Box Turtle Bulletin

NOM’s all new Tour of, well, nobody

Carly Fiorina must be loco. Muy loco.

Why else would she agree to let the National Organization for Marriage organize a bus tour to support her campaign for US Senator from California. In Spanish.

Over the summer, NOM spent 19 days traveling about various states to promote their agenda of excluding gay people from civil marriage rights. And although they only made 21 stops, they were so abysmally disorganized that in some events the organizers outnumbered the attendees. They seemed to have the strange approach to bus tours of “if you park it, they will come.”

Now consider, if you will, the same organizers (along with the Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles, American Principles in Action and the Susan B. Anthony List). Except this time the tour will have several stops per day, will target Latinos to support of a Republican Senate candidate, and will be in Spanish.

Yesterday, the “Vota Tus Valores” campaign (“Vote your Values”) rolled is off to a start. And it is laughably predictable. (Courage Campaign)

Stop 1: Bakersfield

Only one “values-voter” stopped by, but she was not Latina.

“I was shopping at Target when I saw the bus across the street and wanted to see what it was all about,” she told me.

We initially counted 8 in attendance, but 7 were organizers that got back on the bus at the end of the stop.

Stop 2: Visalia

The Vota Tus Valores bus tour kept up its attendance average in Visalia — 1 person showed up.

“I vote according to God’s will,” said one Latina woman who happened to be in the park when the bus pulled up but refused to go on-camera.

Stop 3: Hanford

No one at all. Zilch. Nada.

Maybe it shouldn’t be surprising that on the hottest day of the year (Los Angeles set a new record: the hottest day ever recorded in the city) you aren’t going to find too many people hanging out in a nice bright sunny park. But surely you could have tried to organize someone.

Stop 4: Madera

Success. At last an audience. Not of likely voters, exactly, but at least living breathing bodies.

In Madera, the advance team was able to wrangle up a few additional attendees: fifteen men from a local Christian men’s shelter were present to “show support,” including one man wearing an Obama shirt and a reformed neo-Nazi who was heavily tatotted with swastikas.

Stop 5: Roseville

Here the bus pulled up for dinner. At a chain “mexican” restaurant. Even the waiter wasn’t Latino.

And that, my friends, is what you get when NOM organizes your bus tour. Thank God.

Ugandan Tabloid Grossly Distorts An American Paper’s Interview With Gay Asylum Seeker

The Sept 24, 2010 edition of Uganda's notorious tabloid Red Pepper featuring asylum seeker Moses Mworeko on the front cover (Click to enlarge)

Uganda’s notorious tabloid Red Pepper has engaged in some of the most deplorable gay-baiting and gay-bashing “journalism” to be found anywhere in the world, but nothing can prepare one for the latest outrage. Last Friday, the tabloid published a front-page article alleging that Kushaba Moses Mworeko, a 31-year-old Ugandan who has requested asylum in the United States, had “raped boys in school.” The paper also republished an interview with Mworeko that first appeared in Washington, D.C.’s Metro Weekly last July while grossly distorting that same interview in its write-up.

An anonymous reader forwarded these scans from the pages of Red Pepper to BTB on Friday.

Mworeko first became known to Americans when he appeared at the American Prayer Hour last February. The American Prayer Hour was organized by Truth Wins Out as a counter presence to the National Prayer Breakfast, organized by the secretive Evangelical group known as The Fellowship or The Family. The point of the American Prayer Hour was to protest the ties that exist between members of The Family and supporters of the draconian Anti-Homosexuality Bill that had been introduced into Uganda’s Parliament the previous October. Mworeko spoke at a news conference identified only as Moses, his middle name. He also appeared with a bag over his head to conceal his identity because he was in fear for his life.

Five months later, Moses revealed his full identity when he spoke with Metro Weekly’s Will O’Bryan to talk about his asylum request. In that interview, Moses explained that he was in the United States to attend an HIV/AIDS conference at the same time that the Anti-Homosexuality Bill was being introduced in Parliament. Moses had already considered moving to the U.S., but given the deteriorating situation in Uganda, he decided to overstay his visa in November and seek political asylum. His original application for asylum was denied, and his case is now on appeal.

In the wide-ranging Metro Weekly interview in July, Moses described the precarious situation LGBT Ugandans face on a daily basis, which includes official intimidation by police and the constant fear of being discovered. He describes his early childhood, the death of both of his parents from AIDS, and his early experiences in school which included dealing with his own emerging understanding of his sexuality. From the Metro Weekly interview:

Moses' interview appeared in the July 28 edition of Washington, D.C.'s Metro Weekly

MW: Was this also the time you began to think you might be gay?

MWOREKO: Actually, even before my parents died, they knew I was gay. It was known at my elementary school.

At first, people could tell because of my behavior. Then, at school, with the boys I used to live with in the dormitory, there was a guy. We came from the same village, we went to the same school, we were studying in the same class and sitting at the same table. There was attraction between us. We started having sex, and that spread in the boys’ dormitory.

MW: News that you were having sex spread?

MWOREKO: No, the kids started having sex. We were young. It was experimental. Of course, I definitely had those feelings. All that spread through the dormitory of like 40 people.

What happened, I think, is that one of the boys did not like it and was forced to do it. There was a conflict between him and the one who was imposing it on him. They fought, and that’s when the news came out and the teachers found out. They said, ”Okay, who has done it?” We were all rounded together and beaten, punished. Because it started with me and my friend, it all came to us. They had to send for our parents and it was nasty.

My dad was furious. Of course, he had to punch me before the teachers. Then when I went home for the holidays, they had to beat me. I mean, the firstborn – ”You are shaming us. This can’t happen to us, to our family.”

After my parents passed, during high school, I was free. Although, in my high school I was being helped by my guardian, an Anglican priest, who decided to help me with my education. I remained in the closet because of that.

Red Pepper's version of Moses' interview with Metro Weekly (Click to enlarge)

Red Peeper, however, twisted that narrative beyond all recognition. Next to the headline “This gay monster raped boys in school but failed to bonk his wife,” Red Pepper included a wholly invented quote next to Moses’ photo which reads, “I sodomized this one boy and soon all boys in school were having sex.” And this is how the Red Pepper further “interpreted” the interview in its writeup:

Today we expose Moses Kushaba Mworeko a gay monster who has confessed to viciously raping kids in primary school and setting off a sex craze that swept throughout the school like wildfire. … He made his disgusting confession in The Metro Weekly a Newspaper in the US.

In his sordid interview Mworeko, 31, brags how he started bonking his primary school boyfriend and how his act of bonking a fellow boy was copied by all the boys in his dormitory.

Moses told Metro Weekly of an incident surrounding one boy who “did not like it and was forced to do it,” in reference to a coerced sexual encounter with another boy. Red Pepper however deliberately distorted the incident in its writeup to say that Moses “narrates the story as a badge of honour.” The unnamed Red Pepper writer continues, “He seems unmindful that many reading his interview will feel disgusted at his early perversion.”

In the Metro Weekly interview, Moses talked about his continual efforts at keeping himself hidden from those around him, including his time as a student and then as a teacher at Uganda Christian University in Mukono, about fifteen miles east of Kampala. It was there that Moses’ secret was found out. Shortly after, he decided to get married. Here is Red Pepper’s version of Moses’ interview:

In the interview, a groveling appeal designed by Mworeko to influence the decision of immigrations officers who had rejected his application for asylum, he reveals how he continued his gay ways until he was caught watching gay porn by the secretary of his guardian at UCU and forced to get married as part of his rehabilitation.

But the Metro Weekly interview is very different. It says nothing about porn. And while Moses revealed that his wedding was a sham wedding that he entered into because of the need to remain hidden, it was not “as part of his rehabilitation.” Here is the actual Metro Weekly interview:

MW: It was an e-mail with one of those friends that put you in jeopardy?

MWOREKO: Yes. That was when I was already working. After I graduated, I was given a job at that very university. I was teaching. And my guardian’s office was in that university. He was the director of a church program: Theological Education by Extension.

That’s the time I had the freedom to do whatever I wanted. I lived in my own house. I was free. I felt like I could do whatever I wanted to do.

MW: Did you have any reason to think your guardian might have suspected you of being gay?

MWOREKO: No. People would comment on my behavior, my lifestyle, and it would just stop at that.

But this one day, I was in his office accessing the Internet. I was communicating with my boyfriend. My guardian called for me abruptly while I was in his secretary’s office. I knew I was coming right back, but as soon as I went to his office, the secretary came in. She read my mail. When I came back, she said, ”Moses, were you the one on my computer?” I said yes.

”What’s this?” she asked.

”What?”

”What’s this?”

”Well, what do you think it is? And what’s the problem?”

A portion of the Metro Weekly interview as published in Red Pepper. Notice that the photo was swiped from the Metro Weekly and published in mirror image. (Click to enlarge)

And about the marriage:

MW: Were you hoping that the marriage would make all your problems disappear?

MWOREKO: No. I absolutely did not have that in mind. Actually, my boyfriend told me, ”Moses, you cannot get married.”

I said, ”Well, I am going to get married because of these reasons: I want my job, I want to continue studying, this pressure from my family, my students no longer respect me. I can’t keep on like this. I don’t want to die now. I need to have a stable mind. I need to do this.” So I went ahead and got married.

Red Pepper then went on to republish about half of the Metro Weekly interview verbatim, but Red Pepper’s version of it ends right at the point in which Moses discusses the draconian Anti-Homosexuality Bill, including critical background information which serves as the basis for understanding how the bill came into being. It also cuts off Moses’ discussion of the asylum process, his own strongly held religious faith, and the generous support he is receiving from Bishop Rainey Cheeks. (Bishop Cheeks, who runs Inner Light Ministries, is  very fascinating LGBT advocate in his own right.) None of that important contextual information is available to Red Pepper readers.

Truth Wins Out’s Wayne Besen responded to the Red Pepper cover yesterday:

In all my years of activism, this has got to be the most disgusting, immoral, vile, smear campaign that I have ever witnessed. The Red Pepper should be immediately shut down for its libelous reporting and slimy journalism. This hit piece shows that we must redouble our efforts to stop the hate campaign that has infected Uganda and other nations in Africa. We must ensure that U.S. evangelicals stop spreading their special brand of murderous love on this continent

Clearly, Moses’ life is in grave danger. The United States government should put Moses on the fast-track to citizenship to keep him from being slaughtered.

Red Pepper has a long history of character assassinations, gay-bating, and forcible outing of private LGBT citizens. In April 2009, Red Pepper published the names, places of employment, residences and other identifying information of more than fifty private Ugandan citizens and accused them of homosexuality, which is a criminal offense that can carry a sentence of up to life in prison. That was just a month after Red Pepper, feeding on the frenzy following the anti-gay conference put on by three American evangelical activists, published a sensational “confession” by a reputed “ex-gay” individual who claimed to have been paid by foreigners to recruit schoolchildren. In December, Red Pepper published another full page spread purporting to out “City tycoons who bankroll Ugandan Homos.”

Just another dead gay kid, age 13

On another website I’ve been having a conversation with some folk who “do not perceive homosexuality to be a normal or healthy human variation or way of living.” And they support Focus on the Family in their opposition to targeted anti-bullying programs because such programs are all just a cover to “pass off pro-gay political fluff as curriculum in the guise of bullying prevention.”

And because they support the cultivation and continuance of a culture of disapproval towards homosexuality, they oppose anything that might suggest to kids that it’s ok to be gay. They even fear that telling kids not to pick on others due to sexual orientation might make some vulnerable questioning kid identify with being gay and send him on a path to sin and misery.

I could understand such fears if we were talking in the abstract. I could consider the fear and ignorance behind their concerns and try and find a way to assure them that just because a school accepts gay kids does not mean that it rejects those who believe that sexuality outside of the confines of a bronze age morality code is sinful.

But then I read stories like this one. (Houston Chronicle)

Asher Brown’s worn-out tennis shoes still sit in the living room of his Cypress-area home while his student progress report — filled with straight A’s — rests on the coffee table.

The eighth-grader killed himself last week. He shot himself in the head after enduring what his mother and stepfather say was constant harassment from four other students at Hamilton Middle School in the Cypress-Fairbanks Independent School District.

Brown, his family said, was “bullied to death” — picked on for his small size, his religion and because he did not wear designer clothes and shoes. Kids also accused him of being gay, some of them performing mock gay acts on him in his physical education class, his mother and stepfather said.

I am so f*cking sick of this. This little boy, 13 years old, was trying to come to terms with his sexuality (he had just come out to his family). His parents were trying their hardest to help. But they could not get his school to support them.

School district spokeswoman Kelli Durham said no students, school employees or the boy’s parents ever reported that he was being bullied.

That statement infuriated the Truongs, who accused the school district of protecting the bullies and their parents.

“That’s absolutely inaccurate — it’s completely false,” Amy Truong said. “I did not hallucinate phone calls to counselors and assistant principals. We have no reason to make this up. … It’s like they’re calling us liars.”

And this just makes me insane.

On the last week of his life he was kicked down a flight of stairs. When he tried to retrieve his book bag, other students kicked his books away. The school “turned up no witnesses.”

But is isn’t just the administrators that are morally responsible for Asher’s death. It is also all of those “good Christian people” who support Focus on the Family and their campaign to prevent schools from protecting gay kids.

I can understand how someone might not want a program that “promotes homosexuality.” But I cannot for the life of me understand their priorities. Is it really all that important to them that no one at Asher Brown’s school tell him that he’s okay and stop other students from tormenting him?

Because what we are seeing is the alternative. And I cannot fathom how you could possibly decide that it’s better for small gay children to die than support them.

UPDATE: reader tobyk reminds us that this is the same school district whose administrators refused to help Jayron Martin, a gay kid who was left with a concussion after being beaten with a metal pole.

More amicus, more animus

Those who oppose civil equality simply can’t restrain themselves from supporting the Proponents of Proposition 8. Although history is going to be rather unkind to them (and we will both document and remember), there is almost a sense of desperation to the compulsion to go on record as favoring inequality, supporting supremacist attitudes and expressing dismay that their views may be held up to inspection.

Today I have a whole long list of amicus briefs to add to those who previously have come down on the side of institutionalized discrimination. You can check them all out here.

Robert P. George, Sherif Girgis, and Ryan T. Anderson – You may recall that Robert George was one of the founders of the National Organization for Marriage. His argument is that the state does indeed have interest in enforcing private moral or religious beliefs. Further, “a belief that a relationship between a man and woman is inherently better than a relationship between two men or two women” and “moral disapproval of homosexuality” are both legitimate bases for legislation. And because any position has some moral values assigned, then therefor the value of heterosexual supremacy is a perfectly fine one on which to base law. Oh, and Lawrence v. Texas only applies to criminal law.

NARTH (yes, NARTH!!) – Typical NARTHian science to argue that homosexuality is not immutable and therefore gay people should not have rights. Example “the study also found that those who report themselves as homosexuals showed variety in their sexual experiences when measured on a continuum: 65 percent of homosexual men and 84 percent of homosexual women reported having had heterosexual intercourse.” Lots of discussion of studies from decades gone by in which psychotherapy resulted in “functioning as heterosexual” and a lot of misrepresentation of the work of others (Spitzer and Jones and Yarhouse, for example.)

Pacific Justice Institute – The Greeks and the Romans didn’t allow gay marriage so neither should we. They started with “the Greeks and Romans were clearly not homophobic” but just couldn’t resist the impulse to put in every example of Greek or Roman condemnation that could be found and concluded “Hence, defining marriage as a union of a man and a woman reflects not only the collected wisdom of the citizens, but of the ages as well.”

The States of Indiana, Virginia, Louisiana, Michigan, Alabama, Alaska, Florida, Idaho, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Utah and Wyoming. – More specifically, the attorneys general of these states. The argument: Walker exceeded his judicial authority; the Federal Courts have no jurisdiction over marriage. Loving was justified “to uphold the core guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment” but Perry would “recast the basic parameters of marriage.” The rest was a rerun of the Proponents’ failing arguments in court.

American College of Pediatricians – Remember this totally bogus group from the lie-ridden letter crafted by NARTH but sent under their name? They are back with the predictable “Think of the Children!! Children need a mommy and a daddy. Ignore what the real professional groups say” message.

Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence (John Eastman) – Eastman was NOM’s special pick for CA Attorney General – he lost badly in the Republican primary, 16 points below Steve Cooley, who had opposed Proposition 8. Reading this political rant (it really can’t be called a legal argument), I am relieved that this guy has no chance of representing my state in court… or at least not this year. His argument: ” The Initiative Proponents have standing to defend Proposition 8, both as Agents of the State and in their own right”.

Becket Fund for Religious Liberty – Gay equality is incompatible with religious liberty. If gay people are treated as full citizens and granted equal access to civil marriage, then those religious individuals and groups that oppose civil equality and support heterosexual supremacy might be sued for discrimination. Those people who operate “job training programs, child care, gyms and day camps” would not be able to discriminate, and if they did, they might not get taxpayer dollars with which to deny gay people access. And that’s why the voters approved Proposition 8: to support “religious liberty” to discriminate against gays. (They got $500 K from the Knights of Columbus last year)

National Legal Foundation – These folk call themselves “a Christian public interest law firm” but are best known as the legal team who defended Cincinnati’s Issue 3, which would have amended the city charter to ban any city laws and policies that would prohibit discrimination against gay Cincinnati residents in employment, housing, and other areas. They disagree with Walker’s finding of fact and argue that the Ninth Circuit should revisit and reverse them. In the Cincinnati case, the Sixth Circuit reversed a number of the lower court’s findings and NLF gloatingly says that this court should do the same. They fail to mention that the US Supreme Court reversed the decision and found that Cincinnati violated the US Constitution.

Eagle Forum (Phyllis Schlafly) – The Proponents and Imperial county have standing. And if they don’t have standing, then there’s no case and the whole thing should be thrown out entirely, including Judge Walker’s ruling.

Concerned Women of America – Gays are politically powerful, have powerful allies, significant funding, and the public is growing in support. So discrimination against gay people should not be subjected to heightened scrutiny. “As of June 1, 2009, thirty-one states and the District of Columbia had state laws regarding “hate crimes” based on sexual orientation.” (I wonder what else 31 states had?)

National Organization for Marriage (NOM – Brian Brown and Maggie Gallagher) – Ah, NOM, we knew you’d participate. NOM has a number of interesting arguments. Yes, there are “children need a mommy and daddy” and “marriage is about procreation” and “you’re redefining marriage”, but they also have these fascinating (and oh-so-classy) things to share:

Men will no longer be willing to support their children: “When society simply weakens its support for the ideal that children should be cared for by both the man and the woman who made them, children end up disproportionately in the care of solo mothers. What will happen when the law and society rejects that view altogether as irrational bigotry? If the district court has its way, we will find out.”

Same-sex marriage will lead to polygamy and incest: “If, as the district court suggests, marriage were to become an essentially private, intimate, emotional relationship created by two people to enhance their own personal well-being, it is wrong, discriminatory, and counterproductive for the state to favor certain kinds of intimate relations over others. Sisters can cohabit and commit, and so can best friends in non-romantic relationships. Three people can cohabit and commit, too. Why can’t these people claim marriage as well? Once a key feature of marriage has been deconstructed, other historic features of marriage will become much harder to explain and defend, both in law and culture.”

And my very favorite: Look at Massachusetts; If you allow gay marriage then – oh noes – people will support it. “Data from Massachusetts likewise does little to alleviate concerns that same- sex marriage could lead to negative consequences. To the contrary, the data relied upon by the district court actually suggests a weakening in the marriage culture in the years immediately following the same-sex marriage ruling in Massachusetts. … In 2009, amicus curiae National Organization for Marriage commissioned a survey in Massachusetts of attitudes about marriage five years into that state’s experiment with same-sex marriage. The survey found that ―in the five years since gay marriage became a reality in Massachusetts, support for the idea that the ideal is a married mother and father dropped from 84 percent to 76 percent.”

Paul McHugh – McHugh is perhaps best known for his anti-transgender activism. But he’s joining in amicus to declare that you can’t define “homosexual” and it’s not fixed or immutable (presumably unlike race which is always and ever immediately discernible). Because while many people fit all three definitions (attractions, behavior, identity) there are exceptions. So therefore someone who is same-sex attracted, in a relationship with another person of the same sex, and who identifies as being gay should not be considered to be homosexual because, after all, there are people in the closet.

And because you can’t define “homosexual” then a woman in love with her same-sex partner ought not be able to marry her. Further, because there is no gay gene (unlike the African-American gene). It may be caused by education (I love this one): Because “It may very well be the case that on average lesbians and gay men in the United States have a higher educational level than comparable heterosexual men and women”, there therefore, “Education and socioeconomic levels have also been suggested as contributing factors to homosexuality.” Really? By whom? That has to be the worst example of correlation = causation that I’ve seen in a while.

But to understand the depth of McHugh’s basic dishonesty and lack of any sense of moral character, you have to consider ” Identical twin studies confirm that homosexual orientation is not genetically determined.”
Actually, twin studies have found that genetics contribute 35-39% for men and 18-19% for women. In other words, while it’s not fully genetically determined, McHugh is implying the opposite of what the studies have found.

Eugene Dong – No idea who this guy is but his argument is this: It’s expensive to have children so the state benefits by subsidizing and benefiting heterosexuality so as to perpetuate the human race.

American Civil Rights Union (sort of an anti-ACLU) – fundamental rights are limited to those that are deep-rooted in American history and tradition.

Catholics for the Common Good – God’s definition of marriage pre-exists any state recognition. They make the usual arguments (including quoting the Pope as an authority), but their real objection is found in their request to file the amicus: “…because the district court’s opinion enshrined a re-definition of marriage in California law that may expose this and similar organizations and persons of good will to claims of discrimination…” It’s the Maggie complaint, “If you treat gay people equally under the law, then those of us who want to treat them as inferior will be called bigots.”

And one woman, Tamara L. Cravit, wrote in to say that the Proponents do not have standing. So far she’s the only pro-plaintiff amicus brief.

Another “radical activist” (Republican) judge

In what is becoming a strong ironic trend, yet another judge who has found that gay people are, well, citizens like everyone else and constitutionally protected from discrimination turns out to be a Republican. As we noted last week, U.S. District Judge Ronald Leighton ordered the Air Force to reinstate Major Margaret Witt, saying

The application of “Dont’s Ask Don’t Tell” to Major Margaret Witt does not significantly further the government’s interest in promoting military readiness, unit morale and cohesion. Her discharge from the Air Force Reserves violated her substantive due process rights under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. She should be restored to her position as a Flight Nurse with the 446th AES as soon as is practicable, subject to meeting applicable regulations touching upon qualifications necessary for continued service.

Now the Seattle Times tells us a bit more about Judge Leighton:

Leighton, 59, was appointed to the federal bench by President George W. Bush in January 2002 and confirmed by the U.S. Senate in November of that year.

An active Republican and longtime Tacoma trial attorney, Leighton twice served on fundraising committees for former Sen. Slade Gorton.

Gorton, the state’s last Republican senator, championed Leighton twice as a federal judicial nominee. The first nomination came from George H.W. Bush in 1992, but the Senate failed to act on the nomination before Bush Sr. left office.

I noticed that this time the usual suspects didn’t even trot out the “liberal activist judge” accusations. They must really be disheartened by now.

Watchmen On the Walls to Gather in Sacramento and Washington State

A Sacramento-area reader tipped us to this flier advertising a Watchmen On the Walls conference that is scheduled for Oct 1-3 at the New Hope Christian fellowship near Sacramento. The conference will feature Latvian pastor Alexey Ledyaev, who cofounded the Watchmen with Seattle-based pastor Ken Hutcherson, Holocaust revisionist Scott Lively, and Sacramento resident and Russian language media owner Vlad Kusakin. The Watchmen On the Walls has been identified by the Southern Poverty Law Center as one of only about a dozen anti-gay hate groups.

Also appearing on the bill are Craig Carre of Gate Keepers and Alex Rykhlyuk of the Sacramento-based church Ecclesia, which mainly caters to the substantial Russian Evangelical immigrant community in Sacramento. The Russian Evangelical immigrant community has been among the most virulent anti-gay communities in California, and, along with Russian immigrants in the Seattle area, has provided leaders who have been an integral part of Watchmen On the Walls.

Alexeyev’s Riga-based megachurch, New Generation, was implicated of a violent confrontation during a Riga Pride event in 2006 when a churchmember was convicted of throwing feces at participants. Alexeyev and twenty other churchmembers were in the courtroom in support of the church member when he was convicted.

The conference is mentioned in the Watchmen’s official web site, but only in the Russian language version. That brief article mentions the Sacramento conference along with another one for Washington State in “early October.” No further details are given.

Eddie Long: David v. Goliath

Eddie Long: A Guy With an iPhone

Bishop Eddie Long took to the pulpit today to defend himself against growing charges that he used his position, wealth, influence, and power to groom teenage boys for his sexual use. (AJC)

I have never in my life portrayed myself as a perfect man, but I am not the man being portrayed on television That’s not me. That is not me.

I am not going to try this case in the media, it will be tried in the court of justice and decided in the court of justice. Please hear this: I’ve been accused. I’m under attack. I want you to know as I said earlier I am not a perfect man. … But this thing I’m going to fight. I feel like David against Goliath, but I’ve got five rocks and I haven’t thrown one yet.

I’ve noticed of late that those who seek to prey on others are quickest to wrap themselves in the mantle of martyr. To portray themselves as the victim of powerful nefarious forces.

Bishop Eddie Long with his international fame, multi-million dollar mansion, private jets, powerful political allies, and 25,000 cheering parishioners is the “David”, while these penniless boys are the “Goliath.”

Eddie Long loves his money and his power and if he goes down, it won’t be gracefully. He’s promised to fight the charges. In his press conference following the service he said

“On the advice of counsel, I am not going to address the allegations and the attacks. I want this to be dealt with in the court of justice not the court of public opinion. I am going to fight. Fight very vigorously. Things New Birth has stood for … we will continue to do.”

Dan Savage: It Gets Better

The news about Billy Lucas, the Indiana teen who committed suicide after his bullying classmates assaulted him with anti-gay epithets and told him to go home and kill himself, has shocked the conscience of people everywhere — except for his fellow classmates who continued to leave epithets on his Facebook memorial page.

It’s tough, it’s really tough to read about these horrible tragedies which occur all-too-frequently, and it’s outrageous when we see anti-gay activists like Focus On the Family deliberately setting out to preserve the intolerable status quo. Dan Savage discussed his reaction to Billy’s suicide in a recent Savage Love column:

“My heart breaks for the pain and torment you went through, Billy Lucas,” a reader wrote after I posted about Billy Lucas to my blog. “I wish I could have told you that things get better.”

I had the same reaction: I wish I could have talked to this kid for five minutes. I wish I could have told Billy that it gets better. I wish I could have told him that, however bad things were, however isolated and alone he was, it gets better.

But gay adults aren’t allowed to talk to these kids. Schools and churches don’t bring us in to talk to teenagers who are being bullied. Many of these kids have homophobic parents who believe that they can prevent their gay children from growing up to be gay—or from ever coming out—by depriving them of information, resources, and positive role models.

Why are we waiting for permission to talk to these kids? We have the ability to talk directly to them right now. We don’t have to wait for permission to let them know that it gets better. We can reach these kids.

Dan and his partner have created a wonderful video describing their difficult experiences in school, but the focus is on the fact that as soon as they made it through high school, it got better. Much, much better. As Terry, Dan’s partner of sixteen years, put it:

Honestly, things got better the day I left high school. I didn’t see the bullies every day. I didn’t see people who harassed me every day. I didn’t have to see the school administrators who did nothing about it every day. Life instantly got better.

The decision to end one’s life hinges on the hopelessness of believing that things will never get any better, that the hell you’re living today is as it always will be. Dan encourages young people to consider that their lives can be long, and if they can see their way clear to make it through the situation they find themselves in now, things really will get better:

If there are fourteen and fifteen and sixteen-year-olds — thirteen-year-olds, twelve-year-olds — out there watching this video, what I’d love you to take away from it really is that it gets better. However bad it is now, it gets better. And it can get great and it can get awesome. Your life can be amazing. But you have to tough this period of it out and you have to live your life so that you’re around for it to get amazing. And it can and it will.

Dan has started a YouTube channel called “It Gets Better” for people to contribute their own videos. The channel is not for people to dwell on the horrible experiences that they had, but to include those experiences in a broader message of how things got better after high school. Ninety videos have been posted so far. If you want to include your video, you’ll find instructions on the channel’s home page.

Meanwhile, here’s another one:

All those years in high school where I was sitting there being like, you know, ‘Who understands me? And why can’t I find them? Where are they?’

They had been there the whole time waiting for me to get through high school and to graduate and to get up the courage to leave that awful phase behind. Everyone who has supported me, everyone who loves me for who I am, exactly the way I am, they had always been there. They weren’t born the day I came out. And they weren’t born even a month before I came out. They’ve been there with open arms just waiting for me to come alive and to realize my potential.

And all the people who are going to be there for you on the other side, they’re walking around wondering where you are now. And they’re waiting excitedly with open arms.

LGBT Jamaicans and Allies Protest “Corrective Rapes”

A small group under the auspices of Jamaica Forum for Lesbians All-sexuals and Gays (J-FLAG) held a silent protest at Emancipation Park, a major Kingston landmark, on Friday. The protest was in response to two incidents within days of each other earlier this month, when knife-wielding thugs carried out ‘corrective rapes’ of two lesbians. This follows at least six reported rapes against lesbians in 2009.

International defense attorney Lord Anthony Gifford (in suit and tie) joins Jalna Broderick (Jamaica AIDS Support for Life), Maurice Tomlinson (AIDS Free World) and Susan Goffe (Jamaicans for Justice)

According to J-FLAG, several LGBT allies joined in the protest, including representatives from Jamaica AIDS Support for Life, members of Jamaicans for Justice, Pride in Action, Women for Women, Sex Work Association of Jamaica, Sunshine Cathedral Jamaica, Caribbean Vulnerable Communities Coalition and AIDS Free World. J-FLAG continues:

International defence attorney Lord Anthony Gifford, QC, noted that “the issue of violence against gays and lesbians is a human rights issue and I was taking a stand to support that as it is important to keep the issue of rights in the public’s consciousness.”

Susan Goffe, member of Jamaicans For Justice, said “it is important to understand the effect of homophobic rhetoric and the feeling that it is alright to target members of the LGBT community. The state must clearly illustrate by its action that it defends and protects the rights of women and this includes all women regardless of their sexuality. The acts against these women should unambiguously be condemned.”

While the protest was numerically small and lasted only a half hour, it was an audacious showing considering the dangerous atmosphere LGBT people in Jamaica live in. Jamaican society has a deplorable track records when it comes to anti-gay sentiment, where popular dance-hall artists regularly call for killing gay people in their concerts and recordings. Jamaican law currently outlaws male homosexuality with up to ten years in prison. Police mistreatment, mob attacks, death threats, murders all occur on an all-too regular basis under official indifference.

Long May Resign As A Fourth Accuser Comes Forward

Black Voices reports that Bishop Eddie Long, the virulently anti-gay megachurch pastor who has been accused of improper sexual conduct with three male youth group members, may step down as pastor of New Birth Missionary Baptist Church following his sermon on Sunday. 

This comes amid rumors that as many as thirty other young men have contacted attorney B.J. Bernstein about filing lawsuits against Long or joining existing lawsuits. Bernstein already represented three young men who alleged that Long abused his spiritual authority to seduce them with cars, money, clothes, jewelry, international trips and access to celebrities in exchange for sexual favors. Today, Bernstein filed a fourth lawsuit on behalf of another young man:

His latest accuser, Spencer LeGrande, claims he was 17 when he began a sexual relationship with Long while accompanying the bishop on a trip to Nairobi, Kenya.

LeGrande, of Charlotte, N.C., alleges in a civil suit filed Friday in DeKalb Countythat Long gave him an Ambien, a popular prescription sleep aid, followed by a “prolonged hug,” kissing and rubbing, according to the suit.

The suit claims the two shared a bed for the remainder of their trip.

LeGrande moved to North Carolina in 2009 when he became disillusioned with his relationship with Long. LeGrand’s father spoke to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and said that while he didn’t know about the relationship, there were red flags. He also said he wondered why his son’s stay in Atlanta seem to end so abruptly.

The other three lawsuits also accuse Long of using Bible verses to reinforce a spiritual connection between himself and the young [men], and  he called the young men his “spiritual sons.” ABC News has obtained two guys-with-iphones stlye photos that Long sent to one of the men in which he is seen wearing a muscle shirt and spandex.

According to the allegations, the sexual relationships began when the boys were seventeen, which is above the age of consent in Georgia. Long appears to have followed a pattern of singling out boys who did not have a strong relationship with their fathers.

Long has been among the more virulently anti-gay pastors. Sirius/XM Radio’s Michelangelo Signorile played a portion of a 2007 sermon in which Long declared, “God says you deserve death!”

[Hat tip: Alvin McEwen]

LCR responds to Justice Department’s ridiculous filing

The Justice Department argued that it would be beyond the scope of Judge Phillip’s authority to issue a world-wide injunction on the enforcement of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. LCR has replied, noting that this question has already been addressed by the court.

MR. FREEBORNE: With regard to the last point, this Court’s jurisdiction would only extend to this district. They are asking for nationwide relief, which this Court would not even have the power to effectuate a nationwide injunction. This is not a class action; this is a case brought within this district.

THE COURT: But how in the world could — if the plaintiffs succeed in this case on the relief that they are seeking, are you suggesting that an injunction would be only directed to service members serving within the Ninth Circuit?

MR. FREEBORNE: Your Honor, this Court does not have nationwide jurisdiction to issue an injunction.

THE COURT: Are you suggesting that, theoretically, if a district court orders that any regulation or federal law is unconstitutional, it only applies in the district where the Court sits?

MR. FREEBORNE: Well, Your Honor, we can put that issue aside. I just note that I think that —

THE COURT: That’s because I think you are incorrect.

As for the idea that it should only be limited to the Log Cabin Republican members,

The government’s first argument objecting to a worldwide injunction against DADT is that such an injunction should be limited to Log Cabin Republicans and its current members (who, in an appalling Catch-22, the government implies should be specifically identified as “bona fide LCR members”). This objection should be summarily rejected. This case was never litigated or tried on the basis that Log Cabin sought to invalidate DADT only for its own members; on the contrary, this case was brought as a facial challenge.

More, more, more amicus

Three more amicus briefs were filed today in addition to those of Ed Whelan and Liberty Counsel.

The American Center for Law and Justice (Jay Sekulow) wrote:

II. MORALITY IS A LEGITIMATE BASIS FOR LEGISLATION.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558(2003), did not abolish the legitimacy of morality as a state interest. Indeed, to have done so would have been both revolutionary and destructive, as morality has long been recognized as a basis for law, and countless laws today rest upon morality. The district court therefore erred in dismissing moral considerations out of hand.

Something called The Hausvater Project, which appears to be related to the parochial schools of the conservative Lutheran Church Missouri Synod filed to support “the right of parents to determine their children’s education”. This one flummoxed me; I have no idea what they are talking about.

Parents have a fundamental right to determine their children’s education, protected under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process clause. California citizens voting in favor of Prop. 8 (“Prop. 8 Supporters”) had, and on their behalf the defendant-intervenors-appellants (“Prop. 8 Proponents”) in this case continue to have, good reason to regard Prop. 8 as a safeguard of that fundamental constitutional right. Since the safeguarding of a constitutional right properly serves the state’s interest, the district court erred in concluding that Prop. 8 serves no legitimate or compelling state interest. Moreover, parents’ fundamental right to determine their children’s education should take priority over the competing claims of plaintiffs-appellees Kristin Perry et al./same-sex couples (“Prop. 8 Opponents”) who plea for Equal Protection and Due Process rights to same-sex marriage.

It seems that they are arguing that because the Proposition 8 campaign played on the fears of parents (“I learned in class that a prince could marry another prince, and I can marry a princess!”) that therefore it is based in the constitutional right of parents to make sure that public schools condemn the things which they condemn. Or something like that.

Which is an odd argument coming from an organization of parochial schools.

The second part of their argument was that allowing gay people to marry would have a “chilling impact” on the religious freedoms of those who want to stop them. If governments actually treat gay people as full citizens and if schools refer to them as such, then it greatly reduces the impact of those who preach from pulpits that they are not.

Far from furthering a state interest, such religious organizations would be in opposition to a state interest, at least insofar as one accepts the district court’s own identifications of the state’s interest and the religious groups’ motivations. This is not small potatoes.

And if Judge Walker’s decision is left intact it would lead to “nothing short of the abolition of parochial schools and homeschooling.” And then they really go bat-poop crazy. It’s all a plan on the part of the homosexuals to destroy family and society; first they redefine marriage and then they’ll take away our children.

A tremendous burden falls now to this court as to whether those asserting the freedom to chose a spouse of the same sex can secure that socially constructed status apart from denying, with increasing tenacity, the fundamental right of a man and a woman to direct the education of the children whom nature calls their own. The social engineers of incremental strategies favoring same-sex marriage have themselves answered the question in the negative. Whatever disappointment a reversal of the district court’s decision may bring to the particular homosexual couples who originated the complaint, at least they will be liberated from serving as pawns in a larger scheme that ultimately would constrain not only their neighbors’ liberties, but also their own.

And finally we have the amicus brief of

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
The California Catholic Conference
The National Association of Evangelicals
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormons)
The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention
The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod
The Calvary Chapel Fellowship of Ministries of California
The Christian and Missionary Alliance
Coral Ridge Ministries Media, Inc.
The Council of Korean Churches in Southern California
Southern California Korean Ministers Association
Holy Movement for America

Believe me, other than all being in the broad category of “Christian” and being devoted to the condemnation of gay people and bringing harm to their lives, these folks have nothing in common. It takes a powerful amount of joint purpose, in this case their religious-based animus towards gay people, to get them in the same room.

And I do find it interesting just who is not present in this joint statement. This, more than most any other document, draws the line between combatants over the religious direction of the nation.

We write separately to answer the district court’s distortion and condemnation of our beliefs as irrational and illegitimate and to defend the constitutional right of citizens and associations of faith to participate fully in the democratic process. Contrary to the aspersions cast by the decision below, our beliefs about marriage are not based on hatred or bigotry. Our support for traditional marriage has vastly more to do with a rich tapestry of affirmative teachings about marriage and family than with doctrines directed at the issue of homosexuality. To be sure, our religious beliefs hold that all sexual acts outside traditional marriage are contrary to God’s will. But our faiths also entreat us to love and embrace those who reject our beliefs, not to hate or mistreat them. Bigotry is contrary to our most basic religious convictions.

A bit ironic when you consider that the purpose of this brief is not to love and embrace those who reject their beliefs, but rather to force by law those beliefs which they cannot persuade through preaching.

Faith communities and religious organizations have a long and vibrant history of upholding marriage as the union of a man and a woman for reasons that have little or nothing to do with homosexuality. Indeed, their support for traditional marriage precedes by centuries the very notion of homosexuality as a recognized sexual orientation (see ER106), not to mention the recent movement for same-sex marriage. Many of this nation’s prominent faith traditions have rich religious narratives that describe and extol the personal, familial, and social virtues of traditional marriage while mentioning homosexuality barely, if at all.

Except, of course, that every single denomination listed decries homosexuality as sinful, rebellious, or evil. Without exception.

The gist of their argument is that it is unfair of Judge Walker to take a side in the religious culture war, that they have the right to try and vote their religious beliefs into law, and besides they loooooove the homosexual, they just want to grant special privilege to those who follow their beliefs.

Judge Orders Lesbian Discharged Under DADT Reinstated

U.S. District Judge Ronald Leighton has ordered Air Force Reserve Major Margaret Witt reinstated as the result of her lawsuit challenging her dismissal under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Judge Leighton wrote:

The application of “Dont’s Ask Don’t Tell” to Major Margaret Witt does not significantly further the government’s interest in promoting military readiness, unit morale and cohesion. Her discharge from the Air Force Reserves violated her substantive due process rights under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. She should be restored to her position as a Flight Nurse with the 446th AES as soon as is practicable, subject to meeting applicable regulations touching upon qualifications necessary for continued service.

Major Witt, who had been in a committed six year relationship with a woman whose home she shared in Spokane, Washington, testified that she had never disclosed her sexual orientation to her colleagues and she never engaged in prohibited behavior while on duty or on military grounds. The Air Force learned of Witt’s sexuality when Witt’s partner’s ex-husband informed Air Force officials. The judge noted Witt’s exemplary performance in her unit and found that there was no evidence that her presence had any affect on unit cohesiveness or effectiveness:

The evidence produced at trial overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that the suspension and discharge of Margaret Witt did not significantly further the important government interest in advancing unit morale and cohesion. To the contrary, the actions taken against Major Witt had the opposite effect. The 446th AES is a highly professional, rapid response, air evacuation team. It is comprised of flight nurses and medical technicians who are well-trained, well-led and highly motivated. They provide a vital service to our fighting men and women around the world. Serving within that unit are known or suspected gay or lesbian service men and women. … These people train together, fly together, care for patients together, deploy together. There is nothing in the record before this Court suggesting that the sexual orientation (acknowledged or suspected) has negatively impacted the performance, dedication or enthusiasm of the 446th AES. There is no evidence that wounded troops care about the sexual orientation of the flight nurse or medical technician tending to their wounds.

Witt’s first legal attempt to challenge her discharge resulted in a court loss in 2006. But in 2008, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the military can’t discharge gay servicemembers without proof that the discharge would further military goals.

This ruling represents yet another setback for “Don’t Ask, Dont Tell” in the courts. Earlier this month, another Federal Judge ruled the policy unconstitutional in a lawsuit brought by Log Cabin Republicans. Yesterday, the Justice Department asked the judge to limit the scope of that ruling to current LCR members only.

Which means that if the Justice Department’s request prevails in the LCR case, then there would be two legal exceptions carved out of DADT: current LCR members and Major Witt. For everyone else, the discharges will continue — unless everyone challenges their discharges in court. Is that really what it’s going to take to finally get rid of this sucker?

Washington Post gets the HIV prevalence story wrong

Darryl Fears of the Washington Post starts off with

Study puts HIV rate among gay men at 1 in 5

One in five gay men in the United States has HIV, and almost half of those who carry the virus are unaware that they are infected, according to a new Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study.

The problem? That’s just flat false.

As we reported, the CDC study was of men in urban settings and not reflective of gay men on the whole. It was not even representative of gay urban men, just those who are living it up at the bars.

And there is a material difference.

As we have stated in the past, only about 12% of gay men are infected with HIV. But Fears doesn’t have to take our word for it, it’s right there in the study which he was reporting. And the CDC made a point of warning against reporting their study in a sensational way:

Finally, these findings are limited to men who frequented MSM-identified venues (most of which were bars [45%] and dance clubs [22%]) during the survey period in 21 [metropolitan statistical areas] with high AIDS prevalence; the results are not representative of all MSM. A lower HIV prevalence (11.8%) has been reported among MSM in the general U.S. population. [emphasis mine]

While it may take an extra few minutes to read the whole report, it can make the difference between providing news and spouting nonsense.

Of course the Post was not alone is their sloppy reporting. The AP was actually worse

One in five sexually active gay and bisexual men has the AIDS virus, and nearly half of those don’t know they are infected, a federal study of 21 U.S. cities shows.
…
“We don’t have a generalized epidemic in the United States. We have a concentrated epidemic among certain populations.”

Even gay magazine, Bay Windows, got in on the act with the headline, “CDC: One in five gay, bi men is HIV-positive”.

Yet more amicus briefs in support of Prop 8

Adding to the growing pile (both in size and in lunacy) of amicus briefs filed in support of the Prop 8 Proponents, today we have Ed Whelan of the Ethics and Public Policy Center and Mat Staver and his merry crew at Liberty Counsel.

Whelan chimes in to “provide a survey of the district judge’s remarkable course of misconduct in this case.” Liberty Counsel’s amicus was designed to make sure that the crazier elements of the anti-gays were represented, specifically Campaign for Children and Families and Jews Offering New Alternatives for Healing. CCF is the home of Randy Thomasson and is so wackadoodle that the Prop 8 Proponents went to court to bar them from participating. JONAH is the Jewish ex-gay group founded by convicted Wall Street con-man Arthur Goldberg.

Whelan basically just whines about how Judge Walker was not fair!! There wasn’t much of interest in the he’s a big ol’ meanie brief, but the Liberty Counsel brief was a delight. Predictably, they thought it was a smart move to prove the judge’s point that the anti-gay marriage movement was motivated by fear and loathing of gay people.

You might say that Liberty Counsel, CCF, and JONAH presented the quintessential Animus Brief.

II. SAME-SEX RELATIONSHIPS ARE DIFFERENT THAN OPPOSITE-SEX RELATIONSHIPS.

Wholly apart from the biological and procreative differences between opposite-sex and same-sex couples, the psychological and medical risks associated with the homosexual lifestyle are contrary to the district court’s conclusion that same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples are, in essence, the same. (FF nos. 48, 70). It is well documented that those engaged in the homosexual lifestyle have much greater incidence of substance abuse, mental health problems, medical illness, and relationship dysfunctions. Documenting these facts, a recently published, peer-reviewed journal concludes that “it is difficult to find another group in society with such high risks for experiencing such a wide range of medical, psychological, and relational dysfunctions.” NARTH, 1 J. of Human Sexuality 1:53 (2009) (“Journal”).

Oh, and then they quote NARTH’s self-published “Journal”

In addition, “”30.3 percent of homosexually active women were ‘very high or drunk 3 or more days’ in the past year compared to 16.6 percent of heterosexual women,” and “8.4 percent of homosexually active women were ‘very high or drunk an average of once per week or more’ in the past year compared to 2.3 percent of heterosexual women.” Id. at 1:58.

Lesbians shouldn’t be allowed to marry; they’re all drunks! But if the women are all lushes, the men are all diseased:

The prevalence of HIV/AIDS among the homosexual community also is significantly higher than among heterosexuals. “In the 20th century, HIV/AIDS risk was approximately 430 times greater among homosexuals than among heterosexuals.” Id. at 1:66. In 2005, “the risks of acquiring HIV from a single act of unprotected sex within the male homosexual community in the United States remained about 500 times greater than within the heterosexual community.” Id. “Lifetime prevalence for STDs in homosexual men was 75 percent compared with 16.9 percent for heterosexual men.” Id.

It’s amazing how much bile you can spew when your source is NARTH. I can just see Charles Cooper cringing at the idea of the Ninth Circuit judges reading this recitation of bigotry and spite.

Part II of this exercise in animus is dedicated to presenting the NARTHian models of what causes homosexuality.

Here we find that “the family pattern involving a combination of a dominating, overly intimate mother plus a detached, hostile or weak father is beyond doubt related to the development of male homosexuality” (though a “sports wound” might contribute as well). As for the drunk lesbians, “a narcissistic (self-absorbed) mother may interfere with her daughter’s separation and individuation and propel her in the direction of lesbianism, but severe hurt by a male may also communicate the same message of insecurity and vulnerability.”

Well that sounds to me like a good reason to ban heterosexual marriage. Or at least procreation. Yikes.

But, having just trashed heterosexual parents, this brief then argues that it is precisely for the purpose of channeling procreation into these dysfunctional messes that marriage exists. So it is to Randy Thomasson and Arthur Goldberg that I dedicate this lovely picture of a pair of loons.