Box Turtle Bulletin

Support For Same-Sex Marriage Is Like Catching Cooties

A recent Gallup poll found that when people personally know someone who is gay or lesbian, they are much more likely to support same-sex marriage than those who don’t. For us, that means one thing: come out, come out wherever you are.

But for our opponents, it means something very different. For Gary Cass at the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission, it means urging his followers to avoid LGBT people at all costs. He says former vice president Dick Cheney’s support for same-sex unions “is likely … a result of the fact that he is the father of an open, practicing lesbian.” Cass continues:

Who you allow into your life, and especially that of your children, really matters. The Apostle Paul said it this way, “Don\’t be deceived: Bad company corrupts good morals (1 Cor.15:33, NASB).

…You are who you associate with.

While we must associate with the lost because we care about their eternal souls, we cannot approve of their sin. In fact, to do so is the most unloving thing you can do. Even our families associations can become an idol if they are not encouraging you to follow Christ.

…Be very careful out there in the world. Remember, “Don\’t be deceived; Bad company corrupts good morals.”

[Hat tip: Right Wing Watch]

FotF’s Fictional Fears

Responding to New Hampshire’s marriage equality bills which also expressly protect religious freedoms, Focus on the Family had the following to say:

“While the debate over the lack of religious-liberty protections revealed the dangers to the First Amendment rights of citizens, the language added to the bill is pitifully ineffective,” he said. “Not only will the law create family situations where children will be deprived of either a mother or a father, but citizens are being deprived of significant First Amendment rights, as well.”

Under similar statutes, Christian business owners and churches have been forced to violate their religious beliefs.

No. They haven’t.

Only two other states have similar statutes: Connecticut and Vermont; and in Vermont, same sex marriages won’t be effective until September. And I am perfectly confident in stating that there are NO INSTANCES in Connecticut in which Christian business owners or churches have been forced to violate their religious beliefs.

So don’t look down FotF, but your pants are on fire.

Has HRC Sold Out Gay Servicepersons?

Many of us have been wondering why the President has not taken steps to protect service men and women who are being expelled from the military when they are needed most. And we wonder why Congress isn’t proactively responding to the change in administration to throw out the hugely unpopular Don’t Ask – Don’t Tell policy. With overwhelming majorities of Americans offended by the mistreatment – and even a majority of Republicans opposed to DADT – why does it still exist?

Jason Bellini, reporting for the Daily Beast, has a surprising explanation. He says that HRC told them to wait.

Now HRC may think that their Hate Crimes lobbying is vastly more important than the lives of an estimated 231 gay military folk who have lost their livelihood, pension, and homes since President Obama took office. I don’t.

And if HRC is cutting deals behind the back of other groups like the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network so that they can get their legislation passed first, then I have no use for them. And neither will the new young activists who are rising up to take the fight for their liberties and freedoms into their own hands. The more that HRC appears to be a secretive, back-room dealing, insiders club, the more they will be blamed for the failure of the “establishment gays” to win rights, freedom, and equality for the community.

Update: HRC is denying the story

“This story is not only an outright lie, it is recklessly irresponsible. HRC never made such a deal and continues to work with congress and the administration on a full range of equality issues including a swift end to the military’s shameful ban on gay servicemembers.”

Trevor Thomas
The Human Rights Campaign

Welcome to My Fraudulent Religion, Please Pay Tithes

In a moment of bitter spitefulness, Peter LaBarbera sent an email to Jeremy Hooper, our friend who humorously tracks (and mocks) the nuttiness that is the hallmark of anti-gay activism at his site GoodAsYou.org:

After offering his ill-wishes for Jeremy’s upcoming wedding (yes, really), LaBarbera takes a swipe at gay Christians:

Homosexual behavior is always wrong, which is why the phrase “gay Christian” is so odd. Attaching it to the noble institution of marriage only compounds the sin. Just remember that it\’s never to late to repent of this behavior, to humble yourself and embrace Jesus Christ through faith – and move on with your life in a way that is pleasing to God. Tim Kincaid\’s pro-“gay” version of (c)hristianity is a fraud – don\’t believe it. God bless.

Wait, what?

I have my own fraudulent pro-“gay” version of (c)hristianity? Where’s my mega-church? When do I get to buy three mansions and a lear jet?

But no. Alas. I’ve not started my own religion – with or without odd spelling and scare quotes. I just report my observations on the scholarly work of others, the conflict between Christ’s commandments to love and anti-gay theology’s political campaigns to make the lives of gay people more difficult, and the ever growing movement towards full inclusion of gay men and women into the life of the mainstream Christian church.

However, if you feel the need to send tithes to me, I won’t argue with you.

GOP Chair Steele Support Rights of States to Define Marriage

On CNN’s American Morning on Tuesday, anchor Kiran Chetry asked Michael Steele, chair of the Republican National Committee, about comments made by former Vice-President Dick Cheney in support of same-sex marriages.

CHETRY: He went on to say, you know, gay marriage is OK, as long as it’s up to the states — individual states to decide, not the federal government. It seems to go further than even President Obama who said he supports civil unions, not gay marriage.

What do you think of Cheney’s comments?

STEELE: Well, I think the vice president brings a very personal perspective to this issue and to the question of gay marriage and gay unions. And I think his comments are appropriate reflection of his family and a situation with his daughter.

You know? My view, personal view is, you know, marriage is between a man and a woman, very much in line with what the president has said. And I think that this battle should be appropriately worked out at the state level.

The states are the ones that are defining the question of marriage, and so they will be the ultimate arbiters, I think, of what constitutes marriage in a given state. So it is the appropriate reflection of the attitude and the culture of a particular community for that debate to take place. And I think the vice president has a legitimate point there.

While at first glance this may appear to a reiteration of the GOP position that “marriage is between a man and a woman”, a closer look show this to be a strong departure from previous Republican rhetoric.

1. Steele found the vice president’s comments “appropriate.”

2. Steele qualified his own opposition to marriage as being his “personal view” and claims it is the same as President Obama’s. This seems to hint at a reluctance to be perceived as anti-gay.

3. Steele thought it appropriate that “states are the ones that are defining the question of marriage.” He even seems to be suggesting that marriage equality in Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire are a “reflection of the attitude and the culture of [their] particular community.”

4. Not only has Steele chosen not to comment on the decision by New Hampshire, neither has any prominent Senator or presumptive Presidential candidate.

It seems to me that if any prominant GOP leadership still believes that same-sex marriage will unquestionably lead to the downfall of society, they certainly are keeping it to themselves.

Are Marriages Now Legal in D.C.?

It has now been 30 days since the Council of Washington, D.C. voted 12 – 1 to recognize same-sex marriages that were legally performed elsewhere. Congress’ window to veto the Council’s decision seems to have run out.

Does this then mean that D.C. residents can now take a five hour drive up I-95 and return to live in legally wedded bliss?

ANSWER: From our informed readers below: “Nope”

It appears to be legislative days, not calendar days. So D.C. residents still have time to rent the hall and plan the local reception for their out-of-state wedding.

Marriage Equality Virtually Everywhere

Lyle Masaki, posting at After Elton, is reporting that same-sex couples can marry on the newly-released Sims 3 roll playing computer game.

So when I bought my copy of the latest Sims game yesterday, I wanted to find out if gay couples had taken another step forward and now had the ability to get married like any other couple … and after a week of game time, I was able to get a male couple to plan a wedding party and tie the knot.

It’s nice to know that even in those states that have made it perfectly clear that they’d give more rights to chickens than to gay couples, you can still disappear into a world where you have virtual equality.

Warren Throckmorton Investigates Scott Lively’s “Pink Swastika”

Grove City College (PA) professor Warren Throckmorton has embarked on an ambitious and well-researched series of articles examining Scott Lively’s anti-gay Holocaust revisionist theories. Lively’s book, The Pink Swastika, puts forth the thesis that “the Nazi Party was entirely controlled by militaristic male homosexuals throughout its short history.” According to Lively, it was gay people who brought World War II to Europe, built the gas chambers, and sent as many as twelve million people to their deaths.

Warren has posted three parts to his series so far in which he methodically lays out background which led Lively to formulate his thesis. Warren traces the roots of his thesis to the 1992 campaign in Oregon for Ballot Measure 9, a draconian proposal which would have compelled the state to actively promote anti-gay propaganda in the public schools while prohibiting LGBT people any recourse in the courts. Gay rights activists drew parallels to Measure 9 and Nazi laws against homosexuality. Lively and Pink Swastika co-author Kevin Abrams sought to thwart that development by turning the argument on its head, claiming that it was the gay rights movement itself which had its origins in the Nazi party. Warren investigates some of Abrams’ many distortions of historical texts to arrive at their contention.

All three parts in the series provide an essential view of the origins of the Pink Swastika meme, and I look forward to further installments in the series.

May 31: Eliminating Homosexuality: Modern Uganda and Nazi Germany.
June 3: Before the Pink Swastika.
June 4: Kevin Abrams: The Other Side of the Pink Swastika

Betty Bowers Explains Bible-Based Marriage

Do Gays and Lesbians Have a Friend In the White House?

That’s the question put to President Barack Obama:

Thirty-Five Percent of Americans Live in States With Some Same-Sex Relationship Protections

• Six states (Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, Maine, and New Hampshire) now recognize marriage equality. Although actual marriages do not yet take place in a few (due to effective dates), sixteen million Americans live in states that value their same-sex couples as equal citizens. This is 5.3% of the US population.
• Five states (California, New Jersey, Oregon, Washington, and Nevada) provide relationship recognition that includes all or nearly all of the rights and responsibilities of marriage through Domestic Partnerships or Civil Unions. Fifty eight million people live in those states. This is 19.2% of the US population.
• New York and the District of Columbia both recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere with the full support of the local administration. To some less-certain extent Rhode Island does the same. Twenty one million Americans live in states that may recognize and honor the protections and obligations of marriage. This is 7.0% of the US population.
• Three states (Hawaii, Maryland, and Colorado) offer a list of limited rights though either Domestic Partnerships or Reciprocality agreements. Twelve million people live in those states. This is 3.9%of the US population.

In total 35.4% of Americans live in an area in which to some extent their gay couples have the respect and protection of their community.

And New Hampshire Makes Six

Today the New Hampshire Senate and House of Representatives passed the religious protections bill required by Governor Lynch to get his approval of the marriage equality bill. Lynch has promised to sign the marriage/religious protections combination package of three bills and New Hampshire will bring the total number of states granting same-sex marriages up to six.

Update: The AP reports:

New Hampshire’s governor has signed legislation making the state the sixth to allow gay marriage.

Gov. John Lynch was Surrounded by cheering supporters of the move as he signed the three bills about an hour after the key vote on the legislation in the House.

Marriage will begin in New Hampshire in January 1, 2010.

Rhode Island Senate Votes for a Single Domestic Partnership Right

Domestic Partners may be recognized in Rhode Island. But only once they are dead.

Providence Journal:

the Senate on Tuesday approved a bill giving “domestic partners” the right to claim the bodies of — and make funeral arrangements for — their loved ones.

A domestic partner is defined in the measure as “a person who prior to the decedent\’s death was in an exclusive, intimate and committed relationship with the decedent.”

This is important in that if it passes the House, the State of Rhode Island will recognize that same-sex couples do have exclusive, intimate and committed relationships and that they are worth consideration. While this is not much compared to their neighbors, it’s a start.

And the story behind this bill shows all too clearly that the claims that “gay people can get the same rights through contracts and legal documents” is a cruel lie.

Mark S. Goldberg told a Senate committee about his months-long battle last fall to persuade state authorities to release to him the body of his partner of 17 years, Ron Hanby, so he could grant Hanby\’s wish for cremation — only to have that request rejected too because “we were not legally married or blood relatives.”

Goldberg said he tried to show the police and the state medical examiner\’s office “our wills, living wills, power of attorney and marriage certificate” from Connecticut, but “no one was willing to see these documents.”

He said he was told the medical examiner\’s office was required to conduct a two-week search for next of kin, but the medical examiner\’s office waited a full week before placing the required ad in a newspaper. And then when no one responded, he said, they “waited another week” to notify another state agency of an unclaimed body.

Rethinking HIV Testing

There is no good reason for any American becoming HIV positive today.

Which is not to say that there are not a lot of very understandable explanations why an individual might become infected. Social pressures, education, self perception, culture, diminished self worth, drugs and alcohol, and even trusting the word of a careless liar all play their part in the instances and circumstances that lead to poor choices and HIV infection.

And so infection rates stay consistently high in the gay community, and astronomical in some sub-populations. A study of HIV infection rates in Chicago found infection rates of over 17%* of gay men in that city. When looking at subgroups, the statistics become even more troubling:

Thirty percent of gay black men in Chicago tested positive, the study showed, while Hispanics and white men had rates of 12 percent and 11.3 percent, respectively.

A quarter of blacks aged 18-24 tested positive. More than 37 percent of blacks aged 25-34 – the highest of any age group – tested positive. The numbers are similar to national figures.

These are rates of infection that are simply unacceptable. And there\’s no reason, no justification, for 37% of any ethnic or age group to be infected with a virus that is detectable and preventable. Considering the weath in this nation and the billions spent on bailing out bankers and car makers, that black gay men have rates this high raises hints of racism, homophobia, and elitism.

But there is an explanation, one that makes sense to me; these men didn\’t know they were infected. Half of the infected gay men – and two-thirds of infected black men – were unaware of their HIV status.

Why?

Because they didn\’t get tested. They were “worried about the result.”

I understand that worry about what it means to be HIV positive can be a strong disincentive to get tested. As long as you don\’t know, you don\’t have to deal with it.

But I think this report, like all those I\’ve seen from the AIDS establishment, misses a component that is present with every HIV test that I or anyone I know has taken.

It isn\’t just finding out whether one is HIV positive. It\’s also going to some clinic (when they are open), filling out questionnaires, being grilled about the intimate details of your sex life, and then sitting in a waiting room where you are sure everyone is staring at you before being called into an office and being told by a total stranger whether you have a life-changing disease and, if so, reporting your name to the government.

It\’s an unpleasant process. And frightening.

And I think it might be time to begin considering a change. I think it\’s time to consider allowing people to test themselves in the privacy of their own home.

I know there are strong objections to this notion.

There is fear that inexperienced users will make mistakes and get false conclusions from improperly handled tests. There\’s also fear that at-home tests would not be sensitive enough to assure accurate results or may be too expensive.

But the current oral swab tests are pretty darned easy. If some scared teenage girl who missed her period can pee on a swizzle, surely a gay guy can run a swab over his gums.

Also, the oral tests are over 99% accurate. And there\’s little reason to think that they would be significantly less accurate in one\’s home than in the clinic. And if we as a city, state or nation, can afford to pay the clinic administators to provide free testing, I’m sure we can come up with some scheme to get the prices on tests affordable by those who need them; it just makes economic sense.

I will concede that some guys will ignore the fact that these tests only tell you whether you were infected before a three month (or so) window. Some will assume that a negative test means “100% negative today”. But this is also a misconception that can occur in a clinic and can be mitigated by careful packaging.

But the biggie reason given for opposition to the public availability to HIV tests that one can take and home and get immediate results is that in a clinic setting those who test positive can get counseling.

I appreciate the need for counseling. I\’ve even argued the merits of this approach.

But it\’s not working, folks. There are still thousands of guys out there that have been infected and do not know it. And they are not going to come into your clinic to find out. And maybe, just maybe, it\’s because they don\’t want to be subjected to your counseling.

I have come to believe that many of these “I don\’t know” guys might know their HIV status if they were able to anonymously purchase a little kit at the drugstore, take it home, and know the results in 20 minutes.

Yeah, some will freak out. And panic. And there won\’t be a counselor in front of them.

But they will at least know their HIV status.

And if they were provided with the option to immediately call a hotline for information and counseling, they might do so. Or they could go to a clinic. Or go online.

But they would know. And there\’s a very good chance that they would not then go out and infect someone else.

And this approach would be useful not only to unknown virus carriers, but to those they come in contact.

I think that many a gay guy – or black woman – would say, “Yes, I know you say you\’re ‘clean\’. But put this in on your gums and get comfortable because nothing is in going in anything for the next twenty minutes.”

It’s is bound to reduce infections better than the “baby, just trust me” method.

I don\’t doubt the sincerity of those who wish to keep HIV testing in carefully controlled environments. And I am sure that some readers will object to this proposal, fearing that it would be a catastrophe.

And I\’ll even grant that I may be wrong. Perhaps allowing people control over their own HIV testing would result in more problems than it solves. Maybe I’ve understated some concern or forgot some consideration.

But with infection rates – especially unknown infection rates – as high as they are, it\’s time to look for new solutions. It\’s time to ask the question. And it\’s time to start the conversation over whether personal access to HIV tests could help bring down the incidences of unknown infections and help stop the spread of this disease.

– – –

* Though higher than our estimates of about 12% of gay men, this is consistent with our estimates. HIV infection rates in black gay men is far higher than other ethnic subgroups and with a population that is 37% African American, this skews the local average higher than the national average.

Addendum: This commentary does not attempt to address the specifics of the African-American community. I’m not qualified or adequately knowledgeable to address the exact circumstances leading to disparity in infection rates between ethic subgroups or to advance targeted solutions. Rather, this commentary seeks to start a discussion and new thinking about the lack of testing in infected populations of all races. For more information directed at HIV/AIDS in the African American community, see the Black AIDS Institute or the Minority AIDS Project.

Andrew Sullivan Talks about Dick Cheney and Barack Obama

Sullivan is particularly irritated (rightfully so) with the Obama administration’s foot-dragging on removing the HIV travel ban, which Congress approved last fall and former Pres. Bush signed into law. But Obama continues to enforce the last legacy of Jesse Helms.