Box Turtle Bulletin

What the “Illinois professor fired for giving Catholic teaching on homosexuality” really said

Dr. Kenneth Howell was fired by the University of Illinois when a student complained that Howell, who taught a course in Catholic theology, actually preached to his students instead of instructing them and made statements that consisted of hate-speech. Anti-gay activists are crying martyr.

The Catholic News Agency describes Howell’s comments this way:

Howell said he taught the Catholic Church’s position on homosexuality. He summed it up by saying, “A homosexual orientation is not morally wrong just as no moral guilt can be assigned to any inclination that a person has. However, based on natural moral law, the Church believes that homosexual acts are contrary to human nature and therefore morally wrong.”

Gosh, that doesn’t seem so bad. That’s just a fact based statement about the teachings of the church, one that I or anyone else might make.

But – not to challenge the integrity of the good folk at the Catholic News Agency, of course – but in his email of instruction to all of his students, Howell also said a good deal more.

If two men consent to engage in sexual acts, according to utilitarianism, such an act would be morally okay. But notice too that if a ten year old agrees to a sexual act with a 40 year old, such an act would also be moral if even it is illegal under the current law. Notice too that our concern is with morality, not law. So by the consent criterion, we would have to admit certain cases as moral which we presently would not approve of. The case of the 10 and 40 year olds might be excluded by adding a modification like “informed consent.” Then as long as both parties agree with sufficient knowledge, the act would be morally okay. A little reflection would show, I think, that “informed consent” might be more difficult to apply in practice than in theory. But another problem would be where to draw the line between moral and immoral acts using only informed consent. For example, if a dog consents to engage in a sexual act with its human master, such an act would also be moral according to the consent criterion. If this impresses you as far-fetched, the point is not whether it might occur but by what criterion we could say that it is wrong. I don’t think that it would be wrong according to the consent criterion.

Interesting. I don’t think it is official Catholic theology to equate homosexuality with pedophilia or bestiality. But, as a position of logic, that might not be beyond the pale.

But what else did he have to say?

But the more significant problem has to do with the fact that the consent criterion is not related in any way to the NATURE of the act itself. This is where Natural Moral Law (NML) objects. NML says that Morality must be a response to REALITY. In other words, sexual acts are only appropriate for people who are complementary, not the same. How do we know this? By looking at REALITY. Men and women are complementary in their anatomy, physiology, and psychology. Men and women are not interchangeable. So, a moral sexual act has to be between persons that are fitted for that act. Consent is important but there is more than consent needed.

One example applicable to homosexual acts illustrates the problem. To the best of my knowledge, in a sexual relationship between two men, one of them tends to act as the “woman” while the other acts as the “man.” In this scenario, homosexual men have been known to engage in certain types of actions for which their bodies are not fitted. I don’t want to be too graphic so I won’t go into details but a physician has told me that these acts are deleterious to the health of one or possibly both of the men. Yet, if the morality of the act is judged only by mutual consent, then there are clearly homosexual acts which are injurious to their health but which are consented to. Why are they injurious? Because they violate the meaning, structure, and (sometimes) health of the human body.
…
Natural Moral Theory says that if we are to have healthy sexual lives, we must return to a connection between procreation and sex. Why? Because that is what is REAL. It is based on human sexual anatomy and physiology. Human sexuality is inherently unitive and procreative. If we encourage sexual relations that violate this basic meaning, we will end up denying something essential about our humanity, about our feminine and masculine nature.

I know this doesn’t answer all the questions in many of your minds. All I ask as your teacher is that you approach these questions as a thinking adult. That implies questioning what you have heard around you. Unless you have done extensive research into homosexuality and are cognizant of the history of moral thought, you are not ready to make judgments about moral truth in this matter. All I encourage is to make informed decisions. As a final note, a perceptive reader will have noticed that none of what I have said here or in class depends upon religion. Catholics don’t arrive at their moral conclusions based on their religion. They do so based on a thorough understanding of natural reality.

Oh… so this isn’t just Catholic theory he was teaching. It was his own personal beliefs, not – he says – based on his religion, but universally observably true. Based on what he imagines a sexual relationship between two men to be and on what “a physician” told him (something he calls “extensive research into homosexuality”). And, as his students are “not ready to make judgments about moral truth in this matter,” they should just accept his own beliefs as their own.

I’ll let you decide whether you think that this was an offense worthy of firing.

CORRECTION:

Kenneth Howell was an Adjunct Associate Professor of Religious Studies. He wasn’t fired but his contract was not renewed.

I’ll let you decide whether you think that this was an offense worthy of being denied a renewed contract.

Texas GOP vice-chair defends party’s extremist anti-gay platform

If the term “hate-filled homophobic bigotry” does not accurately describe the platform of the Republican Party in Texas, then it’s a term without meaning.

Not content with clauses about the “protection of marriage” or which express dismay at what “the children” are being taught about homosexuality, the Texas GOP makes no bones about what they feel about gay people. They want to take away your children, deny you health insurance, and throw you in jail.

Homosexuality – We believe that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit, and leads to the spread of dangerous, communicable diseases. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable “alternative” lifestyle in our public education and policy, nor should “family” be redefined to include homosexual “couples.” We are opposed to any granting of special legal entitlements, refuse to recognize, or grant special privileges including, but not limited to: marriage between persons of the same sex (regardless of state of origin), custody of children by homosexuals, homosexual partner insurance or retirement benefits. We oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values.

Texas Sodomy Statutes – We oppose the legalization of sodomy. We demand that Congress exercise its authority granted by the U.S. Constitution to withhold jurisdiction from the federal courts from cases involving sodomy.

But if you think that sounds harsh, well Texas Republican Party Vice Chair Melinda Fredricks knows who to blame: you. If you weren’t so uppity, trying “to force acceptance, affirmation and normalization of homosexual behavior,” then she wouldn’t have to put you in your place.

From The Courier (which her husband publishes)

Although Fredricks admits she cannot speak for the entire Republican Party, she believes the strong statement was a response to an aggressive homosexual political agenda, including an attempt to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and pass laws forcing churches to consider hiring homosexuals. Fredricks said “a large portion of our base is Christian, and we believe that homosexuality is contrary to what God says is appropriate behavior.

“People feel threatened that their children have to be taught that it’s an equal lifestyle to heterosexuality,” she said. “At the same time, you can’t say people are subhuman. (Homosexuals) still deserve the dignity entitled to them.”

I’m not sure I quite see the distinction between “subhuman” and the way in which Fredricks views gay people. And I’m not sure just how much dignity one can have when denied even the most basic of freedoms.

The Nation: LGBT Youth Face Violence Behind Bars

Kids screw up. But in some cases, they’re thrown into situations that very few mature adults can handle effectively, let alone adolescents. Sometimes those situations mean they land in our juvenile justice systemm which is intended to both punish and rehabilitate youths who break the law. But as in adult prisons, juvenile detentions centers are also very violent and dangerous places, particularly for those who happen to be gay or transgender:

“I was scared to sleep at night because I didn’t know if I was going to wake up in the morning,” writes one incarcerated youth at Louisiana’s Swanson Center for Youth. One 15-year-old who was shuttled back and forth from group homes and secure facilities in Shreveport, New Orleans and Baton Rouge reports that staff did nothing when he reported a rape because he “reported it too late,” that he was “whipped with a clothes hanger” for rule violations and that the abuse from staff and other youth was so bad that he tried to kill himself. Two of Krystal’s gay friends were raped in prison by other youths. One of them was assaulted so viciously that the injuries required internal stitches. Staff put Krystal’s other friend in isolation to protect him from further assault.

Krystal [a transgender woman who identified as a male when she entered Louisiana’s system at the age of twelve] reports that she was physically attacked by other youth nearly every day that she was in the system. Shortly after arriving, Krystal found her shoes in the trash, covered in urine and spit. Frequently, youths attacked Krystal for refusing to perform sex acts. Other queer youth in the facility had similar experiences. “We’re all in the same category,” she says. And there was nowhere to hide. “It was basically like a big dorm—one big room where everybody sleeps, that’s what’s going on,” Krystal says. “Sometimes you would get sent to lockdown for fighting back, but there’s nothing else you can do.” Krystal reported the abuse to staff, but “they would just wait till things happened. Sometimes the staff would tell the other youth to stop. Sometimes they wouldn’t.”

Daniel Redman, who wrote this story in last months’s The Nation, is a Law Project Fellow for the National Center for Lesbian Rights. He reports that according to U.S justice department statistics, LGBT youth are twelve times more likely to be sexually assaulted by fellow inmates than straight youth. To compound the problem, many of these LGBT youths turned to crime to support themselves after they were kicked out of their homes for being gay or transgender. Redman uncovered some more statistics:

LGBT youth make up 15 percent of the prison population. Indeed, one-quarter of all LGBT youth are kicked out of their homes or run away. Compared to their heterosexual peers, incarcerated LGBT youth are twice as likely to report abuse at the hands of family members, homelessness or state-ordered foster placement. A shocking estimated 20-40 percent of homeless youth identify as LGBT.

Redman also discovered that the ex-gay movement has a hand in this. Given the tragedies behind this, my only complaint is that his report is too short. I hope Redman will be able to find an editorial outlet that will allow him to expand on what he learned.

This is an issue that too few LGBT advocates have been willing to touch. Advocating for LGBT youth in prison, I guess, leads one to be exposed to the charge of being soft on crime. Standing up for these kids can be touchy, unfortunately. Yet who can deny that this story illustrates the worst consequences of homophobic violence and rejection, often beginning in the very homes of these youth?

A Sweet Marriage Ad from Argentina

Subtitles be Blabbeando. The Argentine Senate is expected to vote on a marriage bill sometime this week. The House approved the measure last month.

Bombs Explode in Uganda Capital, Killing At Least 64

Three bombs ripped through the Ugandan capital city of Kampala Sunday night killing at least 64 people and injuring scores more. Two bombs exploded nearly simultaneously on the grounds of the Kyadondo Rugby Club where thousands had gathered to watch the World Cup Finals on large screen televisions. About an hour earlier, another bomb went off at the crowded Ethiopian Village Restaurant, killing 15 people.

According to one eyewitness at the rugby club, the bombs went off with about three minutes left in the game:

While police are continuing to investigate, government spokesperson Fred Opolot said they believed the attacks were carried out by suicide bombers. At least one of the suicide bombers is believed to be a Somali national. According to Uganda’s Daily Monitor:

What does one wear to a machination of the Father of Lies?

From the increasingly histrionic Catholic news site, LiveSiteNews:

Argentina’s number one Catholic prelate, Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio, is calling upon the priests of the Archdiocese of Buenos Aires to bring their flocks to an upcoming protest against homosexual “marriage,” which is currently under consideration by the nation’s senate.

“Let’s not be naive, we’re not talking about a simple political battle; it is a destructive pretension against the plan of God,” writes Bergoglio in a letter sent to the monasteries of Buenos Aires, where he is archbishop. “We are not talking about a mere bill, but rather a machination of the Father of Lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God.”

Which makes me think, if I’m ever invited to something so important as to require the direct coordination of Old Scratch himself, I should dress up. Do you think red Prada slippers are appropriate for a gay wedding? After all, the Pope wears them to all his formal functions.

Why the Obama Administration Must Appeal DOMA Rulings

I know. That headline is heresy. But there’s the thing: the two rulings declaring the “Defense of Marriage Act” unconstitutional only apply to Massachusetts. It’s a great win for LGBT couples living in the Bay State, but it’s meaningless everywhere else.

As it stands, there are only three ways to get rid of DOMA nationwide. Barring appeals by Obama’s Department of Justice, the first option is to get another forty-nine sets of similar rulings by federal judges in forty-nine more states. While it’s true that these Massachusetts rulings would serve as a precedent for subsequent rulings by other federal judges, those judges aren’t bound by them in the same way they would be a Supreme Court ruling. So the practical message the Obama administration would be sending if they chose not to appeal this case would be, “Congratulations, now go win 49 more. (And keep going if you want D.C., Puerto Rico and the other territories.)” I just don’t see that happening.

The second option is to overturn DOMA in Congress. I think that would be the preferable solution, but we know how controversial that would be. As archaic as everyone thought anti-sodomy laws were, they were still in force in 14 states just seven years ago before Lawrence v. Texas finally struck them down. Hate crimes legislation and repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” are also non-controversial according to public opinion polls, but we still see how difficult that has proven to be in the most LGBT-friendly Congress in history. We hardly need to remind ourselves that same-sex marriage is in a whole different league of contentiousness, as every single public referendum on the issue has painfully shown us time and time again. With the next Congress likely to be much more hostile to LGBT issues as this Congress, I’ve got lottery tickets with better odds than Congress repealing DOMA.

So that leaves the U.S. Supreme Court as the best option. Not a great option, but the best one. The path is still tricky, and it’s unclear how a majority might be put together to support these decisions. But these decisions are the marker against which future appeals will be decided, and that will happen only if those appeals are heard. The next step is the 1st Court of Appeals, then the Supreme Court, with the hope that the Supreme Court agrees to hear the cases should the Appeals Court overturn the lower court’s decisions. This could be Bowers vs. Harwick all over again, or it could be another Lawrence. But wherever it goes, the train has left the station. We’re either on board or not.

Update (Jul 11): Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD), the folks behind Gill v OPM has released a thorough set of FAQs (PDF: 264KB/8 pages) answering many of the questions asked by BTB readers in comments.

Dr. Laura doctors her past

As I have noted in the past, Dr. Laura Schlessinger does not at this time use her radio show to rant about gay people with disgust in her voice. In fact, she advises gay people to come out to their families and told Larry King last year that commitments between same-sex couples are “beautiful thing and a healthy thing”.

But girl has still got her some pent up anger about a boycott of her early 90’s television show which destroyed her chances of being Dr. Phil. Well, that and the fact that her show was simply unwatchable.

And so – yet again – Schlessinger has set out to “set the record straight”. In a June 22 blog post, Laura says that she’s always been supportive and that statements to the contrary are lies about her.

Nothing new here. I’ve been commenting on this for a while, but last night a friend approached me…a friend approached me and asked me how he should handle a particular situation. (I thought I was getting into “Dr. Laura gear”). Somebody had contacted him and challenged him about being my friend because, (and to quote that person) “she hates gays”. For almost a dozen years (I think they’re automatically renewed computer-wise daily…you’ve probably seen it or heard about it), a blog appears under different sources, ostensibly asking me to answer questions about some of the Bible’s entries about slavery, daughters…so forth. It supposes that I ever quoted Leviticus that homosexuality is an abomination. That never happened. I repeat: that never happened. I never said that. I don’t believe that.

In fact (which they will deny…don’t you love activism?) I was one of the earliest radio hosts to support organizations such as PFLAG (you know, Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays) and other efforts to encourage openness and acceptance of gays in their own families, much less society. But to my surprise (but not naivetë), to many activists, truth is irrelevant when the intent is to rally support through raising passions, especially negative passions. Get people angry and they stop thinking for themselves.

She goes on to state that she opposes gay marriage and gays raising kids but that “listeners and fans who are gay” adore her. She quotes several letters and conversations to prove her point.

Having people believe that I’m a bigot and hate me…and “hate” is the word…is horrible, frustrating, demoralizing and unbelievably painful.

But the problem is that these angry “activists” are not wrong. While it is true that Dr. Laura can be supportive today, she has not always sought to encourage openness or supported the goals of PFLAG. In fact, the Dr. Laura of 2000 said some things that certainly would not be considered “supportive” and which did use the Bible as justification for bigotry.

Rather than “efforts to encourage openness and acceptance of gays in their own families, much less society,” in 2000 Dr. Laura was lamenting “the celebration of sexual deviancy and license” and saying that she “reveres the Bible and determines morality by the words of God.”

That year Dr. Laura Schlessinger wrote the foreword to wacky ex-gay gadfly Richard Cohen’s book, Coming Out Straight : Understanding and Healing Homosexuality. She didn’t have any opinions about his beat-the-pillow methods or about the appropriateness of cuddling as a gay cure, but she sure had a lot to say about gay folk.

She started it this way:

We live in a world in which the radical homosexual activists have, through aggressive lobbying and successful strategic initiatives successfully managed to infiltrate and effect change in government, public schools, churches, and even in our scientific institutes. Slowly and ever so surely, they are deconstructing the conventional family in order to accommodate their own personal desires and political goals. In the name of human rights and equality, the extremists in the homosexual community have altered the fundamental fabric of cultural and moral norms.

Oh, but not all gay people were “radical homosexual activists”. Those who agreed that they were sexual deviants, opposed civil equality, and were “struggling with personal and spiritual turmoil” were just fine. In other words, Dr. Laura loved her some ex-gays.

And she was furious that “these zealots” had convinced the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association (neither of which she is qualified to join) to state that there is no proof supporting conversion therapy. The gall!

I do give Dr. Laura credit for changing her views. I appreciate that she no longer seems to believe that change therapy is effective. I’m glad that she finds same-sex commitments to be “a beautiful thing and a healthy thing.” And I’m delighted that a lot of conservative parents today do hear her message of acceptance and support.

But let’s not pretend that the anger wasn’t earned. So to Dr. Laura and her latest complaint, I say:

For heaven sake, Dr. Laura, you weren’t the injured party. You don’t get to complain.

But you do need to own up to your past bigotries. By all means denounce them, but don’t deny them. You said it, you meant it, and you need to still be held accountable for the damage you have done.

Read her full FOREWORD after the jump

Read the rest of this entry »

Tea Partiers support overturn of DOMA

The Tea Party movement can be difficult to understand. On the one hand, they are not supportive of gay equality, but on the other they truly dislike and distrust a large centralized government.

And the New York Times found that, for the most part, the Tea Party leaders supported the decision to overturn the federal Defense of Marriage Act as a victory for states’ rights, even if they don’t much like the consequences.

Some people involved in the campaigns to limit Washington’s reach cheered what they said was a states’ rights victory.

“The Constitution isn’t about political ideology,” said Michael Boldin, the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center, a group based in Los Angeles. “It’s about liberty, and limiting the government to certain divisive issues — I applaud what I consider a very rare ruling form the judiciary.”

Others, like Steve V. Moon, a software programmer and founder of States-rights.org, a group founded in Utah in 2008, said the judge’s decision was both right and wrong.

“It’s unconstitutional for the federal government to pass laws superseding state authority — and the judge did affirm states’ rights in this area,” he said. “But I personally believe in the sanctity of marriage between a man and woman and support any state passing laws affirming the sanctity of marriage.”

Mr. Moon said he feared that what might look like a states’ rights victory could backfire. If judges in other states, drawing on Judge Tauro’s reasoning, start throwing out marriage definition laws that were passed by residents or legislatures, “that could be detrimental to states’ rights.”

A spokeswoman for one of the biggest Tea Party umbrella organizations, Tea Party Patriots, said that social questions were not part of their mission.

“As far as an assertion of states’ rights goes, I believe it’s a good thing,” said Shelby Blakely, executive director of The New Patriot Journal, the group’s online publication. “The Constitution does not allow federal regulation of gay marriage just as it doesn’t allow for federal regulation of health care.”

“But I don’t want to come off saying I support gay marriage,” she added.

Meanwhile, the white house continues to stay silent on the decision.

Presbyterian Church does not amend their definition of marriage

By narrow margins and by use of some strategic procedural methods, the committee recommendation to change the Presbyterian Church (USA)’s definition of marriage from “one man and one woman” to “two people” were not adopted by the general convention.

The committee report, which recommended the change, was instead sent to the larger church for continued study (along with a minority report calling for keeping the exclusive language). Then a procedural move allowed conservatives to block the convention from considering whether individual churches or ministers could have discretion in their own blessing of marriages.

Just prior to the Assembly’s action, the body accepted the recommendation of the General Assembly Civil Union and Marriage Issues Committee to approve the report of the Special Committee to Study Issues of Civil Union and Christian Marriage by a vote of 439-208. The Assembly decided to send both the special committee report and the minority report generated by three members of the special committee to the larger church for study after a motion to replace the final report with the minority report was defeated, 358-311.

Following that action was a parliamentary maneuver that resulted in the Assembly voting to let the approval of the special committee report “answer all pending items” on the remaining Assembly committee’s list of overtures that included changing the definition of marriage to “two people,” giving pastors and sessions discretion in deciding who may marry and whether they may use church property for the ceremony.

The vote was 348-324, with six commissioners abstaining.

So marriage will stay status quo for another two years in the PC(USA).

However, this convention did advance equality for gay Presbyterians. Provided that the presbyteries sanction the decision, the church will now let gay men and women who are in relationships serve in the church.

Ireland civil unions update

The civil unions bill in Ireland has now passed the upper house.

From Pink News

The bill, which grants almost all of the rights of marriage, passed in the Dail last week and was approved in the Seanad last night after two days of debate.

It passed with the support of 48 senators, with just four voting against, and will be sent to President Mary McAleese, who can approve it or refer it to the Supreme Court if she believes it may be unconstitutional.

Pentagon’s DADT Survey Released

It’s posted online here. Servicemembers Legal Defense Network warns LGBT servicememembers against taking the survey, citing privacy concerns. Citizens for Repeal, however, urges LGBT servicemembers to take the survey. Servicemembers United, which had urged LGBT servicemembers to take the survey, now calls it “derogatory and insulting” in a press release.

I have privacy concerns myself, but as I look at the survey I don’t find it derogatory or insulting. Unless you think a survey ought not include opportunities for homophobes to express their opinion. But if a survey only allows people to respond in a pro-LGBT manner, then why bother asking anyone anything?

Update: A Pentagon spokesperson acknowledged that these 32 pages are an “authentic portion of the survey, but it isn’t the complete version.” In other words, it’s not the whole thing.

From whence do our readers hail?

I’m often amazed when a comment on the site will give a local perspective to what, for me, may be a very distant story. And I’d love to know just how far this site reaches.

I’ll update the map above and color in each nation that is represented, so please give us a hello from your part of the world. I’d love to hear from infrequent commenters as well; just a one word comment to tell us what nation you live in would be great.

NOM Is Furious — Just Furious!

Reading this press release from the National Organization for Marriage made my spit my beer through my nose:

“Under the guidance of Elena Kagan’s brief that she filed when she was Solicitor General, Obama’s justice department deliberately sabotaged this case,” charged Brian Brown, President of NOM, referring to the Justice Department’s brief which described DOMA as discriminatory. Despite the explicit language in DOMA that the law was designed to protect children’s right to their mothers and fathers, the judge disavowed that DOMA has anything to do with responsible procreation. “With only Obama to defend DOMA, this federal judge has taken the extraordinary step of overturning a law passed by huge bipartisan majorities and signed into law by Pres. Clinton in 1996. A single federal judge in Boston has no moral right to decide the definition of marriage for the people of the United States,” Brown continued.

“Does this federal judge want to start another culture war?” asked Maggie Gallagher, Chairman of NOM. “Does he really want another Roe. v. Wade? The simple fact is that the right of the federal government to define marriage for the purposes of its federal law and federal territories has been clear since the late 19th century, when Congress banned polygamy. Only an incompetent defense could have lost this case. We expect to win in a higher court.”

Another Republican Activist Judge

One of the election cries of conservatives is “Protect our courts, elect Republicans who won’t appoint activist judges.”

Judge Joseph Tauro, who just found DOMA unconstitutional, was the chief legal counsel to Republican Massachusetts Governor John Volpe until he was nominated for Federal Judge by President Richard Nixon.

It kinda takes the wind out of the “liberal activist judge” claim, doesn’t it.