Box Turtle Bulletin

The Brit who “decided to stop being gay”

The Times Online has an article titled The day I decided to stop being gay, a first-person narrative by Patrick Muirhead.

And though these sorts of pieces fuel the myth that orientation is something that is mutable, this really only contains the same wistful, hope-filled, ‘someday out there’ claims of the newly ex-gay. Although Muirhead doesn’t couch his article in religious terms, it’s all so drearily familiar.

1. Patrick has always had a level of, for want of a better term, self-loathing.

I was never convinced of my sexuality. True, I never liked football or fighting and I do make a beautifully light Victoria sponge when the need arises. But I shamble like a bloke, I burp and fart without shame and I\’ve never really got Barbra Streisand. There was a little voice, lost long ago in the drowning din of my homosexuality, that still called quietly; the smothered, smaller voice of a boy who liked girls.

2. Patrick viewed his sexuality through the lens of sex. And now he discovers that sex for the sake of sex has little meaning.

But two decades of cavorting with my own sex has delivered little that is memorable, except one super-sized sexless friendship with the aforementioned ex-boyf, with whom I spent a decade of my life; numerous hours of internet dating; a dizzying number of casual couplings and a few trips to genitourinary medicine clinics.

3. Patrick doesn’t desire to be straight as much as he wants to be what he fantasizes to be normal.

I want a wife to love and a child to protect. And I want to look at them both and know that they are mine and I am needed by both and I can be … the rock of the family.

4. Patrick isn’t content just to go straight. He has to justify his decision and build motivation around defining straight as better than gay.

I wince when gays describe boyfriends as “husbands”, subverting a solemn institution created to provide stability for child-rearing. Besides, it seems highly perverse that gays should fight for freedom from the bonds of heterosexual morality and then set to copying their oppressors by creating similar contracts of their own.

4. Patrick discovers that girls are not freakish beings or the cartoon characters he seems to have thought they were.

But for the first time in my life, I\’ve been getting to know girls. It\’s been a blast. As a teacher, I find them naturally adept at flying helicopters. They listen and they are good at multi-tasking. They are fun to be around and sometimes they\’re pretty.

5. But, like so many “former homosexuals” Patrick is finding the actual dating part to be very theoretical and very much future tense.

And then, two summers ago, I met Olga. She was a knockout-looking Ukrainian, washed ashore as a waitress in a breakfast bar in Ocean City, Maryland, on the East Coast of America. … Nothing happened, though — I wanted more than a passport-hunter and children whose presence would send Geiger counters into a frenzy.
…
I had a girlfriend once, 24 years ago, when I was in my late teens. … What I\’m saying is, I\’m ready for another go.
…
With the right kind of understanding girl, who loves me and possesses pragmatism and patience, I can picture myself as a good husband and dad.
…
I have been flirting with someone at my local pub, thinking about her at odd times, making excuses to call her and wondering if she likes me. It\’s rather strange.

I’ll give him credit for not pretending that he no longer is same-sex attracted. Nor does he claim that he’ll be able to resist the temptations of his natural inclinations.

However, I pity that he really sees women as a means to get the sense of normality that he wants, the picture of man and wife and child, and not the marriage of two equals. But perhaps this attitude sheds light on why his relationship ended and he has tired of being gay.

UPDATE:

When I wrote this commentary, there was an additional line which I pulled before publishing. After discussing Patrick’s hopes for a wife, right out there somewhere just beyond the horizon, I said:

It reminds me a bit of Randy Thomas.

But I thought that was a bit too unkind so I pulled the comment.

However, it seems that Randy Thomas saw quite a bit of himself in Patrick Muirhead. He see’s Muirhead’s article as “more evidence of a post-gay reality”, just like his own.

Yes, no doubt Patrick’s reality is about as post-gay as Randy’s. Hopeful, wishful, still same-sex attracted, self-righteous, and very very celibate.

Scott Brown wins Massachusetts Senate seat: what does that mean?

A month ago it was all but certain that Martha Coakley would be the successor to the US Senator from Massachusetts seat that had been held by Teddy Kennedy for four decades. And the Whitehouse, along with congressional leadership made a decision that now seems foolhardy and arrogant: they assumed that they would have a filibuster-proof majority for another year.

So they made the strategic decision to freeze out Republican involvement in running the government, most specifically in reforming healthcare. Choosing to have this reform be the centerpiece of the Party’s image for the next decade, they excluded Republicans from the talk, instead negotiating among Democrats behind closed doors.

Today this looks to have been a major mistake. With the election of Scott Brown to the Senate, Republicans now control 41 votes, effectively killing President Obama’s efforts to revise the health industry as he wishes. Scott Brown’s election has put the brakes on what has been a rapid gallop in a new direction, definitely eliminating such possibilities as a “public option”.

What Brown’s election means to the administration is that the honeymoon is over. And the election of a Republican to represent the state of Massachusetts sends a signal that November may be a sad time for Democratic Party leadership.

But what does Brown’s election mean for our community?

Not good, but perhaps not catastrophe.

The irony is that while many progressive gay activists support the “public option” and were hoping that Coakley’s election would allow Democrats to pursue this dream, it may be advantageous to our community that such a provision is no longer likely.

Any movement of health care coverage from private industry to federal oversight could have disastrous impact on the lives of gay men and women. While a great many private companies provide spousal coverage to same-sex partners, such provisions are banned by the Defense of Marriage Act. And as I understand it, the legislation that has been proposed takes little notice that gay people and gay couples exist.

On specific gay issues, Martha Coakley would have been an ardent supporter of our community in the Senate (filling in Kennedy’s shoes). I think, however, there are signs that Scott Brown will likely not be an ardent opponent.

Although Brown has recently been cast as “homophobic”, it does not appear that he is comparable to, say, Sam Brownback. Brown is a dedicated enemy to marriage equality but has stated that he supports civil unions. Further, he has commented that in Massachusetts, the decision has already been made.

On a Federal level some have suggested that he would support a Defense of Marriage Act to change the US Constitution to ban same-sex marriage, but that appears to conflict with the following statement on his website:

I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. States should be free to make their own laws in this area, so long as they reflect the people’s will as expressed through them directly, or as expressed through their elected representatives.

And Brown appears to have avoided running an anti-gay campaign.

None of which suggests that he is a friend. The Boston Globe says that he opposes the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (I would welcome a more direct source, which I’m having difficulty finding). He also is credited with opposition to lifting the ban on open service in the military. Also, Brown may feel that he owes much of his success to social conservatives, like National Organization for Marriage, who provided substantial financial and strategic support.

So I think we can safely assume that he will not vote with us on marriage or military issues. But I don’t see him as a likely to seek to attract too much attention by being sharply anti-gay. He does, after all, still have to answer to the voters in Massachusetts who prefer their Republicans to be at least moderately supportive.

I am reasonable hopeful that on such issues as discrimination, immigration, and the like we have a decent chance at competing for Scott Brown’s vote. Perhaps now is a good time to try think about building bridges to the Senate’s newest member.

Perry v. Schwarzenegger: day six summary

Thanks to Courage Campaign and FireDogLake for liveblogging.

Today’s testimony started with San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders. He stated his conservative credentials: Republican, previously police chief. Sanders talked about his lesbian daughter Lisa and how he came to believe that domestic partnerships were not adequate.

Sanders spoke about the city’s resolution to support marriage equality and why he unexpectedly decided to sign it rather than veto it (liveblog paraphrase):

I struggled for a long time since I took the position. But the night before that video, I invited some LGBT friends over to tell them I was going to veto. I was shocked at the hurt that they showed when I told them. One friend said that we interact with you as a family. They felt that their children deserved married parents. I could see the harm that I would do with the veto. This was a night not about politics, but about the depth of their emotions. That created part of the emotion in the video. I realized how much it hurt for them.

Sanders’ part of the testimony is interesting. It appears that he is there to show that one can be supportive of the community and acting without hatred and yet have your judgment and behavior clouded by prejudice. He sees that his previous view of domestic partnerships as being “good enough” was a prejudiced view even though he was not motivated by hatred.

In cross-examination, the Proposition 8 supporting attorney Brian Raum proposed several other motivations for supporting the propositions: religion, biological family preference, procreation, history. In each, Sanders came back to these reasons being grounded in prejudice.

The next witness was M.V. Lee Badgett, a professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. She has an extensive curriculum vitae in matters surrounding the economics of same-sex marriage and is the research director of the Williams Institute for Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy at UCLA School of Law and also the directer of the Center for Public Policy and Administration at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.

She argued four points:

· Prop 8 inflicts substantial economic harm on same-sex couples residing in CA and their children.

· Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not adversely affect different-sex couples, children, or the institution of marriage.

· Same-sex couples are similar to different-sex couples in most economic and demographic respects

· Prop 8 imposes substantial economic losses on Californa and its counties and municipalities.

Badgett testified that gay couples benefit economically more from marriage than domestic partnerships and that gay couples are far more likely to enter a marriage than a domestic partnership. She took data from Massachusetts’ married same-sex couples and showed that couples and children greatly benefited from marriage.

Badgett studied the behavior and treatment of heterosexual married couples after Massachusetts allowed marriage equality and found that there were no negative consequences.

We now find out why Professor Douglas Allen withdrew as a witness. It appears that he was to tell the court that since marriage equality came to the Netherlands that the total number of marriage decreased. However, he also noted that it was part of a greater trend rather than an effect of marriage equality. Badgett used Allen’s testimony to argue that comparison to Massachusetts is more reasonable than comparison to a foreign nation.

(It seems that the Proposition 8 supporters’ decision to withdraw two thirds of their witnesses in order to bury their testimony may not have been successful. The portions most beneficial to the Olson/Boies team are being presented.)

In cross-examination, Chuck Cooper noted that even during the period in which same-sex couples could marry, some people elected domestic partnerships. Badgett said that she didn’t know if perhaps they did both. (While this might seem glib, I can easily see a couple registering immediately to get the coverage while they were planning their wedding or fearing their marriage would become invalid through Prop 8).

Cooper tried hard to suggest that gay people prefer domestic partnerships and don’t really want marriage. And he challenged Badgett’s numerical accuracy. He did a lot of quibbling about numbers (18,130 v. an estimate of 18,000). Badgett dismissed the variances and reiterated that hundreds of millions of dollars would be lost by the state for not allowing marriage equality.

Cooper made up some hypothetical situations and tried to get Badgett to explain variances between his hypotheticals and her estimates. Much of the cross examination appears to be an exercise in obfuscation, seeking to have Badgett justify old estimates made on some assumptions without allowing for the fact that those assumptions were impacted by later events.

Cooper tries to have fun with math by trying picking dates and comparing marriage rates and children out of wedlock in the Netherlands. He tried to intimate that marriage equality caused the Dutch to value marriage less.

However, Badgett points out that legalizing gay marriage had no statistically valid impact on this trend and his graphs look the same before marriage equality as they do after. Cooper sought to find measures of difference that were minuscule and find meaning in them.

In redirect, Boies showed that Cooper’s selection of 1994 as a start point was hand picked to try and present a false impression. Badgett presented a chart going back to 1960 which proved that the decline in marriage rates in the Netherlands was part of a long trend and was not impacted by the legalization of same-sex marriage. Further, he showed trends of heterosexual marriage and divorce in Massachusetts that, if causal, would be an argument for marriage equality.

(I know that the information I’m receiving is filtered through the eyes and ears of those who sympathize with the plaintiffs. But, even so, it is does appear that the defense is ill prepared and is making foolish blunders. Why talk about the Netherlands if it doesn’t prove your point and why present charts if they are only going to be shown to be falsely constructed?)

Prayer Breakfast Spokesperson: Bahati’s Not Coming

Warren Throckmorton posted this extremely short statement from Ambassador Richard Swett, who Warren identifies as National Prayer Breakfast spokesperson. Since neither the Family nor the National Prayer Breakfast has a web site where these things could be verified, I’ll have to take his word for it. The statement says that Uganda’s MP David Bahati, the guy behind the proposal to lock up Uganda’s gays and throw away the key (the ones he doesn’t want killed, at least), is not coming to the Family-sponsored event on February 4th:

Ambassador Richard Swett, a longtime associate of the Fellowship Foundation since his days in Congress in the early ’90s, confirmed the accuracy of Mr. Hunter\’s report to Warren Throckmorton. He went on to state, “The National Prayer Breakfast is an organization that builds bridges of understanding between all peoples, religions and beliefs and has never advocated the sentiments expressed in Mr. Bahati\’s legislation.”

For more information, contact Bob Hunter at loonlakeme@aol.com.

That’s a very good start. Now how about sending this statement to Ugandan media? And what about Sen. Inhofe, who is identified as the Family’s point man with Ugandan president Yoweri Miseveni?

Update: I was called away and neglected to finish my thought on Sen. Inhofe. He’s the guy who was been identified as the point man for Uganda. He has met recently with leaders on the region about the insurgency by the murderous Lord’s Resistance Army, so we know he is currently active in the region to put a stop to those violations of human rights.

But going back to the broader questions I raised this morning, there is another egregious threat to human rights that we have yet to see any aubstantive action. I really hope I’m wrong, but there hasn’t even been a hint to suggest this is even on his radar. I hope the Family’s opposition to this bill extends to their point man in Uganda, and not just statements for domestic consumption at home.

Ugandan Boycott Called

The controversy surrounding Uganda’s draconian Anti-Homosexuality Bill has resulted in at least one call for a boycott:

[Ugandan pastor Martin] Sempa said, “Most Ugandans do not support homosexuality. We are to launch a campaign against consumption of US, UK, and Canada products in Uganda if those countries continue to threaten our country because of the anti gay bill. We will make people stop buying Coca Cola, Pepsi Cola and other products from USA.”

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

Is Uganda’s “Kill-the-Gays” Bill Author Coming to Washington or Not?

Frankly, my ability to take anyone at their word is very strained right now. Ugandan MP David Bahati, the guy who can’t wait to begin killing gay people or throwing them into a Ugandan prison for the rest of their lives (is there really a difference?), says he’s coming to Washington, D.C. to attend the National Prayer Breakfast on February 4. Bob Hunter and others connected with the secretive Evangelical group known as The Family have told Warren Throckmorton that Bahati’s not invited and he won’t be allowed in. That’s fine, I guess, if I could trust this information. We’ve heard directly from Bahati; why can’t we hear directly from Doug Coe, the head of the Family?

The Fellowship’s obsession with secrecy means that nobody with recognized authority within the Family has said anything about Bahati, let alone the Anti-Homosexuality Bill that is now before Uganda’s Parliament and which appears to have strong support among people associated with the Family. Bob Hunter, a Family member who has deep ties in Uganda, has appeared on NPR and Rachel Maddow to say that the Family doesn’t like the bill, but read the transcript again. Is he authorized to speak definitively on behalf of the Family?

MADDOW: Have you had to get permission to do this interview? Are you here with The Fellowship’s blessing?

HUNTER: No.

MADDOW: No?

HUNTER: No, I didn’t. I first went on National Public Radio, because I felt like I was scandalized on National Public Radio by name. And that’s why I started talking out.

Okay, so Hunter is speaking because he felt scandalized, not because he’s speaking on behalf of the Family. That is most certainly his prerogative. But he was so intent on defending himself that he forgot what he wanted to do on Maddow’s show. According to Jeff Sharlet:

He said he’d planned to talk about Senator Jim Inhofe, the fiercely anti-gay politician who is listed in Family documents as the “U.S. leader” responsible for working with Ugandan dictator Yoweri Museveni. Bob said he wants to see Inhofe take a bolder stand against this awful bill. But he got sidetracked.

Sidetracked is right. I’m glad he spoke against the bill. I’m also glad to hear him say that he knows others within the Fellowship who are against it. The last thing I want to do is throw cold water on that.

But I’m going to anyway. Because, you see, I know a lot of devout Catholics who worked to try to defeat anti-marriage amendments. Fortunately, they rarely do it by going on the offensive against Episcopalians who also want to defeat the amendments. But that aside, we all know that it’s what the leaders are doing that matters, and Catholic leaders have no qualms about letting everyone know where they stand. That’s why it’s impossible for anyone to claim that the Catholic Church opposes what they clearly support: anti-marriage amendments everywhere. There is no ambiguity about where the organization stands, whatever some members of it may believe personally.

But we have yet to hear from anyone in authority from the Family say anything about the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, and that leaves a truckload of ambiguity to deal with. Call me paranoid, but I think that this is exactly what they want. You see, the way things stand right now, Bahati can say whatever he wants — he can say he’s going to the National Prayer Breakfast even if he’s really not going. True or not, he can use that to build up his own political capital in Uganda with nary a contradictory whiff from the Family. Meanwhile, the Family’s silence means that Bahati isn’t embarrassed, nor are any other Family members like, say, Uganda President Yoweri Museveni. Bahati’s (and possibly Museveni’s) cherished dream goes forward, and the Family’s ties to Uganda’s political establishment remain intact. Everybody’s happy, except of course gay people in Uganda.

But on the other hand, maybe Bahati really is going to the National Prayer Breakfast. And maybe key members of the Fellowship — not Hunter, not people he knows, but others — support the kill-the-gays bills or its practically-equivalent effort, or at least are willing to look the other way. Meanwhile, those who are passing their assurances on the Warren Throckmorton may not be quite as in-the-know as they honestly think they are. How are we to know? And given the gravity of the situation, why should we go on their word while the Fellowship’s leaders maintain their useful silence? We shouldn’t, and more importantly we can’t afford to.

So, are Mr. Bahati or any other Ugandan political leaders going to Washington? I don’t know. Bahati says he is; Hunter says no. Does the Family support or oppose the Anti-Homosexuality Bill? Hunter says they oppose, but Sharlet says the group is divided and Hunter would appear to agree, especially if it’s true that Hunter went on Maddow to pressure Sen. Inhofe into taking a bolder stand (and failed). Only Doug Coe can answer all of this definitively, and pretty easily too. For the sake of all that is decent and humane, it’s time for Coe’s yes to be yes, and his no to be no. Silence is not an answer and time has almost run out.

So unless I hear it from Coe or another recognized senior leader who is officially authorized to speak on behalf of the Family, I’m sticking with the only first-person account I’ve seen so far. If trust is in short supply around here, it’s because the people who really matter have not lifted a finger to try to earn it.

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

Jerry Sanders to testify in Perry v. Schwarzenegger

The very Republican trial to overturn Proposition 8 is about to become even more so. Jerry Sanders, the Republican mayor of San Diego will be on the stand tomorrow (SD Union-Trib)

San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders will testify on Tuesday in the federal case about whether states can ban same-sex marriage.
…
“He’s testifying essentially on his experience on the issue and why he believes marriage equality is important from a government perspective,” [spokesman Darren] Pudgil said.

A Maine lesson: think before you go represent me

I support the right of individuals to get their jollies in pretty much any way that is safe, consensual and adult. As long as you aren’t harming me or anyone else, I don’t care if you get turned on by boots and a sling or a french maid’s outfit. Simply because I might find your fetish to be silly and better suited for a Halloween costume doesn’t mean I think it should be any less legal.

However, if your thing is kink, while I support your rights, you should in turn respect how your behavior impacts my rights. Here are a few should-be-obvious rules to consider:

• If you have to tell the world about the delights of your peculiarities, don’t do so in a way that can be twisted by anti-gays to be an indictment of every gay person. There just aren’t very many ‘special events’ geared towards monogamous vanilla sex so please recognize that your slutty pig ball or feather boa fetishists convention will be perceived as more indicative of our community than it really deserves. Oh, and don’t let Peter LaBarbera and his ubiquitous camera in the door.
• Don’t transfer your fetishes onto your kids. Toddlers don’t need to be at Folsom Street Fair. And it’s not cute (no, it really isn’t) to dress your young ‘uns up in leather. That is simply self indulgent and dances too close to the edge of sexualization of children.
• If during sex play you accidentally shoot anyone in the head, don’t go testify about why you need marriage equality. Just don’t.

Now you’d think that common sense would somehow suggest that maybe, just maybe, you aren’t the right person to testify if you put a bullet in someone’s brain four days before, but apparently this never occurred to Bruce Lavallee-Davidson.

You see, Bruce was playing with some buddies on April 18, 2009 when, ooopsie, someone got shot. (Washington Post)

The fatal shooting happened after [victim Fred] Wilson, Lavallee-Davidson and a third man had been smoking pot, consuming the party drug GBL, huffing aerosol inhalants and having sex over a 12-hour period in the basement of Wilson’s Colonial home in a middle-class neighborhood two blocks from the ocean.

Defense lawyer Tom Hallett told jurors the men had been using guns as part of their sexual play and that the victim was a thrill seeker who may have slipped a bullet into the .44-caliber Rossi revolver unbeknownst to Lavallee-Davidson, who’d previously checked to make sure the gun was unloaded.

Jurors deliberated less than an hour before returning their guilty verdict in Cumberland County Superior Court. Manslaughter carries a maximum sentence of 30 years in state prison in Maine. Because a gun was involved, the minimum sentence is four years, Marchese said.

Yeah, how do you explain that to your “partner” when you get home?

But Bruce thought to himself, I think I’ll go testify in favor of marriage equality. Cuz that’s what I need right now.

So that’s what Bruce did. On April 22, there he was at a public hearing telling the world just how much marriage was important to his life, how much he and his partner were committed.

Umm, no. Bruce is going to be committed, but not in the way he intended. And, of course, there’s nothing quite so juicy to an anti-gay activist than tying our marriage rights to his insane irresponsible druged out lethal orgy.

So if, by chance, you happen to be a guy whose idea of “marriage” is drug fueled sexcapades with strangers in which you kill someone, I don’t really care how much you think its just a spiffy idea to go represent me and my community and argue for my rights. Don’t.

Uganda’s Kill Gays Bill author not coming to US National Prayer Breakfast

David Bahati, the author of the Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality bill which, if passed would dole out penalties of death or life imprisonment to Uganda’s gay population and prison sentences for their heterosexual friends, told the Sunday Monitor that he would be traveling to the United States in February to attend – and perhaps speak at – the National Prayer Breakfast.

Dr. Warren Throckmorton has followed up on that claim and reports it to be incorrect.

However, according to Bob Hunter and others with the Fellowship Foundation, Bahati was invited months ago to come to Washington DC only as a volunteer and not to attend the NPB event. According to these sources, Bahati declined the invitation prior to introducing the Anti-Homosexuality Bill. According to Mr. Hunter, the Monitor article and Bahati\’s statements came as a complete surprise to the NPB officials here. However, in the event the article was accurate, the NPB officials and Congressional leaders were taking action to assure that Bahati did not come to any of the meetings.

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

Perry v. Schwarzenegger to be reenacted on YouTube

Judge Vaughn Walker sought to have Perry v. Schwarzenegger taped and released on YouTube.

But those who are defending Proposition 8 in federal court claimed that their witnesses feared for their personal safety. They were skurrred that their names and faces might become known to radical militant roaming bands of marauding gay activist who would call them “bigots” and make them feel bad. The Supreme Court of the United States listened to their claims of mild inconvenience (dressed up as intimidation and harassment) and moved to strike cameras from the court so as to protect their identity.

But now the trial will be brought to YouTube without the faces and voices of anti-gay witnesses. Actors will play their part. (On Top Magazine)

After the Supreme Court blocked video broadcast of the federal trial to decide the constitutionality of a gay marriage ban last Wednesday, freelance journalist and filmmaker John Ireland decided he’d produce his own version and post it on YouTube.

“People want to see this drama unfold and there is a tremendous narrative that was propelled by that first day of testimony,” Ireland told On Top Magazine on Sunday. “This is the first time that gay and lesbian people have talked about their lives in federal court. It’s historic from that point of view.”

Ireland said he’s basing his storytelling on the accounts of bloggers present at the trial that started last Monday in a San Francisco courtroom.

The first day of testimony should be available on YouTube on Tuesday.

So far we have no reports that the actors playing the witnesses are frightened that their faces may become known. They don’t appear to be skurrred at all.

And we do not yet know whether the fact that others will be playing their roles, thus providing a face to their testimony other than their own, has given the supporters of Proposition 8 any comfort. But somehow I suspect that being skurrred about recognition had little importance in the decision of four of their six witnesses to drop out of the case.

I think they would be just as uncomfortable hearing their words come from the voices of actors. When you know that you base your position on deceit and animus, your shame is the same.

My email to the DNC re: civil unions in Hawaii

Today I emailed the DNC:

This week the legislature in Hawaii will be considering Civil Unions legislation. As the HI legislature is virtually all Democratic, can you please direct me to the statements in which the DNC has encouraged the Hawaiian legislature to uphold the standard of the Party and vote for equality? I don’t seem to be able to find them online.

I wonder if I’ll get a response. They may be too busy honoring Dr. King’s dream for equality and civil rights.

Remembering Dr. Martin Luther King’s Dream

Let us not wallow in the valley of despair, I say to you today, my friends.

Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!

– Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., August 28, 1963

Keep the dream alive.

Continue the struggle.

Uganda’s “Kill-The-Gays” Bill Author Coming to National Prayer Breakfast

Washington Hilton, site of the National Prayer Breakfast on February 4, 2010.

That’s according to a feature story in Uganda’s largest independent newspaper, The Sunday Monitor:

In February, David Bahati, the mover of the controversial Anti-Homosexuality Bill is expected to attend a prayer breakfast in the American capital of DC.

Mr Bahati, according to reports, may speak at the event where President Barack Obama – a gays-tolerant liberal president, is also expected to attend. On Friday, Mr Bahati said he would attend. The event is organised by The Fellowship- a conservative Christian organisation, which has deep political connections and counts several high-ranking conservative politicians in its membership.

“I intend to attend the prayer breakfast,” said Mr Bahati – himself a part organiser of the Ugandan equivalent of the national prayer breakfast. This week, citing international pressure, President Yoweri Museveni advised his party\’s National Executive Committee, his cabinet and the NRM parliamentary caucus to “go slow” on the Bill.

MP David Bahati

MP David Bahati is the sponsor of the draconian Anti-Homosexuality Bill that is now before Uganda’s Parliament. He is also a member of the secretive American evangelical group known as the Family, which founded and organizes the National Prayer Breakfast held on the first Thursday in February, typically at the Washington Hilton on Connecticut Avenue N.W. The Monitor reports that the Family has invited Bahati to the prayer breakfast.

Ethics and Integrity Minister James Nsaba Buturo, another  is also said to be planning on attending the National Prayer Breakfast as well.

I find it absolutely incredible that secretive Family would risk this kind of attention at their premiere event. Did the Family actually extend an invitation to Bahati, as he has told The Monitor? If they did, will they honor that invitation or will they publicly repudiate their connections with Bahati and Buturo as had been suggested?

Also, every U.S. President since Eisenhower has attended and spoken at the breakfast. Will President Obama agree to share the same room with these two would-be murderers?

I think it’s a good time to convene a special session of the rainbow welcoming committee.

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

SCOTUS to decide if WA’s Referendum 71 signatories to be made public

Although the voters in the state of Washington have long since elected to reaffirm the legislature’s decision to provide Domestic Partner benefits equal to marriage to same-sex couples, the issue over whether the signatories are public information is still unresolved. On Friday the Supreme Court announced that it would take up the issue. (LA Times)

The high court will consider whether Washington state officials can release more than 138,500 names on a petition seeking a vote on overturning the state’s domestic partnership rights.

Protect Marriage Washington, which unsuccessfully opposed the law giving gay couples expanded rights, wants to shield from disclosure the signers of the petition for a referendum on that law. The group says it fears harassment by gay rights supporters, some of whom have vowed to post signers’ names on the Internet.

The objection to making the names public is based on the often asserted but rarely supported reports of “threats”, “intimidation”, and “retaliation”.

In case you don’t speak the lingo of anti-gay activists, “retaliation” is when gay customers find out that the profits from their purchases are being used to take away their rights and freedoms and refuse to continue to patronize the business establishments that harm them. “Intimidation” is when gay citizens, their friends, and their families discover that their neighbors want to harm them and consequently snub, shun, or speak disparagingly to those who are actively trying to harm their lives.

“Threats” tend not to exist at all outside of vague and highly improbable internet venting or solely in the fevered imagination of those who want to see themselves as victims.

Anti-gays genuinely believe that gay people should be barred from knowing who seeks to do them harm and, if they should find out, are not entitled to object.

Hawaii Civil Unions bill starts up again

Hawaii’s recognition of gay couples has led a wild and erratic path. If the state’s relationship with it’s gay citizens were a romantic affair, it could be summed up in one word: drama!

When Hawaii’s Supreme Court determined in 1993 that denying marriage to same-sex couples was discriminatory, it shocked America. Although some gay folks had been fighting for decades for the ability to protect their families and honor their commitments, to most people – gay or straight – this was unexpected and foreign.

However, the court did not demand immediate implementation. It granted a period in which the state could build a case justifying the discrimination and showing that it was not unconstitutional. But in 1996 the court rejected the state’s justification and declared that denying marriage to same-sex couples was unconstitutional in the state. But they held off requiring implementation until appeal was heard.

And during the five year delay the anti-gay marriage industry was started. In 1996, the federal government passed the Defense of Marriage Act which, for the first time, asserted that the federal government would not recognize the rights of states to control marriage and family law (many “state’s rights advocates” found that their anti-gay biases were far stronger than their professed principles).

And in 1998 in Hawaii, the first “protect marriage” constitutional amendment was passed. But, unlike those which would follow, this amendment does not define marriage; rather, it defines who is entitled to define marriage:

The legislature shall have the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples.

And the legislature had already done so.

However, in an effort to offer some pretense of equality in hope of avoiding being required to honor same-sex marriages, in 1997 the legislature had created a reciprocal beneficiary scheme. It wasn’t much consolation.

A reciprocal beneficiary can be comprised of any two people unable to marry (brother/sister for example) who fill out a form. The regulations that this registration impacts are minimal and the attorney general declared that the most significant benefit, workplace medical insurance, was not required to be recognized by private business.

Thus, while Hawaii has had “recognition” since 1997, it is not of much use and not often elected.

Due to the unique nature of the Hawaii amendment, there is no bar on the legislature passing marriage equality or civil unions legislation. And civil unions bills have been introduced with little reception for years.

But in 2009 a bill was introduced which received support. House Bill 444 would provide all of the rights, benefits, and privileges of marriage but under a civil union structure. The union would be conducted (rather than simply filing a clerical form) by clergy or a judge, similar to marriage. Civil unions would be limited to same-sex couples and exclude family members.

The hopes for the bill were high. It passed the House Judiciary Committee on February 5, 2009 by a vote of 12-0. It passed the full House on February 12, 2009 by a vote of 33-17. Then it went to the Senate.

Where it sat in a divided Senate Judiciary Committee.

Finally on May 7, 2009, one day before the end of the legislative session, the full Senate voted to pull the bill from the committee. But this was not to vote on HB 444; rather, it was to amend HB 444 to clarify that Hawaii was most definitely not granting marriage to same-sex couples and that this was a second-class status and to also amend the bill to allow opposite-sex couples to enter civil unions.

By amending the bill so close to the end of the session, there was no chance that the House could respond to the revised version and therefore the bill was killed for a year. Senators afraid of voting were granted a reprieve until the following year’s session.

Now that reprieve is over. (Washington Post)

When Hawaii legislators reconvene on Wednesday, all eyes will be focused not on teacher furloughs that has resulted in the nation’s shortest school year or the state’s $1 billion budget deficit, but legislation that would allow same-sex couples to form civil unions.

Supporters are cautiously optimistic of the bill’s passage. But anti-gay activists are planning a big rally for Sunday in hopes that their display of animus towards their gay neighbors and support for institutionalized discrimination will intimidate potential supports into betraying their ideals during an election year.

The Hawaii legislature is comprised almost exclusively of Democrats. The Senate has 23 Democrats and 2 Republicans, and the House split is 45-6. This is an internal Party decision.

And if the bill is passed, it will then go the Republican Governor Linda Lingle who, while encouraging the legislature to delay the bill until some other time, has refused to say whether she will sign or veto the legislation.