Box Turtle Bulletin

FRC: Not Too Late To Block DADT Repeal

The Family “Research” Council never admits defeat. In an Op-Ed posted on Fox News, FRC continues to falsely portray the Pentagon’s survey as evidence that DADT’s repeal will be bad for morale. But when 70% believe that having a gay service member in their unit will have a positive, mixed, or no effect on the unit’s ability to “work together to get the job done,” it’s hard to see where FRC is coming from — unless they want to encourage the minority who think otherwise to make DADT’s repeal a problem for unit cohesion. Even chaplains are on board with the change.

The repeal’s full implementation is expected to occur sometime this summer.

Lou Engle’s TheCall Announced for Wasilla, Detroit

Lou Engle is taking his dominionist craziness of TheCall Crisis to the capital of crazy, Wasilla, Alaska. Why? “We believe that Alaska is key to the future of this nation,” he explains. Citing Oil, earthquakes, and apparently Johnny Cash, all signs point to Alaska as “a place of refuge for our nation.” Engle’s TheCall is part of a larger 2-day conference set for June 3-4.

Engle, who is transfixed by key numbers when they repeat themselves on the calendar, has also announced a gathering slated for Detroit on “11.11.11.” He is also a stealth supporter of Uganda’s “Kill-the-gays” bill.

BTB Will Be Down for Maintenance This Evening

I’ve been notified by our web hosting service that the server on which BTB resides will be shut down and replaced. The replacement had been scheduled for later this week, but has been moved up to this evening due to increasing server problems. If you’ve been experiencing any problems accessing BTB recently, now you know why.

The switchover is scheduled to begin this evening (April 19th) starting at 9.00 P.M EST. They didn’t say how long it would take, but the original change window was given as a two hour period. If we’re not online this evening, you’ll know what happened.

Update 4/20: It looks like we’ve made it through the night and all is well. We’re not going all Queerty on you.

Reply to George: XIV. Justify Your Love

[This post is part of a series analyzing Robert George’s widely-read article, “What is Marriage“, which appeared on pages 245-286 of the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. You can view all posts in the series here.]

Robert George has some challenges for us “revisionists.” He says we can’t meet them, but you know what?  He’s wrong.

What exactly is he saying?

George starts with typical clarity and grace.

Although the conjugal view is, despite its critics, not only inferable from certain widely accepted features of marriage and good for society, but also internally coherent, no version of the revisionists’ view accounts for some of their own beliefs about marriage: namely, that the state has an interest in regulating some relationships, but only if they are romantic—presumptively sexual—and only if they are monogamous.

This sentence is 66 words long. The verb (“accounts”) doesn’t appear until word 33. To get to the subject of the sentence (“no version”) you have to wade through four — four! — introductory phrases set off by commas. Is this trivial?

No.

Bad writing is a great mask for poor reasoning:  If it’s this hard to read, it must be deep! Or:  I don’t know what he’s saying but he sure sounds smart! Don’t fall for it.  In reality, convoluted prose often means there’s less here than meets the eye.

Anyway, back to his argument.

Obviously, I disagree that George’s conjugal/procreative view is “not only inferable…but internally consistent.” As we’ve seen, it manages to be circular and self-contradictory at the same time — no mean feat.

The rest of the statement has problems, too. After all, no one is arguing that that state has an interest in “regulating” only romantic, monogamous relationships. The state sets down law for all sorts of relationships:  parent and child, guardian and ward, business partners, buyer and seller, donor and recipient

This is so obvious, in fact, that I point it out mainly as another instance of George’s inadequate presentation of his case, something that’s allowed him to gloss over many of its flaws.

George is really challenging us “revisionists” to demonstrate that (1) the state has an interest in applying marital law to relationships as long as they are (2) romantic and (3) monogamous.

The purpose of government

In point (1), as far as I can tell, George is bringing up a common theme among procreationists:  The state has an interest in continuing the generation of healthy, educated, and well-adjusted citizens. Therefore, the state has an interest in regulating the relationships of those adults who bear and rear each successive generation. But why does the state have any interest in regulating marriage if marriage is unconnected to children?

There is so much wrong here.

I’d like to start with the ugliness of the question itself — ugly, because it relies on the (understandably) unstated assumption that the state should only do those things which benefit the state.

That may be the guiding principle in a totalitarian country. In a free land, though, we have to remember this: The individual does not exist to serve the State.

For instance, freedom of speech is vital to good governance and is thus in the interests of the state — but that’s not the only reason we allow individuals the right to speak freely. The same is true of freedom of religion. And assembly. And a multitude of other rights guaranteed to citizens.

It’s un-American to imply the government should secure a citizen’s rights only if they are in the interests of the state. And it’s profoundly un-American to deny the citizens are endowed with:

certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…

Worth repeating: to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men. It is not the duty of the citizen to justify his or her rights to the state.

This is actually a major parting of the ways between our opponents and us. Conservatives, almost by definition, insist the burden of proof is on those who advocate change. But in a free country, shouldn’t the burden be on those who would limit that freedom?

The “revisionist” case for civil marriage

So let’s reframe George’s first issue. Stop focusing on the interests of the state. Let’s just ask why our “revisionist” view does imply the government should enact marital law. Keep in mind that George isn’t asking here why same-sex marriage should be legal. No, he asking why marriage itself should be a legal concept under the revisionist view.

First, let’s remind ourselves of George’s definition of this view:

Marriage is the union of two people (whether of the same sex or of opposite sexes) who commit to romantically loving and caring for each other and to sharing the burdens and benefits of domestic life.

Well, this is easy.

Adults who want to want to “commit to romantically loving and caring for each other and to sharing the burdens and benefits of domestic life” will often want to raise children.  It’s perhaps the most daunting and profound task the ordinary person will face, and as a great book says, “Two are better than one; because they have a good reward for their labour. For if they fall, the one will lift up his fellow: but woe to him that is alone when he falleth; for he hath not another to help him up.”

It’s clearly in the interest of children to have a stable environment and to have regulations around the parents’ commitment to each other and to the child. This is true whether you’re a revisionist or a procreationist, whether you’re same-sex parents or opposite-sex.

But take children out of the picture. Imagine two adults, Riley and Jordan. Riley is a highly-paid Vice President of Manufacturing, while Jordan builds a reputation as an artist (but doesn’t make much money). What happens if Riley dies?

• Does Jordan get to keep their home, or must it be sold and their savings liquidated to pay estate taxes?
• Will Jordan receive the social security payments that Riley paid into the system?
• Where does Riley’s pension and 401(k) go?
• If Riley is hospitalized before dying, who will get to visit, and who makes the difficult end-of-life decisions?

These are all legal questions and they require a legal solution. Many of our opponents repeat the pernicious myth that Riley and Jordan could handle this through wills and powers of attorney. Tell that to Ron Hanby and Mark Goldberg.

The nightmare of legal limbo

Ron Hanby, struggling with depression, took his own life on October 2, 2008. Mark Goldberg, his partner of 17 years, battled Rhode Island bureaucracy for weeks before the state would release Ron’s body to him. Ron had no living relatives. The couple, however, did have:

• wills
• living wills
• power of attorney documents
• and a Connecticut marriage certificate (Rhode Island didn’t permit same-sex marriage or even civil unions)

None of that mattered in Rhode Island. Mark spent every day of his immediate grief on the phone with state officials, trying to get his husband’s body out of the morgue. Finally, after four weeks, a state bureaucrat took a special interest and helped him get Ron’s body released.

Read Mark’s own description of what his life turned into:

I called the Police to our home where the death occurred and in two hours they performed their investigation, offered their condolences, removed Ron’s body and left our house. No one offered any information on what I was to do next. No phone number to contact the detective in charge, no information on where they were taking Ron’s body, no information on what I as his partner for so many years should do next.

Ron had no next of kin other than me.  I shared our Wills, Living Wills, Power of Attorney and Marriage Certificate to the Police Department, Medical Examiner’s Office and the Department of Health, but no one was willing to see these documents. The State Law stated that a two week search for next of kin must be done. The Medical Examiner’s office waited a full week before placing an ad in the Providence Journal. After no one responded they waited another week to send paperwork to the Health and Human Services Department listing Ron as an unclaimed body. During this four week process, I was on the phone every day trying to convince someone, anyone, that I was the person claiming Ron’s body. The same response came back to me every time; “It’s State law, our hands are tied, there’s nothing we can do”.

I attempted to place an obituary in the Providence Journal and again, I was denied because we were not blood relatives, and the Journal had to comply with state rules. GLAD, the Gay and Lesbian Advocacy and Defenders could not help me because our bond was not recognized in the State of RI. After four weeks an employee in the Department of General Public Assistance of Human Services took pity upon me and my plight. She reviewed our documentation and was able to get all parties concerned to release Ron’s body to me.

When this came to light, the Rhode Island legislature tried to pass the most simple of legal recognitions for same-sex couples:  a bill creating funeral rights for domestic partners. They passed it in a bipartisan show of humanity: 63-1 in the House, unanimously in the Senate. And the Republican governor vetoed it.

The National Organization for Marriage urged legislators to let the veto stand. (Robert George is the Founding Chairman of NOM.) Chris Plante, executive director of NOM-RI, wrote:

[T]he proposed legislation simply is not necessary… The right of any person, without regard to sexual preference or relationship to the decedent, to serve as a designated funeral-planning agent is already expressly guaranteed by Rhode Island Law 5-33.1-4. That statute only requires a simple notarized form naming an agent.

Ah, yes, Rhode Island Law 5-33.1-4. Of course. And what can we say in return except:

Thank you Mr. Plante!

Mark and Ron had wills, power of attorney, and an actual marriage license? Simpletons! They should have known to go to a notary and designate each other as funeral planning agents, pursuant to R.I. Law 5-33.1-4!

This is the Kafka-esque nightmare faced by couples who “commit to romantically loving and caring for each other and to sharing the burdens and benefits of domestic life” in states that offer their relationships no legal recognition. Lord only knows how many other forms and requirements Hanby and Goldberg would have needed to get their legal rights. And that’s just in one state. Imagine the hell they would go through if they decided to travel cross-country, investigating procedures and filling out forms in every state they visited.

Of course, some problems can’t be solved even if you have every bit of paperwork intact. Shirley Tan learned this the hard way when immigration officials shackled her in front of her kids and spouse, and hauled her off for possible deportation.

“Regulating”?

These examples point out another big flaw in the way George framed the issue:  But why does the state have any interest in regulating marriage if marriage is unconnected to children?

Hmm. That word:  “regulating.”

“Regulating,” for me at least, has connotations of control. Regulation says you must do this or must not do that. But many of the “regulations” around marriage have to do with rights.

These rights exist so people can build a life together that neither could build alone. They exist so that if one partner dies, the other is not devastated by losing their home or struggling for weeks to retrieve the body from the morgue. They exist so you can keep your partner in the country instead of having her deported to the place where a man killed her sister and mother and tried to kill her.

George almost understands that.  He believes the government should recognize and regulate marriage for couples who can procreate (and, through tortured reasoning, for couples who can’t procreate but still have a penis and vagina).

However, he claims it’s “much harder to defend” the need for legal, civil marriage when the partners are merely people who “commit to romantically loving and caring for each other and to sharing the burdens and benefits of domestic life.” That’s mind-boggling, a statement that could only be written by someone who (1) does not understand what it means to commit to another person or (2) has some personal need to endorse his own view at the expense of rational argument.

Let’s assume, for George’s sake, that the answer is (2).

Next: We’ll look at parts 2 and 3 of this “challenge” from George.

Leader of Maine’s Yes on 1 Campaign Admits to Lying

Liar

A new documentary is due to be released this summer which goes behind the scenes of Maine’s 2009 campaign to deny marriage equality for same-sex couples. Documentarians Joe Fox and James Nubile obtained permission to film both camps on the provision that the documentary not air until after the campaign was over. Now that it’s due to air later this year, a trailer for Question One has been posted online, complete with a very candid admission from Yes on 1 campaign chairman Marc Mutty:

We use a lot of hyperbole and I think that’s always dangerous,” says Mutty during a Yes on 1 strategy session, at the time on leave from his job as public affairs director for the Roman Catholic Diocese of Maine.

“You know, we say things like ‘Teachers will be forced to (teach same-sex marriage in schools)!’ ” he continues. “Well, that’s not a completely accurate statement and we all know it isn’t, you know?”

“No,” interjects a woman off-camera. “We don’t say that.”

“Let’s look back at our ads and see what we say,” Mutty persists. “And I think we use hyperbole to the point where, you know, it’s like ‘Geez!'”

Mutty admitted that what they were doing was the equivalent of slamming people over the head with “a two-by-four with nails sticking out of it,” adding, ” it’s the only thing we’ve got — it’s the only way. That’s the way campaigns work.”

Mutty now regrets allowing the filming, worrying that “what impact it will have on my professional life remains to be seen.”

Betsy Smith, the executive director of Equality Maine, summed it all up nicely by observing that opponents’ religious motivations (McNutty was an official with the Roman Catholic Diocese of Maine) didn’t translate into an ethical campaign:

Still, she said, “sometimes you want to believe that at least they believed in what they were saying. You want to believe that they feel so passionately about religion and tradition that the things they put out there, they believe, are true.”

And now?

“It’s striking to hear them say ‘No, we knew all along that wasn’t true,'” Smith said. “‘We were just hitting people over the head with a two-by-four with nails because that’s the only option we had.'”

Harry Jackson: Marriage Equality “Is A Satanic Plot to Destroy Our Seed”

Via Right Wing Watch comes this audio of an interview between Bradlee Dean of the You Can Run But You Cannot Hide Ministry and Bishop Harry Jackson, Jr., discussing his fight against marriage equality in Washington, DC.

Bradlee Dean: The bond that men have when they are persecuted for rightesousness’ sake, those are brothers. And it doesn’t matter what color. We’re all one blood. What I like about what’s going on here with you is you’re the one taking the forefront on the gay issue here, you’re reaping it from let me say the wicked, let me say from those that want to overthrow righteousness, overthrow law. This is the homosexual agenda that’s going on in D.C. and the capital of the United States right now from some of these people…

Harry Jackson: They’re playing hardball…

Dean: They are, big time.

Jackson: I’m an African-American, and I especially believe that what we’re dealing with is a satanic plot to destroy our seed. I think that where we are now is that there is an issue of justice that is being perverted, and we have a minority group, in a sense, that has decided that they are going to impose their will on the culture and…

Dean: By force

Jackson: … by force, and redefine God’s law and not care whether a whole generation of people are so confused that they don’t even remember the role of a mother and a father. And men did not create the concept of femininity or masculinity. It is in the heart of God. Where we are is an interesting period of time. I believe that a great awakening is about to come forth…

Dean: Amen.

Jackson: …I believe you’re a part of it. I believe those who are hearing the sound of your voice are called to be revolutionaries that rise up and interact. We’re not going to take up guns in terms of fighting with those kind of weapons. The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but are mighty through God to the pulling down the strongholds. We’re going to turn America around as we contend lawfully for our sacred rights.

According to Jackson, contending “lawfully” includes lying about where his legal residence is.

Do Teens Commit Suicide More In Politically Conservative Areas?

That’s the conclusion drawn by Columbia University psychologist Mark Hatzenbuehler in a study to be published in an upcoming issue of the journal Pediatrics. I haven’t seen the study myself, but based on news reports and the meager information provided in the study’s abstract, I think caution is in order.

Using data drawn from an Oregon survey, Hatzenbuehler created an social environment index based on (1) the proportion of same-sex couples, (2) the proportion of registered Democrats, (3) the presence of gay-straight alliances in schools, and (4) school policies (nondiscrimination and anti-bullying) that specifically protected lesbian, gay, and bisexual students. Based on that cross-tabulation, he concluded that not only were LGBT students about five times more likely to attempt suicide in the previous twelve months, but that LGBT students were “20% greater in unsupportive environments compared to supportive environments.”

That conclusion passes the gut check, but one can be misled by one’s gut. My first question is this: to what extent does the study control for rural vs. urban environments? That seems like a logical questions, and it immediately leapt to mind in discovering that the data was based on an Oregon survey. Oregon’s urban areas are almost exclusively Democratic while its more rural areas are more uniformly conservative. If this study had taken place in, say, Arizona, where there is a significant mix of urban areas that are wildly conservative (Phoenix, Mesa, Gilbert), and other urban areas which trend Democratic (Tucson, Flagstaff), the result may show something very different. California’s mix of liberal and conservative urban and rural areas would also provide fertile ground to study this further.

Until we know more about this study, I believe caution would be well advised. I hope to obtain a copy of the study soon.

One Colorado addresses veiled bullying of Focus’ “Day of Dialogue”

In 2004 on the annual pro-gay Day Of Silence, Poway High School sophomore Tyler Chase Harper modified his tee shirt to read “Be Ashamed” and “Homosexuality is Shameful.”  School officials asked Harper to remove the message, he refused, and was pulled from classes from the remainder of the day.  Harper immediately became a celebrity in the anti-gay movement, filed a lawsuit against the school  (which he would eventually lose) and became the poster-twink for the following year’s anti-gay “Day Of Truth.”  Since that time the Day Of Truth has been run by Harper’s lawyers at the Alliance Defense Fund, Exodus International, and this year Focus On The Family which has renamed the event “Day Of Dialogue.”

But no matter what form this day takes, the message to gay youth remains the same; your sexuality is shameful and you must pray yourself straight.

In the current climate of bullying-awareness Colorado’s equality org, One Colorado has chosen to frame the anti-gay Day Of Dialogue as a form of bullying gay youth will be subjected to.  One Colorado’s executive director Brad Clark has penned an open letter to Focus On The Family in today’s Denver Post:

I hope that the Day of Dialogue is about having a real dialogue—one that appreciates a diversity of viewpoints, including those of the American Medical Society, an esteemed organization which has concluded that being LGBT is not a disease or defect. Or the position of the American Psychological Association, which opposes any attempt to try to change one’s sexual orientation or gender identity.

If the Day of Dialogue is not truly a dialogue but a day when Focus followers will be empowered and encouraged to say hurtful things to vulnerable LGBT students—it is simply a new form of bullying. One that doesn’t punch or shove—but that takes a psychological toll on youth who deserve the same respect and dignity as any other student.

Why bullies are a good thing

It can perplex us at times why strident anti-gay activists would oppose programs designed to reduce bullying. We see the destruction and death that result and think that surely any decent moral person would want to change that dynamic.

But Robert Knight provides us with insight as to why anti-gays not only refuse to join the campaign against bullying but actively oppose it.

Confronting bullies helps build character.

It isn’t often that one sentence can be lifted from an essay and, on its own without any context, provide understanding into a worldview. But I believe this to be just such a sentence.

Bullies are good for kids. And as for those gay kids who were tormented to death… I guess they just didn’t build character.

Olson responds to Prop 8’s “hide the tapes” motion

Surely, surely, the Proponents of Proposition 8 are not dumb as a bag of hammers. Surely the elevator goes all the way to the top, the lights are on and someone is home, they have enough bricks for a load, and their combo plate does not need another taco. It is simply inconceivable that a box of rocks might, indeed, have a higher IQ.

But they are doing their best to convince us otherwise.

On Wednesday, they fired up an indignant motion for the courts to put all video of the Perry v. Schwarzenegger trial under lock and key, signed by none other than lead counsel Chuck Cooper. I noted that this was but part of their desire to keep any evidence of their testimony locked in the closet, where they think gay people should be.

On Thursday, Judge Walker (an advocate for accountability) used their motion as an opportunity to give them – and the court – a little advice about the wisdom of denying the public access to its government.

But today is when we see how, as a strategic image effort, their motion was a colossal error in judgment. Today Ted Olson responded.

Olson’s opposition to the motion had four components. The first of these is obvious: the plaintiffs oppose the rounding up of the visual record of the trial. No surprises there. But it was interesting to discover that the ruling on the televising of the trial was not as expansive as the Proponents claim it to be:

That decision was explicitly limited to “the live streaming of court proceedings to other federal courthouses” and did not address other uses, such as the “broadcast of court proceedings on the Internet,” let alone the very limited use challenged here.

Olson’s second use of his filing was to point out the motivations behind their motion (this should sound familiar).

Through the present Motion, the Proponents of Proposition 8 seek to sequester and forever conceal from the American people video that accurately and without adornment depicts the testimony and argument each party presented at trial, and that the trial court considered when reaching the decision that Proponents now challenge. … Proponents’ fierce determination to shield access by any member of the American public to the actual compelling evidence which demonstrated the unconstitutionality of Proposition 8 and the paucity of evidence that Proponents presented in its defense directly conflicts with this Nation’s constitutional commitment to public and open judicial process and serves no legitimate public end.

The third response was stronger: not only should they not return the tapes, but they should be made public.

In addition to the First Amendment interest, the public has a common law right to view judicial records. Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978) (“It is clear that the courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.”) (footnote omitted). This right cannot be abridged absent “a showing that the denial serves an important governmental interest and that there is no less restrictive way to serve that governmental interest.” Publicker Indus., 733 F.2d at 1070. Where, as here, the subject of the trial is a matter of great public importance, the public’s right to see the trial is heightened. Moreover, Proponents cannot and do not argue that the subject of the trial was in any way confidential or contained sensitive, proprietary information of any party, given that the live proceedings were themselves public.

But it was Olson’s clever fourth stroke that made me laugh out loud. Knowing that the media follows and reports every facet of this case, Olson used his opposition to the motion to remind everyone that there is record available – some of it video – and they should go check it out.

There was no reason to keep the video of this trial under the cover of darkness in the first place. Indeed, videos of two of the Proponents’ experts and one of the official Proponents of Proposition 8 are already available on the district court’s website. https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/09cv2292/evidence/index.html. The 13-volume trial transcript is part of the public record and widely available on the internet. So too are reenactment videos of actors reading those transcripts widely available, including on YouTube. Accordingly, this Court should not only deny Proponents’ motion, it should order the video’s immediate release to allow the public to see the rest of the actual witnesses rather than being limited to actors’ portrayals.

And there ain’t no chance in hell that the Prop 8 Proponents wanted anyone to ever remember this guy:

I can see the Proponents thinking that they had a gotcha and could go whining to the courts in order to make Judge Walker look bad. But they had to know that Olson would respond. And by now they most certainly should be aware that you should never ever ever give Ted Olson an opportunity to speak when you don’t know where he’s going to go.

They can’t be unaware of that, can they? I mean, they aren’t just flat out stupid. Right?

Laurie Higgins hates the sinner

Laurie Higgins is an activist who writes strident florid diatribes decrying “the normalization of homosexuality” for the the anti-gay hate group, Illinois Family Association (IFI is one of only seventeen groups so designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center). But Laurie doesn’t see herself as a hater – or not of people. Laurie only hates sin.

Higgins’ specialty is schools and one can usually find her railing about the evils of gay-straight alliances, often at about the same time that the news is covering the story of a gay teen who committed suicide. And as part of the small but shrill collection of truly outlandish wackadoodle activists, Laurie is dedicated.

Annually, she calls on Christian parents take their kids out of school on the Day of Silence to show that they oppose its goal of drawing attention to anti-gay bullying and harassment. She considers No Name-Calling Week to be “devilish” because the curriculum, which call on students to not use ‘gay’ as a slur, “manipulate[s] emotions while never exposing or critiquing the assumptions embedded within the activities.”

And it isn’t that Laurie thinks that these are admirable efforts which go too far in their efforts to stop bullying. Nor does she simply think that such efforts unfairly portray conservatives as hateful or uncaring.

Rather, Laurie believes that there should be “a culture of disapproval and condemnation” towards homosexuality. She believes that Christians students have a moral obligation to denounce the homosexual agenda in public schools and cultivate a such a culture.

But Laurie owns no shame for this. She feels no responsibility whatsoever for any consequences that come from her campaign. That children suffer is not due to her words of truth but due to the confusion from others lying to them and deceiving their soul.

And Laurie is firmly convinced that it is she who genuinely loves those who experience a disordered sexual attraction to their same sex. Unlike the depraved, carrion-devouring culture, Laurie loves them enough to tell them that a celibate life lived in submission to God is not a lonely, unfulfilled life. She alone is brave enough to tell children that a life in which they will never kiss, hold hands, date, infatuate about, fall in love with, marry, build a life with, and grow old together with anyone ever is a life defined by real love and real peace.

And as much as she loves those depraved and disordered people, she hates their sin. And it is her hatred of the sin of homosexuality that drives her to feats of rhetoric that have contributed to IFI’s recognition as a hate-group.

In fact, Laurie can stand as Example One of the embodiment of St. Augustine’s call to Love the Sinner, Hate the Sin. But the little problem with loving the sinner and hating the sin is that Laurie, like most who live that principle, just can’t tell where the person lets off and their sin begins.

Let’s look at a paragraph from her most recent article. Although it is titled as though calling the church to care, it is just one of her usual encouragements to hate. The sin, of course.

When I think about the evil done to children by teachers who tell them that homosexuality is deserving of respect and affirmation, I become angry, and I desperately want others to experience the righteous anger that should well up in decent people who see young children taught that evil is good. We do not embody the love of Christ when we remain silent while body and soul-destroying lies are being affirmed to and in children, teens, and adults.

Laurie would have us note that it is homosexuality that she opposes. But is it? Are teachers telling children, “homosexuality is deserving of respect and affirmation”?

No, they are not.

Rather, teachers are telling students that homosexual persons are deserving of respect and admiration or, at least, that their homosexuality is not cause for precluding such persons from respect and admiration.

And Laurie doesn’t believe that at all. She thinks that society should be withholding respect and admiration for these people. It should reject and condemn. It should make them feel shame.

When we consider the honesty of the situation, what Laurie really means is:

When I think about the evil done to children by teachers who tell them that homosexuals are deserving of respect and affirmation, I become angry, and I desperately want others to experience the righteous anger that should well up in decent people who see young children taught that evil doers are good. We do not embody the love of Christ when we remain silent while body and soul-destroying lies are being affirmed to and in children, teens, and adults.

But that looks too much like hate so say in public.

And besides Laurie would tell us that she does think that they are, like all of us, “deserving of respect and admiration as a Child of God.” She would go on about their eternal soul and what “real love” means and sacrifice and freedom in Christ and a whole lot of other phrases that allow Laurie to see herself as separate from the misery, pain, and death of innocent children for which she will have to answer to her Maker.

But the truth is that when it comes to real gay people in real situations, Laurie’s sees the sinner as inseparable from their sin. And her only response is hate.

Santorum Never Googled Langston Hughes

Former Sen. Rick “Man on dog” Santorum yesterday hosted a town hall meeting where he unveiled his 2012 Presidentical campaign slogan, “Fighting to make America America again.” Turns out, the pithy phrase didn’t come from Santorum’s creative genius. It’s from a pro-union, pro-racial justice, and pro-immigrant poem by that famous Harlem Renaissance gay poet Langston Hughes. The poem, “Let America Be America Again,” goes, in part, like this:

I am the young man, full of strength and hope,
Tangled in that ancient endless chain
Of profit, power, gain, of grab the land!
Of grab the gold! Of grab the ways of satisfying need!
Of work the men! Of take the pay!
Of owning everything for one’s own greed!

[…] Yet I’m the one who dreamt our basic dream
In the Old World while still a serf of kings,
Who dreamt a dream so strong, so brave, so true,
That even yet its mighty daring sings
In every brick and stone, in every furrow turned
That’s made America the land it has become.
O, I’m the man who sailed those early seas
In search of what I meant to be my home–
For I’m the one who left dark Ireland’s shore,
And Poland’s plain, and England’s grassy lea,
And torn from Black Africa’s strand I came
To build a “homeland of the free.”

The free?

Who said the free? Not me?
Surely not me? The millions on relief today?
The millions shot down when we strike?
The millions who have nothing for our pay?
For all the dreams we’ve dreamed
And all the songs we’ve sung
And all the hopes we’ve held
And all the flags we’ve hung,
The millions who have nothing for our pay–
Except the dream that’s almost dead today.

O, let America be America again–
The land that never has been yet–
And yet must be–the land where every man is free.
The land that’s mine–the poor man’s, Indian’s, Negro’s, ME–
Who made America,
Whose sweat and blood, whose faith and pain,
Whose hand at the foundry, whose plow in the rain,
Must bring back our mighty dream again.

O, yes,
I say it plain,
America never was America to me,
And yet I swear this oath–
America will be!

When informed of the phrase’s origin, Santorum told a reporter from ThinkProgress, “well, I’m not too sure that’s my campaign slogan, I think it’s on a web site.” I can understand how he may not have been too clear about it. I hear Santorum is afraid of the Google.

Uganda Government Treats Opponents Like It Treats Gay People

Uganda held elections recently, and as expected President Yoweri Museveni waltzed into another term in office with 68% of the vote. Whether those elections were free and fair is another matter — Museveni’s cronies dominate the supposedly independent Electoral Commission and he has sharply curtailed broadcasters’ from allowing opposition candidates access to the airwaves. When his next term ends, he will have been in power for 30 years, which would be a remarkable achievement if Uganda were truly a functioning democracy. He is already the longest serving leader in East Africa. Unsurprisingly, Museveni has been sharply critical of the Libya uprising.

Museveni’s main rival, Kizza Besigye, has cried foul over the election results. When Museveni banned protests over the election results, Besigye responded that he wouldn’t hold a protest march, but would instead just “walk to work.” As a result, he has been arrested twice over the past few days. Yesterday, Besigye led a “walk to work” from his home in Kasangati to his party’s office in Najjanankumbi, a 20km trek which would have taken him through the heart of Kampala. Military police responded with teargas, water canon, rubber bullets and batons.  Besigye was hit on his left hand by a rubber bullet and rushed to a hospital.

Forty-seven people were reportedly injured in the violence, some suffering gunshot wounds. A seven-months’ pregnant woman’s condition is described as “grave.” “Walk to work” violence has also broken out throughout western and northern Uganda. At least 220 people were arrested nationwide. The ruling National Resistance Movement itself shows signs of division over the protests. At least one “walk to work” campaign in Mbala was organized by ruling party officials to protest price increases and to denounce the crackdown on the opposition. Opposition members of parliament condemned the government’s crackdown, forcing an early adjournment.

The government banned live broadcasts of the events, and there are reports that Facebook and Twitter have been blocked. Daily Monitor, Uganda’s largest and most reliable independent newspaper, reports that its internet access was interrupted as well. NTV Uganda, which is owned by the same media company as Daily Monitor, nevertheless continued broadcasting updates and posting video on their YouTube channel.

Since Uganda’s independence in 1962, its history has been marked by a series of violent struggles between the in-caste and outcasts. As perennial outcasts, the country’s beleaguered LGBT community has served as the canary in the coalmine — as LGBT communities often do throughout the world. Uganda’s recent anti-gay campaigns culminating in an attempt to kill off its LGBT population serves as a reminder that a country that treats the least of its people with genocidal tendencies is not going to be a benign presence to the legitimate human rights and developmental aspirations of its larger populace. 

If there is an upside, it is that a government that is willing to go through such drastic lengths to prevent its opposition from pointing out its flaws is also the same government that appears determined not to allow its foreign aid be jeopardized by passing the Anti-Homosexuality Bill. But realistically, that’s not even a slim sliver of a silver lining. William Faulkner explained the racial divisions in the Southern U.S. by saying “The past isn’t dead. It isn’t even past.” Uganda’s undead demons are still on the loose.

Delaware House Approves Civil Unions

The Delaware House this evening voted 26-15 in favor of a civil unions bill that will provide all of the rights and benefits of marriage under state law to same-sex couples. The Senate approved the same measure last week. Governor Jack A. Markell has said he will host a signing ceremony next month. The law will take effect at 10 a.m. Jan. 1, 2012.

Judge Walker responds to the “Oh, Noooes! Teh Ghehs Will Recognize Me” hysteria

Yesterday we reported that the Proposition 8 Proponents were demanding that all copies of the videotaped trial be collected, based on the fears that someone might recognize a witness from CSPAN’s video of the video from a distance and at an angle.

I noted that this was preposterous and that their real issue is that they don’t want any audio (and especially video) ever to go public of them saying what they said under oath.

Today Judge Walker responded. He informed the court that the clip was three minutes of the two week trial (which he thought was permissible) but that he would abide by the court’s decision. His conclusion truly sets the entire conflict in perspective:

The Perry case involved a public trial. As Chief Justice Berger observed some years ago, “People in an open society do not demand infallibility in their institutions, but it is difficult for them to accept what they are prohibited from observing.”