Box Turtle Bulletin

Who Is Behind Arizona’s Marriage Amendment?

This woman: Cathi Herrod, president of the Center for Arizona Policy. CAP is an official state policy council of Colorado Springs-based Focus On the Family.

This is the lobbyist who Arizona Senate President Timothy Bee (R-Tucson) denounced from the Senate dias — just before he crumpling himself under the pressure and casting the deciding 16th vote to put yet another anti-marriage amendment before the voters. Arizonans already said no to a previous attempt in 2006. Herrod didn’t like that answer, so she’s trying again for 2008.

Here’s shorter video featuring Cathi Herrod. Notice the message discipline. You can help to defeat Arizona’s Prop 102 here.

[Hat tip: Tucson Observer]

Marriage Recognition

A reader brought to my attention a rural Utah newspaper’s policy about printing wedding announcements for same-sex couples. Because the paper’s policy was pretty much standard (you’re paying for the ad so we won’t discriminate), that didn’t catch my attention. But the comments did illustrate an attitude that I think is often overlooked.

In the current battle over marriage, some who oppose allow same-sex couples to marry will argue that as long as the rights are the same then it’s not discriminatory to disallow the word “marriage”. Even some gay folks say, “I don’t need the word “marriage” as long as I have the same rights”.

But I contend that the word “marriage” is of incredible value because average people recognize marriage as unique and distinct. Further, as much as some may not want you to have one, they will recognize your marriage if the state does.

Consider the attitudes behind the authors of the following comments on the Herald Journal’s website:

Gay marriage does not exist in Utah. It doesn’t belong on the header “Wedding Announcements”. Either change the header or stop the false advertising.

(I suppose if the “wedding” occured in CA or MA, that would be a different story.)

and

I do, however, think it would mean more if they would actually take that leap and tie the legal not in Cali. Maybe they did or intend to. But if not, in my opinion this is a little less announcement worthy than it would have been had they driven the extra miles to deepen the commitment through contract. (not necessarily move the whole ceremony) My marriage means more. Not that we love each other more or less than these two do. It’s just that my wife and I have more to lose. We can’t just break up anymore.

I wouldn’t say any of that had same sex marriage not become legally recognizable in Cali.

Neither of these individuals seemed particularly supportive of the notion that gay persons should be treated equally in Utah. Yet both reluctantly recognize that a marriage in California is, indeed, a marriage and therefore it isn’t wrong to include it in their local paper’s announcements.

Anti-gays are correct that the battle over marriage in California (and Massachusetts) is critical. Gay couples returning from these states with marriage certificates will irreversibly change their home states.

Not because their state will recognize their marriage; most probably won’t. But because their neighbors will.

(hat tip to cowboy)

CDC and Journal of the American Medical Association Confirms New HIV Estimates

The big news this morning is that the CDC has confirmed its latest estimates of HIV incidence in the United States. Regular longtime readers at Box Turtle Bulletin may remember that these new figures were first discussed last November, with a follow-up in March.

At the time, the CDC were emphatic that the higher number of HIV cases reported “do not represent an increase in the epidemic.” Instead, the higher numbers were due to an improved surveillance system and blood tests. The CDC also said they were awaiting a professional peer review in a major medical journal.

The Journal of the American Medical Association yesterday released the results of that peer review and validated the new estimate. Among the Journal’s findings:

An estimated 39,400 persons were diagnosed with HIV in 2006 in the 22 states. Of 6864 diagnostic specimens tested using the BED assay, 2133 (31%) were classified as recent infections. Based on extrapolations from these data, the estimated number of new infections for the United States in 2006 was 56,300 (95% confidence interval [CI], 48,200-64,500); the estimated incidence rate was 22.8 per 100,000 population (95% CI, 19.5-26.1). Forty-five percent of infections were among black individuals and 53% among men who have sex with men. The back-calculation (n = 1.230 million HIV/AIDS cases reported by the end of 2006) yielded an estimate of 55,400 (95% CI, 50 000-60 800) new infections per year for 2003-2006 and indicated that HIV incidence increased in the mid-1990s, then slightly declined after 1999 and has been stable thereafter.

The CDC emphasizes again:

It should be noted that the new incidence estimate does not represent an actual increase in the numbers of HIV infections. Rather, a separate CDC historical trend analysis published as part of this study suggests that the annual number of new infections was never as low as 40,000 and that it has been roughly stable since the late 1990s (with estimates ranging between 55,000 and 58,500 during the three most recent time periods analyzed).

This is important to remember. This is not a sudden increase in HIV infections, but it does mean that the problem was considerably larger than previously understood. HIV Infection is the precursor to AIDS itself, with the infection often occurring 6-12 years before the onset of AIDS. AID diagnoses have actually been falling slightly throughout the past decade, which is consistent with the CDC’s finding that HIV infections have been relatively steady since 1999.

Clarifying Robert Gagnon’s Tortured Logic

First a little background

The Presbyterian Church (USA), like many mainline churches, struggles with its approach to gay and lesbian parishioners. The denomination, on a whole, is fairly welcoming of gay and lesbian Christians but is sharply divided about allowing them to have positions of leadership.

The most vocal activist against gay persons in the church is Robert Gagnon, Associate Professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. Gagnon has written extensively – and creatively – about how Scripture supports his theological presumptions about gay persons.

Earlier this year the church’s General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission ruled that local ordaining bodies must adhere to standards of fidelity and chastity in considering ordination thereby banning ordination of gay persons.

But in June the General Assembly met and one of the contentious issues addressed was homosexual ordination. Those who support full inclusion of gay persons in the life of the church won a number of issues including a deletion of the language that bans gay clergy. And, because a change in language requires ratification of the presbyteries, in the meanwhile the Assembly provided a reinterpretation of a provision of the Book of Order dealing with ordination.

Gagnon, fresh off the loss, declared that the intention and direction of the General Assembly could be ignored. Relying on a Christian Post article that reported his contention, I interpreted Gagnon’s argument as follows:

Not liking the vote at the General Assembly, Gagnon has decided that it doesn’t really have to be recognized. Because the vote guides ordaining bodies rather than the judicial commission directly, Gagnon thinks he’s found a loophole.

… Gagnon thinks that the church’s judicial commission can reverse the decision of the General Assembly.

Gagnon’s Response

Dr. Gagnon did not agree with my assessment of his position and wrote a rebuttal on his website (pdf) entitled, Is Box Turtle Kinkaid Logic-Challenged?

Amusing, Gagnon misspells my name, refers to our site as “homosexualist”, babbles a bit about box turtles, and rather oddly discusses my “obsessive efforts to promote [my] homosexual behavior.” But eventually he gets around to the point of his piece, declaring that I misunderstand his point.

Gagnon clarifies:

Kinkaid characterizes my view as “tortured” because, he alleges, I believe that the “vote [by the General Assembly] guides ordaining bodies rather than the judicial commission directly.” This is not my argument but Kinkaid’s own distorted view of my argument.

My point is rather that, contrary to the desire of its supporters, the precise wording of the 2008 authoritative interpretation of G-6.0108 does not actually state that governing bodies have the right to ordain homosexually active candidates. [emphasis in the original]

I don’t wish to misstate Gagnon’s argument. I was incorrect in my understanding that his loophole was in the body addressed. His loophole is in the specifics of wording.

In a very exacting sense, Gagnon is correct. The words “homosexually active candidates” appear no where in Advisory Opinion # 18 Discernment in Examining Bodies – G-6.0108 (pdf).

But the heart of the opinion is found in its closing paragraph:

This means that ordaining bodies should be given the “benefit of the doubt” in making individual judgments regarding fitness for office. Correspondingly, it means that ordaining bodies are urged to not “push the limits” in making those determinations. While explicitly recognizing the right of review, the commissioners to the 217th General Assembly urged the church to exercise great restraint in utilizing that right, reserving its use to clear cases of abuse of authority by ordaining bodies. We remind the church that it is the duty of both individual Christians and Christian societies to exercise mutual forbearance toward each another (G-1.0305). We pray that all ordaining bodies will exercise restraint and Christian charity.

Gagnon knows full well the intention of the Assembly. He knows that it was the intent of the church to instruct its Permanent Judicial Commission exercise great restraint in meddling in the ordination decisions of local bodies. And it was the intent of the church to advise those bodies to be charitable in considering the feelings of those who find homosexuality contrary to Christian faith.

Taken in the context of the debate and of the affirmative vote on revision to the Book of Order, Gagnon knows that it was the intention of the General Assembly to allow those local bodies who wish to ordain gay or lesbian Presbyterians the freedom to do so, provided that they do so with Christian grace and humility.

None of this matters to Gagnon.

Translating the opinion as though the Assembly had not spoken, he blathers on about “constitutional governance” and “churchwide essentials” and “precise wording of the text”. He contends that it is not the intention of the Assembly that matters, but “text of the A.I. itself, not the rationale accompanying it.”

So I am not arguing, as Kincaid confusedly claims, that the General Assembly authoritative interpretation “guides ordaining bodies rather than the judicial commission directly” but rather that:

1. The General Assembly approved only the actual text of the authoritative interpretation and not its accompanying rationale.

2. In this case the authors of the authoritative interpretation failed to word their overture in such a way as to accomplish their goal of allowing ordination of homosexually active candidates.

3. Therefore, the PCUSA high court has a right to continue to rule, and indeed should rule, as it did in its 2008 Bush decision; namely, that “it would be an obstruction of constitutional governance to permit examining bodies to ignore or waive a specific standard that has been adopted by the whole church, such as the ‘fidelity and chastity’ portion of G-6.0106b, or any other similarly specific provision.”

And this is the problem that I have with so many religious anti-gays. They care little about the spirit of the Gospel and instead look for jots and tittles. They quickly discard grace and replace it with legalism.

But regardless of Gagnon’s theology, it is his logic that I am challenging here. And having read his exposition, clarification, and argument, I return to my original conclusion: Robert Gagnon’s logic is excruciatingly tortured.

Gagnon’s position is that language technicalities are the means by which the court should ignore the intention of the Assembly.

His contention is the equivalent of a child that says, “I know Mom said to stop hitting you, but she didn’t write it down”. And just as a child finds that parents have little patience with obstinate children who look for loopholes in their parents’ wording, I think the Permanent Judicial Commission is unlikely to take shelter under the “but you didn’t use the word homosexual” defense.

UPDATE: Dr. Gagnon has corrected the spelling of my name on his site.

SECOND UPDATE (sigh):

Dr. Gagnon has responded with a 15 page rant about Why Box Turtle Kincaid Continues to Be Logic-Challenged and Now Also Principle-Challenged. Life is a little crazy right now and my real job is demanding my focus (16 hour day yesterday) but when I have time to provide Gagnon’s article the attention it requires, I’ll address his concerns.

At the offset it appears I quoted the wrong opinion (2006 rather than 2008). Obviously, this is quite embarassing. However, it does not change my conclusions about Gagnon’s logic process. If anything, Gagnon is continuing to reaveal a very wacky way of thinking. It’s too early to give a good analysis, but he seems be arguing that the other Presbyterians were confused and didn’t know how they were voting. (more on that later)

The more I read from Gagnon, the less I respect him. There are plenty of theologians with whom I may disagree on various issues but for whom i have respect for the logic, consistency, and level-headedness of their approach. But Gagnon’s wild presumptions, obsessive desire to ascribe to others an endorsement of views they have not expressed, peculiar logic, jargonistic language, personal insults, and general hostility make him seem much more a contemporary of Peter LaBarbera or Matt Barber (he does compare himself to these individuals).

Gagnon also seems have whipped out something called Box Turtle Kincaid Peddles Distorted Orthodoxy Test While Promoting Immorality, parts 1 and 2. I don’t have time to read it right now, but I’m sure it’s a doozy. It adds up to 24 pages.

But fear not. I will get to this. It’s just too full of hyperbole, frothing indignation, laughable proclamations and self importance that I just won’t be able to resist a proper treatment (when work lets me).

See also:
Gagnon Rants On And On
My Very Favorite Gagnonism
Robert Gagnon and the Grand Box Turtle Whirl of Immorality
Gagnon Revisited
Clarifying Robert Gagnon’s Tortured Logic
Gagnon Employs Tortured Logic
Robert Gagnon’s Unorthodox Approach to Doctrine

Box Turtles in the News

Katie describes herself as a Mac evangelist (same here!), mother, wife, grandmother, Redskins fan, 37-year Northern Virginia public school teacher, and a BTB reader. She turned us on to this Washington Post story about a heroic box turtle near the DC/Maryland border:

There’s a drug suspect in custody, so let’s credit her with the arrest. Her name is Turtle No. 72. And this is her story:

She is an Eastern box turtle, one of 135 counted by researchers in the park in recent years, and one of three puttering in the woods with tiny radio transmitters affixed to their shells so scientists can study their movements. …

Katie says, “I didn’t realize that we were tracking turtles and visiting them in the park, but actually I guess it’s better than some things we spend money on. Sounds like a job I might like.” Me too, most days.

Anti-Gay School Board Endorses Proposition 8

James Hartline, an anti-gay activist in San Diego, is a peculiar individual. He is an ex-gay who is convinced that God spoke to him out of a television set and that he will be divinely healed of HIV which will result in a world wide spiritual revival based on Hartline’s prophesies.

He also believes that God instructed him to run for city counsel. Hartline came in last on the ballot (behind a man arrested for masturbating in public while campaigning) which he believes indicates that the Christians of San Diego have failed the test God set before them.

James has become increasingly bitter over the response of San Diegans to him. He now regularly denounces the Mayor and City Counsel members, the local Republican party, and other elected officials whom he believes have betrayed him and his exacting homophobic dogma. There are very few people who live up to James’ anti-gay expectations.

But one elected official has escaped Hartline’s wrath, Grossmont Union High School District boardmember Priscilla Schreiber. In fact, Hartline and Schreiber are such allies that Schreiber blogged as a representative for Hartline during his election.

Schreiber was elected to the board in a battle over whether the district would have a non-discrimination policy that included sexual orientation. Schreiber opposed any programs that discouraged anti-gay bigotry, a position that sat well with the local constituency.

Schreiber has since used her position as a cudgel against any safe space or sense of worth for gay students and other gay persons. She has described GLSEN as “a radical homosexual advocacy group that seeks to promote homosexual acceptance to young students in public schools” and declared, “Parents send their students to school to receive the best education from the best teachers, not so they can be indoctrinated into homosexuality, lesbianism or transsexualism.”

In 2002, the school board edited a film on tolerance to exclude a message of inclusion. The mother of a boy assualted for his orientation objected.

School trustee Priscilla Schreiber “said the portrayal of a gay authority figure,” (a police officer Chuck Limbert of the San Francisco Police Department, whom I have met) “sends a message that homosexuality is normal and acceptable, which she said does not belong in the classroom.”

In fact, Schreiber and her co-boardmembers so favor anti-gay activism that they sued to overturn state law prohibiting public schools from discriminating because of sexual orientation or identity. And last year she attacked the San Diego City Counsel for their declaration of support for Gay Pride Month.

Priscilla Schreiber, President of Grossmont Unified High School District, told the council, “How can you betray this city’s Christian heritage by voting every year for an event that destroys our youth?”

So it should be no surprise that the San Diego Union-Tribune is reporting the following:

The Grossmont Union High School District went on record yesterday supporting a November initiative that would ban same-sex marriage in California.

AdvertisementThe board voted 4-0 to pass a resolution endorsing Proposition 8, which would amend the state Constitution to recognize marriage only between a man and a woman.

Schreiber and her fellow anti-gay activists are living up to their expectations. I’m sure Hartline approves.

AFA’s Misquoting of the CDC

We commented earlier on an article in AFA’s OneNewsNow in which Regina Griggs displayed astonishing ignorance about the HIV infection rates of gay youth. Now the editors at AFA have amended the article

Over 70 percent of young kids 13- to 24-years-old, men having sex with men, are now HIV-positive,” Griggs notes. (see editor’s note)

and the editor’s note reads

In June of 2007 the Centers for Disease Control stated that homosexual sex accounted for 71 percent of all HIV infections.

Well now that’s an interesting statistic (though entirely irrelevant to Grigg’s claim). But what do they mean?

Is AFA saying that homosexual sex accounted for 71 percent of recent infections? The CDC Report (pdf) states:

MSM (49%) and persons exposed through high-risk heterosexual contact (32%) accounted for 81% of all HIV/AIDS cases diagnosed in 2005. [the most recent year reported ; emphasis added]

Is AFA saying that homosexual sex accounted for 71 percent of total persons living with HIV/AIDS?

By sex, 73% of adults and adolescents living with HIV/AIDS were male.

Of the estimated 341,524 male adults and adolescents living with HIV/AIDS, 61% had been exposed through male-to-male sexual contact, 18% had been exposed through injection drug use, 13% had been exposed through high risk heterosexual contact, and 7% had been exposed through both male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use. [In other words, half: (61% + 7%) * 73% = 50% ; emphasis added]

Although the report provides information by ethnicity, location, age at transmission, cumulative deaths, and much more, I was unable to find any statistic that could be interpreted to state that “homosexual sex accounted for 71 percent of all HIV infections”.

(hat tip to reader Neil H)

Sci-Fi Writer Advocates Overthrow of Government If Prop 8 Fails

Do you think shootings in Knoxville are a one-time thing? Science fiction author Orson Scott Card wants to take it up several notches if California’s Proposition 8 fails.

In an astonishingly paranoid and incoherent op-ed appearing in the July 24 Mormon Times, Card zig-zags from one point to the next, somehow drawing in property rights, the color of grey and the properties of asphalt before he’s finally is able to get around to his point, which apparently is this:

How long before married people answer the dictators thus: Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn.

Card is a very well-regarded science fiction writer. His novel Ender’s Game and its sequel Speaker for the Dead both won the Hugo Award and the Nebula Award, making Card the first author to win both of science fiction’s top prizes in two consecutive years. This makes this rambling screed all the more remarkable. It’s not only abysmally constructed logic, but it’s horribly written.

But at least he’s consistent. His manifesto from 2004 was much longer and even more rambling. And that one is a mere reflection of what he wrote in 1990:

Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those who flagrantly violate society’s regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society.

Since I’m not much of a science fiction fan, I’ve never read his books. I don’t know what kind of world he conjures in his works of fiction. All I know is that what he’s trying to conjure in the real world is far darker than anything I’ve seen in quite a while.

[Hat tips: Nick Literski and Jody Wheeler]

Faith and Family Drive Marriage

Every anti-gay knows that gays don’t really want marriage. They are just hoping to destroy marriage, the country, and civilization as a whole.

Well a study out of the University of Illinois suggests that the reasons that gay couples have for legalizing and ritualizing their relationships may well be similar to those of heterosexual couples.

The study looked at 190 gay couples in downstate Illinois and identified two subgroups:

Legalizers – those who had prepared legal documents to give protection to their union.

Length of relationship was the strongest predictor that a couple would legalize their relationship. Legalizers in this sample were more likely to belong to a supportive religious congregation than non-legalizing cohabiters, Oswald said.

“Faith communities may be important sources of legal education and advocacy for same-sex couples,” she noted.

Ritualizers – those legalizers who had participated in a commitment ceremony.

Having children and identifying religious beliefs as being very important in their daily life were the strongest predictors that a legalized couple would ritualize their relationship.

In fact, mothers and fathers in this study were 3.5 times more likely to have had a commitment ceremony than lesbians or gay men who lived together and had legalized their relationship but had not been part of a commitment ritual, she said.

If this observation in Illinois also applies to California and Massachusetts, those most likely to marry are those who have been together a long time, have children, and a strong religious life.

Yeah, I can see how that would be a threat to the institution of marriage.

A Fan of the Box Turtle

Usually when we hear from someone who likes the box turtle, they are someone who likes the community here at our site. But today we heard from quite a different fan of the box turtle:

Hi

I am the editor of HerpDigest and owner of HerpArts (As in Herpetology the study of reptiles and amphibians) And someone who has been very active in box turtle conservation. And I was surfing the net looking for new sources. And there you were.

I swear I never heard that quote, or the the reactions.

Now I am glad I did.

I find your use of the metaphor of the box turtle wonderful.

Though Herpdigest is a non-political publication, I am going to find a way to mention your site, and with permission reprint the “The Tale of the Box Turtle?

Please email by Sunday so I can reprint it in next weeks Issue.

Allen Salzberg

I got a chuckle out of this and hope that you do too. And if you are interested in amphibians and reptiles (of the non-political sort), check out Allen’s sites.

Marriage in Massachusetts

It’s official kids, you can marry in the Bay State even if you live in the Show Me State (AP).

Gov. Deval Patrick has signed a bill repealing a 1913 law that barred couples from marrying in Massachusetts if their union would not be valid in their own states.

Out-of-state gay couples will be able to marry immediately if a court waives the state’s standard three-day waiting period for them.

HIV/AIDS in the Gay Community

Anti-gays often seek to portray all gay persons as diseased. There is a presumption that HIV/AIDS is an automatic consequence of “homosexual behavior” and that all gay persons (gay men in particular) are contagious and dangerous.

Just this week, PFOX’s Regina Griggs made the outlandish claim that 70% of all gay youth aged 13 to 24 are now HIV-positive. And last month we spent considerable time trying to educate Insure.com’s Robert Bland that HIV has not reduced the average age at death of gay men by 20 years.

But in the process of responding to Bland’s homophobic claim, I found that there did not appear to be an easily accessed answer as to just how many gay people are infected with the Human Immunodeficiency Virus. So I set out to make some calculations of my own.

It is very difficult to say with certainty exactly what percentage of gay persons are living with HIV/AIDS for a number of reasons:

• Difficulty in estimating the gay population
• Difficulty in estimating the total number of persons infected with HIV
• Difficulty in estimating those infected with HIV that are gay or bisexual

However, I’ve taken the best source information I could find and made some assumptions. Wherever possible I’ve erred on the side of caution and my estimations propably understate the total number of gay persons and overstate the extent to which gay persons are infected.

Here is what I’ve found:

• There are at least 5.3 million gay and bisexual men and 5.5 million gay and bisexual women over the age of 15 living in the United States today, for a cumulative GLB Community of at least 10.8 million people.
• Around 12.3% of gay and bisexual men – 6.0% of the Gay Community – are living with HIV/AIDS.

For detail about by assumptions and the sources for my calculations, see our new page:

The Prevalence of HIV in the Gay Community

Knoxville Gays On Edge; Local MCC Church Wants To See Letter

Rev. Bob Galloway of Knoxville’s Metropolitan Community Church wants to know what’s in Jim David Adkisson’s letter. He says that his parishoners won’t feel safe unless they know why the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church was targeted:

The more clarity, the better,” Galloway said. “We need to know what we’re dealing with. Is it just liberals he was targeting? Is it just gays? Was it all these things mixed together? We need to know.”

Galloway said his church serves about 180 people from around East Tennessee, about 85 percent of them gay or lesbian. Some members made a U-turn for home Sunday morning when they heard of a shooting at a liberal, gay-friendly church. “They thought it was us,” Galloway said.

Meanwhile, nine local Knoxville bands will hold a benefit at a local club on Friday evening, and TVUUC has set next Sunday for its rededication and reconsecration service. Members of the Unitarian Universalist Association Trauma Response Ministry who were sent to Knoxville will be on hand before and after the service.

See also:
Knoxville Gays On Edge; Local MCC Church Wants To See Letter
Relief Fund Set Up for Knoxville Churches
Thoughts and Prayers for Knoxville Shooting Victims
Knoxville Shooting Witness’s First-Hand Account
Knoxville Shooter Hated “Blacks, Gays, Anyone Different”
AFA Approved Comments: Knoxville Church Doing “Satan’s Work”
Knoxville Shooter Hated “Liberals,” Gays
Just Concluded: Knoxville Press Conference
Knoxville Shooter’s Manifesto Found
Gunman Opens Fire On Gay-Friendly Church, Two Killed

Another Jesse Helms Legacy Begins To Fall

President George Bush today signed the sweeping President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) into law. This bill vastly expands U.S. aid to combat HIV/AIDS overseas. It also carries a repeal of the so-called Helms Amendment from 1993, which barred foreign travelers and immigrants with HIV from entering the country.

While the travel ban is now removed from law, it is still in place as a matter of public policy. In 1987, the Department of Health and Human Services used its existing legal authority to add HIV to a list of communicable diseases that disqualifies HIV-positive visitors from entering the country. While the HHS is no longer required by law to keep the ban in place, it is authorized to designate any communicable disease as a reason to refuse admittance.

So far, neither the Administration nor HHS are commenting on whether administrative policies will change now that the ban is lifted. According to The Washington Blade:

Some Capitol Hill insiders have speculated that the Bush administration might decide to leave the HHS policy in place, preferring to let the next president decide whether to repeal it. That would leave the ban in place until at least late January.

A spokesperson for Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, said Obama opposes the ban and would take action to end it if he’s elected president.

A spokesperson for the campaign of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, did not return a call seeking McCain’s position on the issue.

LaBarbera’s Incoherence on Hate Crimes

Peter LaBarbera thinks that the media attention surrounding the Knoxville shooting “proves” that hate crime laws aren’t necessary. According to the American Family Association’s OneNewsNow:

The pro-family advocate adds that the homosexual movement gets favorable treatment within the media, and LaBarbera says with that type of coverage there is no need for special legislation to “give more attention and better treatment to this case.” He adds that with the media spotlight on the incident, “it proves our case” that hate crimes laws are not necessary.

The tortured logic behind this statement is astounding. LaBarbera constantly complains that gays are getting “favorable treatment” in the media. Now he says that gays don’t need hate crime protections because of that treatment. But if the media acted the way LaBarbera wants them to act — by only portraying gays and lesbians in a negative light — would he then agree that maybe hate crime protections are warranted? Don’t count on it.

Besides, here’s a news flash for LaBarbera. The FBI is already investigating this as a hate crime.

Why? According to Stacie Bohanan, spokeswoman for the FBI’s Knoxville division, “Anytime someone uses force to obstruct another person in the free exercise of their religious beliefs, that becomes a violation of the federal civil rights statutes.”

And according to police reports, it certainly appears that Jim David Adkisson targeted the church because of its “liberal” beliefs, which just happen to include a safe and welcoming haven for gays and transgender people.

So ironically, if authorities decide that Adkisson is guilty of a hate crime, it will be because he committed a crime based on the victim’s religious beliefs, which is protected. It’s the same protection that everyone enjoys, not just religious minorities. In 2006, the FBI recorded 62 anti-Protestant hate crime incidents. Last I checked, Protestants were hardly a persecuted minority. But when the law covers religion, it covers all religions — even atheists.

But if this same shooting had happened instead at an LGBT community center, the FBI would nowhere in sight. The same crime targeted against a different community would be treated very differently under the law.

Now if people like LaBarbera were arguing that there should be no hate crime laws period, then that would be different. But I don’t see him arguing that. He’s only arguing that existing laws should not be extended to cover violent and property crimes motivated by sexual orientation. He claims that doing so would be some sort of “special” treatment under the law.

Well, as the law stands today, it is special treatment. LaBarbera’s religious beliefs are protected under current hate crime laws.

And even if the law were changed to extend protections based on sexual orientation, LaBarbera would still be protected — perhaps even moreso. Because if he is ever straight-bashed in a violent crime or a property crime — as 28 other heterosexuals were in 2006, then the law would be there to protect him too.

But as long as The Peter continues to agitate against hate crime protections based on sexual orientation — and let’s add gender identity and expression while we’re at it — while complaining about “anti-Christian” persecution, then the only thing he’s interested in is keeping “special protections” all for himself. And with that argument, he’s either showing his ignorance or his hatred. Pick one.