Box Turtle Bulletin

DADT Repeal Not Really a Repeal

So after a bit of a hiatus from BTB I am going to start blogging here more regularly — it’s good to be in Jim, Timothy, and Daniel’s company again!

As Timothy noted below, next week the Senate is planning to vote on repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell” as part of its yearly Defense Authorization Bill.  According to Metro Weekly‘s Chris Geidner, it looks like it will take up the repeal next Tuesday at 2:15 p.m.

Of course there are political hurdles — John McCain has threatened to veto the legislation until the military can conduct yet another review of the policy — even though it completely ignored the 1993 RAND Corporation study it paid $1.3 million for that found integrating the military would pose no threat to military readiness (for more on the history of DADT, you can check out my piece at The American Prospect here). What’s especially galling about McCain’s opposition is that the language wouldn’t actually repeal DADT; instead, it would give the military the power to get rid of it if its internal review says it wouldn’t hurt troop morale. Lobbyists and gay-rights activists I’ve spoken to here in Washington, D.C. seem pretty confident the ban will pass. One thing’s for sure — if it’s not done before Congress lets out so everyone can go campaign, it probably won’t happen for quite a while.

Hey, Geoff Kors, don’t lie to me and try to use my orientation for your partisan agenda

I’m gay. That means that my romantic, affectionate, and sexual attraction are towards persons of the same sex. It does NOT mean that the Democratic Party has the right to expect my loyalties, my money, or my vote. And it especially does not mean that self coronated gay leaders have the right to lie to me and try to use my affiliation with my community as a tool to advance their own personal power or the candidate of their choosing.

I am annoyed to the point of venting (obviously) with leaders of gay organizations who think that they can “deliver the gay vote.” But I’m a bit used to it.

What I am not used to, and refuse to become used to, is being lied to in the process.

But that is what Geoff Kors, the Executive Director of Equality California, is doing. A few weeks ago I got this from Kors:

Yes on 8 supporter Meg Whitman has stepped up her anti-marriage equality campaign.

Late yesterday, she joined Attorney General Candidate Steve Cooley by saying that, if elected, she will use the state’s vast resources to defend Prop. 8 in court.

But it simply isn’t true. Whitman did NOT say that ” if elected, she will use the state’s vast resources to defend Prop. 8 in court” and what is more, she couldn’t if she wanted to. The date to appeal Perry v. Schwarzenegger has passed and the court has said that it will not be making exceptions to its deadlines, so unless Whitman has a hot tub time machine she can’t do anything about it.

The case will be heard in early December and Whitman would not be sworn in until late January. My prediction is that the appeal will be dismissed due to lack of standing. But assuming that it goes forward, and assuming that it drags on for two months, the most Whitman could do is file an amicus brief, something she can do today if she wishes.

What Whitman actually said is:

“The issue right now is, as I understand it, is ‘Will Proposition 8 have the appropriate support to actually make an appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals?’

“I think the governor of California and the attorney general today have to defend the Constitution and have to enable the judicial process to go along … and an appeal to go through,” Whitman said. “So if I was governor, I would give that ruling standing to be able to appeal to the circuit court.” [emphasis mine]

But that is a long long way from “if elected, she will use the state’s vast resources.” And while I disagree that the governor and attorney general have an obligation to appeal, that is hardly an outrageous, homophobic, or bigoted position. And further Whitman made no reference to resources but only to “give that ruling standing.”

While Kors is stretching the truth there, it at least has a passing relationship to the facts. But then yesterday this showed up in my email:

Dear Timothy,

Meg Whitman made history today in her attempt to buy herself the governor’s office. She has now spent more of her own money than any candidate in our nation’s history: a whopping $119 million!

We have to fight back!

Not a dime of this money is going to our schools, to healthcare or to advance equality. In fact, she is spending all this money so she can then spend your and my taxpayer dollars on a lawsuit to overturn the Federal District court decision that declared Prop. 8 unconstitutional.

Equality California Political Action Committee is working to defeat Whitman, Cooley, Fiorina and all candidates who would stand in the way of full equality. We can win these races if we can turn out the vote. But we can’t do that without your support.

Help us fight Whitman’s checkbook by contributing today.

The cost of having Meg Whitman as our next governor is too great.

In solidarity,

Geoff Kors
Executive Director
Equality California PAC

What a great big pile of steaming partisancrap.

First off, not a dime of ANY CANDIDATE’s election fund is “going to our schools, to healthcare or to advance equality.” Not Jerry Brown’s campaign, not Kamala Harris’, not even a cent of the money that he raises through this email will be “going to our schools, to healthcare or to advance equality.” But while that’s deceptive and petty, at least it isn’t a blatant lie.

This is:

In fact, she is spending all this money so she can then spend your and my taxpayer dollars on a lawsuit to overturn the Federal District court decision that declared Prop. 8 unconstitutional.

Really, Geoff? That’s why she’s running?

When, exactly, did Whitman say that she was seeking “a lawsuit to overturn the Federal District court decision”? Oh, she didn’t.

And when did she make opposing Prop. 8 a central part of her campaign? Oh, she hasn’t.

And will she be spending a cent of taxpayer dollars to defend Prop. 8? Oh, she can’t. Nor did she say that she would if she could.

But Kors feels perfectly entitled to try and deliver my vote and my dollars by lying to me.

Look, I don’t mind when a partisan group (which EQCA clearly is) seeks to support their party’s candidate. That’s expected (though it annoys me to no end when they pretend to be a non-partisan gay group rather than a partisan advocate).

If Kors wants to promote Jerry Brown on his merits, then he should do so. If he wants to oppose Meg Whitman due to inadequate support for gay Californians, more power to him. But don’t piss on my leg and tell me it’s raining.

I am suffering from no delusions. There is no question that Jerry Brown is more supportive on marriage equality than Meg Whitman. But let’s be truthful about what she has said, what she has done, and what she can and will do.

Here is how Whitman describes her position:

So as you know I am pro-civil union and not for gay marriage. And just for me, that term marriage, for me needs to be between a man and a woman.

And while “Yes on 8 supporter Meg Whitman” did not campaign for Proposition 8 or in any other way support Yes on 8, she did vote for the initiative. And when Proposition 8 passed, she took a bit of a middle stance. (LA Times)

Explaining her support for Proposition 8, the November measure that banned same-sex marriage, she called it a “matter of personal conscience and my faith.”

But Whitman, a Presbyterian who supports gay civil unions, said the thousands of same-sex marriages that took place last year before the ban should be legally recognized — a sentiment opposed by many Proposition 8 backers. Moreover, she said, gay and lesbian couples should be able to adopt children.

When Perry v. Schwarzengger found Prop 8 to be unconstitutional, her response was rather bland:

Today’s ruling is the first step in a process that will continue.

What I see is a woman who is less supportive than Jerry Brown, but not an ardent foe of gay equality. She has pandered to the right in her statement on the appeal, but has not made anti-gay positions a part of her campaign. She was the most preferable of those running in the Republican primary, but falls short of seeing gay people as fully equal in society. She is not (as some partisan hacks have taken to calling her) homophobic, but her views are not as evolved as they should be and she is not an ally of our community.

Based on her positions on the issue of marriage equality, I could not endorse Meg Whitman.

But let me be perfectly clear: while I know that I’ll be accused of “defending” Meg Whitman, that is not my intent. Really, this commentary isn’t about Whitman at all; rather, it is about being lied to.

I hate being lied to, I really do. But I especially hate having my sexual orientation manipulated dishonestly by “gay leaders” for partisan gain.

It’s almost enough to make me vote for a third party candidate.

Free Speech for All, Or Just for NOM?

The National Organization for Marriage recently spread a warning that gays want to “discourage or criminalize the expression of certain Catholic beliefs as ‘hate speech.'”

It’s a favorite tactic of the far right in their war against hate crime laws and marriage equality — this fear that it could be soon be illegal to profess simple religious beliefs (about sinful and hellbound gays). They support this by citing cases from outside the US, conveniently ignoring America’s First Amendment.

Now, though, we have a chance to test NOM’s commitment to freedom of expression. The UK has banned an ad because it mocks Roman Catholic beliefs (the faith in which I was raised and the faith of many NOMmers, including Maggie herself). Will NOM speak out against this tyranny?

An ice cream company banned from using an advert displaying a pregnant nun has vowed to position similar posters in London in time for the Pope’s visit.

Antonio Federici’s advert showed a pregnant nun eating ice cream in a church, together with the strap line “immaculately conceived”.

The Advertising Standards Authority has ordered it to be discontinued, saying it mocked Roman Catholic beliefs.

As it happens, I oppose hate speech laws and have decried their use in other countries. My question is: Will NOM show the same consistency? Will they stand up for the right of people to say offensive things about gays and about Catholics (and about gay Catholics, for that matter)? Are they fighting for everyone’s freedom of speech and religion — or only freedom for anti-gays?

Inquiring minds want to know.

The banned ad

Two more (sultry) ads from the campaign below. Read the rest of this entry »

Russian Activist’s Whereabouts Still Unknown

The web site of GayRussia.ru, which reported that Moscow-based LGBT activist Nikolai Alekseev has been detained by the FSB (the former KGB) appears to have been crippled as of this writing, possibly as a result of some some sort of attack. Meanwhile, several of us have received an email from Alekseev’s email account saying that he is “relatively free” somewhere outside of Moscow and is safe. However, it is believed that the FSB has access to his computer and email address list, so such messages are being taken with a huge grain of salt.

UK Gay News was able to obtain an English translation of a note that had been posted to GayRussia.ru before the web site became crippled. The entire translated note has been posted on UK Gay News:

MOSCOW, September 16, 2010 (GayRussia)  –  Russian authorities have detained the organiser of Moscow Gay Pride, Nikolai Alekseev, and are requiring him to abandon a picket, demanding the resignation of Moscow Mayor Yuri Luzhkov.

The authorities are also demanding that he withdraws lawsuits lodged with the European Court of Human Rights over the banning of Moscow Gay Prides over the past five years.

“They demanded of me to give up on the picket Luzhkov and withdraw a complaint by the gay pride of European court” Mr. Alekseev said today at 6:00 am.

Later, at 8 am, he clarified that he is no longer held in Domodedovo Airport, where he was detained at the airport yesterday evening.

“I cannot say where [I am], but not in Moscow,” he said when asked about his whereabouts.

It is unclear from that post how Alekseev was able to communicate the GayRussia.ru reporter. One Russian-language news report says that Alekseev is being held in Minsk.

LGBT activist Nikolai Baev suggested that Alekseev’s detention is linked to announced plans to hold a demonstration calling for the resignation of Moscow mayor Yuri Luzhkov. who has consistently denied the group permission to hold Gay Pride rallies for the past several years. Luzhkov has denounced homosexuality as “Satanic” and insists that there will never be a gay pride march in Moscow. Russian activists have lodged a lawsuit with the European Court of Human Rights over the parade bans.

Alekseev was detained yesterday at Moscow’s Domodedovo International Airport as he was about to board Swiss Air flight LX 1337 to Geneva. According a news report conveyed by the LGBT website Anti-Dogma, Russia’s Interior Ministry told ITAR-TASS that Alekseev was detained by airport security following an incident that he supposedly instigated at the airport. Baev told GayRussia.ru that he suspects that Alekseev may be undergoing psychological pressure and possible torture in an attempt to get him to drop the lawsuits.

New Times profiles Matt Salmon, the gay one

What happens when the sons of two prominent conservative Republican Mormon families meet? Why, they become a cute couple, of course.

The Phoenix New Times has an extensive profile on Matt R. Salmon, son of former Arizona state senator, gubernatorial candidate, and U.S. congressman Matt J. Salmon and his boyfriend Kent Flake.

They’ve been a couple for 10 months, and things haven’t gotten much easier with their families. Flake says he hasn’t had a real conversation with his father since March and hasn’t visited his family in Snowflake since a quick day trip in June. His family has no interest in meeting Salmon.

“I’ve asked them many times to meet him, and they don’t want to see him,” Flake says. “My dad’s last comment to me was that he didn’t want him around our family, his kids, or his grandkids.”

When Flake started dating Salmon, he says, his sister called Salmon a “fag” and a “pedophile.” Flake’s sister, Trisha Rogers, tells New Times, “A lot of things were said in the beginning that caused contention. It’s really important to me that people know there’s no hatred there. It was just such a shock, because Kent seemed to change so quickly. He was different from the brother I knew for 25 years. We felt like we’d lost our brother, in a sense, and Matt got some of the blame.”

We are family

From the New York Times

A majority of Americans now say their definition of family includes same-sex couples with children, as well as married gay and lesbian couples.

At the same time, most Americans do not consider unmarried cohabiting couples, either heterosexual or same-sex, to be a family — unless they have children.

Yet more evidence that marriage equality is important. People really do so you differently when you are legally married.

If he was quoted correctly, David Blankenhorn, the lead witness for the defense of Proposition 8 in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, made a statement that could be interpreted to suggest that he’s finally made his way over to our side of the aisle.

David Blankenhorn, president of the Institute for American Values, a marriage research and advocacy group, said he was not surprised by the findings. “I like the standard definition of family: two or more persons related by blood, marriage or adoption,” Mr. Blankenhorn said. “Keeps it simple and coherent.”

But, he added: “We live in groups, and we need each other. So it’s always a good thing, isn’t it, when any of us truly loves and is loved by another.”

Yes it is, David.

NOM’s DC candidates lose big

Remember the political mailer sent out by the National Organization for Marriage to support a District of Columbia counsel candidate?

Radical, gay marriage activists are flooding Ward 5 with money to defeat Delano Hunter, not because they don’t like his plan to improve our community, but only because the supports the Biblical definition of marriage.

Of course there was no flooding of outside money, other than that which NOM was raining on their favorite anti-gay candidate. But it turns out that their money was wasted. (TBD)

NOM’S CANDIDATES ALL LOSE: And bad. Council candidate Delano Hunter, endorsed by the National Organization for Marriage, lost to incumbent Harry Thomas Jr. in the Ward 5 race. Delano secured 20 percent of the vote to Thomas’ 62. At-large council member Phil Mendelson, a champion of marriage equality, was re-elected. And in the Mayoral election, NOM’s favorite anti-gay-marriage candidate, Leo Alexander, secured a pathetic .62 percent of the vote in the mayoral contest. That’s gotta sting.

Thomas is giving NOM credit for helping him beat the candidate they supported. (Metro Weekly)

Thomas, a Democrat who voted for the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act of 2009, is confident that his vote was not just right, but also good politics, saying, ”[I]f I had been on the other side of this issue as a councilmember, I wouldn’t have been as successful [in my re-election campaign].”
…
What’s more, Thomas said NOM’s actions ”solidified [his] position” on his vote for the marriage bill.

”I think that what you see is voters were not singularly focused [on marriage], and there was a small group of individual who I believed focused on – frankly – a lot of misinformation,” he said. ”[NOM] tried to deceptively cast their campaign around people being denied the right to vote – without explaining the human-rights issue.”

The difference in social policy between a Democrat and a moderate Republican

In reading about the candidates vying for Mark Kirk’s old district, I ran across as clear a description between the social positions of a “Democrat” and a “moderate Republican” as I think I’ve seen:

The two candidates are facing off in the 10th Congressional District, portraying themselves as deficit and tax hawks who are more moderate on social issues.

Yet Dold and Seals noted their differences on abortion and gay rights.

Dold said he supports abortion rights, with restrictions. Dold backs parental notification for minors and opposes late-term abortions and tax money being spent on the procedure.

“Let me be clear, I’m pro-choice, while I may be more moderate than (Seals) is on this issue,” Dold said.

Seals said he supports abortion rights without Dold’s caveats and cited his endorsements from organizations such as Planned Parenthood.

Seals argued that limits on taxpayer-funded abortion and parental notification laws would force some women “to go to a back alley to care of this.”

On gay marriage, Seals supports it, calling it a “civil rights issue.” He also backs repealing military restrictions on openly gay soldiers.

Dold doesn’t support gay marriage, but said same-sex couples should have similar legal protections. Dold said he will support repealing the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy if military generals agree it won’t impact combat operations.

Yes, there are many Democrats that do not support marriage equality and some Republicans that do. But I think that these two positions probably reflect what the voter who self-categorizes as “Democrat” or “moderate Republican” finds most comfortable.

Nikolai Alekseev Believed Held By Russia’s Secret Police

Nikolai Alekseev

In an update to our earlier report concerning Russian LGBT-advocate Nikolai Alekseev’s detention, the following notice was posted on GayRussia.Ru’s web site:

Nikolai Alekseev was arrested tonight at the Domodedovo Airport in Moscow where he was supposed to board the flight LX 1337 from Swiss Air Lines to Geneva.

His arrest took place right after the passport control. The border police asked Swiss Air Lines to cancel his boarding pass and to offload his luggage from the plane.

He had time to call a friend as well as the news agency Interfax. Reports of his arrest have been republished in the evening through the Russian media.

As he told his friends and the media, no explanation was given to him on the motive of his arrest.

Airport security and Moscow police both deny holding Alekseev. One office told Alekseev’s friends that Alekseev may have been held by FSB agents (the successor to the former Soviet-era KGB) for interrogation at its headquarters in Lubyanka in central Moscow.

Activists at GayRussica applied for a permit yesterday to hold a demonstration on Sept 21 on under the title of “Luzhkov — Gomiki.” That is in reference to Moscow mayor Yuri Luzhkov, who has consistently denied the group permission to hold Gay Pride rallies for the past several years. “Gomiki” is the Russian word that translates roughly as “faggot.” Russia’s officially controlled news channels have lately accused Luzhkov of corruption, leading to speculation that he may be forced to step down.

This latest development with Alekseev’s detention is worrying. According to GayRussia.Ru, the Russian government recently passed a law reviving FSB detention practices that had been routine during the KGB era. The FSB has reportedly declined to comment on whether they are detaining Alekseev.

Irish eyes are smiling at you

From Ireland Today:

Just over two-thirds of people (67 per cent) believe gay couples should be allowed to marry, according to an Irish Times /Behaviour Attitudes social poll.
…
In addition showing strong support for gay marriage, a significant majority (60 per cent) also believe civil partnerships for gay couples will not undermine the institution of marriage. A large majority (91 per cent) also say they would not think less of a person if they revealed they were gay or lesbian.

If I translate that correctly, there is some percentage who support marriage for same sex couple because they fear the civil partnerships undermine the institution. Personally, I think there is merit in that argument.

Ireland’s civil partnerships law become effective in January and politicians are already planning ahead for full marriage equality. I wonder if the Pope is noticing the same correlation as the rest of us?

Social Issues Rise In Tea Party Politics

Dick Armey, speaking at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast on Sept. 13. "That fight (on social issues) will be had."

Last weekend, Dick Armey, Director of FreedomWorks which is the political organization which organized the Tea Party movement nationwide as a disguised “astroturf” campaign of seemingly spontaneous grass-roots organizations, commented at a breakfast organized by the Christian Science Monitor that once their planned takeover of Congress is complete, the Tea Party will switch from economic issues to social issues. Armey rejected the idea that there would be a truce on social issues, saying “these are issues of the heart.”

While he claimed that the Tea Party’s first priority is economic issues, Armey admitted that social issues, which the Tea Party has been studiously silent on (except when some of them go off script), will also be part of their agenda. “”People are not going to turn their hearts and minds away from things that they have so heartfelt,” he said, and he cited abortion as only “one a little example.”

And that is why the insurgency of the Tea Party should concern us all. Yesterday, Tea Party-backed Christine O’Donnell won the GOP primary for U.S. Senate in Delaware. In the early 1990’s, she was the founder and leader of a group called the Savior’s Alliance for Lifting the Truth (SALT), which hired Wade Richards as their ex-gay spokesman. He later abandoned the ex-gay movement while coming out in an article in The Advocate in 2000. In 1996, she launched a campaign against masturbation on MTV.

Delaware Tea Party nominee for U.S. Senate Christine O'Donnell

O’Donnell, who was once the press secretary for “Concerned Women for America,” believes in Creationism over evolution, and is against admitting women to military academies. “It’s an honor to be a lady, she wrote.  “That’s a beautiful part of womanhood is to be ladylike. ” She claimed that West Point “has had to lower their standards … in order for men and women to compete.” By lowering standards, she added, “we have reduced the effectiveness of our military.” One can very easily hear echoes of anti-gay talking points in the current debate over repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in those remarks.

Tea party leaders have been eager to paint the so-called “spontaneous” movement as being strictly concerned with economic issues. But as the movement pushes the GOP further to the right on economic issues, it will have the effect of pushing it harder to the right on social issues as well, and that will provoke many difficult challenges for the gay community should the Tea Party capture a significant block of seats in Congress. To pretend that the Tea Party’s only interest is in economic issues is, as Dick Armey points out in so many words, naive. That idea rests on the fictional belief that Tea Party members have checked their anti-gay animus at the door. They haven’t. They’ve just hidden it in their closets for the time being.

Catholics and Evangelical Hispanics: better no immigration reform than allow gay couples to stay together

Because the US Government does not recognize same sex couples, there are many indignities suffered. Taxes are higher, there’s a special “gay tax” on health insurance, and there are over 1,000 laws that effect same-sex couples differently than opposite-sex couples. But the cruelest by far is when the federal government breaks up of long-term, committed, married same-sex couples and kicks one of the spouses out of the country.

Yet some of those who are advocating for immigration reform support this position. They so strongly wish to forcibly separate same-sex couples that they would rather give up one of their most important agenda items than allow for multi-national gay couples to be treated like heterosexuals. (WaPo)

“It introduces a new controversial element to the issue which will divide the faith community and further jeopardize chances for a fair and bipartisan compromise,” said Kevin Appleby of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which last year said the inclusion of gay couples in a House bill aimed at reuniting families made it “impossible” for the group to support the measure. “Immigration is hard enough without adding same-sex marriage to the mix.”

The National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, a 16-million-strong group of evangelical Latinos that could play a key political role in an immigration overhaul, is similarly opposed to including provisions for gay and lesbian families. The president of the organization, the Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, said that including such a measure would prove to be the “death knell” for comprehensive change.

I have difficulty fathoming a moral code that includes deliberate and blatant cruelty. Surely these Catholics and Hispanic evangelicals are just so caught up in “fighting the homosexual agenda” that they have never asked themselves how they really want specific same-sex couples to be treated. Surely they do not actually wish for John Beddingfield and Erwin de Leon, a couple discussed in the article, to be forced to live apart.

Some day they will look back and be ashamed.

But in the meantime, there is a possibility for hope. The Obama Administration has not yet filed an appeal to Gill v. Office of Personnel Management or Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, the joint cases that found certain provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act to be in violation of the US Constitution. The filing deadline is October 11, and neither the Justice Department nor the White House have stated whether an appeal would be filed.

Should the Administration opt not to appeal, then married same-sex couples in at least the State of Massachusetts would have the ability to apply for citizenship consideration in the same manner as opposite sex couples. It would be – for many – a great hardship to relocate to Massachusetts, but for some desperate couples it could be a temporary solution.

Indiana kid bullied to death

I’m usually detached enough that this stuff doesn’t get to me. But for some reason, Billy Lucas’ story has me on the verge of tears. (Fox 59)

He was a teenager who didn’t quite fit in. His classmates said Billy Lucas was bullied for being different.

The 15-year-old never told anyone he was gay but students at Greensburg High School thought he was and so they picked on him.

“People would call him ‘fag’ and stuff like that, just make fun of him because he’s different basically,” said student Dillen Swango.

Students told Fox59 News it was common knowledge that children bullied Billy and from what they said, it was getting worse. Last Thursday, Billy’s mother found him dead inside their barn. He had hung himself.

I am sick of reading this story over and over and over and the only change is the name. But I am even more sick, disgusted, and outraged at hearing “I didn’t know” excuses and blame-the-victim justifications from administrators who ignored the abuse – often deliberately.

This time the ‘I Don’t Give A Damn Award’ goes to Principal Phil Chapple, who had no idea that Lucas was being bullied. Nope, no clue.

But he did say this:

“Sometimes he created that atmosphere around him,” Chappel said. “Kind of like a little tornado because he went around doing things that made dust fly, I guess.”

So Chappel saw dust fly, but never noticed that kids were threatening Billy every day. Un-huh. And he admits that his problems were because “people found out who he was.”

So I guess Chappel’s version is that Billy “created that atmosphere” by being “who he was” and “went around doing things” that “made dust fly” but Chappel never noticed any bullying, no sir. In his rush to blame Lucas for his own mistreatment, Chappel didn’t even see the internal contradiction in his own story.

So now that the news cameras are on him, what is Chappel doing? Is he contacting GLSEN? Is he instating long-tested anti-bullying programs? Is he letting the teachers know that there will be no tolerance for anti-gay bullying? Is he even acknowledging that this has LONG been a problem at Greensburg High? (Eyewitness News)

school administrators met Monday to discuss forming a committee that would include students and parents to help battle the bullying issues

Chappel’s newfound awareness of bullying is total bull. Another previous student – one who survived his own suicide attempt – told school officials about his anti-gay bullying. They did nothing.

I guess Chappel thought that he too “created that atmosphere.”

Charlie Crist To Consider Dropping Gay Adoption Lawsuit

The Palm Beach Post reports that Florida Governor and Independent candidate for the U.S. Senate Charlie Crist is considering dropping a lawsuit challenging a gay couple’s adoption of two foster children that is now on appeal:

“I think we need to review that. My comments really reflect that it’s better to have more of the judicial branch involved in this process. I think that most who follow the judiciary recognize that what’s in the ‘best interest of the child’ is what should be paramount in these kinds of decisions. That’s what I believe and I think that’s what will be the best for them,” Crist, the independent candidate in the three-way race for U.S. Senate, told reporters.

This comes on the heals of last weekend’s revelation that Gov. Crist will back a large number of LGBT equality measures, excluding marriage.

The lawsuit, re the Adoption of John and James Doe, is now before a state appeals court, which is expected to issue a decision at any time. That lawsuit has already caused no end of grief to Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum, who losthis bid for the GOP’s nomination for U.S. Senate. That loss that is partly attributable to controversy surrounding his hiring of George Rekers to serve as an “expert witness” to defend the state’s ban on gay couples adopting children. Rekers was later exposed as a customer of a rentboy while on vacation in Europe. McCullum authorised payment of $120,000 for Rekers’ testimony, which was ultimately dismissed by the trial judge as “motivated by his strong ideological and theological convictions that are not consistent with the science.”

Peter LaBarbera’s Asks, “What’s the Greater Threat? Homosexuals Or Sharia Law?”

Peter “Porno Pete” LaBarbera has picked up an old thread from the Sally Kern days and says that the so-called “homosexual agenda” (i.e. freedom, fairness, equality, dignity, etc.) is a greater threat to religious freedom than Sharia Law:

What is the bigger threat to freedom in America, presently? a) Sharia Law; or b) the anti-religious homosexualist agenda (including legalized “gay marriage”)? If you answered “b,” you are correct. Tell that to the conservative and ‘liberal-tarian’ pundits who are silent on the intolerant government-gay agenda and yet very vocal on the threat of Islamic radicalism.

He means that with love, of course.