Box Turtle Bulletin

Lt. Choi: “I Am Somebody and I Deserve Full Equality”

In case you missed him on Rachel Maddow’s show:

On Lt. Daniel Choi’s decision to chain himself to the White House fence last week:

When the President responds to activists and says ‘I will repeal ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ this year, I will work with Congress and I need your help; keep pressuring leaders like me,” as an Army officer I hear a directive, an order, a command. And so I’m going to do everything that I can to make sure that he knows the ball is still in his court and we need to see action.

Gates and Mullen to DADT-supporting 3-Star General: “Vote with your feet”

Meet Lieutenant General Benjamin R Mixon, the Commanding General of United States Army Pacific. But be careful around General Mixon, he just might find your “conduct” to not be “acceptable”.

On May March 8 he wrote a letter to the editor of Stars and Stripes:

The recent commentaries on the adverse effects of repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy were insightful.

It is often stated that most servicemembers are in favor of repealing the policy. I do not believe that is accurate. I suspect many servicemembers, their families, veterans and citizens are wondering what to do to stop this ill-advised repeal of a policy that has achieved a balance between a citizen’s desire to serve and acceptable conduct.

Now is the time to write your elected officials and chain of command and express your views. If those of us who are in favor of retaining the current policy do not speak up, there is no chance to retain the current policy.

But Mixon may wish to consider whether his superiors consider him to have acceptable conduct. Trying to do an end run around the Commander in Chief and the Joint Chiefs of Staff may not be the wisest of actions.

The Secretary of Defense was not amused. And he let Mixon know what he can do if he isn’t pleased with the process set up to review the policy (ABC).

Everybody participating in the review will have the chance to voice their approval concerns, ideas, their suggestions within this process, but there is an appropriate way to do that. Publicly voicing or politically advocating political positions and actions through the news media is just not appropriate for the men and women in uniform, particularly officers in command positions. Especially when it’s in direct opposition to the policy objectives of the President of the United States, their Commander in Chief. ”

Mullen reiterated today that disagreements should also be expressed within the chain of command. But ultimately, “In the end, if there is either policy direction that someone in uniform disagrees with — and I’ve said this before — the answer — and you feel so strongly about it — you know, the answer is not advocacy; it is in fact to vote with your feet. And that’s what all of us in a position of leadership, I think, have to conform to.”

It appears that much of the anger towards Mixon was not based on his opinion, but rather was due to his efforts to subvert the process that the Joint Chiefs of Staff were establishing. Mixon may also have been contradicting a direct order (Stars and Stripes)

But Gates and Mullen suggested Thursday that Mixon’s offense had been speaking out about the policy after commanders were specifically ordered not to do so.

Mullen said the Army had given officers “very specific direction” in written form following Gates’ announcement of his intent to seek the repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law.

And the Army was quick to distance itself from Mixon and his political activism.

The bottom line is that Lt. Gen. Mixon’s comments do not reflect the Army’s thinking on this issue. He was expressing his personal opinion. The Army clearly supports what the Secretary of Defense is trying to do with his assessment of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. So it is inappropriate for a commander to advocate in such a public way on something that is clearly a policy issue. We have a forum, and that is the Secretary’s ongoing comprehensive review.

Most observers are viewing the Admiral’s words as an invitation for Mixon to submit his resignation. Personally, I would not be surprised to see him decide to pursue a career in political advocacy. He will be considered a martyr and hero by those who believe that “fighting the homosexual agenda” is more important than military cohesion or following the chain of command.

New DADT Policies Announced

We now know more about the new separation policy changes being implemented under “Don’t Task, Don’t Tell.” Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen disclosed the changes in a news conference this morning. Some of the changes include:

• Raising the level of the officer who is authorized to initiate an inquiry to a general or flag officer in the servicemember’s chain of command.
• Requires a “reliable person” to provide evidence under oath. Prior policy didn’t require statements to be made under oath.
• Excludes as evidence certain types of confidential information, including lawyer-client privilege, communications with clergy, psychotherapists, medical professionals, or professionals providing assistance for domestic or physical abuse.

The change are effective immediately and are to be applied to all open and future cases.

When asked about efforts to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” however, Gates urged a go-slow approach. “I do not recommend a change in the law before we have completed the study. … Doing it hasitly is very risky.”

Majority of Californians support marriage equality

For the first time, the PPIC Statewide Survey reports that a majority of Californians support same-sex marriage. 2,002 Californians were surveyed and there is a +/- 2% margin of error.

Participants were asked

“do you favor or oppose allowing gay and lesbian couples to be legally married?”

50% favor
45% oppose
5% I don’t know

Various demographics supported marriage equality:

64% Democrats
55% Independents
28% Republicans
55% whites
43% Latinos

This polling suggests a 6% increase in support within the past year, which is quite significant. The survey does not report what contributed to this change in thinking and it is difficult to identify what may have happened since last March that could have led to the change.

However, if I were to guess, I think it is possible that there were two counter-acting public responses to the anti-8 rallies, marches, and protests. It may be that these public demonstrations caused some voters to realize for the first time that the gay community was upset and angry about being denied equality and caused them to consider that anti-gay votes are discriminatory. There may also have been some backlash from some voters who felt that the gay community was behaving lawlessly.

Over the past year the public image of angry marches may have diminished and those upset by it may have become calmer, while the concept of inequality and unfairness raised by the marches may have germinated and resulted in increased support, yielding a net increase. This is, of course, only speculation.

Additionally, the PPIC confirmed that Californians strongly favor allowing gay men and women to serve openly in the military. A total of 75% (and a majority in every demographic) agreed.

Canada’s House of Commons Condemns Uganda’s Anti-Gay Bill

Canada’s House of Commons yesterday unanimously condemned Uganda’s proposed Anti-Homosexuality Bill, which is currently before Uganda’s Parliament. That bill, if enacted, would impose the death sentence in certain circumstances, and would even criminalize providing health services to, renting to, or merely knowing someone who is gay.

The motion before Canada’s House of Commons was introduced by New Democrat MB Bill Siksay (Burnaby-Douglas, BC). According to a press release from Siksay’s office, the motion reads:

That this House commends the Government of Canada for the clear position it has taken against the Anti-Homosexuality Bill currently being debated in the Parliament of Uganda and encourages continued direct diplomatic efforts in conjunction with other countries and organizations to see the bill withdrawn, homosexuality fully decriminalized in Uganda, and the rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and transsexual Ugandans fully respected.

After the vote, Siskay said:

“I very much appreciate the co-operation of the Conservative Party, the Bloc Québecois, and the Liberal Party.  All parties in the House worked together to take a stand against this regressive bill and in solidarity with the gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and transsexual community in Uganda,” said Siksay.  “Given this strong all party commitment to GLBTT rights, I hope that the government will continue to pursue this issue at all possible levels.”

“This bill is an attack on human rights and civil liberties.  Canada must continue to do all it can to see that it is withdrawn,” concluded Siksay.

MP Siksay became the first openly gay non-incumbent to be elected to Parliament in 2004. Siksay serves as the NDP’s Critic in the shadow government for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender and Transsexual issues.

NY Times: Pope Benedict Shielded Priest Accused of Molesting 200 Deaf Boys

Lawrence C. Murphy, at St. John's School for the Deaf in Wisconsin in 1960.

This leaves me speechless:

Top Vatican officials — including the future Pope Benedict XVI — did not defrock a priest who molested as many as 200 deaf boys, even though several American bishops repeatedly warned them that failure to act on the matter could embarrass the church, according to church files newly unearthed as part of a lawsuit. The internal correspondence from bishops in Wisconsin directly to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future pope, shows that while church officials tussled over whether the priest should be dismissed, their highest priority was protecting the church from scandal.

…The Wisconsin case involved an American priest, the Rev. Lawrence C. Murphy, who worked at a renowned school for deaf children from 1950 to 1974. But it is only one of thousands of cases forwarded over decades by bishops to the Vatican office called the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, led from 1981 to 2005 by Cardinal Ratzinger. It is still the office that decides whether accused priests should be given full canonical trials and defrocked.

While the documents obtained by the New York Times do not include responses from Ratzinger, the Times did find that all efforts to defrock Murphy came to a halt after Murphy wrote to Ratzinger asking for leniency. Murphy died four months later and was buried in his priestly vestments.

Congress to Consider Resolutions Condemning Uganda’s Anti-Gay Bill

The Senate and House are both expected to vote on separate resolutions condemning Uganda’s proposed Anti-Homosexuality Bill that is now before that nation’s Parliament.

The House version of the resolution was introduced by Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-CA), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. He is joined by 58 co-sponsors including Reps. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Barney Frank (D-MA), Barbara Lee (D-CA) and Jared Polis (D-CO). The House resolution notes the disastrous effect the proposed anti-gay bill would have on human rights as well as the fight against HIV/AIDS, and calls on the US government to ensure that “resources committed to the global HIV/AIDS response are utilized in a manner that is efficient, effective, and appropriate.” It also expresses “unequivocal United States opposition” to the anti-gay bill. The resolution is now in the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, which is chaired by Rep. Berman.

The Senate version is much shorter but to the point. Introduced by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI), it has collected 20 co-sponsors, including Sens. Tom Coburn (R-OK), Ben Cardin (D-MD), Susan Collins (R-ME), and Joseph Lieberman (I-CT). The Senate resolution calls on Uganda’s parliament to reject the anti-gay bill and calls on all governments around the world to “eject and repeal similar criminalization laws.”It is now in the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, which is chaired by Sen. John Kerry (D-MA).

Please call your Senators and Representative and ask them to cosponsor and support these bipartisan resolutions.

GA Teen Going to the Prom, But Where Does He Go Afterwards?

Derrick Martin pulled off an amazing accomplishment this week. The 18-year-old gay senior wanted to take his boyfriend to the Bleckley County High School prom, something that had never happened in this small Georgia town. Apparently being the prudent young man that he is, he asked school officials if that would be okay. To his surprise (and to the surprise of many of the rest of us) the school said yes. He can take his boyfriend to the prom. While there are a few objections, the town seems to be taken the startling developments with aplomb.

Well, not his parents. They kicked their son out of the house. He is now staying with a friend.

Defense Chief Expected To Address DADT Changes

Word has it that Defense Secretary Robert Gates will announce sometime this week new enforcement policies for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” The changes in policies are expected to limit the number of discharges associated with third-party outings like the case Sgt. Jene Newsome, who was outed by Rapid City police last week. Other reports have it that Secretary Gates will describe elements of the department’s strategy for implementing a repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

Update: Associated Press now says that Gates will announce new policy changes on Thursday:

Guidelines to be announced Thursday call for testimony from third parties to be given under oath. The discharge of enlisted personnel must be approved by officers who hold a rank equivalent to a one-star general or above, according to military and defense officials familiar with the plan. They spoke on condition of anonymity ahead of the announcement.

The goal is to ensure that the law is applied fairly and consistently across the military and that flimsy testimony from third parties is eliminated, the officials said. The plan is considered a stopgap measure until Congress decides whether to repeal the 1993 law.

Matt Barber adds names to Hate Group list

As we told you, Peter Labarbera’s amusingly misnamed website, Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, has been named a hate website by the Southern Poverty Law Center. And while I see this as a reasonable classification for a man whose “religious objection to homosexuality” always seems to be expressed in the vilest terms of contempt for gay individuals, fellow anti-gay activist Matt Barber (who sits on AFTAH’s board) has leapt to the Peter’s defense.

Writing in third person, he declares that this addition to the hate list entirely discredits the SPLC. And besides, AFTAH is no different from a number of other groups.

“It’s a ‘hate group,’ mudslinging good time!” joked Barber. ” Let’s try it on for size. In exercise of the SPLC’s trademark ‘I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I’ criteria for determining ‘hate group’ status, I hereby declare the Southern Pov Law Center an officeal ‘anti-Christian, anti-conservative hate group.’ Try it, it’s fun.

“But seriously,” continued Barber, “If AFTAH is a ‘hate group,’ then so is Liberty Counsel, Focus on the Family, Family Research Council, American Family Association, the Southern Baptist Convention and the Roman Catholic Church.”

Well now, Matt, those are interesting nominations. You’ve given us something to think about.

Paul Cameron’s experience with censorship

Paul Cameron longs for the good ol’ days when homosexuality was taboo, outlawed, considered a mental illness, a cause for lobotomies or other bizarre experimentation, and unacceptable in polite society.

In a strange turn of events, Cameron’s Family Research Institute briefly got a chance to relive those days, but from the other side. In a move reminiscent of the 50’s, FRI’s March 2010 newsletter was deemed obscene by the US Post Office. (Colorado Springs Gazette)

On March 4, according to the complaint sent to the Postal Service by Cameron’s attorney, the newsletter was delivered to the bulk mailing office on Fountain Boulevard and was initially approved for bulk mailing.

The next day, however, Cameron’s group was informed by postal supervisor Paul Hill that it did not qualify for the nonprofit mailing rate because it violated the regulations against mailing material that was “obscene” and incited forcible resistance to the government, the complaint stated.

Hill later told the group’s representative that the initial decision had been reviewed and the newsletter would be accepted at a slightly higher pre-sorted rate, which Turner said is about 3 cents per piece more than the nonprofit rate.

Cameron does not appear to post his newsletter online in pdf or other whole form. However, the two pieces which we were able to review do not fit the definition of obscene. Offensive, untruthful, and brimming with contempt, but not obscene.

Although FRI is but a vehicle through with Cameron indulges his personal hatred, it is nonetheless a valid non-profit organization and does engage in “educational” activities. And while FRI is listed as a Hate Group by the SPLC (as is anyone who relies too much on Cameron’s claims), the direction of one’s opinion about homosexuality is not cause for denying non-profit status.

Finally the USPS finally did the right thing. After a review by the Postal Service headquarters, the USPS reversed the local decision and restored FRI’s non-profit billing rate.

Ironically, Cameron owes his freedom to mail objectionable materials about homosexuality in part to the “militant homosexual activists” which he so despises. A decision more than 50 years ago by the Supreme Court had cleared FRI from the USPS’ objections to materials about homosexuality.

Up until 1957 material that was depraved or corrupting of young mind was considered obscene. And obscene material was not protected under the First Amendment. But in that year, the SCOTUS changed the definition of obscene to be “whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest.”

But the relevant application of this decision was the following year in One, Inc. v. Olesen, a gay rights case.

The Postmaster of Los Angeles had declared that the October 1954 issue of One Magazine, an advocacy, education, and general interest magazine for gays and lesbians, was obscene and thus banned from the postal service. The magazine lost in court in March 1956 and at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in February 1957.

But the Supreme Court didn’t even wait for oral testimony and on January 13, 1958, acting collectively, issued a one sentence reversal based on the previous year’s decision thereby determining that material about homosexuality was not necessarily obscene.

So Paul Cameron has a pre-Stonewall gay publication to thank for his postal discount. But somehow I suspect that his “thank you” card has been lost in the mail.

Barney Frank: ENDA Vote May Come In April

That’s what Lisa Keen says:

Frank said passage of the health care reform package by the House now clears the way for that chamber to take up ENDA. He said the vote could come as early as this week but would more likely come right after the spring recess, March 29-April 9.

That sounds like an impossibly fast track for what is likely to be a contentious vote, if you ask me.

Vengeance Is Mine, Says the Bishop of Portland

I guess the only cheek the Catholic Church in Maine is interested in turning is… well…

Today’s Portland Press Herald reports that the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland, Maine and the Washington-based Catholic Campaign for Human Development have yanked a $17,400 grant to Portland-based Preble Street’s Homeless Voices for Justice program, and promise to deny an expected $33,000 for next year. The two organizations say that Preble Street violated its grant agreement by supporting Maine’s “No on 1” campaign last fall.

Maine voters passed Question 1 and banned same-sex marriage by a 53%-47% margin. But despite that victory, the Catholic Church is still looking backwards to punish its “enemies.”

Homeless Voices for Justice is a statewide advocacy group led by people who had been homeless themselves. Preble Street runs several housing programs and other services for the homeless and poor. They also provide staff support for Homeless Voices for Justice.

Italian court was to rule on marriage equality today

According to gayrights.change,

Next Tuesday [today], the Italian Constitutional Court will decide whether several provisions under Italy’s civil code that currently restrict marriage to just “one man, one woman” are unconstitutional.

From Italian organization Certi Diritti, (Google translation)

On 23 March 2010 the Constitutional Court will rule on the legality of the refusal of publication of banns received by two pairs of same-sex couples who had received from their common denial of the request for publication of banns.

The municipalities are those of Venice and that of Trent, whose courts, sued by lawyers Lenford Network – Law for LGBT rights, decided to refer the decision on the constitutionality of the ban on marriage between two persons of the same sex.

If the court has published its decision, I have not been able to find it. I’ll report more when it’s known

(hat tip to reader volpi)

UPDATE: The court has postponed announcing any decision until after the Easter holidays. Considering the international attention to be paid to the Vatican over the next two weeks as Catholicism observes its most holy holiday, this may possibly be an indication of positive news for gay Italians.

Tendi discusses African myths about homosexuality

Blessing-Miles Tendi, writing in the Guardian, examines myths about homosexuality that are commonly believed by Africans and African-Americans.

The standard explanation offered by Africans opposed to gay rights is that homosexuality is alien to their culture and was introduced to Africa by European colonialists. A good deal of African-American homophobia relies on the same justification. But late 19th-century records on Africa and African oral history show that homosexual practices existed in pre-colonial Africa.