Box Turtle Bulletin

Professional heterosexual Jeff Johnston takes non-Biblical position on Facebook gender options

Facebook has updated their site to allow users to select options for their gender beyond “male” and “female.”  In a surprise to no one Focus On The Family is worked up about this and trotted out their resident ex-gay-for-pay Jeff Johnston to provide quotes for an AP story:

“Of course Facebook is entitled to manage its wildly popular site as it sees fit, but here is the bottom line: It’s impossible to deny the biological reality that humanity is divided into two halves – male and female,” Johnston told the AP.

Except the Bible makes repeated reference to eunuchs* in both the Old and New Testaments.  Which gender box would Johnsnton force Heigai from the Book of Esther to choose? How about the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8? Or Ebed-melech who rescued Jeremiah from the well?  What box on Facebook would Johnston tell them to check?

Even Jesus spoke of eunuchs in Matthew 19:12

“For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother’s womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it.”

Johnston ignores a direct commandment from Jesus and Biblical record to falsely claim a two choice gender binary exists, when it clearly does not as recorded in his own holy book.  Focus seems to agree with Johnston’s position since their PR team tweeted a link to the article.   It’s unclear why Focus has adopted a non-Biblical position on the existence and dignity of transgender people.

*As modern medicine has given us hormones and surgery to supersede castration the term “eunuch” is rarely used today. The Biblical context of Matthew 19:12 makes it clear there are multiple reasons for a person being a eunuch beyond involuntary castration, I argue in Biblical times it is was an inclusive term much like “trans” is today. Also, one of the few continuing ancient transgender traditions are the Hijra of South Asia who still today often self identify as both eunuchs and transgender further supporting my assertion the terms are interchangeable.

Indiana’s anti-gay marriage ban delayed two years

The Indiana Senate has passed the House version of a bill to amend the state constitution to define marriage as one man and one woman.

This is actually good news.

In order to amend the constitution, the bill must pass two separately elected legislatures with identical language and then be ratified by a vote of the electorate. In 2011 the legislature passed a bill that would ban same-sex marriage and also civil unions. Had it passed again, it would have gone to the voters this fall.

But this year the Indiana House of Representatives revised that bill to remove the civil unions restrictions.

There was some concern that the Senate might put the original language back into the bill. But now that the Senate has opted to accept the House’s version, it resets the clock and the earliest that the bill can be on the ballot is 2016.

And by then, political will may bring the death of the bill entirely. Or, perhaps, the conservatives may decide that they really really do want to put the civil unions ban back in and push it even further down the road.

More about ‘liberal’ Judge Heyburn

Yesterday U.S. District Judge John G. Heyburn II ruled that Kentucky’s ban on recognizing same-sex marriages from other states violates the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection clause.

Immediately, the antigay ranting voices started screaming about liberal activist judges.

Family Foundation of Kentucky (Courier-Journal)

Martin Cothran, an analyst for the Family Foundation of Kentucky, said the decision “puts Kentucky voters on notice that if their reasons for defining marriage as between a man and a woman don’t correspond with the political ideology of liberal judges, their votes don’t count.”

National Organization for Marriage

“Today yet another federal judge has entered the competition for lawlessness on the marriage front,” said Brian Brown, NOM President.

Family Research Counsel’s Tony Perkins

This ruling is another example of the deep betrayal of a judicial system infected with activist judges who are legislating from the bench.

So here’s a bit more about ‘lawless liberal activist’ Judge Heyburn from his bio:

From 1976 until his appointment to the bench, Judge Heyburn was associated with the law firm of Brown, Todd & Heyburn, where he was a partner at the firm from 1982 through 1992. His legal practice focused on civil litigation, with an emphasis on problems within the construction industry. Judge Heyburn also served as special counsel to then Jefferson County Judge Executive Mitch McConnell [who went on to be conservative Republican Senator McConnell]. Judge Heyburn was active in civic and political affairs in Kentucky. He was a delegate to the 1984 and 1988 Republican National Convention.

On March 20, 1992, President Bush nominated Judge Heyburn to the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. He was confirmed by the United States Senate in August, 1992. From December, 2001, to December, 2008, Judge Heyburn served as Chief Judge of the Western District of Kentucky.

(hat tip GoodAsYou)

Religious Freedom and the Destruction of Civil Marriage

Two and a half years ago, I offered up this ridiculous, extreme scenario as I tried to puzzle out just how far the advocates of “religious liberty” want to take us:

Suppose an on-duty police officer sees a known homosexual getting stomped to death in an alley by two men shouting, “Die, faggot, die!”  He does nothing to stop it, and he lets the thugs escape, because he believes in Leviticus 20:13:

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.

His religious beliefs make it impossible for him to intefere with what he views as God’s will, or even to hold the assailants responsible.

Should this officer be penalized?  Or would that violate his religious freedom?

That’s not ridiculous or extreme anymore. Kansas is right now passing a law that could make this a reality.

Kansas House Bill No. 2453 (already passed by the state House and on its way to the Republican Senate and Governor) begins like this:

Section 1. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no individual  or religious entity shall be required by any governmental entity to do any  of the following, if it would be contrary to the sincerely held religious  beliefs of the individual or religious entity regarding sex or gender:

(a) Provide any services, accommodations, advantages, facilities,  goods, or privileges; provide counseling, adoption, foster care and other  social services; or provide employment or employment benefits, related to,  or related to the celebration of, any marriage, domestic partnership, civil  union or similar arrangement;

(b) solemnize any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or  similar arrangement; or

(c) treat any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar  arrangement as valid.

And later in Section 2, police and other government employees are explicitly exempted:

(d) If an individual employed by a governmental entity or other non religious entity invokes any of the protections provided by section I, and amendments thereto, as a basis for declining to provide a lawful service that is otherwise consistent with the entity’s duties or policies, the individual’s employer, in directing the performance of such service, shall either promptly provide another employee to provide such service, or shall otherwise ensure that the requested service is provided, if it can be done without undue hardship to the employer. 

That bit I emphasized is a great loophole. It means if you simply change my scenario from a gay individual to a gay couple, then police officers could invoke their religious right to let the bashing continue, and then the station would have to send out another officer — unless this would cause “undue hardship to the employer,” in which case…sorry!

(Actually, as Mark Joseph Stern points out in Slate, it may not even need to be a couple; it could be an individual as long as the officer perceives that individual as celebrating a — well, not necessarily a marriage, but even just a “similar arrangement” to marriage.)

I have to hope the bill’s authors never intended this, or even better, that I’m misinterpreting the words that appear on the page. Perhaps the gay bashing would be such clear danger to public safety that it would override this new law. But the major effect, the simpler, obviously deliberate effect, is this:

No one in Kansas will have to recognize a same-sex marriage as valid. No one. Which leads to an inevitable conclusion:

Either these religious activists are frauds who don’t give a damn about religious liberty, or they’re on a path to destroying civil marriage for everyone.

Let’s take up the fraud question first. If religious liberty is such an issue, why does the bill focus on the gender of married persons — in other words, why only carve out a religious exemption for same-sex marriage? Some religions don’t recognize the unions of those who have divorced and remarried. Or who married outside the faith. Why not include those as exemptions, too? Basically, this Kansas law privileges some religious beliefs above others, which not only raises constitutional questions, but also signals that its advocates don’t care about religious liberty in general, but only leap into action when it comes to dealing with those homosexual people. They aren’t champions of religious freedom at all. They’re just frauds.

Unless I’m judging them too harshly, and this is just a first step. Unless they’re really not motivated by anti-gay animus, and want to create this exemption for all sincerely-held religious beliefs.

In that case we face the complete destruction of civil marriage. You can always find some religious reason not to recognize a union. I listed a few above but it’s easy to come up with more. The couple’s using birth control; the man is permanently sexually incapacitated; one partner is gold-digger and married under false pretenses; the bride was not a virgin and should have been stoned the next day; the bride is a widow, and should have only married her husband’s brother.

These reasons don’t have to be good or rational or even traditional. They just have to be sincere. And what an incentive to put on a show of sincerity. Employers could calculate all the money they’d save by refusing spousal benefits to their divorced/remarried staff and pow! they have a new sincere religious belief. Hell, sudden conversions happen all the time. Sudden conversions are traditionally a cause for joy.

Once that happens, the legal status of marriage means nothing. No individual, privately or publicly employed, will be legally obliged to acknowledge married couples as married. We’ll have nothing but a loophole so big it ravages marital law to the point where nothing is left.

But let me pull back from this slippery-slope argument. Instead of spinning wild-yet-perfectly-plausible scenarios, let’s put the burden on the people pushing these laws. Let’s hammer them with a few simple questions:

If this is about the principle of religious freedom, why the narrow focus on same-sex marriage?

Do you believe all sincere religious beliefs about marriage should be likewise privileged (and if not, why not)?

Do you a have a limit, a line beyond which religious beliefs no longer supersede law (and if so, where is it and why)?

I don’t mean these as rhetorical questions. They may have answers, good ones, but I haven’t seen them articulated. And in their absence, we see only two choices: either these religious freedom advocates are frauds, or they’re initiating the destruction of civil marriage.

Disney ad

Animators love to mess with Disney. Love it, love it, love it.

Mostly they love trying to sneak sexual imagery into Disney’s squeaky clean image as a family friendly and trustable production company. I think they may have struck again.

Currently some of you may be seeing an ad running on BTB which links to Disney’s Vinylmation site wherein an image can be selected to send to someone special. What shows up in the ad is two images moving towards each other for a split second before being replace with words.

Below is a screen grab of the images.

The two images are stylized Mickey and Minney Mouse.

Ohhh Noes!!! Teh Boy Scouts is shrinking!!!

When the Boy Scouts of America revised its policies so as not to expel young scouts who are open about their orientation, those who object to honesty and homosexuality warned that there would be a mass exodus from the organization. In addition, a whole new group was created to provide a home for children who are not gay. Or Jews. Or Mormons.

Now the Boy Scouts has quantified the extent to which their policy change has impacted membership. And ohhh noes!! They’ve lost members!! (Time)

The Boy Scouts of America have lost six percent of their members since changing their policy on gay participants, the group said Wednesday.

Well, actually they may not have lost six percent entirely due to the policy change. Membership in the Boy Scouts has been in decline for years as the decrease in direct heterosexual parental involvement has led to more television and video game playing and less camping and jamboreeing.

“There are many factors that go into a family’s decision to join Scouting and it’s impossible to point to any single factor that influences our membership numbers,” Smith said. “This includes, but is not limited to, the limited amount of discretional time and parents wanting relevant programs for their kids.”

Membership has gradually shrunk over the last decade to 2.5 million youth and 1 million adults, including a four percent drop from 2011 to 2012.

But I think we can now say that the predictions of the demise of the Boy Scouts by antigay activists has proven to be consistent with their track record on other predictions.

Homosexual Propaganda

A new Tumblr repurposes old Soviet propaganda as gay pride posters.

American Idol will include gay participants

Last night American Idol took a step.

Not just that they presented participants who were recognizably; that has pretty much been the case from the beginning. Rather, they passed on to the viewers an openly and acknowledged gay candidate.

M.K. Nobilette, a young fresh-faced singer whose vocal style reminds me a bit of K.D. Lang, expressed her concerns about being on the show. “For one thing, I’m obviously gay”.

The judges, Jennifer Lopez, Harry Connick, Jr., and Kieth Urban, then talked a bit about how the world has changed and how they believe that she has the potential, in this changed world, to win the title of American Idol.

In another segment, they advanced a young man with startlingly strong vocals and a gay vibe that even Aunt Thelma’s gaydar couldn’t miss. In addition to being loud and sassy (sorry, but that really is the best word), he challenged JLo to a walk-off, if she’d buy him the heels. He’s the sort of candidate that we’ve seen in the run-ups in the past, but which didn’t have the “image” necessary to taken seriously.

It has frustrated me for years that AI has been reluctant to include any mention of a gay candidate’s orientation. Even Adam Lambert had to reenter a sparkly sequined closet of sorts. But Idol has a large and strong audience in the red states and perhaps they correctly determined that it would not be to a participant’s advantage.

I am glad that they are finally taking the risk.

GOP Campaign ad features partner

It is not uncommon for a political candidate to feature a spouse in a campaign ad. It’s a quick way to send a signal to the constituents that this is a good family man (or woman) who is settled and responsible and just like they are.

What is unusual, however, is for a gay candidate to make mention of their spouse or partner. Generally, that is seen as a difference from the voters, something to be minimized. Though many had partners, or were married, most presented a public image that could be mistaken for a sexless bachelor or spinster.

Until now.

Carl DeMaio, a Republican running for Congress from San Diego, has become the first serious candidate to do so. (Wall Street Journal)

Carl DeMaio is one of three openly gay Republicans running for Congress this year, and he would be at least the third to serve in the House if he wins. But Mr. DeMaio on Thursday will take a step that none of them has, airing a campaign ad that features a shot of him with his same-sex partner.

The clips are brief: A shot of Mr. DeMaio holding hands with his partner, Johnathan Hale, as they march in a gay pride parade in 2012, followed by a clip of the San Diego candidate waving a rainbow flag that symbolizes the gay-rights movement.

Several GOP campaign officials and Elizabeth Wilner, who tracks campaign ads for the nonpartisan firm Kantar Media, said it was the first time they knew of a candidate of either party airing an ad featuring a gay partner.

It’s possible that there were other ads missed by Wilner. And some spouses have been publicly acknowledged or have been part of a campaign.

But, nevertheless, this is a rather remarkable moment. This signals that DeMaio, at least, believes that his relationship makes him a more connectable candidate than were he to be seen as single. And this is more noteworthy when considering that DeMaio’s ad comes in the primary season when he has a conservative GOP opponent.

It could be that we are reaching the point where, in some circles, gay relationships are no longer just tolerated but are an expectation, a sign that this is a serious responsible person. Just like the voters.

The Daily Agenda for Thursday, February 13

TODAY’S AGENDA:
Events This Weekend: Brighton Half Marathon, Brighton, UK; Arizona Gay Rodeo, Phoenix, AZ; SF Bear Weekend, San Francisco, CA; Sydney Mardi Gras, Sydney, NSW.

TODAY’S AGENDA is brought to you by:

From The Advocate, January 11, 1979, page 25.

 
First opened in 1975 on Colfax Avenue in the west side of Denver, The Den was one of those places that managed to get along for some three decades despite having neither a sign, street number or parking. About five years ago — I’m not sure exactly when — the bar was reportedly sold. It is now the Pit Stop Tavern, a straight sports bar.

Grant Wood, self-portrait, 1932.

TODAY’S BIRTHDAY:
Grant Wood: 1891-1942. Born a few miles outside of Anamosa, Iowa, the great expanse of the upper great plains and the solid simplicity of its people would always be near to his heart. He studied at the Art Institute in Chicago, and from 1920 to 1928, he made four trips to Europe where he studied Impressionism and Post-Impressionist styles of painting, but his heat never strayed far Iowa, nor did his style stray from simplicity and directness which are the bedrock of Iowa’s people. His style became known as Regionalism, which depicted rural American themes in a style which recalled the severe Calvinism of Northern Renaissance paintings.

American Gothic, 1930.

This is best exemplified in his iconic 1930 painting American Gothic, perhaps among the best known, best loved, and best parodied of American paintings. Art critics, at least those who assumed the painting was meant to be satire of small-town life, praised it. When a copy was printed in the Cedar Rapids Gazette, locals denounced their depiction as “pinched, grim-faced, puritanical Bible-thumpers.” Wood himself defended the painting as simply a a depiction of the American pioneer spirit. He also became a vocal critic of modernist trends and the dominance of the East coast art world. No other American artist before or since has earned such national fame without ever showing his work in New York.

In 1932, he founded the Stone City Art Colony to help other artists get through the Great Depression, and from 1934 to 1941 he taught at the University of Iowa’s School of Art, where his teaching career was very nearly derailed over accusations that Wood was gay. The only report that contains the complete details of those accusations was buried in a time capsule of the Art and Art History Building in 1934, and the details will remain hidden until the cornerstone is opened some twenty years from now. New allegations arose in 1941 when university colleagues, most of whom embraced the European trends that Wood so clearly disdained, tried to get Wood removed from the faculty. Their accusations centered around a very brief marriage that ended in divorce in 1938 and the handsome young roommates who lived in his home. When a reporter from Time came sniffing, the university president managed to get the story spiked, and reorganized the Art Department so that Wood would be placed in an entirely separate division and away from his detractors. But before Wood could resume teaching, he was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer and died in February 12, 1942.

Most biographies which have come out since Wood’s death have either avoided his homosexuality or dismissed it. Tripp Evans’s 2010 Grant Wood: A Life changes that by delving into previously unreleased documents and taking a closer look at Wood’s highly symbolic paintings, some of which toy with cross-gender depictions.

If you know of something that belongs on the agenda, please send it here. Don’t forget to include the basics: who, what, when, where, and URL (if available).

And feel free to consider this your open thread for the day. What’s happening in your world?

Federal Judge Strikes Down Kentucky’s Prohibition Against Recognizing Marriages from Other States

Now it’s Kentucky. U.S. District Judge John G. Heyburn II today has ruled that Kentucky’s ban on recognizing same-sex marriages from other states violates the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection clause. Judge Heyburn cited last year’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Windsor v. US which struck down a portion of the Defense of Marriage Act for invalidating the portion of Kentucky’s state constitutional amendment excluding same-sex marriage as “valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky”.

As in other cases that have rejected the amicus’s arguments, no one in this case has offered factual or rational reasons why Kentucky’s laws are rationally related to any of these purposes. Kentucky does not require proof of procreative ability to have an out-of-state marriage recognized. The exclusion of same-sex couples on procreation grounds makes just as little sense as excluding post-menopausal couples or infertile couples on procreation grounds. After all, Kentucky allows gay and lesbian individuals to adopt children. And no one has offered evidence that same-sex couples would be any less capable of raising children or any less faithful in their marriage vows. Compare this with Plaintiffs, who have not argued against the many merits of “traditional marriage.” They argue only that they should be allowed to enjoy them also.

Other than those discussed above, the Court cannot conceive of any reasons for enacting the laws challenged here. Even if one were to conclude that Kentucky’s laws do not show animus, they cannot withstand traditional rational basis review.

Heyburn, a 1992 George H.W. Bush appointee on the recommendation of Sen. Mitch McConnell, dedicated much of his brief to addressing his ruling in light of Kentucky’s socially conservative norms. “To the extent courts clash with what likely remains that majority opinion here, they risk some of the public’s acceptance,” he wrote. His first concern was the religious one:

Many Kentuckians believe in “traditional marriage.” Many believe what their ministers and scriptures tell them: that a marriage is a sacrament instituted between God and a man and a woman for society’s benefit. They may be confused—even angry—when a decision such as this one seems to call into question that view. These concerns are understandable and deserve an answer.

Our religious beliefs and societal traditions are vital to the fabric of society. Though each faith, minister, and individual can define marriage for themselves, at issue here are laws that act outside that protected sphere. Once the government defines marriage and attaches benefits to that definition, it must do so constitutionally. It cannot impose a traditional or faith-based limitation upon a public right without a sufficient justification for it. Assigning a religious or traditional rationale for a law, does not make it constitutional when that law discriminates against a class of people without other reasons.

The beauty of our Constitution is that it accommodates our individual faith’s definition of marriage while preventing the government from unlawfully treating us differently. This is hardly surprising since it was written by people who came to America to find both freedom of religion and freedom from it.

Heyburn reiterated that his decision does not require Kentucky to allow same-sex couples to marry in the state because “the Court was not presented with the particular question.” He strongly suggested however that “there is no doubt that Windsor and this Court’s analysis suggest a possible result to that question.” He then addressed the concerns expressed that his opinion would somehow affect so-called “traditional” marriages:

Second, allowing same-sex couples the state recognition, benefits, and obligations of marriage does not in any way diminish those enjoyed by opposite-sex married couples. No one has offered any evidence that recognizing same-sex marriages will harm opposite-sex marriages, individually or collectively. One’s belief to the contrary, however sincerely held, cannot alone justify denying a selected group their constitutional rights.

Third, no court can require churches or other religious institutions to marry same-sex couples or any other couple, for that matter. This is part of our constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion. That decision will always be based on religious doctrine.

He also anticipated the argument that his ruling was going against “the vote of the people,” which added the marriage ban to the Kentucky constitution in 2004:

So now, the Constitution, including its equal protection and due process clauses, protects all of us from government action at any level, whether in the form of an act by a high official, a state employee, a legislature, or a vote of the people adopting a constitutional amendment. As Chief Justice John Marshall said, “[i]t is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 177 (1803). Initially that decision typically rests with one judge; ultimately, other judges, including the justices of the Supreme Court, have the final say. That is the way of our Constitution.

For many others, this decision could raise basic questions about our Constitution. For instance, are courts creating new rights? Are judges changing the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment or our Constitution? Why is all this happening so suddenly?

The answer is that the right to equal protection of the laws is not new. History has already shown us that, while the Constitution itself does not change, our understanding of the meaning of its protections and structure evolves.16 If this were not so, many practices that we now abhor would still exist.

Contrary to how it may seem, there is nothing sudden about this result. The body of constitutional jurisprudence that serves as its foundation has evolved gradually over the past forty-seven years. The Supreme Court took its first step on this journey in 1967 when it decided the landmark case Loving v. Virginia, which declared that Virginia’s refusal to marry mixed-race couples violated equal protection. The Court affirmed that even areas such as marriage, traditionally reserved to the states, are subject to constitutional scrutiny and “must respect the constitutional rights of persons.” Windsor, 133 S.Ct. at 2691 (citing Loving).

The lawsuit was brought by four Kentucky couples who were married in Canada, Iowa, California, and Connecticut.

Portion of KY ban on equality ruled unconstitutional

From the Courier-Journal

A federal judge Wednesday struck down Kentucky’s ban on recognizing valid same-sex marriages performed in other states, saying it violates the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection under the law.

U.S. District Judge John G. Heyburn II joined nine other federal and state courts in invalidating such bans.
…
Heyburn did not rule that Kentucky must allow gay marriages to be performed in the state.

Heyburn is a Kentucky native and former Army Reservist. He was appointed by President George H.W. Bush at the recommendation of Senator Mitch McConnell (R). Predictably, the antigay groups are already calling him a “liberal judge”.

Asked and Answered

What can you say about Jennifer Thieme, Finance Director of NOM’s former affiliate, the Ruth Institute? Well, as my southern friends would slyly declare: Bless her heart. She tries her best to be a good anti-gay activist, with decidedly mixed results. Now she has a post up at Matt “Barb Wire” Barber’s new website, and she ends it by suggesting that folks on her side should engage people with a series of “conversation starters” — leading questions that turn out to be remarkably easy to answer. This strategy has been tried before and it didn’t work out well for them. Let’s see how it turns out this time:

Did you know that man/woman marriage is being removed from legal recognition?

No, because that’s not happening. Every man/woman marriage that was recognized before the passage of marriage equality will be recognized after the passage of marriage equality.

Is removing the gold standard from policy going to increase or decrease the power of the government over the individual over the long term? Will it be good for children?

Opponents of marriage equality tried and failed to show that same-sex parenting is inferior to opposite-sex parenting, so the whole premise of the question is false. Meanwhile it’s obvious that giving people more freedom over  their personal lives will decrease the power of the government over the individual. And of course it will help children: the children of same-sex couples who will now have the legal family protections they deserve.  It will help other kids too — see my next answer for more.

What sort of a message are we sending to children by removing the gold standard from policy?

It sends the message to gay kids that they are not disgusting, deviant, loathsome creatures incapable of love and doomed to life of loneliness, regardless of what they might hear from anti-gay activists.

Further, the message that you can live a life of love, commitment, and fulfillment, whether you’re straight or gay, will help all kids navigate the fears and uncertainties of adolescence. We’ve learned that gay-straight alliances in schools reduce the risk of suicide for all students, gay and straight, so there’s every reason to believe this message sent by marriage equality will help all kids, gay and straight.

Why is the radical Left in love with marriage now, when they have historically reviled marriage?

Have they? All of them? Anyway, I don’t know — I’m not part of the radical Left. But perhaps because they believe in equality under the law for all citizens? Really, though, you should just ask them — while remembering that the “radical Left” represents only a small fraction of all those who now support marriage equality.

If this was only about civil marriage, why are we seeing religious liberty issues arise?

These “religious liberty” issues arise from non-discrimination law, and some people are using their religion to demand a special right to ignore those laws. I understand that this demand for special rights is not how you want to spin your cause, but that’s what it is.

You really ought to advocate abolishing all discrimination law, because it all restricts the liberty (including the religious liberty) of people to choose whom they will associate and work with. That’s a much harder sell, of course, but if this is a sincere issue of principle then that shouldn’t dissuade you. If this is just about disliking gay people, though, then stick to your present course.

Should we take the radical Left seriously when they tell us where they’re going?

Again, the “radical Left” represents only a small fraction of all those who now support marriage equality, so I’m not sure how this is relevant.

Well, that was easy. And you know what? It just gets easier every year.

Gordon Klingenschmitt Says Gay Soldiers Need to “Take Breaks on the Combat Field to Change Diapers”

Two weeks ago, four retired military chaplains sent out a press release denouncing the implementaiton of the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” (Yes, they’re still fighting over that.) The press release is full of outright lunacy — “before civilizations crumble…” it begins, and goes downhill from there:

Before civilizations crumble, the last thing to hit the fan is government-sponsored, government-forced, homosexuality, sodomy, and pedophilia. Homosexuality is a psychiatric disorder and probably the worst sin described in the Holy Bible due to the permanent damage caused to what was or is or might have been a temple of the Spirit. The consequences are said to be nothing short of eternal damnation, by choice. It’s a shame that the US military, historically known to be a beacon of morality and religious tolerance and freedom, while the civilian sector has engaged in immorality, is now having its nose shoved in the dirt of filth to make the Sinners-in-Chief in the highest echelons of politics–the perverts, the pedophiles, and the psychiatrically ill–feel better about themselves.

The press release by these four retired military chaplains, Jim Linzey (Baptist), Valerie Potter (Methodist), Frank Johnson (Baptist), and John R. Kauffman (Pentecostal) was so off the charts that no one took it seriously when it came out. It was just another piece of over-the-top craziness put out by people nobody ever heard of hoping to make a name for themselves.

And so nobody paid attention. Well, almost nobody. Former Lt. Gordon Klingenschmitt, who was fined $3,000 for wearing his uniform at a protest in 2006 and has made the propagation of lunacy his life’s work since then, was sufficiently impressed with that press release to mention it in his program, “Pray in Jesus Name.” Klingenschmitt, who calls himself “Dr. Chaps,” decided the quote above wasn’t crazy enought, and reached down to pull this quote from Kaufman:

Marriage is a combat multiplier in that it gives married troops hope and a reason to fight well, defending ones country, of which marriage and families are the foundation … But homosexuality is a combat divider, dividing one’s reason to live while taking breaks on the combat field to change diapers all because their treacherous sin causes them to lose control of their bowels. [Emphasis in Klingenschmitt’s version]

After reading that passage, Klingenschmitt added, “Forgive me for the graphic image there, but there are physical and biological consequences of that kind of conduct and he’s just pointing that out.”

The Daily Agenda for Wednesday, February 12

TODAY’S AGENDA:
Events This Weekend: Brighton Half Marathon, Brighton, UK; Arizona Gay Rodeo, Phoenix, AZ; SF Bear Weekend, San Francisco, CA; Sydney Mardi Gras, Sydney, NSW.

TODAY’S AGENDA is brought to you by:

From The Blade (Washington, D.C.), June, 1977, page 7.

 
When it opened in 1974, Club Madame billed itself as the “the Washington club with a French accent” and catered to a mostly lesbian crowd. Operated by “Madame Louisatte and daughter Beatrice (‘BB’),” the club was located along 8th Street S.E. alongside several other gay bars. Club Madame was particularly popular for its special themed events, including Mardi Gras and Ocktoberfest. The club closed in 1978, and the location re-opened as a gay bar called Bachelor’s Mill which suffered an arson attack in 1980. Today, the building houses a Cuban/Mexican/Puerto Rican restaurant and bar.

TODAY IN HISTORY:
Premiere of “Making Love”: 1982. Starring Michael Ontkean, Charlie’s Angels star Kate Jackson, and Harry Hamlin, Making Love opened in theaters as the first mainstream film to tackle homosexuality in a nonjudgmental way. That’s not to say that the story wasn’t without drama when Zach (Ontkean) and Claire (Jackson) dealt with a crumbling marriage as Zach struggled to deal with his attractions to other men. When he meets gay novelist Bart McGuire (Hamlin), their professional relationship (Zach was a doctor, Bart a patient who was in for a check-up) turned into a lunch date, then a dinner date, and then a full-fledged relationship, which over time, ends in a divorce for Zach and Claire. Claire handles the news badly, but over time comes to understand that gay people can live happy lives. The film’s happily-ever-after ending had the cautious feel of a made-for-TV movie, which critics hated. Gay critics, however, were overjoyed that the film was a positive portrayal where the gay characters didn’t all die in the end.

In real life however, the film demonstrated one significant difficulty in making mainstream movies about gay men: it seemed to confirm the fear that taking such a role would be career killers. Tom Berenger, Michael Douglas, Harrison Ford, William Hurt and Peter Strauss were all approached to play Zach; they all turned the role down. After the film’s release Ontkean and Hamlin had trouble living the film down. Hamlin’s promising career stalled for the next four years until he landed a role in NBC’s L.A. Law. Ontkean tried to prevent clips of his role from appearing in Vito Russo’s 1996 documentary The Celluloid Closet.

10 YEARS AGO: SF Mayor Orders Issuing of Same-Sex Marriage Licenses: 2004. It was a stunning announcement, when San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom declared that the California Constitution’s equal protection clause gave him the authority to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Between February 12 and March 11, 2004, an estimated 4,000 joyous couples lined up at City Hall to take part in what was quickly dubbed “The Winter of Love.” But the weddings came to an abrupt halt when the California Supreme Court declared that the mayor lacked the authority to bypass state law. All of those marriage licenses were voided, and same-sex marriage would remain unavailable until 2008 when the state Supreme Court found that “equal respect and dignity” of marriage is a “basic civil right” for all couples in California, gay or straight. That finding was overturned by California voters when they approved Prop 8 in 2008, which itself was ruled unconstitutional in 2010. That ruling was upheld by a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2012, and a challenge to the U.S. Supreme Court by anti-gay activists was rejected due to lack of standing in 2013.

TODAY’S BIRTHDAY:
Philipp zu Eulenburg: 1847-1921. A close, personal friend of Kaiser Wilhelm II, Eulenburg had a tremendous influence over the younger Kaiser, and over Germany’s politics in general. Like virtually everyone else in positions of influence, Eulenburg married a Swedish countess in his twenties. Together they had eight children. But also like many others of similar outlook, his marriage did little to discourage his many liaisons with others in the Kaiser’s inner circle.

In 1900, Eulenburg’s brother was exposed as a homosexual. The Kaiser demanded that Eulenburg cut all contact with his brother, a demand that Eulenburg refused, though that refusal appears not to have affected Eulenburg’s career. That same year, Eulenburg was given the title of prince in recognition of Eulenburg’s valuable counsel and friendship to the Kaiser. That counsel included urging the Kaiser to exercise a more autocratic rule independent of the Reichstag. Eulenburg also retained his post as Ambassador to Austria-Hungary, which he had held since 1893.

But holding such a powerful and influential position in the Kaiser’s court made Eulenburg a political target. In 1902, Eulenburg resigned his Ambassadorship and withdrew from politics, pleading exhaustion, although we now know that the real reason was blackmail. That was at about the same time the Germany was rocked by revelations that German industrialist Friedrick Krupp was frolicking with young men in Capri and Berlin (see Nov 22). Eulenburg returned to the Court in 1906, where he again drew the ire of critics of the Kaiser’s increasingly autocratic rule and expansionist foreign policy. Eulenburg’s timing for his return wasn’t good. Between 1906 and 1907, six military officers committed suicide after being blackmailed, and dozens of soldiers and officers had faced courts marshall for homosexuality.

Maximillian Harden, publisher of Die Zukunft, struck the first blow agaisnt Eulenburg by outing him in an article printed in April of 1907. Harden also outed General Kuno von Moltke in the same article. At the Kaiser’s urging, Eulenburg and Moltke denied the report and charged Harden with libel. Moltke’s trial came in 1907. It didn’t go well for Moltke. His former wife, a soldier, and even sexologist Magnus Hirschfeld (see May 14) testified against him. The court declared that Molte indeed was gay and cleared Harden of libel. The Kaiser voided the verdict and demanded a new trial, which found Harden guilty. He was sentenced to four months imprisonment.

But the details from the first trial both shocked and disgusted Germany. When Eulenburg’s perjury trial came around in 1908 — he was charged for denying his homosexuality during the Moltke trial — the prosecution had lined up hundreds of witnesses. Forty-one testified against Eulenburg, including several who described watching him through a keyhole. Eulenburg collapsed in the courtroom early in the trial, and proceedings were suspended while he underwent medical treatment. It  resumed later that year with Eulenburg on a stretcher, but was suspended again due to his poor health. The case remained in limbo until the destruction of the German Empire in 1918, and it never resumed after that. Eulenburg remained in retirement, with no further contact with the Kaiser, until Eulenburg’s death in 1921 at the age of 74.

If you know of something that belongs on the agenda, please send it here. Don’t forget to include the basics: who, what, when, where, and URL (if available).

And feel free to consider this your open thread for the day. What’s happening in your world?