News, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
Posts 
Posts via daily email:Purdue Professor Spews “An Economic Case Against Homosexuality”
Timothy Kincaid
November 6th, 2009
Purdue Professor of Library Science Bert Chapman wrote an article on his TownHall blogsite in which he sought to lay out an economic argument against the civil rights and liberties of gay men.
His premise is that AIDS is expensive so gay men should be denied any benefits, both from the government and from private employers. (He is all for “the biblical condemnation of the homosexual lifestyle”, but he seems unaware that Lesbians exist).
The money wasted on AIDS research could be returned to taxpayers or transferred to more worthwhile areas of public health research such as cancer, heart disease, and combating pandemic conditions like H1N1 flu.
Chapman’s rant is factually flawed, poorly contrived, based on false assumptions, and is void of exactly what he thinks an alternative might be (e.g. let sick people die in the street?).
Not only does he seem to think that all gay men have AIDS, the poor man also appears to think that US AIDS relief spending in Africa is somehow related to gay men. And in a leap of irrationality, Chapman suggests that gay people getting married would lead to increased rather than decreased sexual disease transmission.
Naturally, some Purdue students aren’t pleased. They expressed concerns about gay students and about the university’s commitment to non-discrimination policies.
But I think the bigger issue is that Purdue has a Professor of Library Science who seems incapable of researching even the most basic of facts. As an advocate for information access, Chapman has an obligation to use the information ready at his fingertips rather than rant on uninformed.
Which brings me to my favorite response. Kevin Casimer, a senior in the College of Liberal Arts, made a tongue in cheek economic case for getting rid of librarians. Frankly, of the two, his argument was stronger.
Getting rid of librarians makes economic sense. Walmart trusts people to check out their groceries, so surely we could implement self-checkout at our libraries. Replacing librarians with minimum wage workers to put books back on the shelf and assist people with self-checkout would save billions. This process could even generate new income if we allowed police to access these systems and fine those who don’t return books. Of course, a degree of service would be lost without librarians. However, I think we’ll manage locally as long as someone teaches the new workers to be as helpful as the last Purdue librarian I spoke to who offered to “help me do a search on ‘the Google.’”
School Board Objects to Pictures of Gay Americans
Timothy Kincaid
October 28th, 2009
A school board in Michigan decided last week that a display by the Diversity Club had put up for gay history month which showed pictures of successful gay Americans was just too offensive for their precious high school aged children.
From the wildly homophobic Argus-Press *
The Corunna Board of Education voted Monday to remove a club project in a display case at Corunna High School that highlighted the acceptance of homosexuality and alternative lifestyles.
The Diversity Club’s display featured about nine photos of athletes, politicians and educators who live a homosexual lifestyle, Corunna Superintendent Dr. Mark Miller said.
It was just shocking, shocking!, that the little darlings were exposed to a picture of Neil Patrick Harris.
But it turns out that even school board members can get an education at a public school. And the ACLU was on hand to grade this little pop quiz.
From the Michigan Messenger
A local Shiawassee County school board plans to hold a meeting as soon as Monday to rescind a decision it made Oct. 23 to order the removal of an extracurricular club display honoring gay history month.
“We have violated the First Amendment rights of the students and the Diversity Club,” Maureen Stanley, president of the Corunna Board of Education, said. “We limited their expression.”
But it does make you wonder. Did the complaining parent really object to the existence of gay people at all? Did the school board really think that saying, “these Americans are gay” was something to refer to a health advisory committee?
I guess their “thinking” is best illustrated by this quote:
“We did not feel that was something that needed to be highlighted in the school, that’s basically it,” Trustee Lyle Brooks said.
UPDATE
* I am delighted to tell you that I was completely wrong in categorizing the Argus-Press as “wildly homophobic”. Dan Basso, the editor, contacted us to inquire as to why I made such a statement and to indicate that this does not reflect his intentions. We had a meaningful and useful correspondence about the use of certain words and terms such as “homosexual” v. “gay” and “lifestyle” and I think that Mr. Basso and I both have a greater understanding of each other.
I believe Mr. Basso when he tells us that it was not his intention to offend or report in a way that appears opposed to the gay community. And I am satisfied that he intends to update his stylebook and direct his staff on the use of language in stories related to our community. And I am appreciative of an editorial – not available online – in which the editor strongly disagreed with the action of the Board.
I was wrong. And sometimes it is great to admit being wrong.
HPV Vaccine OKed for Males
Timothy Kincaid
October 27th, 2009
Hardly an anti-gay activist can keep the excitement from their voice when they breathlessly declare that Gay Men Die From Anal Cancer!! And, indeed, gay men do die from anal cancer. In fact, about 0.35% of gay men do get anal cancer (a higher rate than non-gay men) and, if not treated, some of them die.
The primary contributor to anal cancer is infection with the HPV virus, the same virus that contributes to cervical cancer in women, causes genital warts, and is linked to some rare oral cancers in straight men. HPV is very common and most sexually active adults will be infected at some point in their life.
But some day that may no longer be true.
As we told you in June, a vaccine for the virus – which the CDC has been urging to be provided to all girls – is also effective in preventing infection in boys. And now the FDA has approved the vaccine for such use. (NYTimes)
The vaccine was approved last week by the Food and Drug Administration for use in boys and men ages 9 to 26. Wednesday’s action, by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, is intended to guide national policy on use of the vaccine; its recommendations are typically adopted by professional medical associations and set the standards of practice for physicians.
But it probably won’t lead to universal vaccination. After all, it would be mostly appropriate to boys who may some day engage in sex with someone of the same sex, and we aren’t so foolish as to assume that public health policy will be directed by what is beneficial to future gay citizens.
The new recommendation means, in effect, that doctors and clinics may now administer the vaccine at their discretion to boys and men ages 9 to 26, but they are not expected to offer it. Parents may consider the vaccine as an option for their sons, but some health insurers may choose not to cover the shots.
Yet this is good news. And it is important that we spread the news to gay-straight alliances and gay youth groups and to parents of kids that are a bit gender-nonconforming and even those parents who put their kids’ health above their dreams of a daughter-in-law. This simple step could possibly save a life.
And in the process remove one more bullet from the arsenal of those who attack our lives and freedoms.
But In Other Catholic News
Jim Burroway
October 23rd, 2009
It’s not all bad. Judge Memorial Catholic High School in Salt Lake City Catholic will go forward with its production of Rent, after the school’s superintendent reviewed the play at the request of the Bishop:
Sister Catherine Kamphaus, superintendent of schools in the Salt Lake City diocese, said she read the script at the request of Bishop John Wester, and she watched a dress rehearsal Tuesday.
“There is absolutely nothing that would be offensive,” Kamphaus said Thursday. “It wasn’t condoning the gay and lesbian lifestyle.”
Rather, she said, the play shows friends forming a loving and caring community while facing AIDS and other challenges. …The superintendent praised Judge’s use of the play as a springboard to teach about the Roman Catholic Church’s compassion for outcasts, the sick and the hopeless.
A special school edition of Rent bcame available in the past year. The school edition removes one song, “Contact,” along with profane language.
The Real Reason they don’t like Kevin Jennings
Timothy Kincaid
October 16th, 2009
A group of 53 Republican congressmen sent a letter to President Obama asking him to fire Kevin Jennings from his job running the Education Department’s Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools. No, there are no surprises on the list.
The congressmen lay out four reasons why they oppose Jennings, with the first one serving as their primary objection. And the real reason why they don’t like Kevin Jennings is… wait for it… because HE’S GAY!!!
Well, actually, it’s because he’s a homosexual activist. But, then again, so is every single gay person who isn’t masquerading as a doormat.
As the founder of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), Mr. Jennings has played an integral role in promoting homosexuality and pushing a pro-homosexual agenda in America’s schools—an agenda that runs counter to the values that many parents desire to instill in their children. As evidence of this, Mr. Jennings wrote the foreword for a book titled Queering Elementary Education: Advancing the Dialogue About Sexualities and Schooling. Throughout his career, Mr. Jennings has made it his mission to establish special protections for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered students to the exclusion of all other students. The totality of Mr. Jennings’ career has been to advocate for public affirmation of homosexuality. There is more to safe and drug free schools than can be accomplished from the narrow view of Mr. Jennings who has, for more than 20 years, almost exclusively focused on promoting the homosexual agenda.
Translation: “He’s gay, gay, gay, gay, gay, gay, gay!”
They also object to:
Two: The now debunked Brewster misinterpretation:
Mr. Jennings recounts a 15-year old student confiding in him that he had a sexual relationship with a much older man… Mr. Jennings’ only response was to ask if the underage boy used a condom.
Those of us who bother to care about honesty will note that even if one were to pretend that the story was supposed to be strictly factual rather than allegorical in nature, Jennings never said the man was “much older” or “And that’s all I ever told him.” And I’m sure they forgot to note that Brewster himself told us that he wasn’t having sex.
Ah but honest concern is seldom a real component of anti-gay outrage.
Three: a failure to oppose drugs
In his memoir, Mama’s Boy, Preacher’s Son, Mr. Jennings describes his use of illegal drugs, without expressing regret or acknowledging the devastating effects illegal drug use can have on a person’s life.
I will give the benefit of the doubt and assume none of them actually read the book. Otherwise they’d know that the “illegal drugs” they reference was a single sentence about smoking pot once with a boy who was a bad influence during a period when Jennings was desperately trying to fit in.
But that doesn’t fit their agenda quite so well
And lest you think that either of these two additional “concerns” are central to their objection, they close with the following:
You should replace him with someone who has a record of educating children in a safe and moral environment. [emphasis added]
In other words, someone who isn’t gay.
But I Thought that Prop 8 Was Supposed to Stop That
Timothy Kincaid
October 13th, 2009
Randy Thomasson, the wacky spokeman for SaveCalifornia.com has dire predictions:
Randy Thomasson of SaveCalifornia.com tells OneNewsNow that in light of the governor’s signature on SB 572, schools in The Golden State are now a source for homosexual indoctrination.
“Now children are going to be taught to admire the homosexual activist, his entire homosexual/bisexual agenda — even a cross-dressing agenda,” he asserts.
My, oh my. But isn’t that what Prop 8 was supposed to stop?
Remember, it wasn’t about civil rights for same-sex couples, or equality under the law. No, it was about children being told in school that they could grow up to marry either a prince or a princess.
Well, gosh. Now that the Golden State is a source for indoctrination of the entire homosexual/bisexual and cross-dressing agenda, then I guess there’s no reason not to reverse the ban on marriage equality.
Guilty by Association by Association
Timothy Kincaid
October 12th, 2009
For weeks those who oppose any appointments of gay people (or, perhaps, any appointments of anyone by President Obama) have been obsessing on Kevin Jennings. Jennings is a particularly appealing target because, as founder of the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), any attack on him is also an attack on the credibility of the organization that most strongly serves as advocate and ally for gay youth.
First they focused on the story of “Brewster“, an allegorical tale that Jennings used to explain his motivation for becoming a youth advocate. Anti-gay activists were “outraged” that Jennings did not adequately respond to the tale of an underage kid having sex with adult men.
And then “Brewster” himself reported that he was not underage (he was 16, of legal age in Massachusetts) and he was not having sex with adult men. Some chose to believe that this was “highly suspect” and not really the youth in question, but it did take the wind out of their sails.
So now they’ve changed tactics. Now they question Jennings’ qualifications to serve as a safe youth advocate because he admires an early gay activist who – in addition to his contributions – had some unsavory views. The argument goes like this:
- Jennings has expressed admiration for Harry Hay, who in 1950 co-founded the Mattachine Society, an extremely influential early gay rights organization.
- Three decades later, Harry Hay defended and supported the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) when the rest of the community repudiated this group and refused to allow them participation in community events.
- Therefore, Jennings is tarred by association with NAMBLA and should be disqualified from his position.
And while such reaching arguments are expected from extremists and haters, even the usually-reasonable Dr. Warren Throckmorton is “asking questions”.
Should gay leaders speak out about this now, especially during gay history month? When conservatives refer to someone like Paul Cameron or Scott Lively, they are criticized (and rightly so, to my way of thinking). Should those who laud Hay be questioned about their support for someone who walked with NAMBLA?
I don’t defend Harry Hay. He was a kook and his dedication to anti-establishment activism and non-conformity above all sometimes led to very poor choices (like his defense of NAMBLA) and ultimately enmity with the newly arising community activists. By his death he was an anachronism and an embarrassment.
But I respect and appreciate the work that Hay did on behalf of me and my community when there were very few willing. While he devolved into a bit of a joke, I think it would be appalling, callous, and astonishingly crass to dismiss his contributions and paint the man as nothing but a curmudgeous old fool tied to pedophiles, as anti-gay activists would selfishly have us do.
Throckmorton also notes that Jennings edited a book which praised Hay as an early activist, but left out reference to his support for NAMBLA.
Jennings has spoken positively about Hay and wrote about him in a book titled Becoming Visible, which is a gay history book for teens and college aged adults. In this book, Jennings referenced a biography of Hay (The Trouble with Harry Hay, by Stuart Timmons) which mentioned Hay’s support of NAMBLA but Jennings did not disclose this to his readers.
But the book in question which Jennings edited was not about The Life of Harry Hay. Indeed, the chapter which is so “objectionable” was titled Harry Hay and the Beginnings of the Homophile Movement. In it is some 19 or so pages about the origins and activities of the Mattachine Society from about 1950 to 1953 and how this group was instrumental in organizing gay men in their own defense.
There was one paragraph on Hay’s life after 1953 and the book did not, in that one paragraph, disclose Hay’s defense of NAMBLA. Nor, in his intro to the chapter, did Jennings. The much larger and more extensive book from which the material was selected, Stuart Timmins’ The Trouble with Harry Hay does discuss the NAMBLA controversy which occurred in the late 1980’s – the story takes up one page.
I think it is reasonable to assume that most books for teens which contain limited excerpts of larger biographies do not dwell extensively on the character flaws of those whose accomplishments they seek to extol. Nor does NAMBLA appear to be a large part of Hay’s life – or certainly not to the extent where it would be biographically relevant in a short article. Hay was very involved in other organizations – some rather peculiar ones – and those involvements were briefly mentioned in the book.
But let us not suppose that Jennings’ critics are applying a standard that is consistent, logical, or meaningful. While I suspect that Throckmorton’s involvement with this story relates more to his long-running resentment over anti-bullying program wars, the chorus he joins is motivated by a deep dislike of anyone or anything gay – especially those gay persons or groups that seek to shelter, protect, and support gay kids.
They know that Kevin Jennings does not support NAMBLA. Since Harry Hay passed on, virtually no one in the gay community does. But that doesn’t matter – truth is irrelevant to those who seek the destruction of gay men and women.
Take for example, Throckmorton’s chief example of critic, Scott Baker, who in a video claims:
It is important to note that this is not a small episode in the book. It is, in fact, the dramatic conclusion to the book.
It is not either the dramatic conclusion nor a large episode. It’s one page. Out of 300.
So why does Baker claim it is central to Timmons book? Because it is all that Baker cares about in Hay’s life. He finds the previous 295 pages to be irrelevant and inconsequential; he only cares about what can be used to discredit Hay and Jennings.
And Baker knows – as all anti-gays know – that NAMBLA is despised and feared by parents – or really anyone, gay or straight – and their very existence is a thorn in the side of the gay community. So if they can get the name “Kevin Jennings” and the name “NAMBLA” on the same page, it doesn’t matter how weak the link.
Make no mistake. This is a smear tactic conducted by those who are dedicated to anti-gay activism. The “concern” has nothing to do with safe schools or children. This is an effort – now that the first smear campaign has backfired – to find something, anything, to use as an attack on Kevin Jennings.
And if they can’t actually tie Kevin Jennings to NAMBLA, then they are perfectly content in implying guilt by association by association.
Maine’s “Gay Activist” isn’t Gay
Timothy Kincaid
October 9th, 2009
In their latest ad, Safe Schools, Stand For Marriage Maine responds to a pro-marriage equality ad which explains that same-sex marriage will have no negative impact on Maine schools. Rather than address the facts, they play the pro-marriage ad in the background and say, “this Maine teacher is a gay activist already pushing this type of agenda”.
Fear her. She’s gay and is pushing that homosexual agenda. Scary.
The problem is that Sherri Gould, the teacher in the pro-equality ad is not a “gay activist”. She isn’t even gay. An email from the No on 1 campaign clarifies:
“Sherri Gould is the straight mom of three grown children who share her strong belief in full equality,” said [Ron] Dodson, whose older daughter was a founding member of the Nokomis GSA and whose younger daughter joined the GSA this year. “Sherri was the first teacher advisor of the Gay/Straight Alliance at Nokomis High School because she was concerned about the levels of anti-gay language and harassment.”
Gould is the sort of person that anti-gays just can’t understand. She is a straight woman who believes in treating gay people just as though they were equal to her. How bizarre.
In the anti-gay worldview, if you don’t think gay people are lesser creatures, well then you must be one yourself.
Growing Up Gay Attending Coastline Bible Church, Day I of IV
"What My Church Taught Me About My Sexuality"
Daniel Gonzales
October 6th, 2009
When I entered middle school my family switched to Coastline Bible Church (known then as First Baptist Church Ventura) because it had a more active youth program. What my parents were not aware of were the radical right wing ideas and anti-gay gospel taught at the church which even filtered down into youth programs.
As an ex-gay survivor activist I have spent the last several years telling my story of having gone though ex-gay therapy but have never elaborated much on how my church’s teachings affected my decision to pursue therapy.
This series of short videos will run through the end of the week. Today I present day I, “What My Church Taught Me About My Sexuality.”
Far too many gay youth who grow up attending church are taught horrible, awful, terrible things about their own sexuality. For me to say that 15 years ago I was taught homosexuality was simply “wrong” would be silly. Rather I prefer to illustrate how I learned about homosexuality in church, by recalling specific incidents that would shape the rest of my life.
I believe the years of anti-gay teachings I endured as a minor at this church amounts to psychological child abuse — To not tell my story and how my life was harmed by my church’s teachings would be a disservice to other gay youth currently enduring the same thing.
Part I, “What My Church Taught Me About My Sexuality”
Part II, “The Harm Of Trying To Fit Into Someone Else’s Mold”
Part III, “Distrusting Science When It Doesn’t Agree With Your Faith”
Part IV, “Gender Conformity And Giving In To Peer Pressure”
Kevin Jennings, “Brewster,” and the Closet
Jim Burroway
October 3rd, 2009
(I’ve been extremely busy with work lately, which is why I haven’t been able to comment on this extremely important story. My apologies for my tardiness.)
Numerous anti-gay web sites have been hyperventilating about the appointment of Kevin Jennings, the former Executive Director for the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), to be the Assistant Deputy Secretary of the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools at the U.S. Department of Education. The loudest cries have centered on a story that Jennings has told many times in many forms, about an incident that happened when he was just starting out as a schoolteacher. There are several versions of the story floating around, but the one that anti-gay activists have fixated on goes like this:
And in my second job I wasn’t sure how I wanted to deal with that. And I was in my first month on the job and I had an advisee named Brewster. Brewster was missing a lot of classes; he was in the boarding school so I said to his teacher, his first period teacher, I said, “next time Brewster misses a class I want you to tell me that he’s missed that class and, uh, I will go find him.”
So I went and found Brewster one morning when she had called and he was asleep in his dorm room. And I said, “Brewster, what are you doing in there asleep?” And he said, “Well, I’m tired.”
And I said, “Well we all are tired and we all got to school today.”
And he said, “Well I was out late last night.”
And I said, “What were you doing out late on a school night.”
And he said, “Well, I was in Boston…”
Boston was about 45 minutes from Concord. So I said, “What were you doing in Boston on a school night Brewster?”
He got very quiet, and he finally looked at me and said, “Well I met someone in the bus station bathroom and I went home with him.” High school sophomore, 15 years old. That was the only way he knew how to meet gay people.
I was a closeted gay teacher, 24 years old, didn’t know what to say. I knew I should say something quickly so I finally said, My best friend had just died of AIDS the week before. I looked at Brewster and said, “You know, I hope you knew to use a condom.”
He said to me something I will never forget, He said “Why should I? My life isn’t worth saving anyway.”
For most people, this story, taking place as it did in the late 1980s, would be about how critical it is for LGBT students to have someone they know they can turn to in safety and confidence. It is also a story that illustrates how a young man can be made so desperate coming of age in a culture that condemns everything about him. But for some, this was a story has become about an underage fifteen-year-old student having sex with an adult, and Jennings’ failure to report this “statutory rape” or “molestation” to authorities.
The problem with this story, like many stories in which the storyteller wishes to protect someone’s anonymity, is that many minor details end up being altered to ensure that the people in the story can’t be identified. And sometimes these alterations change with different tellings. Typically, you try to alter details which are immaterial to the purpose of the story (the student’s name, for example). Unfortunately, some of these alterations can be interpreted by some in ways which turn out to be materially important, but in ways that the storyteller may not have anticipated (like Brewster’s age). That appears to be what happened here.
In Jennings 2006 memoir Mama’s Boy, Preacher’s Son
But it turns out that this detail about his age has ended up being important to those who want to use this story for a different purpose than Jennings intended. Sixteen is the age of consent for Massachusetts, although state law provides an exception of the two are close in age. In this version of the story I just cited, Jennings gave the student’s age as fifteen, but we don’t know the age of that “someone” at the bus station (who is assumed to be an adult).
But it appears that the student’s age might have been one of those details that Jennings was changing to protect the student’s identity. In most versions of the story, the student is simply identified as a sophomore and his age is not given. In other versions, and particularly in an important 2004 clarification by Jennings’ lawyer (PDF: 927KB/2 pages) when his issue first arose, the student’s age was given as sixteen. Furthermore, the story was clarified to indicate that Jennings had little information to believe that the student was actually having sex with an older man.
Now neither the student’s name nor his age were important elements to the story in terms of what that story was meant to illustrate (the importance of LGBT students having someone they can trust to turn to, the need for teachers to be able to deal with the special needs of LGBT students — more on that later). But one of those unimportant elements suddenly became vitally important for those who sought to take this story outside of its context.
Which is exactly what right-wing media has done. Fox News and The Washington Times have latched onto just one particular version of the story, the fifteen-year-old-Brewster version, as though it were gospel, while ignoring all the other versions including his 2004 clarification. And they ignored both its context and what seems to me a rather obvious attempt to hide the student’s identity by changing some of the details.
Fortunately, Media Matters for America has been able to track down “Brewster” and they obtained an image of his drivers license. That I.D. shows his birth date as July 31, 1971. Since the conversation took place in the fall of 1987, this would have made “Brewster” sixteen at the time and a legal adult. But more relevant than all that is this: a statement by “Brewster” himself:
Since I was of legal consent at the time, the fifteen-minute conversation I had with Mr. Jennings twenty-one years ago is of nobody’s concern but his and mine. However, since the Republican noise machine is so concerned about my “well-being” and that of America’s students, they’ll be relieved to know that I was not “inducted” into homosexuality, assaulted, raped, or sold into sexual slavery.
In 1988, I had taken a bus home for the weekend, and on the return trip met someone who was also gay. The next day, I had a conversation with Mr. Jennings about it. I had no sexual contact with anybody at the time, though I was entirely legally free to do so. I was a sixteen year-old going through something most of us have experienced: adolescence. I find it regrettable that the people who have the compassion and integrity to protect our nation’s students are themselves in need of protection from homophobic smear attacks. Were it not for Mr. Jennings’ courage and concern for my well-being at that time in my life, I doubt I’d be the proud gay man that I am today.
As they say, all’s well that ends well, but that doesn’t put this issue entirely to rest. There is still the matter of the particular advice that Jennings tossed off — “I hope you knew to use a condom.”
I think we can agree that this closeted, 24-year-old teacher’s advice was abysmal. “Brewster” really needed — and should have gotten — much better advice than that. I think we can all compose a large list of topics that they should have discussed.
That closeted teacher handled that situation very badly, but that shouldn’t have been surprising. Closeted people rarely handle situations touching on sexuality very well. I should know. I was closeted for the first forty years of my life, and in those years I said and did things that I am not at all proud of, things that I would never dream of doing today. The closet is a very insidious situation to be in.
And if people had paid attention to all of the versions of this story, they would have noticed that this was one of the principle lessons behind Jennings’ story. He screwed up and gave lousy advice, an admission he reinforced in a recent statement:
Twenty-one years later I can see how I should have handled the situation differently. I should have asked for more information and consulted legal or medical authorities. Teachers back then had little training and guidance about this kind of thing.
I think it’s important to know that “this kind of thing” isn’t just general information about sexual conduct among students which many teachers were trained on, but the particularly unique situations that LGBT students were in during that time. The year 1987 was at the very height of the AIDS crisis, and all of the hysterial that accompanied it. Politicians and popular pundits alike thought nothing about advocating that people with AIDS should be rounded up and quarantined. Homes of children with AIDS were being firebombed in Florida and people were regularly shunned everywhere else. Couple that with the presumption that everyone who was gay had AIDS (a presumption that persists in some quarters today), this placed an added stigma to everyone who was struggling to come to terms with their own sexuality.
And just to add to that, sodomy was a crime in Massachusetts in 1987, a “crime” that both the student and Jennings were potentially guilty of regardless of age of consent laws.This fact was very much on the minds of all LGBT people, especially closeted ones. I remember well in the late 1980s that Texas’ sodomy law was cited by the Dallas police department as justification for their ban on hiring LGBT officers. I remember that because I held a security clearance at the time, and worried about how that might affect my job. I needn’t have worried; by then sexual orientation wasn’t much of a factor in granting security clearances, but I didn’t know that. I wasn’t willing to take the risk of asking. One cannot discount the fears that these conditions placed on all LGBT people at that time, especially those in the closet. No wonder “Brewster” thought his life wasn’t worth saving.
When I was in high school, there was absolutely not one person I could trust to talk about what I was going through at that time — not one teacher, guidance counselor, or any other trustworthy adult. The climate was simply too hostile. And to demonstrate the depth of my sense of isolation, let me tell you a story where I’ll have to change someone’s name (but nothing else).
A good friend of mine in high school who was later diagnosed with schizophrenia was sent to see a psychiatrist because of his behavioral problems. That psychiatrist, noting that Will had not had any girlfriends yet (and is that any wonder, given the nature of his illness?) concluded that his problem was latent homosexuality. That psychiatrist then embarked on the blame-the-parents-based therapies that were popular at that time in order to try to cure him — even though by then, homosexuality was not considered a mental disorder. Not surprisingly, that course of treatment was futile because the diagnosis was completely wrong. Will isn’t gay and he never was. But I saw the disruptive effect that response had on his family, and I saw that Will only got worse when it was all said and done.
So not only could I not trust any teachers, but I knew I couldn’t even trust the so-called “experts.” For that day and time, I don’t think my situation was all that unique.
Which is why, as bad as Jennings’ advice was, I still think “Brewster” was lucky. The bad advice he got was far better than the alternative that he was likely to get from anyone else at that time. Better still, Jennings himself later came out of the closet and and founded GLSEN, and he has dedicated the rest of his career to making sure teachers today are better able to work with the “Brewsters” of the world. As hostile as this climate still is, LGBT students are better off in more schools today than we ever thought they would be two decades ago. And much of it began because of some bad advice given by a frightened, closeted teacher twenty-two years ago.
NY Times Article on Gay Teenagers
Timothy Kincaid
September 23rd, 2009
The Times has an article discussing gay teens. And God do I feel old.
Austin didn’t know what to wear to his first gay dance last spring. It was bad enough that the gangly 13-year-old from Sand Springs, Okla., had to go without his boyfriend at the time, a 14-year-old star athlete at another middle school, but there were also laundry issues. “I don’t have any clean clothes!” he complained to me by text message, his favored method of communication.
I know that I knew that I was gay early on, before I knew that there was even a word for it. But like many guys my generation, I didn’t come out until my 20’s.
I can’t imagine how different life would be had I let the world know I was gay at age 13.
Nashville, Knoxville Schools Unblock LGBT Web Sites
Jim Burroway
June 5th, 2009
School districts in Nashville and Knoxville have responded to the American Civil Liberties Union’s lawsuit demanding that Tennessee school systems remove Internet filtering software which blocks students’ access to legitimate LGBT educational and informational web sites. The Knoxville superintendent said that the blocking software was against school board policy.
The school systems used filtering software provided by Education Networks of America, which categorized some 1,000 web sites as “LGBT” and blocked access to them. The same software however allowed access to ex-gay ministries. David Pierce, CEO of ENA, said that they have upgraded the system to distinguish between web sites which provide information and those are more adult oriented.
The ACLU says that they will now likely drop their lawsuit but they are holding off for now, pending assurances that the filtering software won’t re-block access to LGBT sites in the future.
Why You Should Always Go To The Source
Jim Burroway
May 29th, 2009
I’ve adopted a policy of never believing what I read on most anti-gay web sites, simply because when you go to the source, you find that things are never — never! — as they appear. And I say that mindful of the dangers of speaking in such absolutes. But here is just another of one those examples. This email landed in my inbox:
I’m a faithful DAILY (HOURLY?) gay guy reader of your blogs. I LOVE YOUR WORK!! I am grateful for all you do!
Since I also read WND to “find out what those guys are thinking”…every once in a while I come across something that makes me wince. If the below is true (is it?), it doesn’t look A-OK for our side…do you guys have any back-story on this? I don’t like the fact that parents can’t opt-out. Is this another scare tactic?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=99442
Good question, Thomas. Thanks for asking.
The WND article decries a “mandatory homosexual curriculum for children as young as 5.” But what is that “homosexual curriculum” that the Alameda (CA) Unified School District has developed?
Well, it’s all online right here. And as you look through it, you will find that it is simply a set of short discussions with students about fellow students’ families. Some of these families have a mom and a dad, some just a mom, some just a dad, some with two moms, and some with two dads, and some with no moms or dads but aunts, uncles or grandparents.
It’s the mentioning of two moms and two dads that’s stiring up the trouble. But having a child in school with two moms or two dads is just a fact of life. This curriculum is designed to reflect that ordinary fact, and to point out that ostracism, teasing, or bullying because of it are not acceptable.
But to anti-gay opponents, the possibility that we might just be ordinary families who happen to send children to school is very scary. So yes, it is a scare tactic. Anything that unmasks the horrible creatures invented by anti-gay activists and reveals that ordinary people in ordinary families send ordinary children to ordinary schools, well there’s nothing more frightening to them than that. And so they oppose it at all costs.
Our opponents are very good at scaring people. It’s all they have left. And so they label a curriculum designed to minimize bullying and ostracizing behavior as a “homosexual curriculum,” as if teachers were being ordered to teach the mechanics of homo-sex to school kids. But that’s not what this is. Not even close.
But the mechanics of hetero-sex, well that seems to be another matter.
[Thanks to Thomas for asking a very good question.]
Anti-Gay School Board President wants “Carrie Prejean Day”
Timothy Kincaid
May 8th, 2009
This is a week old, but I just noticed it.
Jim Gibson is a trustee of the Vista Unified School Board in Vista, the city in northern San Diego County that Carrie Prejean calls home. His wife, Cathy, is the San Diego area director for Concerned Women for America.
Gibson is delighted that one of his alumni has taken such a prominent anti-marriage position. So much so that he wants the school district to honor her.
Trustee Jim Gibson said this week he wants to make June 1 “Carrie Prejean Day” in the district. He called Prejean, a 2005 Vista High School graduate, a “good, strong role-model.”
“We’re setting her up as an example,” he said. “As far as I’m concerned, she’s a great role-model, and she’s a person who needs to be emulated.”
Gibson’s proposed proclamation calls Prejean an “exemplary student leader” who “showed integrity, leadership, dedication and high moral standards” in the Miss California and Miss USA pageants.
This is not the first time that Gibson has gotten excited about opposing same-sex marriage. He unsuccessfully tried to get the school board to endore Proposition 8.
Gibson is planning on presenting the proclamation to the board on May 14th. If it passes, perhaps the students can emulate Carrie’s high moral standards by coming to school topless.
More from Laurie Higgins on why She Supports a Culture of Disapproval and Condemnation
Timothy Kincaid
April 28th, 2009
On April 15, Laurie Higgins, the Director of the Division of School Advocacy for hate-group Illinois Family Institute, wrote an article about why she opposed Dr. Throckmorton’s efforts to get Christian kids to follow the Golden Rule in response to GLSEN’s Day of Silence.
She argued that Christian kids should not “do to others what you would have them do to you”, but rather they “must condemn volitional homosexual conduct”.
I found this to be an endorsement of the bullying that GLSEN sought to counter as well as a perverse distortion of Christianity. I responded with a commentary in which I stated that “Higgins opposes the Day of Silence because she believes it is a Christian kid’s duty to bully his gay classmates”.
This did not sit well with Laurie Higgins.
She countered with another article in which she accused me of spreading “pernicious lies” and tried to draw a distinction between “condemnation, which means strong disapproval” and bullying. She even went so far as to argue that “censoring” the public condemnation of gay students by other students “constitutes an act of incalculable harm”.
Higgins expressed no mention of the harm of allowing this “strong disapproval”, such as the suicide deaths of two eleven year-old boys in the previous week.
To Laurie, Christians students should show contempt and disgust and derision. It is a good thing to abuse their fellow students that they think might be gay. It’s the Christian thing to do. It’s just condemnation of sin, not bullying, you see. It keeps society on the straight and narrow way.
Now Laurie has responded again. In her opinion piece The Bullying Tactics of “Anti-Bullying” Activists, she seeks to defend her honor.
Rather than review her bullet points one by one, I’ll let my previous writing stand on its own. I think that the observations I have made about her character, values, goals, intentions and agenda are far more evident in her writing than are her new protestations.
And, perhaps most important, Laurie and I have found a common point. Referencing something I wrote in the comments to my own commentary, she indicates that I have, indeed, identified her intention and purpose (in the comments an individual who called herself “Teri” said I “hit the nail on the head”).
Though Laurie truncates my comment, I’ll repeat it in full.
Laurie’s defenders play the same game that she does. They talk about “homosexual behavior”.
What they don’t tell you is that they define “homosexual behavior” to include the simple act of identifying as gay.
You see, to the IFIs and Exoduses and others who “fight the homosexual agenda”, they really don’t care so very much what you do in the privacy of your home – so long as you are suitably ashamed and believe that you are a sinner.
What they oppose is gay people openly and proudly identifing themselves and living with dignity.
Laurie and Teri and their pals would FAR rather have a teenage kid sneaking off to a seedly alley to have shame-filled anonymous unsafe sex than they would some virginal boy announcing that he is gay and plans to stay pure until he falls in love and marries the man of his dreams.
You see, as long as he hates himself they have a chance to save his soul. And that is far more important to them than his body or his spirit or his health or his character.
This is why they fight so hard against the Day of Silence and Gay-Straight Alliances. Not because of sex, but because these groups help counter the culture of disapproval and condemnation.
Because what Laurie wants more than anything is that the culture and society be dominated by disapproval and rejection of gays. Not gay sex, but gay identity. [The section in bold is quoted by Higgins]
And on this Laurie Higgins and I agree. We both acknowledge that she sees her goal as defending the culture of disapproval and condemnation.
Where we disagree is that I find the suffering and dead children she leaves in her wake to be abominable and horrific.
In mentioning the deaths of Carl Walker-Hoover, Jaheem Herrera, and Eric Mohat (the first time she’s been inclined to do so) she finds no evidence that “compassionate, intelligent expositions of conservative views of homosexuality” (the condemnation and strong disapproval in which she says Christian kids must engage) are in any way to blame.
Even though the parent of all three boys lay the blame for the death of their children at the feet of anti-gay bullying, Laurie thinks that she’s identified another culprit. Believe it or not, it’s me.
Anti-Gay Slavs Voted Out of Student Government in Sacramento Community College
Timothy Kincaid
April 24th, 2009
In October, the student government of American River College in Sacramento endorsed Proposion 8. It was the only student government association in the state to do so. This engendered a recall effort but most students didn’t bother to vote and the anti-gay students remained in power.
We learned that these students were a coalition of five Slavic students associated with the virulently homophobic evangelical movement in Sacramento and three Mormon students who had joined forces to turn out voting blocks and advance socially conservative positions through student government. And their anti-gay activism was not limited to Proposition 8.
Last Friday the Sacramento Bee reported:
Student leaders at American River College passed a resolution Thursday opposing today’s nationally organized demonstration in support of gay rights.
The resolution asserts that “the Day of Silence has been used to silence and harass religious students at local public schools for expressing their viewpoints,” and instead calls for a “peaceful discussion of controversial issues instead of intimidation and censorship of opposing viewpoints.”
That may just have been too much for the students at American River College. They may have become too embarrassed about representatives that seemed anti-gay, anti-science, and anti-culture and they have voted the religious coalition out of office.
In elections held Wednesday and Thursday, American River College students ousted several conservative council members in favor of a slate that said it wanted the student government to stop focusing on divisive social issues.
Fourteen of 17 student representatives elected are part of the “ARC Students for Change” slate, including David Fisher, who won as student association president.
Congratulations to Fisher and his alliance of students.
Mother of Bullying Victim Speaks Out
Jim Burroway
April 24th, 2009
Sirdeaner Walker’s 11-year-old son, Carl Walker-Hoover, recently took his own life after having been continually harassed with anti-gay taunts. Yesterday, Sirdeaner appeared on Ellen DeGeneres’ show to tell her story and to plead for an end to bullying.
Another Anti-Gay Bullying Suicide
Jim Burroway
April 21st, 2009
Six hundred people gathered this evening to remember Jaheem Herrera, an 11-year-old Atlanta-area boy who hanged himself at home after relentless anti-gay bullying at his elementary school. According to his family, Jaheem came home from school last Thursday and hanged himself with a belt in his bedroom closet.
The DeKalb County schools, where Jaheem attended elementary school, reportedly have an anti-bullying program in place. But one classmate reported witnessing a bullying incident in the boys room that was so severe that Jaheem passed out. According to Jaheem’s mother, she repeatedly complained to school officials about Jaheem’s harassment, but nothing was done.
This latest death follows two other recent bullying-related suicides. Eleven-year-old Carl Joseph Walker-Hoover of Springfield, Massachusetts hanged himself with an electrical cord after repeated bullying with gay taunts. Seventeen-year-old Eric Mohat of Mentor, Ohio killed himself after a classmate publicly dared him in class to shoot himself. He was repeaetedly called “queer,” “fag,” and “homo,” often in front of his teachers.
Laurie Higgins Seeks to Justify her Endorsement of Bullying
Timothy Kincaid
April 21st, 2009
Laurie Higgins, Director of the Division of School Advocacy of the certified hate-group Illinois Family Institute, is not at all pleased with my observations about her advocacy for bullying.
The homosexual blog Box Turtle Bulletin carried an article last week in which Timothy Kincaid spread pernicious lies about me. I don’t know Mr. Kincaid, so I don’t know if he has a limited capacity for following the logic of an argument or if he has a limited commitment to truth and an unwillingness to provide evidence for his defamatory claims.
The crux of Higgins’ argument is the indignant insistence that she does not personally bully children but that “There is an important distinction between interacting with individuals and participating in public debates”
In my interactions with individuals who identify as homosexual, I would never articulate my views about homosexuality unless the topic were introduced by them. If the topic were introduced by them, I would speak the truth graciously.
Higgins goes on at quite some length in her “graciously truthful” way, crafting a world in which schools are hell bent on promoting a radical, subversive, ahistorical view about the nature and morality of homosexuality and are conspiring to censor conservative views. This makes it “ethically legitimate for all citizens to participate in the public discussion regarding what best serves justice and the common good.”
But let’s stop for just a moment and remind ourselves exactly what it is that we are talking about, exactly what it is that Higgins finds so objectionable: anti-bullying programs.
The constant use of “faggot” and “homo” and the constant deriding of students who may not fit the stereotype of sexual norms is pervasive in our public schools. And it is resulting in the staggering truth that children as young as 11 years old are killing themselves rather than face another day of this abuse.
And let’s also keep in mind that there is nothing whatsoever that these kids can do about it. They did nothing to start it, do nothing to contribute to it, and have no way of stopping it. Many of them do not identify as gay and most of those who do have never engaged in any sexual behaviors of any kind. These are just kids who – for reasons that adults can never fathom – have been declared to be “a fag” and therefore deserving of torment.
Think about this when you read the next paragraph.
The truth is that public schools can find ways to curb bullying without addressing homosexuality. For example, students who engage in promiscuous behavior, particularly girls, are often called “sluts,” “skanks,” and “whores.” Public educators deplore such bullying, and yet even in the service of ending bullying they would never permit books, plays, films, days of silence, newspaper articles, essays, speakers, panel discussions, and “diversity” weeks to be employed in the service of transforming students’ views on the morality of promiscuous behavior. They would find ways to curb bullying of promiscuous teens without ever specifically addressing promiscuous conduct.
I want to be charitable. I want to believe that no one, not even Laurie Higgins, would oppose programs that seek to stop kids calling other kids “skank” or “whore”. I can’t.
I want to believe that Laurie thinks it wrong to push gay kids into lockers, beat them up, threaten them, and subject them to a constant barrage of insults. I can’t.
I want to believe that she feels more empathy and a closer association with those being tormented than to those who doing the tormenting of their fellow students. I can’t.
There simply is no way to avoid it. There is simply no other possible conclusion. Laurie Higgins supports the bullying of gay students, she just refuses to think of it that way. Higgins sees the abuse as the legitimate response of moral kids to the immoral conduct they see in others.
Just like Laurie finds it reasonable to call a promiscuous girl (or one so accused) a slut or a whore, so too is it reasonable to torment gay kids (or those so assumed) with taunts of “faggot” and to physically abuse and threaten them. Because in her world Christians are required to “condemn” objectionable behavior – which means public derision and abuse – even if most of their victims have never engaged in any behavior at all.
To Laurie, Christians students should show contempt and disgust and derision. It is a good thing to abuse their fellow students that they think might be gay. It’s the Christian thing to do. It’s just condemnation of sin, not bullying, you see. It keeps society on the straight and narrow way.
And if there is collateral damage, that is of little concern to Laurie Higgins. She has never shown the slightest care for the victims, not even in passing. The important thing to Laurie is that students who share her contempt for homosexuality be unhindered in their efforts to condemn and berate.
And if this results in dead children, that is of no consequence; to Laurie it’s a small price to pay.
Laurie Higgins Endorses the Bullying of Gay Kids
Timothy Kincaid
April 17th, 2009
Illinois Family Institute is only one of 12 anti-gay groups assigned Hate Group status by the Southern Poverty Law Center. It is a well deserved designation.
Laurie Higgins, the Director of the Division of School Advocacy for the Illinois Family Institute, gives voice to the attitudes and beliefs that have led to IFI being identified as a hate group. Laurie is also one of the organizers of the Day of Silence Walk Out.
She is not pleased that Dr. Warren Throckmorton is suggesting that Christian kids should treat gay kids as they wish to be treated. She is angry that he wants them to stay in school on the Day of Silence. And she is particularly irate that Throckmorton opposes the abuse of gay kids.
In her article, Dr. Throckmorton’s “Golden Rule” Misguided at Best, Higgins makes minimal lip service to “the worthy goal of ending bullying, but it’s quite clear that she does not at all wish that the bullying of gay kids should end at all.
“So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets,” means that Christians should affirm to others God’s Word–the entirety of God’s Word–in a godly way.
Higgins declares that the Golden Rule means the exact opposite of what it says. Rather than do unto others as you’d have them do to you, she endorses the “affirming God’s Word” (ie public condemnation and ridicule) of others “in a godly way”. It is difficult to fathom a more perverse interpretation of Christ’s commandment.
[If] we allow schools to define discrimination so expansively as to prohibit all statements of moral conviction, character development is compromised and speech rights are trampled. And if administrators continue to define discrimination in such a way as to preclude only some statements of moral conviction, they violate pedagogical commitments to intellectual diversity and render the classroom a place of indoctrination.
Higgins supports discrimination, as long as it is based on “moral conviction”.
Dr. Throckmorton believes that “Christian students should be leading the way to make schools safe and build bridges to those who often equate ‘Christian’ with condemnation.” In this statement, Dr. Throckmorton glaringly omits the truth that Christians must condemn volitional homosexual conduct. And to those who view homosexuality as moral, this necessary Christian condemnation of homosexual behavior renders homosexual students unsafe.
Yes, Higgins actually supports making schools unsafe for gay kids.
She believes that “Christians must condemn volitional homosexual conduct.” In other words, Christian kids have a moral obligation to harangue and harass gay kids and publicly condemn them.
[As] moral beings living for a time in a fallen world suffused with brokenness of all kinds, we are all charged with the same moral task: We all must determine which of our myriad messy feelings are morally legitimate to act upon. Adults are supposed to help children navigate those murky waters.
Higgins believes that adults – teachers and administrators – should also condemn gay kids.
Let’s be clear. Higgins does not oppose the Day of Silence because it is the wrong way to go about ending the bullying of gay kids. Rather, Higgins opposes the Day of Silence because she believes it is a Christian kid’s duty to bully his gay classmates.
