Box Turtle Bulletin

Sean Hayes Just Came Out?

Seriously? Wasn’t he already out? Well okay, welcome out anyway. Whatever.

Also breaking: Mo’Nique came out as Black…

A Correction, an Apology, and a Lesson Learned

Yesterday, I received a tip that Ugandan pastor Martin Ssempa was preparing to come to the United States to speak at a major university in April. I was in the San Diego airport waiting for my flight to board and I posted a quick article about it.

Just before boarding, I learned that the information was incorrect, and that Ssempa is not scheduled to appear at that University. I quickly retracted that post just as they were closing the aircraft doors, but by then it had been online for about a half an hour, just enough time for it to go out on RSS feeds. And despite killing the post, it still somehow managed to make it into Monday morning’s email newsletter.

So, I learned a very valuable lession: Never blog from an airport using your mobile phone, especially when your flight is just about to board. Blogging this way forces you to cut too many corners when its difficult to verify the information yourself. And when you rely more heavily on what tipsters provide than you would normally, it becomes too easy to put out incorrect information. Not to say that I don’t appreciate every tip that comes in — I do, even when the information turns out to be inaccurate — but sometimes key information can be overlooked and it is my job to prevent that from happening. So in the end, it’s my fault, and I apologize for the confusion.

UK Tories Publish “Rainbow List” of Out Gay Candidates

Imagine if someday there were a similar headline for the GOP:

In the latest development in his campaign to show how dramatically the Tories have changed, David Cameron has published the party’s first-ever official list of openly gay MPs. The Conservatives say they have 20 openly gay candidates standing in the Election. Of those, 11 told party chiefs they were ‘happy’ to be named in the first authorised list of gay Conservative candidates.

…[Openly gay Tory MP Nick] Herbert said: ‘A successful political party ought to look like the country it seeks to govern. If we were truly representative, we would have 99 women, 16 black or ethnic minority and ten gay MPs.’

Being Gay In Uganda

Time magazine explores what it’s like:

[Pepe Julian] Oziema’s partner doesn’t mind that her girlfriend works trying to protect gay rights and change public opinion in Uganda. But she worries about the dangers Oziema might face, especially with the bill working its way through parliament. In 2008, when Onziema and a few other kuchus, handed out flyers at an HIV conference in Kampala, they were charged with trespassing. The trial dragged on for months and months. Though the charges were ultimately dropped, the experience in prison was traumatic for Onziema. Several officers taunted her — was she to be put with the male inmates or the female ones? Her clothes were forcibly removed and an officer touched her genitals “for confirmation.”

Both Onziema and her partner know that next time might be even worse.

Anti-8 Campaign must reveal internal memos

It seems that the anti-gay activists supporting Proposition 8 will get a chance to review the internal documents of No on 8. They had been complaining that they the Olson-Boies team in Perry v. Schwarzenegger had access to their documents and that it just wasn’t fair that they didn’t have access to the No on 8 side. That appears to have changed.

From the San Jose Mercury News:

A federal magistrate is ordering several gay rights groups that campaigned against California’s 2008 same-sex marriage ban to furnish some internal memos and e-mails to lawyers for the measure’s sponsors.
…
Spero says Equality California, Californians Against Eliminating Basic Rights, an ACLU campaign committee and an umbrella group that oversaw the campaign against the ban must hand over all documents “that contain, refer or relate to arguments for or against Proposition 8,” with the exception private communications between their core leaders.

This is a very perplexing order for several reasons:

First: The reason that Olson-Boies had access to the Protect Marriage campaign, was because it was pertinent to the question of the trial: was Prop 8 based on anti-gay animus and marketed to appeal to prejudice. Because this dealt with the intentions of the Yes on 8 side, their internal documents were relevant.

But the motivations or intentions of No on 8 were not up for question. There was nothing in the internal documents from No on 8 that could shed any light whatsoever on the question of whether Proposition 8 was intended to deny a class of Californians from equal protections. Nothing in these documents will tell the court whether Yes on 8 was motivated by animus, because they aren’t Yes on 8’s documents and don’t reflect their views.

Second: The trial is over. The testimony is concluded and the final written arguments have been presented. It is unlikely that the turn over of Equality California’s documents to the anti-gay activists will or even could occur before final arguments are made and Judge Walker makes his determination. So it is confusing exactly how this request advances the pursuit of justice in this case.

Third: As this order has no value on the merits of the case, it appears to be purely political in nature. I’m not suggesting that Justice Spero is engaging in judicial activism, but rather this seems to be an order purely to be “fair” so that “both sides can see each others’ secrets”.

But legal proceedings are to be based on the law, not on making both sides happy. “Making everyone happy” is not a standard that is applied to disclosure in criminal or corporate law.

This decision seems to be a product of the culture war. But justices are sworn to defend the constitution, not make sure that the culture warriors are each provided with the same ammunition.

Catholic Charities and Discrimination

[I’m proud to have Jason Cianciotto as a friend and now, perhaps, an occasional contributor to BTB. Jason was previously the Director of the Policy Institute at the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, and later the Executive Director of the Wingspan Community Center in Tucson. He is now free as a bird, traveling around the country with his husband, Courter. — Jim B.]

Now that marriage equality has reached Washington, DC, faith-based social service providers that receive city funding are no longer able to discriminate against married gay and lesbian clients and employees. As a result, in mid-February DC Catholic charities transferred its foster-care and adoption program to the National Center for Children and Families in order to avoid having to offer services to married same-sex couples. On March 1^st the organization also announced that it would stop offering health insurance to the spouses of all new employees, gay or straight, a move enabling them to “remain faithful to the church’s teachings” by not having to provide insurance to the same-sex spouses of employees.

DC Catholic charities would rather you not see this as an issue of discrimination. Instead they cast themselves as “victims,” losing freedom of religion every time a same-sex couple slips on a pair of wedding rings. Additionally, coverage in the Washington Post characterized these changes as “fallout,” as if same-sex marriage was akin to a nuclear explosion. However, this is a distraction from the real issue at hand: While faith-based organizations should be able to provide services consistent with their beliefs and traditions, when those services are funded by tax dollars, discrimination based on any characteristic should not be allowed. Period.

This scenario already played out in Massachusetts. In 2006 the Archdiocese there also suspended foster care and adoption support services provided through Catholic charities rather than comply with that state’s anti-discrimination laws. As was the case in DC, these services were picked up by other secular agencies. This is a positive outcome for children in need of care based on scientifically supported best practices, rather than on any particular religious tradition.

The distribution of tax dollars to organizations that act in the best interest of children who need a good home, regardless of the sexual orientation of prospective parents, is scientifically supported. For example, in January the Journal of Marriage and Family published a comprehensive analysis of 81 studies of one- and two-parent families, including gay and lesbian couples and individuals. On established measures of self-esteem, social adjustment, and other key indicators, children raised by same-sex parents were indistinguishable from those raised by married men and women. This further strengthens the position of every major medical and mental health professional association in support of the estimated 65,500 adopted children in the U.S. living with a gay or lesbian parent.

As more states legalize same-sex marriage, Catholic charities and other faith-based social service providers will be forced to change discriminatory policies or lose public funding. As was the case in Massachusetts and DC, it is likely that a shift in service provision to secular agencies will continue. This is a positive outcome for all children and families in need, who should not be caught in the cross-fire of the religious rights’ culture war against equality for all Americans.

VA AG Cuccinelli to universities: “you must allow discrimination against gays”

Several colleges and universities in Virginia have policies against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. But Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II has a unique interpretation of law: unless you are specifically instructed by the legislature to avoid discrimination against a group, you cannot voluntarily choose to do so (Washington Post):

“It is my advice that the law and public policy of the Commonwealth of Virginia prohibit a college or university from including ‘sexual orientation,’ ‘gender identity,’ ‘gender expression,’ or like classification as a protected class within its non-discrimination policy absent specific authorization from the General Assembly,” he wrote.

But is this the same as, “you must allow discrimination against gays?” In Virginia, yes.

Currently the political and cultural attitude of this state are extremely hostile to gay residents and visitors. And even in the most encouraging of states, there will be administrators or teachers who believe that their own personal religious beliefs entitle them to mistreat others.

There is no question whatsoever that there will either be deans who make or deny promotions based on sexual orientation, teachers who will assign work that is intended to advance an anti-gay viewpoint, or other school based preferences and punishments that are doled out based on anti-gay animus. It is almost a certainty that administrators will deny housing, funded organizations will deny membership, and fraternal organizations will throw parties with themes that mock gay students.

And this will increase. Because statements like those of Cuccinelli not only give permission for anti-gay discrimination, they encourage such behavior and provide it with the imprimatur of the state. And the educational institutions will be powerless to oppose such actions.

This decision of Cuccinelli does not stand alone.

Last month, newly elected Governor Bob McDonnell (R) signed an executive order that removed non-discrimination policies for gay state employees. He argued, similarly to Cuccinelli, that unless gay folk were specifically protected by the legislature then he had no “authority” to include them.

These arguments are specious. Protections are not always limited to those itemized, but can be (and have been for decades) administered where they were needed.

These acts are not based on principle, but prejudice. I have little hesitation in asserting that McDonnell and Cuccinelli oppose non-discrimination policies against gay people primarily because their sympathies lie with those who wish to to discriminate.

Virginia is a very hostile state, at present. Gay people, and their friends, family, coworkers, and those who love them, should avoid setting foot in the state whenever possible.

Slovenia court upholds adoption

This must be Slovenia week.

From Slovenia Press Agency

The Supreme Court has upheld a US ruling which allowed a gay couple with dual US-Slovenian citizenship to adopt a girl in America, making the couple the girl’s legal parents in Slovenia as well, media report Friday.

That is good news for the Family Law debate which focused in a large part on gay adoption.

Box Turtle Podcast: D.C. Marriage Victory

On this week’s podcast: The D.C. gay marriage victory — plus, the anti-HRC blog “swarm.”

Listen below or subscribe to the podcast on iTunes (click here, then click “subscribe” in the iTunes window).

Direct link to audio file available here.

Commemorating the Anniversary of an Ex-Gay Conference In Uganda

It was exactly one year ago today when three American anti-gay activists stepped before a small crowd attending a conference in the posh Triangle Hotel in downtown Kampala, Uganda. Exodus International will, err, commemorate that anniversary by holding a “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in San Diego, in order to peddle the same junk science they helped to bring to Uganda twelve months ago.

But there will be a better commemoration of that date across town, at St. Paul’s Episcopal Cathedral. I’ll be there, along with former Exodus alumnus Michael Bussee, Truth Wins Out founder Wayne Besen, Straight Spouse Network founder Dr Amity Pierce Buxton, Director of the LGBT Rights Division of Human Rights Watch Scott Long, and many others. And if you’re in the San Diego area, we invite you to join us:

On Saturday, March 6, 2010, a one-day event will be held at St. Paul’s Episcopal Cathedral in San Diego. The 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. which will confront and challenge the “ex- gay movement” – a national movement to “convert” gay and lesbian people to heterosexuality through purported “reparative” therapy efforts. To help educate people about the truth of such claims, and the legacy of harm they leave behind, a day-long conference will be held to expose and counteract this movement.

…Morning sessions, to be held in the Great Hall of the cathedral, will feature authors, psychologists and experts in the field. These will focus on the genesis and subsequent history of the ex-gay movement, the nature of and harm done by reparative therapy, the impact of both on the struggle for the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, and the ex-gay movement’s connection to the looming human rights disaster in Uganda.

It was on March 5, 2009 when we watched in horror as Exodus International boardmember Don Schmierer and a relatively unknown International Healing Foundation unlicensed “counselor” Caleb Lee Brundidge joined forces with perhaps one of the most notorious anti-gay extremist, Holocaust revisionist Scott Lively. We had no idea what the fruits of that conference would be, but knowing full well the reigns of terror that the Ugandan gay community had suffered in the very recent past, we feared the worst.

But our fears for the worst turned out to be a gross underestimation of what would actually happen as a result of that conference. The “Nuclear Bomb” that Scott Lively and his cohorts delivered that day would leave a devastating fallout: public outings of gay men and women in the press, arrests at at least one suspicious death believed to be at the hands of police, and general threats of mob violence. And all of this culminated in the tabling of the draconian Anti-Homosexuality Bill before Uganda’s Parliament, a bill that calls for the death sentence of gay people under certain circumstances (a penalty which could conceivably be extended to include just about anyone due to the bill’s sloppy language), and the virtual criminalization of anyone who knows or comes in contact with gay people.

A year later, the “nuclear bomb” delivered by American ex-gay activists continues to spread its toxic fallout in that troubled land. We stand committed to confronting that very same danger here. If any moment can crystallize the dangers that the ex-gay movement can so callously and carelessly deliver to an unsuspecting population, this is it. And today is the day to commemorate it.

St. Paul’s Cathedral is located at 2728 6th Ave in San Diego. Just Love will take place on Saturday, March 6, from 9:00 to 5:00. I look forward to seeing you there.

Click here to see BTB’s complete coverage of recent anti-gay developments in Uganda.

Maggie Gallagher’s gays

In Maggie Gallagher’s recent debate with Andrew Sullivan at the Cato Institute over whether there is a place for gay people in conservatism and conservative politics, the following exchange took place:

Sullivan: Can you name a single gay person who agrees with you?

Gallagher: Yes… I told you, I have them. They work for me.

Sullivan: Name them.

Gallager: Well no, I’m not going to name them. Because I’m not going to out them.

Sullivan: Why not? Earlier you said you don’t want to out an openly gay person?

Gallagher: As being anti-gay marriage, I’ll let them do it. I’m not outing them as being gay, I’m outing them as being on my side.
…
Not very many, but I do know them…

She goes on for a while giving illustrations of secret confessions of support and emails.

But setting aside Maggie’s flustered blunder and momentary honesty (she never admits to being “anti gay marriage”, only in favor of retaining blah blah blah), the important point that Andrew identified is that even considering the large number of conservative gay men and women, and even considering that our community is very diverse in age, culture, attitudes, religion, and perspective, no one is willing to publicly support Maggie Gallagher and her campaign against their rights.

So who, then, are these hand full of gay people who are secretly “anti-gay marriage”, in Maggie’s words. And why is it so important that she “know them.”

I’ll answer the second part first.

I believe that Maggie thinks of herself as a good person. She doesn’t want to acknowledge that she is engaging in deliberately hurtful, unjust, and discriminatory behavior. She doesn’t want to think of her motivations as being based in bias, animus, and religious supremacy.

Behind all of her “don’t call us haters” mantra is a real fear that she, truly, might be acting out of less than admirable instincts. She doesn’t want to even consider that possiblity, so it is the one thing that she finds most objectionable.

So it is extremely important that Maggie know people who can confirm to her that she isn’t hurting them. If I read her correctly, in order that she not see herself as being homophobic, she needs to believe that some gays – the ones who truly value the country and not their own selfish interests – agree with her. So, like every politician who doesn’t want to be seen as evil, she now “has gay friends”.

But who are these mythical gay friends that we never ever seem to meet?

Well, we do now have an answer in part. From none other than the National Organization for Marriage, of whom Maggie is the voice and face.

This comes from the amicus brief that NOM filed to support Proposition 8 in Perry v. Schwarzenegger:

Even at least a few gay people oppose gay marriage (see, e.g., “Gays Defend Marriage,” at http://www.gaysdefendmarriage.com), and we welcome their participation as fellow citizens in our shared mission.

Oh, yes, I kid you not. Maggie’s “gays that agree with her” are epitomized by David Benkof. Yes, a celibate convert to Orthodox Judaism who spent a brief period trying to convince the world that he was just an ordinary gay guy who was concerned about marriage. Yep, the same one who is “gay” or “bisexual” or “not gay” or anything else he thinks will be convincing at the moment.

Yes, Maggie’s gays – or at least the one she presents – are sad, sad creatures indeed.

(hat tip to reader Mel, with whom I incorrectly argued about whether this exchange took place)

Love In Action’s John Smid apologizes

In May 2005, the ex-gay movement suddenly registered on the consciousness of the gay community. Word was rapidly spreading about Zach, a 16 year old boy who what involuntarily taken to an “ex-gay camp” by his parents to receive religious conversion to heterosexuality. The “camp” was Love in Action, a residency based ministry in Memphis for those who sought “freedom from homosexuality” and it’s leader was John Smid.

The Memphis gay community, led by Morgan Fox, responded with an unusual ‘protest’. They lined up alongside the road to LIA and waved signs at those coming in; not angry signs of opposition, but messages of hope and encouragement. “God Loves You”, “We Support You.”

They were hoping to let those passing into the compound hear a message that God’s love was unconditional and that there was no need to change. And this message hit home in a most unexpected place. It changed lives in a way that Fox and the Memphis gay community could not have expected. This presentation of love challenged the core beliefs of John Smid.

Three years later we found that Smid had left Love in Action after 22 years at its helm. And then his introspection really began.

Over time John’s perspectives about sexuality, obedience, grace, and how he viewed the world changed. So much so, that he surprised some of us by commenting last week on Andrew Marin’s blogsite:

Many years ago, under Love In Action, I put up a billboard here in Memphis with my picture on it with the words “I used to be gay”. I was pretty proud of what I had pronounced and thought surely this would bring a big response. I heard virtually nothing for the year it was in place in a prominant place in Memphis.

In retrospect, I believe it didn’t bring much reaction is because it was a lie. Oh, I haven’t lived in homosexual relations with others for over 25 years but did I really “used” to be gay?

Through the years of committees and discussions with other leaders we have never found a way to describe our life experiences effectively. I think this is because we are all experiencing life in unique ways the defy words that are appropriate.

Today I can say clearly that while I still experience erotic attractions to those of the same gender (male) I have chosen not to engage these attractions because I am a faithful husband to my wife. But to say I am “ex-gay” doesn’t give justice to my life experience nor does it effectively describe to others what I have experienced and can actually communicate a lie if someone doesn’t hear my heart correctly.

Needless to say, this is quite a different message than was dominant during his days at Love in Action. That John Smid was less interested in what anyone else thought and quite certain of himself.

“I’m looking at that wall and suddenly I say it’s blue,” Smid said, pointing to a yellow wall. “Someone else comes along and says, ‘No, it’s gold.’ But I want to believe that wall is blue. Then God comes along and He says, ‘You’re right, John, [that yellow wall] is blue.’ That’s the help I need. God can help me make that [yellow] wall blue.”

Intrigued by what he perceived to be a radical change, Ex-Gay Watch’s David Roberts called Smid and discussed his new perspectives. This led to Smid writing a letter of apologies to those whom he had hurt over the years. Some are directed to specific people, others are more of the “if I’ve hurt you” variety. I’m sure it includes some of our readers and is well worth reading.

John has not changed his basic theology about homosexuality. And some of you may find his apologies to be disingenuous or contrived. I do not.

If I had to put words in his mouth, I’d put John’s new attitude at, “God loves you. I believe that your behavior is sinful and that God would like you to change your behavior, but even if you don’t, I’m convinced that He still loves you and forgives you. And I’ll not judge you.”

This may not go far enough for those who believe that any disagreement with sexual behavior is a condemnation of people and inherently harmful. And that’s fine; I have no objection to those who don’t wish to allow non-supportive theology (or any theology, for that matter) into their lives.

And I certainly would not send anyone to counsel with a ministry that lists the following as one of its “doctrinal statements“:

We acknowledge the sinfulness of any sexual act outside of the scriptural context of Holy Matrimony between a man and a woman.

But I am appreciative that John is moving away from the “change is possible” paradigm. And I’m very glad that he is taking ownership for the pain he has caused and is asking for forgiveness.

Pope’s “Gentleman” caught in gay prostitution ring

Angelo Balducci is a Papal Gentlemen, a ceremonial usher of the household of Pope Benedict XVI. He’s also corrupt and “intrinsically evil”.

During an investigation into Balducci’s taking of bribes for public works projects, another vice was discovered (Guardian):

The Vatican was today rocked by a sex scandal reaching into Pope Benedict’s household after a chorister was sacked for allegedly procuring male prostitutes for a papal gentleman-in-waiting.

Angelo Balducci, a Gentleman of His Holiness, was caught by police on a wiretap allegedly negotiating with Thomas Chinedu Ehiem, a 29-year-old Vatican chorister, over the specific physical details of men he wanted brought to him. Transcripts in the possession of the Guardian suggest that numerous men may have been procured for Balducci, at least one of whom was studying for the priesthood.

The very idea of homosexual prostitution in the Vatican make me… yawn.

Air Force Secretary endorses repealing DADT

From the Air Force Times

Air Force Secretary Michael Donley said Thursday he supports the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” putting him at odds with the service’s top uniformed leader.

Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz has stated that he does not support repealing the ban on gays serving openly in the military, at least not until more research is conducted by the Defense Department. President Obama advocated for the abolition of “don’t ask, don’t tell” in his State of the Union address in January, and Joint Chiefs chairman Adm. Mike Mullen also supports repeal.

Donley publicly laid out his views on the policy for the first time during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Capitol Hill.

“I support the president’s efforts to change the policy and change the law in this area,” Donley said in response to a question from committee chairman Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich. When Levin asked if Donley personally supported repeal, Donley said yes.

Slovenia marriage bill passes first reading

The government of Slovenia is proposing a revised Family Law bill which would legalize same-sex marriage and allow for gay adoptions. The bill was proposed on September 21, 2009 and has gone through a period of public debate.

Yesterday, after heated debate – with much emphasis on the adoption provision – the Slovenian Parliament passed a first reading of the bill by a vote of 46 to 38.

According to the NYU Law School, a bill undergoes three readings, the first of which is a debate over the reasons, principles, and goals of the law.

(hat tip to reader Hall)