Box Turtle Bulletin

Newsweek’s Debate

Following the publication of Newsweek’s cover story on the biblical case for gay marriage, conservative Christians were outraged. In response, Newsweek has provided a debate about how Christianity should address gay marriage and homosexuality generally.

Bill Wylie-Kellerman, a United Methodist serving as pastor at St. Peter’s Episcopal Church in Detroit, Michigan, supported the full inclusion of gay persons in both civil and ecclesiastical life including marriage recognition.

Dr. Barrett Duke, vice president for Public Policy and Research at The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, an agency of the Southern Baptist Convention, argued for both civil and religious oppression of homosexual behavior and for (undefined) “change”.

Both were sincere and both sought to be forthright and truthful in the expression of their views. And neither sought to be universally condemnatory of same-sex attracted persons or to villify each other.

Though lengthy, this is an exchange well worth reading, not only for the thoughts expressed but for the worldview revealed. Wylie-Kellerman sees Scripture as a Living Word to be viewed through the eyes of experience and at the direction of the Holy Spirit. Duke sees Scripture as an inerrant, finite and complete exposition of all of God’s direction to be applied to all people at all times. While both value and respect Scripture and seek to live according to its directives, it is readily evident that they are not reading the book in the same way.

I am biased.

Although I was raised in a very conservative fundamentalist family (my grandfather, father, and both brothers are or have at various points been Pentecostal pastors), I have come to see Scripture in a different light. I now find it less of a rule-book and more of a composite of wisdom about man’s efforts to know the Divine. I now find Christianity less about how I can bring my life into compliance with the arbitrary dictates of a Divine Despot and more about how to commune with God and incorporate Him into my life and a guide on how to interact with His Creation.

So I obviously view the debate through the lens of my faith and my perspective.

Nonetheless, it seemed to me that Wylie-Kellerman holds a view of God, faith, and Scripture that reflects the reality of the world around him, while Duke unquestioningly seeks to deny that which does not conform to his preconceptions and to shape his world to conform to his doctrines.

Even though we recognize that homosexuals believe that same-sex attractions are normal for them, we do not believe we are helping them by affirming them in this state. If God has declared homosexual behavior to be sinful, we don’t help homosexuals by telling them everything is all right as long as they engage in homosexual acts within a committed relationship. We only help them by telling them what God has said about it, and then offer them a safe, loving, compassionate environment in which God can help them change.

Duke’s theology is not a matter of application of Scriptural principles and ethics to a situation, but rather the recitation of a rule – a rule which he need not question nor be too concerned about the inherent morality of how it impacts those to whom it is directed.

Which is, ironically, encouraging. I cannot help but believe that the faith with seeks to make Scripture applicable and relevant to modern life will in time outlive that which seeks to make modern life subject to the dictates of Iron Age prophets. I look forward to that day.

[NOTE: Comments to this thread that discuss the article or the diverse views of Christianity are welcome. This commentary is not an invitation for Atheists or Anti-Christians to make broad condemnations against the religion. Please be forewarned that I will remove any comments that I think are off topic and that I will be very narrow in my interpretation.]

Arson Suspected At Sarah Palin’s Church, Gays Blamed

The Wasilla Bible Church in Wasilla, Alaska, burned Friday night. Investigators have discovered that an accelerant was poured at several locations around the church, including the exits, and set afire. The fact that the fire was set at the church’s exits is particularly disturbing because five members of the congregation were inside at the time. No one was injured, but the fire caused more than $1 million in damage.

Wasilla Bible Church became famous when one of its members, Alaska governor Sarah Palin, became the GOP vice-presidential candidate. The church became embroiled in controversy when it was learned that it was promoting a Love Won Out ex-gay conference in nearby Anchorage.  The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, which is leading the arson investigation, issued a statement saying, “There is no information that the fire was politically motivated.”

Which of course, explains why anti-gay extremists are putting the accusation out there that “radical homosexual activists” are responsible (“we don’t know if this arson and attempted murder was perpetrated by advocates of homosexual marriage…”). I mean, who else could it be? Certainly not bored teenagers, a disgruntled church or community member, someone with a personal ax to grind against a particular church member, or perhaps someone with a mental illness. No siree, it couldn’t be any of those.

I know what it is to be the victim of an arson fire based on firsthand experience. It’s very unsettling, to say the very least.  The people of Wasilla Bible Church will most certainly rebuild the charred walls of their church. I hope they will also be able to quickly rebuild the sense of safety they found within those walls. And I hope the perpetrators are caught and brought to justice, whoever they are. Even if they are “radical homosexual activists.”

DADT Foregone to be Long Gone

The New York Times has a profile on Admiral Mike Mullen, the current chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Mullen’s term will not expire until a year into Obama’s administration and the Times thinks the transition will be smooth.

They also reveal that Mullen is pragmatic about the end of Don’t Ask – Don’t Tell and gives a hint that the Washington establishment assumes that President-Elect Obama will keep his commitments to the gay community:

In preparation for his new commander in chief, Admiral Mullen … has also had initial conversations with his top commanders about potential changes in the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law that allows gay men and lesbians to serve in the military as long as they keep their sexual orientation secret.

Mr. Obama has taken a strong stand against the law as a moral issue, although his team has signaled that he will not push for its repeal in the early months of his administration to avoid the kind of blowup that engulfed President Bill Clinton when he sought to lift an outright ban on gay men and lesbians in the military in his first days in office. (In a cautionary tale for Admiral Mullen, that 1993 storm raged in part because Gen. Colin L. Powell, who was the holdover chairman of the Joint Chiefs from the first Bush administration, publicly disagreed with what became a Clinton compromise solution of “don’t ask, don’t tell.”)

Fifteen years later, Mr. Obama is of the view that “don’t ask, don’t tell” is long out of date and that it is time for gay men and lesbians to serve openly.

“The president-elect’s been pretty clear that he wants to address this issue,” Admiral Mullen said in the interview. “And so I am certainly mindful that at some point in time it could come.”

A friend of Admiral Mullen said the admiral had begun to think about practical implications like housing, but Admiral Mullen said there had been no formal planning or task forces on the issue.

Let’s hope this means that the military will not only go along with Obama’s efforts but will be supportive of ending this bastion of institutionalized discrimination.

Anti-Gay Letter Targets Buffalo Businesses

Several Buffalo businesses reported receiving an anonymous anti-gay letter last month. The businesses, located in the trendy Elmwood Village area, are believed to have been targeted because they advertised in a local weekly newspaper supporting the Gay Pride Center of Western New York’s discount shopping program.

A number of businesses received a copy of the letter just before Thanksgiving, which criticized their support for the program and threatening a boycott of their business. The exact contents of the letter hasn’t been released, but the “threatening language” has prompted city officials to launch an investigation. And yet despite all that, one business owner found a silver lining:

For [Elmwood Framing and Interiors’ Michael] Gillis, there was one encouraging consequence to the whole affair. A large number of people — judges, lawyers, ministers and more than a few customers — made a point of calling him to offer their sympathy and support. “One nut case,” he said, “made me realize what a great place Buffalo is.”

Same-Sex Marriage Battle Looms in Maine

It looks like Maine may emerge as the next battleground for same-sex marriage. Equality Maine had 250 volunteers at 86 polling places on election day asking voters to sign postcards supporting same-sex marriage to send to state legislators. Equality Maine’s goal was “only” 10,000 signatures; they collected 33,190. Meanwhile, the Religious Coalition for the Freedom to Marry has been holding press conferences around the state to build support for same-sex marriage.

All of that activity has led same-sex marriage opponents to found a new group, Maine Marriage Alliance, to push for a constitutional amendment:

“Efforts are pretty clearly under way to simply redefine marriage in the state,” said the Rev. Bob Emrich, pastor of Emmanuel Bible Baptist Church in Plymouth and a founder of the alliance. “Let’s put that issue to rest. We want to define marriage, put it in the current constitution so we don’t have to wonder if the court or Legislature will overturn it.”

The process for amending the Maine Constitution begins with a two-thirds vote of both houses of the legislature, followed by a majority vote of the people in a referendum.

Hungarian Court Vetoes Domestic Partnerships

This in from the AP:

Hungary’s Constitutional Court says it has annulled a law giving rights to domestic partners because it would diminish the importance of marriage.

Their reasoning was peculiar and worth a moment of thought. The Court stated that it would accept domestic partnerships for gay couples but not for heterosexuals. By offering all the same rights to DPs, it “downgraded” the importance of marriage.

Interestingly, this Court recognized what the legislatures of New Hampshire and New Jersey are pretending to find confusing: that marriage is not equal to a relationship by some other name. Sadly, the Hungarian Court seems to be trying to ensure that same-sex couples be allowed only the lesser status.

Phoenix To Consider Hospital Visitation Registry

They’re tentatively calling it a domestic-partner registry, but the only proposed benefit from the registry is to ensure that partners are granted visitation rights in city hospitals. Anti-gay activists often concede that “of course” they find such measures to be entirely reasonably — until, that is, an actual measure is proposed. Now anti-gay extremists are coming out of the woodwork, raising the false claim that private contracts can take care of the job. Yeah? Tell that to Janice Langbehn’s family.

Today In History: APA Removes Homosexuality from List of Mental Disorders

The American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-I) classified homosexuality as a mental illness beginning in 1952. Before then, psychiatrists and psychologists looked at homosexuality as a perversion and as a deviant behavior, but the idea that it was a mental illness was considerably more controversial. Sigmund Freud, the father of psychoanalysis, famously wrote to one American mother in 1935, “Homosexuality is assuredly no advantage, but it is nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation, it cannot be classified as an illness.”

But by the early 1950’s American society’s view of homosexuality took a very sharp turn toward the dark side. This turn was partly sparked by the loud controversy stirred by Alfred Kinsey’s Sexual Behavior in the Human Male in 1948. Where before, homosexuality was little talked about; now it seemed suddenly to be everywhere. In the minds of Americans across the country, homosexuality now joined the other emerging threat, communism, as two great menaces to American order. By 1952, there had already been several purges of gays from federal employment. With the APA’s addition of homosexuality to its list of mental disorders, the fates of gays and lesbians would be sealed for the next two decades.

And as is always true in the medical and psychiatric fields, where there is an illness, there’s a quest for a cure. This was true for homosexuality long before 1952, and unfortunately it is still true today in some unenlightened circles. For the most part, the cure consisted of ordinary forms of talk therapy. But other, more abusive forms of therapy — namely electric shock therapy or therapies involving severe nausea-inducing drugs — weren’t exactly rare. And, of course, as long as gays and lesbians were labeled “mentally ill,” all manner of discrimination was made possible against those who officially declared to be operating under a mental impairment.

Thirty-five years ago today, on December 15, 1973, all of that began to change when the American Psychiatric Association’s Board of Trustees “cured” millions of gays and lesbians across America when they voted to pass this resolution (PDF: 464KB/5 pages):

For a mental or psychiatric condition to be considered a psychiatric disorder, it must either regularly cause subjective distress, or regularly be associated with some generalized impairment in social effectiveness or functioning. With the exception of homosexuality (and perhaps some of the other sexual deviations when in mild form, such as voyeurism), all of the other mental disorders in DSM-1 fulfill either of these two criteria. (While one may argue that the personality disorders are an exception, on reflection it is clear that it is inappropriate to make a diagnosis of a personality disorder merely because of the presence of certain typical personality traits which cause no subjective distress or impairment in social functioning. Clearly homosexuality, per se, does not meet the requirements for a psychiatric disorder since, as noted above, many homosexuals are quite satisfied with their sexual orientation and demonstrate no generalized impairment in social effectiveness or functioning.

The only way that homosexuality could therefore be considered a psychiatric disorder would be the criteria of failure to function heterosexually, which is considered optimal in our society and by many members of our profession. However, if failure to function optimally in some important area of life as judged by either society or the profession is sufficient to indicate the presence of a psychiatric disorder, then we will have to add to our nomenclature the following conditions: celibacy (failure to function optimally sexually), revolutionary behavior (irrational defiance of social norms), religious fanaticism (dogmatic and rigid adherence to religious doctrine), racism (irrational hatred of certain groups), vegetarianism (unnatural avoidance of carnivorous behavior), and male chauvinism (irrational belief in the inferiority of women).

The New York Times alerted the world with this Page One announcement:

The American Psychiatric Association, altering a position it has held for nearly a century, decided today that homosexuality is not a mental disorder. The board of trustees of the 20,000 member organization approved a resolution that said in part, “by itself, homosexuality does not meet the criteria for being a psychiatric disorder.” Persons who are troubled by their homosexuality, the trustees said, will be classified as having a “sexual orientation disturbance” should they come to a psychiatrist for help.

The full APA would go on to ratify the policy statement on April 9, 1974. But attempts to cure homosexuality would continue under a new illness inserted into the DSM as a compromise in 1974. Sexual Orientation Disturbance (SOD) defined homosexuality as an illness if an individual with same sex attractions found those attractions distressing and wanted to change. The new diagnosis served the purpose of legitimizing the practice of sexual conversion therapies, even if homosexuality per se was no longer considered an illness. The SOD diagnosis also allowed for the unlikely possibility that a person unhappy about a heterosexual orientation could seek treatment to become gay. Reflecting the realities of clinical practice, 1980’s DSM-III changed SOD to “Ego Dystonic Homosexuality” (EDH). That diagnosis was finally removed in 1987, but resurfaced as a brief mention under “Sexual Disorders Not Otherwise Specified”, which describes persistent and marked distress about one’s sexual orientation.

Update: The last paragraph describing subsequent diagnoses was revised and clarified, with thanks to Dr. Jack Drescher.

Steve Lopez’ Heart Bleeds for Margie Christoffersen

RIOT GEAR?

And you know how sometimes you read a story and it becomes clear that the writer has no idea what they’re talking about? That was pretty evident in this case.

Lopez is not known for his balanced reporting. I don’t regularly read his column because it seldom includes much more than his own personal views illustrated by an anecdotal story. And this time he was no more prepared, knowledgeable, or objective than usual.

As the saying goes, Lopez is entitled to his own opinion, but he’s not entitled to his own facts. Here are a few examples of how he got it wrong:

A boycott was organized on the Internet, with activists trashing El Coyote on restaurant review sites. Then came throngs of protesters, some of them shouting “shame on you” at customers. The police arrived in riot gear one night to quell the angry mob.

Steve doesn’t tell you that the “angry mob” consisted mostly of regular customers and that those throngs met mostly on one night organized for just that purpose. Nor were they in any way “quelled”. Lopez selected untruthful imagery to advance his argument.

And if you want to see an example of the police “in riot gear” just look at the picture that the Times used on Steve’s article. The man on the right in the short sleve black shirt without a helmet and holding a flashlight is a policeman. I wouldn’t want to be him in a riot.

But it wouldn’t stir up sympathy for Margie if he said, “Four police officers helped keep the protest on the sidewalk. The crowd was cooperative and at no time was there any confrontation with the police.”

But I didn’t like what I was hearing about the vilification of Margie Christoffersen and others in California being targeted for the crime of voting their conscience.

Never – EVER – has Margie been “targeted for the crime of voting her conscience”. That’s just factually untrue. Margie was targeted because she presented a supportive front to her gay customers while she simultaneously funded efforts to take away a fundamental right. This is not a matter of semantics, it’s a matter of facts.

So even if Margie returns to work at El Coyote, her husband said, “she will never, ever be back here on a Thursday night.”

Thursdays, as tradition had it, the place was mobbed with gay customers.

I had lunch at El Coyote on Thursday, and most of the tables were empty.

Here’s where Steve displays his ignorance.

El Coyote was not a restaurant with one “gay night”. On any given night of the week a significant segment of the customers were gay.

And gay customers are not upset that Margie was there on Thursdays. They are upset that she betrayed them. Clearly neither Lopez nor Wayne Christoffersen yet understand why El Coyote’s gay customers left.

Steve Lopez can eat there any time he likes. But as for me, if Margie comes back at all – Thursdays or any days – I won’t.

Brooklyn Hate Crime Victim Dies

José Sucuzhañay, 31, the Ecuadorian immigrant who was brutally beaten early Sunday morning with a bottle and baseball bat died last night. He was beaten along with his brother, Romel, by passengers from a maroon SUV who saw the Ecuadorian brothers walking arm in arm after leaving a bar from a long night of drinking. The attackers mistook the two brothers as gay.

Jose had been declared brain dead on Tuesday and a death certificate was filed. His mother was still enroute from Ecuador when Jose passed away. The family had kept him on life support pending his mother’s arrival, but his heart stopped on Friday.

The attack occurred about 3:30 a.m. last Sunday as the two brothers were walking home after having been drinking. José and Romel were drunk and were holding each other as they were helping each other get home. Three men in a red or maroon SUV saw them and apparrently mistook them for being gay. They jumped out the SUV and one of the men broke a bottle over José’s head. When he fell to the ground, another began beating him with a baseball bat while the others kicked and punched him, yelling anti-gay and anti-Hispanic slurs. When Romel called 911 on his cell phone, the assailants piled back into the SUV and drove away. Romel was not seriously injured in the attack.

Police have made no arrests. They are investigating the murder as a hate crime.

There will be a vigil today in Brooklyn starting at 2:00 p.m. at the corner of Myrtle Avenue and Grove Street. They will then walk to the site of the attack at Bushwick Avenue and Kossuth Place for a vigil at 4:00 p.m.

Love, Pat Boone Style

Earlier in the week we awarded Pat Boone with our LaBarbera Award for his equating of peaceful Proposition 8 demonstrations with the terrorist murder spree in Mumbai.

We weren’t the only ones to comment on Boone’s hateful screed. And finding himself “in the middle of a roiling, angry, often profanity-laced brouhaha”, Boone has taken the opportunity to tell the world of his love, love, love for homosexuals.

I need to say right here, honestly and unashamedly – I love gays. I always have, always will. I have proved it, over and over.

I’ve been in the entertainment business for over 50 years now, and I’ve had many dear and close friends, guys (and some gals) I have loved who were practicing homosexuals.

Me, homophobic? Ridiculous. I love my homosexual friends

Oh, feel the love. Ahhhh, love.

But before you start feeling all warm and fuzzy, Pat isn’t talking about you. He has a special type of homosexual friend that he loves: ex-gays. So much so, in fact, that he wrote two books about them.

Later (you may be surprised to learn), I really went out on a limb and wrote two books, about and with homosexual friends. The first was “Joy: A Homosexual’s Fulfillment,” and the second “Coming Out: True Stories of the Gay Exodus.” They were written with a longtime lesbian, a former very promiscuous male homosexual and with a transsexual man who had emasculated himself in an effort to be a woman. They’d been down the whole road and back again, and they told me their stories and how they’d each been able to leave the homosexual lifestyle. This was not expedient for me as an entertainer, but I did it out of real love for gays. I do care.

Pat also loves gays who are dying with AIDS. Especially if they are too weak to push him out of the room.

I felt slightly nauseated at the arrogance and self-satisfaction in this (frankly, abusive) tale:

I prayed with Rock Hudson and placed my hands on his bony chest, anointing him with oil, right at the end of his life. He couldn’t speak because of the lesions in his throat, but the grateful glow in his eyes told me all I needed to know. There was love between us – and I saw him off to heaven, too. I know I’ll see him there again.

But the one that really demonstrates Boone’s self-delusion is:

Years ago, I sat by the bed of one of my closest friends as he lay dying in a VA hospital. AIDS didn’t have a name yet, but that’s what was killing him. His teeth had fallen out; he had no immune system left. We prayed together, and I saw him off to heaven. I loved Roger.

Mind you, Roger died before Boone started writing his homophobic books. And while I find no date for the first one he listed, Coming Out was published in 1978. But, of course, since Roger was a “practicing homosexual”, Boone can just cheerfully declare that AIDS was “what was killing him”, regardless of the fact that the the virus wasn’t observed for several more years. A “wages of sin” story is just so loving. And convenient.

But unless you’re dying with AIDS or have “left the homosexual lifestyle”, Pat has other words he uses to express his love for you.

Words like “raging ” and “hordes of homosexual activists” and “gangster” and “criminal” and “militant” and “turbulent, abusive mob” and “irresponsible” and “violent” and “threatening” and “hedonistic” and “blindly selfish” and “homegrown sexual jihadists”.

No, Pat, you don’t love me. As you said in both of your articles, “Hate is hate, no matter where it erupts”, and you’ve certainly been erupting.

Capital Crime: Appearing Gay

The two men were tipsy from drinking at a Mexican restaurant so they held onto each other on their way home. The passengers of the maroon SUV say them arm in arm and yelled, “Check out those f—-ts over there.” They pulled over and attacked the men, shouting homophobic and racist comments.

Witnesses said the three men got out of the SUV and set upon them. One hit José Sucuzhañay in the head with a glass bottle, dropping him to the sidewalk.

The SUV driver battered the defenseless man’s head with an aluminum baseball bat, witnesses said, while the others kicked and punched both brothers.

Neither of the two men, brothers José and Romel Sucuzhañay, are gay. They are from a culture in which brothers are not discouraged to show affection. But now Jose has been declared brain dead and his mother is flying in from Ecuador to say goodbye.

Pardon me if I’m finding it difficult to sympathize with the anti-gay activists who are whining about “violence” from gay “mobs”.

LaBarbera Award: Firpo W. Carr

Have you heard of him? It didn’t register with me. But if his name is familiar to you, it might be because he was once the spiritual adviser to Michael Jackson. He’s a columnist for the Los Angeles Sentinel, one of the oldest and most influential African-American newspapers in the Western United States.

He signs is name “Dr. Firpo W. Carr,” although I have no idea what kind of a doctor he is supposed to be. He’s certainly not a medical one. That should be evident with this column which appeared just yesterday:

Lesbian Legacy: There is discussion masquerading as debate as to whether or not lesbians get the virus that causes AIDS. Here’s what makes it a pseudo argument: prostitutes infected with HIV have in turn infected their johns through vaginal fluids, especially if menstrual blood is present. Now, if this same HIV-infected prostitute was to service a female client through vagina-to-vagina sex, and menstrual blood was present in the prostitute, bingo, the female client is exposed to and may well have been infected. Don’t let anyone tell you that lesbians cannot get HIV/AIDS from each other.

In my previous article published last week I listed some diseases associated with gay men. Well girls, it’s your turn this week. The following is a list of “lesbian” maladies and infections and the practices that spread them. Thrush: A disease where there is an overgrowth of yeast causing vaginal itching and soreness, often with a white discharge. It is contracted through lesbian sex, both vagina-to-vagina and oral sex. Bacterial Vaginosis (Gardnerella): This disease is characterized by an overgrowth of vaginal bacteria causing a smelly discharge, which lesbians often experience, some believe exclusively. Genital Warts: These are unsightly bumps or warts on the vulva, in the vagina, on the cervix or round the anus. They can be passed through lesbian sex, and by touching, rubbing or sharing “sex toys.” It is possible that non-genital warts on the hands of one female can be transferred to the vagina of another during fondling. HPV (Human papillomavirus) causes genital warts in both men and women.

Good lord, he goes on and on, listing all of these diseases which actually are quite common among heterosexual women. The medical literature is filled with examples.

And what about that “previous article last week”? Well in addition to his list of “diseases associated with gay men” (the vast majority of which are actually illnesses which were associated with AIDS before effective treatment became available in the mid 1990’s), he included this incredibly paranoid gem:

Domestic violence among gay men is particular heinous and cruel as compared to their heterosexual counterparts. Oh, and let’s not leave out lesbians. Law enforcement agencies are struggling with a new phenomenon. “Butch” lesbians who physically abuse “lipstick” lesbians can easily penetrate the defenses of women’s shelters where victims seek refuge since they, too, are women. The original purpose of the shelters was to provide safe haven for women abused by men.

Where does he get this stuff?

Jasmyne Cannick gave Carr the Negro Please Award (Notice: her web page has embedded sound, to the tune of “If I Only Had A Brain”):

I don’t know which is worse, racist white gays or Bible thumping homophobes who are intellectually challenged like Dr. Carr.

Dr. Carr, you are my official ‘Negro Please Award’ recipient of the week…and believe me, you earned it with this one.

We don’t have that award at BTB, but we do have the LaBarbera Award which is just as appropriate. And believe me, he earned that one as well.

[A very big hat tip with a sweeping bow: Pam Spaulding]

Anti-Gay Activist Maggie Gallagher Defends El Coyote’s Margie Christoffersen

Maggie Gallagher, President of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, is one of the leaders in the effort to deny gay citizens equal access to marriage laws. Her statements in the past have shown that Maggie finds efforts to sway public opinion to be more important than telling the truth. In an National Review Online article this week she continues that trend.

Gallagher seeks to demonize the gay community and uses the example of Margie Christoffersen and the response by El Coyote patrons as an example of the “McCarthyite” spirit of supporters of marriage equality. And facts certainly weren’t going to stand in her way.

Take her initial claim:

Marjorie is just one of 89 people who work for El Coyote.

Is she? Really?

There are absolutely zero regular customers, restaurant critics, or local color writers who would have described Margie in this manner – prior to the Prop 8 situation. Marjorie is just one of 89 people who work for El Coyote in the same way that the Pope is just one of a billion Catholics.

Yet to make her case about the evil of the pro-marriage crowd, Maggie said it anyway. Because that lie supports the point she really wants:

This is a totally new tactic by the way. Boycotts against businesses who donate to a cause or mistreat their customers have long been an accepted part of the American democratic practice. But targeting an entire business because one person associated with it made (in their personal capacity) a donation to a cause is brand new. It’s essentially McCarthyite in spirit. Gay-marriage activists hope to make you unemployable if you publicly disagree with them.

But there is no truth in Maggie’s assertion that individual-related boycotts are somehow “new” or outside the “accepted part of the American democratic practice”.

Yes, some successful boycotts, such as that against the Mongomery Bus system, were due to institutional policies. But there certain have been many boycotts over history because of the actions of one person, often outside of their capacity as an “employee”. For example here are two that have been conducted by the community:

• In the late ’70’s, gays led a boycott against Florida Orange Juice because of their spokesman, Anita Bryant, and her anti-gay activism. Bryant was dropped in 1979.
• Also in the late 70’s and through the 80’s Coors Beer was boycotted by gay bars because of the political contributions of some members of the Coors Family. The Coors Brewing Company is now one of the companies most supportive of their gay and lesbian employees and the gay community at large (though some family members remain politically conservative).

And gays are not alone in individual-based boycotts. There have been wallet-voting efforts made against a whole host of other companies ranging from Carl’s Jr. to Ben and Jerry’s Ice Cream because various subsets of the population did not like the political views of individuals associated with the company.

Conservatives even went so far as to talk about boycotting Starbucks because of a gay individual was quoted on a cup. And it is not uncommon for viewers of various stripes to refuse to see movies which feature actors with whom they disagree politically; I’m willing to bet that even Maggie Gallagher watches her expenditures in just that manner.

Maggie Gallagher has absolutely no basis for claiming that targeting El Coyote and Marjorie Christoffersen is something new. She just thinks that saying so will stir ill will towards gay people and others who support marriage equality. She wants to accuse us of trying to make those who disagree with us unemployable. She wants to demonize us and continue feeding Proposition 8’s campaign of fear.

Those who read Maggie casually may not see immediate evidences of her contempt and disdain for those to whom she wants dictate. Maggie loves to wrap her calls for discrimination in cloaks labeled generous, kind, and ordinary. But at the basis of every self-righteous and indignant statement lies a willingness to say anything – no matter how far divorced from the truth – to advance her moral crusade. And that she writes skillfully does not make her articles any more benign or less dishonest.

She would never say it; she’s far too clever. But her writing makes clear: Maggie Gallagher wants her readers to hate you. And she’s willing to lie to acheive that goal.

Colson, George Awarded Presidential Citizenship Medal

President George Bush awarded Presidential Citizenship Medals yesterday to twenty-four recipients, among them Charles Colson and Robert George.

Charles Colson is the famous Watergate co-conspirator who once hatched a plan to firebomb the Brookings Institution. He served time in prison for his connection with Watergate, and has since then become a darling of the religious right.

In the process he has emerged as a staunch anti-gay activist. He has mischaracterized the proposed Federal Hate Crimes legislation as “thought crimes” while skewing FBI statistics. Even though the proposed hate crime legislation only touches on criminal activity (and we’ve reprinted the text of the bill many times so you can see it for yourself rather than take our word for it), Colson lied about what the law would do:

If this dangerous law passes, pastors who preach sermons giving the biblical view of homosexuality could be prosecuted. Christian businessmen who refuse to print pro-gay literature could be prosecuted. Groups like Exodus International, which offer therapy to those with unwanted same-sex attraction, could be shut down. In classic 1984 fashion, peaceful speech will be redefined as a violent attack worthy of punishment.

Which, of course, is nonsense. Religion and race are already protected by existing Federal hate crimes law, and yet Nazis, the Klan, skinheads and other hate groups still have their freedom to protest, march and spew their vile hatred — all because no law can rescind the First Amendment.

But if it’s not hate crime Laws which threaten “persecution of the Church,” Colson has another looming threat: same-sex marriage:

It is all about equal rights, the gay “marriage” lobby keeps telling us. We just want the right to marry, like everyone else. That is what they are telling us. But that is not what they mean. If same-sex “marriage” becomes the law of the land, we can expect massive persecution of the Church.

…The coming persecution of Christians is one more reason why we need to get involved with efforts to pass laws at the state and federal level defining marriage as a legal relationship between one man and one woman.

Colson is also a staunch advocate on behalf of Lisa Miller, of the Miller-Jenkins custody dispute. Miller, who is essentially violating the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act by refusing to adhere to the custody agreement worked out between herself and her former partner, Janet Jenkins, when the state of Vermont dissolved their civil union. The Supreme Court recently declined to hear the case — for the fifth time.

But it’s not just us gays he’s concerned about. He also wants the world to know that members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints aren’t Christians. During the 2002 Winter Olympic Games in Salt Lake City, Colson reminded his fellow Evangelicals that “Mormons are not Christians, despite the hype”:

“Mormonism either affirms historic Christianity, or it doesn’t. Since it doesn’t, it can’t call itself Christianity –- a fact that all the good will and public relations in Utah can’t change.”

And he reiterated that point again on his radio program in 2005, saying, “While Mormons share some beliefs with Christians, they are not Christians.” “I respect Mormons and work with them,” he added,” but we can’t gloss over our fundamental differences.”

Another Presidential Citizenship Medal honoree is Robert George, of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University. He is the architect of the Princeton Principles against same-sex marriage. When he spoke at the Voter Values Summit in 2006, he warned the crowd that the “forces arrayed against the conjugal conception of marriage are very powerful … And they will strike hard.”

In 2000, George denounced “Just the Facts,” a booklet sent to teachers to educate them on issues surrounding homosexuality. George complained that the booklet didn’t include the usual faked-up “science” often promulgated by anti-gay extremists equating the so-called “gay lifestyle” with promiscuity:

If it’s ‘Just the Facts,'” he said of the booklet, “…why are we not told about how people who enter the gay lifestyle, or others who are sexually promiscuous, expose themselves to disease and disillusionment?”