Box Turtle Bulletin

Stories From the Frontlines: Former Staff Sgt Anthony Loverde, USAF

Today’s letter to President Barack Obama is from former U.S. Air Force Staff Sgt. Anthony Loverde. SSgt. Loverde was a much-valued technician. He entered the Air Force in 2001 as a Precision Measurement Equipment Laboratory (PMEL) technician, and later became a C-130 Loadmaster, which required frequent deployments from his base in Ramstein Air Force Base in Germany.

Those frequent deployments were actually part of SSgt. Loverde’s plan. Struggling to come to terms with his sexuality, the frequent deployments to Kuwait meant that he “didn’t have time to be gay.” It also meant that he had earned the nickname “vapor” — as soon as he touched the ground back in Germany, he would disappear, to avoid his friends and fellow troopmates:

I didn’t avoid them because I didn’t like them, I avoided them because I respected them enough to not have to lie and burden them with my secret.

When I arrived in Germany, I sent an email to my First Sergeant to tell him I wanted to speak with my commander about being gay and not wanting to abide by DADT any longer. My commander said I served honorably and they would be there to support me in my transition back to civilian life.

Each one of my past supervisors from the ranks of E7 to E9 wrote character reference letters that requested my retention. My commander and First Sergeant said my character, performance and honorable service was not at question…it was merely a legal matter.

Upon my discharge, I was hired by global contractor KBR to fill a technical position in Iraq and later in Bagram, Afghanistan. I was once again working with the same Airmen I had worked for on active duty, but this time openly gay. No one had a problem.

I continue to work side by side with members of our military – each of them knowing me as a gay man — and it has caused no impact on the mission. My contracting job for the Department of Defense now is the same job I performed when I was in uniform.

You can read the full letter here. All of the letters from the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network’s campaign are available here. The SLDN explains why they are publishing this series of letters from active and former servicemembers:

“Stories from the Frontlines: Letters to President Barack Obama” is a new media campaign launched to underscore the urgent need for congressional action and presidential leadership at this critical point in the fight to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT). Every weekday morning as we approach the markup of the Defense Authorization bill in the Senate and House Armed Services Committees, SLDN and a coalition of voices supporting repeal, will share an open letter to the President from a person impacted by this discriminatory law. We are urging the President to include repeal in the Administration’s defense budget recommendations, but also to voice his support as we work to muster the 15 critical votes needed on the Senate Armed Services Committee to include repeal. The Defense Authorization bill represents the best legislative vehicle to bring repeal to the president’s desk. It also was the same vehicle used to pass DADT in 1993. By working together, we can help build momentum to get the votes! We ask that you forward and post these personal stories.

Mike Huckabee wouldn’t know integrity if it bit him in the butt

Eternal Republican candidate and advocate for having theology dictate legislation Mike Huckabee got together with fellow social conservative Sean Hannity to rag on Rosie O’Donnell and have a good old-fashioned “Christians are victims” jawing. And, it seems, when in friendly company, sometimes Huckabee can just get carried away by victimhood, exaggeration, and hyperbole and say something truly stupid.

Naturally, there was lots of whining about how unfair it is to see his dedication to harming gay people, their lives, their freedoms and their equality and think he must “somehow be bigoted.” (Really! what a notion!) And how it is intolerant to not respect his intolerance.

Poor, pitiful him.

Amusingly, just a moment before he had described his desire to not allow Rosie O’Donnell to adopt as being “not a personal thing.” She should just get over it, he’s already called dibs on the martyr label.

But I digress.

The real moment of surreality, the true wait-there-must-be-a-punchline-coming comment came when he whimpered about how he’s not so bad, or no worse than anyone else.

As I tell people, my position on same-sex marriage is the same that Joe Biden, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and the voters in 30 states where it’s been on the ballot —

Really.

Really?

So Huckabee thinks that his ‘position is the same’ as those who support civil unions? His ‘position is the same’ as those who oppose anti-gay amendments? Huckabee’s ‘positions are the same’ as those states which protected the word “marriage” but deliberately chose not to ban relationship recognition.

No, that’s not Mike Huckabee’s position on same-sex marriage. Nope, that would just be a lie. Huckabee’s position on same-sex marriage is:

I can assure you I believe in a constitutional amendment that prohibits same-sex marriages, and I do not believe in civil unions. Never have and never will.

I swear, Mike Huckabee wouldn’t recognize honesty and truthfulness if they sidled up and bit him on the butt to get his attention.

All in all, it’s probably a good thing changed his previous occupation and ran for office. Politicians do, on whole, have even a slightly worse reputation than preachers so he’s right at home.

American Joins Kampala Rally Pushing For Passage of Anti-Gay Bill

Lou Engle addressing a rally in Kampala, Uganda.(Marc Hofer/New York Times)

American anti-gay extremist Lou Engle joined several Ugandan pastors and political leaders in calling upon that nation’s government to enact the draconian Anti-Homosexuality Bill. As we already noted late last night, the New York Times quoted Lou Engle of TheCall this way:

“NGOs, the U.N., UNICEF, they are all coming in here and promoting an agenda,” Mr. Engle said, referring to nongovernmental organizations. “Today, America is losing its religious freedom. We are trying to restrain an agenda that is sweeping through the education system. Uganda has become ground zero.”

Engle also reportedly commended the Ugandan’s “courage” and “righteousness” in formulating the bill, which imposes the death sentence on gays under certain circumstances, criminalizes all speech and advocacy on behalf of gay people, and mandates that friends and family members report gay relatives and acquaintances to police.

The Moses Mulidwa of the Gay Activist Alliance Africa has more details about that rally. Mulidwa reports that Engle told the crowd, “We warned the youth against the act, when America allowed homosexuals freedom, it was the end of their Nation.”

Mulidwa also has some further information about other speakers at the rally:

Reports state that Pastor Mulinde of Trumpet Church called on other pastors present to come to the floor and pray for the nation of Uganda and in his prayer he condemned ‘evils in society’, committed by both homosexuals and heterosexuals.

He further emphasized that homosexuality is invading schools, families and the entire community and that it should be stopped.

Pastor John Mulinde is the founder of Kampala-based World Trumpet Mission, which is headed by founder John Mulinde. World Trumpet Mission also has extensive staff in Orlando, Florida under International Director Mark Daniel.

Another speaker at the rally was Pastor Julius Oyet. He was also present in the Ugandan Parliament on October 14 when the Anti-Homosexuality Bill was introduced. We have extensive information about Oyet’s role in this bill here. He also spoke at the rally:

Pastor Oyet Julius [sic] pointed out that Uganda is not for sale and that western civilization should not be allowed to take over the country.

“Members of parliament should not waste time by debating the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, they should quickly make it a law”, Oyet reportedly said.

He also called upon the cabinet, media, and business community to take a firm stand against homosexuality, also accusing homosexuals of paying school fees for young children while recruiting them to ‘the act’.

“Uganda cannot be intimidated by the Western World, we cannot put our dignity for sale” He said.

Mulidwa confirms that Ethics and Integrity Minister James Nsaba Buturo spoke at hte rally and declared that Parliament would be passing the bill “soon.” MP David Bahati, the bill’s sponsor, also attended the rally.

Stories From the Front Lines: Petty Officer 3rd Class Joseph Rocha

Former Petty Officer 3rd Class Joseph Rocha has today’s featured letter to Barack Obama, asking him to urge the inclusion of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’s” repeal in this year’s Defense Appropriations Bill.

Rocha describes growing up in abuse and neglect, which only strengthened his resolve to serve his country. Unable to gain entry into the Naval Academy, he enlisted when he turned eighteen joined a team of dog handlers trained to detect explosives. He knew that he was gay, but he believed that “based on merit and achievement I would excel in the military” and the current law would protect him.

It didn’t quite work out that way:

I never told anyone I was gay.  But a year and a half later while serving in the Middle East, I was tormented by my chief and fellow sailors, physically and emotionally, as they had their suspicions.  The irony of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is that it protects bigots and punishes gays who comply.

Shop talk in the unit revolved around sex, either the prostitute-filled parties of days past or the escapades my comrades looked forward to.  They interpreted my silence and total lack of interest as an admission of homosexuality.  My higher-ups seemed to think that gave them the right to bind me to chairs, ridicule me, hose me down and lock me in a feces-filled dog kennel.

On one day in the Middle East, I was ordered by a superior to get down on my hands and knees and simulate oral sex on a person working in the kennel.  We were supposed to pretend that we were in our bedroom and that the dogs were catching us in the act.  Over and over, with each of the dogs in our unit, I was forced to endure this scenario.

I told no one about what I was living through.  I feared that reporting the abuse would lead to an investigation into my sexuality.  Frankly, as we continue to delay the repeal of this horrible law, I can’t help but wonder how many people find themselves in similar, despicable situations and remain silent.  My anger today doesn’t come from the abuse, but rather from the inhumanity of a standing law that allowed for it.

Three and a half years later when the Navy began investigating this case, Rocha had secured a spot at the Naval Academy Preparatory School. But after having spent a lifetime in abuse, he questioned “the life of persecution, degradation, and dishonor DADT had forced on me.”

You can read the full letter here. All of the letters from the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network’s campaign are available here. The SLDN explains why they are publishing this series of letters from active and former servicemembers:

“Stories from the Frontlines: Letters to President Barack Obama” is a new media campaign launched to underscore the urgent need for congressional action and presidential leadership at this critical point in the fight to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT). Every weekday morning as we approach the markup of the Defense Authorization bill in the Senate and House Armed Services Committees, SLDN and a coalition of voices supporting repeal, will share an open letter to the President from a person impacted by this discriminatory law. We are urging the President to include repeal in the Administration’s defense budget recommendations, but also to voice his support as we work to muster the 15 critical votes needed on the Senate Armed Services Committee to include repeal. The Defense Authorization bill represents the best legislative vehicle to bring repeal to the president’s desk. It also was the same vehicle used to pass DADT in 1993. By working together, we can help build momentum to get the votes! We ask that you forward and post these personal stories.

The Great Conundrum

Every so often there is an issue which challenges the core beliefs of Christianity. Sides are taken, scripture is quoted, accusations fly, indignant self-righteousness justifies positions, feet get dug in, and denominations schism. And in the past few hundred years, these battles have played out in the legislatures and courts of our nation as each side tried to force their neighbor to live according to their dictates of faith.

We have debated the right of women to own property, fought (literally) over slavery, marched about suffrage, banned liquor, allowed liquor, and argued over whether creationism should be taught in classrooms, all while both sides claim that God and the Bible clearly and unequivocally supported their cause. Even still today there are Christian Churches in which women cannot preach, evolution is denounced, and a glance demonstrates that segregation is still alive.

And church fights are not new; In fact, divisions and disagreements are as old as the faith. Even the Apostles didn’t agree among themselves and schismed over matters of firm conviction.

In the 15th chapter of the Acts of the Apostles a drama unfolds about whether non-Jewish converts should be circumcised. Part of the church leadership – including Jesus’ brother – saw this as a clear commandment in Scripture, the one evidence of a covenant with God: It’s right there! In the Scriptures! There is no way around it!

Others argued that this was easy for them to say, they were circumcised as babies. But this church was growing among Greeks and other non-Jews, and adult male Greeks were not so quick to want to adopt a faith system that required them to lop off part of their penis. And how could it possibly be right and fair that a message that sought to break the ‘sin and punishment’ paradigm and replace it with a relationship hold so strongly to rules that discriminated against some?

So in one of the defining moments that conceptualized Christianity as a unique religion rather than a Jewish sect, pragmatism won. A series of revelations found that dietary laws, traditions of worship, and even the one true sign of the covenant between God and Man were secondary to the spiritual message that the Jesus followers wanted to spread.

And that first division was simply the precursor of those that have come up since. It is what I call the Great Conundrum: what do we do when that which is accepted as doctrine based on Scripture begins to appear to be unfair and immoral?

The conflict arises out of a handful of premises and goes to the very heart of knowing the nature of God and practicing faith.

THE PREMISES

Premise 1: God is good.

This understanding of the Deity as being primarily a being of good that loves, guides, and wants the best for his children is not as universal and timeless as we may think. Ancient cultures often feared their deities and made sacrifices of the most heart-wrenching sort to appease their anger and appeal for leniency and a bountiful harvest.

But while God as an angry old man in the sky is still a part of the faith (think Fred Phelps’ “God Hates Fags” signs), Christianity has, over the ages, come to see the Divine as being beneficent. Rules that appear taxing are for our own good, sacrifices are minimal and ceremonial, and tithes and gifts are necessary for the body of believers to worship in comfort.

And one of the core truths that Christianity has adopted is that God is fair. Unlike an Olympian who has all too human emotions, the Christian God will not tempt you beyond what you can stand and if you are on tough times or experience grief He offers comfort to match your sorrow. And if you look back in the sand along the rough patches of the path and see only one set of footprints, it isn’t because God left but rather that was where He carried you.

And whatever else may be believed about Him, Christians agree that God is not simply cruel and heartless, tormenting humans for His own merriment or providing rules and restrictions without purpose or for our own good.

Premise 2: The Bible is the Word of God

The Southern Baptist Convention says it this way:

The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God’s revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy. It reveals the principles by which God judges us, and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried. All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation.

Other denominations use other language, but all – from the most liberal to the most conservative – place importance on the collected wisdom of the Bible and believe it to reveal or inform about God’s nature, plan, intent, and design for mankind.

Premise 3: The Scripture is revealed in doctrine

This one is a bit trickier, but basically it boils down to “the way I interpret scripture is the proper way to interpret scripture”. And it is, of course, the great differentiation between branches of the faith, denominations, or even congregations.

Most of these interpretations do not rise to the level of doctrine, and even fewer to creed. But those that seem to be shared by all Christians (or by all Christians who “matter” because your religious community considers them “real Christians”) tend to become so integrated into the faith as to appear essential.

And when something comes along that challenges this essential shared belief, then there is conflict. And the more “evident” it is that the doctrine is “clear” in Scripture, then challenges to long-held presumptions begin to appear to be an attack on God himself.

THE GREAT CONUNDRUM

And that is why the question about where homosexuality fits into the church, the community, and society has become today’s Great Conundrum. Modern understanding of sexual orientation has led to this paradox:

For millenia, church teaching has been that God is good and applying his rules leads to happiness. God has said that homosexuality is forbidden and abomination to him. This is evident in Scripture and it is abundantly clear that homosexuality is not to be tolerated. Those who are homosexual are vile and willful sinners who choose to defy God.

However, we currently know the homosexuality is a naturally occurring attribute of a person. One’s attractions are not selected and are based in part on genetics. Other contributors may include other biological or perhaps even social factors, but conscious choice is seldom involved at all and no manner of effort seems effective in changing homosexuality into heterosexuality.

Therefore, God has – through genetics and other factors under the control of his divine hand – created a group of humans which he condemns for being the way He created them. He rejects and punishes them (and endorses the human punishment of them) for the sin of existing, a sin over which they had no free will.

This is not conceivable to modern Christians. This is contrary to how they view the nature of God. And so, Christians are faced with the following options: Either

• The writers of the Scripture got it wrong, or
• Your understanding of Scripture is incorrect, or
• Modern understanding about homosexuality is wrong, or
• God is a bully.

This is not at all easy for Christians to address, especially conservative Christians. Those who ask them to change their doctrine about homosexuality are asking them to agree that either the Scripture has no authority, the Bible doesn’t mean what it says so clearly, or God’s a jerk. None of these seem like tolerable options.

THE RESPONSES

So thoughtful Christians seek a way out of this paradox; they try and find a reconciliation. And basically, the responses I see fall into the following categories:

Response 1: Liberal interpretation of Scripture

Some Christian traditions have an easier time with conundra. They see the Bible as a living organism, divinely guided but not set in stone. The see the Holy Spirit as continuing to reveal truth and that Biblical Principles trump specific scriptures.

As the United Church of Christ puts it: “God is still speaking”.

To a more liberal Christian, the commandment to do justice and show mercy is the heart of God and the core principle of Christianity is to love your neighbor as yourself. Anything that conflicts with those principles is seen as entering the writing through the prejudice of the writers or relevant only in the context written.

These are the same denominations who found it easier to work around “slaves obey your masters” and “wives, submit to your husbands”. They find less conflict between God’s creation of all that is and the seven day timeline that is laid out in Genesis.

Specifically, in relation to homosexuality, they see Biblical condemnations to not relate to relationships but instead to be about prostitution, abuse of power, and pagan worship. It is wantonness and a lack of respect for God’s gift of sexuality that displeases Him, not the gender of the person with whom you mate.

Response 2: Rethinking Scriptural interpretation

Some literalists have delved into Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic to try and determine if the way in which English translations treat certain passages accurately reflect the original intent. Some confirm original thinking, some change dramatically based on their study.

As our readers know, the condemnations included in the writings attributed to Paul are unique. He selected, or perhaps created, terms that were not known to be otherwise used at the time of his writing. There are reasons to believe that these terms may refer to gay men and women, but scholars on either side who claim absolute certainty are probably putting their personal beliefs above their scholarly ethics.

And then there are other factors which suggest that Jesus and his earliest disciples may have bucked tradition – or as much as could be accepted at that time – in addressing eunuchs (a term for all sexual minorities) in ministry. Some note that the first Christian convert was an Ethiopian eunuch and see in this a message that Levitical condemnations are no longer applicable, especially of those who, like Phillip’s Ethiopian eunuch, are judged on terms of sex and sexuality.

Response 2a: Remaining in Conflict

Some people really struggle with this issue.

They believe gay people when they tell them that orientation is intrinsic and that to deny them a relationship would be cruel. But they also have studied scripture and cannot see that this is acceptable to God. But yet they believe in a God that is loving and fair.

So there they sit. Unresolved, conflicted and confused.

These are the people who “leave it to God” but find that they return to the subject and continued study and pray. Their basic decency is set against their long-held and deeply felt beliefs. This is perhaps the most heart-wrenching group of all, and the one’s who have my sympathy the most.

But I do see this response to be a transition for most. And usually a transition of incremental steps towards acceptance.

I find that many who respond in this manner do change their political and social responses. While they may continue to hold onto hidebound orthodoxy on the matter of sinfulness, they come to adopt a social position that gradually accepts the humanity and eventually the spirituality of gay people.

Response 3: Denying evidence

Christians have a long tradition of valuing personal testimony over scientific evidence.

In a religion in which “faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen”, those who believe the impossible are considered to be more in line with TRUTH than those who look for rational explanation. When miracles are an evidence of God, then the less empirical something is, the more holy it can seem.

This is reinforced in recent years by a Christian movement and way of thinking that has seeped into many conservative Christian communities to one extent or another; the “name it and claim it” movement encouraged the believer to step out in faith, to act on God’s promises, to see yourself in a place you have not yet reached and believe that God would make it true. Although the teaching has been denounced by some Christians, much of the underlying notion that if one sees things too closely to reality then one is denying God’s power is still alive.

And indeed, some branches of Christianity have come to see science as suspect. Scientific evidence threatens the notion that the Earth was created in six days 6,000 years ago. Scientific scholars are skeptical of seeing God’s judgment in storms, preferring to blame atmospheric conditions.

And when some Christians are presented with evidence that contradicts what they want to believe, they can be quite creative in reinterpreting the facts in a way that allows their presumptions to remain. This is called “having a Christian Worldview.” You start with the conclusion that God is good and holy and that the Bible is both true and beneficent, and anything which contradicts this is false.

So if God plans on punishing gay people with eternal torment, obviously they deserve it. And, as sin must have a component of free will, then gay people must be choosing to engage in sin and homosexuality must be primarily a choice.

You see this thinking frequently illustrated by claims that “there is no gay gene” and “change is possible”. In recent years, virtually every preacher who waved the Bible at legislators and demanded that they treat gay people differently from straight people has “met people who used to be homosexual but have left that lifestyle.” Ex-gays are trotted out to testify before denominational bodies to convince the faithful that Pastor Joe should be dismissed because if he really believed God, he would be straight now and married, just like all the ex-gays they see on the 700 Club.

It matters little that the most thorough study conducted by evangelical Christians who were seeking confirmation for religious ex-gay therapy demonstrated that gay people cannot be turned into straight people. This, and other evidence, is ignored because facts are irrelevant to TRUTH.

And it matters little that studies about twins, x-chromosome inactivation in mothers, spacial navigating, hair whorls, handedness, Rh Factor, birth order and a host of other issues all lead one to conclude that biology plays a role in the sexual orientation of at least some gay men. Many conservatives resolve the conflict by simply asserting that “no one is born gay” and – equally importantly – no one must stay gay.

Response 3a: Obfuscating by changing language

One subset of response 3 is to try and change the ideas about sexuality by changing or limiting the language.

The first step is to reject the notion that each person has a sexual orientation. Because only heterosexuality is ordained by God, then that is all that exists. Any sexual attractions that are inconsistent with heterosexuality are temptations, or trials, or other difficulties. So instead of orientation, some will talk only of behavior.

However, acts alone do not justify the opposition to homosexuality. Most conservatives are as offended by the gay person who is single and not having sex as they are by the happily married gay couple with a healthy and active sex life.

So they have decided that identifying as gay is sin; recognizing and acknowledging a fact about the direction of ones attractions is completely unacceptable. And to try and condemn identity, they play a redefinition game with the word “behavior”.

Look, for example, at the language for credentialing of ministers in the Evangelical Free Church in America:

While tragically, as a result of the fall, believers might experience sexual attraction to those of the same sex, Christ’s followers will not affirm this as part of God’s plan for their lives nor build their identities around such attractions. Therefore, persons will not view themselves, or refer to themselves as homosexuals, but rather define their identity as new creatures in Christ. One may (and indeed, honesty may demand that they must) acknowledge the reality of same-sex attraction, but must ground their identity in Christ, not in their sexual attractions. Thus, any person who embraces a homosexual identity, even if celibate, acts in rebellion against God’s created order of male and female, demonstrating that they have not fully repented from homosexual lust and behavior.

See the logic? If you call yourself gay then you are rebelling. Thus it is your behavior that is condemned, not your orientation (which doesn’t exist). In this way of thinking, those who identify as gay are, by so identifying, making themselves worthy of eternal damnation. And this has the added benefit of automatically discounting any testimony of gay Christians, even celibate ones; they are “unrepentant” and not to be trusted.

And they feel no remorse for their attitude. They are justified in their viciousness by “having great sympathy for those who struggle with unwanted same-sex attractions.” But no sympathy for you, you aren’t struggling.

Response 3b: Making excuses for God

Some are not happy with the difficulties of reconciling a just God with a judgmental God, so they make up excuses.

Gay people are deserving of judgment because they hate God. Or because they are a threat to the family. Or are promiscuous or militant or seduce children.

God is not condemning them for being gay, you see, but for being evil. Therefore they spend great amounts of time documenting and tracking and convincing themselves of every negative thing they can find about gay people.

Gay people “die 20 years earlier” and that’s why God condemns them. Or they get AIDS and see there, that proves it.

These are the winners of the LaBarbera Awards, the folks who run campaigns to “fight the homosexual agenda”, the Christian journalists who edit and editorialize so as to keep their stories subject to their dogma.

These are the folks who spend their life trying to convince you (and themselves) that they are not bigoted. You can recognize them by their stock phrase, “I don’t hate homosexuals.”

Response 4: Stepping away from the conundrum

It is my impression that the largest group of Christians when confronted with this conundrum just can’t deal with it. This is a tough contradiction and requires a response that is not easy to come by. So they walk away from it.

I see this response as taking one of a few different methods.

Response 4a: Abandoning decency and compassion

Some when confronted with the possibility that God is a cruel and petty dictator will just accept this as His prerogative. If there is a conflict between God’s laws and God’s mercy, they couldn’t care less; it’s not their problem. So they just choose to not see the conflict as a conflict at all.

This thinking is reminiscent of the bumper stickers in the 70’s which said, “God said it, I believe it, that settles it”. Or, more recently, “God Hates Fags.”

It may seem like this is a large group because they are the ones that say outrageous things and get attention. You see them making comments to every on-line news story. They write letters to the editor denouncing “homosexual activists”. Unlike the excuse makers, they really don’t care whether God is fair to you or not so it’s no conundrum to them.

Fortunately, this is not really that big of a group. Most Christians don’t have a complete and total lack of compassion when it comes to their faith. Most do care if their neighbors appear to be condemned in Scripture unfairly. But unfortunately, those who really don’t give a damn about gay folk are very very vocal.

Response 4b: Abandoning faith

Some people reach a conundrum of faith, look at the paradox, and realize, “ya know, I don’t believe any of this crap.”

For many gay Christians, the challenge between what they have been taught to believe and what they know to be true has resulted in the wholesale dismissal of religion altogether. The evangelical zeal of some biblical literalists has converted many gay folk… to atheism or agnosticism.

Not only do they toss out doctrine, dogma, and tradition, they find that they don’t really believe in God at all, or at least not in a religious way. And if there are no gods at all, why spend time worrying about whether or not they are fair?

Response 4c: Waiting to see

I think that this is the response most often taken by Christians who are confronted with the Great Conundrum.

They don’t read Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic. They are not scholars. They have not experienced divine revelation. So they’ll technically trust their pastor for the moment while waiting for the “religious authorities” to figure it all out.

This is often seen in people who attend church regularly, enjoy their spiritual life, but also like their gay friends. They avoid discussions about “sin” and “hell” because they don’t really know what they believe. Their preacher says that gay folk are sinners, but these folk are not get too caught up in that and they’ll just leave that all up to gay folk to work out with God.

That may seem like a cop out. It may feel like this person really needs to decide between their religious beliefs and their friends and get over it already.

But taking a time out for more observation is not unreasonable. Provided, of course, that it does not turn into blind obedience of tradition and dogma masked by ignorance and guided by a lack of concern.

CONCLUSION

Those who have no faith or who may have already dealt with this issue can sometimes be impatient.

C’mon. Look at the evidence. Let go of your bigotry!

But we should not be impatient. This is not an easy process for people of faith. And quite often they don’t really know who to believe.

But in our frustration at the snails pace that change can sometimes take, let’s console ourselves with this thought: Having fought through a difficult decision, having questioned their core beliefs, those who come to find that God has an abundant welcome which includes gay men and women are not likely to be fickle with their affections. They fought for this resolution and they will not give it up easily.

All we can do is try and live our lives with dignity, decency, and self-worth, to spread the truth about sexuality as it is further developed, and to be consistently compassionate to those who are caught in a conundrum.

Lou Engle Praised Uganda’s Anti-Gay Bill

Lou Engle addressing a rally in Kampala, Uganda.(Marc Hofer/New York Times)

In an apparent contradiction to a statement Lou Engle released earlier last week, the New York Times reports that Engle praised Uganda for its “courage” and “righteousness” in promoting the draconian Anti-Homosexuality Bill.

In a rally held Sunday on the sports grounds of Makerere University in Kampala, Engle told the crowd of about 1,300 people:

“NGOs, the U.N., Unicef, they are all coming in here and promoting an agenda,” Mr. Engle said, referring to nongovernmental organizations. “Today, America is losing its religious freedom. We are trying to restrain an agenda that is sweeping through the education system. Uganda has become ground zero.”

The Times reports that Engle was followed by Uganda’s Minister of Ethics and Integrity James Nsaba Buturo, who addressed the crowd, “These are desperate times, but we will not accept intimidation. It is our business to do what God wants. Pray for Bahati, and pray for the bill.” MP David Bahati, the bill’s sponsor, also attended the rally. Bahati called the rally’s turnout “a good sign” for the bill’s passage, which he said he expected to occur soon.

Howard Dean Joins DADT Protest At White House

This is starting to become a regular occurrence. Six protesters again chained themselves to the White House fence in protest over “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” This time, it was six plainclothes civilians who handcuffed themselves to the White House fence and were quickly arrested by Park Police.

The six handcuffed themselves to the fence while Lt. Daniel Choi was speaking before about 100 LGBT activists across the street. Choi has been arrested twice for handcuffing himself to the White House fence, and is currently under a court order to remain beyond a certain distance from the White House. This was a reportedly spontaneous appearance by Dean, who came to stand up “not only for what’s right for American but what’s right for our military.”

Dean congratulated Sen. Carl Levin for having the votes to “tack on to the Defense authorization bill the end of the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’ However, the Advocate’s Kerry Eleveld reports that Levin is “actually about one to three votes away from securing the votes to attach a repeal measure.”

Welcome Out Chely Wright

There’s been a lot of buzz and speculation over which celebrity will be coming out on the cover of People Magazine this week. TMZ has learned that it is Country and Western singer Chely Wright, who will release her new memoir, Like Me, and a new CD this week.

The Kansas native released her first album in 1994, but she didn’t attain commercial success until her top twenty single “Shut Up and Drive” in 1997. Her 1999 album, Single White Female, went gold and yielded several top hits, including the title song. Another popular song, “Bumper of My S.U.V.,” was written in response to an irate woman who noticed a United States Marine Corps bumper sticker on the back of Wright’s car.

This something of a risk for Chely. When k.d. lang came out of the closet in 1992, that revelation was met with blacklistings on several Country radio stations all across North America, and her career suffered something of a setback. Since then however, lang has “crossed over” — or more accurately, obliterated the boundaries between country and all other styles of music. Not only does wright’s music have the same potential, but she is also well known as a devout Christian and a keen supporter of the U.S. military.

Wright’s new CD, Lifted Off the Ground, will reportedly include a list of pro-LGBT resources – including GLSEN, Interfaith Alliance, and Faith In America in its liner notes.

LaBarbera Award: Two Tennessee Tea Party Candidates

Today’s LaBarbera Award is a two-fer, and goes to two Republican candidates for Tennessee’s 8th Congressional District. Ron Kirkland of Jackson and Randy Smith of Mercer were among the candidates speaking at a Tea Party forum in Paris, Tennessee, on Thursday evening. That forum included discussions about the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, the military’s ban on LGBT people serving openly. All five Tea Party candidates opposed the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” but Mercer and Smith excused violence toward gay people as a method for keeping them out of the military:

Ron Kirkland (left) and Randy Smith (right).

Kirkland, a Vietnam veteran, said of his time in the military: “I can tell you if there were any homosexuals in that group, they were taken care of in ways I can’t describe to you.”

Smith, who served in the first Iraqi war, added: “I definitely wouldn’t want to share a shower with a homosexual. We took care of that kind of stuff, just like (Kirkland) said.”

The Tennessee Republican Party had no comment about the candidates statements when contacted by The Associated Press on Friday.

The Tennessee Equality Project has demanded an apology from Kirkland and Smith. A spokesperson for the Kirkland campaign said that the candidate has no plans to do so. Smith, who has a 19-year-old lesbian daughter,  said on Friday that he apologizes to those who were offended, but he maintained that he was “telling it how it is actually.”

When asked later whether either candidate had personal knowledge of violence against gay people, Smiths said that he only knew of it “in concept” but never learned of a specific incident. Kirkland dismissed the question, saying “it was a joke.”

Jonathan Cole, of the Tennessee Equality Project responded, “Without a sincere apology, I don’t consider it to be a joke. I would question his fitness to serve in elected office if he can’t show common respect for those who’ve put their lives on the line to protect the freedoms we enjoy in this country.”

LaBarbera Says Gays and Ex-Gays Should Be Disqualified For Public Office

Peter LaBarbera asks a question straight out of the  McCarthy era while writing in the third person:

Peter LaBarbera, founder of Republicans For Family Values (www.rffv.org), urged potential Supreme Court pick Elena Kagan , Republican Reps. David Dreier and Patrick McHenry, and Florida Gov. Charlie Crist — each the subject of wide speculation that they practice(d) homosexuality — to answer the question: ‘Are (or were) you a practicing homosexual?‘ [All emphases in the origianl]

Interesting question. It’s interesting not so much for the McCarthyesque turn of phrase at the end, but for what it reveals about LaBarbara’s attitude towards ex-gays as well as gay people. By lumping the past tense with the present tense as he does, LaBarbera makes it clear that as far as he’s concerned there’s no difference when it comes to discerning a candidate’s political and judicial qualifications. You’re equally damned if you do and damned if you stop.

Not surprising, really. While anti-gay extremists like LaBarbera finds ex-gays a convenient tool for their arsenal, deep down they don’t trust ex-gays any more than do people in the gay community. All that talk about “redemption”? It’s just talk, and there’s no better evidence for that than this.

The Blade Is Back, Part 2

And it looks fabulous!

Stories From the Frontlines: Capt. Rebecca H. Elliot

Former Army Capt. Rebecca Elliott with her sister

Today’s letter to President Barack Obama is from former Army Captain Rebecca H. Elliot, for whom military service is a long and proud family tradition:

On my last day of active duty, some of my old squad leaders revealed to me that one of my former team leaders was gay. They figured it was safe to tell me, as I was leaving the Army. My first feelings on the matter were, frankly, a little surprised, followed by complete indifference.

I was surprised because I had never suspected the soldier of being gay. But then, I never really had any thoughts about her sexual orientation whatsoever.

When I reflected on it, it didn’t make one bit of difference in how she performed her job or how she related to the other soldiers in the platoon. She had the respect of her squad leaders (fairly conservative men, mind you), who kept her secret and continued working with her side-by-side for years.

As an officer, I would have been bound by my position to report such “credible information” that would have led to the discharge of a great NCO. I am glad that I was never placed in the position of having to choose between one of my soldiers and enforcing this terrible law, which I feel is unfair and wrong.

You can read the full letter here. The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network explains why they are publishing this series of letters from active and former servicemembers:

“Stories from the Frontlines: Letters to President Barack Obama” is a new media campaign launched to underscore the urgent need for congressional action and presidential leadership at this critical point in the fight to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT). Every weekday morning as we approach the markup of the Defense Authorization bill in the Senate and House Armed Services Committees, SLDN and a coalition of voices supporting repeal, will share an open letter to the President from a person impacted by this discriminatory law. We are urging the President to include repeal in the Administration’s defense budget recommendations, but also to voice his support as we work to muster the 15 critical votes needed on the Senate Armed Services Committee to include repeal. The Defense Authorization bill represents the best legislative vehicle to bring repeal to the president’s desk. It also was the same vehicle used to pass DADT in 1993. By working together, we can help build momentum to get the votes! We ask that you forward and post these personal stories.

Immigration Reform Proposal Includes LGBT Families

The Advocate’s Kerry Eleveld notes that the brief outline for immigration reform released by Senate Democrats includes a provision that would allow U.S. citizens and legal residents to sponsor their same-sex partners for residency. The provision is found on page 22 of the 26-page outline (PDF: 608KB/26 pages):

It (the proposal) will eliminate discrimination in the immigration laws by permitting permanent partners of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents to obtain lawful permanent resident status.

The document is only an outline of what the Dem’s proposals would do. It is not a proposed legislative document. That still needs to be written. While the Obama administration would rather the Senate focus on finance reform, Senate leaders insist that there will at least be a vote in 2010.

Massachusetts Legislature Passes Anti-Bullying Measure

Carl Joseph Walker-Hoover

Both houses of the Massachusetts legislature approved an anti-bullying law spurred on by the deaths of two youths who committed suicide following episodes of bullying by their classmates. The unanimous votes in both houses was on a reconciling bill which ironed out difference in two earlier bills from each house. The legislation will require school employees to report all instances of bullying and require principals to investigate them. A spokesman for the governor’s office said that Gov. Deval Patrick (D) will review the bill, but that he saw its passage as a “top priority.”

The impetus for the bill came from the suicides of Phoebe Prince and 11-year-old Carl Joseph Walker-Hoover, who killed himself just over a year ago over taunts about his perceived sexuality.

Hawaii House Approves Civil Unions

A bill providing for civil unions for same-sex couples has passed the Hawaii House of Representatives this even on a 31-20 vote. The Hawaii Senate passed the bill in January with a veto-proof majority, but the House at that time chickened out on taking a vote. But now that the House has finally grown a pair, the bill now goes to the governor’s desk. Gov. Linda Lingle (R) has not indicated whether she will sign it or not. The House’s vote is shy of a veto-proof majority.