Box Turtle Bulletin

Kern Co. Supervisors Reject Anti-Gay Ordinance

We told you in June about the lunatic idea that Randy Thomasson and the Campaign for Children and Families came up with to try and have Kern County Supervisors put an ordinance in place restricting marriage to the opposite sex.

Not surprisingly, the County’s counsel informed them that this was unquestionably unconstitutional. And the County Supervisors decided that inviting lawsuits that they were guaranteed to lose was not a wise decision.

In a WorldNetDaily article before today’s decision, Thomasson had these words to say:

“This will be as inspirational as the Alamo, without the guns, knives, blood or death,” he said.

The more I hear from Thomasson, the more I’m beginning to think he’s a simpleton. I truly hope that the anti-gays keep him as the voice of Proposition 8; he improves our chances of defeating the bigoted amendment.

In a bit of sad news, however, the Supervisors did not override Barnett and deputize Kern County employees to perform civil marriages. So indigent heterosexual Kern County couples will have to expend additional funds so that elected officials can spite gay residents.

See also:
Kern Co. Supervisors Reject Anti-Gay Ordinance
Calaveras County Joins Kern and Butte
Barnett Breaks Her Media Silence – Stupidly, of Course
Chad Vegas – Kern Co. School Board Trustee’s Double Standard
Ann Barnett Annoys Local Bakersfield Media
Two More California Counties Stop Officiating at Weddings
CA Anti-Gays Either Completely Idiotic or Shameless Liars
No Non-Religious Marriages in Kern County
A Voice of Reason in Kern Co.
Kern Co. (Bakersfield) Clerk Ann K. Barnett Cancels Straight Weddings
More Bakersfield Bigotry
Bakersfield – Not a Place to Plan Your Wedding

Study by Senior Military Officers: DADT Harms Military Effectiveness

A new report (PDF: 1.39MB/16 pages) written by four high-ranking retired military officers and issued by the Palm Center of the University of California lends significant support for repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT), the military’s ban on gays and lesbians serving openly. The report by Brigadier General Hugh Aitkin (USMC), Lieutenant General Minter Alexander (USAF), Lieutenant General Robert Gard (USA), and Vice Admiral Jack Shanahan (USN) concludes that the ban on gays and lesbians serving openly actually diminished military effectiveness and unit cohesion, and calls for the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

One additional interesting fact stood out in the Study Group’s assessment: Those who oppose gays and lesbians serving in the military refused to participate or provide any information. It appears they simply don’t want the issue looked at calmly and rationally:

The Study Group was saddened that not a single expert who opposes gays in the military was willing to meet or talk with us in person. For each expert, the group offered to take written, and/or in-person testimony, and offered to arrange and subsidize transportation to Washington, D.C. or to arrange videoconferencing or teleconferencing facilities. The group also asked experts who oppose gays in the military to provide additional names of experts who might participate. Because not a single one of these experts was willing to participate in person or to provide additional names of people who would, therefore the group devoted particular and extensive effort to the study of their published work and any written comments they were willing to submit for consideration.

Among those who were invited to participate but declined were Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness, the leading opponent of efforts to repeal DADT. Others who declined to participate in this study include Peter Sprigg, Robert Maginnis, and Melissa Wells-Petry of the Family “Research” Council.

The study’s authors list ten findings:

Finding one: “The law locks the military’s position into stasis and does not accord any trust to the Pentagon to adapt policy to changing circumstances.” Because the ban is written into law, the authors contend that it restricts the Defense Department from adjusting its policy to meet military needs or readiness. They say that because the military officially can’t change its policy, it is up to individual commanders to exhibit flexibility in deciding on their own whether to ignore or violate the policy, which leaves the false impression that DADT is working.

Finding two: “Existing military laws and regulations provide commanders with sufficient means to discipline inappropriate conduct.” The authors note that existing law, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and other Pentagon regulations provide commanding officers with all the tools they need to “disciplin[e] inappropriate public displays of affection, fraternization, adultery, or any other conduct which is prejudicial to the maintenance of good order, discipline, morale and unit cohesion.”

Finding three: “‘Don’t ask, don’t tell” has forced some commanders to choose between breaking the law and undermining the cohesion of their units.” The authors hinted at this in their first finding. Here, they explored the problem more fully:

The Study Group heard from a heterosexual officer who returned recently from a tour of duty in Iraq. He told the group that one of his best non-commissioned officers was probably a lesbian, and that if he had been presented with credible evidence of her homosexuality, he would have been forced to choose between following the law and keeping his unit intact. For this officer, unit cohesion was marked by the need to retain a qualified, meritorious lesbian service member. When asked which choice he would have made, he said that he would have opted to break the law. Experts in military law attested, “The statute makes it mandatory to follow up if told.” Yet, a former non-commissioned officer confirmed, “There were times I should have said something. I didn’t. I helped people manage their career.” He acknowledged, “I was breaking the law myself.”

The authors also noted that “no commanding officer has been admonished for not following up” on learning of a subordinate’s homosexuality.

Finding four: “‘Don’t ask, don’t tell” has prevented some gay, lesbian, and bisexual service members from obtaining psychological and medical care as well as religious counseling.” People should be able to expect a degree of confidentiality when talking with doctors, chaplains, counselors, and other professionals. LGBT servicemembers however aren’t afforded that confidentiality. They have been discharged after confiding in chaplains, and doctors and therapists are under orders to report clients who discuss their homosexuality during treatment. One commanding officer discussed the bind this caused:

As an E-6, I had become a leader, and as a leader, troops came to me for advice and guidance. I had many gay troops working for me, and some of them I saw suffer a great deal because of this policy. One gay troop had a sexually transmitted disease and he asked what he should do about it. I advised him, of course, to see a doctor, but he called it to my attention that if he did, he could be kicked out of the Navy. Another troop was having a relationship problem with her girlfriend — she threatened committing suicide — and I told her to see a counselor or chaplain, but then I realized that wasn’t a good idea because talking about her girlfriend would violate the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy. No matter what I told these troops, nothing was the right answer and I felt like a hypocrite.

This can affect straight personnel as well:

In one remarkable incident in 2001, an Air Force airman sought the assistance of a military psychiatrist after a civilian raped him. The psychiatrist announced that the airman must be gay if he allowed himself to be raped, and he threatened to out the soldier to his command if he spoke about being gay during their therapy session.

Finding five: “‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ has caused the military to lose some talented service members.” Between 2003 and 2006, more than 800 people with mission-critical skills have been dismissed under DADT. During the same period, the military recruited 4,230 convicted felons under the “moral waivers” program. They cited a UCLA study which found that 4,000 people would have retained each year since DADT was established in 1994 — about 1,000 on average were discharged each year, and 3,000 more left on their own who would have stayed if they could serve openly. In contrast, only 2% of servicemembers said they wouldn’t have joined the military if gays and lesbians were permitted to serve openly, which also amounts to about 4,000 per year. This means that repealing DADT would be a wash, recruitment-wise.

Finding six: “‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ has compelled some gay, lesbian, and bisexual service members to lie about their identity.” This means that the policy “puts some gay, lesbian, and bisexual service members in a quandary and undermines the personal integrity essential to honor and trust.”

Finding seven: “Many gays, lesbians, and bisexuals are serving openly.” According to one estimate, some 65,000 GLBT personnel are currently serving in the armed forces. And according to a recent Zogby poll, 23% of personnel already know that they are serving alongside someone who is gay.

Finding eight: “Don’t ask, don’t tell” has made it harder for some gays, lesbians, and bisexuals to perform their duties.” One non-commissioned officer described the problem this way:

I had two gay friends while I was stationed in Spain. One man, E., was very open [about being gay], like me. The other one, T., followed the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy nearly to the letter of the law. T. told me that he was gay, but to his co-workers he lied about having girlfriends. But everyone hated him. I asked the guys at work why they harassed T. when none of them harassed E. or me. They said the problem wasn’t the fact T. was gay, the problem was he was a liar. And to them, that meant he was a coward. They were personally insulted that he lied to them. In this case, DADT is a dual-edged sword: if you follow it, you’re mistrusted; if you don’t, you play Russian roulette every day with your career.

This goes back to the issue of personal integrity. When someone is permitted to show integrity, they garner the respect that is essential to unit cohesiveness. But when fellow servicemembers know someone is lying about one thing, they will find it difficult to trust that person in other matters. And this issue of trust goes to the very heart of unit cohesiveness.

Finding nine: “Military attitudes towards gays and lesbians are changing.” According to the study’s authors, poll results show that between 58% and 79% of the public believe that gays and lesbians should be permitted to serve openly. Interestingly, the study’s authors didn’t note in this section a Zogby survey from last year among returning military veterans which found that only 37% felt that the ban should continue.

Finding ten: “Evidence shows that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly is unlikely to pose any significant risk to morale, good order, discipline, or cohesion.” This is actually the most exhaustively supported finding, perhaps reflecting the importance the authors place on this finding. They poured over several studies and polls among U.S. military personnel, and could find no correlation between having a gay or lesbian unit member and that unit’s cohesiveness or effectiveness. The study group also solicited input from British and Israeli military experts, where gays and lesbians have been permitted to serve openly with no impact to military readiness.

The study group issued these four recommendations based on their findings:

Recommendation 1.Congress should repeal 10 USC § 654 and return authority for personnel policy under this law to the Department of Defense.

Recommendation 2. The Department of Defense should eliminate “don’t tell” while maintaining current authority under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and service regulations to preclude misconduct prejudicial to good order and discipline and unit cohesion. The prerogative to disclose sexual orientation should be considered a personal and private matter.

Recommendation 3. Remove from Department of Defense directives all references to “bisexual,” “homosexual,” “homosexual conduct,” “homosexual acts,” and “propensity.” Establish in their place uniform standards that are neutral with respect to sexual orientation, such as prohibitions against any inappropriate public bodily contact for the purpose of satisfying sexual desires.

Recommendation 4. Immediately establish and reinforce safeguards for the confidentiality of all conversations between service members and chaplains, doctors, and mental health professionals.

Study Links Virus to Rare Cancer In Heterosexual Men

There’s a headline you don’t see every day. This is almost the mirror image of the study which sparked the MRSA panic last January: A virus that had been causing cancer in women and gay men has been found in straight men in pretty high numbers. It’s just one small study though, just like the one that inspired worldwide headlines of a new killer superbug threatening homosexual men. So where’s the panic this time? After all, HPV is one of the most common sexually transmitted diseases out there.

Paging Peter LaBarbera and Matt Barber…

Did You Know…

… that employees who are “out” at work perform better?

Weekly Standard Editor: McCain Needs To Bash Gays

Fred Barnes, editor of The Weekly Standard was on Fox News (where else?) yesterday with some advice for McCain:

BARNES: McCain has to run a center-right campaign. He’s paying a lot of attention to the center, and he also needs to pay attention to the right, because these are the people … (crosstalk).

BARNES: And here’s what he needs to do. He needs to touch on some of the social issues which energize the right. In particular, gays in the military for one. We know Barack Obama is for allowing gays in the military, and Bill Clinton tried to do, but backed off. This is not a popular issue. Gay marriage is another one. These are both issues that I think McCain’s going to have to use. You can’t ignore the right. If he does, he’ll lose.

McCain’s been hearing this advice a lot lately. He heard it two weeks ago when he met with several Ohio social conservatives including Mike Gonidakis, head of Ohio Right to Life, and Phil Burress, head of Cincinnati-based Citizens for Community Values. Burress also sits on the board of directors of Exodus International.

While meeting with Burress and others, McCain promised to be more outspoken in his opposition to same-sex marriage. Afterwards, McCain released a statement endorsing California’s proposed ban on same-sex marriages. This was just a few days after McCain reportedly met with members of the Log Cabin Republicans.

It looks like wedge politics may be roaring back. Surprised?

Ex-Gay Exposé – Response To NARTH’s Denver Convention Announced

NARTH is holding it’s annual convention in Denver the weekend of November 7-9. Christine Bakke and I both happen to live here so we’re heading up the response. For details about what we have planned and how you can join the fun watch our promo video and then sign up to help out.

For-Profit Fundraisers Rip Off Non-Profits and their Donors

Private, for-profit companies which contract their services to non-profit organizations for fundraising have become a major rip-off, according to the Los Angeles Times this morning.

For-profit campaigns, which often employ telemarketing, mass mailings or one-time events, account for a small fraction of $223 billion in charitable giving each year in the United States. But they collect significant sums and help shape public perceptions of charities. Pairing computer-controlled dialing systems with low-wage workers, such firms can reach a large number of people in a short time.

But after these companies bills are paid, what’s left over? Often nothing. And yet the fundraising business is growing. Since 2000, the number of campaigns and amounts raised by for-profit firms has risen by about two-thirds in California alone.

To see how did your favorite LGBT charity do in California, here’s the list. GLAAD did the best, keeping a little over 70¢ of every dollar collected. Lambda Legal was very close behind at nearly 68¢. The Gay and Lesbian and Straight Education Network appears on the list twice, once under its full name, and once again under its initials. Combined, the two entities kept a little more than 59¢ of every dollar earned. Losers include the Horizon Foundation (8.6¢ of every dollar) and NGLTF (13.5¢ of every dollar, when combined with the NGLTF Foundation).

There is one caveat to these figures — they do not include fundraising which is conducted in-house.

Gagnon Employs Tortured Logic

Anti-gay Theologian Robert Gagnon was not pleased by the decision of the Presbyterian Church (USA) to allow gay and lesbian clergy to be ordained by means of conscientious objection. The vote was in response to a judicial action and was to give the Judicial Commission direction. The Christian Post reports

Earlier this year, the PC(USA)’s high court – the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission – ruled that candidates for ordination must follow the sexual behavior standards of fidelity and chastity and no ordaining body has the right to ordain a candidate in violation of those constitutional standards. The ruling was issued in February in a case involving the Presbytery of Pittsburgh.

On June 27th, the General Assembly adopted an supplementary authoritative interpretation of the church’s constitution that would allow gay and lesbian candidates for ordination to conscientiously object the current “fidelity and chastity” standard and the local ordaining body to discern whether the declared objection is disqualifying.

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.

In logic similar to those anti-marriage activists who argued that a County Board of Supervisors could overturn the decision of the CA Supreme Court, Gagnon thinks that the church’s judicial commission can reverse the decision of the General Assembly.

he says “nothing” in the wording of the 2008 A.I. prevents the high court from coming to the same conclusion – of disallowing any departure from the fidelity and chastity standard – in future cases.

Nevertheless, the Pittsburgh professor cannot guarantee that the high court will rule similarly in future cases, but he says “they should.”

And there’s no guarantee that Gagnon will ever stop his anti-gay campaign. But he should.

I think that both are equally likely.

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

Budapest Pride Disrupted By Right Wing Extremists

According to Agence France-Presse:

Forty-five people were taken into custody and 10 others were injured in clashes between police and homophobes during a gay rights march in the Hungarian capital Saturday, reports said.

About 450 people took part in the march in central Budapest when extremists began throwing explosive devices, eggs, cobblestones and bottles at police and the marchers.

Police seized chemicals and Molotov cocktails from a six-member group waiting for the demonstrators in an uninhabited flat along the route of the march.

Liberal member of Parliament Gabor Horn was hit and a police car carrying former undersecretary Gabor Szetey — the first openly gay Hungarian politician — and member of the European Parliament Katalin Levai was also attacked, Hungarian news agency MTI reported.

This follows similar violence in the Czech Republic and Bulgaria last week, and it comes on the heels of a bombing of a Budapest gay bar and a gay sauna in the past few days.

Kolbe Ends Support For Bee

Last week, after Arizona Senate President Tim Bee (right) buckled under the threats and pressure from Cathi Herrod’s Center for Arizona Policy and cast the cowardly deciding vote to place the anti-marriage amendment on the ballot, we asked where former Rep. Jim Kolbe stood in all this. Kolbe (left) was Tim Bee’s honorary chairman for Bee’s campaign for Congress in Arizona’s eighth district, which was the the seat that Kolbe once held as an out gay Congressman for ten years.

Today, we may have something of an answer:

“I will not be actively campaigning for Bee,” the former Republican congressman said during a telephone interview with the Herald/Review on Thursday.

… Tom Dunn, a spokesman for the Bee campaign, also confirmed Kolbe’s decision. “For personal reasons, Mr. Kolbe is no longer associated with our campaign,” Dunn said. Neither Kolbe nor Dunn provided specific reasons for the former congressman dropping out of campaigning for Bee.

I don’t understand why Kolbe needs to be so coy about this, but I’m glad that he’s distancing himself from Bee nevertheless.

In 2006, the eighth Congressional district defeated Prop 107, that year’s proposed anti-marriage amendment, by more than ten percentage points: 45.4% to 54.6%. That was a significantly wider margin than the statewide tally of 48.2% to 51.8%.

Update: While Kolbe is silent on why he broke with Bee, Daniel Scarpinato is setting the obvious conclusions to print in this morning’s Arizona Daily Star (registration required):

According to Dunn, the switch came within the last week. Also in the last week: Bee, president of the state Senate, was the decisive vote on sending a measure to the ballot asking voters to define marriage in the Arizona Constitution as solely between one man and one woman.

And Kolbe, the only openly gay Republican in Congress before his retirement in 2006, had expressed disagreement with Bee on the issue shortly after it was announced in January that Kolbe would be the honorary chairman for Bee’s campaign. For his part, Bee dodged questions about the measure all year — and avoided bringing it up for a vote until the final hours of a 166-day legislative session. Up to that point, Kolbe had been active in the campaign throughout the spring and summer, hosting a fundraiser for Bee in Washington just last month.

… The support of Kolbe — a highly popular moderate during his 22-year tenure representing Southern Arizona — was a major highlight of Bee’s long-awaited campaign kickoff in January. Kolbe had refused to endorse the GOP nominee for his seat in 2006, Randy Graf. And we all remember how that ended.

For those outside of Arizona who don’t know, Graf lost badly what had been a reasonably reliable Republican seat to Democrat Gabrielle Giffords.

Meanwhile, Bee and Cochise County Republicans are trying to pretend that all is well.

Jesse Helms: “If You Want to Call Me a Bigot, Fine.”

Note: We are pleased to be able to offer occasional posts from Dr. Gregory M. Herek, Professor of psychology at the University of California at Davis. He has published scores of articles in numerous professional journals, much of which focus on anti-gay violence and stigma, as well as HIV/AIDS-related stigma inside and outside the LGBT community.

An obscure section of the 1990 Hate Crimes Statistics Act includes language affirming that “American family life is the foundation of American Society” and that the Act should not be construed as promoting or encouraging homosexuality.

This passage is a legacy of Jesse Helms, who died today at the age of 86.

Throughout his 30-year tenure in the US Senate, Helms was consistently associated with antigay stands. When the US was confronted with the AIDS epidemic in the 1980s, for example, Helms was instrumental in preventing the government from funding effective prevention programs among gay and bisexual men. The Senate twice endorsed his amendments prohibiting federal funds for AIDS education materials that “promote or encourage, directly or indirectly, homosexual activities.” By constricting the scope of risk-reduction education, Helms’ actions were widely believed to have contributed to the epidemic’s rapid spread.

In my latest post at Beyond Homophobia, I reflect upon Helms’ efforts to enact an antigay agenda into law, and the failure of many of his contemporaries to publicly oppose him.

LDS Battle Plan for California Anti-Marriage Amendment

The message below, by public relations leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS, a.k.a “the Mormons”), was sent to Orange County LDS Public Affairs personnel and other church leaders in California.

A brief introduction of some the names mentioned below is in order. Elders Russell M. Ballard, Quentin L. Cook, and Dallin H. Oaks are members of the church’s Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, the second highest presiding group under the direction of the First Presidency. Elder Lance B. Wickman is a member of that church’s First Quorum of the Seventy, a leadership group beneath the Quorum of the Twelve. L. Whitney Clayton is also a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy as well as the Presidency of the Seventy.

To: All OC Public Affairs Personnel
Cc: Other Interested Persons

By now many of you serving in Public Affairs may have been invited by your Stake Presidency to join other stake priesthood and auxiliary leaders in attending a special meeting. That was to discuss points that originated last Sunday, June 29, with a historic live interactive telecast emanating from SLC among Elders Ballard, Cook, Wickman and Clayton with CA Stake Presidents.

We have been asked to study out the above issue -– starting with the First Presidency letter that was read in Church last Sunday and the Proclamation on the Family. [That letter is available here (PDF: 1,08KB/2 pages) — ed.] You should all have copies of these items. As the year goes on, Public Affairs is apt to get ever more involved, under proper Priesthood direction. This will be especially true after Labor Day, when getting out the vote will be crucial. Meanwhile we are asked to use “our best efforts” and to do “all we can” to support this initiative with both our “means and time.”

To help you get prepared, here are some pertinent materials I have gathered on this issue, for your summer reading.

1. In Re Marriage Cases. See attached PDF summary of these consolidated cases, as issued by the Cal Sup. Ct. on 5-15-08. The majority decision is 121 pages long plus concurring and dissenting opinions. Essentially, the court has determined that any classification based on sexual orientation is a “suspect classification” that requires “strict scrutiny” under the “equal protection” clause of the CA Constitution. It also found that the CA Constitution has granted a “fundamental right to marry.” In 1948, that enabled the court invalidate statutory restrictions on interracial marriage. On these grounds, the court then proceeded to invalidate the existing statutory restrictions on same-gender marriages that were passed as Proposition 22 in 2000.

2. The Protectmarriage.com website. This is the key website of the central coalition of churches and other organizations that have been promoting what is now Prop. 8 for over a year. You will first see a list of member organizations and sponsoring individuals belonging to this coalition. Also see links on the left-hand side for “FAQS” and some good talking points under “Why it is needed.”

3. LDS.org Website. See this long but exceptionally important and well articulated 2007 interview by Public Affairs with Elders Dallin H. Oaks and Lance B. Wickman on “Same-Gender Attraction.” It is at: http://newsroom.lds.org/ ldsnewsroom/ eng/ public-issues/ same-gender-attraction

4. Meridian Magazine. “What difference will same-gender marriage make to you?” See this link: http://www.ldsmag.com/ familyleadernetwork/ 080627marriage.html Also see http://www.ldsmag.com/ familyleadernetwork/ 080619ignore.html These articles explore some of the possibly unintended consequences of this recent Cal. Supreme Court decision.

5. NB Stake Talking Points. See attached PDF with some key talking points created by my own Newport Beach Stake President Weatherford Clayton. More official talking points will are being prepared and will be provided through proper channels by LDS Church HQ in Salt Lake City.

6. Church News Article. From 2004 issue on the benefits of families raised within male-female marriages

HISPANICS AGAINST PROP 8. See first email attached above.
HISPANICS WHO SUPPORT IT. See email #3 attached above.

As the June 20th First Presidency letter said, more information will be made available to you from time to time through local priesthood channels.

You may also be aware that the new Managing Director of LDS Public Affairs in SLC will be Michael Otterson. He has been serving as assistant to Bruce Olsen and is originally from Australia. Brother Olsen will be the new San Diego Temple President.

Most sincerely,
Joseph I. Bentley, Director
Orange County Public Affairs
[Personal contact information redacted — ed.]

[Hat tip: Nick Literski]

Happy Independence Day!

Jesse Helms Dead at 86

Former Republican Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina died today. He was 86.

You can search the archives of this web site and see that I have never before called anyone a bigot. It’s just something that I generally don’t do. But the word was coined precisely to describe people like Helms. He was a genuine, unabashed bigot, and he made his bigotry a hallmark of his career. Now that he is dead, his bigotry will be enshrined as his lasting legacy.

Throughout his public career, Helms was always on the wrong side of history. During his daily editorial broadcasts on Raleigh’s WRAL-TV, he railed against desegregation, calling the University of North Carolina the “University of Negroes and Communists.” In 1968 when Duke University students staged a vigil in response to Martin Luther King, Jr.’s assassination, he remarked, “They should ask their parents if it would be all right for their son or daughter to marry a Negro.”

He held a special antipathy toward gays and lesbians. In a 1995 radio broadcast he remarked, “Homosexuals are weak, morally sick wretches.” He opposed governmental funds for AIDS research, complaining that “It’s their deliberate, disgusting, revolting conduct that is responsible for the disease.” He opposed funding for research, treatment, and providing medically accurate information about the disease. We may never know how many people died partly because of his intransigence.

Twenty years later, we are still trying to undo Helms’ damage. He was responsible for the HIV travel ban, barring visitors and immigrants with HIV from entering the United States. The U.S. is one of only twelve countries in the world with such a ban. We share that distinction with the likes of Sudan, Russia, Libya and Saudi Arabia. The ban’s repeal is awaiting a vote in the Senate, which may come as early as next week.

The bigot is dead. Happy Independence Day.

AFA To Boycott McDonalds

The American Family Association is calling for another of their futile boycotts, this time of all McDonalds restaurants.

The AFA claims that McDonalds is giving “the full weight of their corporation to promoting the homosexual agenda, including homosexual marriage.”

Are they serious? McDonalds is promoting the homosexual agenda? In those shoes?