Box Turtle Bulletin

Exodus Board Member: Homosexuality IS Different

I don’t think Timothy is alone in detecting a change at Exodus, nor do I think he’s off in the weeds. There are plenty of encouraging signs for those who are willing to acknowledge them. I’m cautiously optimistic myself about the potential for Exodus president Alan Chambers’s personal evolution. But while I acknowledge that he has made some positive changes at Exodus over the years, I find myself considerably less sanguine about Exodus’s potential as an organization for the kind of change that would be meaningful to gay people — a people that even now Chambers identifies as those who are “impacted by homosexuality.” The reason is that for years, I think we’ve seen plenty of evidence for a conflict between where Chambers would like to take Exodus and where the ministries which make up Exodus are willing to go. And if Alan takes Exodus too far from its base — the people who pay the bills and keep the lights on — then those lights would go off. I do not believe those lights will go off without a fight.

I can find few items which better exemplify the entrenchment that would take place should Alan try to change Exodus’ position too far than a recent op-ed written by Mike Goeke. He was Exodus’s vice president under Alan Chambers until 2006 and he remains on the Exodus Board of Directors. He also heads the Midland, Texas-based Cross Power Ministries, one of many Exodus member organizations which provide Exodus with their bread and butter. In an op-ed published by the Baptist Press on Wednesday, Goeke reiterates the oft-repeated Exodus position that “homosexual behavior is no different than any sin” before going on to explain why homosexuality is different from “any sin.”

…It is different, however, in that no other sin (or, better said, an identity based primarily on sinful behavior) has impacted, or is likely to impact, culture in the dramatic way that homosexuality has done and will do.

Homosexuality is the only sinful behavior that has a cultural identity and movement surrounding it. What other sin is encouraged to be celebrated? What other sin has a “pride” movement attached to it? What other sin are people so quick to identify their lives by and to adopt as the defining characteristic of their lives? There are not greed pride parades, or people proclaiming on magazine covers “Yes, I’m a gossip.” There are not gluttony neighborhoods or bars where liars openly gather. Men and women don’t proudly self-identify as promiscuous. There are many people who are pro-choice and many who admit to having an abortion, but there are few who celebrate the fact that they had abortions. In fact, if you exclude random individuals like Charlie Sheen, few people would want their sin attached to their name and fewer would proudly boast in their sinful activity.

Homosexuality is also the only sinful behavior that has a growing, accepted theology built around it. Sure, there are fringe “religious” movements for odd things, but within the realm of Christianity there is no other revisionist theological movement based on identity primarily defined by sinful behavior. Denominations are crumbling and fracturing over how to deal with the issue of homosexuality and how to integrate people openly identified as gay or openly practicing homosexual behavior.

To Goeke, homosexuality’s threat is two-fold: it’s a threat to society and culture, and its a threat to the church. I needn’t remind you that to most Evangelicals’ minds, that’s the sum total of what makes up a civilization. And Goeke takes pains to point out that he sees no other “sin” which poses that kind of a threat. I can’t say that he speaks for most Evangelicals on that particular point (others may point to abortion, the media or the Obama administration, for example), but I do think it’s likely that he speaks for substantial numbers of Evangelicals who make up the Exodus church and member ministry networks.

In contrast, Chambers penned an op-ed for Evangelism.net in which he asks some serious questions about how to approach a hypothetical gay couple with children who join a (presumably) Evangelical church:

The question I ask myself a lot these days is, “What would Jesus do?”  followed by, “What would He have me do?”  They are not always one in the same.  The fact is we are not Jesus.  We have no power to heal or change anyone.  We can point to His life and ministry through the Bible and our own experiences, but we aren’t Him.  We are His representatives.  Sometimes I think we are actually guilty of trying to be Him, or at least the Holy Spirit.  It isn’t our job to bring conviction or judge.  We fail to trust the Holy Spirit to do His job well when we attempt to usurp that role. So, in the context of a situation like the one in my dream, what are we to do?

…What if the best thing for a gay couple with children isn’t to immediately end their relationship and split their family and confuse their kids?

A very provocative question. I haven’t seen Chambers ask that question before, and it’s one that Goeke, and most churches and ministries that Exodus has cultivated over the years are not prepared to answer. If they have an answer, it would be, as Goeke puts it, to “hold firm to truth as we navigate the waters of culture.”

If Exodus is merely trying to re-brand themselves, you can see how that effort is doomed to failure. As GM demonstrated in the 1990s, it’ll take more than a shiny chrome grill up front and new wood trim on the dashboard to convince people that there’s something significantly different under the hood. But if Alan is really trying to effect change at Exodus (and I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for now), you need look no further than to his fellow board member to see the outlines of the looming conflict. The wildcard is whether Chambers has the stomach and wherewithal for that fight. John Smid found that he had to leave his ex-gay ministry Love In Action before he could undergo his metamorphosis. Meanwhile Love In Action, which remains an Exodus member ministry, marches on without him.

Brazilian state authorizes equality

Over the past few years, Brazil has been working its way closer to full equality for same-sex couples. First a state authorized civil unions, then the government determined that pension law should apply, and then last May the Supreme Court declared that same-sex couples are entitled to civil unions.

Since that time, smaller individual cases have mostly raised little attention. In June, a judge found that a male couple could convert their civil union into a marriage, soon followed by a similar ruling for a pair of women. In a third case, conversion to marriage was denied and that case cis in the appeals process.

But now it appears that a state has decided that marriages would be honored without the need of a specific judicial ruling for each unique couple. (DosManzanas.com via google translate)

Another step towards full recognition of marriage between same sex in Brazil. The administration of justice in the small state of Alagoas has issued an order allowing them to process their requests notarized marriage without the need for it with a favorable court decision.

Rocking the sweater vest

Noting that sweater vests are the source of Rick Santorum’s power, the box of rocks thought it would try out the fashion article.

General consensus: the box didn’t seem any more intelligent, and the sweater vest made the rocks look fat.

A changed Exodus

In February 2009 we noticed that a conference was planned in Kampala, Uganda, which would address “the homosexual agenda.” Further, we noted that three Americans were planned presenters, Holocaust revisionist Scott Lively, ex-gay “counselor” Caleb Brundidge, and Don Schmeirer, a board member of Exodus International, the ‘ex-gay’ umbrella organization.

Knowing that Uganda’s culture is particularly vehement in its opposition to homosexuality, and aware of recent pogroms against gay people that had occurred, we tried to convince Exodus’ leadership to back away from anything that could stir up the population. And considering that this event was featuring Scott Lively, we knew that it had the potential to be explosive.

Unfortunately, our efforts were not successful – Exodus ignored our pleas – and our worst fears were realized. The conference led to contact with the legislature, a proposed bill that would impose death on various categories of gay people, a newspaper campaign that called for execution, and eventually the murder of a prominent Ugandan gay activist.

But it also led to public awareness of American conservative evangelical involvement in foreign governments, heightened European criticism of human rights abuses in Africa, and eventually declarations by the White House and State Department that the way in which a nation treated its gay citizens would impact their relationship with the United States.

And it led to a number of religious leaders and organizations reevaluating the message that they were spreading. A number of alliances with some of the more homophobic African preachers were severed by a number of conservative American churches and individuals in influence took action to explain that their theological objection to engaging in specific acts did not equate to an invitation to abuse gay people. And quite a bit of rhetoric softened.

And in the process, Exodus did some soul searching. And has become, in my opinion, a very different organization.

And so this month when I approached Alan Chambers, President of Exodus, about an ad that had run in a newspaper in Trinidad and Tobago which seemed to speak for Exodus, he was quick to respond and to seek to distance the organization from both the implied message of the ad and from its intentions.

In short, Exodus stepped up and took responsibility not only for its name but for any confusion over its message. And, in the process, Alan took pains to explain the organization in terms that speak not about cultural dominance, nor about expectations of reorientation miracles, but in language of personal discipleship.

While I believe we share the same biblical worldview with regard to sexual expression, I do not believe we share the same philosophy on how to do public outreach or an identical message for those impacted by homosexuality. The mission and ministry of Exodus International is one focused on discipleship for those pursuing Christ amidst their same-sex attractions, support and encouragement for families impacted by same-sex attraction, restoration of marriages impacted by same-sex attraction and equipping the church to serve as an authentic community to all of the above as well as to those with whom they may disagree. We are not an organization that focuses on medical issues and we are increasingly careful with helping those we serve understand what change truly means in the context of living a human life where God gives us the ability to overcome amidst ongoing struggle.

I am encouraged that Alan clearly establishes that his organization is for those who are “amidst their same-sex attractions” and does not imply that they are seeking to become heterosexual. This is language that I believe is significantly different in both tone and implication than what we have seen in years past.

No doubt many in our community will be troubled by Exodus’ continued use of language such as “change” or “overcome” or “struggle”. But this is language that is a part of the Christian lexicon and has meaning within that context. Change is a theme within Scripture and is going to remain a theme in Christian ministries. We can choose to object or we can choose to understand, but it’s not going away.

Change, within Christianity is a change of heart, a change of priorities, and change of purpose. It does not mean a change in orientation, a change in politics, or a change in personality.

I do not agree with Alan’s biblical worldview with regard to sexual expression and he does not agree with my understanding of Leviticus and Romans in context of time, place, audience, and language selection. But we needn’t agree about theology. We need only to seek to understand and respect each other.

And in Exodus’s biblical worldview, sex outside of heterosexual marriage is offensive to God. Some of us will see this as inherently offensive. Some will think it discriminatory and bigoted. But if it helps any, the message that Exodus gives to its same-sex attracted participants is the same that it would give to any heterosexual that found him or herself unable to marry. Yes, for heterosexuals there is always the hope of a spouse, but- if we are very honest – we have to acknowledge that there are heterosexuals that are even less likely to ever be in a heterosexual marriage than I am. I sat next to one at lunch yesterday.

Yes, I agree that a message that seems to equate ones orientation with sinfulness can be a message that has a toxic effect on persons who have experienced a life of condemnation and rejection. It can reinforce feelings of desperation and worthlessness. And, in the past, Exodus has contributed to that toxicity.

But I believe that this is a different Exodus International than the Exodus that has appeared at political events or which has run ads suggesting that orientation “change is possible” or parading and promoting married members. I have seen a decrease in both that behavior and that attitude. Exodus no longer treats gay Christians as though they are Satan’s tools of deception nor does it lend its name to dominionists who exploit them for political gain.

I see change in Exodus. A change of heart, a change of priorities and a change of purpose. And I can understand and respect the Exodus that I believe they are striving to become.

The reality is that there will be – for quite some time – young people who grow up in families and communities which share Alan’s biblical worldview. And the reality is that they are not going to just joyously throw their faith out the window on their way to a Pride Parade. And as much as we may wish it to be so, they aren’t going to find themselves comfortable at the Hollywood United Methodist Church.

I believe that there is a place and purpose for an organization that can give these people a place and support. Maybe they will in time come to see God differently from Alan and move on. Maybe they will remain in a place of discipleship to a conservative Christian sexual ethic and find within Exodus a fellowship and brotherhood of support. Maybe they will reject theistic belief systems altogether.

But until they come to that decision, Exodus can serve to let them know that they are not intrinsically evil or an abomination. And while I do not think that the organization is completely healthy – yet – I do have hopes for a new and improved Exodus, one that offers ministry and care to those in need.

Exodus steps up

In December ads were run in the Daily Express in Trinidad and Tobago which suggested that they were placed by Exodus International. These ads seemed designed to encourage continued criminalization for homosexuality based on the assertion that gay people could become heterosexual.

Knowing the level of hostility towards gay people in the Caribbean and fearing another Uganda, I contacted Alan Chambers, President of Exodus International, about these ads and about the attitudes in the Caribbean Islands. I found Alan to be attentive, concerned, and anxious to distance Exodus from both the message and the implications of the ads.

Here is the letter sent to the editor of the newspaper:

Dear Mr. Lyder,

My name is Alan Chambers and I am the president of Exodus International. Our ministry is the founding organization of the worldwide network of ministries that now works together autonomously through the Exodus Global Alliance, a ministry where I serve as a board member.

I am writing today out of concern over a newspaper ad from December 11, 2011 titled, What You Should Know About Homosexuality, that referenced Exodus International and Exodus Global Alliance in a way that might lead someone to believe we placed the ad and/or agree with its content. I understand that the ad was placed by The Hospital Christian Fellowship. I have written to Dr. Judith Henry of that organization to ask her not to place such an ad with reference to Exodus International in the future.

My request of you and your paper would be that a retraction be printed stating that the ad in question was not placed by Exodus International or Exodus Global Alliance.

I appreciate your prompt attention in this matter and look forward to your immediate reply.

Sincerely,

Alan Chambers
President
Exodus International

And here is the letter that Alan sent to the organization that placed the ad:

January 12, 2012

Dr. Judith Henry
Hospital Christian Fellowship
Via Email: [redacted]

Dear Dr. Henry,

My name is Alan Chambers and I am the president of Exodus International. Our ministry is the founding organization of the worldwide network of ministries that now works together autonomously through the Exodus Global Alliance, a ministry where I serve as a board member.

I am writing today out of concern over a newspaper ad from December 11, 2011 titled, What You Should Know About Homosexuality, that referenced Exodus International and Exodus Global Alliance in a way that might lead someone to believe we placed the ad and/or agree with its content. I understand that your organization placed the ad. I wanted to reach out to you today to let you know that I will be writing to The Trinidad Express to ask them to print a notice that the ad in question was not written by or placed by Exodus International and that we did not give permission for the use of our name for that piece.

While I believe we share the same biblical worldview with regard to sexual expression, I do not believe we share the same philosophy on how to do public outreach or an identical message for those impacted by homosexuality. The mission and ministry of Exodus International is one focused on discipleship for those pursuing Christ amidst their same-sex attractions, support and encouragement for families impacted by same-sex attraction, restoration of marriages impacted by same-sex attraction and equipping the church to serve as an authentic community to all of the above as well as to those with whom they may disagree. We are not an organization that focuses on medical issues and we are increasingly careful with helping those we serve understand what change truly means in the context of living a human life where God gives us the ability to overcome amidst ongoing struggle.

I would be happy to talk further about all of the above, but must ask that you refrain from including Exodus International in future ads. As a board member of Exodus Global Alliance, I will share my encouragement with my fellow board members that they ask for the same from you regarding that organization. I know you did not mean any ill will or seek to put us in a compromising situation, but that was the result, nonetheless.

I appreciate your prompt attention in this matter. And, again, would be happy to speak with you further about my concerns and give further clarity to the mission of Exodus International.

Sincerely,

Alan Chambers
President
Exodus International

I commend Alan and Exodus for responsible behavior in this matter. And I further see this as an indication of growth and maturity in the organization and in a new perspective and purpose.

The Daily Agenda for Friday, January 13

TODAY’S AGENDA:
Ugandan Pro-Gay Pastor To Speak: Washington, D.C. Rev. Mark Kiyimba, pastor of the New Life Kampala Unitarian Universalist Church, has been a consistent voice for LGBT equality in Uganda in the face of proposed draconian legislation designed to criminalize gay people and their supporters out of existence. Rev. Kiyimba is currently in the U.S. for a speaking tour, and for the next several days, he will be speaking at several locations in the Washinton, D.C. area. The schedule includes:

• Friday, Jan 13: Featured speaker at a benefit celebration for LGBT rights in Uganda at the Unitarian Universalists of Sterling, VA, from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.
• Saturday, Jan 14: Preacher for the afternoon service at the Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Fairfax, VA from 4:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.
• Sunday, Jan 15: Preacher for both services at the Unitarian Universalist Church of Arlington, VA at 9:15 a.m. and 11:15 a.m.
• Monday, Jan 16: Martin Luther King, Jr., Holiday celebration at the Unitarian Universalist Church of Arlington, VA from 12:00 p.m. to and 1:15 p.m.
• Tuesday, Jan 17: Featured speaker at the Unitarian Universalist Church of Silver Spring, MD, from 7:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m.

HIV+ Photo Shoot: Los Angeles, CA. While you’re making plans for the weekend, you might consider penciling this in for Sunday if you live in the L.A. area. Fine art photographer Wayne Martin Belger will shoot portraits of HI-positive Angelenos Sunday January 15, in the Beverly Fairfax District using his hand-crafted “Untouchable” camera. The pinhole camera designed and built by Belger for “Bloodworks” pumps HIV+ blood through filters across the pinhole aperture, producing ghostly and luminous portraits. The photo shoot begins at 11:00 a.m. for more information, please call Lisa Derrick at 323-578-3952.

Celebrations This Weekend: Aspen Gay Ski Week: Aspen, CO; Melbourne Pride’s Midsumma Carnival: Melbourne, VIC.

TODAY IN HISTORY:
Unitarian Church Sponsors Symposium on Homosexuality: 1954. The Unitarian Universalist Association has a long history of inquiry on a large number of contentious topics. In 1954, the First Unitarian Church of Miami hosted a forum called “Homosexuality: Cause, Society, and Crime.” According to a write-up in ONE magazine, the nation’s first gay publication, the attendance “broke all existing records.” The panel included Miami mayor Abe Aronovitz (who had instigated a significant anti-gay crackdown in his city — See Oct 6), psychologist Dr. Syvil Marquit (no affiliation was given); Dr. Jack Capschan of the University of Miami’s psychology department; and Dr. Alvin Winder, psychologist for the Veterans Administration. The psychologists generally agreed that homosexuality wasn’t an illness, but they differed on whether it was “curable” or whether society was the problem. As ONE reported it:

The discussion was then opened to questions from the audience. The first question was “How can we cure homosexuality?” Dr. Kapschan answered with this question, “Is it not possible that instead of sick homosexuals, we have a sick society?” Dr. Marquit added that we must have a wider acceptance of homosexuals. “In other words,” he said, “your sex life is your own business.”

…Then Mayor Aronovitz asked, “I would like to know if there are any individuals who have had the glorous experience of normal sexual relations who prefer homosexual relations?” “I’m sorry to disappoint the Mayor,” answered Dr. Marquit, “but it has been proven that a large percentage of confirmed homosexuals have experienced ‘glorious’ heterosexual relations.” …

To the question “Is prejudice against homosexuality related to intolerance?” Dr. Kapschan answered, “Yes, research has proven that prejudice is generally against a number of minority groups, not just homosexuality. The authoritarian personality that condemns persons for their homosexual behavior is much more of a threat to society than the homosexual himself. They are psychoneurotics who need psychiatric treatment, not the harmless homosexual who varies from the so-called normal, criticized only insofar as what he does in bed. Prejudice against the homosexual makes an especially good scapegoat for the authoritarian personality.”

ONE’s editors were greatly encouraged by the forum, and hoped that it would “lead to more stimulated discussions by qualified people, sponsored by churches and other civic-minded groups.”

US Supreme Court Issues First Gay Rights Ruling: 1958. It was barely a ruling, just a terse, one-sentence line without even hearing oral arguments. But that was all it took for the US Supreme Court to affirm the rights of the first major gay magazine, ONE, to be distributed by the U.S. Postal Service without its subject matter, homosexuality, being declared obscene. It all began in 1953, when the L.A. Postmaster confiscated copies of the October issue (ironically, the cover story was “You Can’t Print It!”) and charge the editors with violating the 1873 Comstock Act, which prohibited sending “obscene, lewd, and/or lascivious” material through the mail. ONE lost their case in Federal District Court. They appealed and lost at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which called ONE , “morally depraving and debasing.” And so it was a major surprise — although it shouldn’t have been — when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that even gay people enjoyed the protections of the First Amendment. Editor Don Slater celebrated the decision in the February 1958 issue: “By winning this decision ONE Magazine has made not only history but law as well and has changed the future for all U. S. homosexuals. Never before have homosexuals claimed their right as citizens.”

You can read the full, fascinating story of how a tiny magazine in Los Angeles beat the incredible odds here.

Jesse Helms Calls Gays “Disgusting People”: 1990. When the three-term Senator from North Carolina stood on the platform at the state fairgrounds before a crowd of 1,700 to announce his intention to run for a fourth term, there was no doubt whatsoever what his platform would be: abortions and gays. “Family values in American are under attack as never before,” he said. “Think about it. Homosexuals and lesbians, disgusting people marching in our streets demanding all sorts of things, including the right to marry each other. How do you like them apples?” Helms won that election, and another one again in 1996 before finally leaving the Senate in 2003. Helms is currently dead.

TODAY’S BIRTHDAY:
Charles Nelson Reilly: 1931. He was a very well respected Broadway actor, director and drama school teacher, but he was best known and beloved for his campy comedic roles and as a panelist on the game show The Match Game. His break on Broadway came in 1960 with Bye Bye Birdie. His part was small, but it opened the door to 1961’s Pulitzer prize-winning musical How To Succeed in Business Without Really Trying. He was also featured in 1964’s Hello, Dolly! Through the 1960s and 70s, he had several comedic guest appearances on television. He was a regular on The Dean Martin Show and made countless appearances on The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson. His campy character and his flamboyant dress marked him as a gay man. He never explicitly acknowledged it, although he would joke about how “butch” he was on The Match Game. No one asked, he didn’t tell, but everyone knew and no one bothered much with keeping the secret. In 2002, he finally discussed his private live in his one-man show Save It for the Stage, which became the basis for the autobiographical independent film, The Life of Reilly. He was too ill to attend its premiere in 2006 at South by Southwest, and he died at home on in 2007.

Edmund White: 1940. He was born in Cincinnati and grew up in Chicago, then studied Chinese at the University of Michigan. He worked as a journalist in New York, then moved to France and settled in as a writer. In 1973, he co-wrote the first edition of The Joy of Gay Sex with psychiatrist Charles Silverstein, and that set him on his course of what one observer called his dedication to sexual truth-telling. His best known work, A Boy’s Own Story, was the first volume in his autobiographical-fiction trilogy that continued with The Beautiful Room Is Empty and The Farewell Symphony. His 2006 memoir, My Lives provides a frank and unflinching account of growing up gay in the Midwest and his life since then. In 2006, he told journalist Steve Dow, “Writing has always been my recourse when I’ve tried to make sense of my experience or when it’s been very painful. When I was 15 years old, I wrote my first (unpublished) novel about being gay, at a time when there were no other gay novels. So I was really inventing a genre, and it was a way of administering a therapy to myself, I suppose.” White is currently a member of the faculty of Princeton University’s Creative Writing Program.

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?

Anti-gay denominations align and identify themselves

Today an “Open Letter from Religious Leaders in the United States” was issued which declared equality to be a threat to “religious freedom”. It’s the usual tripe fancied up in silk robes and stinking of incense presented to “All Americans” as though it were universal truth. And, as it pretends to serve “the wellbeing of the couple, of children, of civil society and all people” this letter was not humble in its demands.

Basically, it demands the rights of religious individuals (not just churches) to discriminate in a broad cross-section of the law, and not only for themselves, but in their capacity as caretakers of public funds. The areas they demand this special privilege include “employment discrimination, employment benefits, adoption, education, healthcare, elder care, housing, property, and taxation”.

To be very clear, the signatories of this document wish to pro-actively discriminate against gay people in the allocation of public moneys and even – as they explicitly state – in taxation. They wish to retain the ability to engage in “adverse employment action” against employees “for the public act of obtaining a civil “marriage” with a member of the same sex.”

They call it “religious freedom”.

Therefore, we encourage all people of good will to protect marriage as the union between one man and one woman, and to consider carefully the far-reaching consequences for the religious freedom of all Americans if marriage is redefined. We especially urge those entrusted with the public good to support laws that uphold the time-honored definition of marriage, and so avoid threatening the religious freedom of countless institutions and citizens in this country. Marriage and religious freedom are both deeply woven into the fabric of this nation.

In the name of faith and religion they explicitly demand the ability to fire gay people, deny them employment, deny education, healthcare and housing, and instill punitive taxation. Further they demand exemption from restrictions which require that public funds are provided to the citizens without discrimination.

A less holy document would be difficult to conceive.

But yet, a selection of denominations have joined ranks to present themselves as a force advocating for preference for themselves and for the unabashed mistreatment of their neighbor. And while acronyms are employed to give the appearance of a broad coalition, this bunch consists mostly of the usual suspects: the Roman Catholic Church, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (the Mormons), the Southern Baptist Convention, several Pentecostal / charismatic churches, a number of Brethren groups, Wesleyan-holiness denominations, Orthodox Jews, a few composite groups, some ‘me too’ folks, and those offshoots of mainline churches that left due to their denomination’s pro-gay positions:

Missing, of course, was any mention of those denominations that find Christ’s Commission to be inclusive and who believe their neighbor to be not only the Samaritan but also the gay couple across the street.

I find these declarations useful. They establish, lest there be question, those churches that feel entitled and privileged and who actively serve as a danger to the freedom not only of gay people, but of all Americans who dare to differ with them in any area of doctrine or dogma (ironically, when they aren’t united in fighting Teh Ghey, these same churches are fighting tooth and toenail to demean, destroy, and deny civil rights to each other).

Canadian Marriages Invalid? Ctd.

News cycles sometimes get mighty short. We opened this morning with the startling news that a lawyer for the Canadian government filed documents in a divorce case of a non-Canadian lesbian couple contending that their marriage is invalid because it isn’t legally recognize where they live. The couple was married in Canada, but live in Florida and England, neither of which recognize same-sex marriages.

Now the Conservative government of Stephen Harper is making noises that it will “clarify” the laws on same-sex marriage. The Globe and Mail now reports that Justice Minister Rob Nicholson has backed the claims in the court filing, saying that Canada has no jurisdiction over the divorce despite the fact that the couple wed in Toronto in 2005. But he added, “I will be looking at options to clarify the law so that marriages in Canada can be undone in Canada.”

Other Canadian leaders have denounced the government lawyers’ position, calling it a global embarrassment for a country that prides itself for being on the forefront of human rights. Liberal leader Bob Ray called the position “illogical” and “ludicrous.” Harper said, “We have no intention of further re-opening or opening this issue,” although it must be said that if the Justice Department lawyers’ position is backed by his government, than Harper has reopened the issue whether it was his intention to or not.

The federal government’s position does not yet have the force of law. At this point it is only an argument before a judge, who has yet to issue a ruling. But it has already sparked a political controversy in a country where about two-thirds of its citizens support equal access to marriage.

Wade Henderson: “Civil rights must be measured by a single yardstick”

Wade Henderson, President and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, presented an Op-Ed in the Baltimore Sun. It gives wise counsel to all of us and is worth reading in its entirety.

Terms like “gay is the new black” are inherently disrespectful to the black experience in America. These types of misleading slogans obscure the uniqueness of both groups’ struggles in an attempt to make a neat and tidy analogy. After all, gays and lesbians were never enslaved or subject to the harsh Jim Crow tactics of oppression, lynching, and intimidation in the way that blacks were.

And yet while their story of oppression and injustice is not the same as ours, it is equally valid. African-Americans recognize injustice when we see it. Gays and lesbians have been incarcerated, brutalized, lobotomized, raped, castrated, and robbed of their jobs, families and children.
…
In Maryland, gays and lesbians are engaging in a fight for their civil rights — for marriage equality. And we must not let rhetoric that seeks to appropriate our experience blind us to a simple fact: that while the journeys of our two communities may be different, our ultimate goals are the same.

Washington: AP’s vote count shows hope for Senate

The State of Washington will be introducing an equality bill next week which will treat gay citizens who wish to marry the same as heterosexual citizens who wish to marry. The vote is expected to pass the House will little trouble, but the vote in the Senate is close. However the Associated Press reached out to the Senate members to get a feeling of where the votes lie. There are 49 Senators, so in order for the bill to pass, the support of 25 is required.

Here is what they found:

Sen. Cheryl Pflug

22 yes, including 20 Democrats and 2 Republicans. In addition to the previously mentioned Sen. Steve Litzow, Republican Sen. Cheryl Pflug indicated her support.

“I don’t feel diminished when another human being is allowed to exercise the same rights that I enjoy. I would feel diminished if I voted to deny others the right to exercise those same rights and freedoms.”

18 no, including 2 Democrats and 16 Republicans. Among the Republicans is Sen. Curtis King of Yakima who supported the domestic partnerships bill but does not feel ready to support full equality.

6 uncommitted, including 4 Democrats and 2 Republicans. Sen. Rosemary McAuliffe (D – Bothell) is leaning in favor of support and Democrats Brian Hatfield of Raymond, Jim Kastama of Puyallup and Paull Shin of Edmonds have previously voted against expanding rights but are now considering supporting the equality bill. Freshmen Republicans Sens. Joe Fain of Auburn and Andy Hill of Redmond are talking with their constituents before they make a determination either way.

Which leaves 3 about which the AP doesn’t provide information.

If supporters of equality can pick up three of the nine uncertain votes, then marriage equality is assured in the legislature.

Almost certainly opponents would begin collecting signatures to bring that vote to a referendum of the electorate. Anti-gay activists in 2009 found it very difficult to collect enough signatures to Ref. 71 on the ballot. As this is marriage rather than domestic partnerships it might be easier to collect signatures. But, on the other hand, anti-gay activists in Washington may be discouraged and find few willing to commit the time and energy into a project that they fear will only lose and start a trend towards voter-approved equality.

This promises to live up to Washington’s reputation for nail-biting situations.

Another good day for the box of rocks, not so great for Santorum

This year Ohio Republicans changed the method by which delegates to the national nominating convention are selected. Rather than “winner takes all”, each of 16 congressional district will send three delegates based on the winner of that district. An additional 18 delegates are selected proportionately from the statewide vote (provided that the candidate gets at least 20 percent of the vote) for a total of 66 delegates.

That’s more than can be counted on your fingers and toes, and it seems that Rick Santorum got a bit confused. (Politico)

All six major GOP candidates have been certified and will appear on the Ohio ballot, according to a list released by the Ohio secretary of state’s office today. But Rick Santorum, the release said, did not file delegates in the 6th, 9th or 13th congressional districts — and loses his chance at getting any delegates in those districts.

When asked about the issue, the bocks of rocks opted not to comment.

Karger beats Bachmann in New Hampshire

Granted Michele Bachmann had withdrawn from the race for the presidency. Nevertheless, it is with great amusement that we pass on this information from the campaign of openly gay GOP presidential candidate Fred Karger:

BACHMANN – Total Votes 347

Belknap 26
Carroll 20
Cheshire 25
Coos 6
Grafton 31
Hillsborough 80
Merrimack 34
Rockingham 82
Strafford 33
Sullivan 10

KARGER – Total Votes 485

Belknap 6
Carroll 11
Cheshire 22
Coos 5
Grafton 27
Hillsborough 252
Merrimack 52
Rockingham 72
Strafford 28
Sullivan 10

Cancun equality on hold

According to media reports, the Quintana Roo Secretary of State, Lois Gonzalez Flores, has ordered a legal review of the state’s marriage law. Until the state’s position is determined, same-sex marriages in Quintana Roo (home of Cancun) are put on hold.

Canadian marriages invalid?

A document filed in Canadian court by the federal government seems to argue that the governemt’s position is that out-of-nation same-sex marriages are invalid. The Globe and Mail identified documents filed in the divorce case of a lesbian couple who resided in Florida and England, neither of which recognize same-sex marriages.

The position, which seems to have taken Conservative Prime Minister Steven Harper by surprise, in addition to being aggressive and pointless, introduces an issue that Harper insists isn’t on the Conservative agenda and is not likely to well serve the image of his government. A poll taken last July found that 61% of Canadians wish to keep legal equality

The courts have yet to weigh in on the matter (but are rather unlikely to weaken equality). And in response to the brouhaha resulting from the Globe and Mail’s report, I think it likely that the Harper government will soon ‘clarify’ that marriages are not invalidated based on their legality in other nations.

UPDATE:

GLAD, the ACLU, Freedom to Marry, NCLR, and Lambda Legal issued a joint statement encouraging gay couples not to worry.

No one’s marriage has been invalidated or is likely to be invalidated. The position taken by one government lawyer in a divorce is not itself precedential. No court has accepted this view and there is no reason to believe that either Canada’s courts or its Parliament would agree with this position, which no one has asserted before during the eight years that same-sex couples have had the freedom to marry in Canada.

Maryland Senate President Mike Miller must go

Earlier today, Senate President Mike Miller, Democrat from Calvert & Prince George’s Counties, said that mixed race marriages were an attack on the family. He also discussed how from a historical perspective Jews were a threat to civilization.

Actually Miller didn’t make those statements. And if he had, it would be the lead story in every news venue. In fact, had Miller spoke against equality for any sub-population of the this country – Muslims, undocumented immigrants, inner-city youth, any subpopulation at all – using language suggesting that these people were a threat of any sort, Democratic Party leadership would have immediately called for his resignation.

But instead, Miller said that gay marriage is not a civil rights issue but an “attack on the family, an attack on traditional families”, based on him being “a historian” that “studies civilizations” and that while he will “let democracy prevail”, he would be voting against equality. He lamented that Catholic Charities isn’t able to use public funds to discriminate against gay taxpayers in Washington DC and expressed his opinion that despite a poll a year ago showing that a majority of Marylanders favor equality, “a coming together of Evangelicals, Catholics, African Americans are going to go to the polls and I think it’s going to be defeated”. Oh, and undoubtedly he also counts on the “historian” vote.

So far, Stonewall Democrats have failed to call for his resignation. HRC has not commented. GLAAD is silent. I’ve not heard a single Democratic leader who has found that Miller’s statements disqualify him from leadership.

Until slurs and slanders against gay people are treated with the seriousness given to slurs and slanders against other minority groups, then we cannot hope for equality. For as long as we allow it to be more acceptable to hold anti-gay positions than other animus-based positions, then we give permission to discriminate against us.

Anti-gay slurs are abhorrent and have no legitimacy anywhere. But they especially have no place in Democratic Party leadership. Mike Miller needs to step aside and allow someone who does not champion bigotry to take his place.