There’s Knowing…And Then There’s Not Wanting You To Know Too…
There is natural ignorance and there is artificial ignorance. I should say at the present moment the artificial ignorance is about eighty-five per cent. -Ezra Pound
The raging debate about gay rights ultimately turns on one simple question. And, bizarrely, the fact that answering this question will put a definitive end to the national battle over gay rights is almost completely unknown, not only in America in general, but among gay people as well. At its core, the answer to this question is the only one that matters, the one that determines the most appropriate public policy course, and the one that will win the political struggle over gay rights: Is homosexuality a lifestyle choice or is homosexuality an inborn biological trait? Put another way, does someone choose to be gay or are they just born that way? You may be surprised to find out that we already know the answer to this question. In fact, surprising as it may be, we’ve known the answer for several decades.
I disagree that this is the only question that matters. But never mind. The brilliance I’m referring to here, isn’t in Burr’s framing of the question, but of his framing of the answer. We’ve known the answer for several decades. Yes. Just so. If the question is a pitch by the religious right, then Burr smacks it clear out of the ballpark with this…
A bit of Biology 101: For every human trait they study, clinicians and biologists assemble what’s called a "trait profile," the sum total of all the data they have gathered clinically (clinical research basically means research done through 1. questions and 2. empirical observation to answer the questions) about a trait. Researchers gather groups of subjects from different areas of the world, question them about their trait, observe the trait in them, and record the data. The various aspects of the trait are precisely described: gradations and variations in eye color are assessed, eye color’s correlation or lack thereof with gender, geography, race, or age is noted, scientists observe the way eye color is passed down through generations—all of which are clues as to whether or not eye color is a biological trait. The data are summarized in papers and charts and published in the scientific literature. That, in sum, makes up the trait profile.
Here is the profile of a trait on which clinical research has been done for decades. It is taken from the published scientific literature. The trait should be rather obvious:
1) This human trait is referred to by biologists as a "stable bimorphism"— it shows up in all human populations as two orientations— expressed behaviorally.
2) The data clinicians have gathered says that around 92% of the population has the majority orientation, 8% has the minority orientation.
3) Evidence from art history suggests the incidence of the two different orientations has been constant for five millennia.
4) The trait has no external physical, bodily signs. That means you can’t tell a person’s orientation by looking at them. And the minority orientation appears in all races and ethnic groups.
5) Since the trait itself is internal and invisible, the only way to identify an orientation is by observing the behavior or the reflex that expresses it. However—and this is crucial—
6) –because the trait itself is not a "behavior" but an internal, invisible orientation, those with the minority orientation can hide, usually due to coercion or social pressure, by behaving as if they had the majority orientation. Several decades ago, those with the minority orientation were frequently forced to behave as if they had the majority orientation— but internally the orientation remained the same and as social pressures have lifted, people with the minority orientation have been able to openly express it.
7) Clinical observation makes it clear that neither orientation of this trait is a disease or mental illness. Neither is pathological in any observable way.
8) Neither orientation is chosen.
9) Signs of one’s orientation are detectable very early in children, often, researchers have established, by age two or three. And one’s orientation probably has been defined at the latest by age two, and quite possibly before birth.
These data indicated that the trait was biological, not social, in origin, so the clinicians systematically asked more questions. And these started revealing the genetic plans that lay underneath the trait:
10) Adoption studies show that the orientation of adopted children is unrelated to the orientation of their parents, demonstrating that the trait is not created by upbringing or society.
11) Twin studies show that pairs of identical twins, with their identical genes, have a higher-than-average chance of sharing the same orientation compared to pairs of randomly selected individuals; the average rate of this trait in any given population— it’s called the "background rate"—is just under 8%, while the twin rate is just above 12%, more than 50% higher.
12) This trait’s incidence of the minority orientation is strikingly higher in the male population— about 27% higher—than it is in the female population. Many genetic diseases, for reasons we now understand pretty well, are higher in men than women.
13) Like the trait called eye color, the familial studies conducted by scientists show that the minority orientation clearly "runs in families," handed down from parent to child.
14) This pattern shows a "maternal effect," a classic telltale of a genetic trait. The minority orientation, when it is expressed in men, appears to be passed down through the mother.
Put all this data together, and you’ve created the trait profile. The trait just described is, of course, handedness.
Yes. What we’re all seeing with regard to human sexual orientation, is nothing new or surprising. Burr compares the two traits, handedness and sexual orientation side-by-side and the likenesses are striking, as is the obvious conclusion. We already know this… I entered first grade back in 1959. I remember vividly the sight of a classmate having his left arm tied down to his side by the teachers (two of them). The boy’s parents had asked them to do that, if they saw the boy using his left hand to write or draw with. The thinking being that if you just forced a kid to use their right hand, they would eventually grow out of using their left. That was 1959. You may notice that they’re not doing that to left handed kids anymore. But there was a time when left-handedness was considered a mark of the devil.
It’s an image that has stuck in my mind ever since, and all the more so after I began my own process of coming to grips with my sexual orientation. I’m gay. You can pressure me into acting against it…teach me one lie after another about homosexuality, make me come to fear and loath my sexual nature so much I might never touch another male with desire without experiencing waves of guilt and self hatred and fear. You can pass one law after another, penalizing and even criminalizing same sex relationships…in effect tying that part of me down. And yet I am still gay. The idea that you can make me not-gay by tying that part of me down is false. You can no more make me not-gay then you can make me left handed by tying down my right arm. That model of sexual orientation, as a learned or adaptive behavior is wrong. It isn’t like that. Neither was handedness. But…we know that.
We’ve known the answer for several decades… Burr, and many other people of good conscience, need to look at that simple fact. I mean…really look at it. Ironically, Burr gives it a glancing shot here:
Behavior isn’t sexual orientation, and the difference between behavior and orientation is as obvious as lying: When you tell a lie, you know perfectly well what the truth is inside…
And so do people like James Dobson, and all the others of his kind in the religious right, who routinely lie about the work of real scientists in order to incite anti-gay passions. Because inciting anti-gay passions translates into money in the collection plate, and votes at the polls, and tens of thousands of obediant followers who jump whenever you tell them to…and more importantly, bend their knees. You can’t distort the science the way the leaders of the religious right are, without knowing that you’re distorting it. That’s lying. And when you lie, you know you’re doing it. They Know.
This is where Burr, and others, chiefly honest men and women of science and other civilized people, get it wrong. Yes, facts matter, because ultimately you cannot fool nature. But this isn’t a matter of convincing the opposition that they’re wrong. They know they’re wrong, or they wouldn’t be lying. The only question that matters isn’t whether sexual orientation is chosen or not, it’s whether the people who still insist that it is, have a conscience or not. Because if they don’t have one, then appealing to it is utterly futile.
But…you should go read the rest of Burr’s piece. For the shear pleasure of watching him smack the ball out of the park. For the next time next time someone like Dobson goes babbling on about homosexuality and choice, so you can see with sickening clarity what a moral runt they are. We don’t force right handedness on left handed kids because we know how damaging that is to them. It’s damaging to gay kids too. Profoundly so. And yes…the religious right knows that too. They’ve known for several decades.
A gay couple holding hands as they left a Scottsdale restaurant were attacked by as many as seven men leaving the pair badly beaten.
Andrew Frost and Jean Rolland say the attack took place just feet from the restaurant’s front doors.
Frost, 19, needed numerous stitches to close wounds on his head and face. Rolland, 28, suffered many bumps and bruises.
"I had blood pouring out of me and I actually blacked out at one point," Frost told the Arizona Republic.
He said that as he and Rolland exited the restaurant he heard someone yell "fag". He said he turned and saw two men. Frost said that he replied to the slur and one of the men punched him. He said that at least five others rushed from the restaurant and joined the attack.
Frost and Rolland have filed a police report, but no one at the restaurant seems to have seen anything. The couple said they had never seen their attackers before.
Tempers boiled over at an anti-gay marriage rally yesterday when the executive director of the Boston-based Catholic Citizenship emerged from behind a lectern outside City Hall, rushed toward a female counter-demonstrator, and pushed her to the ground.
Sarah Loy, 27, of Worcester was holding a sign in defense of same-sex marriage amid a sea of green “Let the People Vote” signs when Larry Cirignano of Canton, who heads the Catholic Citizenship group, ran into the crowd, grabbed her by both shoulders and told her, “You need to get out. You need to get out of here right now.” Mr. Cirignano then pushed her to the ground, her head slamming against the concrete sidewalk.
"It was definitely assault and battery,” said Ronal C. Madnick, director of the Worcester County Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts. Police interviewed Mr. Madnick and several others moments after the incident.
As Ms. Loy lay motionless on the ground, crying, Mr. Cirignano ran back behind the lectern, where moments before he had opened the afternoon rally by leading a recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance.
Emphasising the words "under God" and Leaving out "indivisible", no doubt…
The Federal Bureau of Investigation has been asked to help with the investigation into two attacks on women Ada Oklahoma where homophobic epithets were marked on their bodies.
But apart from helping develop a profile of suspects in the case there is little the FBI can do. Gays and lesbians are not protected under federal hate crime legislation.
Sara Kaspereit, 20, said she was grabbed by two men as she got out of her car in front of her home on Monday. One of the men carved the word lesbian into her forearm.
Earlier this month a second woman said she was blindfolded, bound to a tree and the word "Hellbound” was written in marker pen across her chest.
…
In previous homophobic attacks where the FBI has been asked for assistance there is little the bureau could do.
Last July the FBI was called for help in investigating an incident involving a burning cross in front of the home of a gay man in Athens, Tennessee. After determining the incident was homophobic rather than race related the bureau declined to help. (story)
Federal investigators examined evidence but said that even if the people responsible are caught they cannot be prosecuted under federal law. (story)
Legislation that would have included crimes against gays and lesbians in federal hate crime laws was dropped in the Senate in May. (story)
Sitting cross-legged in jeans and an open-collar shirt, Barnes spoke in his video about evolving feelings growing up in a firm moral family: from confused little boy to adolescent racked with self-loathing and guilt.
In their only talk about sex, Barnes said his father took him on a drive and talked about what he would do if a "fag" approached him.
Barnes thought, "’Is that how you’d feel about me?’ It was like a knife in my heart, and it made me feel even more closed."
I have a strong hunch that dad was having some thoughts about how manly his boy was, and decided to lay it on the line for him. It did it’s work. When Abraham took his son to the sacrificial altar, so the story goes, an angel stayed his hand just at the moment he was about to put the knife into his son. But I don’t think even an angel could stop some parents.
What It Looks Like When Playing To The Moonbats Doesn’t Win You Anything
Canadian Prime Minister Stephan Harper, who campaigned on a promise to hold a free vote on restoring the traditional definition of marriage, read the tea leaves and instead ended up holding a vote on whether or not to hold a vote. You can’t govern from the far right in a country whose political process and news media haven’t been utterly corrupted by right wing billionaires and big business.
Demonizing minorities for the sake of driving the bigot vote to the polls can only get you so far in the civilized world, and Harper apparently wants to keep on being prime minister…
Tory attempt to restore traditional definition fails in House; social conservatives cry foul as Harper declares debate over
OTTAWA — Prime Minister Stephen Harper has declared the contentious issue of same-sex marriage to be permanently closed.
After a Conservative motion calling on the government to restore the traditional definition of marriage was defeated yesterday by a resounding 175 to 123, Mr. Harper said he will not bring the matter back before Parliament.
"I don’t see reopening this question in the future," he told reporters who asked whether same-sex marriage would return to the table if the Conservatives won a majority government.
Nor does he intend to introduce a "defence of religions" act to allow public officials, such as justices of the peace, to refuse to perform same-sex marriages.
"If there ever were a time in the future where fundamental freedoms were threatened, of course the government would respond to protect them," said the Prime Minister, who voted for the motion. "The government has no plans at this time."
The declared end of the same-sex marriage debate brought comfort to those who have been fighting for such unions. But social conservatives who have supported Mr. Harper’s government said they felt betrayed by his decision to quit their fight; some said it will come back to haunt the party in the next election campaign.
"I am afraid that the Conservative Party feels that they can take social conservatives for granted in this country," said Joseph Ben Ami, executive director of the Institute for Canadian Values.
Social Conservatives…? That’s a polite way of saying ‘bigot’ isn’t it? And as I understand recent Canadian political history, calling Harper a Tory is a bit misleading. Harper’s party, the Conservative Party of Canada, was formed from a really odd (to this outsider) merger between the Progressive Conservative Party and the Canadian Alliance, which, particularly in Alberta, couldn’t seem to fag bash enough. The Alliance was Canada’s bigot right, in morals and tone not all that dissimilar from the southern state republicans down here in the U.S,. They can’t be happy with this.
But the rest of the western industrial world isn’t still arguing about evolution. Whatever levers big money has to pull in Canada, it looks like playing the fundamentalists for votes isn’t a winning proposition. So for now anyway, gay people in Canada don’t have to play the roll of the bogeyman herald of the apocalypse who drives the batshit crazies to the polls and keeps the conservatives in power. They can have lives. Real lives.
The "Whites Only" fountain once dispensed the same water as the "Coloreds" one did; but the implications of having to walk the alternate line to obtain the H20 spoke volumes.
Via Blue Jersey, here’s an example of how the consequences of separate but equal play out in the lives of gay people…
Consider Paula Long and Rosalind Heggs of Camden who have been together over 15 years. They were registered as domestic partners and also had a civil union from Vermont. Under New Jersey law, they have hospital visitation rights and the right to make decisions on behalf of each other when the other is sick. That’s what’s on paper, but when Rosalind had a heart attack and needed a blood transfusion, the hospital refused to allow Paula to give consent. Paula even had a highlighted copy of the relevant law with her, but that didn’t matter to the hospital. They demanded to see their marriage certificate. (see video of their story)
This story happens over and over again from one end of this country to the other, in red states and blue alike, and it’s indicative of a mindset. Here’s that mindset in a nutshell:
However emotionally bonded a pair of homosexual lovers may feel themselves to be, what they are doing is not marriage. Nor does society benefit in any way from treating it as if it were.
However emotionally bonded a pair of homosexual lovers may feel themselves to be… Bigots such as Orson Scott Card cannot, will never, acknowledge there is a bond between same sex couples, but only, and grudgingly, that they may feel themselves to have one. Card later wrote another column, in which he reduced the struggle of gay and lesbian Americans for simple justice, to a childish demand for "fairness"…
The single most effective argument being used to gain support for the redefinition of marriage to mean anything, therefore nothing, is this:
"It’s not fair that homosexuals can’t get married just like heterosexuals."
This argument is only effective because nobody is bothering to define "fairness" or to figure out whether the result will be in any way more fair than the hitherto universal definition of marriage.
When our kids were little, we made it a very clear rule in our family that fairness didn’t mean that everybody got exactly what anybody else got.
"Suppose we buy a dress for your sister," I said to my son. "Would you want us to get a dress for you too?"
Never mind for a moment, the brain dead sexism in that example (picture Card telling his daughter, "suppose we buy blue jeans for your brother. Would you want us to get blue jeans for you too?" "Well…yeah dad…why not?" But maybe females aren’t allowed to wear pants in Card’s family…) Just look at it for a moment. Card is saying there, that to ask hospital staff to let you be with your other half as they lay sick, and maybe even dying, is like a child throwing a tantrum because daddy didn’t bring him a present too. Read that entire column, and if you aren’t a bigot like he is, one sickening thing just leaps out at you like a ghoul at a fun house, and laughs in your face: nowhere in that column is there even the slightest hint that Card can see there may be a deep and profound bond of love between a same sex couple. It just doesn’t even cross his mind.
Homosexuals don’t love, they just have sex. Homosexual sex. Because they’re disfunctional….
But it is grossly unfair to demand, in the name of "fairness," that the normal pattern of marriage and family be deprived of its privileged position in our society, just so a few people can feel better about dysfunctions that even they insist are nobody’s fault.
This is the mindset that same sex couples have to face every time they try to assert their rights as a couple. The hospital staff that kept Paula Long out of the room where her other half was suffering from a heart attack, treated their union like it was some kind of pathetic imitation of their own, because that’s exactly what they thought of it. Equal marriage rights won’t change their minds about that. But what it can do is warn them upfront, that if they let their cheap conceits and bar stool prejudices devastate the lives of innocent people, there will be consequences. Separate but equal on the other hand, merely validates their prejudices and conceits. As long as they believe they can put the knife in our hearts and get away with it, they’ll keep doing it. Because it is unfair to demand that normal families loose their privileged position in our society, just so a few people can feel better about their dysfunctions .
When Bill Flanigan admitted his partner Robert Daniel to the hospital because of AIDS-related complications his loss was tremendous.
Kept from Daniel during his last hours alive, Flanigan was denied the chance to say goodbye to his partner of more than five years. He filed a lawsuit against the University of Maryland Medical System in Baltimore City Circuit Court on February 27.
Not only was Flanigan refused the right to be with Daniel, he was also not permitted to share Daniel’s treatment wishes with his physicians, according to a statement issued by Lambda Legal. All because the staff from the Maryland Medical System Shock Trauma Center in Baltimore said Flanigan was not family.
…
It was only after Daniel’s sister and mother arrived from out of town that the Shock Trauma Center released information on Daniel’s status that had been repeatedly denied to Flanigan, and allowed the entire family — including Flanigan — to see Daniel. But it was too late — Daniel was no longer conscious and his eyes were taped shut, and his wishes not to have life prolonging measures performed had been denied. There were tubes in his throat.
That was particularly hard for Flanigan to take.
At one point Daniel briefly regained consciousness, according to a nurse, and he tried to pull out the breathing tube. In response hospital staff tied down Daniel’s arms.
Last month, a conference of US Catholic bishops approved and released a letter entitled "Ministry to Persons With a Homosexual Inclination: Guidelines for Pastoral Care". Calling homosexuality "objectively disordered" the document complains that western culture recognizes "no acts as intrinsically evil". It asserts that "any tendency toward sexual pleasure that is not subordinated to the greater goods of love and marriage is disordered, in that it inclines a person towards a use of sexuality that does not accord with the divine plan for creation". Then later, without any apparent irony, the document states that "many in our culture have difficulty understanding Catholic moral teaching because they do not understand that morality has an objective basis."
The document ultimately demands that homosexuals abstain from any and all forms of sexual intimacy congruent with their nature, and says that "chaste living is an affirmation of all that is human, and is the will of God. It is we who suffer when we violate the dictates of our own human nature."
Which is true enough, as any gay person who has tried to deny their nature will tell you. In 1975, one of Love In Action’s first clients, Jack McIntyre, committed suicide rather then, by his own reckoning, make one more promise to God he knew he could not keep. The effect of the Guidelines for Pastoral Care will without a doubt be to drive other gay men and women into self annihilating behaviors, if not outright suicide. "Chastity", say the Bishops, "means the successful integration of sexuality within the person and thus the inner unity of man in his bodily and spiritual being." But it is precisely that inner unity they intend to doggedly destroy within gay and lesbian people, in the name of god, in the name of Jesus, and in the name of love. How easy it is, to take that body and soul wholeness away from someone else, when you don’t have to live with the pain and the emptiness. It is we who suffer, when we violate the dictates of our own human nature, not the ones who teach us to fear and loath our human nature, the nature that our creator bestowed upon us.
When Romney ran…for the Senate in 1994, he wrote a letter to the Mass Log Cabin Club in which he pledged: “[A]s we seek to establish full equality for America’s gay and lesbian citizens, I will provide more effective leadership than my opponent.” During the same campaign, when he was accused of having once described gay people as “perverse” during a religious meeting of Mormons, Romney’s campaign issued a forceful statement decrying the accusation as false and reiterating that Romney respected “all people regardless of their race, creed, or sexual orientation.”
SALT LAKE CITY — Speaking before an adoring audience of Utah Republicans last night, Governor Mitt Romney drew a link between America’s prestige around the world and the legalization of same-sex marriages in Massachusetts.
”America cannot continue to lead the family of nations around the world if we suffer the collapse of the family here at home," Romney said, calling the Supreme Judicial Court’s legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts ”a blow to the family."
Milt – while running for governor of Massachusetts in 2001…
During his 2001 run for governor, his campaign distributed bright pink flyers at the June Pride parade declaring “Mitt and Kerry wish you a great Pride weekend!” During his inaugural speech, he said it was important to defend civil rights “regardless of gender, sexual orientation, or race.” He appointed eight openly gay and lesbian people to high profile positions in his administration. And before he decided to run for president — that is to say, before he needed to establish some strong anti-gay bonafides — Romney doubled the budget line item for the Governor’s Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth.
Milt – Last May…while campaigning for the 2008 GOP nomination for President of the United State…
This would be the same commission, mind you, that Romney tried to disband in highly public fashion last May.
What Would You Do For A Million Dollars? What Would You Do For A Million Votes…?
There’s this ethical question that goes something along the lines of, If someone offered to give you a million dollars to kill some random person, with the certainty that you would get clean away with it…would you do it? There was a time when I would have been shocked to hear people admit that they would.
What I would like to do now is change the terms of the test a little…
If you were running for President of the United States…and someone offered you a million votes in a swing state to kill some completely random person, with complete certainty that your name would never be attached to that murder…would you do it…?
Subject: re: you
From: "P. BELL"
Date: Wed, November 22, 2006 3:39 am
To: pam [at] pamspaulding.com
Why should you get the same privledges as we married couples do? I am not here to judge you. Love the person, hate the sin. But about you and Bush? I pray that law will be passed so you will NEVER be recognized in the US. Your beef will him is because he actually wants us to be more like we were when we first started this country-Chrisitian roots and all. I am not talking about the nutso Chrisitians out there who make a fool of themselves to be seen, I am talking about the people who really have a relationship with God, living the truth.
Did you know that homosexuality is specifically mentioned in the bible? Listed as ABNORMAL, DISCUSTING, and an ABOMANATION. You were not created to be this way, and so when you SLANDER a person who is againist you, mock their beliefs, and try to screw up this nation even more than it is for my children’s future, than you will deal with me.
I am not talking about the nutso Christians… You know this is only going to get worse, now that their White House messiah has lost his rubber stamp congress. And never mind the nutso Christians. Take a long hard look at how Mitt Romney and John McCain are belly flopping into the fundamentalist gutter now that the next presidential election cycle is closing in on us.
The problem the republicans face is that their policies are just not popular. Make the rich, richer…make the poor and middle-class poorer…rape the environment…curtail civil liberties…war, war and more war… There is no majority in America for any of that. So for the past few decades the republicans have been cobbling together a rough coalition of faux libertarians, fascists, Me-First Americans and bigots and with the ascendancy of George Bush, it’s won them elections…barely. Corruption and wild deficit spending cost them enough of the faux libertarians and the Me-Firsts that they lost last time. But make no mistake: the religious right and the rest of the bigot vote stuck with them. They lost the voters who finally got fed up with the spending and the corruption and the war. They loose the bigot vote now, and they’re done for decades to come and they know it.
The point being…don’t assume that as the Gay Bogyman looses it’s power to sway the independent voters that the republicans will stop using it. They can’t take even a middle ground position on gay rights, without loosing the bigot vote.
So republicans running for president in the coming years are going to fall all over themselves in the coming election to prove that they’re bigger gay bashers then the other guys. And in the process, they are going to deliberately rouse the passions of the mob. Because that mob is a vital part of their political base. Even long after it stops winning them elections. Because there is loosing, and there is having the bottom fall out. So they will keep inciting the mob.
And somewhere right here in America, some random gay people are going to die for the sake of giving those campaigning politicians some extra votes they wouldn’t otherwise have gotten. Think about that, the next time you hear one of them talk about Morals, and Values and God and Country.
…and why I’m so thrilled that our gutter crawling bigot of a Governor John Ehrlich got the boot last Tuesday. In May of 2005, Ehrlich vetoed a domestic partnership bill, saying it would "…open the door to undermine the sanctity of traditional marriage." This was, some of us noted, at a time when he was conducting a whisper smear campaign against the family of Baltimore Mayor O’Malley, who everyone figured would be his democratic challenger in the upcoming election. Ehrlich and his henchmen spread lies that O’Mally was having secret extramarital affairs utterly without concern for the effect on O’Malley’s wife and children. So much for the sanctity of marriage.
Maryland Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. vetoed a bill yesterday that would have granted rights to gay partners who register with the state, concluding after weeks of intense deliberations that the legislation threatened "the sanctity of traditional marriage."
The emotionally charged bill was among 24 that Ehrlich (R) rejected yesterday afternoon, including legislation to raise the state’s minimum wage by $1, allow early voting in elections and heighten oversight of the state’s troubled juvenile justice system. Another measure sought by gay rights activists that would have extended a property transfer tax exemption to domestic partners was also scuttled.
(Emphasis mine) His staff made a big noise to the news media afterward that he would "probably" sign the bill adding gay people to Maryland’s anti-discrimination laws. But that was another of his little moves to the middle made only when he knew he had no choice. The statehouse would have overridden a veto of that particular bill and he knew it. But it was useful to put the word out there that he’d sign it, because he’d just made a move which shocked, shocked, the chattering class…
Ehrlich’s decision to side, almost without exception, with business interests and social conservatives surprised some analysts, who thought he might try to burnish his credentials as a moderate by allowing some of the session’s more controversial bills to become law.
Most of the legislation vetoed yesterday had been strongly opposed by Republican lawmakers. But Ehrlich’s appeal to swing voters was key to his 2002 election in a state where registered Democrats still hold a nearly 2-to-1 advantage.
"I think it’s just breathtaking that he’s casting his lot with the right wing of his party," said Tom Hucker, executive director of Progressive Maryland…"He ran for governor as the moderate, affable son of an automobile dealer who would stick up for working-class families."
No it wasn’t breathtaking. It was eminently predictable. Ehrlich ran as a moderate. But he wasn’t. A simple glance at his political career would have made it obvious to anyone. He’s pure Ellen Sauerbrey Republican, and there are no moderates in the Maryland republican party since the Sauerbrey wing took it over.
A leading Republican lawmaker praised him for making "a principled decision."
"I know the governor wrestled with this decision because he may be sympathetic to some of the intentions," said House Minority Whip Anthony J. O’Donnell (R-Calvert). "But sometimes bad laws are the result of good intentions."
Modeled after laws in California, Hawaii and other states, the legislation would have granted nearly a dozen rights to unmarried partners who register with the state. Among those: the right to be treated as an immediate family member during hospital visits, to make health care decisions for incapacitated partners and to have private visits in nursing homes.
A principled decision. Anyone who knows a same sex couple, knows exactly the threat that constantly hangs over them from their lack of legal recognition…
A woman who could have benefited from the bill, Stacey Kargman-Kaye of Baltimore, said yesterday that she was heartbroken. "I don’t understand how a human being who has a significant other and children could not see the need for this," she said.
Kargman-Kaye, 37, said that after she emerged from heart surgery five years ago, a nurse literally pushed away her longtime partner, who was there to support her, "because we’re not considered a family in the eyes of Maryland."
But republicans just can’t seem to twist the knife in us enough…
A group of conservative activists had launched a petition drive in recent weeks that sought to repeal the bill if it became law. They argued that it was part of a "homosexual agenda" advancing in Annapolis. Maryland allows residents to put legislation passed by the General Assembly to a public vote if enough signatures are gathered.
Del. Donald H. Dwyer Jr. (R-Anne Arundel), a leader of the petition drive, said organizers would soon decide whether to continue, in case lawmakers override Ehrlich’s veto in January. Dwyer said he was "very pleased that the governor has sent a strong message about the morality of the state."
Dwyer had been puking anti-gay venom into the Maryland statehouse for years now, and I am delighted to say he lost in his bid for re-election this year. Good riddence. Perhaps the voters in Anne Arundel Country had just about enough of his brand of morality…
A gay Baltimore man has won a courtroom battle to keep his late partner buried in the Tennessee grave the two men chose.
But the victory is not absolute. Kevin-Douglas Olive said the parents of Russell Groff have indicated they plan to appeal the Nov. 2 ruling that Olive received Thursday.
“This is awesome,” Olive said. “It may not be over if they appeal, but I feel so good.”
Baltimore City Orphans’ Court Judge Karen Friedman ruled against Lowell and Carolyn Groff, who sought to overturn their son’s will and move his body to a family cemetery.
Groff’s parents argued in court Sept. 25 and 26 that their 26-year-old son didn’t know what he was doing when he completed his will and burial instructions shortly before his death on Nov. 23, 2004.
Groff, who was HIV-positive, died from a staph infection that spread throughout his body.
Olive said Groff was estranged from his parents at the time of his death, and completed a will and burial instructions in anticipation of the legal battle.
So he knew what he was doing all right. He knew his own parents would try to take him from the man he loved after death. And they tried. And they might Still succeed. Morality.
Olive, who married Groff according to local Quaker tradition in 2003, said his battle illuminates the need for equal marriage rights for gay couples.
“I won, but I wouldn’t have had to go through this at all if the state had some sort of provision that allowed my partner and I to have legalized our relationship in some sense,” he said. “This is kind of bittersweet because I had to go through a lot of shit to get this.”
A principled decision… That simple Quaker marriage of two young men in love in 2003 did nothing, Nothing to harm the marriage of any heterosexual couple in this state, or anywhere else. It takes nothing away from anyone save for this one thing: the ability to twist the knife in the broken heart of a gay person who has just lost the love of their lives. There is no pain like the loss of a loved one. What kind of person wants to make that bottomless loss even harder for someone to bear? What kind of person sees righteousness in it?
You have to utterly dehumanize the person who suffers. (Homosexuals don’t love, they just have sex…) But before you can do that, you have to take your conscience around behind the barn and kill it. And you do that, so you can make other people scapegoats for everything fine and noble and honorable that a human being could be, that you could never live up to. All your cheap failures of character, all your pathetic evasions of reality, all those need a scapegoat. Otherwise, you’ve only yourself to blame. And the best scapegoat of all, the one you can hate the most without reservation, is the one who faced their life squarely, honestly, and honorably, and became everything a human being can, that you could never be. It isn’t the sanctity of marriage but the sanctity of gay bashing that they’re afraid of loosing. Because if we don’t bleed, if we can’t be made to bleed, then they’re not righteous.
So after a generally positive election day, one where I can take some solid comfort in the fact that although seven states voted to strip same sex couples of any and all legal rights one state refused to go along, I find myself sweating blood again over the situation in Massachusetts, the only state in the union so far, to allow same sex couples to actually marry, as opposed to being civil-unioned.
In states where it only takes a minority of voters to sign enough petitions to put a referendum on the ballot, and only a minority of registered voters actually vote on the measures, anti-gay bigots have been enormously successfully in writing their gay and lesbian neighbors out of their state constitutions. But in most of those states, the state-houses have had little to no backbone in them to resist the hate. The religious right is powerful in the heartland, and in the south in particular, and many politicians in those regions make their careers either catering to it, or kowtowing to it when necessary. Standing for the devil and against the baby Jesus just isn’t a winning proposition.
But more and more in the blue states, the fight against hate is being joined. In California, the statehouse there actually passed a law granting same sex couples the right to marry (which Arnold to the everlasting shame of his name promptly vetoed). And in Massachusetts they’re not taking the venomous hatreds of the anti-gay gutter laying down. And they’re not just fighting on principle either. They’re fighting, finally, just like the enemy does. To win. By any means necessary.
Lawmakers voted to recess the ConCon until 2 p.m. Jan. 2, 2007 by a 109 to 87 vote, which is the last day of the legislative session. Technically, lawmakers could reconvene to take the issue up, but it’s extremely unlikely. Which means that the amendment has died by procedural maneuver.
When I first read the news I was both elated, and still a bit worried. Why not just adjourn altogether? Why leave prejudice and hate that one last chance and keep gay couples in the state, and all over the nation looking to Massachusetts for hope, still holding their breaths? Well…here’s why:
The significance of the recess vote as opposed to an adjournment vote is that Governor Mitt Romney cannot call the legislature back into session.
Tactics. They have a bigot governor who is kissing up to the religious right in hopes of making a run at the presidency. He’s been kicking the homosexual devil for their approval for months now (which he’ll never get because he’s a Mormon, but that’s another story…). But in this state the fighters for liberty and justice for all have taken full measure of the enemy. They understand perfectly well that they’re in a knife fight, and so they brought a knife. That’s how you fight a knife fight: to win. Let the gutter howl that they’re being denied their rights. It was their neighbor’s rights after all, that they were seeking to take away. This fight was never about rights. It was about power. It was about a group of venomous haters trying to reserve democracy, and its promise of liberty and justice for all, to themselves. If that’s what you’re about, then don’t complain when someone else comes along and takes some of that away from you: brother, you asked for it.
"I’m probably 3,000 feet to the right of Attila the Hun. But the gracious people, the socially conscious people, the liberal people, you’re the ones who always want everyone to be heard. What about these 170,000 people?" said Democratic Rep. Marie Parente.
Yes, we’re the ones who are always wanting everyone to be heard. And yes, you’re not. And that’s the whole point here. One-hundred and seventy billion people would still not have the right to take away a single individual’s right to equality under the law, let alone the rights of tens of thousands of their neighbors. They only way you do that, is to assert a right of force, by virtue of the power of your shear numbers. The term for that isn’t democracy, it’s mob rule. And that’s why we have checks and balances in our form of government, to prevent democracy from degenerating first into the rule of mobs, and then into tyranny. We The People includes your gay and lesbian neighbors too you drooling moron. It includes all of us. And yes, we are the ones who believe that. And yes, you’re not.
The people can always vote the politicians who stood by the gay minority out of office. But that takes more work, and it means every voter must weigh one vote taken in the statehouse against many. Maybe a voter does not like the vote their representative made on the same sex marriage amendment, but they generally like their other votes. Do they vote a politician they generally like out of office on that one single issue? Now suddenly, the bigots need the rest of the population to be as passionate about denying gay people equality as they are. And the population at large just isn’t. They might vote against us if it’s presented to them as a single issue. But it is not the single issue of most voters and the bigots know it.
This is how the tables turn on the bigots. For decades now they’ve been fighting against equality for gay people in situations where they’ve been able to win on their sheer passion, against a voting public that is lukewarm at best in support of us, but only lukewarm at worst in their own prejudices. They may find us distasteful, but they’re not going to throw out a politician they generally like because that politician let the homos marry each other. At least not in the blue states. Every time the gay haters have tried to hold a blue state statehouse accountable when it has supported, in some measure, the rights of same sex couples, they have failed. They failed in Vermont. They failed in California. And they failed in Massachusetts. And that is why there were 109 votes to recess yesterday. The voters Have spoken, and what they’ve said is they really don’t care that much about gay rights. And the bigots know it. That’s why the bigots want to fight this in a forum where they know they only need a minority of the registered voters to win, and where they can make the stab against their gay and lesbian neighbors as easy and painless as possible for just enough voters, to rewrite their constitutions. Tactics. They can’t complain now that they were outmaneuvered.
Well…they can…they’re hypocrites too after all. And they can probably still keep winning this way in the red states. Most of them. They lost after all in Arizona, which is more "leave us alone" libertarian then conservative (no daylight savings time for us, thank you…). But they’ve about picked off all the low hanging apples now, and the rest of it is going to be a fight, and no bigot ever wanted a fair fight. A fight where they massively outnumber their victims, sure. Their vision of democracy is more mob rule then anything resembling the vision of the founders. Which is why the founders put in all those checks and balances. A democracy is a government of citizens, of equals, not of mobs.
But get on this. It looks like Virginia will decide the senate. Karl Rove has turned races like this around before. You don’t know the lengths they’ll go to. Believe me, you’re not being imaginative enough.
Check out Josh Green’s article on Karl Rove from two years ago. Look what Rove pulled off in the disputed Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice race. Read it.
Get ready for the bogus headlines on Drudge. The rumors and innuendo. Live boys and dead girls. Like I said, your imagination will only get you maybe half the way there. Get ready.
Right. We’re still in a knife fight for the future of the American Dream. But it’s hard not to feel a great satisfaction upon seeing images like this from last night…
Hello? Dubya? Dubya? Hello…?
Yes…a bunch more states passed amendments stripping same sex couples of any and all legal rights. But one state, Arizona, didn’t, and even though that’s only one state, it puts a knife in the homophobe’s argument that every time same sex marriage comes up to a vote it looses. Last night Arizona defeated one at the polls. And what is more, it was done without the help of our worthless national gay rights organizations…
With 94 percent of the vote reporting, it looks like Arizona’s Prop. 107, the gay marriage ban will go down — 51.6 percent against it, 48.4 percent for it. Of particular interest is Maricopa county (home of Phoenix) which went against the ban. Pima county, home of liberal Tucson, played a big part in the victory — defeating the amendment by large margins.
Cindy Jordan, chair of No on 107, credits the victory (if it occurs, knock on wood) to grassroots efforts.The big national gay organizations have been notably absent there, and the campaigns have been smart about attracting voters from both conservative Phoenix and liberal Tucson with targeted messages and tactics. "We did this with no national help," says Jordan, "this grassroot’s effort was local."
(emphasis mine) This is exactly why I don’t give money to those jackasses.
In Tennessee, voters passed an anti same sex marriage amendment by about 80 percent, which I know is going to cause a lot of pain to some very good people, and friends of mine down there. But according to reports I’ve seen it was done with only about 20 percent of the voters actually voting on it. I wonder what was going on in the minds of the people who voted, yet decided not to vote on that issue. I doubt it was because they didn’t think they knew enough about the issue to cast a vote on it. You’d have to be living in a cave not to have heard the issue being discussed, and you know damn well that practically every vein throbbing pulpit thumper down there was exhorting his flock to go to the polls and smite the homosexual devils. But only a small fraction of those who voted, voted on the issue one way or the other, if the stories I’m hearing are true.
Divided loyalties? I can’t vote against the baby Jesus, but I can’t vote against my son…daughter… brother…sister… aunt…uncle… co-worker…neighbors…? Tired of all the hate…but unwilling yet to take a stand against it?
I’m glad to see the South Daktoa seems to have repealed it’s horrible anti-abortion law. At Daily KOS, they’re saying that with 86% of precincts reporting, Referendum 6, the abortion ban was at 45% Yes; 55% No. The same sex marriage and civil unions ban was 52% Yes; 48% No. Almost exactly the inverse. The worst hypocrites of the night were those voters in South Dakota, who voted against the abortion ban and voted against giving same sex couples any legal rights too.
Full Text of Constitutional Amendment C:
Section 2. That Article XXI of the Constitution of the State of South Dakota, be amended by adding thereto a NEW SECTION to read as follows:
9. Only marriage between a man and a woman shall be valid or recognized in South Dakota. The uniting of two or more persons in a civil union, domestic partnership, or other quasi-marital relationship shall not be valid or recognized in South Dakota.
Democracy means liberty and justice for me…not for thee…
You have to worry that with so much corruption, so much fiscal debt, and the dawning realization now, even in the red zones, that Iraq is an unmitigated disaster, that so many of these races were so close. But any election night that costs so many gutter crawling bigots their seats, like Maryland’s own jackass governor Ehrlich and his bigot pal Steele, is still a pretty good one.
Gay Marylanders won’t have to beg you any more for a shred of common human decency Bob. Fuck off.
On October 29 the state of Tennessee essentially washed its hands of the question of whether or not Love In Action needed to be licensed in order to treat mentally ill "clients". Tennessee agreed to pay LIA’s legal bills in exchange for their dropping a lawsuit that claimed they had a religious exemption from any department of health oversight. Tennessee is accepting the word of a man who said God could make him see blue walls were there were yellow, that he has not, and will not be dispensing drugs to his "clients".
The fact of their forcing ex-gay therapy on unwilling gay teenagers, which was what started the public outcry over LIA practices, was never at issue, unfortunately. At least one gay teen has publicly accused the ministry of forcing him to take Prozac, which he did not have a doctor’s prescription for. LIA denied it, and apparently Tennessee never performed more then a perfunctory investigation of the allegations that they were giving clients drugs, let alone that they were forcing them on unwilling gay teenagers as part of their therapy to cure them of their homosexuality. What their dangerous mix of religion and invasive psyco-therapy does to adolescents, apart from any issue of drugging them, was never even looked into. So the abuse of gay youth in Memphis will continue. Probably until some catastrophe happens, at which point everyone will be wondering why nothing was done sooner…
I keep plugging Fred Clark’s blog, Slacktivist, because he’s a really decent guy, and in these times of religious right triumphalism this nation needs more voices like his. Had there been more Baptists like him in my life growing up, I might still regard myself as one.
Haggard has waged this political battle against homosexuality while living a lie. That requires two, related responses. The first is on a political level. Haggard and his allies have been fighting a political fight — they have been trying to wield power to force others to comply with their wishes. And it’s perfectly legitimate to respond to power with power…
…
But the second response — which I can’t ignore — has to do with Ted Haggard the person who is, among other things, my "brother in Christ." There’s a script for how this will play out in the evangelical community — a script written out on that very same NAE page cited above:
… homosexuality [is] a sin that, if persisted in, brings grave consequences in this life and excludes one from the Kingdom of God.
Individual Christians, ministers, and congregations should compassionately proclaim the Good News of forgiveness and encourage those involved in homosexual practices to cease those practices, accept forgiveness, and pray for deliverance as nothing is impossible with God. Further, we should accept them into fellowship upon confession of faith and repentance, as we would any other forgiven sinner.
All that language — forgiveness, deliverance, confession, repentance — really means here only that Haggard needs to go back to living a lie. If he agrees to live that lie, and with clenched teeth to continue proclaiming that others must join in living that lie, then Haggard will be "accepted" back "into fellowship."
Haggard is now seeking "spiritual advice and guidance," and there are tens of thousands of Very Nice Christian people praying for him. But his spiritual guides and advisors are all going to tell him to follow that script. Those people praying for him are all praying for him to follow that script. And that script is evil. That script is a lie.
For Christ’s sake, enough with the lies. The last thing Haggard needs is to be "accepted" into a fellowship that cannot accept who he really is. Both he and that fellowship have just been given an opportunity to abandon lies. I’m praying that they will recognize that opportunity and take it.
Go read the whole thing. I ping Fred’s blog often. You should too. At the end of her novel about the life of the poet Simonides, The Praise Singer, Mary Renault writes, "In all men evil is sleeping; the good man is he who will not awaken it, in himself or in other men." It’s a moral roadsign we can all try to keep in view, regardless of our spiritual or political beliefs. And it is the touchstone by which you can see, clearly, what distinguishes the militant religiosity of the right. This country desperately needs more people like Fred in the public discourse, who keep doggedly trying to rouse within others, their better nature.
It is the tragedy of these times, not only for the Christian faith in America, but also the American Dream, which once upon a time offered the promise of religious freedom to the oppressed people of the world, that the arousal of ugly passions that turn neighbor against neighbor has become nearly synonymous with Christian politics in America. And the religious right is not completely to blame for it either. Secular and cynical politicians, republicans largely, have been using the fierce hatreds of that one strain of American Christianity as a crowbar to break this nation into ever smaller and smaller warring factions, the better to win elections. And they’re supported in that, by secular and cynical big businesses, who don’t give a good goddamn about religion, but about keeping big business friendly republicans in power.
Regardless of our spiritual beliefs, simply as American citizens, we all have a stake in making sure other Christian voices can be heard too. We can demand that our news media not routinely accept the pronouncements of the Dobsons, the Falwells, and the Robertsons, as "the Christian point of view". We can demand that whenever religion is brought into the public discourse, that the religious right is not given a free pass to define Christianity in the popular culture. Every one of us, whether we ourselves are Christian or not, have a stake in how broadly the Christian experience is represented in the media. Because the voices of peace and reconciliation must not be shut out of the conversation. Because a house divided against itself cannot stand.
This blog is powered by WordPress and is hosted at Winters Web Works, who also did some custom design work (Thanks!). Some embedded content was created with the help of The Gimp. I proof with Google Chrome on either Windows, Linux or MacOS depending on which machine I happen to be running at the time.
