Box Turtle Bulletin

Cleveland Enacts Domestic Partnership Registry

Cleveland’s city council voted 13-7 to provide a domestic partnership registry. The legislation goes to mayor Frank Jackson, who plans to sign the registry into law. It will go into effect 120 days after the mayor signs the bill. According to the Cleveland Plain-Dealer, the vote wasn’t an easy one for several council members:

But several council members reported intense pressure from local pastors, who oppose domestic partner benefits on religious grounds. At one point Monday afternoon, a rattled Kevin Conwell, a co-sponsor of the legislation, seemed ready to change his position. “I had more than 70 calls over the weekend,” Conwell said. Conwell ultimately voted with the majority.

…Councilman Zack Reed, who voted against the registry, said he was lobbied by his pastor, the Rev. Marvin McMickle. Also voting against the registry were Councilwoman Sabra Pierce Scott, Councilman Roosevelt Coats. Pierce Scott said prior to the vote that she had concerns about how the legislation was worded. At a committee hearing, Coats cited biblical passages that he said denounce homosexuality. “Many of you may disagree,” he said. “That’s fine. These aren’t my words. These words are in the Bible.”

Cleveland’s domestic partnership registry seeks to steer clear of Ohio’s draconian constitutional amendment banning all forms of recognition for same-sex couples by being open to same-sex and opposite-sex couples.

Iowa Supremes Hearing Marriage Case

In August of last year, Judge Robert Hanson ruled that Iowa’s prohibition on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. Although he put a stay on the decision the next day pending a Supreme Court hearing, one couple – Tim McQuillan and Sean Fritz – were married.

Today the Iowa Supreme Court heard opening oral arguments on the case (Boston Herald)

Attorneys involved in the case said it could take a year or more for a ruling.

If the Iowa court rules in favor of the couples, it would be the fourth state behind Massachusetts, California and Connecticut to uphold the right for same-sex couples to legally marry.

Newsweek Essay Draws Howls of Protest

Anti-gay activists are pulling their hair out over Lisa Miller’s essay in Newsweek, in which she lays out a religious case for same-sex marriage. She opens her essay by saying, “Opponents of gay marriage often cite Scripture. But what the Bible teaches about love argues for the other side.”

As you can imagine, that didn’t go over well with one particular segment of Christianity. Albert Mohler, president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and a member of the Focus on the Family Board of Directors, wrote:

Many observers believe that the main obstacle to this agenda [of allowing same-sex marriage] is a resolute opposition grounded in Christian conviction. Newsweek clearly intends to reduce that opposition.”

That was one of the calmer reactions. Tony Perkins of the Family “Research” Council denounced it as “yet another attack on orthodox Christianity.” The Donald Wildmon of the American Family Association called it “one of the most biased and distorted pieces concerning homosexual marriage ever published by any major news organization.” Not surprisingly, he also is calling on his followers to inundate Newsweek with emails.

And Peter LaBarbera, not one to be outdone, called the essay a “scandalous hit piece” and an “embarrassing attempt to make a Biblical case for sodomy-based ‘marriage.'” (See why we have an award named in his honor?) And Peter’s pal, Matt Barber responded, “You know, scripture says woe to those who call evil good and good evil, and I say woe to Newsweek for even printing this drivel.”

Part of the outrage stems from the fact that anti-gay activists have tried for years to couch their opposition to same-sex marriage on sociological research to make their point — research that, as we have pointed out many times, they have distorted with amazing consistency. But by calling on science instead of the Bible, they seek to inoculate themselves from charges of trying to impose their religious views on others. “See? We’re not religious zealots. Science supports us,” they like to say. Richard Land, of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, repeated this line in saying, “The arguments that are used are often not biblical arguments. They are secular arguments, arguing about marriage as being a civic and a social institution, and that societies have a right to define marriage.” And Ralph Reed, former head of the Christian Coalition, claimed, “We’re not trying to take the Bible and put a bill number on it and legislate it.”

But when they are talking among themselves, religious arguments are firmly at the fore, whether it’s LDS Elder M. Russell Ballard speaking of the “central doctrine of eternal marriage” or Richard Land himself explaining with an apparently straight face that what he calls the global warning “hoax” is simply due to “cycles of nature that God has allowed in the cosmos.” Neither of these positions sound very scientific to me.

But the religious face is not the public face that these religiously-motivated leaders want to present. And by having to respond to Lisa Miller’s essay, they are forced to publicly defend the religious basis for their beliefs, which annoys a few of them to no end.  Watch how Concerned Women for America’s Janice Shaw Crouse pivots when asked about the Newsweek essay:

“Beyond the Scriptural distortion, the article distorts the pro-marriage and pro-family movement that is solidly grounded on sociological research about family structures that contribute to the well-being of women and children.”

She then goes on to mischaracterize what “experts agree.”

But the other part of the outrage also seems clearly aimed at someone who really did intrude onto their home turf. After all, in the same-sex marriage debates, only one small group of Christians are presumed to be allowed to use the Bible — when they think nobody else is looking. Anti-gay activists behave as though the Bible is solely their possession and no one else’s — including other Christians who read the same Bible and come to different conclusions. It’s okay for anti-gay opponents to turn outside their own sphere of authority — science — to make their point. But now that Lisa Miller has taken them on in their own home turf, they’ve let loose with their persecution complex and complained that they– and by extension all of Christianity, since they presume to speak for all Christians — have been “attacked.” 

Which reminds me of a great and appropriate graphic making its way around the Internet:

Miller-Jenkins and the SCOTUS

You have probably heard of the custody dispute between Lisa Miller and Janet Jenkins. If you need a refresher, see the timeline at the bottom of this commentary.

This week the Supreme Court of the United States refused to hear the case – for the fifth time.

I’m not an attorney, but considering that Vermont is the court of record and that Virginia now agrees, there may be few legal arguments that could be made. However, the Miller-Jenkins case is a cause célèbre for anti-gay and other conservative activists. And there are many judges, including some who have been considered for the highest court, who would see it their calling and duty to “protect the definition of parent” and deliver this good Christian woman’s poor child from the homosexual clutches of this evil lesbian.

But this court has not taken up her cause. And that does, I believe, offer us some reason for comfort.

A writ of certiorari requires the support of four judges.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Anton Scalia are two judges who have voted consistently in opposition to equality for gay citizens. When Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito were appointed to the court, there was a level of fear within the gay community that they would join Thomas and Scalia in decisions involving gays and lesbians.

However, the denial of the writ suggests that at least one of the four is hesitant to engage in overt judicial activism on behalf of anti-gay activists.

• December 1997 – Lisa Miller and Janet Jenkins meet at an AA meeting in Virginia. They move in together a few months later. They make commitments to each other.
• July 1, 2000 – Vermont legalizes civil unions.
• December 19, 2000 – Lisa and Janet travel to Vermont and enter a civil union.
• July 2001 – Lisa Miller was inseminated with sperm from an anonymous donor. The donor was selected to have traits that matched those of Janet Jenkins.
• April 16, 2002 – Isabella Ruth Miller Jenkins was born. Jenkins cut the umbilical cord.
• August 2002 – Lisa, Janet, and Isabella move to Vermont.
• 2003 – the couple tried further fertility treatments. Lisa did not become pregnant.
• Fall 2003 – Lisa takes Isabella and leaves Janet, moving back to Virginia. Janet agrees to pay child support and to visit Isabella regularly.
• November 23, 2003 – Lisa files in Vermont to dissolve the civil union
• January 2004 – Janet counterclaims in Vermont for custody
• March 2004 – Lisa hires a lesbian lawyer and waived her objection to Janet as a parent
• 2004 – Lisa begins finding religion – specifically Baptist religion – and comes to believe that homosexuality is sin and that she is the sole parent of Isabella and that Janet is unrelated.
• April 23, 2004 – Lisa faxes a letter to her lawyer saying that she did not agree that Janet was a parent to Isabella. The attorney withdrew from the case.
• May 2004 – Lisa’s new lawyer tried to rebut the presumption that Janet was a parent. The judge refused to agree and insisted on a visitation schedule.
• Spring 2004 – Exodus International advises Lisa to hire Liberty Counsel. Lisa makes it increasingly difficult for Janet to see Isabella. Lisa recollection of facts becomes significantly different from that of all other parties.
• July 1, 2004 – Virginia’s anti-gay marriage prohibits the state from recognizing any same sex relationship (including contracts). Lisa’s lawyers sue in Virginia court to declare her the sole parent and to declare the legal actions in Vermont as void, illegal and unenforceable. Judge Prosser stayed unsupervised out-of-state visitation. Lisa refuses to allow Janet to see Isabella.
• October 15, 2004 – Virginia Judge Prosser declares Lisa the sole parent and invalidates Janet’s claims entirely. Vermont Judge Cohen ruled that Prosser’s order had no legal standing.
• Winter 2006 – Virginia Court of Appeals (three-judge panel) unanimously sides with Janet Jenkins.
• August 2006 – Vermont Supreme Court unanimously sides with Janet Jenkins.
• December 2008 – US Supreme Court refuses to hear the case.

LaBarbera Award: Pat Boone

Pat Boone has definitely gone over the edge. In his latest outrage at WorldNetDaily, Boone tut-tuts the recent massacres at Mumbai, and draws a direct line of connection between that terrorist operation and demonstrations against Prop 8:

Thank God, it couldn’t happen here. Could it?

Look around. Watch your evening news. Read your newspaper.

Are you unaware of the raging demonstrations in our streets, in front of our churches and synagogues, even spilling into these places of worship, and many of these riots turning defamatory and violent? Have you not seen the angry distorted faces of the rioters, seen their derogatory and threatening placards and signs, heard their vows to overturn the democratically expressed views of voters, no matter what it costs, no matter what was expressed at the polls? Twice?

… Assuming you have become aware of all this, let me ask you: Have you not seen the awful similarity between what happened in Mumbai and what’s happening right now in our cities?

When terrorists launched their attack on Mumbai two weeks ago, they killed 163 people in a shocking carnage which is now being referred to as India’s 9/11. Contrast that to the demonstrations which have broken out all across American against the passage of Prop 8 — not riots, as Boone calls them, but demonstrations — which have all been remarkably peaceful. In fact, I challenge Boone to name a single riot on American soil since election day.

Boone isn’t the first to falsely characterize these peaceful protests as “violence” and “riots,” but he is the first well-known figure to claim that peaceful marchers are equivalent to militant Islamists with automatic weapons and grenades. Boone succeeds in raising the false “violence” charge to a whole new and disgusting level. All that’s missing now is a holocaust analogy. I’m sure we’ll see that before too long.

The Protectors from “Anti-Religious Bigotry”, in their Own Words

Below are listed a few choice comments by those who oppose “mob veto“. These do not encompass all that they may think on the subject and some, like Ron Sider, may have views that have evolved over the years. But, nonetheless, these are statements that hardly add credibility to the position of the Becket Fund and it’s coaltion of indignant objectors to gay protestors.

Ronald J. Sider – Evangelicals for Social Action

We cannot ignore this general truth when we come to the issue of AIDS. If the Bible teaches that homosexual practice is wrong, as I think it does, then it is right to suppose that violating God’s law in this area will have negative consequences.

This is not to say that the AIDS virus is some supernatural divine creation to punish homosexual practice; have emphasized that I reject that view. But I refuse to bow to today’s widespread relativism and deny and ignore the clear biblical teaching that some actions are wrong no matter what Hollywood or Greenwich Village says. Ignoring the moral order of the universe has consequences.

As a citizen. I insist on the right to say that and to seek to shape public policy in ways consistent with that belief without being called a bigot. [Emphasis added]

Chuck Colson – Prison Fellowship

It’s these attitudes, and the worldview that produces them, that have fueled the gay-rights movement. It rolls on because it resonates with what many Americans believe. And that means that the only way to slow it down is to change the terms of the debate: to once again establish that we are not lower than the animal species, that sex is not for recreation-it is for procreation.

This is why, for example, we need to pass a federal marriage amendment. If we do nothing, we are going to be facing the same future that Christians in the UK are facing: a future in which preaching the truths of the Gospel is against the law.

Dr. Alveda King – civil rights activist

God hates racism and God hates homosexuality.

Add to this Mr. Obama’s unprecedented support for homosexual rights and anti-procreative marriage legislation, which includes his promise to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and which would unleash a storm of sexual immorality such as America has never seen: then we can see which way the wind is blowing.

That’s what we’re facing today in the debate over homosexual rights. Homosexuals can either choose to be victims, or choose to make a change.

William J. Donohue – Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights

Who really cares what Hollywood thinks? All these hacks come out there. Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. It’s not a secret, OK? And I’m not afraid to say it. That’s why they hate this movie. It’s about Jesus Christ, and it’s about truth. It’s about the messiah.

Hollywood likes anal sex. They like to see the public square without nativity scenes. I like families. I like children. They like abortions. I believe in traditional values and restraint. They believe in libertinism. We have nothing in common. But you know what? The culture war has been ongoing for a long time. Their side has lost.

Name for me a book publishing company in this country, particularly in New York, which would allow you to publish a book which would tell the truth about the gay death style. There are certain things that the left won’t tolerate. They are censorial at heart.

Marvin Olasky – The King’s College, New York City

Last week’s Washington tempest blew in when Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., said that if the Supreme Court in a pending case rules that homosexual practice is constitutionally protected, “then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything.”

Instead of being defensive, Republicans who are both wise and shrewd will go on offense. They should ask gay interest groups and Democrats to respond to Santorum’s challenge: Make a constitutional argument that will differentiate the right to consensual gay sex from a right to bigamy, polygamy, incest, or adultery. … As Santorum knows, once we move off that [“developmental spec sheet” that God has given us], anarchy reigns.

But what happens when individuals or their churches believe that homosexuality is wrong? Gays need strong governmental action to keep people from speaking out against it. They need criticism of homosexuality to be declared “hate speech.” They need government to force religious organizations to hire gays or facilitate adoption by gays.

Roger Scruton – writer and philosopher

The propaganda that has tried to rewrite heterosexuality as an “orientation” is really an attempt to persuade us to overlook the real truth about sexual union, which is that it is, in its normal form, the way in which one generation gives way to the next.

This truth is recognised by all the great religions, and is endorsed in the Christian view of marriage as a union created by God

Equally novel is the loss of the concept of normal sexual desire. In 1963 we still saw homosexuality as a perversion, even if an enviably glamorous one. We still believed that sexual desire had a normal course, in which man and woman come together by mutual consent and to their mutual pleasure. We regarded sex with children as abhorrent and sex with animals as unthinkable, except for literary purposes. Thanks in part to massive propaganda from the gay lobby, in part to the mendacious pseudo-science put out by the Kinsey Institute (whose charlatan founder has now been admitted to the ranks of saints and heroes), we have abandoned the concept of perversion, and accepted the official view of ‘sexual orientation’ as a natural and inescapable fact.

Armando Valladares – former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Human Rights Commission

[If Obama wins] more than ever, our society will be in great danger. One of his objectives is the dissolution of the family and its values. Obama supports marriage between same-sex partners. He wants to bring it to the Constitution. Obama is in favor of the adoption of children by gay couples. Rather than favoring prayer in schools, he advocates the distribution of condoms.

Not all signatories have expressed views that are so undisguisedly hateful or in opposition to equality, but by joining forces with those who expound views that are inarguably bigoted they are tainted and their argument loses all moral authority.

No Homosexuals At BYU. Nope. No Siree.

A student at Brigham Young University had put together a series of photographs for a Fine Arts show which feature… well, we’ll let him explain:

These are some of the final images for my fine art photography project. These portraits are of students of BYU who identify themselves as homosexual and a person that supports them. With all of the dissenting views regarding this topic in the past few months I have felt very strongly about this project. The portraits will be shown in pairs. The idea is that there are gay and lesbian individuals not only in the Mormon culture, but also at BYU. I also chose to photograph someone who is a support to this person. This could be a family member or friend. This support person may also identify themselves as homosexual and both people may provide support to each other. I am not telling the viewer who identifies themselves as homosexual, because I hope the viewer will realize that placing a label with the portrait only creates divisions in our society and furthers stereotypes. It is my hope this body of work can be a vehicle for tolerance, support, love and change.

It looks like portraying gay people — or is it the ambiguity of not knowing who is gay and who isn’t in these pairs? — was just too much for BYU’s administration. Michael now reports:

Apparently the topic of homosexuality is a bit much for the BYU audience and my part of our Fine Art Classes show was taken down today. It seems that censorship is favored over support and love. This really saddens me. I found out because a friend of mine went to the show and said that my pieces had been removed and the show had been rearranged. While I knew this topic would be controversial (in fact I expected that this would ruffle some feathers) I never thought that they would bring it down. Also I wish that they would have asked me to remove it, or at least had the courtesy to ask that I remove it or discuss it with me prior to its removal.

Update: BYU has put the exhibit back up.

Homosexual Mob Violence?

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty published a full page ad in the New York Times today decrying the “violence and intimidation being directed against the LDS or ‘Mormon’ church” by opponents of Propostion 8. Those signing the missive included:

• Kevin “Seamus” Hasson – the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty
• Nathan Diament – Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations in America
• Rick Cizik – National Association of Evangelicals.
• Ronald J. Sider – Evangelicals for Social Action
• Chuck Colson – Prison Fellowship
• Chris Seiple – Institute for Global Engagement
• Dr. Alveda King – civil rights activist
• William J. Donohue – Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights
• Robert Seiple – Former U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom
• Douglas Laycock – University of Michigan Law School
• Marvin Olasky – The King’s College, New York City
• Roger Scruton – writer and philosopher
• Armando Valladares – former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Human Rights Commission

Although the signatories claim to “differ about a great many important things” including “the wisdom and justice of California’s Proposition 8”, I find little evidence of this assertion.

The chief signatory, Kevin “Seamus” Hasson is, on the surface, neutral. However he has on several occasions stated his opinion (and that of his organization) that marriage equality is “very expensive in terms of religious liberty“, has an impact that is “severe and pervasive“, and that he opposed the court’s actions legalizing same-sex marriage.

Some others on the list, including Alveda King, Chuck Colson, Roger Scruton, and William Donohue, represent the extreme of anti-gay activists – those who not only oppose marriage equality but any rights or freedoms granted to gay persons. Armando Valladares and Nathan Diament, while not outright haters, are on record in opposition to gay marriage as well as other rights and freedoms.

Others are lesser known and some are liberal on environmental or economic issues. Douglas Laycock advocates for the separation of religious and civil recognition. And Marvin Olasky advocates that “same-sex marriage be opposed only in ways that treat gays as still possessing human dignity”. Rick Civik supports some civil unions recognition.

But I was unable to find a single instance of anyone signing onto this list that was either directly effected by Proposition 8 or opposed to its passage. The range within the signatories is from “I oppose gay marriage” to “I really, really, really oppose gay marriage and anything else that would benefit gay people in any way.”

Now let’s examine this “mob violence and intimidation” against Mormon Churches and their members and see if it merits a full page of condemnation.

Becket and Pals listed a grand total of one objectionable event, so we’ll look at it first:

• “Thugs sent white powder” to two Mormon churches.

It has never been determined just who sent the powder or why. That, of course, doesn’t deter those who think that gay people should quietly accept a second class status from making the baseless accusation.

The other incidences of “violence” (if you really stretch the word) through November 24th have been itemized by the Salt Lake Tribune. They consist of:

• Disruption. A group called Bash Back! disrupted services at an Evangelical church in Lansing, Michigan.
• Vandalism: There have been windows shot out with a bb gun, walls spray-painted, and glue poured into the locks of LDS churches. A Pentecostal church was peppered with eggs and toilet paper.
• Minor Arson: A Book of Mormon was set on fire on a LDS church doorstep and a plastic plant lit on fire at a University. Someone tried to burn a Yes on 8 yard sign.

In addition to the items listed by the Tribune, I also know of:

• A Styrofoam cross being carried into a Prop 8 protest by a Phyllis Burgess, a 69-year-old Palm Springs perennial anti-gay agitator, was snatched and broken.
• A group of Christian Dominionists were taunted and yelled at by angry gays until they were escorted by police out of the Castro in San Francisco.

Incidents of physical violence seem to have been limited to two, one on each side, and both before the election:

• A man was hit why trying to protect Yes on 8 signs outside a church in Modesto.
• An opponent to the proposition was attacked by a supporter and hit with a Yes on 8 sign in Torrance.

But from the language of Becket and Pals, you’d think that buildings were aflame and hospitals full from the victims of rampaging homosexual mobs terrorizing the nation:

Regrettably, some public voices have even sought to excuse the threats and disruptions simply as “demonstrations” that got out of hand. Perhaps that’s true in some cases. Far too many, however, seem never to have been demonstrations in the first place, but more nearly mobs, seeking not to persuade but to intimidate. When thugs send white powder to terrorize any place of worship, especially those of a religious minority, responsible voices need to speak clearly: Religious wars are wrong; they are also dangerous. Those who fail to condemn or seem to condone that intimidation are at fault as well. Consciously or not, they are numbing the public conscience, which endangers us all.

I condemn the behavior that is listed above. I do not, by any means, seek to justify or excuse vandalism. It is not appropriate to break someone’s protest cross even if she is seeking to insult and offend. It is absolutely not acceptable to trespass onto a church property in order to disrupt services.

But the sole instance that could even remotely be considered “nearly a mob” was the instance in the Castro. And while one incident may be “far too many”, this language is intended of obfuscate rather than clarify.

I have to conclude that this ad had nothing to do with violence against Mormons. Rather it is a way of demonizing gays and using insinuation to portray a community as violent and aggressive.

UPDATE:

Wayne Besen at Truth Wins Out lists some examples of the religious bigotry spouted by some of these very signatories.

El Coyote Manager Steps Down

Frontiers Magazine is reporting that Marjorie Christoffersen, manager at El Coyote restaurant in Los Angeless, is stepping down. She is also resigning as a member of El Coyote’s board of directors. She had been with the restaurant for 26 years.

El Coyote became embroiled in controversey last month when it was learned that Marjorie Christoffersen had donated $100 to California’s “Yes on 8” campaign, which sponsored the contitutional amendment to strip gays and lesbians of their right to marry. This contribution came as a shock to restaurant’s gay clientele which had seen the venerable 77-year-old institution as a welcoming and gay-friendly establishment.

After news of Christoffersen’s donation broke, El Coyote managers agreed to sit down and discuss the donation with members of the community. During the meeting, Christoffersen said that she was proud that the restaurant had been a “beacon of diversity.” But she refused to apologize for her donation, which she said stemmed from her Mormon faith. That led to a boycott of the restaurant.

Anti-Gay Campaign Plotted For Oklahoma City

The Gossip-Boy web site has uncovered evidence of a major upcoming anti-gay campaign by Oklahoma City Mayor Mick Cornett and a local pastor who advocates court-ordered “education programs” to “cure” gay people.

According to James Miko and Wayne Fuller, Mayor Cornett plans to team up with Olivet Baptist Church pastor Steve Kern (OK State Rep. Sally Kern’s husband) to unleash a campaign to “rid the library system of all gay and lesbian materials, as well as those their church-based philosophies find objectionable.”

The planned anti-gay drive is reportedly part of Mayor Cornett’s longer-term strategy for the 2010 governor’s race. According to unnamed insiders, the Mayor hopes that by waging this campaign targeting gays and lesbians, he will gain the good graces of fundamentalist voters and “walk away a hero to certain people”:

The insider also stated, “The Mayor is aware that Ernest Istook is returning to Oklahoma to join the governor’s race again. Istook has the conservative base locked in, so the Mayor must shake loose Istook supporters if he is to get past the Republican primary. Gays are easy targets for him. He tried to use them in 2006, but it backfired. This round he wants to make it clear he is without a doubt against gay rights.”

Miko and Fuller were able to confirm the outlines of the anti-gay plot by calling Pastor Kern while posing as a citizen working with the mayor. The transcript is posted online, in which “GB” (the Gossip Boy reporter) spoke with Steve Kern about a couple of recommendations for the library commission:

GB: Blair, I am familiar with him personally, is a terrific choice. The man will stand his ground and will certainly help keep the faggots in line. He’s a pretty big boy. Ha ha.

SK: Ha ha. Very true. Paul won’t take a lick of nonsense from the homos. He’s been such a blessing to Sally and I. Always supportive and always there for us. Even before this mess with them in March.

GB: Well good for him. He’s a real man of God and his service to everyone has not gone unnoticed. We need all the help we can get to make sure the perverts keep their nasty lifestyle out of our city libraries and away from our children. The sickness is spreading into everything.

SK: We have to get rid of that and start curing those sinners. It’s past time that this nation stopped placating sin and start putting them in education programs. Courts can force drug offenders into treatment centers and violent people into anger management. There’s no reason our courts can’t do that with homos. [Emphasis added]

Pro-gay advocates often suspect politicians of cynically expoiting anti-gay sentiment to further their political careers. We rarely have such a smoking gun as this one. And we also rarely get such a clear indication of the kind of “justice” some of our opponents envision if they had their way. To these people, re-education camps aren’t out of the question.

Hundreds Protest Vatican’s Opposition to Decriminalization of Homosexuality

According to AFP, about 250 people protested in St. Peter’s Square on Saturday over the Vatican’s opposition to a U.N. resolution calling for member nations to decriminalize homosexuality.

Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi exhibited more of the Vatican’s intrinsically disordered logic by saying the Church opposed “all forms of violent or discriminatory penal law regarding homosexuals…. No one obviously wants to defend the death penalty for homosexuals.” Some 80 countries have laws against homosexuality, with some including the death penalty or long terms of up to life imprisonment.

And yet the Vatican claims to oppose all “discriminatory penal law regarding homosexuals” by actively lobbying against a U.N. resolution calling for the repealing of all such laws. It certainly can’t get any more contradictory than that.

Here is an Italian news report of the protest:

[Hat tip: Towleroad]

Ray Boltz: Don’t Tell Me Who To Love

It’s been just a few months since Contemporary Christian Music singer Ray Boltz came out of the closet and acknowledged the reality of his life. Until then, he was a literal rock star among evangelicals. But after years of serious depression and medication, he finally decided that it was time for the lie to come to an end. Needless to say, his career in CCM has been markedly curtailed.

Today, Boltz is back with a new single and video, courtesy of Soulforce.

You can also download the single here.

Heterosexual Menace: A Fine Way To Raise A Son

In Pennsylvania:

A Mt. Holly Springs husband and wife whose 12-year-old son was accused of raping a 3-year-old girl he was baby-sitting in August 2007 were found guilty Wednesday of endangering the welfare of a child and corruption of minors.

The parents, ages 38 and 43, were charged when a search warrant served in investigation of their son’s statements turned up more than 3,000 Polaroid pictures the father had taken showing the mother in “provocative” poses and “various forms of undress,” prosecutors said. In about 40 of those pictures, the son was near the mother — sometimes within two feet or less of her, police said.

Police were tipped to the material when they boy told investigators that “it didn’t seem that [he and the 3-year-old] had as much fun as [the parents] did in the video,” before leading them to videos recorded by his parents in their home.

“At the time I didn’t think there was anything wrong with it, as long as he wasn’t paying attention,” the father testified, saying his son had been absorbed in television and video games when the pictures were taken. “Now I realize how stupid it was.”

The parents’ names are being withheld to protect their son’s identity. Pennsylvania is one of only twenty states where they haven’t yet “protected” marriage from the gays.

A Patronizing “Pastoral Message”

Cardinal Roger M. Mahony, Archbishop of Los Angeles, has issued A pastoral message to homosexual Catholics in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles assuring gay Catholics that they “are cherished members of the Catholic Church, and that we value you as equal and active members of the Body of Christ”.

I know what the Cardinal is trying to say. He just wants gay Catholics to know that this very personal action that he encouraged to harm their life wasn’t personal. It’s not out of some desire to hurt them, you see, it’s just out of Mahony’s absolute certainty about how things should be.

And that while he actively seeks to eliminate any measure of equality for same-sex attracted persons either in society or in the Church, he values them as equal members of the Body of Christ. You’re equal in the eyes of God, you see, but dogma and doctrine require that you be treated as intrinsically disordered, not to be protected from death sentences, and psychologically suspect due to your “deep-seated homosexual tendencies.”

Frankly, there are times that outright animosity is better. At least you know that the Phelpses are thinking about you when they carry signs saying “God Hates Fags”.

But these folks who campaign to change civil law in some way that impacts only gay people and then turn around and claim that it has nothing to do with gays, well they just infuriate me. It’s not that they declare us evil, per se, but rather that they refuse to consider us at all.

Consider the dismissiveness inherent in the Cardinal’s refusal to even recognize that gay couples exist:

As we have come to learn over these past decades, there are many groupings of people residing under one roof across California. Some of these groupings are related family members, while others are companions and friends. There are now 17 rights for such companions and friends specifically included in the State of California’s legal structure.

Having relegated decades-long committed loving relationships to “companions and friends”, and having declared – in a moment of absolute absurdity – that Proposition 8 never “intended, directly or indirectly, to lessen the value and importance of gay and lesbian persons”, the Cardinal arrogantly assigns the ill intention of the perpetrators of this attack on gay family onto the victims.

We are saddened that some people who opposed Proposition 8 have employed hurtful and accusatory language, and even threatening actions, against those who voted for Proposition 8. This is most unfortunate since such strategies obscure the basic matter at issue: the preservation of the ordered relationship between man and woman created by God.

At no point did Mahony acknowledge, much less apologize for, the hurtful and accusatory language of the Yes on 8 Campaign or the threatening actions against those who contributed against it. I guess the extortion letter signed by the Executive Director of the California Catholic Conference was justified by “the basic matter at issue”.

This is not by any reasonable definition a “pastoral message”. There is no recognition of the harm caused. There is no salve for the wounds in his flock. There is not even an admission that this political endeavor had the slightest of negative consequences on gay people.

There is only self-justification, lies about the intent and result of the campaign, and blame assigned to those who disagree with him – including those to whom this letter pretends to be addressed.

I’m not a Catholic so I cannot speak for those who are part of the Church. But were I one of Mahony’s flock, I would find his smarmy patronizing self-congratulatory “message” to be an offense to me, my family, my friends, my God, and all decent people everywhere.

Prop 8: The Musical

In case you haven’t seen it, here’s a musical number by Marc Shaiman, featuring Jack Black and Neil Patrick Harris:

According to the New York Times:

On Nov. 18, Mr. Shaiman recalled, he sat down at his piano in his home in Los Angeles and wrote “Prop 8.” On Nov. 19 and 20 he cast the video, recruiting Jack Black to play a particularly flippant Jesus Christ and Adam Shankman (the director and choreographer of the “Hairspray” movie musical) to direct it. The video was shot in one day at a magic store in Santa Monica, and mixed and edited after the Thanksgiving holiday at a pace that Mr. Shaiman found astounding. “It’s like ‘Saturday Night Live,’ only without the money,” he said. “But also without the restrictions.”

At least one humor-challenged Christian group headed by Gary Cass, noted Christian Reconstructionist and former head of D. James Kennedy’s now-defunct Center for Reclaiming America for Christ, has demanded an apology.