Box Turtle Bulletin

More Homophobia Spewing out of Jamaica

It is not surprising that there is more rhetoric coming out of Jamaica’s religious community about the evils of homosexuality. Here’s a little sample from Donald Rubie with something called Green Light Ministry.

Rubie does not like the notion of a boycott

All economic boycotts are of the devil, regardless of the apparent nobility behind it. People must submit to truth not to money; for you cannot serve God and mammon (riches).

No economic boycott shall stand against Jamaica; for the Lord does not require any nation to support homosexuality. The Lord shall judge Jamaica for her wickedness; but judgement shall turn into blessing as Jamaica submits to the truth.

But Rubie does not stop at objecting to economic sanctions.

It’s only in pride that people practice immoral lifestyles; essentially saying we will do what we want. This is why the Lord hates the proud; so He abases them (cuts them down).

The homosexual movement in Toronto centres around “pride week”, where homosexuals parade half-naked (and fully naked) along Church Street; bidding the world to join them. This parade is akin to the carnival festivals in the Caribbean and Caribana in Toronto. It’s a feast of the flesh. What people are saying at these “pride parades” is that they are proud to be an abomination to the Lord (regardless if they are frolicking in the whoredoms of carnival or abominations of gay pride). However, the time has come for the Sovereign Lord to judge the wickedness of the people. Those who want a way out of homosexuality can find a way in Christ Jesus; however those who operate by pride will be cut down in the day that the Lord judges Toronto.

Should there be any surprise when others are inspired by his words to go “cut down” the proud wicked homosexuals? They are, after all, “hated by the Lord”.

The reason that Jamaica is considered one of the most homophobic places on the planet is because of the attitudes illustrated by Rubie. As the rest of the civilized world objects to violence and murder, Jamaica’s voices of religion seek to defend and justify their own society’s inhumanity and to instead blame the victims.

Wrap-Up: Anthropology and the Same-Sex Marraige Debate

As I said last week, I wanted to offer a few closing thoughts on Glenn Stanton and Patrick Chapman’s online debate on anthropology and same-sex marriage. (You can read them in order here, here, here, and here.) But first, I want to thank Glenn and Patrick for their eagerness to participate in this fruitful and substantive debate. I’m especially grateful to Glenn for his willingness to appear as a guest author on this web site. I am familiar with the same-sex marriage debates that he and John Corvino conduct across the country, and I hope someday they will come to my neck of the desert. Glenn and Patrick were very gracious to me and to each other in the emails we exchanged back and forth behind the scenes, and I look forward to more public and private discussions with both of them in the future.

In my closing thought, I’d like to touch on three things:

1. The problem of language — How language itself influences how we see the world, and shapes how we communicate what we see.
2. The difference between sex and gender — not everyone gets it, not even professional social scientists.
3. And why anthropology? — How is anthropology relevant to the same-sex marriage debate?

The Problem of Language
When we speak, we typically try to speak precisely with a commonly understood language in order to be understood. But our very language can restrict what we’re able to describe. Either we don’t have quite the right word, or the phrases we commonly use don’t quite get there. Conversely, our language may influence how we see the world, as it is filtered through the words and expressions which come naturally to us. Let me explain.

I like Tucson. That’s a pretty simple expression. “I” — that’s me, the subject of the sentence — “like” — the verb, which describes the thing that I’m doing — “Tucson” — the direct object which receives the action. The course of action begins with me and comes to rest in the object which receives my affection. Duh, you say? Well, stay with me, because there’s a whole world of assumptions built into that tiny little sentence.

I like Tucson for many reasons. One reason it that it’s still something of a “Mexamerica” in culture and language because Anglos settled here relatively late in history. It’s also only sixty miles from Mexico, so it helps to know some Spanish.

And so in Spanish I say, Me gusta Tucson. The word order may appear to remain the same as in English, but that’s misleading. In short sentences like this in Spanish, the subject is routinely placed at the end of the sentence, not at the beginning. And direct object and reflexive pronouns (“myself, himself) always appear in front of the verb no matter what. This sentence actually says “Tucson pleases me.”

Notice the difference. In Spanish, this expression is always given in the passive sense. It is a restriction built into the language. In Spanish, it’s Tucson’s job to please me; it’s not up to me to like Tucson. If I didn’t like Tucson, an English speaker might ask, “What’s wrong with you? How can you not like Tucson?” But in Spanish, I suppose the more natural response might be, “What’s so bad about Tucson? Why doesn’t Tucson please you?”

As you can see, that simple little sentence in Spanish has a whole different world of assumptions, doesn’t it? I can’t help but wonder what other linguistic quirks in Spanish might support that wonderfully passionate yet que será, será culture, or to what extent our own language contributes to our driving sense of individualistic manifest destiny.

It’s not just grammar, but vocabulary too. We English-speakers haven’t traditionally enjoyed spicy foods like we do today, and our language hasn’t caught up with this new experience. We’re still trying to cram two very different meanings into the word “hot” and rely on context for understanding. Sometimes we have to ask, “Do you mean hot-hot or spicy-hot?” Not surprisingly, Spanish is way ahead of us: caliente is used to describe hot temperatures, and picante is spicy hot. These are two very different and non-interchangeable words. Use the wrong one, and you’ll look very stupid and possibly a little insane. The habanero salsa in the refrigerator is certainly not caliente.

Language itself is the result of a whole pile of social constructs – even with the simplest of things like how we like things (or are pleased by them) and how we sense our foods. It both reflects and defines our view of the world.

I was reminded of this as I was exchanging some casual emails with Glenn Stanton about the online dialog between him and Patrick Chapman. At one point he remarked:

But one thing I do find in this is regardless of how clear we try to be, we do end up too often talking past each other. I get accused in your reader’s posts of “just not getting it” but that is exactly what my friends say about Chapman. It is a perspective and position of life issue, I guess.

In many very important ways, he’s exactly right.

The difference between sex and gender
We often use the words “sex” and “gender” interchangeably, but strictly speaking their definitions are critically different. We can’t fault too many people for confusing the two — I’ve abused those definitions many times myself, right here in these pages. So this exchange between Mr. Stanton and Dr. Chapman has been a great learning experience for me.

I don’t feel too bad about my confusion because many social scientists get tripped up by these terms as well. When the journal Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry issued their July 2002 special edition on gender and sexual identity, the editors realized that they couldn’t just assume that their professional readership would understand the distinction between sex and gender. That’s why the first article following the introductory editorial was Dr. Milton Diamond’s explicitly titled piece, “Sex and Gender are Different: Sexual Identity and Gender Identity are Different.” He wrote:

The term sex, since classical times, has been used to designate matters related to biology and medicine when male, female or bisexual were in context. Thus animals, including humans, are categorized dependent upon whether they either produce gametes as, or similar to, spermatozoa (males) or ova (females), or have parts of the reproductive system appropriate to the development of and delivery or reception of such gametes. … Classically, for humans, those individuals that had both male and female characteristics were called hermaphrodites. Presently the term intersex is preferred.

The term gender has generally been used in social or cultural contexts, in distinction from biological ones. This was particularly associated with language. The first known use of the word gender was listed as 1387 CE when T. Usk wrote “No mo genders been there but masculine and femynyne, all the remnaunte been no genders but of grace, in faculte of grammar.” This context for gender has been expanded so that since the 1960s or 1970s the word is often used as a euphemism for the sex of a human being but the intended emphasis remains on the social and cultural, as opposed to the biological. United States Supreme Court Justice Anthony Scalia, in an attempt to clarify usage of the terms has written “The word gender has acquired the new and useful connotation of cultural or attitudinal characteristics (as opposed to physical characteristics) distinctive to the sexes. That is to say, gender is to sex as feminine is to female and masculine is to male.”

Dr. Diamond and Justice Scalia have it exactly right. (Dr. Diamond goes on to note that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg continues to use “sex” and “gender” interchangeably. She defends it as a stylistic choice and nothing more.) I think Dr. Chapman was pretty clear in his distinctions between “sex” and “gender”; Mr. Stanton, less so. When Mr. Stanton said, “I think this new understanding of ‘gender’ is a cultural construct,” he’s mostly correct: it is a cultural construct, just as masculine and feminine are cultural constructs. And these cultural constructs arise because they represent concepts — sometimes new concepts — that we have to find ways of talking about.

But as Dr. Chapman, Dr. Diamond and the 14th century’s T. Usk demonstrated, this construct about gender isn’t a new one. But it is a confusing one, even for some very smart and educated people. I was confused by it, Justice Scalia understands it perfectly, Justice Bader Ginsberg either doesn’t understand or deems it insignificant, and even the highly educated readers of Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry needed to have their definitions calibrated so that the ensuing articles in that issue could make sense.

Now I suspect that most people who believe in absolutes might be skeptical of cultural constructs. But in a sense, they accept the idea every day (or at least every Sunday). It’s a core principle in Biblical hermeneutics that the cultural constructs of the day must be taken into account when interpreting Scriptures. I have on my bookshelves 25 volumes (soon to be 29) of InterVarsity Press’ Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, which I enthusiastically recommend. It’s chock-full of fascinating explanations of cultural constructs and historical context, and it provides an amazing window into the world of those ancient authors.

Cultural constructs are all around us, and they issue forth with every word we speak. Every time I say I really don’t like celery, people scrunch their face at me and ask, “What’s wrong with you?” That always startles me because there’s nothing at all wrong with me, but there’s clearly something terribly wrong with celery.

And so when we’re talking about gender and why we think it’s important, then we really need to be clear about it. The same is true for sex. But when Mr. Stanton offers different definitions of gender (“a much softer, less precise term than ‘sex'”), and Dr. Chapman emphasizes how societies construct gender when we were talking about same-sex marriage, then I do fear that the two sides are still talking past each other. We fall into the old habit of trying to use the word hot when we really need to use words describing caliente and picante.

Why Anthropology?
During the midst of Stanton’s and Chapman’s exchanges, I was fascinated by a post I ran across on another anthropology blog. I posted a brief excerpt that I want to return to here:

It’s a fascinating debate to me not necessarily because I am interested in definitions of marriage (though I am) but because of the way that anthropology is invoked by both sides as having authority on the subject. … Anthropologists: Do not despair! Someone still cares what we have to say. Anthropologists are seen to have the last word on human nature and therefore as potentially having knowledge that could settle debate on the topic. …

…To me what’s interesting is how a moral question appears to be disguised in these debates as a ‘scientific’ one, and therefore the real nature of the conflict gets displaced. [Boldface emphasis mine; italics in the original.]

Actually, when we’re talking about same-sex marriage, I don’t believe we are talking about a moral problem, but a political one. But I recognize that most opponents to same-sex marriage don’t see it that way. So we end up talking about morality and politics, and we often throw in developmental psychology, hormonal and genetic research, sociology and public opinion polls, and now anthropology. Of all these topics, it does seem to me that anthropology is an odd proxy in these debates. But this is where we are, so let me offer these thoughts.

It’s good to know that modern Western civilization is far from the first to grapple with the place of same-sex relationships in society. I was fascinated to learn about the Indonesian Bujis’ concept of calabai, calalai, and bissu as genders. Their gender construct is very different from our own — foreign even — even if their understanding of sex remains largely the same. But we’re not Bujis, nor do we consider the Tongan gender construct of fakaleitis or the Samoan concept of fa’afafine sufficient to describe our sense of ourselves in western culture.

We’re Americans. We like to define things for ourselves. We don’t find it pleasing to shoehorn our experiences into other cultures’ constructs. It’s very interesting to see how other cultures have dealt with the same issues that we have, but in the end our solutions will be ones most familiar to our own experiences, not those of the xaniths of Oman.

While gender is most certainly an important topic in our society when we talk about issues facing transgender people (for example), I think it is largely moot when we’re discussing same-sex marriage. And since some cultures around the world have accommodated same-sex relationships as a culturally sanctioned entity, then what we’re talking about is not all that groundbreaking. I just don’t think we will be creating different classes of gender to accommodate it as other cultures have, simply because we no longer ascribe sanctioned roles to particular genders. If we did, then we would very quickly come up with Mr. Stanton’s “6.5 billion different genders”, which would render the whole idea of gender meaningless both as a definition and as a concept. Because gender is still too vital a concept for other topics, I don’t see that happening. And besides, in 21st-century America it’s just not our way.

See also:
Wrap-up: Anthropology and the Same-Sex Marriage Debate
Round 2: Stanton Replies to Chapman
Round 2: Chapman Replies to Stanton
Glenn T. Stanton Responds to Professor Patrick Chapman
An Anthropologist Critiques Focus on the Family’s “Anthropological” Report on Marriage

Elane Photography Loses

In February we told you about Elane Photography, a small company in New Mexico that is ran by Elaine Huguenin and her husband. In 2006, a lesbian couple had requested that Elane photograph their commitment ceremony and the Ms. Huguenin refused. Vanessa Willock, one of the couple, filed a complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission.

The Las Cruces Sun-News has the results:

The commission’s one-page ruling Wednesday said Elane Photography violated the state Human Rights Act by discriminating against Willock on the basis of sexual orientation, and should pay $6,637 for Willock’s attorney’s fees and costs.

The commission found that Elane Photography, as a commercial business, provided a public accomodation and could not, under law, discriminate based on sexual orientation.

I have to admit that I’m a bit surprised at the determination and still have unanswered questions about the thinking that went into it. Because the company was primarily one individual I was expecting that the commission would allow for Ms. Huguenin’s religious objections.

I am troubled by the decision and am not certain whether or not I think this is the best conclusion.

On one hand, I recognize the value of the limitations that society has placed on the application of religious beliefs and can see the societal benefits that have resulted from anti-discrimination laws. I would not want a plumber, for example, using religious freedom as an excuse to deny services to a Muslim. And I don’t want to return to the day when a store can refuse service to someone solely because they are black or Jewish or gay.

But, on the other hand, I don’t think we are best served by forcing photographers to participate at same-sex commitment ceremonies and I am not convinced of the wisdom of laws that don’t allow for religious objections. I fear that legislatures that might be considering laws that protect gays and lesbians from discrimination will balk if they believe that individuals will be forced to participate in events that they find immoral or objectionable.

But the story is not yet over.

The Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian organization that defends religious liberty, plans to appeal to state district court.

Jamaica Gleaner Continues Its Hate Campaign

The Jamaica Gleaner published another letter to the editor today. And, not surprisingly, it offered the obligatory “don’t beat them” statements while seeking to justify just such action.

This thing about gays and the rights they have and the rights they want is downright ungodly. If they want to be that way, it is their business; why make it everyone else’s? Has anyone thought about the rights of the people who do not want their children exposed to that kind of nastiness?

I wonder if the cruise ships that stop in Jamaica know that they are placing their gay passengers – or those who might be mistaken for gay – in danger.

Gov. Schwarzenegger Opposes Gay Marriage Ban

Scott Schmidt is at the Log Cabin Republicans Convention, liveblogging California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s address:

Speaking to the Log Cabin Republicans, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger came out against a ballot measure circulating in California to add a gay marriage ban to the State Constitution. Stating that he “will always be there to fight against that,” Schwarzenegger made one of his first pubic statements about the initiative constitutional amendment in circulation.

Hartline’s Sad Revelation

Ex-gay James Hartline is a favorite of Christian media when they are looking for an extremist to quote. Hartline lives his life as an anti-gay activist, pestering the San Diego City Council, protesting the ballpark, and writing fiery denunciations of anyone anywhere who isn’t as completely and unrelentingly hostile to gay people as he is (and few are).

Hartline is also running for a City Council seat in an effort to defeat what he views as ungodliness.

And it has become painfully obvious that those who trot Hartline out to put an ex-gay on display and those who happily print his thoughts on the evils of homosexuality are only using him and do not respect him.

From Hartline’s blog dated February 18, 2007

I recently asked God about the role of my particular city council campaign in our city. The Lord responded by letting me know that my campaign is a test for the Christians of San Diego. You see, pastor after pastor preaches in the pulpit about the corruption and immorality in our culture. These same pastors now have a chance to do something about the things they have been preaching about. If they do not support my campaign for the city council, than all of their complaining is just empty rhetoric.

My campaign is a test for me and it is a test for the Christian Community of San Diego. For me, it comes down to my obedience to God. God instructed me to run this race.

The candidate complains that as of that date “only 7 of the 2,000+ pastors in San Diego have endorsed my campaign” and “only 34 Christian voters have contributed”.

It is no surprise that few are willing to sign on to Hartline’s campaign. James is a rather tragic example of the consequence of excessive drug use combined with mental illness.

Although quite intelligent, Hartline’s rants display a universe of allegances and associations conspiring with Satan against him and his goals. But in the end he will emerge victorious when God heals him of HIV thus illustrating to all that James Hartline is God’s chosen prophet to lead the world in a marvelous new revival.

God speaks regularly to his prophet and reveals all sorts of amazing things such as the reason for wildfires, the pro-abortion goals of Horton Hears a Who, and how those who oppose Hartlines political extremism are “virulently anti-Christian”. It doesn’t take long for a picture of James’ mental condition to appear.

I cannot fault the conservative community for not wanting to advance his political efforts. Few, even among the most conservative, would want to allow James any influence in public policy decisions.

But I do fault and condemn those who – knowing Hartline to be as he is – are still willing to present him to the public as though he is credible. I fault WorldNetDaily for continuing to rely on him for their source as a “San Diego pro-Christian activist”. I fault Peter LaBarbera for dragging him to Chicago and for encouraging his efforts. I fault those local churches and other anti-gay activists who tell him he’s doing God’s work.

To both champion him publically and shun him privately is self-serving and heartless. What these and other “Christian” voices have done to James Hartline is both sad and cruel.

Arizona Anti-Marriage Amendment Not Dead Yet

We reported last week that efforts by members of the Arizona state legislature to place an anti-marriage amendment proposal on the ballot was dealt a blow when Rep. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Phoenix) lined up enough votes to tack on a provision to grant certain rights to unmarried couples living together. By tying the two issues together, the proposed amendment became unacceptable to conservative supporters and they voted to kill it altogether.

This morning, the Arizona Daily Star reports that the House Judiciary Committee voted 6-4 to move SCR 1042 to the full House for a second run at trying to constitutionally ban same-sex marriage. If it passes the House this time, it will still require Senate approval to be placed on the ballot for November.

Arizona voters defeated a proposed anti-marriage amendment in 2006. So far, Arizona is the only state to do so.

The Heterosexual Menace

So this is what happens when heterosexuals run amok and take over society — sex with underage girls in a “holy” temple:

The rules of the cult clearly continue to shock investigators, despite the legalese in the court documents describing their discoveries, including emphasis on sex with their underage wives.

The temple “contains an area where there is a bed where males over the age of 17 engage in sexual activity with female children under the age of 17,” according to a court affidavit, citing the confidential informant.

The temple marriage bed’s linens were mussed and had hair from a female, said the affidavit signed by Texas Ranger Leslie Brooks Long and unsealed Wednesday.

Obviously this is something that all decent human beings can quickly and strongly condemn. But can you imagine the outcry and furor that would come if this had been some sort of gay cult? Concerned Women, Porno Pete, the Family “Research” Council and CitizenLink would be all over this latest perversity.

But I looked over their web sites, and I was surprised to see not a single peep about the FLDS raids in Texas. I guess moral outrage is only useful when deployed against gay people. When it’s straight people doing it, there’s nothing but silence.

Which is odd, because isn’t same-sex marriage supposed to be the first step on a slippery slope to polygamy? Strange, because for some reason, the vast majority of people who want polygamy are not only straight, but are very hostile to gay people. And they molest young girls in their temples.

That’s quite a lovely agenda they got there. You can read more about the Heterosexual Agenda here.

Jamaica Gleaner Calls for “Dealing” with Homosexuality

In an article by contributor Thomas Phinemann, the Jamaica Gleaner takes on the issue of homosexuality. Initially it appears as though it is a call for reason, but it quickly devolves into blaming gay Jamaicans for the violence enacted against them:

How can we coexist in peace? We need to start talking to each other. Tolerating homosexuals does not mean condoning or accepting homosexuality. It means that heterosexuals need to accept that there are homosexuals in this world and as human beings they have a right to be in the universe. Homosexuals need to understand that heterosexuals find the lifestyle of homosexuals objectionable, and homosexuals should not flaunt their lifestyle in public and provoke heterosexuals.

After talking about “battle lines” and “no compromise, no middle ground” for those who believe the Bible, Phinemann expresses his views which are, sadly, the predominant views on the island:

In my view, changing the law to accommodate ‘buggery’ is the precursor to changing the law to accommodate bestiality and incest. Men, we agree to disagree on the issue of homosexuality. Let us be respectful of each other as we deal with this issue.

Phinemann and the Gleaner no doubt pride themselves that they are calling for peace. He does end his article with “Let there be no hunting and no flaunting.”

But their peace speaks only to their own desires – the justification of violence and the villification of those they dislike. Under the “peace” of the Gleaner and Phinemann, gay men and women – or those who “flaunt” their existence – continue to be beaten and murdered. And what kind of “dealing” can there be for those who must remain invisible or suffer the consequence of “provoking” heterosexuals?

But now the Gleaner and others in positions of influence can wash their hands and claim that they tried.

Personal Cruelty

Anti-gays often portray their attacks as being directed against a nebulous “homosexual agenda” or perhaps “the sin of homosexuality”. This is often packaged with a claim that they love individuals, or “the sinner”.

But sometimes their anti-gay activism reveals itself to be an obvious hateful attack on individuals.

For example, Tammy Baldwin has served as the representative for Wisconsin’s 2nd congressional district since 1999. And since that time Lauren Azar, her other half, has been accorded travel privileges on par with the spouses of other Congressmen. Although the House rules specify that spouses are given travel accomodations, the former House Speaker, Dennis Hastert (R-Ill), had waived the rules for Azar.

However, when Azar prepared to accompany Baldwin on a fact finding mission this year, the Pentagon blocked her from traveling on a military plane. The situation was resolved when current House Peaker Nancy Pelosi informed Defense Secretary Robert Gates that she was waiving the House rules to allow Azar to travel.

From the AP

The Pentagon still has in place its “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, which bars gays from serving openly in the military. But that had nothing to do with this case, said Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell.

“This is strictly about following our statutory guidelines and the House rules,” he said.

Morrell said that Pelosi asked Gates to honor her decision to waive House rules to allow Azar to travel and that Gates asked her to put that request in writing.

“She did so, and he — in this one case only — agreed to it,” Morrell said. “This is not a precedent by any means. This does not open the doors for life partners to travel on congressional delegations.” But Gates has agreed to review future requests on a case-by-case basis, Morrell said.

Now most living breathing people see this as a simple act of decency. Most folks would think it odd to insist that Baldwin be the sole Congressman to travel alone.

However, Elaine Donnelly and the AFA spin it differently

Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness calls this situation “a slippery slope.” “This sets a disturbing precedent because it tends to suggest that marriage doesn’t matter, [and that] marriage of people of same-sex or any such association should be treated as the equivalent of marriage,” she contends.

Donnelly believes this gives ammunition to those who want to change the military’s policy of not allowing homosexuals in the military. “This is an incremental step forward for the gay rights agenda,” she continues. “These things are all interconnected. This radical social change doesn’t always happen overnight with a court ruling. Sometimes it comes creeping along incrementally.”

This is a single instance of a consideration granted to an associate in Congress. Donnelly’s concerns about a “slippery slope” ring hollow when compared to the assurances of the Pentagon.

So why, then, does Donnelly find Azur’s travel so objectionable? Why would she complain that Azur should not be granted passage?

Simply, because Baldwin and Azur are gay.

By her attack on the travel of a specific individual, Elaine Donnelly discredits any presumption of principled objection and reveals her agenda and herself to be petty, spiteful, and cruel.

Have You Heard? We Won The Culture Wars!

That’s according to Peter LaBarbera anyway. Me, I’m not seeing it. But LaBarbera sees defeat and he’s in a full blown panic:

My friend Laurie Higgins below has hit on a microcosm of why our movement is on the brink of an astounding cultural defeat — the triumph of immoral same-sex behavior as a “civil right.” …

About three years ago, I sat in a roomful of evangelical leaders at a major ministry where it was taught that you should not criticize homosexual behavior in advocating against “same-sex marriage.” The “expert” speaker cited poll data and negative audience reaction to the issue being raised. [Emphases his.]

LaBarbera’s also upset that a recent poll found that “80% of Christians polled picked “anti-homosexual” as a negative adjective describing Christianity today.” His solution? Be even more “anti-homosexual.”

Good plan, Pete.

Having a Cow Over McDonalds

Ed Brayton is thinking about starting a weekly award “for the most ridiculously hyperbolic rhetoric I come across.” Ed might want to think daily. Anyway, he thinks that anti-gay rhetoric alone will provide plenty of fodder, although that’s not strictly his beat. He was checking out the personal blog of Rick Pearcey, husband of Nancy Pearcey of the Discovery Institute. That’s where Ed found this little gem:

Not today, in light of reports that McDonald’s has decided, apparently, to declare war on my family. And to declare war on the civilization of liberty, independence, creativity, and humanity under God that my Dad fought for in World War II.

What did McDonald do the “declare war” on liberty, independence, humanity, World War II, and Ricky Pearcey’s family?

Well it turns out he gets his “news” from the American Family Association’s OneNewsNow:

McDonald’s … has given a significant amount of money, I might mention, to become a member of the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce,” Wildmon explains. “Among the many other things that the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce promotes is hate crimes [legislation], the ENDA [Employment Non-Discrimination Act]. [T]hey’re dedicated to pushing the homosexual agenda.”

In exchange for the donation, a McDonald’s senior executive has been placed on the board of the pro-homosexual group. Wildmon says the chain’s decision is baffling

Wildmon is apoplectic, and so is Pearcy. Brayton found this reaction particularly noteworthy:

For human beings, this is a matter of liberty under God — Why help finance groups that turn their backs on the Declaration of Independence, the Founding vision, and the living Creator who holds it all together?

Run for the hills everyone! World War II was all in vain.

Ditch the Coasts

Looking for a gay-friendly city? According to the Advocate’s April 8 issue, you should consider abandoning the coasts in favor of cities like Ft .Worth, Ft. Wayne, Anchorage, Jacksonville or Tulsa. Tulsa you say?

Tulsa, Oklahoma: diversity, lots of museums and theaters, tasty foodie scene, and a low cost of living with “big-city benefits,” says one resident.

Over to you, Sally Kern.

Five Egyptian HIV+ Men Sentenced to 3 Years

Last February, we reported on eight Egyptian men who were arrested when police discovered that one of them was HIV-positive. Four had already been sentenced to one year in jail for the “habitual practice of debauchery.” Now we learn that five more have been sentenced to harsher terms:

An Egyptian judicial official says four HIV-positive men have been convicted of being homosexual and sentenced to three years in prison followed by three years of close police supervision.

The official says on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to speak to the press that a fifth man without HIV was also convicted and received the same sentence.

According to Human Rights Watch, Cairo police have arrested at least twelve men since last October in what’s being described as a “growing witchhunt” for people suspected of being HIV-positive.

Maryland Passes Limited Rights for Gay Couples

In January I posted about a poll of Maryland citizens in which 58% supported either marriage equality or civil unions. Noting that the Democratic Party had substantial control over the legislative and executive branches of government, I called on the state to fulfill their duty to their constituents – both gay and straight – and provide those protections to same-sex couples that they supported.

Sadly, what followed was a series of bills, each weaker than the last, that illustrated a lack of support on the part of leadership in both houses.

Well the legislative session has come to an end and the gay community has received some tiny measure of recognition.

Laureen Brunelli reports

Though a gay marriage bill failed, bills that extend rights, regarding, property tax transfers and medical and burial decisions to domestic partners including same-sex couples.

365gay reports that Gov. Martin O’Malley intends on signing the changes.

It appears that the other partial-rights bill, providing inheritance, was just too costly to the state.

Although these provisions are about the least possible, we celebrate their passage and gladly welcome Maryland into the family of states that provide recognition and protection for those families headed by persons of the same sex. And although we did not receive protection equal to that granted to heterosexual couples, we have hopes that gay Marylanders can encourage their representatives to build on the provisions granted and add those protections that are needed.

See also:
Blade Asks What Happened In Maryland
Maryland Passes Limited Rights for Gay Couples
Maryland Balances Budget by Taxing Gay Widows
Maryland Senator Muse Champions Bigotry
Maryland AG Endorses Marriage Equality
Maryland Legislator Calls Anti-Gay Bluff
Maryland Introduces Bill to Legalize Same-Sex Marriage – Are Democrats Committed to Equality?
Maryland Marriage Poll