Box Turtle Bulletin

Omaha World-Herald creates criteria to exclude same-sex couples

One of the favorite tactics for those who want to exclude based on a class is to come up with a justification – a seemingly non-biased criterion – to engage in discrimination while deflecting criticism. This exorcise allows the perpetrator to simultaneously feed their animus while claiming the mantle of decency and reasonableness.

Perhaps the most egregious examples of this were the “literacy tests” used to deny African Americans the right to vote. Blacks in the South weren’t denied the ability to vote due to skin color, you see, just ignorance. All justified and righteous. Except, of course, they weren’t applied fairly and were nothing more than a cover, an excuse, to give a pretense of reasonableness to blatant racism and violation of the 14th Amendment.

And while the civil rights movement ended race-based “literacy tests” in the 60’s, this way of thinking certainly lingers today. And we certainly see a lot of it directed towards gay people and same-sex couples.

One of the more common – and more stupid – arguments against marriage equality is a variation on the theme: “Everyone has the equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex.”

This actually isn’t true (marriages in which one partner is gay are presumed to be fraudulent in a number of legal situations), but that’s beside the point. A rule which is designed to exclude based on specific attributes of the group excluded, is discriminatory on its face. As Supreme Court Ruth Bader Ginsburg famously said, “a tax on yarmulkes is a tax on Jews.”

Now enter Terry Kroeger, the oh-so-clever publisher of the Omaha World-Herald.

Jeff and Heidi Wilke were delighted that their daughter was to be married and wanted their friends and neighbors to share in their joy. So they contacted the paper, only to be informed by Kroeger, the papers publisher, that he wouldn’t print same-sex wedding announcements.

The Wilke’s weren’t too pleased and so they used the power of the internet – and Facebook – to inform the world. I was but one of undoubtedly thousands who dropped Kroeger a little note expressing our disappointment.

So now Kroeger has back-tracked. He’s made an announcement which, at first glace, seems like he’s found social awareness and a conscience and is doing the right thing. In fact, the New York Times ran a headline Omaha Paper to Print Same-Sex Wedding Announcements in which Kroeger plays the martyr.

“What has transpired over recent days has included some reasoned discussions with us about our practices, but mostly it has been a stream of vitriol against The World-Herald,” said the publisher, Terry Kroeger. “This news organization is not guilty of hating gays and lesbians. Should we have seen this issue more clearly? Probably. Have we been too slow in reacting to this matter? Maybe. But hateful? Never.”

And yet the Wilke’s shouldn’t get too excited. Kroeger won’t be printing their announcement. Because the Omaha World-Herald has a new criteria, one designed to exclude most same-sex couples who would request notice in Omaha while pretending to be balanced and fair.

The “Celebrations” page of the Omaha World-Herald has provided a place to buy space to celebrate weddings, engagements, anniversaries and birthdays. It will continue to be just that. Celebrations announcements regarding legal weddings, engagements for legal weddings or anniversaries of a legal marriage will be welcomed, regardless of the genders of the couple. We will not run announcements regarding commitment ceremonies, partnerships and other non-marriage unions, again regardless of gender.

Some will criticize this action because they would prefer that same-sex announcements not appear in their newspaper. Others will say it doesn’t go far enough. Our sense is that this change will provide for a public “celebration” of important milestones in the lives of people who take the significant steps toward legally sanctioned marriage. Iowa and four other states as well as the District of Columbia have legalized same-sex marriages. We will publish Celebrations announcements of marriages from those jurisdictions.

You see, only marriage is an “important milestone” and in Omaha marriage is denied to same-sex couples. It isn’t that they are gay, you see, just not legally sanctioned. All justified and righteous. It isn’t Kroeger that is discriminatory, just the voters.

And because Kristin Wilke and Jessica Kitzman are going to wed in Minnesota instead of Iowa, well then his problem is solved. Kroeger can keep the lesbians out of his paper and give a pretense of reasonableness to justify his discrimination.

But sorry Omaha World-Herald. Sorry Terry Kroeger. You may have dodged the bullet today. But history will be no kinder to you that it is to all the others who came before you who have sought to justify their bias by bogus “tests.”

Castro accepts blame

Those who have seen Before Night Falls, Javier Bardem’s enactment of the life of Cuban poet Reinaldo Arenas, are aware that after Cuba came under the control of Fidel Castro it was not a good place to be gay. Homosexuals, being counterrevolutionary and a product of corrupt capitalism, were sent to labor camps.

But things are quite a bit different (in many ways) on the island nation; while there is still social stigma, gay people on the whole have a much better life in Cuba than on some Caribbean islands. And now Fidel Castro has taken an interview with a Mexican newspaper in which he accepts blame for the abuse.

Who was therefore responsible, directly or indirectly, that does not put a stop to what was happening in Cuban society? Is the Party? For this is the time when the Communist Party of Cuba is not “explicit” in their statutes ban sexual orientation discrimination.

“No,” said Fidel. If someone is responsible, it’s me …

Well, sort of. He goes on to blame the fact that he was busy. And the Yankees. And personal threats against him. And, well you get the idea.

But, nonetheless, I welcome the continued acknowledgment that the abuse was wrong.

The Great American Breakdown

Exhibit A:

A Nebraska man is jail after police believe he tried to spray mace on protestors outside the Omaha funeral of a Leesburg High graduate. George Vogel was arrested Saturday morning a few blocks away from the First United Methodist Church, the location of Staff Sergeant Michael Bock’s funeral.

Officers on duty for the funeral say Vogel drove up in his Ford F-150 pick-up truck and as he was passing by Westboro Baptist Church protestors he extended his arm out the truck’s window and sprayed a large amount of mace into the air from an industrial-sized container.

More than a dozen people were hit by the mace, including one police officer.

Exhibit B:

After a suspected arson and reports of gunshots at an Islamic center in Tennessee over the weekend, nearby mosques have hired security guards, installed surveillance cameras and requested the presence of federal agents at prayer services.

Muslim leaders in central Tennessee say that frightened worshipers are observing Ramadan in private and that some Muslim parents are wary of sending their children to school after a large fire on Saturday that destroyed property at the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro. Federal authorities suspect that the fire was arson.

…The Murfreesboro center, which has existed for nearly 30 years, suddenly found itself on front pages of newspapers this month and on “The Daily Show.” It became a hot topic in the local Congressional race, with one Republican candidate accusing the center of fostering terrorism and trying to link it to the militant Palestinian group Hamas.

Exhibit C:

Salt Lake City Police are investigating an instance of vandalism at the Utah Pride Center. Friday morning, employees of the center and its onsite coffee shop, Cafe Marmalade, discovered an anti-gay slur painted on the marquee in front of the building.

“We realize that often times the purpose of these actions are to cause widespread fear among the members of our community,” Valerie Larabee, executive director of the Utah Pride Center, said in a statement. “That is why today we are speaking out. This will not be swept under the rug. We will not be scared into silence by acts of intolerance.”

Exhibit D:

When Rodolfo Olmedo was dragged down by a group of men shouting anti-Mexican epithets and bashed over the head with a wooden stick on the street outside his home, he instinctively covered his face to keep from getting disfigured. Blood filled his mouth.

“I wanted to scream, but I couldn’t because of the beating they were giving me,” said the 25-year-old baker. Nearly five months later, he is still taking pain medications for his head injuries.

Recorded by a store’s surveillance camera, the assault was the first of 11 suspected anti-Hispanic bias attacks in a Staten Island neighborhood, re-igniting years-old tensions between blacks and Hispanics in New York City’s most remote borough.

Residents of Port Richmond — where an influx of newcomers from Latin America over the past decade has transformed the community — alternately blame the attacks on the economy, unemployment and the debate over Arizona’s immigration law.

NOM blatantly appeals to homophobia

The National Organization for Marriage has now officially become part of the wackadoodle extremist end of the anti-gay religious right. While Maggie Gallagher was officially at the helm, they managed to carry a pretense of civility and wore the mask of being issue driven rather than just acting out of animus and contempt.

But now that Brian Brown is the name on the masthead, the mask has come off. NOM no longer pretends to be civil, but instead now is openly using the tactics and language of those who seek not just to “protect traditional marriage” but to demonize gay people themselves and stir up hatred towards them.

No longer content with scare tactics such as “Mommy, I can grow up to marry a princess”, NOM is now spreading fear about radical homosexual activists and putting “gay marriage” in scare quotes. NOM has now become indistinguishable from Peter LaBarbera or Brain Camenker or Eugene Delguadio.

When the District of Columbia voted for marriage equality, NOM has become infuriated. And so they have involved themselves in the Washington DC councilman race.

Ward 5 Councilman Harry Thomas voted for marriage equality in the nation’s capital, so NOM has declared him to be an enemy and has funded a mailer for his opponent, Delano Hunter. It is as disgusting a piece of blatant nastiness as one would expect to find coming from MassResistance or the Traditional Values Coalition:

Thousands of dollars from homosexual activists outside Ward 5 are attacking Delano Hunter become he supports our right to vote on whether the District legalizes “gay marriage.”

Radical, gay marriage activists are flooding Ward 5 with money to defeat Delano Hunter, not because they don’t like his plan to improve our community, but only because the supports the Biblical definition of marriage.

The outside gay activists don’t care about our right to home rule and right to vote on gay marriage. They only care about their agenda to redefine marriage. Don’t let them target Delano Hunter.

There is, of course, no explanation of why the Sister is in the picture. We don’t need one; we know exactly why that picture was selected. The Sisters are “scary” and for those who don’t know better she makes a good illustration of just what a radical homosexual looks like.

And, of course, since it’s NOM, the claim is a complete lie. Not a cent has been given to Thomas from “militant gay activists” in San Francisco or New York.

NOM’s Maggie Gallagher loves nothing more than to complain that mean gay marriage supporters are calling her names. “They call us bigots,” she whines at every opportunity.

At BTB we seldom engage in slinging slurs like “bigot” or “homophobe” or “liar” at those who oppose our equality. It serves no purpose and tends to shut down any possible hope for dialogue. And the truth is that most of those who don’t favor equality actually aren’t motivated by hatred or animus. Prejudice, presumption, and apathy are probably more to blame.

But while I am not calling Brian or Maggie names or accusing them of being bigots or homophobes, this particular mailer seeks to do nothing other than to appeal to hatred and fear. This mailer is, without question, bigoted and homophobic.

Tatchell applauded at UK Christian festival

Peter Tatchell has been an untiring and unflinching advocate for international gay rights. His willingness to be arrested, harassed, and beaten has given him the credibility to command attention. And Tatchell has a character trait that sets leaders apart: the ability to find commonality where others might only see enmity.

Tatchell, who has long since abandoned his Christianity, may seem like an odd choice to speak at Greenbelt, one of Britain’s largest Christian festivals. But finding “more in common than divides us”, he went to harness the power of faith to do good in the world.

Tatchell was harshly critical of Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, whom he accused of colluding with the persecution of GLBT people by the Anglican Church in Africa and of “conservative evangelical groups from the USA” who went to Uganda to argue that the country’s biggest problem is “not poverty, not corruption, not human rights abuses, not rigged elections” but homosexuality.”

But he also found Christians to praise and to hold up as an example. (Ekklesia)

He was keen to make a distinction between Christians who oppose homosexuality and those who encourage persecution. “It’s one thing to say that homosexuality is wrong, and people are entitled to that belief,” he said, “What they’re not entitled to do is to say that the law of the land should discriminate”.

But Tatchell was quick to praise Christians who have stood up against such attitudes. He singled out South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Ugandan Bishop Christoper Senjyonjo, who has “paid a very, very heavy price” and been denied his pension.

He also spoke passionately of LGBT African Christians, including Davis Mac-Iyalla and Jide Macauley, who have risked their lives by being open about their sexuality.

“For all of those, gay and straight, who do take a stand, I salute you, I thank you,” he concluded.

Tatchell received a standing ovation.

Exodus Denied Tax-Exempt Status in New Zealand

A chapter of the Exodus Global Alliance was denied “charitable status” by New Zealand’s Charities Commission, denying a local Christian Trust’s exemption from paying income taxes. Before this ruling, Exodus had enjoyed its tax-exempt status for about a decade.

Citing guidelines and policies among professional psychiatric, psychological and counseling organizations, the Charities Commision declared that Exodus was not performing a legitimate public benefit because homosexuality was not a mental disorder and did not need curing. The commission also  noted the American Psychological Association’s report which found that there was little scientific evidence that homosexuality could be “cured.”

You can read the commission’s decision here (PDF: 809KB/15 pages)

Uganda’s President Calls for “Tolerance” At African Bishop’s Conference

The All Africa Bishops Conference wrapped up its meeting in Entebbe yesterday, calling on the Worldwide African Communion, according to Uganda’s Daily Monitor, to “stick to their culture and reject Western ways tearing the church apart.” Among the “Western ways” specifically denounced is the Western church’s positions on the equal dignity and worth for LGBT people and the ordination of women. According to Daily Monitor:

While addressing a press conference yesterday, the clergy men, led by Archbishop Henry Luke Orombi, said Western cultures like homosexuality should be shunned. He said they will not change their stand on homosexuality, saying the practice is against the scriptures.

On Tuesday, President Yoweri Museveni, without a hint of an awareness of the irony of his remarks, called on the 400 Anglican bishops gathered at Entebbe to embrace tolerance as a biblical imperative, saying that Christians should not “have one minute of time wasted” by those promoting prejudice:

“I am always looking for the good Samaritan,” he said. “Jesus says you shall know them by their fruits. You shall know them by their actions. Not by their words, not by their addresses, not by their titles, but by their works, by their deeds, by the products of their works.”

The President said those of all denominations or faiths needed to recognise one another’s right to exist: “If you are a Muslim, so what? I am a Christian. OK, so what’s your problem? You are what you are, but I am what I am. We’re different…I’m here by the permission of God. You must accept me the way I am whether you want it or not.”

That tolerance obviously does not extend to gay people. Museveni has spoken out repeatedly against what he sees as the “foreign influence” behind the presence of LGBT people in Uganda. A member of his ruling party, MP David Bahati, last October introduced the draconian Anti-Homosexuality before the nation’s Parliament. Following an international outcry that threatened foreign aid to the impoverished country, Museveni urged Parliament (of which some two-thirds are members of his National Resistance Movement) to “go slow” on the bill. He has nevertheless since then repeated several of the common Ugandan talking points about LGBT people. In speeches for Martyr’s Day, a national holiday in Uganda, Museveni charged that Europeans were intent on “imposing homosexuality“:

“The church in Africa is very strong and has been at the fore in fighting homosexuality and moral decadence. We must look for modern ways of instilling discipline in society. The Europeans are finished and if we follow their western culture, we shall be headed for Sodom and Gomorrah (the two places which God destroyed because of sexuality),” he said.

The latest Anglican conference wrapped up yesterday. Sunday Monitor’s report on the conference wrap-up seems to indicate that  discussions concerning homosexuality were dominant in the talks. Among the comments:

“Homosexuality is not a new phenomenon in the society but the only trouble is that the issues dividing us (church) now are very difficult to handle. They are threatening the unity of the church because they disobey the authority of the scriptures,” says [Archbishop Nicholas Okoh of the province of Nigeria]. He says homosexuality is a result of some people engaged in making their culture to be superior to the biblical teachings. “It is two sided; while some people want to be obedient to their culture to determine the content of the church, others say no and it must be the guidance of the bible,” he added.

The primates describe homosexuality as an imposed interpretation and alien culture that has hindered the growth of an authentic church which could respond to its people. “We are saying homosexuality is not compatible with the word of God. We are saying that this culture of other people is against the traditional belief of marriage held by the Anglican Communion,” says the Archbishop of the Church of Uganda, Henry Luke Orombi. Bishop Orombi says that the Anglican Church will never accept homosexuality because the scriptures too do not allow people of same sex to join in marriage.

“Homosexuality is evil, abnormal and unnatural as per the Bible. It is a culturally unacceptable practice. Although there is a lot of pressure, we cannot turn our hands to support it,” says Bishop Orombi.

The Archbishop Ian Ernest of the Province of Indian Ocean candidly denounced the Worldwide Communion’s refusal to “reign in” western churches which instituted policies which recognize the dignity and worth of LGBT people:

We cannot afford to continue to lurch from one crisis to the next in our beloved Communion. Despite attempts to warn some western provinces, action has been taken to irrevocably shatter the Communion. Sadly existing structures of the Anglican Communion have been unable to address the need for discipline,” says Bishop Ernest, the chairman of CAPA. He says the teachings of homosexuality are irrelevant to the needs of Africans and are unrepresentative demographically hence the need for new structures that are credible and representative of the majority.

Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, the head of the worldwide Anglican Communion, attended the opening sessions of the conference amid open declarations of de-facto schism between the African arm of the church and the West. Williams appeared to give his nod to African “leadership” in his remarks, saying, “God raises up different countries and cultures in different seasons to bear witness to his purpose in especially marked ways. This indeed may be His will for Africa in the years ahead.”

Maggie Gallagher Meets St. Peter

Here’s a little animation experiment I made using this site.

Note that the Closed Captioning button is active if you want subtitles. Just right click on the video and choose “Watch on youtube” and the button will be there.

Big Brother Africa and the World We All Live In Together

Big Brother, the Dutch reality series that has been exported in localized versions around the world, also has an Africa version which throws together house guests from Angola, Botswana, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe. Big Brother Africa follows the same formula as all the other versions, including edited daily television broadcasts and a lavish web site with live video streaming.

As is the case with Big Brother editions elsewhere in the world, the titillation of sexual voyeurism is a key part of the attraction to Big Brother Africa, and fans got their fill recently when Meryl, a 24-year-old woman from Namibia, and Sheila, a 25-year-old Kenyan, were seen on the live feed sharing a bed under the covers when a housemate, 29-year-old Tanzanian Mwisho, walked in.

Mwisho seemed to have handled the situation delicately, but what I thought was interesting was this report of the scene in Malawi’s Nyasa Times. Malawi, you may recall, entered the world’s consciousness over the arrest, conviction, and pardon of Tiwonge Chimbalanga and Steven Mongeza for having participated in a traditional same-sex engagement ceremony. Some of the reactions noted by Nyasa Times include:

“I am shocked. But these things are happening everywhere – maybe these are signs of the end of times,” said Winnie Makumbe-Machekano from Malawi.

Expressing her disappointment on her Facebook page, Kathay Katengeza another Malawi viewer wrote: “Lets hope Meryl gets nominated next week, I’ll b the first one to vote against her…akakhala [when it comes to] Sheila atuluka [she is getting evicted] Sunday.”

Another viewer known as ChrissieBee wrote: “Africa! Oh Africa! Where art thou cultures and believes? If it were the US or anywhere else, I wouldn’t have a problem with it! This is Africa for God’s sake!”

“Oh, and Sheila, you are a hypocrite. What happened to “I can’t f*** in this house” “I can’t do anything like that in this house?”

Fidelyn commented: “They do it on TV; they don’t do it on TV, what’s the difference? Either ways it doesn’t change the fact that these things happen in real life. Sheila is just being real….she said she’s bi. Whilst Meryl never mentioned she even does women.”

You can find more reactions on BBA’s forum here. BBA’s facebook page is here. Much of Africa is deeply conservative and discussions or depictions of homosexuality are extremely rare. But with this rather innocuous display (innocuous in our eyes at least), another debate opens where it had not previously taken place. As is the case with North America many decades ago when LGBT people were first beginning to become noticed, the reaction is harsh and outrageous. But that harshness and outrage isn’t universal, and it is in those differences that the stage for debate is set.

BBA demonstrates in microcosm a new phenomenon that has become ubiquitous, but it’s one that we’ve barely noticed. The constant presence of cameras, television, the Internet, and mobile phones has drawn our world ever more tightly together. Whether it’s Twitter in Iran, SMS messages in Mogadishu, or video cameras attached to mobile phones in Kampala, we know today in an instant what is happening in places that would have gone completely unnoticed just ten years ago.

Without the Internet, I certainly would not have learned that a three-day anti-gay conference was about to take place in Kampala in 2009. And without email, or mobile phones with video cameras, we wouldn’t have been able learn about the Anti-Homosexuality Bill that was introduced in Uganda’s Parliament and the public debates and demonstrations that took place afterwords. The world is shrinking, and ideas are being exchanged as a result. Nothing happens in a vacuum anymore. Through the process, everything we previously knew about personal privacy has been completely obliterated. But if there is an upside to that, it is this: evil cannot be hidden so easily, and the powerful can no longer hide people like Meryl and Sheila and pretend that homosexuality doesn’t exist. Modern communications won’t make tyranny impossible; it is just another tool that can be used to suppress as well as liberate. But it does mean that oppression can no longer be hidden. The individual now has the power to strip tyranny naked, and we will know this when the next genocide is live-blogged and YouTubed.  Such is the age we live in, and the power that virtual communications has in transforming the world. The entire world.

Roger Ebert Gives Two Thumbs Up for Marriage Equality

While same-sex marriage an be intensely important to LGBT people, it’s probably fair to say that the vase majority of straight people haven’t given it much of a thought. Some support us while others vote against us, but polls consistently place marriage equality quite low on the priorities of most Americans. In that way, LGBT Americans and straight Americans are worlds apart — so far apart that sometimes I wonder whether we really know our next door neighbors all that well. That’s why I thought Roger Ebert’s post yesterday about how he and his mother came around on marriage quality so interesting. The story centers around Dee and Dolly, who asked Ebert’s mother to keep the books for their store:

My mother loved this job. She already knew half the people who came in, and made friends with the rest. She made observations about Dee and Dollie: “They live in the same building.” Then: “Dee and Dollie invited me over for dinner. They’re roommates.” Eventually a telephone call: “Honey, you’ll never guess this! Dee and Dollie just announced their engagement!”

Me: “What does that mean?”

My mother: “I don’t know. I don’t see how they can get married. But they gave each other the nicest rings.”

Ebert’s mother, a woman born in 1912 on a farm in the American Midwest, went on to serve as Dee and Dollie’s maid of honor. She also helped them in other ways.”I’ve been helping them with their wedding plans, because they don’t seem to know the first thing about planning a wedding.”

To those who like to remind us that the closet is as much an enemy as any personal appointment, here is yet another piece of evidence in their support.

Yes, you violated our stupid anti-gospel rulebook

Jane Spahr is in trouble again. A lesbian Presbyterian Church (USA) minister in Northern California, she has for years been dancing on the very edge of the church’s policy towards gay couples.

In 2006 she was convicted in church court for celebrating gay unions, but in April of 2008 the church’s highest court decided that as she had not actually quite broken church rules because the ceremonies she celebrated were not marriages.

But then along came the California Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage. And what do you suppose Jane went and did?

Yep, you guessed it. She conducted legal same-sex marriages.

So now again the regional court has found Spahr guilty of breaking the rules. (AP)

A regional commission of the Presbyterian Church (USA) ruled 4-2 that the Rev. Jane Spahr of San Francisco “persisted in a pattern or practice of disobedience” by performing the weddings in 2008 before Proposition 8 banned the unions in the state.

But while they found her “guilty”, they made it perfectly clear that they supported her guilt.

At the same time, however, the tribunal devoted most of its 2 1/2-page ruling to praising the 68-year-old pastor, a lesbian who founded a church group in the early 1990s for gay Presbyterians.

Spahr was acknowledged “for her prophetic ministry” and “faithful compassion. The commissioners called on the broader church to use her example “to re-examine our own fear and ignorance.”

“In the reality in which we live today, marriage can be between same gender as well as opposite gender persons, and we, as a church, need to be able to respond to this reality as Dr. Jane Spahr has done with faithfulness and compassion,” the ruling stated.

The tribunal gave her a “reprimand”, the church equivalent of “Naughty girl, Jane, shame on you. Would you like a lollipop?” Because while they condemned her breaking of the policy, their real criticism was toward the policy itself. (LA Times)

“In addition, we call upon the church to reexamine our own fear and ignorance that continues to reject the inclusiveness of the gospel of Jesus Christ,” the decision said. “We say this believing that we have in our own Book of Order conflicting and even contradictory rules and regulations that are against the gospel.”

Spahr will appeal the verdict. The PC(USA) may well be next in the line of mainline churches who are finding ways for their congregations to honor the same-sex couples in their midst. And until they are fully inclusive, Jane will be there prodding them on.

CBS Poll: support increases for couples

CBS has a new poll out which asks a slew of questions on a broad range of subjects, and a few of them related to gay issues.

Relatedly, today NOM’s Maggie Gallagher whined about Ken Mehlman’s support for marriage equality:

Supporting gay marriage, however, is a very different and very public matter… The American people — including over 80% of Republicans and even 40% of Democrats — oppose same-sex marriage. NOM has already proven in races from New York to California that it is a particularly bad idea for Republicans to support gay marriage.

First up was marriage:

q57 Which comes closest to your view? Gay couples should be allowed to legally marry, OR
gay couples should be allowed to form civil unions but not legally marry, OR there should
be no legal recognition of a gay couple’s relationship?

40% – Allowed to legally marry
30% – Civil unions
25% – No legal recognition
5% – don’t know / no answer

We are now seeing some consistency to support for full marriage equality. In April, CBS reported 39% in favor of equality, and this confirms that April’s response was not a fluke.

But more importantly, the opposition to any legal recognition appears to be weakening For quite some time, nationally the polls have revealed a fairly even 1/3 split between marriage, civil unions, and nothing. At 25% is the lowest I’ve seen reported in the “nothing” category.

As for Maggie’s assertions about Republicans, they just don’t seem to hold up to the facts (like so very much that she says). Actually, Maggie and other opponents of gay couples also appear to be losing their sole demographic.

According to this poll, only 37% of Republicans oppose all recognition, while one in four Republicans now support marriage equality with an additional 34% opting of civil unions. Considering that well over half of Republicans now support couple recognition, this may well help us understand the party’s silence on both of the recent Massachusetts and California judicial decisions and the “congratulations” response to Kel Mehlman’s recent decision to come out. And Maggie’s increasing appearance of anger and depression.

Next came DADT:

q58 Do you favor or oppose permitting gay men and lesbians to serve in the military? Do
you favor/oppose that strongly or not so strongly?

54% – Favor strongly
21% – Favor not so strongly
10% – Oppose not so strongly
9% – Oppose strongly
6% – Don’t know / didn’t answer

No real surprises. As we have long known, large majorities of Americans favor gay service personnel (including 70% of Republicans). This number is up about 5% from earlier this year, mostly from the undecideds.

What is interesting is that 61% of Americans who have served or are currently serving in the military agree (sorry, Elaine Donnelly).

But then CBS skewed their own survey by asking the question a second time, but this time emphasizing “openly announcing their sexual orientation”.

q59 What if they openly announce their sexual orientation? in that case would you favor
or oppose permitting gay men and lesbians to serve in the military?

This is odd phrasing; “openly announce” suggests some form of aggressive activism.

Further, by asking again, CBS implies that this should change your answer. Any time a pollster asks, “yeah, but what if…” it will almost always result in some who question their first response and instinctively change it.

The poll would have been much more accurate had it simply asked the first question with the word “openly” before gay. I very much doubt that q58 would have had different results, as that is what most people would think they were answering anyway. But by asking a second loaded question, the “favor” numbers dropped by 11%.

The Republican Party has reached a turning point

I have some hesitation to write this, for several reasons. First, I may be premature in my analysis and may be observing a fluctuation rather than a trend. And also, it goes without saying that some will be furious with me for daring to suggest that their favorite boogieman may no longer be lurking under their bed. But I think it is true; so I’ll say it.

The Republican Party has reached a turning point on gay rights.

To be specific, I think that we have now reached the point where the Republican Party will never again see it to be a winning strategy to oppose gay people. I think that much of the party will continue to be non-supportive of specific gay issues – particularly marriage – but no longer will the justification for such positions be baldly presented as unashamed animus.

Further, and more importantly, no longer will being anti-gay be seen as an integral part of the meaning of “Republican” or a presumed policy determinant. And that is, in my opinion, of tremendous importance. Going forward, Republican politicians will have permission to be fully supportive of gay equality and will not lose status for doing so.

I’ve been observing this for a while. When Cindy McCain received no criticism at all from party leaders for endorsing marriage equality, I found it telling. When Laura Bush announced her tepid support, I became more impressed. As Proposition 8 was overturned without a peep from nearly every prominent Republican, I was frankly surprised. And when Ken Mehlman’s coming out garnered nothing but praise from his predecessors and successors, I finally was convinced that the Party has abandoned it’s knee-jerk raging anti-gay rhetoric for good.

Kate Zernike, writing in the NY Times, notes the non-response to Mehlman.

…in a midterm election cycle that is otherwise fierce, campaigns are largely silent on the issue of same-sex marriage — even as two federal courts have issued similar decisions in recent months upholding the rights of gay people to wed. And when Ken Mehlman, who ran President George W. Bush’s re-election campaign in 2004 and then became the party’s chairman, said in an interview in The Atlantic this week that he is gay and is working to support a campaign for same-sex marriage, it was met with little controversy.

Even the commentary accusing him of hypocrisy seemed outweighed by people who wished him well, or merely shrugged.

The muted reaction reflects not only changing values in the country generally, but also, more notably, among many Republicans and conservatives.

Part of this, of course, is the current economic concern. No one is wanting their elected officials to rant and rave about gays when they don’t know whether they will have a job or a home in a year. But more of it is related, I believe, to an awareness that this issue has passed. No one is fired up to fight the gays.

Polls show that acceptance of gay and lesbian Americans is increasing rapidly, that youth overwhelmingly support equality, and that folks are getting used to the idea of gay people being their neighbors, not deviant perverts living in hedonistic San Francisco.

Even the Tea Party’s narrow focus on economic issues has changed the national conversation. NOM may have toured but no one showed up.

And when Glenn Beck and Ann Coulter hop of the homophobia express, you know its because they’ve looked down the tracks and don’t see any advantage in going where it’s going.

Does that mean that the Republican Party is going to rush to support our goals? If the Republican Party takes over the House or the Senate, will they continue to push forward ENDA or repealing all or part of DOMA? Should our community rush to vote for the GOP?

No.

Or not any time soon, anyway. Republicans will remain, for some years to come, a reliable voting block, both in the legislatures and in the ballot box, against full equality. McCain will rant, Cornyn will sneer, and few will hurry to cosponsor needed legislation.

But it does mean that votes will become less and less partisan, that many newer legislators – and even some older ones – are going to come to the startling revelation that they views have “evolved”, that “times have changed” and that “recent research” has helped them to come to policy positions that they do not hold today. And, most importantly, that the fiery invective, fierce denunciation, and waving of Bibles is going to dry up – and, I predict, sooner rather than later.

And I don’t think it’s going to turn back. The social forces that are pushing change are not likely to reverse any time soon. And by the time that the economy ceases to be an all-consuming obsession, too much water will have gone under the bridge to restart an anti-gay campaign. Time is our friend, and the more of it that passes, the weaker the cause against equality will be.

This will, of course, result in a lot of short-term shrill shrieking from those who earn their living, or political relevancy, from “fighting the homosexual agenda.” But even they see the writing on the wall. Yesterday, Ken Blackwell, the anti-gay Ohio social conservative warned:

Disaster Looms If GOP Changes Course On Gay Marriage

That he even has to fear such a thing is a sign that times have changed and that the old Republican anti-gay paradigm is dying. We know it, the Party leadership knows it, our opponents know it. And it is going to be a joy to watch it finally fade away.

Loving Gays SO MUCH You Want to Send Them to Hell

Peter LaBarbera? The anti-gay who obsessively photographs gay sex (because he’s so against it), and who spreads terrible lies about gays molesting children? He has a new definition of what it means to “love” gays in a Christian way:

Send them to Hell.

Yesterday Pete posted a video from the genuinely grotesque Molotov Mitchell. See, Molly has gay friends. And he considers it his duty to tell them they’re going to hell. A number of conservative Christians think this way, and it’s actually not that hard to understand. If you believe a friend is in danger of eternal damnation, wouldn’t you want to save him from that fate? Peter calls Molly’s attitude, “loving a homosexual friend enough to tell him the truth.”

But there’s a problem.

Molly also believes we should put practicing gays to death. In this video he claims it’s the only Christian thing to do. He explicitly says “Ugandans are right” to impose a death penalty on gays. Really, he does. And according to conservative Christian theology, you know what happens to those who die without repenting their “sins” or accepting the conservative version of Jesus?

They go to Hell.

By the way, Molly has a long history of lying about the Uganda bill, trying to quell opposition by misrepresenting what bill says. That makes him an active advocate of a homosexual death penalty.

This is the man Peter LaBarbera lauds as sharing “Biblical love.” A love for his gay friends so great he wants to see them dead and in Hell.

Aid For AIDS Nevada FINALLY dumps Canyon Ridge Christian Church

Top: Canyon Ridge Community Church in Las Vegas Bottom: Canyon Ridge's "dearly beloved family and friend" wants to kill you for being HIV-positive.

Although no one at Aid For AIDS Nevada has responded to (or even acknowledged receiving) my letter, they have finally responded to Dr. Warren Throckmorton in regards to their chumminess with Canyon Ridge Christian Church:

After evaluating Canyon Ridge Christian Church’s backing of Pastor Ssempa of Uganda and his support of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, we feel that it is in the best interest of our clients, supporters and staff to dissolve our relationship with the church immediately. Unfortunately, we will be unable to continue to work with the church, as long as they are associated with Pastor Ssempa. Since what he and the Anti-Homosexuality Bill represent violates the basic human rights that should be afforded to all Ugandans. Our mission is to provide client service programs that assist in enhancing the physical health and psychosocial wellness of the individuals living with and affected by HIV/AIDS in southern Nevada, while promoting dignity and improving the quality of their lives. We will further this mission without the support of Canyon Ridge Christian Church.