Box Turtle Bulletin

No, the SF study did NOT illustrate that half of gay marriages are “open”

One of the primary purposes of Box Turtle Bulletin is analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric. And perhaps the largest component of that is to review “studies” that relay astonishing “facts” about gay people and to determine whether they have any basis in fact.

Sometimes these are efforts conducted by anti-gay activists seeking to support their presumptions, but more often it is misrepresentation of legitimate work. One such misrepresentation has been making the rounds purporting to show that gay couples reject monogamy.

For several years, Sean Beougher and Colleen Hoff of the Center for Research on Gender and Sexuality at San Francisco State University have been looking sexual agreements among gay men. This interest was generated by incidences of HIV transmission within relationships and a desire to understand how sexual agreements relate to this phenomenon.

But analysis of investment of couples into agreements and how that correlates with adherence (which impacts transmission within relationships) doesn’t make sexy headlines. So when the New York Times’ Scott James reported on this study, he decided to talk about something else entirely:

Many Successful Gay Marriages Share an Open Secret

A study to be released next month is offering a rare glimpse inside gay relationships and reveals that monogamy is not a central feature for many. Some gay men and lesbians argue that, as a result, they have stronger, longer-lasting and more honest relationships. And while that may sound counterintuitive, some experts say boundary-challenging gay relationships represent an evolution in marriage — one that might point the way for the survival of the institution.

New research at San Francisco State University reveals just how common open relationships are among gay men and lesbians in the Bay Area. The Gay Couples Study has followed 556 male couples for three years — about 50 percent of those surveyed have sex outside their relationships, with the knowledge and approval of their partners.

The sensational (but as I’ll illustrate, flatly untrue) statement that monogamy is not a central feature for many gay relationships is exciting and sure to elicit conversation. But it just wasn’t defamatory enough for those who wish to portray gay people as sex-crazed and incapable of commitment.

Conservative NewsMax reported:

Study: Gay Marriage Involves More Outside Relationships

A federally-funded study by San Francisco State University that followed 556 local male couples for three years found that half “have sex outside their relationships, with the knowledge and approval of their partners,” according to The New York Times.
…
On its website, the Center describes the importance in conducting the study as revolving around the fact that “gay and bisexual men in relationships engage in substantially higher rates of unprotected” homosexual activity than do “single men with their casual partners.”

A commentary on GetReligion.org took the opportunity to say

I\’m not sure if the description of the study\’s findings is written up as well as it could be. If 50 percent of those surveyed have sex outside their primary relationship with the knowledge and approval of their partners, that\’s an utterly fascinating, and newsworthy statistic. Still, I\’m curious about the remaining half. What percentage of those surveyed have sex outside of their primary relationship but don\’t have the knowledge and/or the approval of their partners? It seems like a key piece of information.
…
Certainly there\’s at least one person in the world who thinks that sex with multiple partners is not the key to a successful marriage, right? And I\’m not just talking about advocates of traditional marriage vows, or advocates of spousal fidelity.
…
The bottom line, though, is that this study breaks news. Really interesting and important news.

And even gay sites got on board with this notion with Edge Magazine running the headline, Surprise! Lots of Gay Marriages Are \’Open\’, and Dan Savage declaring Half of All Gay Couples Non-Monogamous (though Edge did note some caveats).

But those who delight in denouncing the hedonistic sex-driven homosexuals and their non-monogamous marriages share a problem with those gays who may champion the abandonment of the heteronormative demands of conformity and spearhead the evolution of marriage: this study tells us nothing whatsoever about gay marriage and little about monogamy within gay relationships as a whole.

In order for a study to report on the characteristics of a population, it must be representative of that population. If a study selects a convenience sample rather than a statistically valid sample, the non-representative demographics of the sample cannot be presented as a “finding”.

For example, if I went to Dodger Stadium, i might find a sample which was useful to tell me whether Dodger fans think Dodger Dogs taste better than garlic fries, but I could not claim that my sample proves that 80% of all baseball fans support the Dodgers. That is simply a non-representative demographic of my sample, not a finding of my study.

So to see if this study supported the claim that half of gay marriages are open (non-monogamous), I contacted the study authors and obtained previously published information that reveals the sample methodology. I do not have all of the data on which the final study is to be reported, but the sampling methodology was consistent.

Let’s look at how the sample for this study was constructed and how that differs from the population as a whole.

Definition of relationship:

To be eligible participants had to have been at least 18 years old, have been in a their current relationship for at least 3 months, have knowledge of their own and their partner’s HIV status, be fluent in English, and be residents of the San Francisco Bay Area.

All were men. Contrary to James’ breathless reporting (and the example with which he started his article) the researchers said nothing about lesbian relationships. They were excluded.

The study was conducted in several phases and the details of each is not available, but the sampling methods were consistent. The breakout for Study 2 found that only 13% of participants identified as being married (perhaps the 2004 San Francisco variety) and only a third had made any sort of public commitment.

It is ludicrous to suggest that a study which includes three month long relationships without any public commitment is informative about marriage. The average length of the relationships was 7 years (more or less) but the median length was about three years earlier (half of the relationships were less than 4 years in length), suggesting that there were a few very long relationships and many much shorter ones.

The way this study has been reported, it has been suggested that gay relationships are more likely to be open than straight relationships, but no comparison was made and I’m not aware of any study that looked at the level of fidelity in three-month-old heterosexual relationship and pretended that they were representative of straights as a whole.

As the research was not applied separately by relationship structure or length, this study says nothing about gay marriage or even domestic partnerships. And any use of the results which makes (or even implies) a comparison to straight relationships is bogus and irresponsible.

Location and social perspective of the population sampled:

It must be emphasized that gay men living in the San Francisco Bay Area are not representative of gay men as a whole. In fact, it would be difficult to identify a group of gay men less representative of the US gay population.

Significant factors in the consideration of monogamy surely must include attitudes about sexuality and whether one’s general approach is more conservative or liberal overall. Additionally, the perspectives of the community in which one lives most certainly effect the values that one adopts.

While I cannot point to a study and state with certainty that those who view themselves as “conservative” are more likely or less likely to value monogamy, I can state that selecting only participants from the SF area sharply skews the sample towards those who identify as “liberal” and significantly under-represents a sizable segment of the gay community.

The means of reaching participants:

Active and passive recruitment strategies were implemented in community settings. Field research staff reached potential participants either by handing out study postcards or placing flyers and postcards in gay-identified social venues such as bars, clubs, and cafes, as well as in community health and HIV and AIDS service organizations and by placing advertisements in gay-oriented publications, Web sites, and listserves.

Recruitment materials contained text describing the study as “one which examines important relationship dynamics associated with HIV.” Recruitment strategies were designed to produce a diverse sample in terms of race or ethnicity as well as serostatus.

Recruitment in bars and clubs and on listserves skews the sample towards those who are actively seeking sexual connections. While some gay people go to bars solely for social interaction, monogamous couples that do not regularly go to bars or look at Craigslist were far less likely to hear of this study.

Additionally, this study was more likely to attract those who were interested in how relationship dynamics impact HIV transmission. I think it is a reasonable assumption that, on average, couples committed to monogamy might not have the same interest level as those who have open relationships.

The demographics of the sample:

For two of the studies, 41% of the participants were HIV positive (Study 3 had 32%). While this may be advantageous to a study which seeks to look at sexual agreements, it is not representative of the population of San Francisco, and has almost no reflection of the gay male population at large. Only about 12% of gay men in the United States are infected with HIV.

While this is undoubtedly useful for looking at variances of agreement structure among sero-concordant and discordant couples, claiming a blended rate of monogamy as though it were reflective of the community would be bad science.

This study found that couples which were both HIV negative were far more likely to establish monogamy than those in which one or both parties were positive. So by significantly over-representing HIV positive participants, the percentage who embrace monogamy were skewed downward.

About half of the sample had a bachelors degree (more than 20% had a post-graduate degree). Yet only about 43% were employed full time, with another 10-12% employed part time and 9-12% self employed. I don’t know whether there is a correlation between employment and valuing monogamy, but I think that we can all agree that 35% unemployment is not reflective of gay men as a whole, especially in the mid 2000’s when the participants were questioned.

About half of the men made less than $30,000 per year, with only a quarter making over $60,000. The average salary for San Francisco Bay Area jobs is about $65,000 and it is absurd to assume that gay men make, on average, less than half of their heterosexual counterparts.

I do not have adequate research at hand to correlate gay male monogamy (or fidelity) with employment or economic position. However, I believe that social position can influence relationship structure so it is a reasonable assumption that a study which is skewed towards a lower economic status may not accurately reflect the extent to which gay male couples as a whole value monogamy.

Conclusion:

The Gay Couples Study does reveal valuable information about the formation of sexual agreements among gay couples. For example, it reveals that gay men are almost universally talk about monogamy and fidelity and define the rules of their relationship. This seems true regardless of the structure, length, or investment into the relationship. And research into breached agreements and how it impacts HIV transmission is essential to targeting prevention efforts.

But in my opinion, Scott James’ statement that “New research at San Francisco State University reveals just how common open relationships are among gay men and lesbians in the Bay Area” may be among the most irresponsible reporting I’ve ever seen. The study says nothing whatsoever about lesbians and it tells us little about “just how common open relationships are” among anyone. It’s pure sensationalism and shoddy journalism.

But the real culprits are those who saw this study and decided that it says something about, for example, gay couples marrying in Iowa or New Hampshire. This was either lazy response or a deliberate attempt to fraudulently demonize gay couples for political gain.

In short, those reporting on this study got it wrong. If there is any story here, it would be that a study of San Francisco bay area gay male couples, a sample which was highly skewed to include many participants who are less likely to value monogamy and which defined “couples” to include those who have been dating as little as three months, still found that half of them set monogamy as the agreement for their relationship.

Anglican Church of Uganda endorses a milder evil – do local Anglican Churches?

Anglican Church of Uganda Archbishop Henry Luke Orombi

The Episcopal Cafe has posted a copy of the press release issued by The Most Rev. Henry Luke Orombi , the Archbishop of the Church of Uganda (Anglican) which clarifies the church’s stance on the Anti-Homosexuality Bill (the Kill Gays bill) currently under consideration in that nation.

The Church of Uganda does not endorse the bill and believes that this particular piece of legislation is not needed. However, they do call for a piecemeal approach which would serve much the same purpose: increase official harassment and incarceration of gay Ugandans and deny basic civil rights. They are not clear as to whether they support life sentences.

Here are the four goals which the Anglicans in Uganda wish achieved:

We particularly appreciate the objectives of the Bill which seek to:

a) provide for marriage in Uganda as contracted only between a man and woman;

b) prohibit and penalize homosexual behavior and related practices in Uganda as they constitute a threat to the traditional family;

c) prohibit ratification of any international treaties, conventions, protocols, agreements and declarations which are contrary or inconsistent with the provisions of the Act;

d) prohibit the licensing of organizations which promote homosexuality.

The order of this list is interesting. One could imagine it as a scale by which intolerance and disrespect for human dignity could be measured in a society.

The first point could simply be a reflection of tradition, misunderstanding, and unnecessary fears. Prohibition and punishment of private sexual expression is an indication of animus, heterosexism, and religious hegemony. The rejection of international treaties and protocols is a sign of arrogance and a hostility to gay persons that verges on hatred.

But the Church of Uganda goes all the way to their fourth point – the rejection of freedoms of speech, assembly, or political diversity. They endorse totalitarianism and reject basic human rights and democratic ideals. This is an attitude that has been shared by every society that is held up as an example of excess, inhumanity, and abuse.

And it is “loopholes” which allow the sort of freedoms that a modern state values that Orambi finds in need of correcting.

We affirm the need for a Bill in light of the existing loopholes in the current legislation, specifically sections 145-148 of the Penal Code Act (Cap 120), which do not explicitly address the other issues associated with homosexual practice such as procurement, recruitment and dissemination of literature.
…
As Parliament considers streamlining the existing legislation, we recommend that the following issues be taken into consideration:
…
2. Language that strengthens the existing Penal Code to protect the boy child, especially from homosexual exploitation; to prohibit lesbianism, bestiality, and other sexual perversions; and to prohibit procurement of material and promotion of homosexuality as normal or as an alternative lifestyle, be adopted.

Let us be clear. Anyone who believes in human rights, anyone who believes in freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of thought, anyone who believes in freedom of religion, all will find the position of the Church of Uganda to be abhorrent.

Yet many Americans have attached their very religious identity to Archbishop Orambi and his anti-gay campaign. The congregations that broke away from the Episcopal Church over the place of gay people within the body of the church have formed the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) and the only two bodies with which they have full communion are the Church of Nigeria and the Church of Uganda. Several of these congregations have declared that they are under the direct authority of Archbishop Orombi.

I doubt that these American churches endorse the abolition of the freedom of speech in America and I suspect that if cornered many would refuse to publicly endorse recriminalization of homosexuality. Yet, to date, neither the ACNA nor a single member church has spoken against the efforts of the Church of Uganda. None has expressed even the slightest discomfort about being publicly aligned with those who endorse human rights abuses.

While it is likely that this is because they are hesitant to appear in any way that can be construed to be tolerant of the “sinful act of homosexual behavior”, it is also possible that they simply have not been asked. It is likely that the local newspaper reporters in the cities in which these Anglican churches reside are unaware of the Orombi’s stance. And even if so, they are not likely to know that the Church of Uganda is only one of two churches which are in full communion with the Anglican Church in North America.

Perhaps it is time that they become informed. And perhaps it is time that these individual churches come face to face with what they have endorsed.

I invite our readers to go to the ACNA web site and find churches in their area. Then they can contact the reporter on the Religion beat for their local paper and inform them of the issue.

Please, please, do not editorialize in your contact. You don’t need to call the church names or point out hypocrisy or quote the Bible or denounce all religion or anything else which would cause the reporter to dismiss you as a crank. Nor should you start by writing a letter to the editor as this is far less effective than having a reporter cover the story.

Feel free to email them some variation of the following letter:

Dear Religion Reporter,

I wish to bring to your attention an international issue which has a strong local link. This matter is of great importance to many in the community and I hope that you would find this story to be worthy of your efforts.

As you may be aware, there is a bill in the legislature in Uganda which would call for the death penalty for some gay Ugandans and demand life imprisonment for the rest. The Church of Uganda, an Anglican church, does not support this bill (usually referred to as the “Kill the Gays Bill”), but has instead called for separate legislation that would do the following:

• prohibit and penalize homosexual behavior (along with “lesbianism, bestiality, and other sexual perversions”)
• ban any organizations that “promote homosexuality” as normal or as an alternative lifestyle
• make it illegal to advocate for gay people
• make it illegal to disseminate any material or literature that advocates for gay people
• declare that homosexual behavior is not a human right
• declare that advocating for gay people is not a human right

A copy of the press release can be found here.

You may also be aware that XXX Anglican Church on Main Street is a member of the Anglican Church in North America. This congregation was part of the Episcopal Church until they broke away from that denomination in part because of disagreement over the Episcopal Church’s level of acceptance of gay people in the body of the church.

The Church of Uganda is one of only two Anglican Churches in the world which are in full communion with the Anglican Church in North America (the other is the Church of Nigeria which has made similar statements.) The efforts of break-away Episcopal churches was supported by and influenced by the Ugandan and Nigerian archbishops.

I have not yet heard XXX Anglican Church’s position on these actions in Uganda. Neither they nor the Anglican Church in North American have issued a statement suggesting that their ecclesiastical partner is in any way in error. And as they broke from the Episcopal Church (Anglican Church in Canada) over the issue of homosexuality, I wonder whether their position may be the same as that of the Church of Uganda.

As a member of the Local City community, I have an interest in the religious beliefs of the local churches, one that I’m sure I share with many other residents.

I would very much like to know whether XXX Anglican Church supports the criminalization of homosexuality and the incarceration of gay men and women either in the United States (Canada) or Uganda. Do they share the Church of Uganda’s desire to ban the freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, or freedom of religion on issues of homosexuality? And finally, is XXX Anglican Church in any way troubled that their only ecclesiastical partners oppose human rights and other freedoms? Will they make a statement of disagreement or use their affiliation to work against any religious advocacy in foreign nations which they think is excessive or unChristian; or, alternately, are they content with the goals of the Church of Uganda?

I certainly don’t wish to tell you how to write a story, but for perspective and contrast I would find it interesting to hear the position of other local church leaders, including those who did not leave the Episcopal Church.

I do hope that you share my interest in this issue and consider this story to be worth inquiry and reporting.

Sincerely,

Box Turtle Reader

Please let us know who you contacted and whether they expressed interest in the story.

Click here to see BTB\’s complete coverage of the past year\’s anti-gay developments in Uganda.

Fox News: DADT a failure and absurd

On Fox and Friends Weekend, Col. David Hunt, a Fox military analyst, called Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell an “abject failure”. Fox host Clayton Morris agreed, calling it a civil rights issue and absolutely absurd.

They said Sen. John McCain is “flat wrong.”

Iowa’s anti-gay marriage bill is dead for another year

In a publicity stunt (send money) Republicans in the Iowa legislature tried to pull from committee legislation that would begin the process of changing the state constitution to ban gay marriage. As expected, the Democrat controlled House and Senate both said, “no thanks, dead in that committee is fine with me.”

However, we should be appreciative of the Republicans. After all, this effort revealed two Democrats who hate equality so much that they were willing to defy party loyalty and vote to pull the bills from committee. They are Senator Tom Hancock and Representative Dolores Mertz.

Gay Iowans, and indeed all Iowans who believe that each citizen is entitled to equal treatment under the law, are invited to find and support primary opponents for these two legislators.

Did the Anglican Church of Uganda Endorse Criminalization With Death Penalty?

Anglican Church of Uganda Archbishop Henry Luke Orombi

See important updates below.

This is a very surprising turn of events, considering that just last fall the head of the Ugandan Anglican Church questioned the “need” for the death penalty in the proposed Anti-Homosexuality Bill. Now, Christianity Today reports that the Church of Uganda has endorsed the bill, but suggests the following amendments:

1. Ensure that the law protects the confidentiality of medical, pastoral and counseling relationships, including those that disclose homosexual practice in accordance with the relevant professional codes of ethics.
2. Language that strengthens the existing Penal Code to protect the boy child, especially from homosexual exploitation; to prohibit lesbianism, bestiality, and other sexual perversions; and to prohibit procurement of material and promotion of homosexuality as normal or as an alternative lifestyle, be adopted.
3. Ensure that homosexual practice or the promotion of homosexual relations is not adopted as a human right.
4. Existing and future Educational materials and programmes on gender identity and sex education are in compliance with the values and the laws of Uganda.
5. The involvement of additional stakeholders in the evaluation of the gaps in the existing legislation, including, but not limited to, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Education, and the Ministry of Internal Affairs, its Department of Immigration and other relevant departments.
6. The undertaking of a comprehensive legislative and literature review of all the laws and literature related to the subject at hand in order to identify the actual gaps in the existing legislations.

In fact, this recommendation amounts to a tacit opinion that the draconian bill, even in its breathtaking scope and breadth, doesn’t go far enough as far as the Anglican Church in Uganda is concerned. It also represents a rift between the Ugandan Church and the Anglican Communion’s head, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, who quietly and meekly condemned the proposed legislation in December.

A number of Conservative Anglican churches in the U.S. have sought to align themselves with the Anglican Archbishop Henry Luke Orombi, in an ongoing schism taking place here in America. Those American parishes are now fully aligned with an overseer who is on record as being perfectly fine with unleashing a genocidal wave against LGBT people in Uganda.

Update: Uganda’s largest independent newspaper Daily Monitor has a different take from The Christian Post. The Monitor calls the Anglican statement a “rejection” of the bill. According to the Monitor, the statement calls for the bill’s withdrawal and existing laws modified to specifically address child exploitation and bestiality. Without access to the statement itself, it’s hard to know how to reconcile the two accounts. We’ll keep you posted as we learn more.

Click here to see BTB\’s complete coverage of the past year\’s anti-gay developments in Uganda.

Iowans couldn’t care less about gay marriage

When the Iowa Supreme Court determined that denying state services based on sexual orientation was unconstitutional and that the State of Iowa must provide marriage equality, you could almost slice the glee of the Iowa Republican Party. Finally, there was an issue which they could use to perhaps increase their influence and maybe even win a few elections. So they because the “no gay marriage” party.

Last year they made several attempts at getting an anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment up for a legislative vote and were unsuccessful. They chortled that Democrats would be sorry come election time.

But as it has turned out, running opposed to gay marriage has not proven to be a winning strategy. To their surprise, Iowans couldn’t care less about stopping gay folk from marrying. Literally.

The Des Moines Register conducted a poll of Iowans asking, “The state Legislature can address large and small issues during the course of the session. For the following issues, please tell me if you think the issue does or does not deserve the Legislature’s limited time.” Banning gay marriage did not make the cut; only 36% thought it was worth the time discussing.

Not only was it not deemed worthy of legislative time, of the six issues that Iowans were questioned about, addressing gay marriage concerned them the least. Iowans were more concerned about payday loans and puppy mills than they were about whether same-sex couples married.

This lack of interest appears to be reflected in a change in strategy in the campaigns of Republicans running for the party’s nomination for governor. Just a brief while ago they were all running to see who could be more extreme and reactionary.

Bob Vander Plaats pledged to halt such weddings with an executive order (an authority the governor does not wield) while Chris Rants declared that he’d veto every bill that reached his desk until the legislature voted on a constitutional amendment to ban marriage equality. Most of them supported calling for a constitutional convention so they wouldn’t have to wait for two sessions and a popular vote.

Only former governor Terry Branstad, also an opponent of gay marriage, chose not to run as a raving loon. Branstad took a more nuanced approach and expressed recognition of the difficulties that gay couples face when denied certain rights.

But that has changed. The race now appears to be between Branstad and Vander Plaats, and the latter has now discovered a different campaign strategy. (Register)

I\’ve talked to Vander Plaats from time to time, but hadn\’t really seen him out on the stump since last fall. His speeches used to give prime attention to conservative issues and gay marriage. This time, he focused entirely on job creation, state spending and education. Nobody even asked about the social issues.

I mentioned to him afterward that was a significant change from last summer, when he told me in an interview that he thought the election would hinge on two issues: gay marriage and the state smoking ban.

“Did I say that?” he asked. Yes, I told him.

“Campaigns always evolve, no doubt about it,” he said. (He didn\’t mention the smoking ban at all today.)

Yes, there is no doubt that campaigns evolve, especially when the voters care less about your pet issue than they do about monitoring dog breeders.

A Personal Note

My posting this week will be, at best, extremely limited due to a death in the family. My partner and I will be back in my hometown of Portsmouth, Ohio this week through Sunday. I may be able to pop in on rare occasions, but for the most part I’ll be turning the whole thing over to the capable hands of Timothy Kincaid and company.

Military Times poll shows sharp decline in support for DADT

The Military Times is a newspaper targeted at career military personnel. For the past several years the paper has been surveying its readership on the issue of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Tomorrow they will be releasing the latest results and today they pre-reported the findings.

Opposition to gays serving openly in the military has declined sharply among those wearing the uniform today, the Military Times newspapers will report Monday.

An exclusive survey of some 3,000 active-duty troops shows such opposition has fallen sharply from nearly two-thirds (65 percent) in 2004 to about half (51 percent) today. The survey results appear Monday in Army Times, Air Force Times, Navy Times and Marine Corps Times.

Those opposed to open service will likely latch onto this survey, ignore the trend, and claim that this is conclusive proof that half of America’s servicemen do not want to work with gay soldiers. But, as we noted in 2008, this survey is not even close to being representative of military personnel. In fact, only 47% of the survey participants are currently members of the military.

This latest survey, however is closer to reflecting servicepersons as a whole. The respondants in this year’s poll were on average 4 years younger than those in 2008. And the drop in support for the DADT policy between 2008 and 2010 nearly mirrors that in the drop in percentage of participants over the age of 40, about 10%.

The new survey is also more extensive than prior years. It asks a number of additional questions relating to gay service personnel. After deleting the veterans, lawmakers, family members and others, the following can be gleaned from this non-representative study:

• 95% of participants identify as heterosexual. Around 2% identify as gay or bisexual and the rest ticked the “decline to answer” option.
• Attitude about allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military:

14% strongly favor
15% favor
19% neutral
15% oppose
36% strongly oppose

• Of those who oppose open service, 54% believe that sexual oriention is a choice while only 34% of those who favor open service have that belief.
• If the ban were overturned, about 38% believe that gay couples should receive the same benefits as straight couples and about 44% oppose the idea.
• The most challenging issues for the military should the policy be overturned are believe to be reducing harassment against openly gay personnel, and reducing violence and hate crimes against gay personnel.
• 56% know that there are gay people in their unit, 17% do not believe that there are and the rest aren’t certain.
• Of those who found out about a gay person in their unit, 2% reported them up the chain of command.

There were also a number of subsets of if-then questions which sought to get opinions about levels of comfort or discomfort. I did not attempt to make meaning of them.

Based on this non-representative survey, it would appear that about half of career military service personnel are opposed to open service, about one third strongly opposed. However, very few are actually willing to end a fellow soldier’s career when the subject becomes personal rather than theoretical.

Today’s Question

Our condolences to the Burke family

In November 2009, Brendan Burke came out to the world. He had come out to his famous hockey coach father Brian Burke two years earlier.

Burke’s story was happy in that it revealed that a sport as drenched in testosterone as hockey could accept Brandon with a shrug. His father, his coach, an his team were all supportive and even when reporters went searching for a story they could not find anyone in hockey willing to be disrespectful to him.

On Friday, Brendan Burke was in a fatal accident. While driving on a treacherous snowy road in Michigan Indiana, his vehicle slid sideways into the path of a truck and he and his passenger were both killed.

But Brandon Burke will be remembered for being brave. And for helping to illustrate to the next generation of hockey kids that homophobia need not be part of the sports world and helping to dispell the stereotype that gay men cannot be physically tough competitors.

Our thoughts and prayers go out to his family, friends, and teammates at this time of their grief.

“Family” Leader Reportedly Confirms Opposition to Uganda’s Anti-Gay BIll

That’s according to Warren Throckmorton, who spoke with Doug Coe at the National Prayer Breakfast. Coe is the leader of the secretive Evangelical organization known as the Fellowship, or the Family.

Mr. Coe told me in the interview that he believes Jesus loves all people regardless of sexual orientation. He and other Fellowship leaders told me that imposing the death penalty and criminalization of homosexuality is contrary to the principles of love and compassion that Jesus taught and lived and upon whose life and teachings the Fellowship is based. Furthermore, the National Prayer Breakfast movement\’s mission is to build bridges of understanding between all people, religions and beliefs.

Doug Coe

While I think Warren is a trustworthy source on this, I reserve a great deal of caution about the depth of Coe’s opposition to Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill. How committed is he in his opposition? Instead of relying on intermediaries, why hasn’t he made a public appearance or released a statement under his own name to that affect? Is he willing to put at risk his ties to the powerful Ugandan political establishment, including Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni himself, to press his opposition? Or will he moderate his message to something considerably milder — perhaps even with a wink — in order to preserve his ties to Uganda’s powerful elite?

When one asks, “What would Jesus do?” in this Jesus-plus-nothing paradigm that is the heart of Coe’s teaching, the answer should be obvious. Jesus put his entire life at risk when he overturned the moneychangers’ tables in the Temple, and they weren’t even thinking about killing anyone. They were just exercising the free market. But right now, it’s Ugandan citizens who have everything at risk, while Coe and the Fellowship have ventured little. I would however be very thrilled to post whatever direct response Doug Coe would like to give.

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

Ollie North: Repeal DADT and What’s Next? NAMBLA and Same-Sex Marriage

Here’s another one who thinks that gay people are pedophiles:

Stunning assault on the all-volunteer military, the very best in the world. Barack Obama now intents to treat them like lab rats in a radical social experiment, and it can be very, very detrimental. Not only does he want the Congress to repeal the law, Secretary Gates as much as said I, Secretary Gates, am going to selectively enforce the law and basically impose a moratorium on discharges for those who meet the standard as it were.

Now, here’s what’s next.  NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association) members, same-sex marriages. Are chaplains in the U.S. military going to be required to perform those kinds of rituals? Do they get government housing? In other words, all of this stuff that everybody says “Aw, we can just take care of it because we’ve got the best military in the world” — and we do — ads to the burden of these youngsters who are now on their ninth year of a war, back to back deployments, and more combat time than my Dad got in World War II. That is a very serious issue, and it affects readiness, recruiting and retention and they’re ignoring it in this White House.

While North slams gays for being pedophiles — a charge that has nothing to do with reality — he also slams the maturity of the men and women fighting those two wars. They aren’t youngsters. They are professional soldiers fighting for the rights of convicted accused felons like North to lie on national television.

Michigan Christians sue because the Matthew Shepherd Act restricts their rights. They must want to violently attack gay people

Hate crimes, as defined by Federal law, are violent crimes that are motivated by a victim’s actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. The Matthew Shepard Act is very clear that it relates to violent crimes, not to preaching:

(3) CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prohibit any constitutionally protected speech, expressive conduct or activities (regardless of whether compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief), including the exercise of religion protected by the First Amendment and peaceful picketing or demonstration. The Constitution does not protect speech, conduct or activities consisting of planning for, conspiring to commit, or committing an act of violence.

(4) FREE EXPRESSION- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to allow prosecution based solely upon an individual\’s expression of racial, religious, political, or other beliefs or solely upon an individual\’s membership in a group advocating or espousing such beliefs.

However, the Thomas Moor Law Group has filed a lawsuit on the behalf of some “Christians” who feel that this law restricts them from observing their faith. (Christian Post)

Four Christians on Tuesday filed a federal lawsuit challenging the recently enacted Hate Crimes Prevention Act, arguing that it seeks to criminalize deeply held religious beliefs that are in opposition to homosexuality.

The 27-page long complaint was submitted by the Thomas More Law Center on behalf of Gary Glenn of the American Family Association of Michigan and Pastors Levon Yuille, James Combs, and Rene B. Ouellette, who are also based in Michigan. It names U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr., as the defendant.

We must assume that the Thomas More Law Center has read the law. And because the law has no effect on their rights to belief or expression of belief, the only logical conclusion is that these four Christians wish to plan for, conspire to commit, or commit an act of violence.

Or, perhaps, this is just another example of folks who think that because “homosexual acts, according to Scripture, are acts of grave depravity that are intrinsically disordered and are contrary to the natural law” then their religion trumps civil law.

Sometimes I can’t figure out if they are arrogant and opposed the basic principles of civil liberties and equality or if they really truly wish they were free to beat us in the streets.

AZ Senator Jack Harper discusses the details of a gay soldier’s life (without permission) in order to advance his anti-gay agenda

Arizona’s anti-gay State Senator Jack Harper felt it necessary to go to the floor of the statehouse on an issue over which that body has no say: the open service of gay military personnel. He had to warn everyone of just what would happen if, gasp, gay people were allowed to tell the truth.

They’ll smoke pot, go AWOL and infect their roommates with HIV. Because gay people are individualists and can’t “come together for the good of the unit” (a rather unfortunate choice of words).

The text of Senator Harper’s monologue.

I\’d like to tell a story about one of my experiences in the Military and how it um, how it related to the President\’s speech last night. I understand the President will be making a um, a push to allow gays to openly serve in the military. And, uh, from my experience this is, uh, this is a mistake.

Back in 1989 when I was in the first infantry division, I got there in 1988, and we were in old barracks and we were moving into new barracks and went from bays to two-man rooms. And, um, sergeant first class of my platoon wanted me to room with a person that we all knew was a homosexual.

And I said, “Sergeant, if I have to room with him I\’m going to turn him in.” So he ended up assigning another soldier to serve, um to room with this person.

Specialist Rollins was the individual. Specialist Rollins was quite an individualist. I think that might have been the biggest problem cuz when you\’re in the military you\’re about, you\’re supposed to be about putting your personality aside and coming together as a unit for the good of the unit, for the good of the country. And being an individualist there is not room for in the Military.

Specialist Rollins at the time, one time tested positive for THC which means he was smoking pot. He got an Article 15, lost a stripe, and had to do seven days of extra duty. Another time PFC Rolling went AWOL for a number of days. Our platoon had to go down and inventory his stuff including his personal effects which were very evident that he was openly homosexual.

After PFC Rollins was eventually captured he was court-martialed out, not because he was homosexual but because he had gone AWOL.

Um, being an individualist does not match well with being in the Military. You\’re supposed to conform to the standards and come together as a unit for the good of the unit and for the good of the country.

Now, after Rollins had been court-martialed out of the military, his roommate had PCS, Permanent Change of Station, gone on to another thing. About a month later, cuz I was the uh, the battalion sid burse clerk which means I ran the computer that kept the database of the grade changes, positions, things like that, rank. Uh, the uh, medics came to me and said we have a person that tested positive for, uh, for HIV and we only have the last four of his social security number and we need to look him up. It was the person who had roomed with PFC Rollins. Now this was a promiscuous soldier so it might not have been that he had a relationship with Rollins.

But, ah, we had problems from the beginning because we decided that we would not turn in someone who was openly serving in the military that was a homosexual, that we knew to be a homosexual. We tried to be tolerant, but it didn\’t work. It didn\’t work for our platoon, it didn\’t work for the first infantry division, and it will not work for the United States of America.

Thank you

I can’t even begin to discuss how inappropriate it is for a state senator to go to the floor of the senate and discuss the military career and life of another person. By name.

This is beyond foul, and he should be censured.

Albania rejects Marriage Equality

Last July we reported that Albania, a secular Muslim Balkan nation, was considering legalizing same-sex marriage. The Prime Minister announced his party will propose a law making the change.

Sadly, this did not come to be. However, a law was passed which outlawed discrimination. (PinkNews)

A gay rights law passed in Albania yesterday will outlaw homophobic discrimination but will not allow same-sex marriage.

The law gives protection to citizens against discrimination on grounds of gender, race, colour, ethnicity, religion and sexual orientation.

This change, though disappointing, was welcomed. (Reuters)

‘This law is not simply a fulfilment of requirements that Albania has undertaken for European Union integration and visa liberalisation. Above all, it is a victory for democracy and for human rights for all Albanians,’ the LGBT community said. The group hoped that Berisha would eventually keep his promise to legalise same-sex marriage.

Altin Azizaj, who runs the Children Rights Centre and had fought with parliamentarians over the role of a commissioner to monitor the law, said public and, most importantly, private institutions were now bound to respect human rights.