el #MatrimonioIgualitario en #Morelos. #LeerMas https://t.co/PIRmpjUEzq pic.twitter.com/DuFRMFQiGl

— H.Congreso d Morelos (@MorelosCongreso) June 29, 2016

According to the official tally released by the Congress of Morelos, ayuntamientos officially registering their approval were: Cuautla, Emiliano Zapata, Huitzilac, Jantetelco, Jiutepec, Puente de Ixtla, Tetecala, Tlaquiltenango, Totolapan, Yautepec, and Yecapixtla. (Note: I only count 11 ayuntamientos listed in that tally.)

The ayuntamientos officially registering their disapproval of the measures were Amacuzac, Atlatlahucan, Ayala, Coatlán del Río, Jojutla, Jonacatepec, Miacatlán, Temoac, Tepoztlan, Tetela del Volcan, Tlalnepantla, Tlaltizapán, Xochitepec, Zacatepec, and Zacualpan de Amilpas.

The ayuntamientos that did not submit their decisions “in a timely manner,” according to the Congressional bulletin, were Axochiapan, Cuernavaca (the state’s capital), Mazatepec, Tepalcingo, and Tlayacapan.

According to several conflicting reports, marriage equality opponents charged that Mazatepec and Tepalcingo (and some add Ocuituco, which doesn’t appear on any of the above lists even though it is one of the 32 ayuntamientos) had also voted against the constitutional reforms. If true, that would have raised the “no” vote to seventeen (or eighteen) and killed the reforms. They also accuse the state Congress’s Secretary of Legislative Affairs of “manipulating” the outcomes of the Ayuntamiento meetings to precent a “no” vote.

Members of the conservative National Action Party say they will challenge the constitutional changes in court. Legal changes open a thirty-day window in which the changes can be challenged before the Supreme Court Justice of the Nation (SCJN), Mexico’s highest court. Members of Family Network, an evangelical anti-gay group, say they will launch an appeal.

Social Conservatives In Morelos Mobilize To Block Marriage Equality

The news earlier today that the Mexican state of Morelos is about to enact marriage equality for its LGBT residents has brought anti-gay activists out of the woodwork to try to block the pending changes to the state’s constitution.

Earlier reports stated that eighteen of the state’s thirty-three Ayuntamientos (local governments) had approved the constitutional reforms needed to allow equal marriage for same-sex couples, meeting the minimum threshold of seventeen jurisdictions needed to approve any changes to the state constitution. It appears that the tally of actual vote taken to support the reform package were 12 in favor, and fifteen against. However, with six Ayuntamientos not voting, their votes automatically default to “yes” votes, which brings us to 18-15 in favor of marriage equality.

I’m seeing conflicting and confusing reports all over the place, but it appears that equal marriage supporters in the state Congress say that they have received minutes from all the remaining Ayuntamientos except for the city of Ocuituco. Even if Ocuituco rejected the reforms, they would still pass 17-16.

But anti-gay activists representing Catholic, Evangelical and Mormon groups, as well as the conservative National Action Party (PAN) allege the state Congress is rushing ahead of a July 3 deadline for the remaining Ayuntamientos to submit their results. (I don’t know where that deadline comes from. Congress approved the reforms on May 18, and what I’m reading says that Ayuntamientos have one month to reject or approve the reforms.) Opponents also allege that both Mazatepec and Tepalcingo are in the “no” camp. If so, that would result in a 16-17 defeat. They also accuse the state Congress’s Secretary of Legislative Affairs of “manipulating” the outcomes of the Ayuntamiento meetings to precent a “no” vote.

The state Congress is scheduled to meet today at 7 p.m. local time (Central time in the U.S.), when it is expected to release a report declaring that the proposed constitutional reforms have been approved.

Same-sex marriage is effectively legal throughout Mexico. In nine states and Mexico City, same-sex couples only need to obtain a marriage license using exactly the same process as opposite-couples use. But in Mexico’s remaining twenty-two states, same-sex couples need to hire a lawyer and undergo the time consuming and expensive process of obtaining a court order called an amparo from a Federal Judge. Each amparo is only good for that particular couple. It takes five consecutive, identical amparos issued in the same state for them to become binding for everyone in that state.

The Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) has already ordered all federal judges to issue amparos whenever a same-sex couple asks a court for permission to marry. Marriage equality supporters point out that this makes full marriage equality inevitable throughout the country. If the state legislatures fail to act, LGBT-rights activists say that they will continue to expand full marriage equality nationwide, state by state, amparo by amparo.

Federal Court Re-opens Marriage Equality Case Over Mississippi’s “Religious Freedom” Law

In 2014, U.S. District Judge Carlton Reeves declared Mississippi’s state ban on marriage quality unconstitutional, and issued an injunction requiring the state’s county clerks to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2015 Obergefell decision striking marriage bans nationwide effectively closed the case in Mississippi, although that injunction remains in place. Yesterday, Judge Reeves agreed to re-open the case in response to Mississippi’s passage of a “religious freedom” law which, among other things, allows local clerks to refuse to issue licenses to same-sex couples. In his order issued yesterday, Judge Reeves writes:

Obergefell “is the law of the land and, consequently, the law of this circuit.” Mississippi’s elected officials may disagree with Obergefell, of course, and may express that disagreement as they see fit — by advocating for a constitutional amendment to overturn the decision, for example. But the marriage license issue will not be adjudicated anew after every legislative session. And the judiciary will remain vigilant whenever a named party to an injunction is accused of circumventing that injunction, directly or indirectly.

Judge Reeves’s order reopens the case “for the parties to confer about how to provide clerks with actual notice of the Permanent Injunction.”

Mississippi’s HB 1523 allows clarks to deny licenses to same-sex couples, and it allows businesses and individuals to refuse services to LGBT people. It also allows health care professionals to opt out of providing transition-related care to transgender individuals. The law is set to go into effect July 1. Two other lawsuits have  been filed to block the other portions of the law.

Morelos On the Cusp Of Enacting Marriage Equality

Last month, the state of Morelos just south of Mexico City began the process of amending its state constitution and civil laws to allow same-sex couples to marry without having to go through the cumbersome and expensive process of getting an amaro from a federal judge. As part of that process, state congress approved a package of constitutional reforms which must then be approved by a majority of the state’s 33 Ayuntamientos (regional governments) for ratification.

State congressional members were telling reporters yesterday that votes have taken place in all of the Ayuntamientos, which approved the constitutional reforms 18-15. The next step if for Congress to officially declare the the results in its next session and order its publication in the official legal gazette, Tierra y Libertad. It’s not clear when that is expected to take place, but at least the biggest hurdles to marriage equality have been cleared.

When Morelos makes it all official, it will be the tenth state, along Mexico City (which is not a part of a state), to provide marriage equality on the same terms as opposite-sex couples. Marriage equality is legal nationwide, although in the remaining 21 states same-sex couples have to go to court and obtain a court order, called an amparo, from a federal judge. The Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN), Mexico’s highest court, has ordered all federal judges to grant all amparos brought before their courts.

Morelos is located just south of Mexico City, with Cuernavaca as its capital. It has always been a popular getaway for Mexico City residents, and is slowly becoming something of a bedroom community for the congested capital. It boasts a long list of impressive museums, botanical gardens, a famous hacienda that once belonged to Hernán Cortés, impressive Tlahuican ruins (complete with a preserved Aztec-influenced handball court) and a dizzying array of magnificent churches. I haven’t traveled Mexico extensively, but I have spent time in Morelos. Cuernavaca is probably my favorite city, and it would make a magnificent wedding destination.

Pope Francis: Church Must Apologize To Gay People, Others

The Roman Catholic Church is often misunderstood as some kind of an absolute monarchy with the Pope undisputedly on top and all of the bishops lined up and acting on the Pope’s orders. If only that were true when we have news like this:

Francis was asked Sunday en route home from Armenia if he agreed with one of his top advisers, German Cardinal Reinhard Marx, who told a conference in Dublin in the days after the deadly Orlando gay club attack that the church owes an apology to gays for having marginalized them.

…He said some politicized behaviors of the homosexual community can be condemned for being “a bit offensive for others.” But he said: “Someone who has this condition, who has good will and is searching for God, who are we to judge?”

“We must accompany them,” Francis said.

“I think the church must not only apologize … to a gay person it offended, but we must apologize to the poor, to women who have been exploited, to children forced into labor, apologize for having blessed so many weapons” and for having failed to accompany families who faced divorces or experienced other problems.

It’s undeniable that no other Pope has spoken like this in the history of the Church. Just two years ago, comments like this coming from Francis were such a startling break from the past that they seemed to portend some rather huge changes in how the Church approaches LGBT Catholics. I, too, got caught up in that excitement, only to see the conservative old guard come roaring back. So now, I think the more correct perspective is this: when the Church moves, it does so at a snail’s pace, often while leaving a trail of slime behind it.

So while Francis can’t snap his fingers and expect his bishops to fall into line, it does appear that we are starting to see that a tiny number of those bishops are starting to get the message. In addition to Cardinal Marx, we have Bishop Robert Lynch of the St. Petersburg diocese, who wrote in the wake of the Orlando attacks that “sadly it is religion, including our own, that targets, mostly verbally, and often breeds contempt for gays, lesbians and transgender people.”

Hardliners are still firmly in charge where they think it matters, in the Church’s governing structures. But hardliners also prevail  where they really do matter: in Catholic media and among individual priests and deacons in the local parishes. For those who are looking for reasons to despair, you need look no further than at some of these parishes, particularly those being run by younger priests who were attracted to the seminary under Pope John Paul’s more absolutist papacy. In one of the great ironies of our age, it’s the older priests who came of age in the 1960s and are now reaching retirement age who are far more likely to be amenable to Francis’s message.

But as James Joyce observed when he defined Catholicism in Finnegan’s Wake (“Catholic means ‘Here comes everybody'”), those hardliners are increasingly being seen as out of step among ordinary Catholics in the pews. And that’s where, more often than not, those hardliners make their first real contact reality. And this is where that famous Catholic accomodation takes place. You’ve seen it before, in the way that Catholics in the pews responded to the Church’s teaching on birth control. It’s also the way 58% of them are now responding to the Church’s teaching on civil marriage for same-sex couples: we’ll let you pretend to be our leaders, and maybe we’ll pretend we’re paying attention.

That accommodation worked pretty well with birth control because hardliners couldn’t actually gain entrance into their parishioners’ bedrooms. But it won’t get far with LGBT people because those in charge can — and do — deny marriage rites, baptisms, school enrollment, health insurance, adoption services, and even a spot in the church choir. Far worse still, many of them openly endorse ex-gay programs for LGBT youth. So while I’m always thrilled to see Pope Francis saying these kinds of thing, I’m not going to get too excited and say it is unprecedented or far-reaching or groundbreaking. Nor will I use any other adjective to suggest that change is just around the corner. It was exciting to hear it in 2013. Let’s just say the novelty has worn off since then.

Reports: Pentagon to Lift Transgender Ban

There are multiple reports that the Pentagon will lift its ban on transgender service members, with USA Today saying the announcement will come on July 1:

Top personnel officials plan to meet as early as Monday to finalize details of the plan, and Deputy Defense Secretary Bob Work could sign off on it by Wednesday, according to a Defense official familiar with the timetable but who spoke on condition of anonymity because officials were not authorized to speak publicly about it. Final approval would come from Defense Secretary Ash Carter, and the announcement will be on the eve of the Fourth of July weekend.

…The main focus of the Pentagon’s review of the policy has been on the effect of repeal on the military’s readiness to fight, Pahon said. More details about the review’s findings are expected to be released soon, he said.

Several issues relating to repeal of the ban have proven to be contentious, according to officials familiar with the review but not authorized to speak publicly about it. One sticking point has been how long transgender service members would have to serve before being eligible for medical treatment to transition to the other gender.

President Obama Designates Stonewall National Monument

President Barack Obama today announced that the Stonewall Inn, Christopher Park, and the streets and sidewalks in the immediate vicinity that were the site of the 1960 Stonewall Uprising will now be preserved as the first National Monument to honor LGBT history:

Today, President Obama will designate a new national monument at the historic site of the Stonewall Uprising in New York City to honor the broad movement for LGBT equality. The new Stonewall National Monument will protect the area where, on June 28, 1969, a community’s uprising in response to a police raid sparked the modern LGBT civil rights movement in the United States.

The designation will create the first official National Park Service unit dedicated to telling the story of LGBT Americans, just days before the one year anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court decision guaranteeing marriage equality in all 50 states. Additionally, in celebration of the designation and New York City’s Pride festival, the White House, in coordination with the National Park Foundation and the Outdoor Advertising Association of America, is releasing a video that will be played on the billboards in Times Square on Saturday, June 25, beginning at 12:00pm ET.

The new Stonewall National Monument will permanently protect Christopher Park, a historic community park at the intersection of Christopher Street, West 4th Street and Grove Street directly across from the Stonewall Inn in Manhattan’s Greenwich Village. The monument’s boundary encompasses approximately 7.7 acres of land, including Christopher Park, the Stonewall Inn, and the surrounding streets and sidewalks that were the site of the 1969 Stonewall Uprising.

Today’s designation follows years of strong support from local officials, organizations, members of Congress and citizens in New York City and across the country, as demonstrated recently at a public meeting held in New York City in May. The National Park Foundation is also today announcing that it will support the establishment of a local Friends Group to support the monument and that it will work with local and national organizations and the community to raise funding for dedicated National Park Service personnel, a temporary ranger station and visitor center, research and materials, exhibits, community outreach, and public education.

FBI: “No Evidence” Orlando Shooter Was Gay Or Used Gay Hookup Apps

There has been widespread speculation about whether Omar Mateen, the man who killed 49 and injured more than 50 others at the Pulse gay night club in Orlando, might have been gay. The FBI has been investigating that possibility, and today says they cannot find any evidence that Mateen was leading “a secret gay life”:

Federal investigators have scoured Omar Mateen’s laptop computer, cell phone and the trail of communications he left behind and so far have found no evidence that he led a secret gay life, according to officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity about the ongoing investigation.

They’ve also reviewed the electronic devices of men who said they’d communicated with him on gay dating apps and so far have found no link.

…Investigators have not stopped following leads about Mateen’s reported interest in gay clubs and gay men, but federal officials reported Thursday that they’ve found no photographs, text messages, smart phone apps or gay pornography that suggest Mateen was gay or was trying to find a gay lover.

Several men have come forward claiming to have chatted with Mateen on gay dating apps. But:

Federal investigators, however, believe men making such claims may be confusing Mateen with someone else or are not credible, the officials said.

As for the man who, in a Univision interview, claimed to have been a regular “friend with benefits” with Mateen:

“We are not at liberty to confirm or deny specific interviews, nor the credibility of content … due to the ongoing investigation,” she wrote in an email.

Federal officials in Washington, however, said they do not believe that man’s claims are credible.