Box Turtle Bulletin

OK’s Hate Crimes Op-Out Dies In House

Via the Tulsa World:

A controversial hate-crimes bill did not get a hearing Monday in a House committee. Rep. Mike Shelton, D-Oklahoma City, became the House author of Senate Bill 1965, by Sen. Steven Russell, R-Oklahoma City. Shelton said he took control of the bill to kill it and asked that the bill not get heard in the House Judiciary Committee.

The bill began life as an educational bill, but Sen. Russell stripped it of its language and title, and turned it into a bill which would have prohibited local and state law enforcement agencies from sharing information about hate crimes based on sexual orientation with federal authorities. That effort turned to embarrassment when it was learned that an error in the bill would actually have attempted to strip Oklahomans of their protections against crimes based on race, religion and ethnicity.

Fulton MS: The World’s Cruelest Town

Itawamba Agricultural High School student Constance McMillen made news this past month when she decided to take her girlfriend to the prom, just like hundreds of other couples in that town and thousands more nationwide. Her school however reacted by first putting out a memo describing who is allowed to attend the prom (opposite sex couples), and then canceling it. Later, she was invited by an attorney for the school board to attend a private prom organized by parents to be held at the Fulton Country Club. For the time being and on the surface, the matter seemed resolved.

It turned out that the “prom” at the Fulton Country Club was entirely fake:

McMillen tells The Advocate that a parent-organized prom happened behind her back — she and her date were sent to a Friday night event at a country club in Fulton, Miss., that attracted only five other students. Her school principal and teachers served as chaperones, but clearly there wasn’t much to keep an eye on.

“They had two proms and I was only invited to one of them,” McMillen says. “The one that I went to had seven people there, and everyone went to the other one I wasn’t invited to.”

Last week McMillen asked one of the students organizing the prom for details about the event, and was directed to the country club. “It hurts my feelings,” McMillen says.

Students attending the real prom at a secret location in Fulton, Mississippi. (Photos via Facebook)

To add more cruelty to the situation, the fake prom was apparently meant to be the “freak” prom. In addition to Constance and her girlfriend, two others with learning disabilities, were among the five others who were there. Meanwhile, the rest of the class attended the real prom which was held at a secret location.

Itawamba students even went so far as to set up a public Facebook page called “Constance Quit Yer Cryin” to celebrate their “victory.” The Facebook page has now become, in effect, a public shaming post for the people of Fulton. Says Jorje, for example, “thank you for making my homestate of Texas look all the better by the day, ignorant southern homophobes!” Wrote another, “What kind of backwoods white trash sets up a fake prom. You are pathetic and at some point in your life will pretend this never happened. Losers.”

Another observed, “Not ONE parent or student has defended themselves on here? Not ONE? If you can’t take the heat, don’t set up an FB page. You are cowards as well as deceivers and scoundrels.”

The facebook page also has three image captures of private pages documenting Itawamba student’ high0-fiving it over having pulled off the fake prom. Says one student, “I had fun at the ‘prom’ last night…:)”. Another wrote on her Facebook page, “Best ‘prom’ in the history of IAHS…thats [sic] right 2010 goes out with a bang!)

Update: Meanwhile, we have this reminder via Truth Wins Out:

She spent all Saturday getting ready, fixing her hair, slipping into the pink floral dress her mother finished the week before. Her father, a Baptist preacher, helped pick her date, a respectable young man worthy of escorting his daughter, the first and only black student at Jones Valley High School.

She and her date drove that 1965 night with her father and a retinue of supporters and protectors toward the high school gym. They turned the corner.

The gymnasium was dark, empty.

“They had fooled us,” Carolyn Tasmiya King-Miller said. “I remember going home that night in tears. I sat on the sofa in my prom dress, lying on my mother’s breast and crying all night. That’s when the silence started.”

Bogus “American College of Pediatricians” distributes deliberately fraudulent anti-gay propaganda to schools

In 2002, the American Academy of Pediatrics, an association of 60,000 pediatricians, voted to adopt a position in support of gay parents. Six pediatricians who opposed this policy on religious grounds rallied like-minded friends and, on October 19th, about 15 people founded the American College of Pediatricians. It would be accurate to describe this organization as a vehicle through which a small minority of anti-gay doctors advocate in opposition to gay rights, abortion rights, and euthanasia.

According to Focus on the Family’s CitizenLink, at the end of March, the ACP sent out a letter to school superintendents. They don’t say how many schools received the letter, but even one is too many.

Despite the name, ACP is not a institute of higher learning. Nor is it a professional organization for pediatricians. This is an advocacy group dedicated to political goals which is using an authoritative sounding name to fool the unaware.

Yes, their officers and their board are all pediatricians (usually older gentlemen in the South), but their “Pediatric Psychosocial Development Committee” reads like a members roster of the virulently anti-gay National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH).

• Dean Byrd – past president of NARTH and influential in Evergreen, the Mormon ex-gay group
• Joe Nicolosi – the founder of NARTH and current board member
• George Rekers – NARTH board member, Christian reconstructionist, and closely associated with Paul Cameron. Rekers once recommended banning Native Americans from being able to adopt.
• Arthur Goldberg – founder of Jewish ex-gay group, JONAH. Goldberg was recently removed from NARTH’s board when he was exposed as a con-man with a felony record.
• Rick Fitzgibbons – member of NARTH’s Scientific Advisory Committee and the Catholic Medical Association.
• Trayce Hansen – an inexperienced psychologist who has written anti-gay opinion pieces and testified (disastrously) on the side of an ex-lesbian who was trying to deny her ex-partner access to their children.
• John Raney – The only information we have on Raney is that he was part of the Editorial/Review board for Paul Cameron’s self-promoting (single issue) Empirical Journal of Same-Sex Sexual Behavior.

The connections don’t stop at the committee level. One ACP board member, Quentin Van Meter, was a featured speaker at the 2009 NARTH Convention. And Michelle Cretella, a real nasty piece of work, sits on both boards. She is also listed as the “chair of the Sexuality Committee, American College of Pediatricians”.

With connections this deep to an organization whose primary function is to generate anti-gay propaganda masquerading as scientific research, it should not be too surprising that the American College of Pediatrics uses the same tactics. Their letter to the schools is rife with lies, misrepresentations, distortions and outright fraud. In fact, there is little there that has any distant relationship to truth.

The letter – and the website it directs the reader – makes a number of claims. And the ACP has adopted Paul Cameron’s tactic of lengthy footnotes. But, as with Cameron, the supporting documents do not support the claims. Let’s take a look at the first three.

Homosexuality is not a genetically-determined, unchangeable trait.

Dr. Francis Collins, Director of the Genome Project, has stated that while homosexuality may be genetically influenced, it is “… not hardwired by DNA, and (that) whatever genes are involved represent predispositions, not predetermination[s].” He also states that “…the prominent role of individual free will choices have a profound effect on us.”

Well that’s not the first time that Byrd has twisted Collins’ work to support his own agenda. And Collins has refuted this misinterpretation. Twice.

The evidence we have at present strongly supports the proposition that there are hereditary factors in male homosexuality — the observation that an identical twin of a male homosexual has approximately a 20% likelihood of also being gay points to this conclusion, since that is 10 times the population incidence. But the fact that the answer is not 100% also suggests that other factors besides DNA must be involved. That certainly doesn’t imply, however, that those other undefined factors are inherently alterable.

Misquoting once is perhaps an error in judgment. Repeating the process after you have been refuted is fraud.

Next:

Homosexual attraction is determined by a combination of familial, environmental, social and biological influences. Inheritance of predisposing personality traits may play a role for some. Consequently, homosexual attraction is changeable.

Consequently? Oh please dear God don’t let our nation have school superintendents so stupid that they don’t immediately burst out laughing.

First, while we know that genetics plays a role for at least some gay men (there’s less study performed on women), we do not know whether the other contributing factors include family, environment (in utero, social, chemical, or other), or social. Interestingly, other than a book by a NARTH member, all other footnoted sources were support for the role that genetics plays.

But as for “changeable”, the evidence suggests quite the opposite. And to find that orientation has a number of contributing factors does not “consequently” support that claim.

This is simply bait and switch deception.

Third,

Most students (over 85%) with same-sex attractions will ultimately adopt a heterosexual orientation if not otherwise encouraged. Most questioning students are experiencing temporary sexual confusion or are involved in experimentation.

Rigorous studies demonstrate that most adolescents who initially experience same-sex attraction, or are sexually confused, no longer experience such attractions by age 25. In one study, as many as 26% of 12-year-olds reported being uncertain of their sexual orientation, yet only 2-3% of adults actually identify themselves as homosexual. Therefore, the majority of sexually-questioning youth ultimately adopt a heterosexual identity.

Impressive, right?

Except that the source they use for the “26% of 12-year-olds” doesn’t quite say what they pretend.

From the article:

The percentage of students who were “unsure” about orientation steadily declined with age from 25.9% in 12-year-old persons to 5% in 18-year-old students.

But what does this “uncertainty” mean? Are these same-sex attracted kids?

The percentage of students reporting predominantly homosexual attractions steadily increased with age, while the proportion with bisexual or predominantly heterosexual attractions decreased.

In fact, only 2.2% of 12-year-olds reported predominantly homosexual attractions.

These kids were not “sexually-questioning youth”. And they were not “students with same-sex attractions”. Rather, these 12-year-olds were not yet “sure” about their sexual orientation. Frankly, they probably weren’t exactly sure what it all meant. But they did figure it out over time.

And were they “involved in experimentation”? Not according to this study.

Overall, 1% of respondents reported some homosexual experience; and 52%, some heterosexual experience… For males, but not females, the prevalence of reported homosexual experiences increased with age, from 0.4% at 12 years to a peak of 2.8% at 18.”

Everything that ACP claimed is refuted by going to the source they credit. This isn’t a “perspective” or a “way of reading the data”. This is a lie.

They go on with the usual litany of lies. You know, that homosexuality is a dangerous lifestyle wrought with physical and mental illness caused by sexual abuse. But therapy has proven to be effective in curing homosexuality (and behavior is a choice anyway) so you shouldn’t allow support groups on campus (they aren’t good for kids). It’s pretty evil stuff.

No school should rely on this bogus organization for truth. They have none to offer.

But what they have done goes beyond opinion. It goes beyond faith or values or religion. This was a deliberate attempt to deceive. It twisted the work of legitimate researchers and sought to establish positions in educational institutions that are the opposite of what their research found to be best for the kids. If school superintendents rely on this information, it could harm the lives of children.

The board of directors of this organization are licensed medical doctors. They are pediatricians. It is unconscionable what they have done.

More perspective on the blood donation ban

From the Kansas City Star

increasingly accurate tests have been developed to detect HIV in donor blood. The first tests that became available spot antibodies that the immune system produces when confronted by HIV. It usually takes two to eight weeks, but sometimes longer, for the body to make enough antibodies for the tests to detect.

A newer test can find HIV itself in the blood. This test shortens the time between infection with the virus and detection to nine to 11 days.

Papa Ratzi has a problem

Pope Benedict XVI has a problem.

The molestation of children in their charge by priests is a scandal across all of Christendom. And the Church-wide cover-up of sexual assault by priests has now been traced to include the Pope (when he was Cardinal Ratzinger).

But that is not Il Papa’s problem.

Benedict’s problem isn’t that his buddy and ally used to beat orphan girls. Nor that an abuse hotline set up by Ratzinger’s Catholic Church in Germany crashed because more than 4,000 victims called on the first day. His problem is not even prostitution in the Vatican.

Nor is the Pope’s problem the increasingly bizarre statements of his defenders. It’s not when Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, seeks to change the subject to “a homosexual problem”, nor when Rev. Raniero Cantalamessa, speaking at St. Peter’s, compares the criticism received to the holocaust. It’s not even the shockingly casual way in which Easter Sunday’s speech was preceded by a declaration that the whole issue is just “petty gossip of the moment“.

No, the Pope’s problem is the press.

On Saturday, the Vatican’s newspaper kept up its campaign against the media for reports on alleged cover-ups of sexual abuse of children by priests, saying the pope had become the target of a “despicable campaign of defamation.”

Yes, Benedict XVI has properly identified the one thing that could bring down his Papacy and threaten the position and power of the Roman Catholic Church. For perhaps the first time ever, the world’s media is unwilling to be complicit in the cover-up of a centuries-long habit of abuse, self-pampering, and internal preservation of politicians masquerading as men of God.

All of the scandal, the abuse, the hypocrisy, the greed and avarice and gluttony and self-righteousness of the world’s dominant religious institution could be overlooked. All of the cover-ups and shuffling about and secret deals could be kept in the dark. All of it would be unknown and unknowable were it not for newspapers, television, and even bloggers who refuse to let evil call itself good.

Yes, Papa Ratzi has a problem with the press.

Anthony Venn-Brown discusses situational heterosexuality

In a new commentary, Anthony Venn-Brown, an Australian survivor of ex-gay efforts, discusses the emotions and thinking behind a gay man living heterosexually.

We may wonder why ex-gays (for a while) joyously testify of their recovery. Anthony discusses how a deeply religious same-sex attracted man can convince himself of “change” and honestly believe that he is living the best possible life.

It’s not uncommon for men who have suppressed, denied and hated their same sex orientation to develop a sexual addiction or obsession. When they get married they have a sexual outlet which is free of shame and guilt and much more socially and religiously acceptable. This is a great relief for them to finally feel ‘normal’, ‘wholesome’ even ‘pure’. As one research project clearly pointed out they had had sex with 100’s men once and sex with one woman 100’s of times. It is easy to see how they and others confuse this new found experience with the opposite sex as evidence of change. They do however conveniently ignore the fact that any infidelity within the marriage would never happen with another female, it would only ever be with a man.

Some perspective on blood donation

There is an article in the LA Times about hemophiliacs who oppose loosing the blood donation rules to allow gay men to donate blood in some circumstances. But while the human interest story was touching, what struck me were the following facts:

• In the last 16 years, there have been nine known cases of HIV transmission caused by tainted blood.
• The last such case was in 2002
• In that year there were more than 13.5 million transfusions in the U.S.
• There have been over 100,000,000 tranfusions since the last case of tained blood.

Exactly Like a Holocaust

So let’s recap a bit. Thousands of children in the United States and Europe have been molested by their pastors, who, when their crimes were found out, were shuffled from parish to parish by their bishops who hoped the whole problem would somehow magically disappear without anyone noticing. But not all the bishops — some of them (Archbishop Weakland in Milwaukee, and now we learn also about the late Bishop Moreno in Tucson) begged the Vatican office headed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (today’s Pope Benedict XVI) to have those monster priests defrocked, except now we discover that Ratzinger either dragged his feet or refused outright to allow the canonical trials against the priests to proceed. And those revelations come on the heals of other credible allegations of Ratzinger having covered up similarly abominations when he was bishop of Munich.

So let’s take a moment and just try to imagine the spiritual carnage wrecked for thousands — maybe millions? — of young boys throughout the world. Imagine the devastating effect that massive abuse had on the psychological, spiritual, moral, and even physical foundations of these young boys just as they were preparing to mature into young adulthood. Imagine the general fucked-upness they must have felt as they tried to make sense of themselves (Am I to blame? Am I really that screwed up? Why me?) as their self-worth, their sense of right and wrong, their personhood, their humanity, their dignity, even their sexuality — the most private of spheres in human relations — all of this and more had been stolen from them by their spiritual “father.”

It’s a lot like a holocaust of sorts, isn’t it?  Maybe? Sure, not a genocidal Holocaust, not a wipe-a-people-off-the-face-of-the-earth Holocaust that we write with a capital “H.” I’m speaking of a spiritual and moral holocaust, using a word that we derive from the Greek ὁλόκαυστον (holókauston), which means wholly burnt. Does that not describe the interior devastation that so many of these victims experience? We talk about having been burned by a bad experience, but rape and sexual molestation doesn’t leave one just burned. It leaves them wholly burnt. It leaves them “holocausted,” to coin an adjective.

While I think that the generic word holocaust is a good one to use here, I’m firmly against making direct comparisons to the capital “H” Holocaust. (Update: Anytime we’re not talking about a network of rail lines and concentration camps and a policy calling for the literal incineration of more than ten million people who were deemed to be subhuman, comparisons to that big “H” Holocaust simply don’t apply.) But a Vatican priest delivering a homily before Pope Benedict XVI at a Good Friday service today, reflecting on the unspeakable horrors of the unfolding worldwide scandal, was moved to draw comparisons between today’s unfolding horror and anti-Semitic persecutions of the past century:

Speaking in St. Peter’s Basilica, the priest, the Rev. Raniero Cantalamessa, took note that Easter and Passover fell during the same week this year, and said he was led to think of the Jews.

“They know from experience what it means to be victims of collective violence, and also because of this they are quick to recognize the recurring symptoms,” said Father Cantalamessa, who serves under the title of preacher of the papal household. Then he quoted from what he said was a letter from a Jewish friend he did not identify.

“I am following the violent and concentric attacks against the church, the pope and all the faithful by the whole world,” he said the friend wrote. “The use of stereotypes, the passing from personal responsibility and guilt to a collective guilt, remind me of the more shameful aspects of anti-Semitism.”

That’s right. Seeking to hold powerful religious leaders accountable for the rape of untold multitudes of children entrusted to their spiritual and moral care is exactly like the “more shameful aspects of anti-Semitism.” How could I have missed that?

Catholic Exorcist Blames Satan for “Attacks on Pope”

Just when you thought it was just all of those pesky whiney altar boys complaining about being molested who were responsible for the worldwide outrage against the Catholic Church. Italian exorcist Father Gabriele Amorth is here to tell you who’s really responsible for the media’s “recent attacks on Pope Benedict XVI regarding some pedophilia cases” — while channelling the Church Lady. Let’s see now. Who could it be……???

Conservative Christians “with a heart for the homosexual” still don’t get it

With the growing openness of gay men and women and as they become more incorporated into the fabric of the culture, conservative Christianity has been challenged to rethink their position.

For years the only visible response was “it’s a vile sin”. As gay people slowly became visible, up sprang vitriolic “family” groups dedicated to fighting for the civil subjugation of gay people and the denial of social equality or even basic civil rights.

Although this approach was often phrased as “love the sinner, hate the sin”, there was little evidence that the “sinner” was much loved at all. Rather, she was reviled as being immoral, militant, radical, anti-family, and a threat to children, the church, and all of Western civilization. Advertising campaigns, legislation, rallies, and political movements were generated to take away his children, deny his employment or housing, ban him from civil service, tax him more heavily, incarcerate him if he dare fight back, and in all ways keep him a second class citizen.

But over time, secular voices were joined by mainline Christians in calling such treatment barbarian and un-Christian. And some of the younger conservative Christians had a hard time aligning the “evil homosexual” image with those gay men and women they know.

So a new face of conservative Christianity is arising calling for more tolerance and seeking to share a loving God with their gay neighbors, to welcome them and love them rather than loudly condemn them.

And almost without exception, they get it entirely, completely, and miserably wrong.

Rather than see gay people as people, we are seen as a mission field, lost and desperate sinners trapped in a sinful and dangerous lifestyle hopelessly searching for acceptance and grace. And they come into the discussion with the assumption that their understanding of Scripture is not only true, but universally accepted.

Too often, conservative Christians start with the premise that gay folk share their beliefs about homosexuality:

• all humans feel a draw to know God and live according to His commandments; and knowing Him, on any terms, is good
• all sex other than one man, one woman under the covenant of heterosexual marriage is unquestionably condemned by God
• homosexuality is acting out on ungodly temptation to sin
• if gay people only came to feel loved by God then they would give up their sinful lifestyle

But these are not assumptions that our community accepts. And often, these are assumptions have no more practical applications to our lives than than carrying a “God Hates Fags” signs.

These “more tolerant” conservatives generally come bearing a specific message, one that seems to have stepped in to replace “love the sinner, hate the sin”. It goes something like this:

We all are sinners. We gossip and lie and get angry and make mistakes all the time. God forgives us all and sees no sin as greater than any other sin. God loves homosexuals and forgives their sins as quickly as he forgives the sins of anyone else.

And they sit back waiting for the homosexual sinners to come kiss their hands with tears streaming down their faces, oh so thankful for this charity.

But what these Christians fail to see is that we do not see our sexual orientation in terms of behavior. We are not gay because we do gay things. We are gay because we are internally, inherently drawn in matters of romantic, emotional, sexual and spiritual attraction to persons of the same sex.

The sins that this tolerant Christian sees God forgive in his life are based on his own behaviors; his failings are his own actions. But the sins that he sees God forgive in our lives are not behavioral, but inherent; our failings are intrinsic and will be present no matter what we do.

And when gay folk reject this overture, as we do, they indignantly reply, “Well! I called myself a sinner, too! What more to you want?”

Take, as illustration, a Christian bus message campaign in Toronto. Amidst a number of other questions posted on bus benches by Bus Stop Bible Studies, was this one:

The website to which the reader was directed sought to “show love” and sensitivity. First, they explained why gay people are gay (cached):

Reason 1 – The fall of mankind. Death and decay came into the world when Adam sinned.

Reason 2 – Refusing to know God. In Paul’s Letter to the Romans he explains how God will show his displeasure “…as acts of human mistrust and wrongdoing and lying accumulate, as people try to put a shroud over truth.” that is those who have chosen to go against Him.

Well, now, that’s fun. My sexual orientation is either the sad and tragic consequence of sin in the world, much like muscular dystrophy or famine or it is the consequence of rebellious me refusing to know God. Either a generic ill or a punishment.

Gee, that isn’t particularly encouraging. So next we get the love and grace message. Even though we are the consequence of Original Sin or of godless rebellion, there’s Good News!

Does God love homosexuals?

Yes! Without exception.

Are my responsibilities as a homosexual any different from heterosexuals?

We know from passages throughout Scripture that God hates homosexual acts BUT no more than any other sinful act. Some individuals seem to place homosexual acts in a special class – God does not. Sin is sin.

Homosexual activity is no better or worse than heterosexuals engaging in sexual activity outside of marriage.

Woo hoo. A devoted gay relationship is no more offensive to God than cheating on your spouse. Goodie.

And that’s the nice part. They also shared that AIDS is not God’s judgment… but if you engage in “selfish freewill choices” then “As you sow, so shall you reap.” And, even worse, you may hurt an “innocent person” like a hemophiliac child.

I guess they forgot one little part: he can wake up tomorrow and decide to stop being a cheating, lying, womanizing a$$hat, but I’ll still be gay.

And the extra-special plan that God has for gay people? Is it a lifetime of celibacy?

Perhaps it is never, ever, experiencing romance, flirting, a first date, or a kiss on the beach under the moonlight. Maybe a life of devotion to others, knowing that your last breath will not be with a partner. Being a wonderful uncle or sister or neighbor, but knowing this: God’s Plan is for you to never be the most important person in anyone’s life.

And they wonder why we don’t leap at the opportunity.

“But it’s grace”, they say. “God is as quick to forgive you for your life of love, commitment and devotion to your partner as He is to forgive me of my extramarital affairs. He’ll forgive you for building a life together, for caring until death do you part, He’ll pardon you for experiencing same-sex attraction just as quickly as he forgives a murderer.”

Is it any surprise that some gay people conclude that God is a bully? Or that even more have responded to such nonsense by questioning the existence of gods at all and have come to conclude that it’s all just irrational myth and superstitions?

And, indeed, Toronto’s gay community was not amused. (Torontoist)

After receiving a number of complaints about the “Does God care…?” poster, the TTC sent the offending ad to its advertising review committee to evaluate whether the panels should remain posted. But, says TTC Director of Communications Brad Ross, “That point is moot now that Bus Stop Bible Studies has voluntarily decided to remove the ads.”

But they did not do so graciously.

They removed the website’s “sin” discussion and replaced it with a whiny complaint about how they were misunderstood and now they are being picked on.

The content of this page has been removed. It has become apparent that, while one is free to ask the question, “Does God care if I’m gay?” one is not so free to answer the question from a Biblical perspective.

It seems that the whole message of God’s justice and grace was being misinterpreted.

Oh, those poor bus stop preachers. The nasty gays misinterpreted the message about how they were gay because they rejected God and the notion that with AIDS, “you reap what you sow”.

The funny thing is that I believe that the bus stop folks really do believe that they are tolerant. They didn’t come preaching hate (as they see it). They didn’t even say that you had to become straight to know God.

But their ignorance and presumption was only exceeded by their callousness and self-righteousness. They came bearing the same ol’ steaming pile of dogma, wrapped in smugness and arrogance, and were Shocked! that it was rejected as hateful and offensive.

So here is my message to the conservative Christians who “have a heart for the gay community”: think about what you are saying and how crazy offensive it would be if directed towards anyone else.

You claim that you see all sin the same, but you don’t. No one does. Gossip may be annoying, but we don’t light the torches and gather the pitchforks like we do when a murderer is loose. We don’t amend the constitution to protect the family from those who love money. We don’t pass laws banning liars from serving in Congress or keeping those who curse their parents from serving in the military.

We know that you really do think that our “sin” is so much worse than your own and we are not impressed when you lie and say that you don’t.

And, guess what? We are not sitting around waiting for someone, anyone, to tell us that God loves us. There are gay affirming churches, and we know how to get to them.

Yes, we know that you believe these churches to be wrong, but you believe that a whole lot of churches are wrong about a whole slew of doctrinal issues and the only one you seem interested in addressing is gay people.

Think how odd it would sound to “really have a heart for Lutherans” or “feel God is calling me to evangelize to Episcopalians”. How condescending and arrogant. That’s exactly the same way it feels to us when you come sharing the news that God loves us and if we only just really, really knew that then our lives would be changed.

And for as long as you continue to be part of the movement to deny civil equalities, you will never, ever “reach gay people for Christ”. If your Christ compels you to take away my health insurance, then your Christ is my enemy. If His message of love is to take my children away from me, then I’ll do without that kind of love, thanks.

If your position on my personal freedoms is exactly the same as that of the Phelps family, then you really have nothing to share with me or my community. If your voting pattern is identical to Peter LaBarbera, then your gospel is nothing but a sounding brass or tinkling cymbal.

Don’t get me wrong. I do appreciate that you aren’t calling us abominations and perverts. I really do. Setting aside the language of condemnation and revulsion is a step in the right direction.

But it isn’t as big a step as you think it is.

And as long as you come to us with the message that God wants us to live a love-less life of aloneness and think that we are going to see this as good news, don’t be surprised that we are not impressed. If you think that you are doing us a favor by being “compassionate for our struggle”, then don’t expect any more congratulation than what your are already giving yourself. And until you come up with a theology that reveals God as something other than a bigot or a bully, you can be sure that your “mission to the homosexuals” will not be fruitful.

Lies and death, brought to you by corporate advertising

In February, we shared with you a video by Molotov Mitchell in which he defended Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill. Mitchell endorsed the idea of executing gay people and called the Ugandan bill “more American than Americans”.

Make no mistake, Mitchell would delight to have homosexuality recriminalized in the West and would have no problem with death as the punishment. Because, as he says, God makes the rules and Jesus didn’t abolish the Old Testament.

But calling for the execution of gay people doesn’t sit comfortably with most Americans, even those who are socially conservative. So Mitchell is back with a new video, one in which he clarifies which gay people should be hanged at dawn.

And to do it, he lies about the Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality bill. Mitchell claims to have read the bill and tells us that it is limited to three things: intentionally spreading HIV, child molestation, and coercion. Either he has never read the bill, is just lying about its contents, or he is a blithering idiot without any ability to comprehend simple English. (Unlike Mitchell and every other supporter of the bill, we provide it so that you can read for yourself).

But this time, Mitchell’s endorsement of executing some gay people is funded by corporate advertising. Depending on when viewed, Mitchell’s call for death is preceded by an advertisement encouraging you to buy Dell computers or French’s fried onions or search the internet on Bing (or perhaps even others).

Those who wonder why Bing, Dell or French’s would pay for propaganda designed to justify and deceive about the criminalization and execution of gay people can inquire with those companies by calling:

Reckitt Benckiser (French’s) USA: (973) 404-2600

Dell: (512) 338-4400

Microsoft: (800) 518-5689

Our international readers may wish to find their own local number for Reckitt Benckiser here.

I don’t know much about French’s, but Dell and Microsoft pride themselves on their inclusive diversity programs.

Archbishop Tutu and the Clinton Health Access Initiative Join African Coalition Against Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill

In a press release issued yesterday:

Leading African clergy and prominent individuals, as well as more than 60 civil society and human rights groups from 10 sub-Saharan African countries have endorsed a statement calling on the President, Government and Parliament of Uganda to reject the Anti-Homosexuality Bill in its entirety.

The Anti-Homosexuality Bill provides for severe punishment, inclusive imprisonment, for those engaging in same sex relations, as well as for members of the public who fail to report such activities to the authorities.  The original draft also provides for the death penalty and life imprisonment.  The Bill has already gone through the first reading in Parliament and is now before the Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee. “We are very concerned that it could become law within a few weeks or months”, said Adrian Jjuuko, Coordinator of Uganda’s Civil Society Coalition on Human Rights and Constitutional Law.

The statement has been endorsed by leading African clergy such as Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu, the current Archbishop of Cape Town, the Most Reverend Dr. Thabo Cecil Makgoba and Canon Gideon Byamugisha of Uganda. Others endorsing the statement include Pius Langa, the former Chief Justice of South Africa, and other jurists, academics, truth commissioners and human rights activists.

In the declaration, the endorsing individuals and organizations reaffirm their commitment to the universality of the human rights of all persons.  They note that “all forms of discrimination, in particular against vulnerable groups, undermine the human dignity of all in Africa”.  The statement declares that the Bill “promotes prejudice and hate and encourages harmful and violent action against marginalized groups in Africa”.

“Civil society organizations throughout Africa are mobilizing to persuade Ugandan Parliamentarians to block this pernicious Bill”, said Phumi Mtetwa, Executive Director of the Lesbian and Gay Equality Project in South Africa. Godwin Buwa, a lawyer with the Refugee Law Project in Kampala said that “if the Bill is passed, even in diluted form, it would constitute a massive setback for human rights in Africa”.

The statement calls on African governments and the African Union to call on the President and Government of Uganda to withdraw the Bill and to respect the human rights of all in Uganda, without exception.

Click here to read the full statement and list of signatories.

Army Secretary Won’t Personally Pursue DADT Investigations

As we’ve reported, the Defense Department is in the midst of a wide-ranging study on how it would implement the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” One would hope that part of that study would include talking to LGBT servicemembers who are currently serving, but of course that brings up a hitch: hearing from LGBT service menbers would violate the “don’t tell” part of DADT, while seeking them out would presumably violate “don’t ask.” But the New York Times is reporting that this won’t deter Army secretary John M. McHugh. He will simply ignore DADT while taking with active-duty service members:

But Mr. McHugh, who spoke at a breakfast with Pentagon reporters, said it made no sense to pursue discharges of service members as he speaks with them about the change in policy. Mr. Obama, Mr. Gates and Admiral Mullen have all asked commanders to assess opinion within the military about the change in law.

Mr. McHugh said it would be “counterproductive” to “take disciplinary action against someone who spoke with me openly and honestly.” He said the Pentagon was still trying to devise a way to more formally poll large numbers of service members about their views on changing the law.

Looking at HIV with a consideration towards racial and genetic heritage

It has long been known that HIV and AIDS in the United States is not experienced proportionately across racial demographics. About 42% of all cumulative AIDS cases, and over 50% of new HIV infections are in African Americans, even though they only comprises about 14% of the population.

And results released last week about a survey of gay men in Washington, D.C. confirm the pattern. While the study found that 14% of the sample of gay men are HIV positive, this was not uniformly distributed.

Men of color who were 30 years or older had the highest rate, more than twice the overall HIV positivity rate. By race and all ages, over a quarter (25%) of black men who participated in the study were HIV positive, more than any other racial group. Over 10% of men who identified as multirace (11%) and other (10%) were HIV positive and 8% of white males who participated in the study were HIV positive.

In fact, this difference was most notable in participants under 30. While 12.2% of young men of color were HIV infected, “of the nearly 100 white men younger than 30, none were HIV-positive.”

This disparity is usually discussed, when it is discussed at all, in terms of social or cultural difference (especially by those who are not African-American). Non-equivalent infection rates are “part of the down-low” or “the result of homophobia in the black community” or “resultant from a lack of self-worth” or some other culture based phenomenon that hints at irresponsible behavior or an inadequate appreciation for safer sex rules.

I do not doubt that there are some social factors (discrimination, economic inequalities, social position, or even media representation) that do contribute to the prevalence of HIV in Black America. But something in this study caught my attention.

Over 40% of men did not use a condom at last sex, though men of color used condoms nearly twice as much as white men.

Younger men who have receptive anal sex (“bottoms”) and older men who have insertive anal sex (“tops”) were less likely to use condoms.

But if black men were twice as likely to use a condom, then how exactly is it that they were more likely to seroconvert?

One explanation that has been bandied about is that because the pool of black men who sleep with black men is already disproportionately infected. Therefore, because there is an increased risk of contact with infected sex partners it raises the likelihood of higher infection rates.

But that doesn’t seem to be evidenced by the results of this study.

The research allows us to compare those who were already aware of their HIV status to those who were newly infected, by race. Assuming that black men were adhering more closely to safe-sex guidelines, this should have been reflected in the ratios. But newly infected men were even more disproportionately men of color than were those already detected.

This seems contradictory to the notion that black men use condoms at higher rates than whites. So perhaps something else is going on. Perhaps there is something other than behavior that is contributing to the disparity.

We know that some communities inherently carry higher risk of certain diseases while others are fairly immune. Tay-Sacks is more commonly found in Ashkenazi Jews, sickle cell anemia is associated with people with recent ancestry from parts of Africa, the Mediterranean, India and the Middle East, and some Scottish islands have higher incidences of color blindness. These are all the results of inherited genes.

So it should not surprise us that various communities may have inherited genetic susceptibilities or immunities that greatly impact the extent to which any individual in that community is at risk for HIV transmission. And, indeed, research does seem to suggest that not all ancestor-location based gene pools respond to potential infection in the same way.

Some people seem to have inherited a resistance to HIV, effectively leaving them immune from infection.

Genetic resistance to AIDS works in different ways and appears in different ethnic groups. The most powerful form of resistance, caused by a genetic defect, is limited to people with European or Central Asian heritage. An estimated 1 percent of people descended from Northern Europeans are virtually immune to AIDS infection, with Swedes the most likely to be protected. One theory suggests that the mutation developed in Scandinavia and moved southward with Viking raiders.

Similarly, it appears that some communities have inherited ahigher susceptibility to HIV infection.

New research shows Africans and people of African descent could be up to 40 percent more likely to get HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, than people of other races.

This appears to be related to the Duffy antigen, a protein on the surface of red blood cells, which plays are role in defense against malaria. This trait appears to be present in over 90% of black Africans and about 70% of African Americans.

Indeed, as I looked for further discussion on the subject of gene-linked susceptibility, it seems that the community of scientists looking for transmission patterns, infection factors, and treatment possibilities share an assumption that genes play a significant role, and one we do not yet fully understand. And even within specific racial groups, some genetic families may be far more susceptible than others.

But this contributing factor seems to be, to a great extent, outside of common knowledge. Even most gay men – including those I know of African descent – seem not be be aware of genetic factors that contribute to increased or decreased infection risk.

And this troubles me. I believe that this is of such significance that it should be emphasized, particularly among those who may have inherited a higher possibility of infection.

As I see it, there are several reasons why an increased understanding of possible racial group or family genetic traits should be part of our consciousness.

First, if African-Americans are not aware of increased risk, they cannot be prepared. And as we learn more about subgroups or families, individuals of all races can take steps to define “safe sex” in more specialized ways. As unfair as such knowledge may seem, knowing that you can’t live by the same standards as everyone else may have life impacting importance for some individuals.

It’s all fine and good to say “always be safe”, but everyone knows someone who slipped up and ended up okay. But if some individuals have inherited higher risk , they need to know that the answer to “what are the odds” is “much higher for me so I don’t dare risk it… ever.”

Second, a different response in one’s body to the presence of HIV should be reflected in treatment and management. It would be foolish not to test to determine whether some treatment protocols were more or less effective based on inherited factors.

Our nation has a history of medical research that assumes that everyone is a white male, and a fairly interchangeable one at that. But if different protocols are more effective for those of African descent, or for others with specific genetic heritage, it would be immoral not to test for such differences and instead rely on, “this is what works for wealthy white men in West Hollywood”.

Third, vaccines under testing should be studied for whether race or inherited attributes impacts effectiveness. I am troubled by the possibility that some vaccines which were discarded as ineffective in some trials may have been very effective in a different demographic.

But I think we need to approach this with sensitivity. HIV/AIDS has a history of blame and stigma; And any discussion which seeks to assign blame or which seeks to make HIV a “black disease” will do more harm than good.

Additionally, we should remember that individuals are, above all else, individual. We should not make assumptions or assign stereotypes.

Instead, we need to focus research and funding, coordinate outreach and education, and for once talk about the impact of HIV on the African American community without hinting that the phenomenon can be explained in terms of behavior.

And in the meanwhile, let’s find a way to be part of the solution. You can contribute to HIV/AIDS prevention efforts that specifically target the African-American community:

National Black Justice Coalition
BlackAIDS.org

(my appreciation to those who read the draft and provided some insight and suggested revision)

Crate and Barrel’s ultimate wedded couple?

Crate and Barrel has been running an Ultimate Wedding contest in which hopeful couples have been telling a bit about themselves and their ultimate wedding in hopes of winning $100,000. The winner is determined by supporters going online and voting for their favorite couple.

The store has been pushing this promotion in its window displays and is a big part of their current image campaign. With today as the final day for votes, the competition has narrowed to two couples who far outdistance the third place possibility:

• In first place, with 21,135 votes, are Mary and Densey. Densey was a Chicago police officer who was paralyzed in an auto accident. Although they have already married in a civil ceremony, they want to have a dream ceremony in Mexico.
• In second place, with 17,565 votes, are Gregory and Jonathan. Theirs is a classic “Boy meets boy, boy falls for boy, and boys get engaged” story. They want a a simple, but elegant affair at an outdoor vineyard in the DC area, which fortunately for them will now be legal.

Although separated by over 3,000 votes and with only 9 voting hours remaining, Gregory and Jonathan are in a surge. If votes continue as they have for the past hour or so, they may pull ahead.

I have sympathy for all of the contestants. And Densey’s story touches my heart.

But I also wonder at what impact it could have on our national discussion if a nation-wide chain were to recognize for their Ultimate Wedding a couple whose nuptials are dismissed by some as an attack on all that is good and wholesome.

If you would like to be part of this effort, you can vote here.