Box Turtle Bulletin

Martin Ssempa, 3 Others Plead Not Guilty To Conspiracy Charges

The Ugandan pro-government newspaper New Vision reports that anti-gay pentecostal pastors Martin Ssempa, Solomon Male, Michael David Kyazze, and Robert Kayiira have entered not guilty pleas before Buganda Road Court Grade One Magistrate John Wekesa. According to New Vision, they are being charged with “conspiring to injure the reputation of Pastor Robert Kayanja of Rubaga Miracle Centre.

The four pastors are charged with falsely accusing Kayanja of sodomy. The charges stem from a retaliation campaign the four pastors waged against their rival last year. Such retaliation campaigns are commonplace in Uganda where pastors vie for attention, influence and power. Top megachurch leaders routinely find themselves accused of various crimes by rival pastors in the fierce competition for church members.

In a blog post on December 30, 2010, Ssempa denied that he was involved with a conspiracy to injure Kayanja’s reputation. That same day on the same blog, Ssempa posted an attack on Kayanja, accusing him of sodomy. Which means that on his very own blog, Ssempa commits the very offense that he denies being guilty of.

Any hope for Toomey?

Here’s a odd little note about Pat Toomey, the incoming Republican/Tea Party Pennsylvania Senator: (NYT)

But as he prepared to take office this week, Mr. Toomey hardly sounded like a partisan rabble-rouser.

For one thing, he supported repealing the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law to allow gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the military.
…
On “don’t ask, don’t tell,” Mr. Toomey said that since the military brass believed that allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly would enable the armed forces to execute their mission better, he was supportive of a repeal. He also said that the previous policy was wrong because it forced gay service members to “live a lie.”

I’ve bought into the portrayal of Toomey as extremist and assumed his Tea Party fiscal conservatism was a cover for his right-wing social agenda. I hope this is an indication that perhaps there is a more nuanced Toomey than has been portrayed, and that he is approachable on some of our issues.

Gay kids, socially stigmatized or “not so different”?

I’m always a bit hesitant about the research of Lisa Diamond, associate professor of psychology and gender studies at the University of Utah. Her conclusions – frequently quoted (or misquoted) by proponents of change therapy – too often seem to be on the outer edge of conventional thinking and I am troubled that her methods of communication lend themselves too easily to misinterpretation. I really haven’t reached my own conclusion as to whether Diamond is a revolutionary genius or a nut. Or perhaps a bit of both.

But I have developed an opinion about Dr. Ritch C. Savin-Williams, director of Cornell’s Sex and Gender Lab. In much of his writing, I appears to me that he starts with his conclusions and finds whatever is available to support them. Savin-Williams is married to the post-gay notion that today’s youth (or perhaps tomorrow’s) have fully integrated into society and do not experience orientation identity but rather are attracted to whom they are attracted without any sense that such attraction is informative (my paraphrase). While this seems naive to my personal experiences, it does meld well with Diamond’s hypotheses on sexual fluidity.

In an article today in the New York Times health section, Diamond and Savin-Williams are the primary sources for the presentation of the idea that bullying and suicide of gay youth are over-blown fears and that most gay kids are just like straight kids. Some of their arguments have merit, others are just word games.

There is value in recognizing that times have changed and it is worth noting that many gay kids can be, and are, happy. Many – probably most – have supportive families and friends and a life that is no more difficult – or less difficult – that their heterosexual peers. And as we work towards a more-accepting culture, that will be increasing the norm.

But throwing out the attention currently given to bullying and suicide based on those kids who do have a life that is “not so different” seems to me to be a bit like saying that we don’t need to be concerned with unemployment in our current economy because most people are employed. The findings just don’t seem adequately related to the conclusions.

It’s nice to know, for example, that “young gays” in Diamond’s studies, “had as many friends and were just as popular and socially connected as other teenagers.” But this doesn’t seem to logically lead to “the effects of bullying and discrimination are often overplayed in the news media.”

One can have friends, especially friends who are also “stigmatized,” and still be bullied. That one can commiserate with a fellow victim, does not make the discrimination experienced any less hurtful. It would be equally valid to argue that there is no additional stress in being part of a tiny racial minority in one’s school – and that a daily diet of racial epithets are inconsequential – because one has a supportive family and are friends with the gay kid. In other words, nonsense generated by those who want to dismiss your pain.

Further, I find the arguments required to dismiss our concerns to be lacking in intellectual integrity, at best. Take, for example, Savin-Williams’ quibbling about the bullying and suicide issue:

These later studies find that straight youths are just as much at risk of being bullied if they exhibit atypical behavior, he said. Bullies react to nonconformity, and they pick up on people’s weaknesses.

“Bullying is less about sexuality than about gender nonconformity,” Dr. Savin-Williams said. “There are straight youth who are gender-atypical and they suffer as much as gay kids. But whether there’s a direct link between bullying and suicide among gay teens has not been shown.”

In other words, straight-acting closeted gay kids are not the victims of bullies, it’s the faggy kids, both gay and straight.

But Savin-Williams uses the term gender nonconformity in a deceptive way. He fails to disclose that gender non-conformity in children is the single greatest indicator of adult sexual identity; his distinction between gender non-conformity and sexuality in this context ignores the perspective of the bully; and finally, and most importantly, he fails to note the majority of victims of such acts.

When speaking of youth – even of post-adolescent youth – distinctions between gay and gender-nonconformist can be difficult. Strictly speaking, gay youth experience same-sex attraction either to the exclusion of opposite-sex attraction or disproportionately so, but self-identity or even self-recognition may not correlate. Cultural messages such as “I can’t be gay, I’m a Christian” or “I can’t be gay, I play soccer” or even “I can’t be gay because I had a sex dream about Miley Cyrus” can get mixed up with questions about self-worth, social acceptance, and one’s ability to identify with the outsider.

So while Savin-Williams is quite correct that straight youth who are gender-atypical are equally targets of bullying, his emphasis on implying that heterosexuals make up some sizable percentage of presumed-gay victims seems a bit premature. And really, beside the point. (And, considering that Savin-Williams argues that the “new gay teenager” rejects orientation labels, the use of such labels to argue against the seriousness of the situation offends me greatly.)

Kids who are bullied for gender-nonconformity are bullied because “he’s a fag” or “she’s a dyke” regardless of what orientation they claim. And the message is given to those who see it: “Don’t ‘be gay’ or you’ll be next.” Just as hate crimes target communities rather than individuals, anti-gay bullying sends a clear message to gay kids and to kids who haven’t figured out just where they fit on the orientation grid. Distinguishing between them seems arbitrary; if the bully doesn’t care that the victim isn’t really gay, why should that be a mitigating consideration in our anti-bullying efforts?

I am happy that the world is moving towards more inclusion of gay kids. But I don’t wear rose-colored glasses and I have no need to defend some post-gay ideology. I’m delighted that there are many kids who simply find their orientation as a matter of fact or discovery, but I am not going to ignore those who find their identity through the medium of a fist or a slur and I have little respect for those who have to split hairs in order to do so.

To my way of thinking, gay kids, gender-nonconforming kids, and kids who are bullied because someone thinks they may be gay are all part of my community. They all deserve to be protected. And, if kept safe, they can at some point in the future figure out their orientation.

Uganda’s High Court Ruling Against “Hang Them” Tabloid Campaign

Ugandan High Court ruling barring Rolling Stone from publishing names and addresses of private LGBT citizens (Click to download: 1.3MB/10 pages)

As we reported earlier this morning, Uganda’s high court released a ruling permanently prohibiting the tabloid Rolling Stone (no relation to the venerable U.S. publication by the same name) from continuing its public vigilante campaign against that country’s LGBT community. We now have the text of that ruling (PDF: 1.3 MB/10 pages), which was signed on December 30 by Judge Musoke Kibuuka.

Judge Kibuuka found that the actions of Rolling Stone violated the privacy rights of LGBT Ugandans, and as well as the right to human dignity and protection from inhuman treatment. Of the latter, Judge Kibukka wrote:

Upon that objective test, court would easily conclude that by publishing the identities of the applicants and exposing their homes coupled with the explicit call to hang them because “they are after our kids”, the respondents extracted the applicants from the other members of the community who are regarded as worthy, in equal measure, of human dignity and who ought to be treated as worthy of dignity and respect. Clearly the call to hang gays in dozens tends to tremendously threaten their right to human dignity. Death is the ultimate end of all that is known worldly to be good. If a person is only worthy of death, and arbitrarily, then that person’s human dignity is placed at the lowest ebb. It is threatened to be abused or infringed.

For the objective test, the court cited a Canadian case from 2002, when a man published an advertisement showing four scriptural passages next to an image of two stick men holding hands inside a circle with a line through it. The CBC notes that the decision was overturned by the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal in 2006. It’s unclear whether the grounds for that 2006 decision would have any bearing on the Ugandan case.

The court rejected Rolling Stones argument that because homosexuality is illegal in Uganda, the applicants were not eligible for protection because they were criminals:

It must be noted that this application is not about homosexuality per se. it is about fundamental rights and freedoms. However, court not agrees that section 145, of the Penal Code Act renders every person who is gay a criminal under that section of the Penal Code Act. The scope of section 145 is narrower than gayism generally. One has to commit an act prohibited under section 145 in order to be regarded a criminal.

"Hang Them; They Are After Our Kids", published in the October 2, 2010 edition of the Ugandan tabloid Rolling Stone (Names, places and photo obscured by BTB. Click to enlarge)

This point may serve as fodder for those who support the passage of the proposed Anti-Homosexuality Bill. That bill greatly expands the definition of what constitutes homosexual behavior far beyond the sex act. It will also criminalize advocacy on behalf of LGBT people and make criminals of family members who refuse to report their loved ones to police. If that bill were to become law, merely bringing this case to court and arguing in defense of LGBT people could be taken as “promotion” of homosexuality, leading to fines and a sentence of between five to seven years. The bill may be brought to a vote during a lame-duck session of Parliament following the February 18 elections.

The court issued a permanent injunction against Rolling Stone, “their servants and agents, from any further publications of the identities of the persons and homes of the applicants and homosexuals generally.” The order only applies to Rolling Stone, but human rights advocates believe that it may serve as a precedent for other tabloids to follow. Red Pepper and Onion (also no relation to the U.S. satirical newspaper by the same name) have also engaged in vigilante campaigns in recent months.

The judge awarded each applicant 1,500,000 Uganda Shillings (US$650) for damages, plus court costs.

Giles Muhume, Rolling Stone editor, remained defiant in the face of the court ruling. In a press release, he said that “homos had a short-lived smile today” but that Rolling Stone would appeal the decision. Calling the ruling a risk to media freedom, Muhume added, “The newspaper will fight homos on different fronts. Our supporters should remain strong –- the agents of the devil shall be defeated.”

Click here to read the Ugandan High Court’s decision.

Ramin Setoodeh wrote something again

Newsweek’s Ramin Setoodeh has run another article about how openly gay men do not make good actors, or something. Basically its a riff on his last ‘no one wants to watch a gay actor‘ article, this time with a ‘blame the studios and the straight actors’ twist.

It’s been nearly eight months since anyone noticed Setoodeh’s existence, and this was what got him the most attention, so he went with a rewrite. Read Setoodeh’s opinion piece if you like, but it really isn’t worth the two paragraphs I’m giving it. I guess I should be content that at least this time he isn’t defending neo-Nazi murderers of gay children.

Ugandan Court Bans Tabloid’s Anti-Gay Vigilante Campaign

Front cover of the Oct 2, 2010 edition of Rolling Stone. (Click to enlarge.)

We have received word that the Ugandan High Court issued a final ruling today barring the tabloid Rolling Stone (no relation to the U.S. publication of the same name) from conducting its outing campaign of private LGBT individuals. According to a press release from the Civil Society Coalition on Human Rights and Constitutional Law, the court ruled that the issue is not about homosexuality but “it is about the fundamental rights and freedoms” of private individuals. The court found that “the call to hang gays in dozens tends to tremendously threaten their right to human dignity” and that the tabloid’s act “threaten the rights of the applicants to privacy of the person and their home.”

On October 2, Rolling Stone published a what they said would be the first part of a four part series exposing one hundred LGBT citizens in Uganda. The first installment included the call to “hang them” on the front cover and over the article itself. Uganda’s Media Council moved swiftly to order Rolling Stone to shut down after discovering that the tabloid had not properly registered with the authorities. The tabloid complied, but resumed publishing again on November 1 with a second installment of its outing series.

With each publication, more evidence emerged that the tabloid, which carried virtually no advertising, was receiving support from anti-gay sources. Strong circumstantial evidence suggests that anti-gay pastor Martin Ssempa, who is wanted by authorities for his participation in an outing campaign against a rival pastor, was a driving force behind Rolling Stone’s activities. Seempa is currently sought by authorities for his actions in leveling accusations of homosexuality against rival pastors.

After the second expose in September, Sexual Minorities Uganda sought a court order barring Rolling Stone from outing individual private persons in Uganda. The court issued a temporary ruling on November and followed that with today’s permanent injunction preventing Rolling Stone and its managing editor, Giles Muhama from “any other publications of the identities of the persons and homes of the applicants and homosexuals generally.” Human Rights advocates hailed the injunction for its “broad protection to other Ugandans who are, or who are perceived to be homosexual” and notes that the injunction provides an important precedent for other media outlets as well.

Happy New Year

Wyoming Lawmakers Take Aim At Marriage

Same-sex marriage is already illegal in Wyoming, but two GOP state lawmakers, Rep. Owen Petersen Sen. Curt Meier, see an opportunity to make it even more illegaller. They plan on introducing a resolution asking Wyoming voters to amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage again. A similar resolution in 2009 failed, but that was before the GOP landslide in November.

Republican Chair Michael Steele: The GOP and NOM Are “On The Same Page”

Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele’s job is up for grabs, even though he very much wants to keep it. And so he’s pulling out the issue that nearly all conservative politicians turn to when they want to shore up a base of support: marriage equality.

During the campaigns for midterm elections, the GOP and the Tea Party embarked on a concerted effort to downplay LGBT-related issues in order to reassure LGBT people and their allies that the GOP was no longer interested in fighting the culture war. But now that the elections are over and there are signs of growing discontent in the GOP over Steele’s numerous gaffs as party chief, Steele agreed to sit down with the National Organization for Marriage’s Frank Cannon for an in depth interview on the party’s plan to fight same-sex marriage.

In particular, Steele celebrated the GOP gains in the governorships and state legislative seats where “the battle is going to be, my friend.” He also praised the GOP’s partnership with NOM “and others in the movement to make very clear that this is a line that we want to draw.” He added:

For us, going forward, we’ll look to the leadership in Washington, yes, for any legislative or federal efforts to address the issue of marriage, between man and woman, traditional marriage. But most especially at the state level where I think the battle is really going to be fought over the next couple years, and we want to be in partnership through our state party organizations working with state legislative leadership to stand firmly and squarely behind the defense of marriage.

But Cannon disputed that marriage was just a state issue, and asked Steele what he would do to  “extend the branding, if you would, of the Republican Party platform’s support of marriage out in the public domain.” Steele answered:

You and I are actually on the same page here. I did not want to give the inference that somehow one side of this fight is less important than the other or less effective than the other. We’re going to have to come at this as a pincer move from the federal and the state level because that’s exactly how it’s being played out nationally. It’s not just what we’re seeing happening at the state level at the state legislatures, but it’s also a national move afoot to block attempts to, for example, to get the Defense of Marriage Act passed [sic] in Congress or to propose some of the legislation at the federal level that weakens the efforts by pro-family movements at state legislatures from being effective. So we’re on the same page there.

My only point was that really is the front line right now because that’s where we see the battle being won and lost, if you will, on a day to day basis.

Steele then goes on to defend his position by saying that not only is it not anti-gay, but it is also not exclusionary. And in incredible Animal Farm fashion, Steele intends to reconcile that fallacy by controling the terms of debate. “How we approach people and how we let others approach us really defines how this debate is going to unfold,” he explained. Which means that it’s alright to talk about marriage, as long as we only talk about marriage on his terms, and no one else’s. So he’s not only being exclusionary in his position on marriage, he also intends to be exclusionary on the very parameters of the debate.

But was terms does Steele want to debate marriage? This is where it gets to be the most insulting.

My father died as a young man from alcoholism. So my family, from a very, very early age when I was four years old, was broken. My father was an alcoholic. He was abusive. I saw what he did to my mother, and I saw  what he did to our family over time. So I have this understanding of family and how it’s held together and why it’s so important. And despite the shortcomings of my father, despite the difficulties and his own personal demons that he had to go through, he was still a very important part of my life. And my mother would share with me that while he may have been difficult with her, he was gentle with me and he understood at least, through some mechanism in his brain, that this child that he was holding was of some value. And so he would then impart to me certain things and tell me certain things about himself. And so the reality of it is, that cohesion is important.

Steele then goes on to say that as Maryland’s Lt. Governor, he met with many young men in jail who did not have “the definitional structure” of a one-man-one-woman family — not even one as dysfunctional as his family. And after having met so many criminals who violated the law,  he believes that it is vitally important for children of LGBT couples to be denied the societal support that families headed by straight families receive. In Steele’s view, if teen gang members and petty criminals who grow up without a father represent some sort of second class existence, then teenage boys and girls who grow up in LGBT families are third class — behind everyone else, including families headed by the gold standard of fathers who drink themselves to death.

And so his fight, then, is to preserve that order, and he is happy to modify the Federal Constitution in the process:

Oh, absolutely. Without hesitation or doubt. In fact we would partner with our leadership in the House and certainly our governors and leadership in the state legislatures to create a very very strong front line if you will, on that issue. I can’t again stress how important that is for how we will lead as a people, and how we will see ourselves as a nation down the road. And again, that is not to the exclusion of anyone, it’s not anti- anyone, or any group. It is just so fundamental and foundational, I think it needs to be protected.

At least three others are vying with Steele for the GOP chairmanship. But before you pin your hopes on Steele’s downfall, consider this: they, too, agreed to interviews with NOM. Former RNC political director Gentry Collins said that same-sex marriage “devalues” his marriage, Wisconsin GOP Chairman Reince Priebus vows to protect “the sanctity of marriage given to us by God,” former Missouri Republican Chairwoman Ann Wagner calls efforts to ban same-sex marriage “a pillar of our Republican party and our platform,” and that the GOP should not shy away from it, and the Tea Party-aligned Save American Jobs Project Chairman Saul Anuzis — you know, he leads the people who really only care about economic issues — says that defending one-man-one-woman marriage is “part of our faith.”

A Change at Courage

Along with the passage of Father John Harvey, Catholic ex-gay group Courage is taking a new direction. They are moving from their home in Manhattan to Norwalk, CT, and are leaving behind their staff, volunteers, directors, and even their legal identity. The new non-profit corporation will have a Board of Directors will consist of:

Father Paul Scalia – son of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia – tends to discuss “homosexual activities” using language such as “depravity” and his writings focus as much on the miseries that he just knows are experienced by those who choose the homosexual lifestyle as they do on Catholic teaching about sexuality.

Father James Knapp – has long been a leader in Courage, but seems to have written or spoken publicly little on the subject.

Dr. Tim Lock – a psychologist, was a presenter at NARTH’s 2010 conference with, of all people, Gerald Schoenewolf whose “other way of looking at” slavery led a number of evangelicals to question their association with NARTH. Lock is a true NARTHy who, in a conference in Australia, “exposed nine gay myths, citing scientific research” in a manner reminiscent of John Diggs or Paul Cameron.

Mrs. Marylee MacDougall – is less well known, but in a letter to the editor of The Cowl, Brown’s student newspaper, seems to endorse anti-gay political activism:

Matt Rand (in the Apr. 2 issue) is saying gay marriage is a religious issue, but the history of this topic is that even without religion more than 2000 years of civilization has had a position opposing this lifestyle and valuing family life-which starts with marriage between a man and a woman. Pending legislation and recent court decisions indicate a frontal assault on the traditional and widely accepted understanding of the essence and purpose of marriage.

Father Paul Check (ex-officio) – is the new executive director of the newly revised organization.

In addition to the Directors, there will be “a Body of Members, who provide governance and impart ecclesial authority,” consisting of:

New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan – a conservative Catholic who has made his campaign against marriage equality in New York a significant priority. However, Dolan – who sees homosexuality as a compulsion – is not perceived to be harshly anti-gay and uses more nuanced language.

Bridgeport, CT, Bishop William Lori – will be the host to Courage. A conservative, he’s best known for successfully fighting against an attempt by the State of Connecticut to require the Catholic Church to turn over control of the diocese to its membership rather than its hierarchy.

New Ulm, MN, Bishop John LeVoir – gave $250 to the campaign to defeat marriage equality in Maine.

Oakland, CA, Bishop Salvatore Cordileone – is the father of Proposition 8. It was his organization and advocacy that initiated the writing and signature collection of the proposition (remember the early funding was almost entirely Catholic and only after it got on the ballot did the Mormon Church dump in some 20 million dollars).

Father Paul Check (ex-officio)

Considering the number of politically motivated anti-gay activists now involved, what do you want to bet that the ‘new and improved’ Courage has more on its plate than ministry to those with same-sex attractions?

Founder of Courage, Catholic ex-gay group, has died

I have a certain amount of sympathy for those individuals who decide that their religious convictions preclude them from engaging in any form of sexuality that is not within the confines of heterosexual marriage. Each of us must be allowed the space to determine for ourselves what gives us meaning and happiness, and some may choose to prioritize their spirituality over their sexuality.

So I am not opposed to ex-gay individuals or groups, per se, provided that they do not insist that other live according to their values, advocate for discrimination, or propagate lies. Sadly, most ex-gay groups have difficulty with strict honesty – probably because many of them are operating from a realm of “faith” in which empirical evidence can be ignored and hope can be given the imprimatur of TRUTH. But there are a few ex-gay groups that have managed to avoid overt political advocacy and who place less emphasis on miraculous reorientation and instead provide support and community for their same-sex attracted adherents.

One such group is Courage, the Catholic ex-gay organization.

While the Vatican and the Bishops have taken it upon themselves to use coercion, threat of eternal damnation, and machine politics to try and force the nations of the world to adopt their dogma on issues like gay marriage, Courage has been mostly apolitical. And while they do not discourage those who hope for eventual heterosexuality, their emphasis is on chastity as a life goal. Courage has given me very little about which to object.

In 1980, New York’s Archbishop Cooke invited Father John Harvey to develop a ministry to Catholics with same-sex attractions. And while I disagree with much that Harvey espoused over the years, I do think that he was a man whose intents were compassionate and who sought neither political power, prestige, or personal advancement through his ex-gay endeavors.

This week Father John Harvey died. (PilotCatholicNews)

Oblate Father John F. Harvey, who founded an organization for celibate Catholic homosexuals that now has more than 100 chapters worldwide, died Dec. 27 at Union Hospital in Elkton. He was 92.

His funeral Mass was scheduled for Dec. 31 at St. Anthony of Padua Church in Wilmington, Del., followed by interment in the Oblate Cemetery in Elkton.

An Oblate of St. Francis de Sales for 73 years, Father Harvey founded Courage, a spiritual support group for homosexual men and women, in 1980 at the request of Cardinal Terence Cooke of New York and served as its national director until his death.

Today, Courage has chapters in the United States, Canada, England, Ireland, Poland, Mexico, Slovakia, Singapore, Hong Kong, Australia, Philippines and New Zealand.

“Father Harvey’s commitment to pastoral care in the church was tireless,” said Oblate Father James J. Greenfield, provincial of the Oblates’ Wilmington-Philadelphia province, in a statement. “Even in his later years, his travel would take him all over the country and world to offer a voice of compassion.”

I hope some day that the Catholic Church will find a path to full acceptance and equality for gay and lesbian Catholics (perhaps when they finally accept women as equal). But I do appreciate that in recent decades the Church has made the distinction between “inclination” and behavior (though the current Pope seems to conflate the two) as a small step in the right direction and I believe that Harvey may have played some role in that move.

Yes, Ms. Parker, We Can Control Our Behavior

I think the anti-gays are launching a new assault on us, this time trying to convince people that we’re the ones saying gays and lesbians can’t be moral. Conservative columnist Star Parker writes:

Americans are becoming more prone to believe that individuals cannot take personal responsibility for their sexual behavior. Thirty six percent believe today that homosexual behavior is genetically determined compared to 14% who believed this forty years ago.

Is Star lying or merely confused?  I found the poll she’s talking about:

This poll says nothing about behavior — it’s about identity.  Not what you do, but who you are.

I’ve written before  about those on the Right who claim there are no homosexuals, just homosexual behavior.  The Family Research Council reveals the political motive behind this deliberate obfuscation:

[H]omosexual conduct is not comparable to other characteristics usually protected by civil rights laws (“race, color, religion, sex, or national origin”). Protection against private “discrimination” has historically been offered only for characteristics that are inborn, involuntary, immutable, innocuous, and/or in the Constitution-yet none of these describe homosexual behavior.  [emphasis added]

Star Parker’s going somewhere else, though.  It’s one thing to say that you can’t control your sexual orientation.  But saying you can’t take personal responsibility for your behavior means you cannot be trusted.  It means you have no power to choose a right action over a wrong one.  It means, basically, that you are amoral.

That’s not just false, it’s insidious.  When we say being gay or lesbian is an immutable characteristic, Star Parker wants people to hear us saying we can’t control our conduct.

What does that accomplish?  Quite a bit.  It creates a climate of fear. If gays claim they can’t control their behavior, then how we trust them as parents, as teachers, as soldiers? If Star Parker has her way, every time we stand up for our rights, we’ll be damning ourselves as amoral creatures.

And she’s doing this by lying.

Or perhaps it’s just confusion.  If so, she’s confused a lot in this piece.  For instance, she writes:

As a Christian, I believe in the truth of traditional morality as transmitted to us through our biblical sources. And I believe, along with George Washington, who stated clearly in his farewell address to the nation, that religion and traditional morality are critical to the maintenance of our free society.

Homosexual behavior is unacceptable by these moral standards.

She’s twisting Washington’s speech here.  It’s true Washington declared the importance of religion and morality.  He even said that religion (not Christianity, not Protestantism, not any specific anti-gay religious doctrine) is necessary for morality.  But he never mentioned traditional morality.  You can see why Star snuck it in, though.  It’s not enough to be moral; your morality has to be traditional — otherwise you’ll end up getting sassed by good and moral Christians who have no problem with teh gays.

Now Washington was no gay liberationist.  He did say this about morality in that speech, though:

It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who, that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric ?

Promote, then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.

I’m not sure how Star’s misrepresentations serve the general diffusion of knowledge or the enlightenment of public opinion.  Yet she does seem to be concerned with the nation’s moral condition — though, once again, in a pretty confused way:

When asked… for the principal reason that the moral condition of the nation is worsening, the greatest response – 15% – was “disrespect for others.” Only 2% said teen pregnancy, 3% homosexuality, 3% abortion, and 7% breakdown of family/unwed mothers.

When asked for the principal reason that our moral condition is improving, the largest response – 25% – was “better understanding about other people and cultures/more diversity/less racism.”

It should be clear that what is happening is that any prevailing sense that there are objective standards for right and wrong is disappearing and that this is being displaced with a relativism and nihilism that values nothing other than tolerance of everything.

Hold on.  What does this Christian lady have against Jesus?  You know, the Jesus who said, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”  And who commanded, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Jesus must really get her steamed  — he sounds like one of those nihilist relativists who think “disrespect for others” is a core moral problem and that “better understanding about other people” could improve our moral condition.

[As an aside, I have to apologize for making this  my most rambling blog post ever.  But when Star jumps from DADT to Christianity to George Washington to Gallup polls on abortion to nihilism to the Declaration of Independence (!)…well, I did my best with the mess that I found.]

At the beginning of her article, Star Parker writes, “I’m feeling increasingly like a minority in our country. Not because I’m black, but because I am a Christian.”  But I can’t see any connection between Jesus in the Bible and the way she’s presented herself.  Still, if it’s making her feel isolated and marginalized, maybe there’s hope for our nation’s moral condition after all.

Teachers who engaged in anti-gay bullying now suing school district

The Anoka-Hennepin School Board is that lovely group in Minnesota that continues to have a policy that any mention of homosexuality be “neutral” – that is, non-existent – even though they have had nine student suicides in the past year, four of which were believe to be attributable to anti-gay bullying. Teachers, fearing that opposing anti-gay bullying would be a punishable violation of the policy, simply did nothing to intervene when presumed gay kids were tormented.

But now in some perverse irony, the school board is being sued by some of those to whom they had given implicit permission. (Minn Ind)

An Anoka-Hennepin School District teacher who was accused of harassing a student he thought was gay is suing the state because the Department of Human Rights disclosed his name in a report about the investigation. Walter Filson filed suit against the state of Minnesota late last week. Filson was one of two teachers accused of harassing Alex Merritt, who is not gay. Merritt got a $25,000 settlement from the school district in 2009.

Filson’s suit comes after a similar one filed by Diane Cleveland, whom the Department of Human Rights claimed conspired with Filson to harass Merritt. Earlier this year Cleveland won her lawsuit against the state. A judge ruled that the department should not have disclosed her name because she was not a defendant or plaintiff in the complaint; the department did not actually lodge any penalty against Cleveland or Filson but simply reported the accusations and the department’s conclusions.

Filson and Cleveland have denied repeatedly that they harassed Merritt.

The complaint filed by Filson last week said, “The harm caused to (Filson’s) reputation and privacy interests are irreparable.”

Yep. These teachers are being rewarded for bullying a student. Because, you see, you should be able to torment children under your care without anyone ever finding out.

Interestingly, Merritt doesn’t identify as gay. But he was subjected to deliberate, intentional, homophobic bullying in an institutional environment by those who were entrusted by the state with power over him. He was the victim of long-term anti-gay abuse.

Just for some perspective, here are a few of the claims:

Beginning with the start of the 2007-2008 school year, Alex Merritt, a male high school student in the Anoka-Hennepin School District began to experience harassment from two of the respondent’s teachers, who perceived that the student was gay. Diane Cleveland singled him out on nearly a daily basis by making jokes, comments and innuendos about her perception of his sexual orientation. “Merritt’s fence swings both ways,” “Merritt’s boat floats in a different direction than the rest of the guys in the class” and “Would you like to have [another allegedly gay student] go with you so he can sit in the stall next to you and stomp his foot?” were among the female teacher’s comments. Cleveland made her comments in front of other students and allowed them to laugh, and would share her comments with Walter Filson, another teacher. The male teacher would repeat, add his own jokes, and allow other students in the class to joke about the boy’s perceived sexual orientation.

Specifically, the Minnesota Department of Human Rights verified

• When Cleveland learned that the student was doing a report on Ben Franklin for her class, she made comments in front of the class that implied that the student had a “thing for older men”;
• When Cleveland’s class was watching the 1989 film, Christmas Vacation, she covered the screen during a swimming pool/bathing suit scene and commented, “It’s OK if Merritt watches this because he isn’t into that sort of thing anyway… maybe if it was a guy.”
• When another student presented a report in Filson’s class regarding a deer that had been molested, a student said, “Hey, Mr. Filson, doesn’t that sound like something Alex Merritt would do?” The male teacher allegedly agreed and laughed.
• After students came to Filson’s classroom seeking male participates for a fashion show, he stated, “Take Merritt because he enjoys wearing woman’s clothes… he would love to be in the show.”

The School Board investigated, found the complaint to be true… and did virtually nothing. Cleveland was required to do one day of “reflecting on equality and diversity in the classroom” and was given a two-day suspension. Had the state not intervened, neither they nor the school board would have experienced much discomfort as consequence of tormenting a child. Only after the State Department of Human Rights rebuked the School Board, did they settle with Merrit’s family for $25,000.

It is important to note that the facts were confirmed by separate witnesses and are now incontrovertible. Two separate investigations reveal that Cleveland and Filson said and did exactly what they are accused of; they willfully engaged in bullying a child over his perceived sexual orientation.

In my opinion, these teachers should have been fired upon conclusion of the first investigation. They should have been stripped of any licenses or credentials they carry. They have violated the trust of the community in a most horrific way and should never be in a position where they supervise children again.

And, yes, they deserve to have their “reputation and privacy interests” harmed. People of good character should point at them and condemn them on the street. Jail time is not even out of the question, in my mind.

Instead they are suing, claiming that they “didn’t harass anyone” and their reputations have been damaged by the disclosure of what they did and said. And I’m sure that this School Board will happily give them money.

Evil, evil people.

Trading in our sparkle and our freak

Conservative columnist and National Review Online editor Jonah Goldberg has an article in which he notes that the gay community has become increasingly bourgeois. We’ve traded in our outsider status – our anti-establishment, turn over the tables, radical revolutionary rhetoric – for an agenda that is conventional and middle-class. (NRO)

Two decades ago, the gay left wanted to smash the bourgeois prisons of monogamy, capitalistic enterprise and patriotic values and bask in the warm sun of bohemian “free love.” And avant-garde values. In this, they were simply picking up the torch from the straight left of the 1960s and 1970s, who had sought to throw off the sexual hang-ups of their parents’ generation along with their gray flannel suits.
…
The gay experiment with open bohemianism was arguably shorter. Of course, AIDS played an obvious and tragic role in focusing attention on the downside of promiscuity. But even so, the sweeping embrace of bourgeois lifestyles by the gay community has been stunning.

Nowhere is this more evident — and perhaps exaggerated — than in popular culture. Watch ABC’s Modern Family. The sitcom is supposed to be “subversive” in part because it features a gay couple with an adopted daughter from Asia. And you can see why both liberal proponents and conservative opponents of gay marriage see it that way. But imagine you hate the institution of marriage and then watch Modern Family’s hardworking bourgeois gay couple through those eyes. What’s being subverted? Traditional marriage, or some bohemian identity-politics fantasy of homosexuality?

Even the most casual glance at the goals and aspirations of our community activists – both Gay, Inc. and street protesters – give a picture of a modern gay community seeking conventionality: we value marriage and family, participation in national defense, religious inclusion, assimilated employment and housing, and societal respect for our lives and our unions. Looking at our legislative goals, you’d think we were all Republicans (and, indeed, at least a quarter of us are).

And this is certainly troubling to some in of our community. Those who have been out long enough to remember the transgressive cultural ideology of our youth often do so fondly. Yes, life is certainly easier when the store clerk helps you pick out a gift for your husband, but there was a sense of purpose and a heady rush of righteousness to screaming “fascist pigs” while storming out of a store that made it clear that they didn’t serve people like you.

Outsider status has its appeal. There’s very little intimacy in “belonging to” a citizenry of 300 million, but subcultures provide encouragement and support and care for those who share in the burden. The more that the greater society rejects you, the more intense is your sense of belonging to your community. And, ironically, the more one takes on attitudes and attributes that further separate you from the oppressors.

And for some in our community, the struggle is what defines their identity; it’s what gives purpose to their rage. And on the day that we finally accomplish civil, social, and religious equality, they will find themselves sadly pointless and obsolete.

But most of those who fear gay assimilation aren’t just angry or sentimental for the days of rejection. They also are legitimately concerned about a loss of culture, the diminishing of the unique perspective that our community created and which gives us color and life, our peculiarity and individuality. The more we embrace assimilation, the more we lose a bit of who we are.

They are right, of course.

The more that younger gay people assimilate into the greater community, the less our segregation will cause us to coalesce around shared culture points of music, expression, language, politics, and social thought. Gay institutions such as leather, drag, pop icons, feminist music, biker women, and sexual abandon will suffer and diminish as a result – to some extent they already have.

But “our culture” is another term for “what makes us different” and sometimes that which we claim as our own is really just a response to the rejection of others. Art and beauty are often born out of pain, and comfort seldom inspires originality. And as rejection recedes, so too will reaction.

But I believe that there will always be a gay community that is set apart to some extent from society. We will always have a place to go to be around people who share our unique perspective driven by the very real difference of our sexual attraction. And it will have to go through the process of finding what is of lasting unique value and what can and should be given up in trade for the comfort and security that comes from acceptance.

I can’t predict what will survive our continued assimilation, but I know that you can’t truly stand apart without disregarding the opinions of others. And as we gain equalities, the risks for many gay people will become too great. It is all but certain that some of our culture points will either go extinct or become stylized homages to an earlier time, like lederhosen or Saint Patrick’s Day parades.

Yes, it is true that we will be a more equal people, a more secure, accepted, and included people. But it is also certainly true that we will have less sparkle and freak.

Who is the real Santa Claus?

In 1947 Christmas classic Miracle on 34th Street, an elderly store Santa declares that he is Kris Kringle, the real Santa Clause. Seeing something special in Kris, attorney Fred Gailey seeks to keep him from being declared mentally incompetent and a menace to society by proving in court that he truly is Santa Claus. And in the process he finds an authority to which to appeal to make his case: the US Post Office.

Again this year the US Post Office has somehow found Santa Claus alive and well in New York City. The Times tells us how.