Box Turtle Bulletin

Happy Thanksgiving

Klassy Bristol Palin

Last night it became apparent just how little class the Palins have and just how insular and self-congratulatory that those who support them have become. Speaking with what was clearly the shared perspective of the Palins and their supporters, Bristol Palin answered a question about how it would feel to win, with ” It would be like a big middle finger out there to all the people out there who hate my mom and hate me.”

All of her competitors who have put months of training – with no days off – and who pushed themselves farther than their bodies really were ready to go, meant nothing. No, this was all about Sarah Palin and her Tea Partiers flipping off those who don’t support her.

That was too much even for her dancing partner and biggest cheerleader, Mark Balos, who looked off in the distance. And host Tom Bergeran had no idea what to say when the camera turned to him.

Bristol was the first eliminated last night.

(I corrected the exact quote)

DADT update: McCain looking more extreme

Most of the recent news about the potential repeal of the Military’s anti-gay Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy surrounds the report on the Military’s survey of troops and families. And it is not looking good for DADT’s chief defender, Sen. John McCain.

McCain continues to trumpet his latest objection to repeal, his assertion that the report didn’t ask the right questions. In fact, it now appears that McCain has been in correspondence with the Pentagon over this issue for some time. In April he objected that the survey was studying whether the repeal would have impact on the troops and how best to go about it rather than whether the ban should be lifted. In September, he tried again, this time writing to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, on Armed Services Committee stationery, making suggestions as to the extent and content of the survey:

I urge you and Admiral Mullen to modify the review and survey instrument, or to conduct supplemental surveys, aimed at ensuring that the question of whether the DADT policy should be changed is answered.
…
It is essential – and I think it’s clear that the Service Chiefs strongly agree with this point – that the survey provide the input needed to inform the Department and Congress on the views and recommendations of those most effected by this change, the men and women in uniform.

Gates’ response rejected McCain’s suggestion and politely reminded him that the Military is not structured as a democracy:

It is not part of the working group’s mandate to ask Servicemembers the broad question of whether they think DADT should be repealed, which, in effect, would amount to a referendum. I do not believe that military policy decisions — on this or any other subject — should be made through a referendum of Servicemembers.

As his letter suggests, the Curmudgeon in Chief is relying on the “strong agreement” of the Service Chiefs to provide a basis for his public opposition of open service. Last week he told reporters, “I respect and admire these four service chiefs who have expressed either outright opposition or deep reservation about the repeal.”

McCain seems to be relying on letters he solicited and received in May from the individual Chiefs and which he interpreted to be an endorsement of the anti-gay policy. But he really should have read them more closely before waving them on the floor of the Senate and touting them as agreeing with him.

Because, as it turns out, the Service Chiefs had reviewed the questions and, according to Gates, “fully support the approach and efforts of the working group.” As some of them have expressed in the past few days.

Over the weekend, Navy Chief Adm. Gary Roughead, who had written that “the best approach would be to complete the DOD review before there is any legislation to change the law” now seems pleased with the review. (National Journal)

“I think the survey, without question, was the most expansive survey of the American military that’s ever been undertaken,” Roughead said during an interview Saturday aboard his plane. “I think the work that has been done is extraordinary.”

This morning Air Force Chief Gen. Norton Schwartz echoed the praise (The Hill)

“The study was a good process; it was healthy; it is informative,” Schwartz told reporters at a breakfast meeting. The Air Force chief declined to offer any specifics, stressing his commitment to keep his recommendations to the Pentagon leadership confidential for now.

The sole negative comment appears to be that of Marine Chief Gen. James Amos, who said earlier in the month that now was not the right time to lift the ban. While this comment was made before the draft or the report was leaked and the Service Chiefs’ comments were incorporated, Amos may be McCain’s only ally in his quest to keep institutionalized discrimination in the Military.

Or, should Amos support the conclusions of the report, McCain may be standing alone, supported only by religious zealots and obvious bigots.

Secretary Gates has also taken the step of making at least a token effort to respond to Senators Lieberman and Collins’ request to expedite the release of the report. (WaPo)

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has ordered the report to be released Nov. 30, one day earlier than planned, “to support Congress’s wish to consider repeal before they adjourn,” Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said Sunday.

However, we should be cautious not to be overly optimistic about the report. The recommendations, while based on survey responses which are leaked to be positive, may well be far less than we hope for. I very much doubt that this report will call for an immediate repeal of the ban.

Rather, I suspect that it will suggest a phase-in of repeal, perhaps emphasizing certain branches of service enacting open service earlier than others. I also suspect that it will involve the transfer of openly gay servicemembers from certain forms of service to other forms, rather than discharge.

Whatever the recommendations, they are likely to be disappointing. Which, ironically, may make them more palatable to legislators on the fence.

Meanwhile, Log Cabin Republicans continues its court-based assault on the policy. (Merc)

On Friday, Log Cabin Republicans filed a motion with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for an expedited schedule. It would put the case on track for oral arguments in April.

In response to LCR’s court win declaring DADT to be unconstitutional, the Military implemented new rules requiring that no person could be discharged under DADT without “personal approval of the secretary of the military department concerned, and only in coordination with [Secretary Gates] and the General Counsel of the Department of Defense.”

Unsurprisingly, this has proved to be a virtual moratorium on the application of the policy (WaPo)

No U.S. service members have been discharged for being openly gay in the month since the Defense Department adopted new rules surrounding the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, a Pentagon spokeswoman said Monday.

Increasingly, it looks evident that this policy will soon be gone. And increasingly it looks as though Senator John McCain, after a long contribution to his country, will be most remembered as a man who, in the waning years of his service, frittered away his influence by cantankerously clinging to prejudices and fighting against the coming of a world that was already there.

Mixed news on hate crimes

Hate crimes statistics is a difficult subject to correctly evaluate. Reporting by local agencies has, until recently, been voluntary and often subject to arbitrary interpretation, so year to year or location to location comparisons must be considered with the understanding that any specific anomaly in long term trending may not accurately reflect a real or significant shift in either social attitudes or behavior.

I think that it is evident and obvious that hate crimes are under-reported. Behaviors that mirror biases of individual officers are more likely to be treated as “no big deal”, and, as we have seen, even people who see themselves as supportive can dismiss hostility as “a natural reaction.” And, of course, most hate crimes are only known when the victim is willing to come forward and report a crime or file a complaint.

Reporting of hate crimes based on sexual orientation are probably complicated by a greater lack of recognition or by a greater hesitancy to come forward than other animus related crimes. However, with increased social acceptance for gay people, both institutional dismissiveness and fear of recognition have decreased which probably has resulted in a higher frequency of incidents being reported or tracked.

Okay, that’s enough caveats. Now the positive news.

The FBI has released the statistics on hate crimes reported during 2009, and fewer incidents were reported than previous years in nearly every category. (FBI)

While the number of law enforcement agencies submitting data to us increased—topping off at 14,222—the number of hate crime incidents reported for 2009 (6,604) was down from 2008. The number of reported victims (8,336) has also gone down. (“Victims,” in this case, can be individuals, businesses, institutions, and society as a whole.)

Sexual Orientation based crimes were significantly fewer than in prior years. Comparison to 2008 may not reflect a trend, as Proposition 8’s fear-based anti-gay campaign is believed to have generated an increased hostility towards gay people, but with 1,436 incidents, this is lower than both 2008 and 2007.

Hate crimes based on race, religion, and ethnicity were also lower than in the past two years. This is wonderful news.

However, there is also some disturbing news to be found among the data.

When considering just violent crimes (Murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, aggravated assault, and simple assault), sexual orientation based crimes are up, both in incidents and in percentage of hate crimes. As in prior years, reported anti-gay hate crimes tended to include physical violence significantly more often than those of other reported demographics. This may reflect either a greater degree of animus, or it may demonstrate that reporting agencies are less likely to take non-violent hate crimes based on sexual orientation as serious or worth reporting.

Violent hate crimes based on sexual orientation went from 695 in 2008 to 725 in 2009. This reflects a slight increase in the percentage of violent hate crimes that are sexual orientation related as well as a slight increase in the percentage of sexual orientation hate crimes that were violent.

Additionally, the percentage of populations that are impacted should be considered when looking at hate crime statistics. Hate crimes, especially violent hate crimes, target individual members of the gay community to a greater extent than some other minority communities. (Jews are also disproportionately impacted, with damage and vandalism being the dominant hate crime).

For example, African Americans make up about 12.4% of the population and there were 819 reported cases of anti-black assaults. The GLB community, on the other hand, comprise maybe around 5.5% of the total population and suffered 712 reported cases of assault.

So while it is good news that the total hate crime incidences reported in 2009 – including those based on anti-gay animus – were down, it remains troubling that so many anti-gay hate crimes continue to be violent.

Pope: gay hustlers can use condoms

This is just bizarre: (bloomburg)

Pope Benedict XVI has opened the door on the previously taboo subject of condoms as a way to fight HIV, saying male prostitutes who use condoms may be beginning to act responsibly. It’s a stunning comment for a pontiff who has blamed condoms for making the AIDS crisis worse.
…
Benedict said that condoms are not a moral solution to stopping AIDS. But he said in some cases, such as for male prostitutes, their use could represent a first step in assuming moral responsibility “in the intention of reducing the risk of infection.”

It appears that Papa Ratzi’s logic is that by using condoms, male prostitutes are not really blocking procreation, unlike heterosexuals who use condoms. He appears to remain opposed to condom use for married heterosexuals in cases in which one party is infected with HIV.

I understand the thinking; I just can’t wrap my head around the morality. Yet, I accept it as perhaps a step in the right direction, a tiny inclination towards placing the good of the people above the Church’s somewhat arbitrary opposition to a piece of latex.

Barber finds the outer edge of wackadoodle, and leaps off

One of the saddest indignities that gay couples suffer is when hospitals deny them the comfort of love amidst serious illness. Using definitions of “family” that elevate an estranged third-cousin above a decades-long partner, “rules and procedures” can actually result in emotional torture to a sick person who is forced to die alone while administrators lock their spouses and children away from them as though they were nosy interloping strangers.

Fortunately, most people aren’t cruel. And even many of the most stalwart “defenders of the family” will concede that people should be able to be with their partners in the hospital. In fact, when President Obama required that those hospitals that receive Medicare funding revisit their policies to allow patients, not pencil-pushers, to define their family, few complained about “the homosexual agenda.”

I say “few” and not “none” because some folk can be counted on to react negatively, even to the most benign of ideas. Anything whatsoever that might possibly be considered to benefit a gay person will evoke a Pavlovian response. Gay marriage – hate it. Gay military service – fight it. Gay apparel – won’t don it. Gay ol’ Time – not for a minute.

One such pillar of predictability is Matt Barber, the Associate Dean of Liberty University School of Law. Yes, Matt can be counted on to scoop up a big steaming pile of nastiness and throw it at our community. And the issue of having your loved ones in the hospital with you is no exception.

Now Matt, who just isn’t all that bright (no, I’m sorry, it’s not just his opinions – the guy really is stupid) makes the following argument:

* You can have any visitors you like
* So no one is discriminating against gay people
* But allowing gay people to have their partners visit is unfair to Catholic and Baptist hospitals who don’t want to allow gay visitors

Yes, Barber literally makes an argument for denying gay sick people to have their partners visit. He thinks – and I kid you not – that hospitals should have the “liberty of conscience” to emotionally torture their patients.

“Certainly there are Catholic hospitals and Baptist hospitals that recognize homosexual behavior as sinful behavior,” he points, “and they do not want to take part in affirming homosexual sin under the strong arm of the government.”

Some religious hospitals may have to make a decision as to whether to conform to the rules or not accept Medicare patients. Barber says what the Obama administration is doing is casting liberty of conscience aside and forcing acceptance of homosexuality.

It’s no wonder that when I read Matt Barber’s name, I find myself whistling:

The real reason some oppose lifting DADT

Those who oppose the repeal of the Military’s anti-gay “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy often couch their objections to open service in terms of ‘what is best for the Military.’ And, to be fair, that may be a primary concern of our Curmudgeon in Chief or other legislators who just can’t fathom that young soldiers are just not as scared of Homosexuals!! in the Showers!! as they are.

But achieving the best Military is of no consequence to those who are leading the public opposition to open service. If irrefutable proof were offered that open service by gay personnel would increase unit cohesion and military effectiveness by 25%, they would still be opposed. Because their chief objection has nothing to do with the military, the fears of other soldiers, or even sensitivity to the religious teachings of chaplains.

No. Their objection is based on the fear that open service would remove the stigma and hostility that is institutionalized by the DADT policy. They don’t care about military policy nearly as much as they do about condemning homosexuality and gay people.

Take, for example, the objections made by Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) when asked what his response would be if the military survey showed that soldiers do not have a problem with open service:

I would still have a problem with it because there’s no question to mainstream homosexuality within active duty military would have an impact on unit cohesion would have an impact on recruitment, an impact on readiness, that’s been established and written about and chronicled for many many years and I believe we need to continue to keep the focus of our military on the mission of the military. Don’t ask don’t tell was a compromise back in the early 90s, it’s been a successful compromise we ought to leave it like it is and and not run the risk of impacting the readiness of our military or recruitment for our military because of an effort to advance some liberal domestic social agenda.

Lots of talk about unit cohesion, recruitment, readiness, etc., but that is just cover.

As Pence indicates, he doesn’t care what the report says. He doesn’t care what soldiers think, or whether open service would improve unit cohesion, recruitment, and readiness. All of that is irrelevant to Pence’s position.

Pence’s real opposition is “to mainstream homosexuality.” The rest is mere justifications offered to bolster his real objection, “mainstreaming” homosexuality.

This fear of “mainstreaming” raises its head in the objections that Focus on the Family makes to anti-bullying campaigns. It’s present in debates over insurance for city employees. It shows up when a theme park has a gay day or when a television show creates a lesbian character or when a library includes a book with a plotline that speaks to the life of a gay youth.

Really, Mike Pence isn’t that worried that the military will not be ready for combat if gay people serve. The military isn’t his concern or why he ran for Congress. In fact, this isn’t even because Pence “hates gays” or opposes “the liberal social agenda”, per se.

Rather, Pence is afraid that Americans are rejecting his religion’s views including those about homosexuality and that it is – or soon will be – no longer mainstream thinking to engage in blanket condemnation of others based on their sexual orientation. He is afraid that his religion will further slip in its “moral authority” to declare what is acceptable social conduct and he is seeking to use his power as an elected official to give governmental sanction to his church’s beliefs.

UPDATE: Andrew Sullivan added this additional thought:

I think many under-estimate the symbolic importance of this to those who believe homosexuality is a sickness or a sin. What we are asking of them is not simply to tolerate reluctantly the fact that some gay people refuse to be ashamed or closeted, but to conflate the symbol of the American soldier with a homosexual. There are very few emblems in American life that carry the weight, power and symbolism of the American soldier, the veteran, the men and women in uniform.

To say that open gay men and women are serving their country in uniform is to say that they are fully citizens. It is this equal citizenship that simply cannot compute with the idea of homosexuality in the minds of a minority of the older generation.

Uganda To Revive Anti-Homosexuality Bill Soon

The big news yesterday was that Uganda’s Ethics and Integrity Minister James Nsaba Buturo ordered a women’s conference scheduled for Wednesday in Entebbe canceled. The reason given was that one of the topics to be discussed was to have been the plight of sex workers. But buried beneath all of that in the last paragraph of this Daily Monitor news item:

Dr Buturo also revealed that the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, which brought controversy between government and donors, will be revisited upon completion of the Chogm debate which is on-going.

The “Chogm debate” is over rampant corruption in the awarding of government contracts and other acts of bribery that took place when Uganda was preparing for its role as host for the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in 2007. Parliament is due to issue its report into the investigation. If that report follows previous patterns in dealing with corruption, it will likely offer up a few low-level scapegoats while protecting the guilty among the elites.

But the big news for us is the indication that the draconian Anti-Homosexuality Bill is expected to be debated in full Parliament. That bill, in its current form, would impose the death penalty for gay people under certain circumstances, and impose life imprisonment (which is practically a death sentence when it comes to Ugandan prisons) under all other circumstances. It would also outlaw all free speech and advocacy on behalf of gay people and threaten relatives and friends of gay people with three years imprisonment if they fail to report their LGBT loved ones to police.

Earlier this week, Warren Throckmorton interviewed MP David Bahati, the bill’s sponsor, who said that the anti-gay bill remains in the queue:

“The last time I talked to the chairman,” Bahati said referring to the chairman of the Legal and Parliamentary Affairs committee, “what he assured us is that he is going to work on this for sure.” Bahati added that the timing is unclear. “But if it will come up before recess, I am not certain.” The Parliament is slated to recess for nominations on November 25. Bahati told me that there were other bills in committee that would need action before his could be considered.

SC Baptists confirmed their opposition to your immoral behavior and deviant lifestyle

Just in case you were wondering, the Southern Baptists in South Carolina want to make it perfectly clear that they ain’t like those homo-lovin’ Lutherans. In their state convention they voted on a resolution to remind us – in case we forgot or were confused – that they don’t like Teh Ghey so much. (Greenville online)

The resolution on “homosexuality and religious liberty” noted the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religious expression, “including speech pertaining to social and religious values.” It said Christians “must also use our freedoms to defend traditional marriage, protect the sanctity of human life, and combat the propagation of immoral behavior and deviant lifestyles.”

And they aren’t in confusion about what message they are sending.

“Southern Baptists and other evangelical Christians have been portrayed by the media as intolerant or dangerous because of our commitment to Christ and our belief in biblical precepts,” it said.

Yep. I’d say that pretty much covers it. Intolerant and actively endangering the lives of children who grow up hearing them spew their bile.

Them mooslems int got no relijun

I ruffled some feathers here (and reaped a heap of accusations) by doubting the wisdom and appropriateness of the methods employed in proposing and planning a mosque that was perceived to be “at Ground Zero”. But – for those who got a bit carried away at that time – there is a difference between concern about the circumstances of a situation and downright bigotry.

An example of the latter category comes to us from Murfreesburo, Tennessee, where some local folk have been trying to block a community of Muslims from expanding their worship and cultural center.

Following a suit filed under the pretenses of concerns about traffic, water quality, and soil contamination, the court case soon devolved into bald bigotry. (AP)

But much of the questioning from plaintiffs’ attorney Joe Brandon Jr. during seven days of testimony since late September was about whether Islam qualified as a religion. He pushed his theory that American Muslims want to replace the Constitution with extremist Islamic law.

The argument was founded on the nonsensical assumption that all Muslims adhere to the most conservative and literal interpretations of their text, (LA Times)

At one point, he asked whether Rutherford County Commissioner Gary Farley supported hanging a whip in his house as a warning to his wife and then beating her with it, something Brandon claimed was part of “Shariah religion.”

The commissioner protested that he would never beat his wife.

The ironic part is that the objection to the mosque was funded by those who consider themselves good Christians, the Bible-believing, force-everyone-to-follow-my-doctrine type. It would have been amusing to have various parts of the Bible read allowed and accuse the plaintiffs of practicing slavery and stoning their children. I think it would have been fun to just ask Attorney Brandon whether he holds the Constitution or the Bible in higher regard and watch him squirm.

To their credit, the commissioners stood by their decision and local religious leaders defended the mosque. And, of course, the judge found no merit in the rantings of stereotype and hatred.

But that didn’t stop some politicians from capitalizing on anti-Muslim animus. (CNN)

Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey publicly criticized the project during a speech in August.

“You could even argue whether being a Muslim is actually a religion, or is it a nationality, way of life, a cult, whatever you want to call it,” Ramsey, then a candidate for Tennessee governor, said at a rally.

The only valid criticism seems to be that one of the board members had posted pro-Hamas comments to his MySpace page. And that, indeed, does deserve public rebuke.

But at the end of the day, people have the religious and intellectual freedom to support Hamas. That such a view is contrary to decency does not mean that they lose their constitutional rights.

And besides, personally I have a hard time distinguishing between the attitudes of hard-core Muslim extremists who want to impose their religion on others, and their Christian counterparts.

DADT updates

It is difficult to determine exactly how the effort to repeal DADT will shake out in the “lame duck” session. There is a great deal of discussion, news, and movement, and at the moment most seems promising.

The President has finally gotten personally involved (Politico)

Wednesday, Obama – who advocates criticized for not doing enough to influence the Senate vote – called Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) to “reiterate his commitment on keeping the repeal of, and the need for the Senate to pass this legislation during the lame duck,” White House spokesman Shin Inouye said Wednesday afternoon.

And senior White House staff are involved with strategy

On Wednesday evening, several high-ranking administration officials and top members of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s staff met with gay rights advocates to review plans to bring the National Defense Authorization Act – an annual, must-pass military spending bill which contains language repealing the ban on gays in the military – to a vote in the coming weeks.

Republican Senator Collins and Independent-Democrat Senator Lieberman (the President’s point-person on the repeal) have written to the Secretary of Defense calling for the report on the Military survey to be issued in advance of the December 1 deadline so as to “alleviate some concerns” that Senators may have with repealing the policy.

Collins, who supported the repeal in committee and is committed to repeal, joined other Republicans and two Democrats earlier in the year to block a vote on the total Defense Authorization bill due to Sen. Reid’s unusual tactic of denying the ability of Republicans to introduce amendments to the bill. Support for allowing the usual debate has picked up support within the Democratic Caucus and so is less likely to be a sticking point. (Journal Constitution)

A dozen Democrats and Sen. Joseph Lieberman, an independent from Connecticut, urged Reid Thursday to allow an extended debate on the wide-ranging defense authorization bill, which includes language repealing the 1993 law known as “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

Lieberman said the Senate’s desire to adjourn before the holidays was no reason to curtail debate and give Republicans an excuse to oppose the bill. Last September, GOP senators blocked the bill because Reid wouldn’t allow the two weeks of debate they said was needed to address such major legislation.

And it appears that if Reid honors that process, at least two Senators will break any filibuster attempt by Senator McCain. (Stars and Stripes)

On Thursday, Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., told reporters that he believes at least two Republicans will side with repeal advocates when the issue is brought back up for a vote — but with conditions.

Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Dick Lugar of Indiana have pledged to him in private that they’ll vote to allow debate to continue on the defense authorization bill, which includes the repeal measure, “so long as there is a fair and open amendment process,” he said.

Also, as a possibility, is newly elected Senator Kirk, who is seated immediately to finish out the term of Senator Burris. While Kirk voted against including the DADT repeal in the Defense Authorization bill while a member of the House, he was one of five Republicans to vote for the bill with the repeal included. And Kirk’s stated reason for not including the repeal was that it did preceded the findings of the study, an objection that will no longer be true for this vote.

And few, if any, Senators have joined Senator McCain’s effort to discredit the report. Democratic Senator Jim Webb, who served as Secretary of the Navy under President Reagan and was the sole Democrat to vote in committee against lifting the ban on open service, gave the report high praise (wonk room)

I can’t, again having spent five years in the Pentagon. I can’t remember a study on this type of issue that has been done with this sort of care. Not even having seen it or knowing the results, but I know the preparation that went into it. So it’s going to be a very important study for us to look at and examine.

The only down side may be that the final report will include the reaction and response of the four chiefs of the military divisions. If they are universally opposed to repeal, McCain will seek to use their opposition as a basis for keeping the policy. However, if even one or two are supportive of the plan for implementation of the repeal, this could go a long way towards providing cover for Senators on the fence.

Another odd selling point could be that repealing the ban could resolve tensions between the government and educational institutions. The president of Harvard, which has banned ROTC since 1969, has invited the military to reestablish a presence on the campus once DADT is gone. (Reuters)

“A ROTC program, open to all, ought to be fully and formally present on our campus,” said Harvard President Drew Faust. She made the comment to welcome an evening speech by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen, the top U.S. military officer.

Faust drew applause from the audience of several hundred for the offer to restore the university’s Reserve Officer Training Corps program.

So although it is still tentative and a lot could still go wrong, for the first time in a long while, I think that there is a better than decent chance that Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell will be repealed before the end of the year.

UPDATE: Wonk Room is reporting that Republican Senators Murkowski intends to vote for repeal. The Washington Blade has also added Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) to the list of those in favor of repeal; his previous objection was to the timing of a vote before the survey was complete.

Perry appeal will be televised

The Ninth Circuit has ruled that the appeal in Perry v. Schwarzenegger will be aired live:

C-SPAN applied to televise live the case captioned above, scheduled to be heard in San Francisco, on December 6, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. C-SPAN’s request to televise live is GRANTED. A maximum of two (2) video cameras will be permitted in the courtroom. C-SPAN will serve as the pool-feed for all media organizations that submit an application.

I’m sure the anti-gays aren’t happy about this.

GOProud’s Tammy Bruce maligns West Hollywood

GOProud is an organization of conservative gay people driven entirely by identity politics. They see themselves first as “not the Left”, secondarily as “conservatives”, third as partisan Republicans, and finally in a far distant place as gay. Unlike Log Cabin Republicans, the gay group who measures each issue against it’s matrix of beliefs, GOProud is reactionary, selecting their positions and candidates based primarily on what they think will most annoy liberal gay people and organizations.

So it is not at all surprising that GOProud has weighed in on a controversial but fairly non-consequential issue: Willow Palin’s homophobic slurs.

This all started on Monday when Willow got into a facebook squabble with another teen. She was “defending her mother” against this kid’s criticism that Sarah Palin’s Alaska, the new Palin reality show that premiered on Monday, was “failing”. Willow responded with the “you’re gay” putdown, followed by a homophobic slur:

Willow is a kid who did not ask to be Sarah Palin’s daughter and who has not pushed herself into the spotlight. Further, as best I can tell this was not an attack intended to reflect on anyone’s sexual orientation but rather typical of the careless and hurtful language that has saturated the youth culture. So I’m not quick to accuse her of homophobia or question her character.

But it is fair to note that this reflects on the Palin parenting style as well as the values of Todd and Sarah Palin. This is a classless exchange. And while my parents were conservative and certainly anti-gay, I would never have dared use this language.

So, to me, it is relevant that no one has, to date, apologized for the language used, or even suggested that it was inappropriate. Not a huge issue to me, but not outside of the realm of acceptable criticism.

But GOProud has leaped to the defense of Sarah Palin, one of their idols. If “the Left” is going to criticize the use of a hurtful slur, then they will defend it. (TMZ)

GOProud.org just told TMZ, “The ‘slur’ used here is one you could hear on the streets of West Hollywood or Chelsea every day of the week. Apparently, it’s only a homophobic slur when it comes from the daughter of a conservative female leader.”

I can’t speak for Chelsea, but you WILL NOT hear that slur “on the streets of West Hollywood” any day of the week.

I don’t know what kind of language that GOProud’s Tammy Bruce (a local boring talk-show host) uses in private, or what her social circle has to say about gay men when they can’t be heard. And her “Boys in the Band” mentality may be shared by whatever self-loathing people she finds to confirm and bolster her need to be “not like them.”

But that slur reflects a complete lack of self-respect and a capitulation to a mindset that sees oneself and one’s community as worthless and deserving of contempt. It is entirely socially unacceptable in public or in any gay circles of which I am a part. And this is particularly true on the streets of West Hollywood.

The last time I hear that word used on Santa Monica Boulevard, a diminutive young lady tackled the guy saying it and began pounding her fists into his face. We don’t like that term so much, you see. And we have reason.

In 1984 when little WeHo became a city, the first night that it’s City Council met, it passed a non-discrimination ordinance. The council then marched down to Barney’s Beanery, a restaurant and bar within the new city limits, and confiscated their “Fagots – Stay Out” sign. That slur (and yes, it’s a slur even if Bruce puts in scare quotes) has not been welcome in West Hollywood since.

Just as I would never refer to Ms. Bruce with a term that denigrated her sex and orientation – in public or in private – she had best not bring her foul bigotry to the streets of my community. She best not dare.

Bavarian Lutherans allow coupled pastors to live with partners in parsonages

Bavariia, Germany’s south-eastern state, is conservative and Catholic. But the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Bavaria, to which about one in five Bavarians belongs, has further extended recognition to its gay ministers (Christian Century)

Gay and lesbian Lutheran ministers in the conservative German state of Bavaria may live with their partners in parish parsonages, but only if they enter into a state-sanctioned civil union.

Although the move may seem bold for what is generally considered one of Germany’s most traditional states, Bishop Johannes Friedrich of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Bavaria said it was no great departure from existing policies.

He noted that the church had already welcomed openly gay ministers and same-sex unions. “We had only left out that a couple could live in a civil union in the parsonage,” he said.

To abide by the ruling, gay or lesbian ministers must receive a church blessing for their union and enter into a civil union officially recognized by government officials.

According to church officials, six Bavarian ministers already live in same-sex civil unions.

Germany does not recognize marriage equality, but does allow registered partnerships with nearly all of the benefits and obligations of marriage. The new policy seems to me to be simply applying the same rules to its gay ministers as to its straight pastors.

Glee’s bully: It Gets Better

There are, by now, thousands of videos of those who have joined the It Gets Better Project all of whom tell bullied kids that some day life gets better. Max Adler, who plays the football player who bullies gay kid Kirk Kurt, has added his voice.

These video range from amateur but sincere to polished and scripted. But few feel quite as natural and spontaneous as this one. Although I’ve more or less decided not to post any new It Gets Better Videos (there are so very many), I’m making an exception: