Box Turtle Bulletin

Ex-Gay Ministry Admits Sexual Abuse; Grateful At Not Being Found Out

Andrew Comiskey, of the ex-gay group Desert Stream Ministries, posted an admission on his blog that a staffer at DSM was found to have sexually abused at least one teenager under their “care.” But instead of an apology to either the teenager, his family, Comiskey’s church or the ex-gay movement, Comiskey pens a strange, rambling post in which he portrays himself as a victim of a blackmail attempt and expresses gratitude that the entire episode escape public scrutiny in the press:

Before we as a ministry even knew what had actually happened, one relative of the boy, savvy in the ways of insurance, insisted on a face-to-face meeting with Jonathan Hunter and I. He wrote down an astronomical figure that he insisted we pay out to him, or else. He threatened to take the case to the press and a flamboyant celebrity lawyer in LA. (He assumed that our large and prominent new home–Vineyard Anaheim—had millions for such settlements).

The post goes on to express Comiskey’s anguish over the sad affair. Not the anguish for the molestation that the teens experienced, mind you, but the anguish of the humiliating police interrogations, anguish at being interrogated by their liability insurers and their lawyers., the anguish of facing church elders at Vinyard Anaheim (with which the ministry was affiliated at the time), and the anguish of losing a valued staffer who abused the teens. Apparently, the unnamed staffer was a key player in the ministry, as well as a close personal friend to Comiskey and his wife.

But what about the anguish the teens faced? And what about the anguish they must assuredly feel again should they come across this post? If Comiskey had an ounce of compassion for what those teens experienced, it’s hard to see it here. What possible good could a post like this serve anyone, except to aggrandize Comiskey’s own standing before a god who, according to Comiskey, saved his ministry from his enemies:

At the end of 3 years, the case was settled. Our insurance covered most of the costs. Our groups were reinstated at the Vineyard, with new boundaries and requirements intact. Not one story was printed about the tragedy. God spared us. His mercy leveled and sustained DSM.

Good for you, Andy. Your god smiled upon you. But God bless the teens who were left to pick up the pieces afterward.

According to a comment by Ex-Gay Watch‘s David Roberts left at Love Is An Orientation, the incident described in the post occurred in 1997. Another allegation of sexual abuse was lodged five years later. In 2005, Comiskey moved his ministry to Kansas City, where he became associated with the extremist charismatic group known as the International House of Prayer. According to ex-gay Survivor Peterson Toscano, Desert Stream’s Living Waters program “uses extreme methods that involve forms of exorcism (deliverance/healing prayer) and rely on teachings that believe that people become gay through demonic influences and the sins of ancestors.” Desert Stream is an affiliated ministry of Exodus International.

[Hat tip: Love Is An Orientation and several BTB readers]

Lt. Daniel Choi Arrested In DADT Protest At White House

Iraq war veteran Lt. Daniel Choi, whose discharge from the US Army under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” handcuffed himself to the White House fence this afternoon along with Capt. Jim Pietrangelo, who was discharged in 2004. Here is CNN’s coverage of that protest:

Choi and Pietrangelo had earlier attended a rally at Freedom Plaza organized by the Human Rights Campaign which featured comedienne Kathy Griffin. Griffin invited Choi, who had not been invited to speak, up to the stage to say a few words. Choi took the opportunity to invite participants at the rally to march with him and Pietrangelo to the White House.

Once they reached the White House shortly before 1:00 pm, Choi and Pietrangelo handcuffed themselves to the fence. They were quickly met by police and Secret Service. After a standoff of about an hour, police cut they two from the fence and placed them under arrest. A third advocate, Robin McGehee of GetEQUAL was also arrested.

Latest word is that Choi and Pietrangelo will be held in DC jail overnight and appear tomorrow in DC Superior Court. Observers say that it is highly unusual for a person to be arrested with “failure to obey a lawful order” and be held overnight. Typically such an individual makes bail and is released the same day. Why the delay?

In the best tradition of protests, that is where this story would end for the day, as unsatisfying an ending as it is right now. But wouldn’t you know it, whenever it comes to the gays, it seems there always has to be some squabbling going on somewhere. This one is playing out as an anti-HRC/pro-HRC tussle. Blogger John Avarosis describes the events at the HRC’s rally this way:

I was there, chronicled Dan from this morning’s preparation to his unexpected speech at the HRC rally (Joe Solmonese told him he couldn’t speak, Dan got Kathy Griffin to invite him on stage), to his march to the White House fence where he and Capt. James Pietrangelo (who was kicked out in 2004 for being gay) handcuffed themselves to the White House gate with hundreds of supporters chanting. It was an amazing scene. Griffin told Choi she’d march with him the White House, then she refused to go when he found her after rally. Solmonese reportedly gave Choi the thumbs up when Choi asked him if he’d march to the White House – Solmonese too was nowhere to be scene, and refused to go when Choi approached him after the HRC rally.

The HRC responded:

There’s been some confusion about Lt. Dan Choi’s role in the rally.  As Joe Solmonese was walking to the stage, Lt. Choi asked Joe if he could have a speaking role. Joe explained that it wasn’t his sole decision to make on the spot given that there was already an established program that included Kathy Griffin, other organization and veterans.  After Choi then spoke with Kathy Griffin, she agreed to bring him up on stage and speak to the crowd during her remarks.

Lt. Choi in his speech called on the crowd to march on the White House. Joe Solmonese along with Eric Alva and others felt it was important to stay and engage those at the rally in ways they can continue building the pressure needed for repeal. This does nothing to diminish the actions taken by Lt. Choi and others. This is the nature of social change and everyone has a role to play.

As for Kathy Griffin, we have this tweet:

It was my honor 2 share th podium w Lt Dan Choi today. I understand he’s been arrested in front of the White House. I dig that dude! Balls!

Another Baptist church not anti-gay enough for Texas

The Royal Lane Baptist Church, has served congregants in North Dallas for the past five decades. Although gay member have long been a part of the church family, the board finally decided last month to go public with their welcome. They changed their website to say:

Royal Lane Baptist Church is an inclusive, multi-generational congregation joined in Christian community. We are a vibrant mosaic of varied racial identities, ethnicities, sexual orientations, and denominational backgrounds.

We affirm the sacredness, dignity, and equality of every man, woman, and child and honor each individual’s freedom to worship God and to respond to his or her unique call to ministry and service.

We celebrate worship that challenges the mind, stirs the heart, and lifts the spirit within the context of music, art, and liturgy to express what we can never fully say.

We covenant with one another to love authentically as Christ loved. We put this love into action by ministering in the world, ever alert to the voice of human need wherever it may be heard.

Royal Lane is an ecumenical Baptist congregation affiliated with The Cooperative Baptist Fellowship and The Baptist General Convention of Texas.

But not for long. Either the first paragraph or the last will have to be changed.

You see, the Baptist General Convention of Texas takes objection to vibrant mosaics and most certainly does NOT affirm the sacredness, dignity, and equality of every man, woman and child. The gay folks’ freedom to worship God is not honored by them at all. (Dallas News)

The BGCT’s long-held position is that homosexuality is a sin.

The Dallas-based BGCT has decided to place in escrow any funds sent from Royal Lane. It also has asked Royal Lane to remove from church publications any reference to BGCT affiliation.

Randel Everett, executive director of the BGCT, said those conditions will remain until the church says it agrees with the stance on homosexuality.

“It is my prayer that Royal Lane Baptist Church will take the appropriate action to return to these Texas Baptist values and restore its fellowship with the BGCT,” Everett said in a prepared statement.

If Royal Lane and its members choose to continue to define itself as a vibrant mosaic, it may come with some sacrifice.

The stakes are raised in Royal Lane’s case because its membership includes BGCT employees and a BGCT executive board member. BGCT employees must belong to an affiliated church, so a split with Royal Lane could force some to choose between workplace and worship place.

Because that’s what Jesus would want, right?

Dutch military disagrees with Sheehan’s revision of the Srebrenica massacre

Retired General Jack Sheehan’s assignment of the blame for the Srebrenica massacre to gay Dutch soldiers was not confirmed by the Dutch. From Voice of America

Asked for comment, Dutch military officials expressed astonishment. The spokesman for the Netherlands Ministry of Defense, Roger van de Wetering, told VOA Sheehan’s assertions are “total nonsense” and that he “cannot believe that a man of that rank is stating such a thing.” He added that he had never heard Sheehan’s allegation before from any source in the Netherlands or anywhere else.

Many historians have argued that Dutch peacekeeping forces in the Balkans were under-equipped and hampered by operational limitations imposed by the United Nations.

Sheehan blames Bosnian massacre on gay Dutch soldiers

In a page right out of Scott Lively’s playbook, retired General John Sheehan assigns gay the blame for one of the world’s atrocities. This time, it’s the massacre of Bosnian Muslims at Srebrenica. (Herald Sun)

A RETIRED US general today said Dutch UN troops defending Srebrenica in the Bosnian war failed to prevent the 1995 genocide partly because their ranks included openly gay soldiers.
…
The chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Carl Levin, pressed him to clarify his comments about Srebrenica.

“Did the Dutch leaders tell you it (the fall of Srebrenica) was because there were gay soldiers there?” asked an incredulous Senator Levin.

“Yes,” Gen Sheehan said and added: “They included that as part of the problem.”

Gen Sheehan, who retired from the military in 1997, said he had been told that by the former chief of staff of the Dutch army.

Nearly 8,000 Bosnian men and boys were slaughtered by the Serbs at Srebrenica. This assignment of blame to gay soldiers appears to be a new theory, one that was not discovered by the Dutch in their subsequent review of what went wrong.

Sheehan appeared to be arguing that the liberalization of the European militaries led to weakness and suggesting that allowing gay soldiers to serve resulted in sissy-boy soldiers. He didn’t share his views on how that worked in the Israeli army.

Senator Levin wasn’t having it and called Sheehan out on his biases. (Navy Times)

“I think we all remember Srebrenica,” Levin said. “Any effort to connect that failure on the part of the Dutch to the fact that they had homosexuals … is totally off target. I see no suggestion of that. It’s no more on point than the fact that they may have allowed African or Dutch-African or women” to serve.

“My comment was that the liberalization … ” Sheehan said.

Levin interrupted. “I agree with that,” he said. “They weren’t good in that respect. They were trained to be peacekeepers, not peace enforcers. … But to slide over from that into a suggestion that it had something to do with the fact that homosexuals were allowed in the Dutch army suggests that somehow or other homosexuals are not great fighters. … I think that is totally wrong.”

It will be interesting to hear the response of the Dutch government to Sheehan’s assertions. [Update: Dutch military officials have responded.]

Sheehan also shared his opinions on the attitudes of soldiers, decades after he was last in any position to know. (Stars and Stripes)

On Thursday, retired Marine Gen. John Sheehan, former head of U.S. Atlantic Command, told lawmakers he supports the yearlong review but believes researchers will conclude that such a change is detrimental to unit cohesion and morale.

“Military life is fundamentally different than civilian life,” he said. “Popular culture may have changed over the years, but military culture and responsibilities have changed very little.”

Sheehan said known homosexuals in units he commanded caused disruption for all his Marines, forcing troops to choose sides and creating fear among those who had to work closely with them.

Having presented an argument that is both outdated and bizarrely homophobic, I wonder if Sheehan has actually hurt his cause.

Kathy Griffin Calls for DADT Repeal in D.C.

Kathy Griffin called for DADT repeal at a demonstration on Freedom Plaza in Washington, D.C. around noon today. Lt. Dan Choi also spoke, then asked demonstration participants to follow him to the White House, where he proceeded to chain himself to the surrounding fence.

Ugandan LGBT Activist To Tour Eastern US

I just received this announcement from the good folks at Political Research Associates. Unfortunately, I won’t be able to attend any of these events. But if you are anywhere near these venues, I strongly urge that you go and listen to Frank Mugisha of Sexual Minorities Uganda to talk about the connection between U.S. conservative religious forces and increased harassment of LGBT people in Uganda.

Frank Musgisha, Sexual Minorities Uganda (SMUG) spokesperson, will appear at several public events in New York City, Boston, and Washington, D.C. this month to explain the connection between U.S. conservative religious forces and increased harassment of LGBT people in Uganda .

Mr. Mugisha is visiting the United States to publicize the crisis in LGBT human rights in Uganda. Conservative religious leaders from the United States have targeted African nations such as Uganda, Kenya, and Nigeria as anti-gay arenas where they can encourage support of homophobic sentiment at home. African LGBT people have suffered discrimination in the form of “collateral damage” from these campaigns. While it is already illegal to be a homosexual in Uganda, pending legislation would make it punishable even to know an LGBT person and not to report them to the authorities.

Mr. Mugisha was among the first gay Ugandans to come out in order to challenge the myth that homosexuals do not exist in Uganda. The law that prohibits homosexuality in Uganda has successfully keeping LGBT people in the closet. He is among those whose names were printed in the Ugandan media, after which he lost jobs, friends and family. He has faced hostility, threats, arrests, intimidation, and discrimination for his fight for the recognition of gay rights in Uganda. Mr. Mugisha has worked internationally with religious leaders, NGOs, and diplomatic missions to stop the latest anti-homosexuality bill and is a moving speaker on international human rights.

He will be accompanied by Rev. Dr. Kapya Kaoma, author of the recent report published by Political Research Associates, Globalizing the Culture Wars: U.S. Conservatives, African Churches , and Homophobia. Rev. Kaoma attended the infamous anti-gay conference in Uganda in March 2009, collecting video footage undercover. He has appeared on the Rachel Maddow Show, been cited in media such as the New York Times, Time, and Newsweek, and he has testified before Congress and the UN on how US evangelicals are exporting homophobia to Africa.

Frank Mugisha appearances:

March 22; 6-7:30 pm
Astraea Foundation
116 East 16th St.
New York, NY 10003
(212) 529-8021

March 23; 7-9 pm
The Riverside Church
490 Riverside Drive
New York, NY 10027
(212) 870-6700

March 26; 7-9 pm
Harvard Epworth UMC Church
1555 Massachusetts Ave.
Cambridge, MA 02138
(617) 354-0837

March 27; 12-2 pm
Cathedral Church of St. Paul
138 Tremont St.
Boston, MA 02111
(617) 482-5800

March 30; 7-9 pm
Foundry UMC Church
1500 16th Street NW
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 332-4010

Blogswarm: Call Nancy Pelosi, Demand ENDA’s Passage

LGBT bloggers and allies are today coordinating a national blog swarm, asking readers to contact their members of Congress and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to demand that the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) be brought for a vote:

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act, first introduced in 1994, would prohibit job discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. But LGBT people have never been able to achieve the enactment of the bill, known by the acronym of “ENDA”. Last year, the Administration’s highest ranking gay official, Office of Personnel Management Director John Berry, indicated that ENDA was highest priority on the LGBT civil rights agenda.

“If we can get ENDA enacted and signed into law, it is only a matter of time before all the rest happens,” he said. “It is the keystone that holds up the whole bunch, and so we need to focus our energies and attention there.”

Hearings were held last Fall in the House and in the Senate to demonstrate the need for the bill, and testimony was heard on the severe unemployment, underemployment and harassment experienced by LGBT workers. Witnesses testified to the scientific studies demonstrating this. But nothing has happened.

A vote was promised numerous times last year, but nothing happened. A House committee delayed mark-up of the bill in late November and it has not been rescheduled. The House committee says it is ready to move on the bill, but Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said that she would not move controversial bills.

Please call Speaker Pelosi at 202-225-4965, and politely ask that the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, HR 3017, be moved to a vote. Please be polite, but firm. They need to hear our voices because you can bet they are hearing from those who oppose it loud and clear.

Gays Excluded From Some Clinical Trials

It’s a common practice to limit participants in studies according to specific parameters set for by the researchers conducting the studies. Typically, these parameters may include such factors as age, gender, health history, ethnicity and other factors which may be specifically relevant to the study. A study of diabetes among Native Americans, for example, would be restricted to Native American populations. But three researchers with the Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia have learned that many studies restrict LGBT people from participating, and it appears that in many cases these exclusions may be unjustified.

According to a research letter published in the March 18 edition of the New England Journal of Medicine, Drs. Brian L. Engelston, Roland L. Dunbrack, Jr., and Michael J. Hall recently encountered some study proposals which explicitly excluded people in same-sex relationships. They decided to try to understand how common that exclusion is and what effects it may have in the body of research. They began by performing exploratory searches of the ClinicalTrials.gov database (which contains information on more than 80,000 studies) to identify the types of studies gay men and women were more likely to be excluded. This is what they found:

We found that when we performed searches using the terms “couples,” “erectile dysfunction,” and “hypoactive” (related to hypoactive sexual disorder), we identified 243 studies, of which 37 (15%) had explicit exclusionary language (Table 1). In these 243 studies, the results of Fisher’s exact tests indicated that industry-sponsored trials, multiregion trials (according to census definitions), and phase 3 trials were the most likely to exclude lesbians and gay men (P<0.05). Other variables, such as the year the study opened, whether the study is open to those over 65 years of age, and whether the study accepts healthy volunteers, were not associated with exclusionary criteria.

The researchers found that such exclusions weren’t uniform across the board. For example, when they used the search term “asthma” to examine 1019 studies, they found that none of them excluded lesbians or gay men.

It’s unclear what effect the exclusion of gays and lesbians from these three specific study areas would have. Studies identified using the search term “Couples”, for example, bring up 142 results covering a wide range of topics, including breast cancer and post-traumatic stress disorder. The search term “Erectile Dysfunction” brought up studies in prostate cancer and arterial disease. If a particular study intended to observe the effects that specific relationship dynamics might might have on, for example, breast cancer survivorship, it’s concievable that the researchers may wish to try to isolate that study’s results from possible differences such dynamics which may exist between heterosexual and same-sex couples. But on the other hand, it would be useful to know whether relationship characteristics of lesbian couples have the same effect on breast cancer survivorship as relationship characteristics of heterosexual couples.

Unfortunately, this brief research letter does not explore the impact these exclusions may have in our medical knowledge. It only identifies a potential problem, and not its scope or impact. The researchers limited their search to studies from which lesbians and gay men were excluded, and those from which they were not excluded. We don’t know if there were any studies in the database which focused exclusively on same-sex couples by excluding heterosexual couples. Nor do they quantify the number of studies which used relationship status or characteristics as an independent variable. These would be useful data points, but that information could only come from a larger, more extensive (and expensive) study.

But for the majority of medical studies, it is unlikely that these exclusions have much of a rational basis to begin with. One clinical trial of a drug to treat attention deficit–hyperactivity disorder required that participants be “in a reciprocal relationship with a person of the opposite sex,” the team found. It’s hard to imagine what kind of a justification would support excluding gays and lesbians from such a trial.

Egleston pointed out to the Associated Press that when researchers apply for federal grants for their work, they must explain why their study excludes participants based on gender, race or ethnicity. But no explanation for exclusion based on sexual orientation is needed. Furthermore:

Exclusion can become self-perpetuating: Researchers designing a study often “cut and paste” participation criteria from earlier trials on a similar subject. “It becomes the way it’s done,” and any bias gets repeated, Egleston said.

Our results indicate that exclusion of lesbians and gay men from clinical trials in the United States is not uncommon, particularly in studies with sexual function as an end point. It is likely that most gay and lesbian patients are unaware that their sexual orientation is being used as a screening factor for participation in clinical trials. Researchers should be held to careful scientific reasoning when they develop exclusion criteria that are based on sexual orientation.

Letters to the editor are not peer-reviewed.

San Diego candidate learns not to buddy up to ex-gay gadfly James Hartline

It never pays to buddy up to ex-gay activist James Hartline. You’re going to get burned. Even if you agree with everything that Hartline supports, you have to be as extreme and wacky as he is or he’ll turn on you.

And San Diego City Council candidate Lorie Zapf has just found that out. Hartline is sharing some of their communications with the press. (Union-Tribune)

Hartline said he distributed the e-mail to media outlets this week because Zapf was not living up to his anti-gay standards.

It all started in 2006 when Zapf supported a candidate for City Council who endorsed the mayor who was known to be tolerant of gay people. Although she had attended church with him at Mission Valley, this was enough to lead Hartline to suspect Zapf’s anti-gay credentials. Or as Hartline tells it (in the third person):

It was because Hartline and Zapf knew each other at MVCF that Hartline began to email Zapf regarding her obviously hypocritical involvement with the campaigns of Judy Riddle, a member of the cult Mormon Church, and pro-homosexual San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders. Hartline could not understand at the time how Zapf could be involved in promoting Mormon candidates when MVCF had taught her that Mormonism is a cult. Equally perplexing for Hartline was the idea that Zapf was so involved with Jerry Sanders after the years Sanders had marched in San Diego’s pornographic gay pride parades.

Initially, Zapf attempted to manipulate Hartline in emails, telling Hartline that she was firmly in his camp on the homosexual issue. As Hartline responded with emails showing Zapf was compromising, she began to take a sinister turn, emailing Hartline’s pastors in an attempt to shut Hartline down. It appears by her responses in the recent Union Tribune article, that the sinister Zapf is once again replacing the “Aunt Bee” Lorie Zapf.

Hartline’s view of “compromising” is probably a bit different than yours. Zapf was pretty clear where she stood: (City Beat)

“I absolutely want to keep homosexuals out of public office and not be allowed to influence our schools, textbooks, altering marriage, children, and on and on”
…
“I like that you are trying to keep homosexuals and homosexual activists out of public office because we both know what the long term agenda is.”
…
“I do believe homosexuality is a sin. I have three homosexual first cousins. I love them all and would ‘be seen’ in a photo with them. I believe they all live in sin and frankly all are very unhappy people and had horrible childhoods as well.”

But hating the gay isn’t enough for Hartline. You have to be fire-breathing, take no prisoners, crazy-ass in your hating of the gay. But crazy-ass homophobia doesn’t sell with in San Diego. Yes, this is a Republican city, but it likes its Republicans to be either gay supportive or gay themselves.

So Zapf is now clarifying. She says that she didn’t mean gay people, per se, just gay activists (ya know, the gay folk who aren’t closeted, delusional, ex-gay, or like Roy Ashburn).

And she’s a victim. It was just taken out of context.

“This is what keeps good people from running for office,” she said. “Everyone’s got something. It’s going to be a little sentence plucked out, taken out of context … and then used against me to try to destroy me and my family.”

Zapf said voters should note that Hartline’s anger stems from her support of gays.

“The irony is that James Hartline, of all people, who is so rabidly anti-gay, is trying to hurt me because I’m not,” she said. “He doesn’t think I’m anti-gay enough. I’m not at all.”

Oh, I dunno, Lorie. I think you’re plenty anti-gay.

Even if you would ‘be seen’ in a photo with me.

New military survey on DADT

In February, Lake Research Partners and American Viewpoint, on behalf of Vet Voice Foundation, conducted a telephone survey of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans about Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

The methodology appears to be fairly decent, though the margin of error is a bit large.

Lake Research Partners and American Viewpoint designed and administered this survey, which was conducted by phone using professional interviewers. The survey reached a total of 510 veterans of Operation Iraqi Freedom (Iraq) and/or Operation Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan). The survey was conducted February 8-23, 2010. Telephone numbers for the sample were generated randomly from a military sample and a radius sample drawn from military bases in the United States. The margin of error for the total sample is +/- 4.4 percentage points.

But I do have some concerns about the demographic breakdown. As best I can tell, it does not appear to be representative of the military as a whole. It appears to over-represent white, male, and more highly educated personnel than what I’ve been able to identify as reflective of those serving. Nevertheless, it adds to the conversation.

This sample was:

45% Republican (or leaning) v. 20% Democrat (or leaning)
19% High school education, with 44% college graduate or post graduate
79% married
36% evangelical Christian
69% white, 16% black
58% think there were gay people in their most recent unit

Of this sample,

• 60% agree and 29% disagree with “Being gay or lesbian has little bearing on a service member’s ability to perform their duties.” This may be skewed by two lead up questions asking about race and gender having bearing.
• 73% are comfortable (37% very) and 23% are uncomfortable (7% very) “in the presence of gays and lesbians?”
• 34% favor (24% very); 36% oppose (29% very); and 30% aren’t sure about “allowing openly gay men and lesbian women to serve in the military”
• When asked to “describe your personal opinion if gay and lesbian people were allowed to serve openly in the military”, 73% said it would be acceptable (though 31% wouldn’t like it) and 25% said it would be unacceptable.

They also measured by age and found that “younger veterans lean toward favoring allowing gay men and lesbian women to serve openly while older veterans lean toward opposing the change, but there is little intensity in either direction.”

While I am not sure that this accurately reflects the views of our military, it does add to the growing recognition that soldiers care a lot less about the sexual orientation of their fellows than do Senators or Pentagon officials.

Episcopal Church approves lesbian bishop

From the New York Times

A majority of bishops and dioceses of the Episcopal Church have approved the election of the church’s second openly gay bishop, the Rev. Mary D. Glasspool, a decision likely to increase the tension with fellow Anglican churches around the world that do not approve of homosexuality.

Congratulations Bishop Glasspool

Catholic Church continues to have predatory priest problems

Surely, surely, there are Catholic priests who haven’t molested children. And there simply must be a Cardinal or Archbishop somewhere who didn’t cover up abuse. However, now the Catholic Church is beginning to appear as though abuse and cover ups were the norm rather than the exception.

With newly reported cases in the growing scandal in Germany, along with bizarre developments in Brazil, the ten people dedicated to inspecting cases and paying settlements are beginning to feel overwhelmed. (NY Times)

In a rare interview, by telephone on Tuesday, Monsignor Scicluna acknowledged the concern. Asked if he wanted reinforcements, he said with a laugh: “I would hope we have less work. That’s my hope. Not more people, less work.”

He added that if the number of cases averaged 300 a year, “We can continue doing our job well with 10 people. The problem is: Are these numbers going to settle?”
…
Despite the small number of people in the Vatican working on such cases, he stressed that his office was the last step in a long process for the cases, after they have been investigated by “hundreds of canon lawyers” in dioceses worldwide.

“It’s not that these people are doing every case from A to Z, otherwise we’d really be bonkers,” he said.

The investigative arm is bonkers, but the PR division must be going crazy. Because the Brazilian scandal was televised (AP).

The case came to light after the SBT network aired a video purportedly showing an 82-year-old priest having sex with a 19-year-old altar boy who worked for him for four years. Other young men appeared on the report saying that they, too, had been abused by Monsignor Luiz Marques Barbosa.

ick

NOM funds DC Candidate with questionable ethics

Rev. Anthony J. Motley is a protege of Marion Barry running for City Council against gay Council Member at Large David Catania.

In February, the CityPaper looked into some of Motley’s business practices with the city and found them to be curious. It seems that Barry was lining Motley’s pockets with city money and that Motley was responding by providing personal favors to Barry including the loan of a Mercedes.

He “personally received at least $54,000 from [fiscal 2009] earmark grant recipients”—earmarks all requested by Barry.
…
Under the terms of a settlement agreement with federal prosecutors in his long-running federal tax-fraud case, Barry has to fully report his income and spending to authorities on a monthly basis in order to determine how much of his income is seized in order to pay back taxes. If Barry were to include payments on a luxury vehicle, they could demand an adjustment to Barry’s repayment schedule.

The article continues with several other instances in which Motley’s behavior either crossed or skirted the line of legality. In fact, an investigation into improprieties in Barry’s earmarks found that Motley had forged documents and engaged in self-dealing in addition to using educational funds set up for poor children to pay for political “councils” which in turn paid him. All of which suggests that not only is Anthony Motley a political ally of Marion Barry, but he appears to share both Barry’s personal taste for power and privilege and his questionable ethics.

None of which matters to the National Organization for Marriage. There is no scoundrel too shady or wactivist too hateful to be endorsed, supported, and funded by NOM. All that matters is that Motley shares NOM’s opposition to marriage equality.

As of last June, Motley was not yet on board with NOM’s agenda. At that time he was singing a different song. (WaPo)

Motley said in an interview that there are divisions in the city that he wants to eliminate: geography and race but also one between ministers and the gay and lesbian community.

Motley said he pulled together a meeting between the two groups to talk about the legalization of gay marriage. Motley, who said he has supported domestic partnerships and other gay issues in the past, said he has not decided whether he supports legalizing same-sex nuptials. “I’m evolving on that,” he said. “I have not gotten to the point that I can say definitively.”

But since NOM has a check-book (and no accountability), Motley has now evolved a position and decided that he really likes divisions after all.

So it is no surprise that NOM is funding Motley. (MetroWeekly)

Motley has accepted two campaign contributions from NOM, and another from the Committee to Elect Delano Hunter. Hunter is running for a seat to represent Ward 5. He has also been supported by NOM.

”Obviously we’re interested in electing candidates that will support traditional marriage and allowing voters of D.C. the right to have their say on the issue,” Brian Brown, executive director of NOM, says. ”Rev. Motley does.”

Sadly, is is also no surprise that NOM seems to have broken the law to do so.

According to the D.C. Office of Campaign Finance (OCF), candidates seeking election for a City Council At-Large seat may accept no more than $1,000 from one organization or individual. But Motley’s campaign contribution listings on OCF’s official web site, shows that it accepted $950 from ”The National Organization for Marriage, PPC,” on January 29, and another $950 from ”The National Organization for Marriage, Inc.” on February 1.

Brown says the two contributions were a mistake and that only one should have been made.

Perhaps it was just a reporting error. Perhaps it was a mistake and NOM accidentally gave more than they intended. Perhaps it’s all innocent.

But why is it that every time National Organization for Marriage becomes involved in a campaign, there are questionable practices or laws ignored or broken?

Thursday’s testimony to include pro- and anti-DADT former soldiers

On Thursday, the Senate committee will hear testimony from three prior service members.

Speaking in favor of excluding gay Americans from serving their country will be Jack Sheehan. (ArmyTimes)

Retired Marine Corps Gen. John “Jack” Sheehan, appearing at the invitation of the committee’s Republican staff, has never publicly addressed the issue of gays in the military; by expressing opposition to repeal of the ban, he will join forces with Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway, who told the committee Feb. 25 hearing that he wants to “keep the law such that it is.”

Sheehan will be giving us the DADT perspective of old men who retired before it came into being.

Sheehan reached the top rungs of the military during his 35 years of service. Commissioned in 1962, he is a combat veteran of the Vietnam War and 1991’s Desert Storm and a recipient of the Silver Star and two Purple Hearts. He capped his career as Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic and commander of U.S. Atlantic Command — now U.S. Joint Forces Command.

Following his 1997 retirement, Sheehan joined Bechtel International, an international engineering, construction and project management company, as a senior vice president.

Speaking in opposition to the ban will be two people whom the Military lost due to its policy.

Former Air Force Maj. Mike Almy and former Navy Lt. j.g. Jenny Kopfstein both lost their careers over the ban on gays and will testify in favor of repeal.

Almy’s story is particularly compelling because he says he was “outed” by an improper search of his belongings after rotating out of Iraq.

“The search was conducted without ever once consulting with a lawyer,” Almy told MSNBC talk show host Rachel Maddow on March 3. “My private e-mails were forwarded to my commander, who called me into his office and demanded that I give him an explanation. I refused.

” ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ failed me despite the fact that I lived up to the premises of this law and never disclosed my private life,” Almy said. “Never once in my 13-year career did I make a statement to the military that violated ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ ”
…
Kopfstein graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1999 and, during her first deployment as a surface warfare officer aboard the Japan-based cruiser Shiloh, told her commanding officer that she was a lesbian. It was not an effort to get out of the military; as she told the Washington Post in 2005, “I didn’t want to have to lie about myself.”

Her commanding officer requested an investigation but nothing happened for a year, and Kopfstein underwent a second six-month deployment on Shiloh in support of the war in Afghanistan.

According to SLDN, Kopfstein’s discharge board was convened 19 months after her initial admission. Both her former and current commanding officers testified on her behalf, but she lost her commission.