Box Turtle Bulletin

Chaplains: DADT repeal no big deal to ministry

From the Christian Post:

Army Chaplain Lt. Col. Carleton Birch said Wednesday that chaplains already have experience in counseling homosexual soldiers and will likely be able to adjust easily to an openly homosexual military.

“I’ve counseled homosexual soldiers when if I told anyone else that, they would get kicked out,” shared Birch, an evangelical.

When asked if chaplains would be limited in their ability to serve soldiers following the “don’t ask, don’t tell” repeal, he said that no changes were necessary to protect chaplains’ rights.

He maintained, “We’ve always been able to preach and teach” and anticipate little change in the future.
…
Lt. Col. Lisa H. Tice, a Reformed chaplain who serves in the personnel, budget and readiness division of the Air Force Office of the Chief of Chaplains, said that Tier 1, the first phase of the military training, is geared towards chaplains.

Tice said of counseling gays, “We don’t see this as a big deal.”

So all the hype about the religious rights of chaplains was just… ummm…. let’s see… well, a less than strictly honest diversion.

Maryland Senate Judicial Committee passes marriage equality

WaPo

Legislation that would legalize same-sex marriages in Maryland was approved Thursday afternoon by a Senate committee, easily clearing the first hurdle needed for passage this year by the General Assembly.

The 7-to-4 vote by the Judicial Proceedings Committee sends the bill the Senate floor, where a lengthy and emotional debate is expected next week on the most high-profile social issue facing lawmakers during their 90-day session.

The bill appears to have the bare majority for passage in the full Senate. The Majority Leader (who opposes marriage equality but agreed not to stand in its way) predicts that the bill will pass.

Facebook Adds “Civil Union” and “Domestic Partnership” To Relationship Status

And everyone’s all a-twitter over it.

More Wikileaks Cables on Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill

I’ve had to correct my earlier report on the Wikileaks dump of cables from the U.S. Embassy in Uganda concerning the draconian Anti-Homosexuality Bill. The original dump was not by The Guardian (UK) as I originally wrote, but by Spain’s El Pais nearly two weeks ago. The trove from El País provides more information than the two cables posted by the Guardian. It may be illuminating to consult our own extensive timeline and compare what we were reporting at the time with the contents of these cables.

For example, there’s this cable from December 21, which focused on the security and safety of local human rights advocates. Among their worries was an upcoming article which appeared in that country’s largest independent newspaper, Daily Monitor. That article featured a brave Val Kalinde, who went public with her difficulties in living in such a repressive atmosphere.

Local gay and lesbian activists pleaded with one member, Val Kalende, to reconsider a feature interview with the opposition newspaper the Daily Monitor. The Monitor ran the interview as the front page story, along with several photographs of Kalende, on December 12. Published under an anonymous byline, the article provides a striking and remarkably well-written portrait of Kalende’s struggle against rising discrimination and hatred. After describing her initial reaction to Bahati’s anti-homosexuality bill, Kalende said: “for the first time, I am very scared.” Bahati’s bill, said Kalende, “is not about homosexuality. It effects everyone; my pastor, my friends. It is not about us gays. Homosexuality is not about sodomizing young boys. What about relationships among people who are not hurting anyone?” The Monitor interview included a sidebar that dispassionately provided the facts about human homosexuality – its history and universality – and thus implicitly debunked many of the most absurd claims made by the bill’s proponents.

Another cable, dated January 28, 2010, describes a meeting between the newly-credentialed U.S. Ambassador Jerry P. Lanier and Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni. According to the cable, Ambassador Lanier received “an earful” from the Ugandan leader:

Museveni made it clear that Uganda will not further criminalize homosexual sex between consenting adults and that the provision on reporting homosexuals to authorities would also not go through. He suggested the entire bill could be dropped, and twice asked the Ambassador to remind Washington that “someone in Uganda”, meaning himself, is handling the matter and knows what he is doing. He also emphasized that Uganda’s main concern is alleged advocacy and recruitment of homosexuals, and that homosexuality between consenting adults has previously been quietly tolerated in Uganda.

The President twice referred to a recent local political cartoon depicting him on this issue as a puppet of Secretary Clinton, Prime Minister Gordon Brown, and Stephen Harper, and asked international donors to stand down to give him room to deal with the anti-homosexuality legislation in his own way. On the way out of the meeting, and in the presence of the Ambassador and Foreign Minster Kutesa only, Museveni directed Kutesa to arrange a private meeting with the Ambassador in February to further discuss the anti-homosexuality bill.

In another cable from February 11, 2010, Museveni met with a delegation of American diplomats at an African Union summit, and asked the Americans to back off a bit in their criticism:

Carson expressed gratitude that Museveni had tamped down the tensions surrounding Uganda’s draft  anti-homosexuality bill. Both Carson and Otero encouraged Museveni to pursue decriminalization and destigmatization of  homosexuality. Museveni warned outsiders of pushing Africa too hard on this issue, lest it create another hurricane, and lectured on African family values. He assured the USG delegation that nobody in Uganda would be executed for homosexual behavior, but explained that in the African context homosexuality is a disorder and not something to be promoted or celebrated. Don’t push it, warned Museveni, “I’ll handle it.”

In fact, Museveni had already worked to put the brakes on the bill’s passage, directing that it be studied by a subcabinet committee. The committee’s recommendations weren’t promising. Meanwhile, the bill itself was sent to two Parliamentary committees for further study. The bill is still in committee today, although there is talk that it may be brought to a vote sometime following tomorrow’s national elections during a lame-duck session of Parliament.

See also:
Feb 17, 2011: Wikileaks Posts Cables from US Embassy in Uganda Concerning Anti-Homosexuality Bill
Feb 17, 2011: More Wikileaks Cables on Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill
Sep 10, 2011: Wikileaks: Ugandan First Lady “Ultimately Behind” Anti-Homosexuality Bill
Sep 11: 2011: More On Ugandan First Lady’s Support For Anti-Homosexuality Bill
Sep 11, 2011: Wikileaks: Vatican Lobbied Against Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill
Sep 12, 2011: Wikileaks on Uganda’s Homosexuality Bill: Museveni “Surprised” and Buturo “Obsessed”
Sep 12, 2011: Ugandan Presidential Aide Confirms Wikileaks Conversation
Sep 23, 2011: Ugandan First Lady Affirms Support For “Kill The Gays” Bill

Wikileaks Posts Cables from US Embassy in Uganda Concerning Anti-Homosexuality Bill

[Update: As Paul Canning points out, these cables were originally released more than a week ago on the Spanish daily El Pais.]

The Guardian (UK) today posted cables provided by Wikileaks from the U.S. embassy in Uganda concerning that nation’s consideration of the draconian Anti-Homosexuality Bill. In an accompanying article, The Guardian highlighted murdered LGBT rights advocate David Kato’s reluctant participation in a UN-sponsored debate in December, 2009, in which he was mocked during his speech. According to the cables,

(Kato) delivered a well-written speech against the bill, but his words were almost inaudible due to “his evident nervousness”. Throughout his talk a member of the Ugandan Human Rights Commission “openly joked and snickered” with supporters of the bill, the diplomat claimed in the cable.

The Christmas Eve, 2009 cable provide more context:

Bahati’s late arrival delayed the event for more than an hour, and the UHRC failed to seat any representative of those opposed to the legislation at the head table, despite seating Bahati and – for unexplained reasons – Uganda’s most outspoken anti-gay activist Martin Ssempa. A comment by an audience member later prompted the UHRC to correct this imbalance by inviting a clearly hesitant and nervous SMUG leader, David Kato, to sit beside Ssempa on the dais. Ssempa proceeded to shake Kato’s hand while striking absurd poses for the assembled press corps.

Bahati’s remarks mirrored his private statements to PolOffs. Bahati also attacked the White House statement opposing the bill, saying that he admires President Obama, that President Obama ran on a platform of change, and that Uganda’s message to him is that “homosexuality is not a change but rather an evil that we must fight.” At this point the room erupted in loud applause, led by Ssempa pounding his hand on the head table, and Bahati observed that oil revenues will free Uganda of foreign entanglements. At other points in Bahati’s tirade against homosexuality, Ssempa registered his support by issuing audible sounds of disgust.

U.S. diplomat wrote of Bahati’s “isolation” following Saddleback Church pastor Rick Warren’s condemnation of the bill. The diplomat wrote:

Recent condemnations by Warren and other U.S. based individuals have further isolated Bahati. His homophobia, however, is blinding and incurable. Bahati, Buturo, and particularly Ssempa’s ability to channel popular anger over Uganda’s socio-political failings into violent hatred of a previously unpopular but tolerated minority is chilling. XXXXXXXXXXXX described Ssempa as an anti-homosexuality “extremist.” XXXXXXXXXXXX said he opposes the legislation not because he favors homosexuality, but because legalizing persecution of homosexuals is the first step toward state sponsored persecution of other minority groups.

It’s not just other minority groups which were concerned, but the political opposition to President Yoweri Museveni’s 25-year rule as well:

In September, Otunnu accused state security services of running a smear campaign about his sexual orientation and HIV status to discredit a potential presidential bid (ref. D). XXXXXXXXXXXX speculated that Uganda could run a similar smear campaign against Besigye, forcing him to curtail presidential campaign activities.

XXXXXXXXXXXX said the opposition FDC fears Uganda will use the anti-homosexuality legislation against Besigye, and recalled government efforts to hobble Besigye’s 2006 presidential campaign by arresting him on spurious charges of rape, terrorism, and treason. XXXXXXXXXXXX speculated that Uganda could disrupt Besigye’s 2011 campaign with phony homosexuality allegations.

In a second cable dated February 10 and released by The Guardian, the U.S. diplomats in Uganda describe a meeting with local human rights activists whose names are redacted. The White House and the State Department had already by then condemned the bill. Activists expressed concerns that the Anti-Homosexuality Bill was part of a larger effort to tilt tomorrow’s elections in favor of the entrenched ruling party:

XXXXXXXXXXXX placed the anti-homosexuality bill in the context of a general trend toward restricted human rights and democratic freedoms in Uganda. He said the anti-homosexuality bill is one of many regressive legislative initiatives that are not in the interests of all Ugandans and are intended to tilt the February 2011 presidential elections in the government’s favor. XXXXXXXXXXXX cited draft legislation to expand the Security Ministry’s monitoring of electronic communications, expanded and perhaps politically motivated enforcement of the 2002 Anti-Terrorism Act, the recently passed Land Amendment Act (ref. A), reduced press freedoms, and the slow pace of electoral reform as pressing human rights concerns. He encouraged the U.S. to treat these issues in the same manner as the anti-homosexuality bill, and said the anti-homosexuality issue is a government “gimmick” to divert attention away from other assaults on human rights and democratic freedoms that will ultimately undermine the integrity of the 2011 elections.

Uganda’s elections will be held tomorrow.

The cables go on to describe some of the fear and intimidation that the proposed legislation aroused in Uganda. The fear and intimidation extends beyond the beleaguered gay community, but goes into the political class as well:

XXXXXXXXXXXX said Members of Parliament who privately oppose the bill fear losing their seats if they speak out against the legislation, and therefore support the bill in public and will vote for it should it ever reach the parliamentary floor. XXXXXXXXXXXX said Bahati is blaming homosexuals for the spread HIV/AIDS, pornography, and increasing incidents of rape and defilement, and that the legislation is a diversionary ploy intended to steer attention away from real issues like corruption and the 2011 elections.

…Both XXXXXXXXXXXX and XXXXXXXXXXXX said local XXXXXXXXXXXX activists are using cellphones, blogs, and the internet to the extent possible, but stressed concerns about government monitoring of electronic communications. XXXXXXXXXXXX said one local human rights NGO had to switch its domain name after someone hacked its email address, and XXXXXXXXXXXX and XXXXXXXXXXXX said they and other activists have been forced to switch telephones and restrict electronic communications to avoid harassment and eavesdropping.

See also:
Feb 17, 2011: Wikileaks Posts Cables from US Embassy in Uganda Concerning Anti-Homosexuality Bill
Feb 17, 2011: More Wikileaks Cables on Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill
Sep 10, 2011: Wikileaks: Ugandan First Lady “Ultimately Behind” Anti-Homosexuality Bill
Sep 11: 2011: More On Ugandan First Lady’s Support For Anti-Homosexuality Bill
Sep 11, 2011: Wikileaks: Vatican Lobbied Against Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill
Sep 12, 2011: Wikileaks on Uganda’s Homosexuality Bill: Museveni “Surprised” and Buturo “Obsessed”
Sep 12, 2011: Ugandan Presidential Aide Confirms Wikileaks Conversation
Sep 23, 2011: Ugandan First Lady Affirms Support For “Kill The Gays” Bill

I’m back from vacation

Hey box turtles, I’ve made it back to SoCal in one piece and am delighted to be able to join again in the conversation. I still have to catch up on all that BTB has covered (and from what little I’ve read, it is going to be a very enjoyable read) as well as all that is moving on the rights front.

It seems that marriage issues have taken some interesting shifts while I was away, and I will want to share my opinions and perspectives. Additionally, I may weigh in on some of the intra-community bickering that is consuming the time and attention of a number of our organizations.

But first I need to give attention to my real job. So my participation here may be a bit slow at first. But, in any case, it’s good to be back

Heterosexual Menace: Mother and Daughter Caught in Heterosexual Recruitment Ring

Susan Brock

Susan Brock, 48, of Chandler, AZ, pleaded guilty to three counts of attempted sexual conduct with a minor on Monday in connection with a four-year affair she had with a boy that started when he was thirteen. Unbeknownst to her, her daughter, Rachel Brock, was also arrested for molesting the boy when he was 14 and she was 18. Rachel hasn’t been formally charged yet since that investigation is ongoing.  Mama Brock was quite generous to the young boy, with more than just her attentions:

Brock was indicted on 15 counts in connection with more than 30 acts she was accused of committing with the boy in her home, her mother’s home, her car, his car, a laundry room and in secluded places in Chandler. None of the acts included intercourse.

…According to police, Susan Brock and the boy communicated through their e-mail accounts. She was accused of giving him an iPod, iPod Touch and two iPhones, and coached him to say he was jogging so she could pick him for the liaisons.

The elder Brock is soon to become the ex-wife of Republican Maricoopa County Supervisor Fulton Brock. Another political activist, Chrisian Weems, was also arrested. She was accused of breaking into the victim’s Yahoo mail account and deleting incriminating evidence. Police released a recorded phone conversation between Brock and Weems when Weems offered to help destroy the evidence:

In the recording, Weems asks Brock … if she remembers the password to a beach house that they once visited in California. Investigators said Weems was trying to talk in code, but Brock wasn’t following, so Weems cut to the chase and asked her for the password to an e-mail account which Brock shared with the teenage boy she’s accused of having a sexual relationship with. Investigators said Brock and the boy would leave messages for each other in the draft folder, so that they never sent an actual e-mail.

More evidence of what the heterosexuals have in store for society and your children here and here.

Hawaii to get Civil Unions

In an 18-5 vote this afternoon, the Hawaii Senate gave its final legislative approval to SB 232, a bill that will allow civil unions for same-sex couples. The bill now goes to Gov. Neil Abercrimbie (D), who says he will sign the bill within the next 10 days. Civil Unions will become available on January 1, 2012.

Hawaii’s version of civil unions will offer all of the state-level benefits of marriage. Civil unions performed in other states which grant them will be recognized in Hawaii as well.

Fehrenbach To Retire With Full Pension and Benefits

Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach

Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach, who was under investigation for violating “Don’t Ask, Dno’t Tell,” will be allowed to retire from the U.S. Air Forceon Oct. 1 with his full rank and his pension intact. Fehrenbach expressed relief that the entier ordeal was over.

In 2008, just as 18-year veteran was about to be deployed to Afghanistan, Fehrenbach was placed on desk duty when he learned he was under investigation on charges that he allegedly sexually assaulted a male civilian and that he was in violation of the military’s ban on homosexuality. The assault allegation was dismissed for lack of evidence. But the investigation into his sexuality under DADT continued, because in order to clear himself of the sexual assault charges, he was forced to reveal that the sexual encounter had actually been consensual.

If Fehrenbach had been dismissed under DADT, he would have lost his military retirement benefit of half pay and full medical care for the rest of his life. So he went to federal court last year seeking a temporary order blocking his discharge. That led to negotiations with the Justice Department which resulted in an agreement that the Air Force couldn’t discharge him without notifying the court first. That apparently gave the Air Force incentive to come to an alternate solution.

President Barack Obama signed a measure repealing DADT in the closing days of the previous Congress. The ban is expected to be fully dismantled sometime this summer.

Heterosexual Menace: Murder for (Lack Of) Sex

The heterosexual menace is global, as this episode from Uganda shows:

A man has hit his wife on the head and died instantly accusing her of denying him sex. John Matovu, a resident of Kyevunze village in Luweero district reportedly committed the offence this morning. …Eyewitnesses say Matovu also reportedly stabbed the 20 year old woman in private parts.

That flips the gay panic defense on its head. More evidence of what the heterosexuals have in store for society here and here.

Suspect Blames Musinex in NC Hate Crime Murder

Michael Anderson

The may be the “Twinkie defense” of 2010. Michael Anderson, 19, near Hickory, N.C., shot his roommate, Stephen Starr, 36, in the home they shared Monday. According to Catawba County sheriff Coy Reid, Anderson shot Starr “and took an ax to him” in “one of the nastiest crime scenes I’ve been to.” Reid also said that Anderson carved a word onto his body, and wrote words on him in pen. He wouldn’t say what was written, but said he believes the writings and carving happened after Starr was killed. At about the time of the murder, Anderson posted a message on facebook:

In all capital letters, Anderson posted: “God forgive me of my sins of which I have done plz let your holy name be with me as I go to the heavenly place they will not take me alive my killing starts tonight I kill one by one hopefully I kill more than one though you it seems that I would rather want to kill a lot more you know but oh well one will do I guess but if you get in my way you will be next.”

A short time later, Anderson posted “i finally cracked guys i really did it this time guys.”

Today, police released a recording of the 911 call Anderson made at the time of the murder, telling the operator, “I did some things to his body that you don’t want them to see. You’re not going to know who it is.” He blamed a combination of Mucinex and gay panic for the bloody murder:

“I Od’d on Mucinex DM. Dextromethorphan makes me feel a little weird and I took too many,” Anderson said.

About 4 minutes and 30 seconds into the call, the telecommunicator asks what sparked the attack. Anderson said it was because he was straight, and Starr was gay. According to him, the two met at a gay club. Anderson said he was straight, but went to the club to experiment.

“I met him and went to his house and he took me in and I turned straight again. And he wanted to touch me and stuff and I wouldn’t let him, and he kept trying. And I waited until he went to sleep and then I shot him three times. And I mutilated him very badly and I’m sorry, I’m sorry. Oh God, please help me.”

The earlier report however describes Anderson as Starr’s roommate, not a one-night-stand pick-up. The detailed directions Anderson gave to the 911 operator are telling:

Anderson sounds distraught in the call. However, he is able to give the telecommunicator exact directions to Starr’s house on Ruth Drive, describing where to turn, how the house looks and other details, including that the green truck parked in the driveway is a manual truck. He then adds one final one detail.

“There’s wood out there that I was chopping,” he said. “I’m sorry ma’am, but the ax is inside his stomach.”

How many one-night-stands do you think are willing help out with household chores?

Reply to George: V. Can We Talk About “Real” Marriage?

[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.]

Pages 250-252: In which Robert George works hard to establish his right to talk about real marriage.

How real is “real marriage”?

Robert George wants to show “real marriage” is a meaningful concept. He’s got a good starting point: the fact that most “revisionists” think it’s wrong to ban same-sex marriage but are fine with banning other kinds, such as marriage with a child or marriage between brother and sister

Revisionists who arrive at this conclusion must accept at least three principles.

First, marriage is not a legal construct with totally malleable contours — not “just a contract.” In other words, it’s not merely whatever our laws claim it to be — otherwise, there’d be no basis for claiming marriage law is wrong and must be changed.

Second, the state is justified in recognizing only real marriages as marriages.

Third, there is no general right to marry the person you love, if this means a right to have any type of relationship that you desire recognized as marriage.

First: Marriage isn’t just whatever we say it is.

George has a point here. I just don’t like his reasoning. He’s saying if marriage is nothing more than a set of rules created by the government, then there’s no standard for what marriage law should be. And if there’s no standard, there’s no basis for saying current law is wrong.

But…no. Even if marriage were just whatever the government decrees (which I don’t believe), we could still appeal to more fundamental principles — like equal treatment under the law – to argue that marriage law must not discriminate against broad swaths of the citizenry for no good reason. So marriage can be “just a contract” and yet not have “totally malleable contours. ” It could still be possible for the law to “get marriage wrong.”

A philosophical digression (you can skip it if it’s not your bag)

George is arguing against nominalism here. Remember Plato and his notion that concepts like “horse” and “triangle” are perfect forms that exist in a higher realm that’s more real than our own? Nominalism goes to the opposite extreme. It holds that a term like human has no meaning, no reality, except as a name we use to designate all the individual humans we can think of (nominalism and name have the same linguistic root).

You know all that speculation about what makes humans human? About the essence of being human? Whether it our ability to reason, or plan, or laugh, or make tools, etc.?

Nominalists would have none of that. To them, individual human beings are real, but abstract concepts like human are not. Human is just a label, a tag with no meaning apart from those individuals. It’s just a handy collection of five letters that we use in our heads and in language to refer to all those individuals. There is no essence, no essential set of traits that make us human.

Nominalists would also say there’s no such thing as marriage — certainly no such thing as real marriage. Marriage is just an eight-letter tag that we use to describe the arrangements of all those individuals who call themselves married.

(Clearly, this simplifies a complex idea, one whose subtleties I don’t fully grasp myself. If you like this sort of thing, check it out by starting here and then going here).

I’m with George on this. I’m not a nominalist. George and his co-authors make this case against nominalism:

Consider friendship. As with marriage, the particulars of friendship vary widely by time and place. But also like marriage, friendship is a human reality, a distinctive human good, with certain essential features independent of our social or linguistic practices. For example, it essentially involves each person’s actively willing the other’s good, for the other’s sake. And again like marriage, friendship (the human reality, not our use of the word) grounds certain moral privileges and obligations between its participants and even between the friends and others who might interact with them. So friendship, like marriage, is not just a social construct.

If we said that John and Joe, who just exploited each other, were not “real friends,” we would not just mean that a certain word did not apply to their bond, or that society failed to treat that bond as it does certain others. We would primarily mean that John and Joe were missing out on a distinctive, inherently valuable reality — a human good, for which other goods are no substitute — because of a failure to meet its inherent requirements, which are not purely socially constructed. Similarly, a relationship is not a marriage just because we speak and act as if it is, nor is a relationship not a marriage just because we fail to do so.

And they sum it up even better here:

[T]wo people who do not will each other’s good are not just missing out on a label, “friendship”; they are missing out on a human good whose specific benefit or fulfillment is not available otherwise.

I’d like to point out that this is not an objective analytical argument. It depends entirely on your own personal experience of friendship. But I find it convincing anyway.

Marriage is not just a word.

So is marriage “real” or is it just an arbitrary whatever-we-say-it-is? Read the rest of this entry »

Indiana House Passes Gay Marriage Ban

The Indiana House of Representatives today moved to make same-sex marriage even more illegaller in the state by approving a proposed constitutional amendment with a lopsided 70-26 vote. The measure now goes on to the Senate for consideration, where it is expected to pass easily. The Senate passed a proposed amendment in 2010, but it died in the lower house when it was under Democratic control. Republicans currently enjoy a 60-40 majority in the lower house and a 37-13 majority in the upper house.

In order to go onto the ballot for a popular vote, the proposed amendment will have to pass the Senate in this session, and then pass both houses again in the next separately elected legislature. The last time both houses approved a marriage ban was in 2005, which was also the last time the Republicans controlled the House.

“I Am An Ex-Mormon”

You may have seen the billboards and the commercials behind the “I’m A Mormon” campaign, designed to try to rehabilitate the image of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints following their massive efforts to strip LGBT Americans of their right to marry in California. Now there’s another grass-roots effort, called “I Am An Ex-Mormon,” which highlights those who have left the church, for a variety of reasons:

I was born in Provo, Utah to Gerald and Carol Lynn Pearson. At the age of eight years old I was baptized an official, 5th generation, member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I was twelve years old when I learned my dad, whom I adored, was gay; sixteen years old when he died of AIDS in our home; eighteen years old when my mother’s book “Goodbye, I Love You” was published by Random House; twenty five years old when I knowingly married a gay man myself in the Salt Lake City temple; thirty two years old when we divorced; thirty four when I walked away from the Mormon Church; and forty when I officially had my name removed from the church records.

…Early on in my life I became obsessed with obedience to the God that I was introduced to at church – the very same God that hated and condemned my father for being a homosexual and who was, in turn (and for good reason) hated by my dad. …I had to choose which father to obey, which father to love – a choice that broke me in two.

Gay Orthodox Jews Living With the Contradictions

Dr. Jack Drescher, former editor of the Journal of Gay and Lesbian Mental Health, grew up an observant Jew in a kosher household. He’s not observant now, but he recently had the opportunity to attend a retreat for LGBT Orthodox Jews:

This group’s love of Jewish ritual both puzzles and intrigues me. When I have gone to religious events in recent years, I always feel like a gay outsider. Here, amidst all this religious celebration, I realize I am not a gay outsider as most of the celebrants are LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender). I’m an outsider here because I’m not frum (observant of Jewish orthodox rituals).

…I was invited to speak about “sexual conversion therapies” at a Shabbaton, a weekend retreat from Friday through Sunday, organized by a group called Eshel. The group’s mission is to provide “a place of SHELTER for Orthodox, frum, and other traditional gay and lesbian Jews seeking to maintain their Jewish observance and find meaningful religious community. We also welcome all those who are formerly Orthodox, ‘Orthodox-curious,’ or otherwise interested in maintaining a connection to traditional Judaism as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender Jews.” Ortho-curious? Who knew?