Box Turtle Bulletin

TABC Chief Apologizes For Rainbow Lounge Raid, Says Agents Failed To “Follow The Damn Policy”

Update: The Dallas Voice has posted audio of the interview. Please go and listen. It’s a very rare and wonderful example of a public official having the cojones to step up and take responsibility.

TABC Administrator Alan Steen

Some amazing new information on the ongoing investigations over the June 28 Rainbow Lounge raid in Ft. Worth are reaching the light of day. The Dallas Voice has an exclusive scoop:

In an exclusive phone interview with Dallas Voice on Wednesday, July 15, TABC Administrator Alan Steen also said the supervisor directly responsible for the two agents — a sergeant in TABC\’s Fort Worth district office — announced his retirement last week in the wake of the raid and amid an ongoing internal investigation. Steen didn\’t identify the sergeant or the agents by name.

“I don\’t think you have to dig very deep to figure out that TABC has violated some of their policies,” Steen said. “We know that, and I apologize for that. …”

Steen told The Dallas Voice that he doesn\’t believe there was sufficient cause for the “inspection”. He also said that the eight officers and a paddy wagon likely constituted an excessive show of force. With all that, he said that TABC had no business conducting an inspection at the Rainbow Lounge that night. Steen added in characteristically Texan fashion, “If our guys would have followed the damn policy, we wouldn\’t even have been there.”

"State police" (Dallas Voice)

And those “State Police” uniforms that we asked about, knowing that there is no such thing as a “State Police” agency in Texas? It turns out that those are “special events uniforms” which TABC policy prohibits during bar inspections. Steen said that agents are typically in plain clothes during inspections.

Steen also suggested that the TABC was interested in appointing a liason to the LGBT community, similar to the position recently announced by the Ft. Worth Police Department.

You can read all the details of the interview with the TABC Administrator at The Dallas Voice.

Follow Up on Brett Vanasdlen

During the attention given to the debate in Congress over the Matthew Sheppard Hate Crimes Bill, I was reminded of the story of Brett Vanasdlen, the young man in Champaign, Illinois, who was charged with a hate crime in 2008.

We reported the story, but we didn’t fully follow up. Here’s where we left it:

• Stephen Velasquez was walking with friends at 1:00 am. Another young man, Brett Vanasdlen, saw him and made a bigoted remark.
• According to Velasquez, he responded, “How ignorant was that?” and kept walking. According to Vanasdlen, Velasquez grabbed him and started screaming, “What did you say” in his face.
• In both stories, Vanasdlen threw Velasquez to the ground where he was knocked out, suffered head trauma, and was taken to the hospital.
• Vanasdlen was arrested and charged with a hate crime.
• Vanasdlen’s mother appealed to Anti-Semite Ted Pike and former KKK leader David Dukes for support and they ran her version of events on Dukes’ white supremacist website. Peter LaBarbera picked up the story from them (changing Pike to a “pro-family activist”) and sold it to conservative circles. The story spread as an example of how a conservative Christian “strapping, clean-cut, All-American looking young man” was victimized by a homosexual with brown skin through the use of hate crimes legislation.

White supremacists and anti-Semites throughout the country began including Vanasdlen as an example of the current indignities suffered by the “white race”. Anti-gay religious groups used it as an example of why gay people should not be protected by hate crimes.

Peter LaBarbera was probably most vocal about this story. And he was quite critical of the skepticism expressed by those of us who doubted Vanasdlen’s saintliness.

We\’ll see how this story plays out as Tim, ExGayWatch, BTB, Pam and the rest of the “queer” spin machine so eagerly paint a false picture of young Brett as a violent “gay basher” to further their misguided crusade.

Peter pledged to one and all that “AFTAH will be following this case closely.”

So today I turned to LaBarbera’s site to see whatever happened to Brett Vanasdlen and his campaign to clear his name. But I found nothing. No mention at all of the outcome.

So what happened? Did the courts clear him? Did witnesses come forward to declare that the “strapping, clean-cut, All-American looking young man” had actually been the victim and brown homosexual Velasquez was the “the real aggressor“?

Well, no.

On September 9, 2008 Brett Vanasdlen pled guilty to battery and the hate crime charge was dropped.

Defendant ordered to pay restitution in the amount to be determined at a later date.
Sentence: 09/08/2008
Sentence: Fines and/or Cost/Penalties and Fees
Sentence: Court Supervision 24Mos Supervised Court Service
Sentence: Anti-Crime Assessment Fee
Sentence: Public Service 200Hrs Supervised Court Service
Sentence: Substance Abuse Treatment/Evaluation 60Days
Sentence: Partner Abuse Intervention Program 60Days
Sentence: Count(s) dismissed.

I guess it’s no wonder that LaBarbera kept silent about the resolution to this case. Martyrs are much less effective when they plead guilty.

Ft. Worth May Call For Expanded U.S Investigation Into Rainbow Lounge Raid

The Ft. Worth Star-Telegram is reporting on more fallout from Tuesday’s city council meeting. Several members of the audience at that meeting demanded an independent investigation into the June 28 Rainbow Lounge raid that left one patron critically injured and in intensive care for a week. Two council members, Joel Burns and Kathleen Hicks, said they would support an independent investigation, but didn’t all for a vote on the issue.  Now it looks like that idea is starting to gain momentum:

On Wednesday, Burns said “movement was afoot” to ask the U.S. attorney\’s office to expand its role from just a review to a more active investigation. Burns said that based on conversations he\’d had with the mayor\’s office, “they are looking at expanding the scope of the U.S. attorney\’s involvement.”

While he believes the Police Department\’s internal-affairs unit is capable of an investigation that yields full and complete answers, Burns said, “there are people who don\’t know our Police Department who may not be so assured.”

He said he believes that an expanded role by the U.S. attorney\’s office, complete with its subpoena power and ability to use the FBI if needed, “reassures everyone watching that the answers are full and complete and accurate.”

They mayor’s office is reportedly working with the U.S. attorney’s office to determine the scope of a possible investigation. There may be a resolution calling for an investigation by next week’s council meeting.

Demand Honesty – Sometimes You’ll Get It

The Illinois Family Institute is decidedly anti-gay. They believe that your “lifestyle” is inherently evil and they know no limits in their fight against “militant homosexual activists.” IFI is one of only 12 Anti-Gay Hate Groups listed by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

But even those persons at IFI who have dedicated their lives to anti-gay activism are approachable. And recent events demonstrated this to me.

At this time yesterday, the IFI had a flyer on their website which they were encouraging their followers to pass out at church (it was conveniently sized to fit in a church bulletin). “Urgent!” it warned and then listed just why Illinoisans should fear Senate Bill 909, the Matthew Sheppard Hate Crimes Bill.

As its second bulletin point it declared:

It Infringes on Freedom of Speech and Religion.

Miss California , Carrie Prejean, could have been charged with a “hate crime” for her views on same-sex marriage if S. 909 was already law. What could constitute a “hate crime” under this bill is a homosexual man or woman claiming they were discriminated against and hurt by what was said.

Now, those who read here know that this is complete nonsense.

The bill says nothing about “claims” or “hurt by what was said.” Instead it provides states with federal assistance for a crime that

(A) constitutes a crime of violence;
(B) constitutes a felony under the State, local, or tribal laws; and
(C) is motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim, or is a violation of the State, local, or tribal hate crime laws.

And I think we all know that Carrie’s babbling about “opposite marriage” was not a violent felony. Indeed, if hate crimes legislation could lead to Carrie’s arrest, it would have; Nevada has hate crimes protections in place.

So I contacted the Illinois Family Institute and had a lengthy email exchange with David E. Smith, its Executive Director. Smith was not quick to agree that his claims were baseless. He decidedly did not want to admit that his claim was hyperbolic, dishonest, and a flat-out attempt to lie to those who use IFI as a resource a claim based more in desire to influence belief about the bill than in any real possible scenario. *

But I appealed to Smith’s integrity and the commands of his (and my) faith not to lie, and ultimately Smith had to admit – mostly to himself – that his flyer was not truthful.

And he changed it. And I commend him for making that change.

It’s not now a glowing endorsement of the bill, but at least it reads a bit more honestly:

It Infringes on Freedom of Speech and Religion.

To see where “hate crime” laws lead, we can look to other countries where such laws have been passed, and also to our nation\’s public universities. More than 230 public universities have so-called “speech codes” that are being used to restrict Christian speech. The majority of these speech codes censor any speech that challenges homosexual behavior.

Now I don’t think that S. 909 will lead to “speech codes”. But, unlike the false claims about Carrie Prejean, this slippery sloap is at least a legitimate concern and a credible issue over which reasonable people can disagree.

I am sure that our readers will continue to see false, offensive, or inflamatory statements in the many anti-gay writings of IFI. But that is not why I tell this story.

I want to let this serve as a reminder that the most effective strategy is not always to go in with guns blazing and call an opponent a homophobic lying bigot. Even if you think they are.

Now some folks have no interest whatsoever in the truth. They lie because that’s what lying liars do. But some – even those most extreme – don’t want to think of themselves as liars. They want desperately to “win”, but perhaps not at the cost of their immortal soul.

And I think that we could have a more reasoned debate, tear down a few walls, find some common ground, if we insist that all of us – those who agree and those who disagree – speak the truth, hold ourselves with honor, and demand honesty.

Sometime you’ll get it.

* The Illinois Family Institute objected to my characterization of their efforts as “a flat-out lie”. As I cannot state for certain what went on in their heads, I will concede that perhaps they were so confused by their own rhetoric as to actually believe that Carrie Prejean could have been arrested for saying that she supported “opposite marriage”.

What Were You Doing 40 Years Ago Today?

I was glued to the black-and-white Zenith. I don’t think I ever saw this in color until now:

Lying About The Hate Crime Bill, #2: “A Danger To Religious Freedom”

Among the many claims of opponents to the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 (H.R.1913) — known in the Senate as the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act (S.909) — is the contention that this bill represents a danger to religious freedoms. The proposed legislation would expand the already existing federal hate crime law to include violent crimes based on the victim\’s actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, and/or disability. The current law already covers actual or perceived race, ethnicity, color and religion. This is very important to remember because it makes the “danger to religious freedom” argument particularly illogical.

That argument, as promulgated by anti-gay activists, insists that the proposed hate crimes prevention act will effectively criminalize religious objections to homosexuality and will “muzzle” pastors. Here’s how the Family Research Council recently put it:

Let’s say you preach from Genesis 19 or Romans 1, referencing the homosexual agenda or lifestyle. Your sermon could be heard by an individual who applies it in a way prohibited by a hate crimes law. Not only would the offender be prosecuted under this law, but you could also be prosecuted for conspiracy. Consequently, hate crimes laws would radically impact our freedom of speech as Christians.

Matt Barber puts it this way:

This creates both a sociopolitical and legal environment wherein traditional sexual morality officially becomes the new racism. Those who publically [sic] express medical, moral or religious opposition to the homosexual lifestyle are tagged by the government as “homophobic bigots” to be treated no differently by law enforcement, the courts or larger society than the KKK or neo-Nazis.

Barber’s warning is particularly relevant. What would happen if “homophobic bigots” were treated exactly the same as the KKK or neo-Nazis?

Well, to answer that, we could well ask how does the current hate crimes law treat the KKK and neo-Nazis?

The KKK at the Minnesota state Capital, August 2001

The federal hate crime law already protects against crimes motivated by hatred of religious groups, but that didn’t keep neo-Nazis from winning the right to march in predominantly Jewish Skokie, Illinois (with the ACLU\’s help, I might add). The current hate crime law also protects against crimes motivated by racial hatred, but that didn’t stop the KKK from marching and shouting slogans in Cleveland (again with the ACLU’s help). Hate groups have rallied at state houses in Minnesota, Nebraska and South Carolina, In fact, White Supremacist groups have held nearly a hundred rallies, demonstrations and meetings across America in this year alone — and the existing hate crime law at both the state and federal level have deterred none of it. And yes, they’ve even protested gay pride parades as well, something that they have in common with more than a few conservative Christian groups.

Extremist hate groups are also free to practice their hate speech, including when they do so under the guise of religious belief. There are some three dozen racist Christian Identity groups active in America right now. Some even operate radio broadcasts and “prison ministries.” One such “pastor,” James Wickstrom, argued that Jews should be beaten, thrown into a wood chipper, and “give them the holocaust they rightly deserve.” This, even though current hate crime laws already protect on the basis of religion.

Now if “pastor” Wickstrom can say something as offensive and dangerous as that with the existing hate crime laws in place under the guise of his religious beliefs, then there’s nothing that Matt Barber can say now that can’t be said should the Matthew Shepard bill become law. And that’s because the First Amendment to our constitution provides a pretty ironclad guarantee of freedoms of speech and of religion:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

And under that Ironclad guarantee of freedom of speech and religion, some pretty unsavory groups have freely spouted their unsavory beliefs. Our First Amendment protects our right to say pretty much anything we want, no matter how ugly, hateful, or factually wrong we may be. And no law — not even this proposed hate crimes law — can get in the way of that.

But that’s not what opponents to the hate crimes bill would have you believe:

If we do not act decisively at this time, S.909 will make illegal every word in the Bible describing the destruction wrought by this vile behavior, and prepare the way for total censorship of the Gospel of Christ. Our children will pay a horrible price for our cowardice.” Rev. Flip Benham, National Director, Operation Rescue/Operation Save America

But S.909, the senate version of the bill, won’t make illegal any words whatsoever, because it only expands the current hate crimes law to cover sexual orientation. And the current hate crimes law doesn’t make illegal any words either. And in case there’s any confusion about this, the version of the Matthew Shepard act which passed the House says so specifically:

Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by, the Constitution.

And the Senate version is even more expansive in its assurances:

(3) CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prohibit any constitutionally protected speech, expressive conduct or activities (regardless of whether compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief), including the exercise of religion protected by the First Amendment and peaceful picketing or demonstration. The Constitution does not protect speech, conduct or activities consisting of planning for, conspiring to commit, or committing an act of violence.

(4) FREE EXPRESSION- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to allow prosecution based solely upon an individual’s expression of racial, religious, political, or other beliefs or solely upon an individual’s membership in a group advocating or espousing such beliefs.

Now notice what I just did. I linked directly to both the House and Senate versions of the act so you can read it for yourself. Ever wonder why our opponents won’t do the same when they make these outlandish claims?

But What About Pastors in Sweden, Britain and Canada?
Anti-gay opponents often bring up examples from other countries, claiming that what can happen over there can happen here. Focus On the Family has a so-called “Facts Sheet” which claims (PDF: 44KB/2 pages):

In Sweden, Canada and Great Britain, “hate crimes” laws have been used to prosecute Christians speaking their disapproval of homosexual behavior, posing a serious threat to religious liberty and free speech.

The Family Research Council adds:

Don’t believe it? Just Just ask Pastor Ake Green who was charged and sentenced on June 29, 2004 to one month in jail for showing “disrespect” against homosexuals because of a grace and truth filled sermon delivered in Borgholm, Sweden on July 20, 2003 . Thanks to the efforts of our friends at ADF, that sentence was overturned on appeal, but you can see what a chilling effect that hate crimes laws would have on the freedom of speech and religion.

But Sweden’s example simply doesn’t apply here. Sweden has a hate speech law that goes back to 1948, when it was originally written in response to the Holocaust. Laws which limit hate speech are quite common in many European countries. But that\’s because their constitutions allow such laws to exist. Ours doesn\’t. Swedish journalist Tor Billgren, who writes the blog Antigayretorik, reminds us that no preacher has been fined or jailed for quoting the Bible:

Pastor Ã…ke Green was sentenced to 1 month imprisonment by the district court, but was acquitted by the court of appeal and the supreme court. He wasn\’t jailed. There\’s another case as well: Leif Liljeström, a Christian (not a preacher) who owned a discussion forum on the web. He was sentenced to 1 month for things another person wrote on the forum (according to the Swedish law the owner of the forum is responsible). However, this wasn\’t quotes from the Bible, but extreme hate speech. This case will be dealt with by the Supreme Court. He hasn\’t been jailed.

Britain is often cited as another example by anti-gay activists. But the U.K. has no written constitution, nor does it have a Bill of Rights like ours which enumerates inviolable rights among its citizenry. (If I remember, that was one of the sore points between us more than two hundred years ago.) Consequently, Britain has a long history of banning all sorts of speech. As recently as 1988, Margaret Thatcher\’s government banned the broadcast of all appearances and interviews of members of Sinn Fein and the IRA. (According to the BBC, “instead of hearing Gerry Adams, viewers and listeners would hear an actor\’s voice reading a transcript of the Sinn Fein leader\’s words.”) You just try to get that past our Constitution here.

Canada also has a hate speech law. Bill C-250 criminalizes certain types of hate speech towards persons of any sexual orientation: homosexuals, bisexuals, or heterosexuals. In other words, it protects everyone equally. But there is a clause which specifically exempts religiously motivated speech. In other words, religious freedom always trumps hate speech in Canada according to this particular law. But again, Canada’s constitution does not prohibit curbs on speech the way the American constitution does.

But What About the “Philadelphia Eleven”?
But some claim that just such a curb on freedom of speech has actually happened here:

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer claims the legislation “does not affect free speech or punish beliefs or thoughts. It only seeks to punish violent acts.”  But Andrea Lafferty, executive director of the Traditional Values Coalition, says Hoyer is ignoring the case of eleven Christians in Philadelphia who were charged with hate crimes for sharing Scripture verses at a homosexual pride rally.

“Ask the Philadelphia 11. We know what these supposed ‘hate crime’ laws are meant to do. In Philadelphia, Christians were arrested and jailed based on hate crime law,” she points out. “So we know that what the other side is saying — that it will not affect pastors or youth pastors or Christians — we know that is not true.”

Philadelphia organizers, participants, and police were willing to tolerate the signs and taunts from a group of Repent America protesters when they remained at the edge of the event’s grounds. But then those protesters pushed their way onto the festival grounds to try to forcibly disrupt the event, they were surrounded by Outfest supporters armed with pink whistles and eight-foot-tall pink-colored boards mounted on sticks.

Repent America, who didn’t have a permit for their gathering, was trying to disrupt an OutFest rally which did have a valid permit. So police were called, and they instructed the demonstrators to go back out to the the edge of the Outfest area. The demonstrators ignored three separate orders to move. When they were told by police they would be arrested if they refused to move, they sat down, forcing the police to arrest them.

Prosecutors charged the protesters with violating several laws including the state’s hate crime law. But the court dismissed those charges, calling them an infringement on the protester’s First Amendment rights.That’s right. Just like with with the Klan and the neo-Nazis, Repent America’s actions were protected by the First Amendment.

This may be a case of overzealous prosecutors misapplying the law. But that doesn’t mean the law itself is flawed. We’ve had cases where overzealous prosecutors have pinned far worse charges on innocent people. Some have even ended up on death row for wrongful murder convictions. The answer to that problem isn’t the elimination of laws against murder, but to ensure that everyone has a speedy and fair trial — which is another of our cherished constitutionally protected rights.

And in this particular case, the problem wasn’t with the police who removed Repent America from OutFest; it was with the prosecutor’s decision to charge them under the state’s hate crimes law. In fact, when Repent America tried to sue the city of Philadelphia for wrongful arrest, that court ruled that the police acted properly. It was Repent America’s disruptive actions which led to their arrests, not the content of their speech.

Those who claim that the proposed hate crimes bill is a danger to free speech or religious freedoms need to not only dust off their copy of the Bill of Rights, but also look around at what a lot of people are already getting by with under the current hate crime law. Even if Repent America, Focus On the Family, or the American Family Association were to wind up in the same classy company of the KKK and neo-Nazis as Matt Barber fears, they will still be free to say whatever they damn well please.

See also:
— Lying About The Hate Crime Bill, #2: “A Danger To Religious Freedom”
— Lying About The Hate Crime Bill, #1: “The Thirty Sexual Orientations”

Ft. Worth Spokesman Clarifies Mayor’s Apology

We reported yesterday that Mayor Mike Moncrief had apologized to the crowd at Tuesday’s city council meeting. Aman Batheja and Deanna Boyd at the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram renders the apology this way:

Listen, if you want an apology from your mayor, I am sorry for what happened in Fort Worth, ” Moncrief said, drawing some applause. “I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.”

But city spokesman Bill Begley has clarified the mayor’s remarks, saying that he didn’t apologize for the raid, just for the injuries sustained by Chad Gibson when he was slammed against the wall and thrown to the floor:

“The mayor and council are always sorry if anyone is hurt ever in our city,” Begley said Wednesday. “The mayor has asked for a thorough investigation of what happened in the Rainbow Lounge to the point that he\’s asked for the U.S. attorney to get involved …They want to make sure that all voices are heard … but the apology is that anyone is ever hurt in any incident.”

Rainbow Lounge Raid Proves The Dangers Of A Kiss

We’ve covered several examples before describing the provocative temerity of a kiss. It looks like that monstrously dangerous act also played a role in the June 28 raid on the Rainbow Lounge by Ft Worth Police and agents from the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission. Dallas’ WFAA-TV reports:

A police radio recording revealed that an officer called for help after they went inside the Rainbow Lounge.

“I need help in here,” he could be heard saying. “I’m by the restroom.”

That call came when officers said a customer blew a kiss at the officer, and then struggled with police as they tried to arrest him. The customer told News 8 his arm was injured.

The same report suggests that the Rainbow Lounge may have been singled out because of a public intoxication arrest two days before:

Ever since Chad Gibson was injured and others arrested in a raid at the gay bar, one of the biggest questions for many was why did officers target the Rainbow Lounge in the first place?

According to police records, a cruiser video showed a man arrested for public intoxication two days before the controversial raid. In a police report, officers said they saw the man leave the lounge very intoxicated earlier in the evening and told him to get a ride.

“We’re Going To Suffer Some Kind Of Infrastructure Collapse” — All Because Of The Gays

In an amateur video posted this week on YouTube, Scott Lively talked about his work in “re-Christianizing America,” which is threatened by an “infrastructure collapse” brought on by that dreaded gay agenda:

Frankly, I see things simply disintegrating very rapidly and I believe that we’re going to suffer some kind of infrastructure collapse in this society because of the failure of moral culture, and that Christians have a responsibility to continue to oppose this disintegration.”

Scott Lively is famous for his book, The Pink Swastika, which claims that the Nazi party was, at it’s core, a murderous homosexual movement, and that fascism is the inevitable result of any expansion of gay rights. Last spring, he appeared at an anti-gay conference in Kampala, Uganda with Exodus board member Don Schmierer. That conference called for a strengthening of that country’s already draconian law against homosexuality which already provides for a lifetime imprisonment for those convicted. That conference kicked off a long-running public anti-gay vigilante campaign which is still reverberating through the country. A bill has been announced before Uganda’s parliament to rescind free-speech protections for LGBT people and place an outright ban on all advocacy on their behalf.

In this latest video, Lively sees himself as a missionary to Massachusetts, saying he moved to Springfield from Temecula, California, because “Massachusetts is the most morally corrupt state in the union.” He offered his latest brain-droppings while preparing to speak before a committee of the Massachusetts House against a bill which would provide hate crime and non-discrimination protections on the basis of sexual identity and expression.  Lively identified that bill as one of “two hundred other bills that’s being heard today” which he thinks are just as bad, so he has to pick and choose his battles. “We don’t have time to deal with them all,” he shrugs. You can guess which one he chose:

The only solution we have to this kind of a problem is for good people, godly, god-fearing people who hold to the truth of the Bible to be sitting in those seats and making the decisions. Lacking that, we have to scramble to try to come and testify on the ones that are the most critical, like this transgender hate crimes bill, and sort of live with the frustration that our efforts are not sufficient to stop the trend.

Lively is optimistic though. He’s convinced that things will get so bad that people will eventually turn back to his particular version of God:

…[A]s it has always happened in the past, people are going to cry out to God, and they’re going to repent. They’re going to look for a way out of that problem, out of that crisis, just like happened right after 9/11. You remember it lasted three weeks or so after 9/11 you saw a little glimpse of that. But I think that’s going to happen again, and if those of us who are true to His Word are preparing ourselves for that day, then we will be able to begin to rebuild on a more Biblical and more logical and more family-friendly footing.”

Watch it:

Scott Lively’s Abiding Truth Ministries is one of only twelve groups on the Southern Poverty Law Center\’s list of anti-gay hate groups. His is also co-founder of Watchmen On the Walls, another international group that is listed by the SPLC as an anti-gay hate group. Last January, he was a featured speaker at the MassResistance fundraiser, and appears to be forming links with that group. That would be a third SPLC anti-gay hate group he has ties to. The man certainly gets around.

Earlier this month, Lively announced that he would “no longer be monitoring the day-to-day developments of the culture war regarding homosexuality as closely.” I was skeptical. He’s not going away anytime soon.

The “Brüno” Imbrüglio

Brüno, Sacha Baron Cohen’s latest mockumentary, has been criticized by gay rights groups like GLAAD for reinforcing stereotypes about gay people and “decreas[ing] the public’s comfort with [them].” The movie’s eponymous main character is a flamboyant, fame-mongering Austrian who throughout the film is shown engaging in a hot tub romp beside his adopted black baby, “O.J.”; tethered to his partner by S&M gear to which he has lost the key; and using a bicycle affixed with a long rod to its wheel as a dildo. If you haven’t seen it, you can watch the trailer here (warning: not appropriate for work).

The movie’s producers have defended the film, saying the intent was to expose homophobia.

The studio’s argument, I think, is that in presenting someone with an exaggerated gay stereotype, it will test just how accepting he or she is of gay people. I sort of doubt this was really their intent — and it’s definitely not the effect: Who in the world would not be offended by someone trying to sneak into their tent naked at night, as Brüno does? And as Richard Kim points out, it is actually surprising just how tolerant people in the film are of Brüno’s histrionics.

Other reviews/critiques have focused on whether the film is good or bad for gay people and whether it’s beyond the pale of good taste (even for satire).

XXfactor’s Jessica Grose, who “almost walked out of Brüno,” called the film mean-spirited and “not funny.” Dana Golstein from TAP points out that while she found the film at times “uproariously” funny, it portrays gay sex as deviant and “that’s unfortunate”:

Yet because I was familiar with Baron Cohen’s shtick from his previous film, Borat, what most shocked me about Bruno wasn’t its exploitation of regular people, but its overt focus on the deviance of gay sex. Every single one of Bruno’s sexual encounters is a sado-masochistic kink-fest. … a lot of folks seeing this film are going to come out of it thinking to themselves, “Wow, gay sex is GROSS!

The thing I can’t stop thinking about as I read these reactions: How does this compare to drag shows? Drag queens make a living off being mean; the meaner, the better. Or a gay pride parade? A lot of people would think New York Pride is a “sado-masochistic kink-fest.” There are even arguments about whether gays should suppress these sorts of exaggerated expressions of gay subcultures because they might be off putting to society at large.

It’s of course a different thing to make fun of yourself and another to be made fun of, but the crux of many critiques of the film is that representations of gay people should be tasteful lest we scare the public back into the 1950s.

In my opinion, this film would only succeed in hurting gay people if one thinks it is an accurate representation of what gay people are like. The movie is clearly camp, which, as Susan Sontag said, is a performance of culture “in quotations marks.” I suppose some people will read them — and others won’t.

Anti-Gay Maine Campaign’s Lack of Grassroots Funding

From Bangor Daily News

[Mark Mutty, one of Stand for Marriage Maine\’s campaign leaders,] predicted Wednesday that they will file “a very significant amount of signatures well in excess of the minimum” by early August. In addition to [$100,000 from] the Roman Catholic Diocese and [$160,000 from] the National Organization for Marriage, the organization also received $50,000 from the Knights of Columbus in Washington, D.C., and $31,000 from the Focus on the Family Maine Marriage Committee but only $400 from individuals.

Mutty pointed out that his organization\’s Web site has only been up for less than two weeks and he predicted that the number of individual donations will increase dramatically as the campaign ramps up.

Well duh. Almost anything would be a dramatic increase over $400.

In contrast

Connolly said Maine Freedom to Marry has already received support from a national organization, in this case, $25,000 from the Human Rights Campaign in Washington, D.C. But he pointed out that his organization has already received donations from 352 individuals.

I’m sure this means nothing. But it’s interesting to note that at present the battle is between the big religious institutions and the citizens.

Episcopal Church to Collect and Develop Liturgical Recognitions of Same-Sex Unions

The Episcopal Church has taken a step forward in recognizing same-sex marriages. By a vote of 104 to 30, the House of Bishops has just voted begin the “consideration of theological resources and liturgies for the blessing of same gender relationships” and to “collect and develop theological resources and design liturgies, and report to the 77th General Convention for further action.”

Wording:

Resolved, the House of Deputies concurring, that the 76th General Convention acknowledge the changing circumstances in the United States and in other nations, as legislation authorizing or forbidding marriage, civil unions or domestic partnerships for gay and lesbian persons is passed in various civil jurisdictions that call for a renewed pastoral response from this Church and for an open procession for the consideration of theologicalresources and liturgies liturgical resources for the blessing of same gender relationships; and be it further

Resolved, That the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music, in consultation with the House of Bishops, collect and develop theological and liturgical resources and design liturgies, and report to the 77th General Conventionfor further action consideration; and be it further

Resolved, That the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music, in consultation with the House of Bishops, devise an open process for the conduct of its work inviting participation from provinces, dioceses, congregations, and individuals who are engaged in such theological work, and inviting theological reflection from throughout the Anglican Communion; and be it further

Resolved that bishops, particularly those in dioceses within civil jurisdictions where same gender marriage civil unions or domestic partnerships are legal, may provide generous pastoral response to meet the needs of members of this church, and be it further

Resolved that this convention continue to honor the theological diversity of this Church in regard to matters of human sexuality; and be it further

Resolved that the members of this church be encouraged to engage in this effort

The House of Delagates will likely confirm the resolution. And the Episcopal Church will begin the process of determining precisely what liturgy will be used to bless same-sex unions. Further, it appears to me that the Church may have given permission to Bishops in marraige or domestic partner states to generously accomodate recognition and provide some blessing of such unions.

Follow this story at Episcopal Cafe

A One Man Boycott

One of our readers, Ben in Oakland, was solicited to do business with a company located in Utah. Still smarting from the interference of Utah Mormons in a California proposition in which members of the church contributed at least $20 million and 80-90% of all volunteers, Ben declined to do work with them, explaining as follows:

In the wake of Prop. 8, funded by the Mormon Church to enforce its theological beliefs upon my civil marriage, I have determined not to do business with any firm in Utah, if at all possible, and not to step inside of the state of Utah, which is entirely possible. You may not be a Mormon, or agree with what this church has to say about gay people. If so, I thank you for standing on the side of progress and religious freedom. And I apologize if this offends you.

As a gay man, my life has been severely impacted by the Mormon Church’s assertion that its set of religious beliefs trumps my civil rights as an American citizen, and that it has a valid reason for interfering in California’s civil law. I have urged my friends and correspondents not to do business with or in Utah if they can avoid it. Unfortunately, since the Church does not understand the concepts of religious freedom, tolerance, civil law, and minding your own business, perhaps it will understand economic pressure and social disapproval.

This may have an effect, it may not. I truly hope it does, but frankly, even if it doesn’t, it at least is serving to create consciousness that discrimination of the basis of religious belief has no place in America. Nor does prejudice, whether disguised as sincere religious belief, or admitted for what it is. People are understanding more and more that this is not about marriage, morality, faith, freedom of religion, the family, children, God’s word, or any other lying rationalization du jour. It is simply about what it has always been about: how much the very existence of gay people offends, entices, obsesses, and frightens some straight people, as well as those-who-wanna-be-straight-but-ain’t. This is why only a small shift in the vote– 2%– and Proposition 8 would have been history.

We’re here. We’re queer. Please get over yourself, LDS. It isn’t about you.

When this church stays the hell out of my civil marriage and my equality before the law, when it learns to stop telling lies about gay people and our families to advance its religious, political, and social agendas– in short, when it finally understands that to be respected, one must act respectably, that it cannot be purchased with the easy coin of other people’s lives–

At that point, if I still need your services, I’ll do business with you. Until then, I cannot.

This was their response:

I first want you to know and understand that I do not have a problem with the lifestyle you have chosen. It’s your life and right to live how you want, barring walking on another’s same given rights. Having made it clear to you that I have no problems with the way you have chosen to live your life, I would point out the hypocrisy in your decision not to do business with my company simply based off of our physical location. You feel that the Mormon church judges you, does not feel that you have a right to live how you have chosen, and has set you aside for things that are not necessarily changeable. You are now turning the same judgment to us. You will not do business with us because we live in the same state as the headquarters for the Mormon church. Forget that there are Mormons across the globe, forget that we are not connected to them as a business, forget that prop 8 is not completely funded by the Mormons, forget all of the logical points that could be used to refute your statement (which I have no intention of doing), and what are you left with? A gay man that actively stands up for his rights, that is willing to be heard, but cannot practice what he petitions for. How can you feel comfortable in the stand of anti-prejudice views and free rights when you hold for us (and every business like us in Utah) the same prejudice and judgment you feel are so wrongfully bestowed upon you?

Ben, if you want others to take you seriously in your beliefs and in what you stand for, start with showing others that you believe in the basic principals for which you fight, and not how they only apply to you as a gay man.

Ben has invited readers to share their thoughts on how he should react.

Personally, I’d advise dropping it.

You’ve made your point, Ben. They’ve lost a customer. This business, at least, has learned that there is a price to be paid for thrusting your religious views on others and actively harming their life.

And I’d not worry too much about their “but I don’t have a problem with the lifestyle you’ve chosen” statement. Theirs was the blustering of one who has been called on their bigotry and only has self-righteous posturing as a defense.

What do our readers think?

Gay Canadian Sues Church

Jim Corcoran is no doubt a valued member of the family at St. Michael’s Catholic Church in Ontario. (National Post)

Mr. Corcoran, 50, began as an altar server just before Christmas. He said St. Michael’s did not have altar boys and he thought that creating a group of adult altar servers would help the priest during Mass. Many Catholic parishes have adult servers.

But he’s also an idiot.

Mr. Corcoran is a gay man married to his partner. He and his priest (and you, and I, and the neighbor’s cousin’s cat) all know that the Catholic Church has some pretty restrictive beliefs about the participation of gay men in the life of the Church. Mr. Corcoran cannot have thought that his efforts would be universally praised and appreciated.

And, as could be expected, several parishoners signed a letter to the Bishop and Corcoran was removed.

So he’s suing.

A gay man has filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal against a Catholic bishop after he was removed from his volunteer job as an altar server because of his sexual orientation.

Now in the US, Corcoran would be tossed out on his ear. I hope that in Canada they do the same.

Don’t get me wrong. I think the decision of the Church was stupid. Corcoran probably isn’t even technically in violation of the Vatican policy; he and his partner are chaste. And the motivation of the parishoners appears to have been pettiness and spite and was primarily an attack on the priest.

But the issue isn’t whether the Church is right or wrong. The issue is whether the Church should be allowed to make its own policies, however stupid they may be.

And I come down on the side of self-determination and freedom – both for Corcoran and the Church. St. Michael’s should be entitled to deny liturgical authority to whomever they please for whatever reason they please, and Jim Corcoran should be entitled to cross the street to a church that operates more to his pleasing.

BTB Reader Makes a Difference

We know that many of our readers are not content to see injustice and let it pass. Many take steps, speak out, volunteer, or contribute in order to make the world a better place.

AdrianT is one such example. He volunteers for the Albert Kennedy Trust, a London / Manchester based organization seeking to address the issue of homeless LGBT kids (perhaps 25% of the UK’s homeless youth).

[Albert Kennedy Trust] has launched a quality mark, ‘Making The Difference\’ – a nation-wide standard of good practice in delivering services to LGBT young people, for ‘mainstream\’ housing / homelessness associations.

Many associations\’ hearts are in the right place, but don\’t know how to deal with issues on sexual identity at all – lack of policy leads to incidences of homophobia, or an inability to make LGBT people feel welcome, or be open about the causes of their problems. As a result AKT have put together structured training courses to enable service providers to set up a proper framework, get the procedures in place, and bring staff up to speed on issues that affect their clients.

This was launched at a reception at the House of Commons on Monday; several members of the UK Parliament turned up to support this on Monday afternoon including minister for homelessness, Ian Austin; as well as David Borrow, Nigel Griffiths and the Conservatives\’ Nick Herbert, and AKT patron Sir Ian McKellen.

Thank you for your efforts, Adrian. And let this be another inspiration to all of us to help where we can.