Gay Christian Blog, ECWR, Evangelicals Concerned Western Region

2011-08-10T11:42:00.001-07:00

I could barely afford groceries anymore I knew I had to make a move fast this was such a gift!!
http://www.bergansoutdoor.cz/redir.php?jifeweg=google.com&nuhyli=aol.com&url=http://job-reporter.net/esubmit/bizopp_ax.php now im the most respected guy around please dont put this off
friends help friends!

Christian couple create gay outreach group

2010-10-14T05:29:00.000-07:00

Christian couple create gay outreach group
Kaitlin Gillespie
THE DAILY EVERGREEN
Published: 10/14/2010

“It’s hard to be gay and a Christian,” Erica Norris said. “You just don’t mix those two things. It’s like oil and water.” Norris, a junior communication and psychology major, and her girlfriend, Krystal Moore, a junior human development major, are working to break this stereotype.

After church members at Real Life Ministries in Moscow, Idaho, told them they could not hold positions of leadership in a youth group, the couple decided to create an RSO called God Loves Gays (GLG), a group they say will create a forum for open discussion about being gay and Christian.

Norris and Moore had hoped to act as student leaders in the Young Life youth group, an organization that travels to local high schools and talks about church events.

“We went to the first day of training and (the leader) ended up finding out that we were together and I instantly knew it was going to be a problem from the way his body language changed,” Norris said.

Norris and Moore continued to try to participate. They met with the adult leaders to discuss the issue. They said in spite of their willingness to communicate, they were still faced with opposition.

“We realized where they were coming from,” Norris said. “It’s all based on opinion and how you interpret the Bible. In our opinion, we’re not doing anything wrong or if we are, then God loves us anyway. Everybody sins every day. Long story short, they didn’t agree with us.” Moore said this was the first time since coming out that she truly felt different. She said being taken out of a leadership position because of her sexuality made her doubt her leadership skills, though she has plenty of leadership experience.

“Dating Erica does not change the fact that I’m a leader and always will be,” she said.

After the encounter, Norris decided to find a way to bridge the gap between the gay and Christian communities and came up with the idea for the God Loves Gays RSO.

Norris said the group will work to teach people on campus that being gay or supporting the gay community while being Christian is possible. She said their gay friends felt discouraged about following the Christian faith after they heard the couple’s story.

“It’s hard to believe in it when people tell you you’re going to Hell,” she said.

Moore and Norris also said the new RSO will work to teach members about the Bible.

Moore said there are many interpretations of the Bible, and it does not necessarily have to condemn homosexuality. She said she has started to read the Bible more frequently and has struggled to find the passages that conflict with her sexuality.

“I’ve never read it where I feel like it was saying I was a bad person,” she said.

Norris and Moore both come from Christian families, and both said coming out was a difficult process.

Norris said she came out to her dad when he asked her who she was texting so often.

“Me and my dad didn’t talk for like a month,” she said. “But then after that he realized that I was still his kid. Now we’re best friends.” Moore, who is still in the process of coming out to her friends and family, said she believes GLG will help individuals facing similar struggles.

“There is no doubt it will still be hard, but in GLG, we want to have a safe place to learn more about being gay and what that means to a Christian like myself,” she said.

The group is still in the process of registering, but has a tentative meeting scheduled Oct. 18 at 8:30 p.m. The meeting place is to be announced.

http://www.dailyevergreen.com/story/32722

Ousted Evangelical Reflects On Faith, Future

2010-07-29T01:59:00.000-07:00

Ousted Evangelical Reflects On Faith, Future

Members of the evangelical Lakewood Church in Houston worship at a prayer service in 2005. More than 45,000 churches across the U.S. are represented by the National Association of Evangelicals.

July 28, 2010

For 10 years, the Rev. Richard Cizik was the chief lobbyist for the National Association of Evangelicals, which represents roughly 30 million constituents across the United States.

But he was forced out of that position in December 2008, after remarks he made on Fresh Air about his support of gay civil unions, among other things.

On Wednesday, Cizik returned to Fresh Air to discuss how his life has changed since he left the association and why he started a new group called the Evangelical Partnership for the Common Good, which he hopes will be an alternative to Christian groups that focus on the culture wars.

Cizik says he has no regrets about what happened to him after appearing on the show.

"In so many ways, this has been good for me," he tells Terry Gross, adding that his support of same-sex civil unions wasn't the only reason he was asked to leave the NAE.

Richard Cizik launched The New Evangelical Partnership for the Common Good in January 2010.

"It was a sum total of everything [I said on Fresh Air]," Cizik explains. "It was speaking out on behalf of creation care, climate change, a broader agenda — speaking out on a host of levels that just offended the old guard. Civil unions, well that was just one part of it."

Cizik says that he still strongly believes that same-sex couples should be allowed to obtain civil unions.

"While I haven't come to a conclusion on [gay marriage], I am convinced that you can't deny rights to people based on their sexual orientation. It's wrong," he says. "It's even wrong, I think, as Christians to take that position. Because we should support human rights for all people even when they don't agree with us."

He also explains how he believes the evangelical movement has changed in the past several decades — and why he believes the evangelical movement is overdue for another ideological shift.

"Most important, [we need to become] independent of partisanship and ideology rather than subservient to partisanship and ideology," he says. "Evangelicalism [has] become so subservient to an ideology and to a political party that it needs, as I say, to be born again."

Interview Highlights

On his comments about same-sex marriage on Fresh Air that forced him to resign from his position at the National Association of Evangelicals

"It came out of the depths of the heart the mouth speaks and so it just came out. I hadn't planned on saying it, but I had been thinking about it a long time. And that's because I had been looking at constitutional arguments that are now being weighed by the California Supreme Court. In other words, can we deny rights to others whose rights we don't especially share? Or, in fact, may disagree with strongly? And yet, yes I agree with what I said then and I agree with it now. What's changed since then — even over the last year — according to a poll released just this week by Public Religion Research Institute, is that a majority of evangelicals — not just younger evangelicals — say that they agree either with same-sex marriage or civil unions. That's a majority of white evangelicals in California. And evangelicals around the country are looking at this in new light and new ways and evaluating this in terms of the Constitution and in light of our Christian values. And that's good."

On being asked to resign

"We have an evangelical saying that goes like this: 'When God closes one door, he opens another.' Well, absolutely right, I found out about that. But [God] doesn't say anything about catching your fingers in the doorjamb as you leave. What I'd say to people who have been sacked, fired or whatever — don't get your fingers caught in the doorjamb while leaving. In other words, don't try to pull yourself back in. ... But God is bigger than those events that precipitate your departure from that job. I'm not the only only who lost my job in recent days, weeks, years. So recognize it as an opportunity and see how God is going to help you in the future."

On how evangelicalism has changed

"It became perceived by millions and millions of Americans as captive to a conservative ideology. Not captive to Jesus or to the Gospel but captive to an ideology that has departed, in so many ways, from historic evangelicalism. The movement has always been a reactionary movement. It was born out of reaction to the 19th century biblical criticism in biology in which evangelicals reacted to that and moved away. The new evangelicals of the 20th century saw the fallacy of that kind of approach towards society but after a number of decades, that kind of neo-evangelicalism that was founded by the National Association of Evangelicals — well it's fallen back into the same kind of subservience to reactionary-ism. Evangelicalism is [seen] today by what it's against, not what it's for. And we're trying to say, we're for these things. And among those is this command to first and foremost follow Jesus — not the Republican Party or Rush Limbaugh or anyone else, but to follow what the Gospel says."

On the Tea Party movement

"The Tea Party movement is irreligious and significantly so. It's got lots of problems. I wouldn't join it if I were an evangelical and I would urge others not to or at least to be suspicious of it because it doesn't bring with it the whole biblical concept of responsibility and the rest to God and so I'm not a Tea Party fan."

On religious imperialism

"[Religious leaders across the world] look upon our advocacy on behalf of religious freedom as intervention. And they resent that. And so we really have to be careful when engaging overseas that we understand how these pivotal players in these religious communities view us. And not attempt to manipulate them but understand their importance. ... And we just can't view religion through the lens of counterterrorism policy. We have to understand that religions play pivotal roles on all of these issues of poverty, development, disease and the like. Even climate change. And we have to engage these players."

Source: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128776382&ps=cprs

Gay Rights, an Evangelical Thing?

2010-07-22T04:03:00.000-07:00

July 21, 2010 1:29pm

Gay Rights, an Evangelical Thing?

Post by JANET EDWARDS

COMMENTS (3) EMAIL PRINT SHARE
“We need to out-evangelize the evangelists!”

Contrary to popular imagination, which usually places evangelicals strictly within the conservative Christian right-wing, this rousing call to action came from Rev. Jean Southard at a dinner for LGBT advocates during the Presbyterian Church (USA)’s General Assembly.

In the midst of debates within both the Presbyterian Church and the nation, Rev. Southard’s point was that LGBT-rights advocates in the church should shout from the rafters that their actions are evangelical—in the deepest historical sense of the word—and in so doing, remind evangelicals of Christianity’s fundamental tenet of inclusion.

Though it has taken on a narrow meaning in American politics today, “evangelical” is actually an ancient Christian term whose roots extend to the earliest days after Jesus’ resurrection and ascension. “Evangelical,” or “evangelion” in the original Greek, literally translates as “Good News.” From the women running to tell the others of the empty tomb (Luke 24:1-12), to Paul’s mission to the Gentiles (Acts 15), to John writing his Gospel to make sure the Good News would be there for future generations like us, “evangelical” has always meant sharing Jesus’ Good News with all those who wish to be part of the Church.

As Jesus said, “When I am lifted up, I shall draw all people to myself” (John 12:32). There is no “but” in Jesus’ “all.” And so it is incumbent upon us, as a Church, to extend our full welcome and blessing to all the faithful, including those who are LGBT.

Yet LGBT people are the ones whom many in the Church today judge as beyond the reach of Jesus’ embrace—just as the Galatians and Corinthians were considered beyond God’s love in Paul’s time.

For those who claim the mantle of the evangelical tradition, it is important to remember what it means that God’s love is available to all of us through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, the Christ, and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It means that LGBT Christians have the same place at Christ’s table as anyone else.

The chorus of the praise song, “We Are One in the Spirit,” echoes Paul (Galatians 5:22) when it repeats the refrain, “And they’ll know we are Christians by our love, by our love, Yes, they’ll know we are Christians by our love.” It is in this Spirit that we can “out-evangelize the evangelicals.”

And so, when LGBT people freely embrace and live a Christian life, the Church must recognize such deep faithfulness and open our arms to them as well. At the heart of Jesus’ Good News is this: there is no “but” in “all.”

http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/guest_bloggers/3011/gay_rights,_an_evangelical_thing/

Argentina Passes Game-Sex Marriage

2010-07-17T07:31:00.000-07:00

Associated Content

Thursday marked another giant step forward in the global fight for gay rights as Argentina's Senate voted and passed a law to allow same-sex marriages. Passed by a narrow margin of

6 votes (33-to-27), the new law surpasses what has become a more common allowance of civil unions for same-sex couples in the region, granting gay couples all the same rights shared by married couples of the opposite sex.

While the Roman Catholic Church has historically been deeply involved in Argentina's affairs of state, this vote looks past the pulpit and toward broadening the arena of human rights.

Other countries have led the way for Argentina on the path to allowing same-sex marriage, and a list of those that have previously approved gay marriage includes Canada, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Netherlands, Belgium, Portugal, Spain and South Africa. The vote puts increased pressure on nations that have not made allowance for same-sex marriage in their legislation to re-examine their stance, and it is expected that more countries will follow suit.

Here in the United States, where the gay rights movement has been a point of debate at all local, state and national levels, voters will surely use Argentina's decision as a major talking point in upcoming campaigns. While the national government has not yet enacted legislation to allow equal rights for gay couples to those currently enjoyed by straight couples, several states have independently voted to allow gay marriage rights. New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa and Vermont, as well as Washington D.C., all have begun licensing same-sex marriages. As the debate of marital equality continues, it is likely that more states will be added to that list in the future.

As a country that has worked slowly to allow all of its citizens equal rights over the last 150 years, it will undoubtedly take some time for the United States to finalize a decision in favor of the right to marry for gays. However, that timeframe will likely diminish as more countries make this ground-breaking decision and as fresh faces enter the political scene.

Canada's decision in 2005 to become the fourth country in the world to recognize a legal marriage bond between same-sex couples and the continuation of those rights without revocation over the last five years, has helped to dispel many of the fears shared by conservatives in the United States and other developed countries. The decision by Canada in 2005, and this week in Argentina, has spurred a debate on an international level as to what really makes a marriage, and, in a broader scope, has forced us to re-evaluate what constitutes a happy and healthy family unit.

While globally the practice of same-sex marriage is not yet widely accepted, Argentina's decision to align itself with the ideals of acceptance and equality brings the issue of gay rights back into the forefront of voters' minds as we prepare to decide on future leaders and law-makers. It is difficult to predict how soon these principles will be adopted on a global scale, but we are surely one step closer to that end than we were prior to the Argentinean Senate's decision.

The Gay Marriage Ruling: What Now?

2010-07-11T14:58:00.000-07:00

Posted by Brian Montopoli
CBS/AP

Yesterday, a federal district judge in Boston declared that the federal ban on recognizing same-sex marriage - as articulated in the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA - is unconstitutional.

The judge, Joseph Tauro, based his decision on the notion that states, not the federal government, have jurisdiction over the definition of marriage. If his decision holds up through appeals - and that's a big if - it would mean that the federal government would likely have to recognize those same-sex marriages already recognized by states, and thus provide benefits like Medicaid to same-sex partners.

To be clear: The decision would not mean that both federal and state governments would have to recognize same-sex marriage nationwide. Instead, it would mandate that the federal government would have to recognize same-sex marriages already recognized by Massachusetts and other states that recognize gay marriage. (The case actually dealt with a specific group of people looking for specific benefits, but the broader implication is that the relevant section of DOMA would fall.)

The case now could move from the district court to the U.S. court of appeals for the first circuit, which includes three other New England states; it could then go to the Supreme Court. Ironically, an appeal to the decision would come from the Justice Department of the Obama administration, which wants to repeal DOMA but must defend it so long as it remains law.

This is not the only high-profile same-sex marriage case now before the courts: in California, both sides are now awaiting a decision in a major lawsuit to overturn the Proposition 8 same-sex marriage ban. That case (Perry v. Schwarzenegger) is predicated on the argument that the state's voter-backed ban of same-sex marriage violates the Constitution's due process and equal protection provisions.

If the plaintiffs are successful and the decision is sufficiently broad, that case would go further than the Massachusetts decision - it would essentially bring down both state and federal limits on same-sex marriage (and effectively make America a nation where all gay couples could get married). Like the Massachusetts decision, there is a decent chance that the California case will end up before the Supreme Court.

Robert George, a professor of jurisprudence at Princeton University as well as the chairman of the National Organization for Marriage, which works against same-sex marriage efforts, said in an interview with Hotsheet that he believes the Massachusetts decision was wrong. He cites examples in which the federal government recognizes marriage for various purposes, such as the filing of tax returns.

"I believe that the federal government does have the power to define marriage for purposes of federal law," he said - even if it doesn't have the power to define it for the purposes of state law.

George, founder of the American Principles Project, also suggests that the arguments in the two gay marriage cases essentially contradict each other. That's because, he argues, while the Massachusetts case is predicated on states' rights over federal rights, the California case is predicated on the reverse.

"It seems to, if you take the logic of the [Massachusetts] opinion, lead to the proposition that the Supreme Court or the federal judiciary would not have the power to, for example, overturn Proposition 8 in California, because that would constitute the federal government intervening on behalf of the state to define marriage," he said.

"So while there is lots of applauding of this decision by the advocates of same-sex marriage, the logic seems to undermine their position," he added.

But Jennifer Pizer, marriage project director of gay rights group Lambda Legal, says George has it wrong.

"Equal protection rules [in the Constitution] apply to both states and the federal government," she said in an interview. "The Boston litigation addresses Congress mistreating a group and Congress interfering with a state. The federal government statute has both of those problems. And Prop. 8 is about a state violating the rights of a group - one of those problems."

She added: "The basic idea here is that all government in the United States is required by the Constitution to treat people equally. And anti-gay marriage rules are not equal treatment. So if a state violates that principle, the state violates the Constitution. And if Congress violates that principle, Congress violates the Constitution."

"The decisions yesterday in the Boston cases reinforce the arguments made in the Prop. 8 litigation because defenders of these anti-gay rules in California and in the Boston litigation relied on some similar arguments," argued Pizer. "And so the conclusions in the Boston cases explain why those anti-gay arguments fail to justify marriage discrimination."

There is no clear timeline for when all this will be resolved - the Supreme Court has discretion over whether and when to take up either same-sex marriage case, and both cases could go away if Proposition 8 or DOMA are overturned by voters or Congress. One thing we do know: If the cases do reach the high court, they will likely yield landmark rulings that won't be forgotten anytime soon.

Presbyterians continue to be divided over gays

2010-07-11T14:56:00.000-07:00

By PATRICK CONDON
(AP)MINNEAPOLIS

A split decision from Presbyterian leaders on two gay-friendly measures guarantees even more debate among the U.S. church's members on an issue they've been divided over for years.

Delegates to the Presbyterian church's convention in Minneapolis voted Thursday for a more liberal policy on gay clergy but decided not to redefine marriage in their church constitution to include same-sex couples. Approval of both measures could have made the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) one of the most gay-friendly major Christian churches in the U.S.

Even the more liberal stance on gay clergy faces more debate before it can become church policy. A majority of the church's 173 U.S. presbyteries must approve it. Two years ago — after years of efforts by supporters — a similar measure was sent out to presbyteries but died when 94 of them voted against it.
Both of Thursday's votes were close. Fifty-one percent of delegates voted to shelve the proposal to redefine marriage as being between "two people" instead of between "a man and a woman," just hours after 53 percent of them voted to allow non-celibate gays in committed relationships to serve as clergy.

On Friday, delegates voted down a motion to reconsider the marriage vote. It needed a two-thirds majority to come back to the floor and got just 40 percent. Gay rights supporters must wait two years until the next general assembly for another shot.

Shelving the marriage matter means church committees will spend the next two years reviewing the issue.

"We Presbyterians love to study, which is not a bad thing," said Cindy Bolbach, an elder at National Capital Presbytery in Washington and the assembly's elected moderator. "We're talking about some major new steps."

But supporters say Presbyterians have spent enough time mulling it over.

"I think we're seeing acts of desperation by those who feel their way of life is slipping away," the Rev. Ray Bagnuolo, the openly gay pastor of Janhus Presbyterian Church in New York City, said after the marriage vote. "Progress takes time. But to gay and lesbian people, it says their relationships, who they are, does not matter to this church. I don't call that Christian or loving."

Even some conservative Presbyterians were surprised by the fate of the marriage measure.

"I didn't see this turn of events coming," said Jerry Andrews, pastor of First Presbyterian Church in San Diego.

He said redefining marriage may have been one step too far for delegates who just hours earlier voted for the more liberal clergy policy.

"I think as the day went on, the mood became more conservative," Andrews said.

Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is ranked the 10th-largest church in the U.S. with 2.8 million members, according to the National Council of Churches' 2010 "Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches." The church's media materials tout 2.1 million members.

Under current church policy, Presbyterians are eligible to become clergy, deacons or elders only if they are married or celibate. The new policy would strike references to sexuality altogether in favor of candidates committed to "joyful submission to worship of Christ."

Several major Christian denominations have voted in recent years to allow non-celibate gays to serve as clergy if they are in committed relationships. Among them are the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the U.S. Episcopal Church and the United Church of Christ.

Fewer major U.S. denominations have taken the step of fully endorsing gay marriage. Only two, the United Church of Christ and the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations, have explicitly allowed it.

Delegates at the Presbyterian assembly also shelved a separate measure that would have removed the threat of punishment for clergy who perform same-sex marriages in states where it's legal.
___

TEN REASONS WHY GAY RIGHTS IS A RELIGIOUS ISSUE

2010-07-09T09:06:00.000-07:00

By Jay Michaelson
Tikkun Magazine

Civil rights movements that appeal to religion succeed. Those that do not, fail. Contrast the fates of the Civil Rights Act and the Equal Rights Amendment, or the way African American civil rights was understood before and after Dr. King’s religious message. As both pollsters and election results continually remind us, mainstream Americans do not respond to arguments about constitutional rights and equality; they respond to moral arguments, shared values, and religion—unsurprisingly, since over 90 percent of Americans profess a belief in God.

The centrality of religion to civil rights discourse is amplified when the civil rights struggle questions a status quo largely supported by religion. We may no longer remember the musty religious arguments today, but the Bible was once used to enforce segregation as much as to oppose it. God placed the races on different continents, segregationists said. God sanctioned slavery. Africans were heirs to the curse of Ham. And so on. Dr. King and his movement have so succeeded in their reframing of civil rights that these arguments may strike us today as bizarre. But just fifty years ago, they were preached from pulpits around the country.

Yet unlike the debate over African American civil rights, our current national debate regarding equal rights for sexual minorities (I will speak primarily here of gays and lesbians, though most of the arguments apply to gender minorities such as transgender persons as well—and I use the broad term “gay rights” to encompass all of these), has so far included religion on only the negative side of the argument. The Bible forbids homosexuality, we are told. Heterosexual marriage is at the core of God’s design for the universe. Traditional (read: “religious”) values have been clear on this question for thousands of years.

Liberals’ overwhelming response to these claims has been to deflect them, to talk instead about equality or the separation of church and state. This has been a tragic mistake. God, family, and societal stability all matter more to more Americans than do equality or constitutional norms. Dr. King did not succeed because he invoked the Fourteenth Amendment; he succeeded because he invoked God. And so, unless we activists engage with religion in a serious and convincing way, we will not prevail in our struggle. “God versus Gay” has only one outcome.

Nor will we speak for the millions of LGBT Americans who are religious themselves. For us, “God versus Gay” is bad spirituality, as well as bad political tactics. Doubtless, many gay activists have justifiably relegated religion to the same mental basement as other repressive ideas. But the basement is just another closet. By perpetuating “God versus Gay,” secular gay rights activists perpetuate this psychological oppression of religious gays, this spiritual schizophrenia that continues to harm and distort.

Fortunately, gay rights is a religious issue. Religious people should not be for gay rights despite their religions’ teachings; they should be for gay rights because of them. For too long, we have allowed far-rightist forces to distort our religious teachings. Politically and spiritually, this has been disastrous. And contrary to the cries of the fearful, while there are indeed some religious arguments against equality for LGBT people, there are more of them in favor of it. Here are ten of them.

1. It Is Not Good to Be Alone

Opponents of same-sex marriage remind us that in Genesis, “it’s Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.” But “Adam and Eve” is the solution to a problem: the existential crisis of aloneness. In fact, after the long series of good things God sees during the creation process, Adam’s aloneness is the first thing that is not good (Gen. 2:18). It is the first natural condition which, the Bible tells us, is not to be left as is. Love, togetherness, mutual support—these are the essential qualities of the partnership God creates.

Religious and spiritual people, then, are faced with a fundamental religious imperative to heal loneliness where we find it and to insist on the importance of human relationship in so doing. What is different today is that, unlike five thousand, five hundred, or even fifty years ago, we now understand that sexual orientation is either genetically determined or determined so early in development as to be an essential, unchangeable aspect of the human soul. Thus, for millions of people around the world, to remedy this first, fundamental flaw of the human condition requires a same-sex relationship.

Of course, sexual orientation is a spectrum, not a binary, and for bisexuals and some others, there may be mutability. But a few bisexual experiences do not undermine a great many homosexual and heterosexual ones. For many people, the only way toward healing the split recognized in Genesis 2:18 is in a loving, same-sex relationship. Indeed, this is no doubt one reason that so many opponents of gay rights have insisted that sexual orientation must be changeable: because if it isn’t, then the traditional, homophobic interpretation of Scripture cannot be maintained. Of course, that is exactly my point.

2. God Loves Us and Does Not Want Us to Harm Ourselves

The suicide rate among gay teenagers is estimated to be six times that of straight ones. Need we say more? Does this statistic not teach us both that sexuality is a trait, not a choice (it’s odd to kill yourself because of a choice, no?), and that embracing sexual diversity is a religious imperative? What more do we need to know? Gay people exist, and some of them kill themselves because of the shame they feel.

Suicide is not, of course, the only form of harm gay people inflict upon themselves. The “closet” is another. As someone who lived in the closet for over a decade of my adult life, I can attest from personal experience that it is less a closet than a tomb. Constructed of lies, fear, and shame, it beats the soul down and alienates it not only from sexual expression but from all other forms of love as well, including authentic love of God. People in the closet are like the dead people in The Sixth Sense: they don’t know that they’re dead, and don’t know the wounds they carry around. The closet is like a heavy weight around the neck, and sexual repression is a form of self-mutilation.

Of course, Christianity, Judaism, and other religions do ask us to curb our behavior, even behaviors we may really enjoy, such as wanton greed and selfishness (e.g., the kind evinced by some of our society’s most famous celebrities). Sexuality, too, is regulated by these religious traditions, in very different ways: Some permit all forms of sexual behavior within marriage; others do not. Some see celibacy as an ideal; others do not. But nowhere do we find individuals required to forego all sexual intimacy, sexual expression, or romantic love. God does not ask us to be Isaac on the akedah or Christ on the cross; we are asked to curb our impulses, but not to destroy ourselves. Were homosexuality merely a form of licentiousness (as some suggest), then one could imagine it being prohibited by religious tradition. But homosexuality is not lust; it is a quality of the soul and a pathway to the most sacred forms of love.

Can a homosexual relationship be degraded? Yes. Can it be holy? Yes. Banning homosexuality because of its potential for “abuse” would be like banning heterosexuality because of prostitution. Religious people can and should debate how best the power of sexuality is to be understood according to their religious traditions, but to demand that an entire class of people completely repress, suppress, and mutilate their sexual drives is antithetical to the fundamental religious ideal that God loves us. A loving God could not want the closet.

3. Compassion Is Holy

Spiritual progressives generally believe that, in the words of Richard Rorty, “cruelty is the worst thing we can do,” and that, conversely, to alleviate suffering is a religious mandate. Thus, even apart from the theistic principle that God loves us and does not want us to crush our basic personalities, there is the ethical principal that cruelty is wrong and compassion is holy.

In this regard, gay rights—being compassionate rather than cruel to GLBT people—is simply a further widening of the sphere of ethical consideration that has extended concern to people from other religious/ethnic groups, people from other “racial” backgrounds, women, people with disabilities, and others. Once, the feelings and experiences of these “others” were deemed irrelevant to religious concern. Today, just as we have reexamined our religious ideas in the light of the experiences of these groups, so too is a reexamination of traditional religious approaches to homosexuality warranted by the experiences of gay and lesbian people.

It may be objected that gender and ethnicity are biological, whereas sexuality is still not known to be completely so. However, this objection fails for two reasons. First, as mentioned above, homosexuality is at least partly “natural,” genetically determined, and present in hundreds of animal species. Even if it is partly developmental, this natural element makes it more like race and gender, and less like moral choice. Second, whatever its origins, homosexuality is experienced by gays and lesbians as being essential to their souls, and that is what matters when it comes to compassion. Subjective feeling is not sufficient for moral consideration; a serial killer may experience murder as essential to his soul too. But combined with homosexuality’s capacity to bring love and holiness into life (unlike murder, bestiality, sexual abuse, and the other depravities to which my capacity to love is often analogized), its felt nature as essential to humanity means that compassion is invited, deserved, and required.

Homosexuality is real; this is all that is required of us to accept. It is not a mirage of choice or preference. And as such, as a real phenomenon, the religious question then becomes how we ought to respond to it: with repression or with love, with rejection or affirmation, with contempt or sanctification. All of these options and more are available within a traditional religious framework. But only the latter ones can be aligned with compassion.

4. Justice Is Holy

“Justice, justice, shalt thou pursue” (Deut. 16:20) has long been a watchword of spiritual progressives. Justice is holy; equality is holy; fairness is holy. These qualities, ethical monotheism tells us, matter to God. Discrimination is wrong. Fairness is right. There has been a tendency in contemporary political discourse to let the Right have God on their side, since we on the Left have liberalism, justice, and anti-discrimination on ours. This is outrageous. If the Bible is any guide at all, God is on the “side” of justice and fairness. It follows that denying same-sex couples the same benefits as opposite-sex couples is an offense to God.

Are there countervailing values that might outweigh the mandate for fairness? Perhaps, some might argue. But that does not remove the basic principle that fairness is holy and unfairness is a sin, making injustice at best a necessary evil that would need to be justified by extremely pressing reasons. Gay rights is a religious issue because equality matters to God.

5. Because the Hebrew Bible Doesn’t Say What the Right Says it Does

Gay rights is also a religious issue because anti-gay forces are misrepresenting what the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament say, and thus distorting the word of God. This should be of concern to all religionists. It is what Jews call a chillul hashem, a profanation of the Name, to twist scripture beyond its meaning to justify cruelty and fear. Thus to the extent that is taking place in the cases of Leviticus and Romans, it is of concern to all religious people even apart from the experiences of gays.

The most important aspect of these “problem texts” is that they are ambiguous. For this reason, when we turn to them, we do so bearing in mind the insights of the first four arguments. How we read these ambiguous verses depends on the fundamental values we bring to bear on interpreting them. Thus my claim is not (and need not be) that these readings are the only ones possible—just that they are the only ones consonant with our fundamental religious values.

This is not the place for a detailed reading of Leviticus 18:22, but briefly, we can note three aspects of it. First, the verse only discusses men. At the very least, 50 percent of gay people (i.e., lesbians) are completely untouched by it. To suggest that Leviticus prohibits lesbianism has no basis either in traditional Jewish law or in the plain meaning of the verse. Second, the verse only discusses, at most, anal sex. Again, both the plain meaning of the verse and the Jewish interpretive tradition (e.g., Rashi) make clear that “the lyings of woman” means, in the case of two men, penetrative anal sex. Of course, there is a longstanding Jewish tradition to “build a fence around the Torah” and prohibit acts that, while themselves permissible, might lead to prohibited conduct. However, let’s not pretend that’s in the Torah; the verse itself prohibits, at most, anal sex. Third, whatever the prohibition is, it is of the same class—toevah—as remarriage (Deut. 24:4) and Egyptians eating with shepherds (Gen. 46:34). The only thing that is “abomination” about homosexuality is the word “abomination” itself, a total mistranslation that has no basis in Hebraic text.

6. Because the New Testament Doesn’t Say What the Right Says It Does

New Testament texts are also quite different from how anti-gay forces present them. Homosexuality is scarcely mentioned in the New Testament (surprisingly, given its cultural context) and never by Jesus. As many scholars have observed, the condemnation in Romans 1:26-27 has almost nothing to do with contemporary understandings of homosexuality. Those verses read: “For this reason God gave them up to dishonourable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.” First, “their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural” was understood by Augustine, Clement of Alexandria, and all other early Church Fathers as referring to anal sex, not lesbianism. Second, “men committing unseemly acts with men” is about pederasty rather than homosexuality—the latter Greek term is arsen, which refers to young men, not aner, which refers to adults. Third, the clause “for this reason” explains that these sexual acts are the consequences, not the causes, of wrongdoing, which Romans 1:19-25 makes clear, is the veneration of images and idols. Fourth, the verses after 27 make clear that the real problem is not “homosexuality” (a nineteenth-century concept) but passing judgment when one is guilty oneself.

These introductory points are, of course, just that. But the central point is that these texts can be read as anti-gay only by extrapolating them from their historical and textual contexts, distorting the meanings of their plain words, and, of course, blowing them completely out of proportion to the other 23,212 verses in the Hebrew Bible and 7,957 verses in the New Testament. None of the contemporary arguments against homosexuality—”untrammeled homosexuality can take over and destroy a social system,” according to the Family Research Council’s Paul Cameron; homosexuality “is a sickness, and it needs to be treated” according to Pat Robertson; or it will lead to “a breakdown in social organizations,” according to FRC’s Robert Knight—are present in these texts.

If we value the Bible, we should not let bigots hijack and distort it to justify their fears to themselves and others. (So too with the “sin of Sodom,” which both Jewish and Christian sources long regarded as greed or inhospitality.) Whatever these problematic texts mean, they do not mean what the bigots say, and religious people should defend our sacred texts.

7. Evolution of Religious Doctrine Is Healthy

Naturally, a pro-gay reading of scripture is not the only possible one: one may choose to read Leviticus broadly, Romans expansively, and 1 Corinthians selectively. Even the search for the “plain meaning” of the texts is an act of interpretation. Thus the question is not whether to interpret Scripture but how to do so. And when one reflects on two thousand years of biblical interpretation, it is clear that our readings of the Bible have indeed evolved as the human race has evolved. We have read slavery out of the Old and New Testaments. We have changed how we understand Eve being a “help-meet” to Adam. Our rabbis and church fathers have even read troubling texts virtually out of existence.

This is all part of healthy religious development. Do we really want, as religionists, a hidebound faith that never changes? Is there a case in which fundamentalism and ultra-conservativism has led a religion to thrive? Movements of progression and regression, to be sure—but overall, religion evolves and that is why it remains vibrant. The plasticity of religious thought is as responsible for its durability as its commitment to core values is. For example, most of us no longer believe the world is 6,000 years old. If being religious depended upon such a view, we would be forced to abandon religion. Yet it does not.

Likewise in the case of homosexuality. To be sure, same-sex marriage is not found in the Bible. (Intermarriage and interracial marriage are, as in the cases of Moses and Solomon, as is a lasting covenant of love between David and Jonathan.) But the extension of the values of marriage—love, commitment, fidelity, trust, family—to same-sex couples is an adaptation of religious consciousness, not a rejection of it. For religion to endure, it needs both strong roots and expansive branches. Gay rights is the latest in a long line of moral questions to challenge religion and cause it to grow. This is a good thing.

8. Curbing Brutishness Is the Point

Building on point number seven, there is a specific kind of moral growth that gay rights brings about: a transcendence of traditional gender categories and primitive ideas about who men and women are. That these ideas are constructions of culture may be seen simply by traveling to places where men hold hands or women throw spears. But they are also particular kinds of constructions, which tend to reinforce a reductive view of brutish, mean men and delicate, wispy women dependent upon them.

Judaism and Christianity, in particular, have never held such primitive notions of gender in high regard. Goliath is not a Jewish hero; the lithe King David is. “Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, says the Lord.” Christian saints submit to the will of God, submit even to the sword, just as Christ himself gave his life on the cross. While religion has all too often been allied with brute force, its directives and mandates point in the opposite direction: toward more gentleness and more curbing of our animal natures.

Acceptance of sexual diversity is, particularly for many heterosexually identified men, not unlike feminism in this regard: it is one more way to query and perhaps curb culturally or instinctually prescribed notions of masculinity, in a morally significant way. In the Bible, God does not endorse brutishness, but rather our aspiration to be better, kinder, and more like angels than animals. The embrace of sexual diversity is a valuable step forward along this path.

9. Because the Separation of Church and State Helps the Church

One reason liberals avoid making religious arguments in the public sphere is their deeply held belief in the separation of church and state. Generally, this is framed in terms of the neutrality or secularism of the public square and in terms of protecting our government and institutions from incursions by religion.

Yet one of the most memorable metaphors for this system, “a wall of separation” between church and state, was coined by Roger Williams in 1644 not to protect the pristine sphere of politics from pollution by religion, but to protect pure religion from corruption by politics. Williams called for “a hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world.” Indeed, for spiritual progressives, Williams’s warning is all the more powerful today. Many of us have sat in pews and watched our spiritual leaders espouse deeply troubling political views. We have watched how money and power have distorted churches, synagogues, and mosques. And we have seen how religion is often employed not as a check on human selfishness but as an aggrandizement to it.

Gay rights is a religious issue because its use as a political wedge issue has distorted church teaching and politicized religion. As we have seen in Iran, Israel, Ireland, and around the world, political power distorts religious life, leading to more competition, corruption, and outright venality on the part of our clerics. Of course, as individuals, we can and should allow our political choices to be informed by our religious views. But the baldly religious terms in which our current debate on homosexuality is being conducted distorts religion (as we have already seen) and involves the sacred too much with the profane. (Of course, my arguments here are susceptible to the same critique. However, my claim is that, if we are going to have a religious argument, it is political suicide for the argument to be religious on one side only.) For the good of religion, its leaders should stay out of political decisions involving power, coercion, and privilege.

10. Sexual Diversity Is a Beautiful Part of God’s Creation

I learned in primary school that “God don’t make no mistakes.” Reflecting on the existence of homosexuality in over 1,500 animal species and in every human culture around the world, then, one pauses to wonder and speculate as to the particular gifts of gayness. Evolutionarily, some have speculated that homosexual individuals, who presumably do not procreate, care for the good of the group. Socially, LGBT people have often taken roles as artists, healers, and shamans, in forms both profound and absurd (”Queer Eye for the Straight Guy” is, one might say, capitalist shamanism). Spiritually, some in the gay community have sought particularly gay modes of relating to spirituality as liminal, “third sex” individuals who reflect on conventional constructions of gender from a fortunate place beyond them. And intellectually, we have every reason to expect that the liberation of sexual minorities will add as much to our cultural life as did the liberation of women—more perspectives, more questions, more complications, and thus more life.

However we understand the gifts of homosexuality, accepting sexual diversity leads to an appreciation of the gorgeous mosaic of God’s erotic creation. Emerging as we still are from centuries of oppression, gay people have only begun to inquire into the unique gifts they bring to humanity. Yet the basic notion that sexual diversity is part of God’s manifestation in the world, not a deviation from it, informs how we appreciate those who express their gender and sexuality in ways different from our own. Informs—and inspires.

These are but ten reasons—there are many more—why full equality for sexual minorities should be seen not as some accommodation of religion to a secular norm, but as a religious value itself. They are intended to be public reasons, that is, reasons that can be explored and discussed objectively regardless of our personal experience. But if there is an eleventh reason I would add, it would be of necessity a “private” one: that every religious sinew in my body leans in the direction of liberation, love, and holiness. I have known life as a closeted gay man, and so I have the experience that many of my interlocutors do not. They presume, on television and online, to know me better than I do. They tell me that what I know of my soul is incorrect, that really I am making a wrong choice and turning astray.

But I, like other gay religious people, know that they have it exactly backwards. When my soul turns toward God, it turns toward more love, enduring bonds, and the fulfillment of human potential—and those are precisely the qualities engendered by loving and holy sexual expression, homo, bi, or hetero. When I doubt myself and turn to the side of fear and repression (and its inevitable shadow, lashing out in lust), I feel the eclipse of God in my heart and in my body. I feel a terrible coldness creep over me, and an alienation that is not unlike the loneliness Dante describes in hell.

I cannot extrapolate public norms from these subjective experiences. But insofar as the discerning mind and open heart can ever be relied upon, I know in which direction sanctity lies. Of love, there is no doubt.

Jay Michaelson is the author of Everything is God: The Radical Path of Nondual Judaism and other books. He is also a columnist for the Forward, the Huffington Post, Zeek, and Reality Sandwich magazine, and director of Nehirim: GLBT Jewish Culture & Spirituality.

Social, religious issues shouldn’t dominate

2010-07-06T13:59:00.000-07:00

Commentary: Even Christians cannot agree on biblical interpretations of whether God has ruled on gay rights or abortion rights.

This week I have more rhetorical questions than answers. My first question is, why are we spending so much time arguing over social issues? It’s impossible to tally the time, money and energy put into fights about gay rights and abortion rights for example. But the cost of protests and lawsuits and ad campaigns and lobbying must be fierce. It might even amount to a small chunk of the gross national product. Even if it’s 1 percent of GDP or less, that money could be spent on much better things such as educating people, job creation, proper nutrition, a stronger military and so on.

My second question is, why is it that the Europeans seem to have made peace or perhaps never even fought over these issues? Look at what happened in Iceland this week and nary a whisper was heard ’round the world. If anything like this happened in the U.S., there would be bloody street battles:

“Iceland’s prime minister was among the first gay people to marry in her country as its marriage equality law went into effect Sunday. Johanna Sigurdardottir married her longtime partner, Jonina Leosdottir, when the couple requested that their seven-year-old civil union be transferred into a marriage, according to London’s Telegraph. The Icelandic parliament unanimously passed a marriage equality bill June 12. Sigurdardottir took office in February 2009.”

Back here in the supposedly forward-thinking, modern United States we are tying up our already overburdened court systems with legal battles over gay and abortion rights. A huge fight in federal court in California is brewing in which a federal judge is weighing the question whether the U.S. Constitution prevents states from banning gay marriage. The Wall Street Journal reports:

“If U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker decides for gay marriage advocates, that would invalidate an amendment to California’s constitution, and by extension cast doubt on similar laws and amendments in more than 40 other states as well as the Defense of Marriage Act, which bars the federal government from recognizing gay marriages ... Judge Walker, who according to the San Francisco Chronicle is himself gay, is the chief judge of the northern California district.”

He is expected to issue his decision by the fall, well before the November election.

If this decision is handed down as expected, it will be followed by a flurry of lobbying, agitation by the Christian right and battles such as we have not yet witnessed on this most controversial of issues. It could energize the Christian right to go to the polls in November. Master manipulators of wedge issues, Karl Rove included, are predicting, indeed hoping for a re-run of the 1994 elections when Republicans reclaimed control of the House of Representatives for the first time in four decades.

Even Christians cannot agree on biblical interpretations of whether God has ruled on gay rights or abortion rights. Conservative Christians cite chapter and verse to make their case that the Bible bans homosexuality. Leviticus 18:22 says, “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” But plenty of Christians interpret that phrase as meaning that women should not be treated equally with men because in the Bible women are chattel. And moderate or liberal Christians just don’t care what the Bible says or doesn’t say on this or other social wedge issues, because they know anything in the Bible can be spun to one side’s advantage or the other.

I remember a bumper sticker that reads, “Against abortion? Don’t have one.” There should be a subsequent bumper sticker that reads, “Against gay marriage? Don’t have one.” The sooner we stop letting religion dominate politics, the happier most of us will be. Will that ever happen? Not in my lifetime.

Bonnie Erbe is a TV host and writes this column for Scripps Howard News Service. E-mail bonnieerbe@CompuServe.com

Spain to get church for same-sex marriages

2010-07-05T16:43:00.000-07:00

(AFP)

MADRID — Spain, which has become a world leader in gay rights in recent years, is to get its first gay Christian church to celebrate marriages between same-sex couples, a news report said Sunday.

The US-based Metropolitan Community Churches (MCC) is to open a congregation in Madrid in October, the daily El Mundo said.

On its website, MCC said it was founded California in 1968 as "the world?s first church group with a primary, positive ministry to gays, lesbians, bisexual and transgender persons."

It now claims 43,000 members in 300 congregations in 22 countries.

El Mundo said a lesbian couple, both Spaniards living in Canada, have come to Madrid to register an MCC congregation with the justice ministry which they expect to open in October.

"We are the first (gay) church in Spain," one of the pair, Raquel Benitez, told the paper.

"There are Christian groups that want to establish some type of (gay) religious organisation but they have neither the importance nor the international support that MCC has.

"We want to fill a gap that exists, a spiritual gap for homosexuals, for transsexuals and for any person that does not have a feel for other religions."

Homosexuality was only legalised in Roman Catholic Spain in 1979, shortly after the death of dictator Francisco Franco whose regime shipped off gays to institutions that some activists have likened to concentration camps.

The Socialist government of Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero has sought to promote gays rights as part of a liberal social agenda.

In 2005 it passed a law to allow same-sex marriages, making Spain only the third member of the European Union, after Belgium and the Netherlands, to do so.

Since then, thousands of gay marriages have been performed in the country.

But the measure has drawn the ire of the Roman Catholic Church in Spain and a section of the conservative opposition Popular Party.

Queer, Christian and proud

2010-07-02T04:55:00.000-07:00

Queer, Christian and proud
Ultra-conservative anti-gay Christians are a just a noisy minority. That's why this coming Pride, the rest of us should raise the roof

Symon Hill
guardian.co.uk,
Thursday 1 July 2010 16.30 BST

Pride will be an opportunity for gay Christians to celebrate their sexuality.

Listening to certain Christians, you would think that opposition to homosexuality is one of the most basic principles of the Christian faith. But on Saturday, as a small group of Christians turn up to protest against the Pride festival in central London, they will be easily outnumbered by the Christians who are participating in Pride, celebrating diverse sexuality as a gift from God.

This has been the case for several years, but it's always the homophobes who get the most attention. The media cannot take all the blame for this – pro-equality Christians have often been unprepared and unprofessional when it comes to media engagement. But this year, a wide spectrum of Christians – from Catholics to Quakers to evangelicals – will be united in marching as "Christians Together at Pride", seeking to make the reality of inclusive Christianity more visible. Similar collections of Christians are appearing, to a greater or lesser extent, at other Pride festivals around the country.

It will be understandable if most Pride participants find the image surprising. Having often written in favour of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) equality, I sometimes receive emails from non-religious LGBT people delighted that a Christian is backing them. It's always great to receive these messages, but it's very frustrating that pro-equality Christians are seen as such an unusual exception. We are not. In a good many churches, support for LGBT inclusion is now the norm, or at least an acceptable position to hold. If the world outside does not realise this, it is largely because we so often fail to speak up, while the anti-equality lobby take every opportunity to speak – or shout – loudly and clearly.

But in doing so, they are becoming increasingly ridiculous. Lisa Nolland of the ultra-conservative group Anglican Mainstream (surely a contender in any contest for the most inaccurately named organisation) recently suggested that parents will be putting their children at risk if they take them to the Greenbelt Christian festival this year – because the speakers include the gay human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell.

While lots of Christians still find homosexuality and bisexuality difficult to understand or accept, many are clearly alienated by this sort of extremist rhetoric. They respect that other Christians have come to different conclusions and are happy to work and worship alongside them. In addition, the popular image of the sexuality debate as "evangelicals versus liberals" is breaking down, with increasing numbers of evangelical groups promoting LGBT equality.

Nonetheless, some Christians remain cautious of the equality agenda, fearing that those who support it are simply buying into the dominant culture around them. This is one reason why we need to be more open and vocal about the biblical, ethical and theological reasons for accepting same-sex relationships. Usually it's the most homophobic Christians who are quickest to use religious language and quote the Bible, while the words of pro-equality Christians are at times largely indistinguishable from the language of secular liberals.

To remedy this, we can turn to the life of Jesus. In Christian debates about sexuality, Jesus rarely gets mentioned. The anti-gay side rely on biblical lines taken out of context while the inclusive groups tends to turn to more general ethical arguments. But if we look at Jesus, we find a man who consistently broke the sexual conventions of his time. This point, which is nearly always overlooked, cannot be emphasised too strongly.

Jesus repeatedly allowed women to make physical contact with him in a society that found this utterly shocking. Luke's Gospel describes a religious man reacting with alarm when Jesus allows a "sinful woman" to wash his feet. The New Testament quotes Jesus's opponents accusing him of socialising with prostitutes, an allegation that appears to have been true. Jesus redefined family, insisting that "whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and mother".

In the light of this reality, it becomes clear that "traditional family values" are no part of Jesus's message. Indeed, they are explicitly contrary to it.

The problem with secular liberalism is not that it is too radical. It is not radical enough. Not in the context of a messiah who promoted a vision of a world in which the poor are rich, the sick are healed, the despised rejoice, the mighty are cast down from their thrones and the lowly are exalted.

When Christians join the Pride festival on Saturday – and other Pride festivals across Britain and around the world – we must do more than simply say that we have found faith to be compatible with our sexuality. Challenging distortions of the gospel and declaring repentance for Christian homophobia, we can promote equality as part of a radically progressive agenda.

Pride is for everyone. Heterosexuals who welcome equality should feel as free to participate as anyone else. Words such as "gay", "bisexual" and "straight" are understandably important to many people's identity, but they can also be restrictive, confining the diversity of human sexuality within narrow labels. Thankfully, words such as "queer" have developed to include a broad range of sexualities – perhaps even to include straight people who reject the prejudicial notion that only their own orientation is acceptable.

Whatever your faith or sexuality, I hope to see you at Pride on Saturday. Look out for an increasingly visible and confident group of people – queer, Christian and proud.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2010

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/jul/01/queer-christian-proud/print

Cynthia Clawson and her Ministry to Gay People

2010-06-30T05:03:00.000-07:00

I just found this letter written by Cynthia Clawson, one of my all-time favorite Christian singers. She sings in gay churches now and loves gay people and because of that she has been treated very badly by the Christian community. Her letter in support of her beliefs in below....

I am a Christian and have been for most of my life. I was a girl when I experienced what I believe was a call to share the good news of who Jesus is and what He did for me. I first sang about this good news when I was three years of age; and now at 56, I am still singing. Because I recognized that I had been given a talent, I felt that I should cultivate it so I went to a Baptist University and majored in vocal performance and minored in piano. I began getting invitations to sing everywhere, and I accepted every invitation I could.

I am humbled that I had a chance to sing the gospel in India, Viet Nam, Japan, Holland, England, Ireland, at a Billy Graham Crusade, on The PTL Club, on the 700 Club, for the Southern Baptist Convention, for Karla Fay Tucker before she was killed by the State of Texas, at a night club on the Strip in Los Angeles, on some of Bill Gaither’s Homecoming videos, on the Crystal Cathedral’s Hour of Power, a night club in Houston, and at Radio City Music Hall during the GRAMMY Awards. The list is long because I have been singing somewhere different every week for thirty years. The total number of concerts is in the thousands, and the number of people who have heard me is in the millions. That amazes me, and I can only explain it by pointing to God who has called me, guided me, and comforted me all along this journey.

Let me assure you that it has been a challenging mission to answer to God’s calling to tell the good news to all that will hear. Since I will sing wherever invited, I have found myself singing in places when my theology, my moral values, and my political inclinations sometimes differ from my listeners, but I simply sing about the Good News that God loves us. I point them as best I can to Christ. That is my calling. God convicts, woos, and transforms lives by His grace, I don’t. That statement alone is enough to make me want to sing.

I am amazed that there are those who would not want me to sing for all people, especially homosexual people. I sing for divorced people and we all know what Jesus said about divorce! No one ever emailed me about that! We also know that Jesus never said anything about gay people. Not one word! How important could it have been to Him if He did not mention it? I dare say that I sing in churches full of sinners every time I stand to sing, and I never make it my business to question any group about their values or morals before I enter their churches. When people protest about me singing to gay people, I have to wonder: Do they not know that Jesus hung out with, ate with, and drank wine with disenfranchised people? Those who object to where I sing are free to think what they please, but they did not call me. I have a higher calling. As a singer doing my best to follow Jesus, I have sung the gospel if at all possible wherever invited just as Jesus did in preaching to the Pharisees and those that the Pharisees judged. Some repented some did not, that is between God and them. And what I have been called to do is between God and me. And a person’s sexual orientation is between God and them. It is none of my business. I am just a gospel singing, homosexual loving, heterosexual wife of one, mother of two who is caught up in all this violence. And, yes, I do think we are treating one another violently! This fight is not homage to our Savior who is the Prince of Peace.

I would ask for prayers from those who will pray for me. I am willing to sing the good news of God’s love anywhere I am invited. I am sad to say that I feel that there are not many Christians who will go with me. I won’t sing to condemn anyone; I won’t preach hate and exclusivity. I will sing at the very gates of hell if I am called to do so, and I would think that all of you who call yourselves God’s children would gather together in support of this holy mission. However, if no one joins me in going in love to the outcasts, I will go walking hand in hand with Jesus who seems to prefer spending time with outcast than to spend time with all the religious hypocrites spewing out hate, fear and condemnation.

My desire in being a disciple of Christ is to be obedient. I am obedient because I am deeply in love with Him! I want to be true to God’s calling on my life, and if I am wrong in including all people, should I err in this attempt, let me fail on the side of the grace and mercy. Let me stand beside the oppressed, broken, disenfranchised, and the outcast because that is where I think that Jesus stands. And when I die and stand before the Father with Jesus next to my side as my advocate, I am not afraid for God to tell me that I erred on the side of compassion and love. I am not afraid to hear Him tell me that I was not judgmental enough. I am not afraid to hear Him say to me that I loved too much and too many. I trust with all my heart that it is Jesus who shapes my life and not the writers of these angry, cruel, hateful emails. The hate stings, the threats frighten, the whispers humiliate, but I have taken up His cross and His burden is light! My recordings are already removed from many Christian bookstores, and not played on many Christian radio stations, but I have my church, where I serve as the co-pastor with my husband, praying for me. I have dear friends in the ministry who support and encourage me. I have thousands of people buying my CDs and supporting my ministry. And, dear reader, I have God’s assurance through Jesus Christ – the criterion through which I read scripture – leading me to share the good news with all who would listen to my attempts.

If you can, pray for me and for all the homosexual people who have been demonized, ostracized, and denied basic human rights by self-righteous Christians. I will in turn pray that God will touch the hearts of those who are so angry at me, so that they will see the homosexual person the same way Jesus did as He hung on the cross with such love, such grace. “

Your sister in suffering,
Cynthia

Justices Rule Against Group That Excludes Gay Students

2010-06-29T21:43:00.000-07:00

By ADAM LIPTAK
New York times
Published: June 28, 2010

WASHINGTON — A public law school did not violate the First Amendment by withdrawing recognition from a Christian student group that excluded gay students, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday in a 5-to-4 decision.

The case, involving a clash between religious freedom and antidiscrimination principles, divided along familiar ideological lines, with the court’s four more liberal members and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy in the majority.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the majority, said it was constitutionally permissible for public institutions of higher education to require recognized student groups to accept all students who wished to participate in them.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., writing for the four dissenters, said the decision represented a triumph for the principle that there is “no freedom for expression that offends prevailing standards of political correctness in our country’s institutions of higher learning.”

The two sides disputed not only the legal principles involved but also just what had happened at Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco, the defendant in the case.

As the majority understood it, the school had merely applied a neutral “all comers” policy to every group that sought official recognition. Recognized groups were entitled to modest financial assistance, use of the school’s communications channels and meeting space, and use of the school’s name and logo, as long as they allowed all students to participate in their activities.

The dissent, by contrast, said the school had enforced a policy forbidding discrimination based on only a few criteria, including sexual orientation, and so had placed a special burden on religious groups.

The student group that brought the suit, Christian Legal Society, or C.L.S., does not allow students to become voting members or to assume leadership positions unless they affirm what the group calls orthodox Christian beliefs and disavow “unrepentant participation in or advocacy of a sexually immoral lifestyle.” Such a lifestyle, the group says, includes “sexual conduct outside of marriage between a man and a woman.”

The group said that either version of the school’s policy would violate the group’s First Amendment rights to free association and religious freedom.

Justice Ginsburg said the justifications the school had offered for the all-comers policy were sufficient to overcome any First Amendment concerns. Among those justifications, she said, were making sure that educational opportunities were available to all students and bringing together people with diverse views.

In returning the case, Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, No. 08-1371, to the lower courts, the majority left open the possibility that the Christian student group might be able to prove that Hastings’s policy was a pretext for antireligious animus.

Justices John Paul Stevens, Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor joined the majority opinion.

In a concurrence, Justice Stevens said groups that “exclude or mistreat Jews, blacks and women” must be tolerated in a free society. But “it need not subsidize them, give them its official imprimatur or grant them equal access to law school facilities.”

In a second concurrence, Justice Kennedy wrote that “a vibrant dialogue is not possible if students wall themselves off from opposing points of view.”

Justice Alito, writing for himself, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas said the decision marked a dark day.

“I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that today’s decision is a serious setback for freedom of expression in this country,” Justice Alito wrote.

“There are religious groups that cannot in good conscience agree in their bylaws that they will admit persons who do not share their faith,” he wrote. “For these groups, the consequence of an accept-all-comers policy is marginalization.”

High Court Denies Privacy Request of Anti-Gay Marriage Petitioners

2010-06-28T04:21:00.000-07:00

By Lawrence D. Jones|Christian Post Reporter

Disclosing the names and addresses of those who petitioned against the expansion of rights for state-registered domestic partners in Washington does not violate the First Amendment, ruled the United States Supreme Court on Thursday.

“The problem for plaintiffs is that their argument rests almost entirely on the specific harm they say would attend disclosure of the information on the R–71 petition, or on similarly controversial ones,” the court concluded its 8-1 majority opinion.

“Voters care about such issues, some quite deeply - but there is no reason to assume that any burdens imposed by disclosure of typical referendum petitions would be remotely like the burdens plaintiffs fear in this case,” the justices added.

In its request to the Supreme Court, plaintiff Protect Marriage Washington alleged, among other things, that several groups had planned to post online the petition it submitted to challenge Senate Bill 5688, which expanded the rights and responsibilities of state-registered domestic partners - including same-sex domestic partners - in Washington.

The bill, which Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire signed into law in May 2009, prompted Protect Marriage Washington to gather the signatures of more than 137,000 petition supporters, whose names and addresses were consequently recorded.

Though copies of the petition can be requested under the Washington Public Records Acts (PRA), Protect Marriage Washington alleged that several groups planned to encourage other citizens to seek out R–71 petition signers after their names and addresses were posted in searchable form on the Internet, which plaintiffs argue would subject them to threats, harassment, and reprisals.

“Plaintiffs’ main objection is that ‘the strength of the governmental interest’ does not ‘reflect the seriousness of the actual burden on First Amendment rights,’” the Supreme Court noted. “According to plaintiffs, the objective of those seeking disclosure is not to prevent fraud, but to publicly identify signatories and broadcast their political views on the subject of the petition.”

Despite the claims, the court denied Protect Marriage Washington’s request to keep petition signers’ personal information private in all situations.

It did, however, agree with conservative group that people who sign a petition are exercising their First Amendment right to free speech and can act to protect their privacy when supporting traditional marriage.

In its opinion, the Supreme Court allowed Protect Marriage Washington to ask the District Court in Washington for an exemption from publicly reporting the personal information of those who support traditional marriage.

“We are pleased that the Supreme Court has recognized that individuals who support marriage should have the opportunity to protect their personal information from public disclosure,” commented James Bopp, Jr., lead counsel for Protect Marriage Washington.

“While we wish the Court had agreed with us and found that petition signers speaking on any issue should be protected from having personal information disclosed to the public, we are looking forward to returning to Washington and showing the Court that supporters of traditional marriage should have their personal information protected from disclosure,” he added.

The case, Doe v. Reed, will now return to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, where further proceedings will occur.

It is Protect Marriage Washington’s hope that the District Court will prevent the release of the personal information on those who support traditional marriage.

“Supporters of traditional marriage have been subject to death threats, vandalism, and even the loss of their jobs merely for exercising their right to free speech,” Bopp remarked. "We are confident that the District Court will agree that these tactics have no place in the discussion of marriage."

Anti-gays hide their bias behind the Bible

2010-06-03T15:25:00.000-07:00

By LZ Granderson, Special to CNN
June 2, 2010 9:13 a.m. EDT

Grand Rapids, Michigan (CNN) -- My partner and I recently took our mothers to Las Vegas for a week for Mother's Day. It's not our favorite city, but for a pair of 60-somethings who can sit at the penny slot machines for hours, it was heaven.

When they were not being robbed by one-armed bandits, we saw a couple of shows and had some amazing dinners. We also enjoyed trying to figure out which women were hookers and which were just dressed like one. And of course saying "public drunkenness" is pretty redundant after 11 a.m.
But that's why we go to Vegas, right? Life on the Strip. What happens here stays here ... and all that good stuff. By the end of our trip, the four of us had seen just about everything you would expect to see in a place nicknamed Sin City -- except for faith-based protesters.

Funny, a week of walking up and down the main artery of the self-proclaimed heart of moral debauchery, and nary a Bible verse could be heard. In the many times I've been to Las Vegas over the years, I've never seen a religious protest. And yet let a midsize city try to add sexual orientation to its municipal nondiscrimination policy or a high school senior bring a same-gender date to prom, and you would think it was the apocalypse.

Where are the faith-based organizations trying to make adultery a crime punishable by death, as suggested in Leviticus 20:10?

The Bible doesn't state that one sin is greater than another, but you wouldn't know that by counting the number of comments that quote Scripture on news stories about the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered community. Compare them with how many address murder, or the environment, or the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and well, the word "hypocrite" comes to mind.

I am never ashamed to say I follow the teachings of Christ, but I am not always proud to say I am a Christian. That's because I am bothered by the continual mutilation of my religion's basic principle of love by the extremists in my religion who construct a hierarchy of sin -- which does not exist in the Bible -- for no other reason than to protect their own prejudices.

We've seen this throughout this country's history, and perhaps with the exception of abortion, no current issue illustrates this transgression more so than gay rights.

Some conservatives might attend church only twice a year, but ask their opinion about gays in the military. They can find Leviticus 18:22 blindfolded, handcuffed and sinking underwater: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is an abomination."

Rarely do you hear them mention the other "sexual sins" in Leviticus, such as making love to your wife while she's menstruating. There are some people who say Jesus freed us from the old laws with one side of their mouths while using old laws to condemn GLBT people with the other.

Many turn to the destruction of Sodom as proof against homosexuality. But the King James version lists fornication, greed and lying as sins committed in Sodom as well, and never specifies which particular sin caused God's wrath.

In fact, the word "Sodomite," which some like to toss around as an anti-gay insult, is a mistranslation and is not used in the original Hebrew text. The actual word is "kadesh," and it does not refer to the city, its inhabitants or a specific sexual act. It refers to the occult male prostitutes in the shrines, just as "kedesha" refers to the female equivalent. Neither word reflects sexual orientation.

It may be convenient to say Sodom was all about homosexual people, but historically and scripturally, that isn't accurate. This is why I, like so many other Christians, do not follow a literal interpretation of the Bible.

I'm not ducking Leviticus, I'd just rather go directly to the source. Concepts get lost in translation, and we all know history is filled with influential people and institutions that have defined religion for the masses based upon their own selfish needs. For example, King Henry VIII, the man who authorized the first English translation of the Bible, was married six times and essentially had the British Empire separate from the Roman Catholic Church so he could divorce in peace. Then there's King James, whose own writings suggest he was secretly gay or bisexual, according to historians such as Michael B. Young and Caroline Bingham.

He was directed to marry for the sake of the throne before authorizing the version of the Bible that swapped "kadesh" for "Sodomite" in the first place. Hmm, where have we heard that story -- closeted gay politician with an anti-gay policy -- before?

But theology and history aside, it is clear from the lack of consistent reaction to and organization against the litany of other present-day sins that a large number of people who call themselves Christians do not follow the literal interpretation of the Bible either. So, if some of us are picking and choosing which Bible verses to follow, why are so many opting to pick and choose verses that appear to condemn homosexuality and not the one against marrying a woman who isn't a virgin?

If sin is sin, why such Christian angst directed at the GLBT community and not the greedy corporate community, which, quite frankly, has more direct impact on the average person's life?

The answer is simple: Those who are uncomfortable or fearful of someone who is different from them sometimes hide behind religion to gain power, nurture their ignorance and justify their prejudices.
It's no different from Christian slave owners using Scriptures to feel better about enslaving Africans, or men pointing to Jezebel as a way to keep women out of the clergy, or Bob Jones University picking verses that supported the school's ban on interracial dating.

The extremists aren't fighting gay rights because of sin and honoring Leviticus 18:22. If they were, then where are the faith-based organizations spending millions trying to make adultery a crime punishable by death, as suggested in Leviticus 20:10? Is 18:22 more true than 20:10, or does it just support a more common and entrenched prejudice?

Granderson is a senior writer and columnist for ESPN The Magazine and ESPN.com, and has contributed to ESPN's Sports Center, Outside the Lines and First Take. He is a 2010 nominee and the 2009 winner of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) award for online journalism as well as the 2008 National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association (NLGJA) winner for column writing.

The Best Thing I've Read All Year

2010-05-26T03:29:00.001-07:00

Published on May 04, 2000

Sunday, April 30, 2000
By SHARON UNDERWOOD
For the Valley News (White River Junction, VT)

Many letters have been sent to the Valley News concerning the homosexual menace in Vermont. I am the mother of a gay son and I've taken enough from you good people.

I'm tired of your foolish rhetoric about the "homosexual agenda" and your allegations that accepting homosexuality is the same thing as advocating sex with children. You are cruel and ignorant. You have been robbing me of the joys of motherhood ever since my children were tiny.

My firstborn son started suffering at the hands of the moral little thugs from your moral, upright families from the time he was in the first grade. He was physically and verbally abused from first grade straight through high school because he was perceived to be gay.

He never professed to be gay or had any association with anything gay, but he had the misfortune not to walk or have gestures like the other boys. He was called "fag" incessantly, starting when he was 6.

In high school, while your children were doing what kids that age should be doing, mine labored over a suicide note, drafting and redrafting it to be sure his family knew how much he loved them. My sobbing 17-year-old tore the heart out of me as he choked out that he just couldn't bear to continue living any longer, that he didn't want to be gay and that he couldn't face a life without dignity.

You have the audacity to talk about protecting families and children from the homosexual menace, while you yourselves tear apart families and drive children to despair. I don't know why my son is gay, but I do know that God didn't put him, and millions like him, on this Earth to give you someone to abuse. God gave you brains so that you could think, and it's about time you started doing that.

At the core of all your misguided beliefs is the belief that this could never happen to you, that there is some kind of subculture out there that people have chosen to join. The fact is that if it can happen to my family, it can happen to yours, and you won't get to choose. Whether it is genetic or whether something occurs during a critical time of fetal development, I don't know. I can only tell you with an absolute certainty that it is inborn.

If you want to tout your own morality, you'd best come up with something more substantive than your heterosexuality. You did nothing to earn it; it was given to you. If you disagree, I would be interested in hearing your story, because my own heterosexuality was a blessing I received with no effort whatsoever on my part. It is so woven into the very soul of me that nothing could ever change it. For those of you who reduce sexual orientation to a simple choice, a character issue, a bad habit or something that can be changed by a 10-step program, I'm puzzled. Are you saying that your own sexual orientation is nothing more than something you have chosen, that you could change it at will? If that's not the case, then why would you suggest that someone else can?

A popular theme in your letters is that Vermont has been infiltrated by outsiders. Both sides of my family have lived in Vermont for generations. I am heart and soul a Vermonter, so I'll thank you to stop saying that you are speaking for "true Vermonters."

You invoke the memory of the brave people who have fought on the battlefield for this great country, saying that they didn't give their lives so that the "homosexual agenda" could tear down the principles they died defending. My 83-year-old father fought in some of the most horrific battles of World War II, was wounded and awarded the Purple Heart.

He shakes his head in sadness at the life his grandson has had to live. He says he fought alongside homosexuals in those battles, that they did their part and bothered no one. One of his best friends in the service was gay, and he never knew it until the end, and when he did find out, it mattered not at all. That wasn't the measure of the man.

You religious folk just can't bear the thought that as my son emerges from the hell that was his childhood he might like to find a lifelong companion and have a measure of happiness. It offends your sensibilities that he should request the right to visit that companion in the hospital, to make medical decisions for him or to benefit from tax laws governing inheritance.

How dare he? you say. These outrageous requests would threaten the very existence of your family, would undermine the sanctity of marriage.

You use religion to abdicate your responsibility to be thinking human beings. There are vast numbers of religious people who find your attitudes repugnant. God is not for the privileged majority, and God knows my son has committed no sin.

The deep-thinking author of a letter to the April 12 Valley News who lectures about homosexual sin and tells us about "those of us who have been blessed with the benefits of a religious upbringing" asks: "What ever happened to the idea of striving . . . to be better human beings than we are?"

Indeed, sir, what ever happened to that?

Sharon Underwood's e-mail is: sundervt@hotmail.com. I had the chance to speak with her yesterday. Her son is doing fine now, the first in his family to graduate from college.

If you have friends who think Jesus would have been a Republican -- on the side of billionaire Pat Robertson, et al, in opposing Hate Crimes Legislation, opposing the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and, yes, opposing Vermont's extension of economic benefits to same-sex couples -- please feel free to forward this column to as many of them as you like. Can't you just see it? Jesus arm-in-arm with the NRA trying to maintain the gun-show loophole? Stumping the Holy Land in favor of a massive tax cut for the rich, while opposing a hike in the minimum wage? Somehow, I think not.

Tomorrow: Back to Business. (Probably.)

Gallup: Americans of all stripes coming around on the gays

2010-05-26T03:24:00.000-07:00

Americans are increasingly alright with people being gay. The latest of Gallup’s annual survey on the subject matches abounding anecdotal evidence, including the increase of normative positive gay themes in the media. Gallup reports that the percentage of Americans who view gay relationships as morally acceptable crossed the 50 percent threshold this year, reaching 52 percent. Gallup notes that although a slight majority of Americans still oppose gay marriage, the trend on acceptance of homosexuality and gay rights flows in one direction: toward equality.

The poll results also document the cultural divide separating Republicans and Democrats or conservatives and liberals. The big movement seems to be coming from moderates and independents, who are swinging quickly toward acceptance of gay relationships as “morally acceptable.” The percentage of gay-friendly moderates jumped 14 percent to 64 percent since 2006. The percentage of gay-friendly independent voters jumped 11 percent to 61 percent during the same time period.

Individuals self identifying as moderates made up 36 percent of the electorate in 2009 in a yearly survey released in January 2010. Independents likewise made up 36 percent according to Gallup’s survey, members of the categories certainly overlapping.

The percentage of Democrats and Republicans, too, also increased. The numbers of gay-friendly Democrats rose 9 percent to 61 percent in May 2010 from 52 percent in 2006. Most significant perhaps, the number of gay-friendly Republicans rose 5 percent to 35 percent this year from 30 percent in 2006.

Also revealing is that, despite Church edicts and high-profile anti-gay local stances, the numbers of Catholics who have come to accept gay relationships as morally acceptable jumped 16 percent, from 46 percent in 2006 to 62 percent in 2010. Protestant numbers lag by comparison but still reach close to half at 46 percent who view homosexual relationships as acceptable. Those with no religion or who subscribe to other non-Christian religions showed high acceptance of homsexuality at roughly 85 percent.

Americans are less supportive of gay marriage than of gay relationships. Gallup found in a separate poll also taken in May that 53 percent of Americans oppose gay marriage and 43 percent support it. Yet even those numbers support the larger trend: this year’s 53 percent opposed to gay marriage is tied with the lowest level of disapproval to date.

In Hospital Decision, Obama Finds Safe Ground on Gay Rights

2010-04-17T04:23:00.000-07:00

By KEVIN SACK
New York Times

ATLANTA — President Obama has found a way to support gay rights that least offends those who oppose them.

Allowing same-sex partners the same rights as straight couples to visit and make medical decisions for their hospitalized loved ones enjoys broad public backing, even as the country remains polarized over the question of marriage rights for gay men and lesbians.

Mr. Obama’s unexpected move, which was announced through a memorandum released Thursday night, brought muted responses from conservative groups. Rather than argue that same-sex partners should not be granted equal medical rights, they asserted that Mr. Obama was pandering to his political base and undermining the traditional definition of marriage.

They also said that Mr. Obama was reinforcing the idea that his is a left-leaning administration that dictates solutions from Washington.

But they did not say Mr. Obama’s argument — that gay men and lesbians deserve the same rights as others to have partners visit them in hospitals or make medical decisions that were previously agreed — was wrong on the merits. Public opinion polls show that those measures are widely supported, at times by more than 8 in 10 Americans, even though fewer than half of poll respondents typically support same-sex marriage.

“I think it’ll be relatively noncontroversial,” said Whit Ayres, a Republican pollster in Virginia. “In this day and age, basic rights are deemed to be accorded to everyone. This allows him to give something to his base without worrying too much about backlash on the other side.”

Republican leaders and potential presidential candidates were uncommonly quiet on Friday, suggesting that Mr. Obama had located a rare bit of breathing room on a political landscape that is often crowded, contentious and noisy.

The socially conservative Family Research Council issued a statement calling the issue of medical rights for gay men and lesbians “a complete red herring” but saying it had “no objection” to individuals conferring decision-making powers to whomever they wish.

Ralph Reed, chairman of the Faith and Freedom Coalition, a conservative grass-roots group based in Georgia, said his primary objection was not to medical rights for same-sex couples, but to Mr. Obama’s imposition of them from the White House. He said he did not think the Obama directive would have a significant political impact in and of itself.

But he predicted it would contribute to disenchantment with Mr. Obama among those already disturbed by his positions on taxes, spending, abortion, gay men and lesbians in the military and the like.

“It’s just one more indication of an administration that is catering to liberal special interests,” Mr. Reed said. “I think it has the potential to be a very toxic combination for Democrats at the polls in November.”

Many gay rights activists cheered the president’s decision on Friday. But they also emphasized that medical rights issues were, at least politically, the low-hanging fruit of their agenda for equal rights.

They said they would continue to press the White House on more politically sensitive matters, like speeding an end to the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy and providing presidential leadership on marriage rights for same-sex couples.

Mr. Obama has said he opposes same-sex marriage as a matter of religious principle, but favors a right to civil unions for same-sex partners.

“This is a small and welcome step forward,” said Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry and author of a 2004 book that supports marriage rights for gay men and lesbians. “But ultimately this isn’t about just hospital visitation but the full measure of protections that families seek and want, and the real answer here is to end the exclusion on marriage.”

Hospital groups on Friday raised no objection to Mr. Obama’s directive, although its full impact will not be felt until the Department of Health and Human Services writes regulations over the next six months.

Despite the Roman Catholic Church’s teachings against homosexuality, the Catholic Health Association, which represents more than 600 hospitals, said Friday that Mr. Obama’s order had reaffirmed basic human rights.

“Everybody in this country has a right to say, If I can’t speak for myself, this is the person I want to speak for me,” said Sister Carol Keehan, the group’s president. “I think it’s a huge leap to say this is paving the way for gay marriage.”

Mr. Obama instructed the department to issue rules for hospitals participating in the Medicare and Medicaid programs to allow patients to designate visitors who are not blood relatives or legal spouses. The rules would also make it easier for patients to designate same-sex partners as their health care proxies to make medical decisions in case of incapacitation.

There is no data quantifying how often gay men and lesbians are denied those rights. But civil rights groups say they hear anecdotal evidence on a regular basis.

Mr. Obama was so taken by one such story, of a Florida woman who was denied hospital visitation rights after her longtime partner was stricken with a fatal aneurysm, that he called her from Air Force One on Thursday to say he had been inspired by the case.

The hospital involved, Jackson Memorial in Miami, wrote Mr. Obama on Friday to commend him for his stand. It denied that the couple had been treated differently because of their sexual orientation, and informed Mr. Obama that it had recently clarified its visitation policies to “make them even more specifically inclusive.”

The president campaigned in 2008 as a “fierce advocate” for the rights of gay men and lesbians, but beginning on Inauguration Day — for which he invited the Rev. Rick Warren, who opposes allowing gay men and lesbians to marry, to deliver the invocation — he has faced criticism for not being fierce enough.

Thursday’s action was a reminder that slowly and incrementally, Mr. Obama is taking steps to broaden gay rights.

He was instrumental in pressing Congress to pass hate-crimes legislation, a high priority for gay rights groups, and after a year of foot-dragging his administration is now moving to undo the military policy that bars gay men and lesbians from serving openly. Mr. Obama has lifted a rule that prevented foreigners with the AIDS virus from traveling to the United States, and the Census Bureau is taking steps to better track same-sex partnerships.

“There are some in our community who are frustrated with the pace of progress,” said David Smith, a top official at the Human Rights Campaign, a gay advocacy group, “but you can’t deny that progress is being made.”

Sheryl Stolberg, Reed Abelson and Tara Parker-Pope contributed reporting.

American Medical Association says current anti-gay laws threaten healthcare

2010-04-17T04:17:00.000-07:00

Examiner.com
Kelvin Lynch

Will the AMA's pro-gay position affect gay rights?

The nation's largest and most powerful physicians group threw its hat into the ring today in the battle for gay rights in the United States.

According to The Washington Times, the American Medical Association voted to oppose anti-gay marriage policies like the Defense of Marriage Act, which it says contributes to health disparities, and "Don't Ask, Don't Tell' which has a "chilling effect" on communication between gay patients and their physicians.

The announcement gives gay rights activists much-need ammunition and may play an important role in hastening the repeal of the anti-gay laws. There are currently bills making their way through the House and Senate for repeal.

Rea Cary, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, said, "It's highly significant that the AMA, as one of this country's leading professional associations, has taken a position on both of these issues."

The health disparities finding is based on evidence showing that married couples are more likely to have health insurance, and that the uninsured have a high risk for "living sicker and dying younger," said Dr. Peter Carmel, an AMA board member. "Same-sex families lack other benefits afforded married couples, including tax breaks, spouse benefits under retirement plans and Social Security survivor benefits -- all of which can put their health at risk."

Doctors who oppose "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" say the policy forces gay service members to keep their sexual orientation secret and interferes with open communication between gays and their doctors. "A law which makes people lie to their physicians is a bad law," said Dr. David Fassler, a University of Vermont psychiatry professor who attended the meeting.

Obama's hospital visitation order not exclusive to gays and lesbians

2010-04-17T04:13:00.000-07:00

Examiner,com
Kelvin Lynch

President Obama issued a memorandum yesterday ordering Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to change its policy on visitation rights for hospitals receiving Medicare and Medicaid. Those hospitals, which make up the majority in the U.S., must honor all patients' advance directives, including those designating who gets family visitation privileges.

But for anyone who thinks this is exclusively a "gay rights order," think again. The order requires that documents granting power of attorney and healthcare proxies be honored, regardless of sexual orientation, which also applies to unmarried heterosexual couples.

Take special notice of the stipulations in the order - legal documentation is still required for non-immediate family members to visit or make healthcare decisions on behalf of their partners. That means everyone should have an advance directive, power of attorney, and healthcare proxy carried with them at all times on a USB drive or CD. If you show up at the hospital without these documents, you can still be denied visitation rights. The importance of this cannot be understated. Hospitals may still prohibit visitation according to their own set of polices, particularly private hospitals that don't accept Medicaid or Medicare.

Also, it doesn't matter whether or not your medical bills are being paid by Medicaid or Medicare. You can pay the hospital with your own private insurance and your loved ones can still be denied visitation. There merely needs to be a showing that the hospital accepts Medicaid or Medicare for the order to be effective.
However, that hasn't stopped conservative Christian groups from pouncing and and saying the new order shows preferential treatment to gays and lesbians, and jeopardizes traditional marriage.

The LA Times quoted Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council spouting the same old conservative talking points. "In its current political context," he said, "President Obama's memorandum clearly constitutes pandering to a radical special interest group. The memorandum undermines the definition of marriage, and furthers a big-government federal takeover of even the smallest details of the nation's healthcare system."

"Clearly pandering"? The president's order contains one sentence regarding LGBT people: "Also uniquely affected are gay and lesbian Americans, who are often barred from the bedsides of the partners with whom they may have spent decades of their lives." Does that sound like clear pandering to you?

And by the way, Mr. Sprigg, LGBT people are not a "radical interest group". We are your friends, family members, neighbors, doctors, nurses, lawyers, you name it. We are everywhere. One of us just might save your life one day. And "big government takeover"? Does Mr. Sprigg not realize Medicaid and Medicare have always been big government programs? You don't hear people complaining about that, when the programs pay for their doctors' office visits, medications, and yes, their hospital stays. Here's a deal, Mr. Sprigg - we'll give up our so-called "radical interests" when you give up your right to receive Medicare.

The president's memo stated, "For all Americans, the failure to have their wishes respected concerning who may visit them or make medical decisions on their behalf has real consequences. It means that doctors and nurses do not always have the best information about patients' medications and medical histories and that friends and certain family members are unable to help communicate patients' needs."
With this new order, the president is demonstrating a desire to look out for all of us when we are at our most vulnerable, not just gays and lesbians. But make sure you have the proper documentation with you at all times, just in case.

Huckabee: Gay Marriage Akin to Incest, Polygamy

2010-04-15T01:53:00.000-07:00

The Former Arkansas Governor Says his Beliefs are "Well-Known and Hardly Unusual Views of Same-Sex Marriage"

(AP) Mike Huckabee, a possible Republican presidential candidate in 2012, says the effort to allow gays and lesbians to marry is comparable to legalizing incest, polygamy and drug use.

Huckabee On Defining Marriage

Huckabee also told college journalists last week that gay couples should not be permitted to adopt. "Children are not puppies," he said.

Huckabee visited The College of New Jersey in Ewing, N.J., last Wednesday to speak to the Student Government Association. He also was interviewed by a campus news magazine, The Perspective, which published an article on Friday.

Huckabee told the interviewer that not every group's interests deserve to be accommodated, if their lifestyle is outside of what he called "the ideal."

"That would be like saying, well there's there are a lot of people who like to use drugs so let's go ahead and accommodate those who want to use drugs. There are some people who believe in incest, so we should accommodate them. There are people who believe in polygamy, should we accommodate them?" he said, according to a transcript of the interview.

The 2008 presidential hopeful and former Arkansas governor also said that deciding which lifestyles should be accommodated and which ones should not creates a slippery slope.

"Why do you get to choose that two men are OK but one man and three women aren't OK?" he asked.

Huckabee added that his goal isn't to tell others how to live, but that the burden of proving that a gay marriage can be successful rests with the activists in favor of changing the law.

"I don't have to prove that marriage is a man and a woman in a relationship for life," he said. "They have to prove that two men can have an equally definable relationship called marriage, and somehow that that can mean the same thing."

Since the magazine published the interview, Huckabee's remarks have attracted considerable attention on the Web.

In a statement Tuesday, Huckabee said that while he believes what people do in their private lives is their business, "I do not believe we should change the traditional definition of marriage." He also said he thought the college magazine was sensationalizing his "well-known and hardly unusual views of same-sex marriage."

In response to a 1992 questionnaire from The Associated Press, Huckabee, then a Senate candidate in Arkansas, spelled out his opposition to homosexuality, saying it was crucial that the country not "legitimize immorality."

"I feel homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle," he wrote, in response to a question about gays in the military.

He also advocated isolating AIDS patients from the general public, saying it was necessary to confine "carriers of this plague."

As governor, Huckabee supported an Arkansas policy that prevented same-sex couples from serving as foster parents. On gay marriage, he said in an interview, "Marriage has historically never meant anything other than a man and a woman. It has never meant two men, two women, a man and his pet, or a man and a whole herd of pets."

Gay-rights foe running for Maine governor

2010-04-14T02:05:00.000-07:00

Kennebec Journal

AUGUSTA — Michael Heath, former executive director of the Christian Civic League of Maine, has registered with the state ethics commission as a gubernatorial candidate.

Heath recently announced the formation of a group called the American Family Association of Maine. At the time, he said he was "re-entering public life to continue the fight against the gay-rights lobby."

Heath spent 15 years working for the Christian Civic League, and became its executive director in 1994. He twice led people's veto efforts to overturn gay-rights laws.

Heath was not a visible part of last year's fight over same-sex marriage, which ended with voters repealing a state law legalizing it. He announced his resignation in September from the civic league, which is now called the Maine Family Policy Council.

There are now 24 people running for governor. Of those, 12 are Democrats or Republicans who will compete in the June 8 primary for the right to represent their parties on the November ballot. For the other 12, June 1 is the deadline to determine who among them will qualify to compete in November.

Heath did not return a phone call or e-mail seeking comment.

Bob Celeste of Harrison, who is in charge of collecting the signatures that Heath needs, told the Sun Journal that "one of the reasons Mike got into the race is because of the direction the state is going; it's taking such a turn to the left politically."

"Yesterday, when Mike and I were talking over coffee, I said to him, 'What we need is someone with high visibility that can get some press. I'd like you to run for governor,'" Celeste told the Lewiston paper.

Celeste said he and Heath were upset when the Maine Human Rights Commission recently considered issuing guidelines for equitable treatment of transgender students in public schools, including allowing them to use bathrooms and play on sports teams with the gender they identify with. A final decision is expected in May.

"This was the straw that broke the camel's back," Celeste told the Sun Journal. "We need a bully pulpit; we need to let people know how bad this is becoming and how hard we've been fighting. Mike is the most viable candidate to restore Maine to its more conservative roots."

The Sun Journal contributed to this report.

Clergy torn over church, civil loyalties over same-sex marriage

2010-03-27T09:02:00.000-07:00

Washington Post
By Daniel Burke
Saturday, March 27, 2010

A new D.C. law means the Rev. Mary Kay Totty can now marry same-sex couples. But in the United Methodist Church, the denomination that ordained Totty two decades ago, the act could get her defrocked.

Totty, 46, said she's willing to take the risk.

"The institutional church has for so many years oppressed and excluded and harmed our [lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender] sisters and brothers," Totty said. "We have to say: 'Enough already. These are people's lives and loves that we continue to exclude from the fullness of life in the church.' "

Nineteen other current and former United Methodist clergy in the District have signed a statement supporting Totty and Dumbarton UMC, the small, liberal congregation that she has pastored since July. Many others campaigned to legalize same-sex marriage in the city. But only Totty has been willing to put her job on the line.

"It's very hard," said the Rev. Dean Snyder, who supports Totty and leads Foundry United Methodist Church, one of the city's largest Methodist congregations, where one in four members is gay or lesbian. "We have no desire to defy the larger denomination; at the same time we want to minister to all members of our congregation."

As gay rights spread through civil society, an increasing number of clergy are, like Snyder, caught by conflicting loyalties, forced to choose between church law and civil law in pastoring to their gay and lesbian congregants.

The District's large gay population -- it has more same-sex couples per capita than any state -- and its spotlight as the nation's capital only intensify the issue.

"My heart breaks for them," said the Rev. Amy Butler of Calvary Baptist Church, "because they do not know what to do." Butler said Calvary, which will marry gay and lesbian couples, is reassessing its ties with several Baptist denominations, including the conservative Southern Baptist Convention.

Most of the country's large Christian denominations consider homosexuality unbiblical and prohibit clergy from officiating at same-sex weddings.

In the Presbyterian Church (USA), for example, the Rev. Jane Spahr was brought up on church charges this month for marrying a lesbian couple in California in 2008, when it was briefly legal in the state. Church courts in the 2.3 million-member PCUSA have ruled against pastors who presumed to marry same-sex couples, though "blessing" such unions is allowed.

"It certainly gives us pause," said the Rev. Jeffrey Krehbiel, pastor at D.C.'s Church of the Pilgrims, a PCUSA church that has offered "services of Holy Union," to gay couples for several years. "You are taking a risk if you publicly perform gay marriages because you don't know the consequences."

In the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the nation's largest Lutheran denomination, the conflict is not between church and civil laws, but within the church itself. One policy, reaffirmed in 2005, says there is "no basis" in Scripture or tradition for establishing rites for blessing gay couples. Last summer, though, the ELCA voted to commit to "finding ways to allow congregations" to recognize same-sex partnerships.

So, which policy should D.C. Lutherans follow? "That's exactly what we're trying to figure out," said Bishop Richard Graham of the Metropolitan Washington, D.C. Synod. "This is a live issue for us."

-- Religion News Service

Episcopalians Confirm a Second Gay Bishop

2010-03-22T22:13:00.001-07:00

By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
New York Times
Published: March 17, 2010

A majority of bishops and dioceses of the Episcopal Church have approved the election of the church’s second openly gay bishop, the Rev. Mary D. Glasspool, a decision likely to increase the tension with fellow Anglican churches around the world that do not approve of homosexuality.

The worldwide Anglican Communion, the network of churches connected to the Church of England, has been in turmoil since the Americans elected their first openly gay bishop, V. Gene Robinson, in New Hampshire in 2003. Theological conservatives in the Communion say the Bible condemns homosexuality, while liberals say the Scripture is open to interpretation.

Bishop Glasspool, 56, is to be consecrated as one of two new assistant bishops, known as suffragan bishops, in Los Angeles on May 15. Both elected suffragan bishops are women — the first ever to serve in the diocese.

Both were elected at a convention of the diocese in December, but according to church rules had to win the approval of a majority of the bishops and standing committees (made up of clergy and laypeople) of the church’s 110 dioceses. Bishop Glasspool’s confirmation was never certain.

Bishop Glasspool, who has been serving in Maryland as an adviser to the bishops for nine years, said Wednesday in an interview: “I feel overjoyed. I feel relieved. I’m breathing again.”

She and her partner, Becki Sander, a postgraduate student in social work, have been together for 22 years.

The bishop said she intended to reach out to those who opposed her. Asked whether she anticipated that her election would have repercussions in the Anglican Communion, she said, “While I understand that not everyone rejoices, I don’t understand what will functionally be different tomorrow than today with respect to our relationships around the world.”

Conservative prelates in the Communion had asked the Episcopal Church to refrain from electing any more openly gay bishops, but Episcopalians passed a resolution at their convention in 2009 saying that the church should be open to the ministry of all qualified people, regardless of sexual orientation.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, the leader of the Church of England and spiritual head of the Anglican Communion, issued a warning in December that Bishop Glasspool’s election “raises very serious questions not just for the Episcopal Church and its place in the Anglican Communion, but for the Communion as a whole.”

He did not elaborate on what steps the Communion might take should her election be confirmed.

Bishop Glasspool’s father was also an Episcopal priest. She was born on Staten Island, and grew up in the rectory of St. James Church in Goshen, N.Y., where her father served for 35 years.

Have Gays Found Their Place in the GOP?

2010-02-24T16:39:00.000-08:00

Have Gays Found Their Place in the GOP?

Dramatic Moment at Conservative Confab Could Be a Sign of Change Within Republican Party When It Comes to Gay Rights

By Brian Montopoli
CBS News

(CBS) This story was written by CBSNews.com political reporter Brian Montopoli.A memorable moment at last week's Conservative Political Action Conference could mark a turning point in the long-fraught relationship between gays and the Republican Party.

CPAC is perhaps the nation's premiere conservative gathering, a convivial opportunity for impassioned right-wing activists to network, plan for upcoming elections and listen to the biggest names in the conservative movement. It's the sort of atmosphere in which the casual observer might expect someone like Ryan Sorba to receive a warm welcome.

Sorba, who wrote a book entitled "The Gay Gene Hoax," took the podium at this year's CPAC and immediately expressed his unhappiness that the conference had allowed a gay Republican group called GOProud to be a sponsor.

He didn't get very far. After delivering a rambling condemnation of homosexuality, Sorba was essentially booed offstage, prompting him to angrily complain to his conservative audience that "the lesbians at Smith College protest better than you do."

Gay Republicans say it was a telling moment: Evidence that the GOP is "moving away from a negative hate-based connotation with homosexuals in the Republican party," according to Charles T. Moran, spokesman for the Log Cabin Republicans, a gay Republican group.

"The conservative movement is so focused on the issues that bring us together -- limited government, personal responsibility and freedom -- that the social issues have kind of gotten pushed off to the side," he said. "Even the Tea Party movement - these people are not talking about social issues."

That isn't to say there hasn't been controversy: Liberty University Law School pulled its sponsorship of the event over GOProud's inclusion as a sponsor, and the American Family Association's Bryan Fischer said following the conference that true conservatives should abandon CPAC for the AFA's Values Voter Summit, where organizers believe "that protecting one man - one woman marriage is the most fundamental conservative value of all."

But Jimmy LaSalvia, the executive director of GOProud, said his group was largely welcomed at CPAC, particularly after the Sorba incident.

"The most notable thing about CPAC is that the American Conservative Union makes a concerted effort to make sure young people are there," he said. "And that room was full of people who are under 30 years old."

While polls suggest young Americans have not moved leftward on abortion, there has been a clear shift, even among conservatives, toward greater tolerance of homosexuality. (Last year Meghan McCain, a gay marriage supporter, told the Log Cabin Republicans that "old school Republicans" are "scared s**tless" of the changing landscape.) Discussing the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy with ABC News earlier this month, former Vice President Dick Cheney said he expected repeal.

"The society has moved on," he said. "It's partly a generational question."

GOProud's LaSalvia is a strong backer of Cheney, and along with others in his organization is backing a "Draft Cheney 2012" Web site. He says he agrees with the former vice president on his support for state-by-state same-sex marriage as well as Cheney's positions on national security and other issues.

"The greatest threat to gay and lesbian people across the globe is the spread of radicalized Islam, and the Obama administration playing footsie with [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad or any other brutal dictator is not good for gay people," he said.

Moran of the Log Cabin Republicans said that people had begun to stop seeing a contradiction between being conservative and openly gay.

"Do not assume that just because we support equality issues we support a big government agenda of government takeover of health care, labor unions, climate change mumbo jumbo," he said, adding that his group is working to "break those assumptions."

Mathew Staver, dean of the evangelical Liberty University School of Law and founder and chair of the Liberty Counsel, says that he and his allies "certainly don't support the idea that anybody would be eliminated from the political process because of their sexual orientation."

But he said Liberty University School of Law felt compelled to pull its sponsorship from CPAC over GOProud's support for the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and other policies.

"Those are not conservative policies, and they are not supported by the Republican Party," he said, noting that the GOP continues to oppose a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal as well as same-sex marriage and hate crimes protections based on gender identity. "I welcome all people being part of the conversation, but I also think that just because of your individual orientation, it does not mean that we change the values that conservatives support."

Asked if he was disappointed with Sorba's reception, Staver noted that Ron Paul won the CPAC straw poll of 2012 presidential candidates - evidence, he suggested, that those in the room were not "reflective of the conservative movement or the Republican Party."

Republicans have largely shied away from gay rights issues over the past year, including in the campaigns of Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown and the party's two successful gubernatorial candidates, New Jersey's Chris Christie and Virginia's Bob McDonnell. (The latter aggressively played 2003 down remarks that "certain homosexual conduct" could disqualify someone to serve as a judge, opting instead for a relentless focus on jobs and fiscal issues.) Though he identifies as a "social and fiscal conservative," the candidate generating the most excitement on the right at the moment -- Florida Senate candidate Marco Rubio -- focuses largely on fiscal issues in his speeches.

"They've all run their campaigns on the issues that people care about when they sit down at night at the kitchen table," said LaSalvia, arguing that Republicans have little incentive to try to score points by discussing gays and lesbians in the current political landscape. "It's a political winner to focus on other issues."

Gay Christians in Nigeria

2010-02-19T12:34:00.000-08:00

http://www.economist.com/world/middleeast-africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15503420

Homosexuality in Nigeria
Go online if you're glad to be gay
One church’s answer to rampant homophobia
Feb 11th 2010 | LAGOS | From The Economist print edition

ONCE a fortnight, 50 or so Nigerians furtively log on for an online Bible study class. “This is the only way we can worship because of the stigma,” says one of them. The reason for the secrecy is that the participants, ranging from students to married men, are gay. To go to a mainstream church in Nigeria would risk beatings or even a forced exorcism. So hundreds are turning to House of Rainbow, Nigeria’s only gay-friendly church, which is flourishing online after almost meeting a violent end two years ago.

Many Nigerians strongly disapprove of homosexuality. The dominant role of religion is widely seen as the root of the country’s homophobic culture. Punishing gays is one of the few common themes that politicians can promote with equal zest in the mainly Christian south and the largely Muslim north. Under federal law sodomy is punishable by a 14-year jail sentence. An even more stringent bill to ban gay-rights groups and homosexual displays of affection is also under consideration.

It is a similar story in many other parts of Africa. Uganda, influenced by evangelical Christianity, has provoked an international outcry over a still harsher bill that advocates the death penalty in certain cases of gay sex, for instance when one partner is HIV-positive. Barack Obama recently called the bill “odious”. In Malawi two men have gone on trial for gross indecency after holding a “traditional engagement ceremony”. The judge refused bail on the grounds that their release might provoke mob violence.

The founder of House of Rainbow, Rowland Jide Macaulay, a gay Nigerian pastor, knows all about anti-gay intimidation. Two years after he set up his church in Lagos in 2006, the project was brought to a halt. Members of his congregation had been beaten and sometimes raped as they left Sunday services in order—said their assailants—to “correct their sexuality”. After receiving death threats Mr Macaulay fled to Britain, from where he now preaches via YouTube.

Undaunted, he is now seeking funds in the West. He wants to start hairdressing and fashion courses to complement Bible study. The exclusion of gays from Nigeria’s mainstream churches can limit their educational chances. Mosques and churches often perform the duties of a state that has all but collapsed in many parts of the country. Muslim movements such as Izala build schools in the north, while Pentecostal groups have set up universities in the south. As Anthony, a 27-year-old bisexual living in Lagos, says: “In Nigeria the church is not just about a spiritual lift...they run our [social] services. If they say ‘We don’t want you’, where do you go?”

U.K.’s Conservative Leader (& Likely Next PM) Supports Gay Marriage

2010-02-09T23:30:00.000-08:00

by Kilian Melloy

Tuesday Feb 9, 2010

EDGEBoston∞

There was a time when Britain’s conservative party was much like it’s American counterpart: harshly denunciatory and punitive toward gays, and prone to justifying its stance on dubious notions such as the claim that homosexuality is a "lifestyle choice" that might lead to gays trying to "corrupt children." Indeed, for a quarter-century, a British law--Section 28--made it a criminal offense for schools to "promote" homosexuality or gay and lesbian families--what the law slammed as "pretend families."

But David Cameron, the Tory politician who is viewed by many as the likely next Prime Minister of Britain, has made it his mission to reach out to gay and lesbian voters, reckoning that plenty of gays share his party’s conservative views--at least, the ones that are not flagrantly anti-gay.

But how sincere is Cameron about wanting what his U.S. counterparts would call a "big tent" that includes GLBT constituents? In an interview published in gay magazine Attitude, journalist Johann Hari asked the question, recalling that until its repeal a decade ago, Cameron was an ardent champion of Section 28. Indeed, in the interview with Cameron, which Hari posted at his own site, the journalist put the question directly to Cameron, who told Hari, "I think now looking back you can see the mistake of Section 28," a measure that Cameron called "an insult" and "finger-pointing." Added Cameron, "There’s only one thing worse than making a mistake and that’s not putting your hands up and admitting it."

More than that, Hari was unable to get Cameron to specify. The politician now says he is in favor of equitable rights for gay and lesbian families, including the right to adopt, but as to his past attitudes, Cameron is coy--if not downright evasive--in his comments to Hari.

But Cameron’s new gay-friendly stance, whether authentic or opportunistic, has proven enough to catch the attention of America’s homophobic pundits. Anti-gay religious Web new source LifeSiteNews shrieked in a Feb. 8 headline that Cameron had "Pledge[d] Full Support for Gay Agenda," with a sub-headline keening that the Tory pol had "Agree[d] that the ’right of gay children to have a safe education trumps the right of faith schools to teach that homosexuality is a sin.’ "

In an era where safe schools are a pressing concern due to a combination of school shootings and student suicides as young as 11, not to mention to ongoing threat of AIDS and the manifest failure of morality-themed abstinence-only sex ed, such an opinion might be seen as far from irrational.

The text of the LifeSiteNews article put the headline’s claims into context. "Asked, ’Do you think that the right of gay children to have a safe education trumps the right of faith schools to teach that homosexuality is a sin?’ Cameron, a practicing Anglican replied, ’Basically yes--that’s the short answer to that, without getting into a long religious exegesis. I mean, I think, yes,’ " the article read.

"I mean, I think, yes. I think..... [long pause] that if our Lord Jesus was around today he would very much be backing a strong agenda on equality and equal rights, and not judging people on their sexuality," the article continued to quote Cameron.

"I don’t want to get into an enormous row with the [Anglican] Archbishop [of Canterbury, Rowan Williams] here. But I think the Church [of England] has to do some of the things that the Conservative Party has been through--sorting this issue out and recognizing that full equality is a bottom line full essential," the article reported Cameron saying to Hari.

Church and State

The article also referenced an ongoing debate in the U.K. that pits Christian charities against gays and lesbians. "I think if you are a Catholic prison charity, as long as your services are available to everyone, no matter what their religion, their sexuality, their ethnicity, you’re fine," LifeSiteNews quotes Cameron as saying. "We shouldn’t force you to become a multi-faith group. You can be a single faith group. But you must not discriminate in the provision of your services. It seems to me that is the key distinction that you have to make."

Such controversies have also emerged in the United States, most markedly in an episode in which a Massachusetts Catholic charity that placed children into loving homes for adoption was forced by the Church to suspend all of its adoption placement work when the state refused to allow the charity an exemption to anti-discrimination laws, requiring it to consider qualified same-sex prospective parents along with mixed-gender couples.

LifeSiteNews site culled a response to Cameron’s remarks to Hari about religious charities from the religion editor of U.K. newspaper the Daily Telegraph, Ruth Gledhill, who declared, "From this logic, then, I assume he will force charities for blind people also to offer their services to deaf people. I’ve long thought it discriminatory that, as an able-bodied person, I’m not entitled to a disabled parking permit."

Added Gledhill, "How far is this ludicrous equal rights scenario going to go? Even further down the road to ridiculous extremes under the Tories than it already has under Labor, it seems."

LifeSiteNews noted a similarity between Cameron’s remarks to Hari and answers given to the same journalist by presiding Prime Minister Tony Blair, of the Labor Party, in a 2009 interview, when Blair suggested that the Catholic Church might need to reexamine its stance on gays, their families, and their rights under the law. Church doctrine holds that gays do not choose to experience same-sex attraction, but claims that God’s plan for gays is for them to live solitary lives without the comfort and fulfillment of families, saying that gays are "called" to be celibate.

Church teaching also decrees that gays are sexually "disordered," and says that it is a form of "violence" against children for same-sex parents to raise offspring, whether their own or adopted.

The LifeSiteNews article read, "Blair’s comments were widely ridiculed even in the mainstream press and prompted the current Archbishop of Westminster, Vincent Nichols, to remind Blair that he does not speak for the Catholic Church."

In the interview with Hari, Cameron touches on a number of gay-specific issues, from the need for the British government to extend asylum to gays fleeing oppressive, even murderous, anti-gay regimes in their home countries (Hari notes that under the current Labor government, asylum seekers are often sent right back despite obvious dangers) to the absurdity of gay men being banned from donating blood, despite technology adequate to the challenge of identifying pathogens such as HIV in donated blood (and the fact that such pathogens can easily be present in blood donated by heterosexuals, who generally face no such discrimination).

However, Hari notes, "on perhaps the two biggest issues affecting gay people in Britain--violence in the playground, and violence on the streets--he doesn’t have much to say." When discussing school bullying, Cameron prescribes broad measures without specifically addressing the causes of anti-gay bullying; one of his suggestions is to fund alternative schools established by parents themselves. Notes Hari, "But the National Secular Society warns that wherever this has been tried, there is a huge rise in religious fundamentalist schools. We know they are far worse for gay kids: the Stonewall study, for example, found that anti-gay bullying is ten percent worse in faith schools."

When it comes to a surge of anti-gay violence in the U.K., which has seen bias crime against GLBTs spike by 40% in a year, Cameron points to an old, if not especially convincing, standby: rap music.

As for Cameron’s ties to European leaders who are publicly and unapologetically homophobic, Cameron essentially tells Hari that such alliances are the cost of doing political business--while going on to note that he himself is not homophobic, and that is the main issue he wishes to clarify. "Now, does that make it a more difficult message to explain to gay people who want to votes Conservative?" Cameron asks Hari rhetorically, going on to answer himself, "Yes it does, I accept that." Adds Cameron, "One of the reasons for doing this interview is hopefully to try and get across a sense that I have not joined with these people because of their views on social issues. I have not."

If the tone of the text that frames Hari’s interview is unconvinced, pundits observing from afar are equally unsure just what to make of Cameron. A Feb 9 National Review Online op-ed opines, "It may be that, on this issue, David Cameron is the P. J. O’Rourke of Britain. (The inimitable P. J. wrote a few years ago: ’I’m so conservative that I approve of San Francisco City Hall marriages, adoption by same-sex couples, and New Hampshire’s recently ordained Episcopal bishop. Gays want to get married, have children, and go to church. Next they’ll be advocating school vouchers, boycotting HBO, and voting Republican.’) But could Cameron perhaps, on this and other issues, be a British Obama - long on promises and short on performance?"

Added the op-ed, "Let’s hope that--if he prevails--he at least has a better first year than our new president had."

Kilian Melloy reviews media, conducts interviews, and writes commentary for EDGEBoston, where he also serves as Assistant Arts Editor.

Religious right showing hostile new militancy against the gay community

2010-02-06T01:47:00.000-08:00

Huffington Post

In the span of less than a week, we have witnessed a meltdown of religious right talking heads against the gay community.

First there was the Family Research Council's Peter Sprigg who said on Hardball earlier this week that he supports "criminalizing homosexual behavior."

Around the same time came the American Family Association's Bryan Fischer who published an ugly screed saying that homosexuality should be against the law. He compounded this nastiness when he tried to backtrack explaining that he "merely" said that "homosexual behavior" should be treated the same as intravenous drug abuse.

After People for the American Way destroyed his argument, he seemed to say "to hell with pretending to clarify" when he voiced the following opinion:

Think for a moment of the current social controversies that could potentially be avoided if homosexual conduct was still against the law.

Gays in the military: problem solved. We shouldn't make a place for habitual felons in the armed forces. End of discussion, end of controversy. If someone objects, ask them which other felonies the military ought to overlook in screening recruits.

Gay marriage: problem solved. We should never legalize unions between any two people when the union is forged specifically to engage in felony behavior. Would we sanction, for instance, the formation of a corporation whose stated purpose was to import illegal drugs?

Gay indoctrination in the schools: problem solved. We don't want to raise a generation of schoolchildren to believe that felony behavior is perfectly appropriate. That's why we spend so much money warning students about the danger of drugs.

Hate crimes laws: problem solved. We wouldn't throw a pastor in jail for saying that illegal behavior is not only illegal but also immoral. For instance, he's free to say that murder is not only contrary to man's law but also to God's law. End of the threat to freedom of religion and speech.

Special rights for homosexuals in the workplace: problem solved. No employer should be forced to hire admitted felons to work for him. End of the threat to freedom of religion and freedom of association in the marketplace.

And now we have Accuracy in Media's Cliff Kincaid (AIM is the organization which was forced to retract a story accusing Obama appointee Kevin Jennings of being a pedophile) actually defending Uganda's anti-gay bill in response to the criticism it received from President Obama during Thurday's National Prayer Breakfast:

"The purpose is completely at variance with what the U.S. media have reported," he said. "It is not a 'Kill the Gays' bill. Rather, it is designed to kill the disease that some homosexuals spread through their reckless and irresponsible conduct and lifestyle."

Kincaid said that the much-publicized death penalty provision in the bill is for deliberately spreading AIDS and engaging in homosexual behavior that threatens children and society.

"Uganda's people and government deserve support, not criticism, from the United States," said Kincaid. "They are up against the international homosexual lobby, the money of George Soros, and the Obama Administration. They are trying to create a Christian culture that is protective of families and children."

It was not the first time Kincaid defended the Ugandan anti-gay bill. Earlier, he claimed that attention on the bill was a plot to divert attention from the non-controversy over Obama appointee Kevin Jennings.

But his recent comments and those of Fischer's and Sprigg's are alarming. And then there is the following upcoming conference at Liberty University:

Liberty University School of Law will host a one-day conference followed by a one-day symposium addressing homosexuality and its consequences. The Friday, February 12, conference is entitled "Understanding Same-sex Attractions and Their Consequences." On Saturday, February 13, the Liberty University Law Review will host a legal symposium entitled "Homosexual Rights and First Amendment Freedoms: Can They Truly Coexist?"

The first day of the conference will focus on the issues underlying same-sex attractions with personal and ministry insights shared by Alan Chambers, president of Exodus International. Conference leaders will then discuss the American Psychological Association Task Force Report on counseling people with same-sex attractions. Current research and therapies will be discussed by experts from the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) and the American Association of Christian Counselors. The first day is designed for lay people, counselors, pastors, educators, attorneys, and those interested in learning more about the subject. The second day will focus on the legal implications arising from the clash between the quest for homosexual rights and freedom of speech, religion and association.

Maybe religious right groups realize that they are slowly but surely losing ground in the "culture war" and have decided to go for broke. Maybe all of these incidents is a huge maneuver to induce members of the gay community into hysterical actions which will be written about on right-wing webpages and recorded for posterity and opinionated on by networks such as Fox.

Whatever the case may be, these recent incidents of open hostility against the gay community seem to signal that the vicious and verbal head-severing attacks used to undermine President Obama have made their way over to the war against gay equality.

How long will it be before we start hearing more phony horror stories of gay men seducing children or be subjected to junk science dissertations about "the dangers of sodomy" but on an accelerated level? Never mind about claims to love gays and lesbians, will opposition to gay equality return to the classic lie of "homosexuality needs to be illegal because it's a health hazard?"

Somewhere in the United States, discredited researcher Paul Cameron (the man responsible for a vast amount of junk science against the gay community) is rubbing his hands in glee, eager for a return to notoriety.

Outlawing Gays in the USA? Family Research Council says Gay Sex Should Be a Crime

2010-02-06T01:30:00.000-08:00

Tobin Grant
Christianity Today

The debate over antisodomy laws moves from Uganda back to the U.S. Also: Groups debate immigration reform, abstinence education, and Scott Roeder.

Yesterday's National Prayer Breakfast received scrutiny as critics attempted to link its sponsors to Uganda's anti-homosexuality legislation. While the sponsoring group and other American Christians have condemned the Uganda bill, some conservatives voiced support for the criminalization of homosexuality in the United States.

At the prayer breakfast, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton highlighted Uganda as she emphasized U.S. support for human rights. President Obama was more specific, citing opposition to Uganda's proposed law as an example of possible common ground in our current contentious politics.

"We may disagree about gay marriage, but surely we can agree that it is unconscionable to target gays and lesbians for who they are—whether it's here in the United States or, as Hillary mentioned, more extremely in odious laws that are being proposed most recently in Uganda," said Obama.

His statement at the breakfast comes on the heels of his call during the State of the Union address to repeal the ban on gays and lesbians serving in the military, a call that reignited rhetorical fireworks over sexuality in American society. If the President hoped that everyone would oppose bills that criminalize homosexuality, he was to be disappointed.

On Tuesday, MSNBC's Chris Matthews interviewed Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council about the U.S. military's "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy (DADT). Sprigg, FRC's senior fellow for policy studies, said he would support banning all gays or lesbians from serving in the military. At the end of the discussion, Matthews asked Sprigg his view of homosexuality in civilian life:

MATTHEWS: Do you think we should outlaw gay behavior?
SPRIGG: Well, I think it's certainly defensible.
MATTHEWS: I'm just asking you, should we outlaw gay behavior?
SPRIGG: I think that the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which overturned the sodomy laws in this country, was wrongly decided. I think there would be a place for criminal sanctions against homosexual behavior.
MATTHEWS: So we should outlaw gay behavior.
SPRIGG: Yes.

(In its 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision, the Supreme Court ruled that Texas's anti-sodomy law was unconstitutional and that "the state cannot demean [homosexuals'] existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime.")

Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association agreed with Sprigg. Citing policies and findings of the Federal Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control, Fischer concluded that homosexual behavior should be criminalized because it "represents an enormous threat to public health."

"It's a simple matter of common sense, sound public policy, and a concern for public health. … Whatever we think we should do to curtail injection drug use are the same sorts of things we should pursue to curtail homosexual conduct," said Fischer, AFA's director of issue analysis.

Fischer further justified his view by claiming that 1 Timothy 1:8-11 says "those 'who practice homosexuality' should come under the purview of the law just as much as those who take people captive in order to sell them into slavery."

On Sojourners's God's Politics blog, Brian McLaren responded directly to Sprigg's comments. "Even if you agree with the Family Research Council on the issue of homosexuality, and even if you're worried about slippery slopes when it comes to human sexuality, I think you'll agree: there's another slippery slope that's equally easy to slide down, and that's the slide into the kind of Pharisaical religiosity that attempts to make people behave 'morally' through the threat of exclusion, intimidation, and legislation," he said.

Andrea Lafferty of the Traditional Values Coalition emphasized the "slippery slope" in her argument against repealing the current military DADT policy. Lafferty noted that the bill under consideration bans discrimination based on sexual orientation but not gender identification, which is included in the civilian Employee Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA).

"For the time being, the cross-dressers, drag queens, transsexuals, and she-males must remain in the shadows while their gay, lesbian, and bisexual allies work to capture the military," said Lafferty. "Once the 1993 bill is overturned, they'll return to a liberal Congress with a vengeance to demand that transgenders [sic] persons be given the 'right' to openly serve. Sen. Levin, Rep. Murphy, and their other compliant allies will be only to happy to bend over to serve them."

Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, opposed repealing DADT in the military because it "would engender sexual tension and thereby negatively impact troop morale, unit cohesion, and order."

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, called on readers to sign an FRC action petition "urging members not to turn the military into a battleground for social engineering." As part of his argument against the repeal of DADT, Perkins said that incidents of same-sex assault and rape in the military "would only worsen once gays and lesbians are empowered to flaunt their sexuality."

Dan Nejfelt of Faith in Public Life described Perkins' comments as an example of the "very little accurate information" found among reactions by conservatives. Indeed, Nejfelt felt the need to explain that Perkins was actually serious about his claim that repealing DADT would result in more sexual assault.

Nejfelt compared comments by Perkins and other conservatives with a statement written by several former military chaplains who support the repeal of DADT.

"The difference between these two different faith voices could hardly be more stark. One group reflects on their own experiences serving military personnel's spiritual needs; the other demonizes the LGBT community, even as they risk their lives to protect this country," said Nejfelt. "For their sake, and for our sake as a nation that claims to uphold equality and dignity, it's a good thing military leadership think more like the chaplains than the likes of Tony Perkins."

Obama, at National Prayer Breakfast, calls for civil political debate

2010-02-05T00:50:00.001-08:00

By Michael A. Fletcher
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, February 5, 2010

President Obama lamented the "erosion of civility" in the nation's political debate, telling an audience Thursday at the National Prayer Breakfast that there is a growing sense that "something is broken" in Washington.

"Those of us in Washington are not serving the people as well as we should," he said. "At times, it seems like we're unable to listen to one another; to have at once a serious and civil debate."

Obama contrasted the sense of duty and service summoned in response to disasters such as the earthquake in Haiti with the seeming inability of the nation's policymakers to respond to "the slow-moving tragedies of children without food and men without shelter and families without health care."

The president bemoaned a political culture in which disagreement on policy quickly morphs into questioning one another's motives. Obama, a Christian who was born in Hawaii, alluded to the undercurrent of assertions that he is a Muslim who was born outside the United States, saying, "Surely you can question my policies without questioning my faith or, for that matter, my citizenship."

Speaking at the Hilton Washington hotel to an audience that included Vice President Biden, congressional leaders, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and an array of religious leaders and foreign dignitaries, Obama called on the group to step outside its comfort zone to bridge divisions and unite around common goals.

The prayer breakfast has been held in Washington for more than half a century, and every president since Dwight D. Eisenhower has taken part. The watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington had written a letter asking Obama to boycott the event, saying its sponsor, the Fellowship Foundation, is a "shadowy religious association" that preaches "an unconventional brand of Christianity." It also said the group is linked to efforts by Uganda's political leadership to pass anti-gay legislation, including the death penalty for HIV-infected people convicted of having sex with someone of the same gender.

But Obama chose to attend the breakfast at a time when he has called on Congress to be more open in debating the merits of competing policy ideas.

Much of his domestic agenda is snared in a web of GOP opposition in Congress. The recent victory of Republican Scott Brown in a special Senate election in Massachusetts deprived Democrats of a filibuster-proof majority in that chamber.

In his address, the president renewed his call for lawmakers to seek common ground.

"We may disagree about the best way to reform our health-care system, but surely we can agree that no one ought to go broke when they get sick in the richest nation on Earth," Obama said. "We can take different approaches to ending inequality, but surely we can agree on the need to lift our children out of ignorance; to lift our neighbors from poverty. We may disagree about gay marriage, but surely we can agree that it is unconscionable to target gays and lesbians for who they are -- whether it's here in the United States or . . . more extremely in odious laws that are being proposed, most recently in Uganda."

Obama is Asked About Don't Ask Don't Tell

2010-01-29T00:36:00.001-08:00

Genetics Has A Role In Determining Sexual Orientation In Men, Further Evidence

2010-01-28T01:07:00.000-08:00

Original Article

ScienceDaily (Nov. 8, 2007) — Is sexual orientation something people are born with - like the colour of their skin and eyes - or a matter of choice?

Canadian scientists have uncovered new evidence which shows genetics has a role to play in determining whether an individual is homosexual or heterosexual.

The research was conducted by Dr. Sandra Witelson, a neuroscientist in the Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine at McMaster University, and colleagues at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre in Toronto who studied the brains of healthy, right-handed, 18- to 35-year-old homosexual and heterosexual men using structural Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI).

About 10 years ago, Witelson and Dr. Cheryl McCormick, then a student of Witelson's, demonstrated there is a higher proportion of left-handers in the homosexual population than in the general population -- a result replicated in subsequent studies which is now accepted as fact.

Handedness is a sign of how the brain is organized to represent different aspects of intelligence. Language, for example, is usually on the left - music on the right.

In other research, Witelson and research associate Debra Kigar, had found that left-handers have a larger region of the posterior corpus callosum -- the thick band of nerve fibres connecting the two hemispheres of the brain -- than right handers.

This raised the hypothesis for the current study -- whether the anatomy of the brain of the sub-group of right-handed homosexual men is similar to that of left-handers.

They found that the posterior part of the corpus callosum is larger in homosexual than heterosexual men.

The size of the corpus callosum is largely inherited suggesting a genetic factor in sexual orientation, said Witelson "Our results do not mean that heredity is destiny but they do indicate that environment is not the only player in the field," she said.
While this is not a litmus test for sexual orientation, Witelson said this finding could prove to be one additional valuable piece of information for physicians and individuals who are trying to determine their sexual orientation. "Sometimes people aren't sure of their sexual orientation."

The researchers also undertook a correlational analysis which included size of the corpus callosum, and test scores scores on language, visual spatial and finger dexterity tests. "By using all these variables, we were able to predict sexual orientation in 95 per cent of the cases," she said.

Tony Campolo on the Church and Gay Issues

2010-01-25T22:11:00.000-08:00

Tony Campolo on Christians and Gay Rights

2010-01-25T22:06:00.000-08:00

Tony Campolo shares a heart-rending story of a mother's love for her gay son

2010-01-25T21:57:00.000-08:00

Hawaii: Measure on Same-Sex Unions Advances

2010-01-25T16:32:00.001-08:00

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: January 22, 2010

The Senate has approved same-sex civil unions on a vote of 18 to 7, setting up the measure for final passage in the House. The vote sent a strong signal that the Legislature’s Democratic majority has enough votes to override a potential veto from Gov. Linda Lingle, a Republican. The measure would grant gay and straight couples the same rights and benefits the state provides to married couples.

United Kingdom: Christian MPs want to amend hate crime legislation

2010-01-25T16:27:00.000-08:00

By Tony Grew • December 21, 2007

Pink News

Devout Roman Catholics Ann Widdecombe and Jim Dobbin are among the MPs attempting to amend the government's proposal to make incitement to hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation a criminal offense.

A cross-party group of MPs has tabled an amendment designed to ensure that homophobic Christians can continue to express their views on gay people.

Christian Concern for our Nation, a pressure group which attempts to "stand up against a tide of unChristian legal and political changes in the United Kingdom," is urging its supporters to pressure MPs into supporting the new amendment.

Concerns about freedom of speech in relation to the new proposed homophobic incitement law have already been addressed by the government and MPs when the proposal was put before a committee.

Stonewall, the gay equality organisation, gave evidence about the sort of incitement to homophobic murder and hatred that goes unchallenged.

Chief executive Ben Summerskill quoted extensively from the homophobic lyrics of dancehall star Beenie Man and others to demonstrate the nature of their comments about gay men and lesbians.

Mr Summerskill rejected concerns that a law banning incitement to religious hatred would be used to silence the voices of religious people who regard homosexuality as a sin.

"We are crystal clear that people are perfectly entitled to express their religious views. We are also crystal clear that the temperate expression of religious views should not be covered by the legislation.

"One might also want to look at the context in which any expression is made that people should be killed or put to death because they are homosexual.

"Members of the Committee will be mindful that that is from chapter 20, verse 13 of Leviticus.

"One might want to inquire whether that person was pursuing and articulating what is said in verse 10 or in verse 16 with quite so much enthusiasm; those versus make the same requirement that anyone who has committed adultery or who blasphemes is to be put to death.

"Clearly, in context it would be a very good defence to say, 'Well, I have been going around telling every adulterer and homosexual that I meet that they should be put to death.'

"Quite often and quite by chance, we find people choosing to peddle their particular obsession with homosexuals out of that religious context as a whole."

The homophobic incitement provisions were later passed by the whole committee, and none of the Tory MPs voted against them.

The new amendment from Christian MPs reads:

"Nothing in this part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion of, criticism of or expressions of antipathy towards, conduct relating to a particular sexual orientation, or urging persons of a particular sexual orientation to refrain from or modify conduct relating to that orientation."

Among the MPs asking for the right to show antipathy towards their gay constituents are: Lib Dems Colin Breed (South East Cornwall) and Alan Beith (Berwick Upon Tweed); Conservatives Philip Hollobone (Kettering) and Ann Widdecombe (Maidstone and the Weald); and Labour MPs David Taylor (North West Leicestershire) and Jim Dobbin (Heywood and Middleton).

There will be a vote on the amendment on 9th January.

Highlands Evangelical Church In Denver Area Takes More Inclusive Role Toward Gays In Church

2010-01-19T00:04:00.000-08:00

DENVER — The auditorium lights turned low, the service begins with the familiar rhythms of church: children singing, hugs and handshakes of greeting, a plea for donations to fix the boiler.

Then the 55-year-old pastor with spiked gray hair and blue jeans launches into his weekly welcome, a poem-like litany that includes the line "queer or straight here, there's no hate here."

The Rev. Mark Tidd initially used the word "gay." But he changed it to "queer" because it's the preferred term of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people invited to participate fully at Highlands Church.

Tidd is an outlaw pastor of sorts. His community, less than a year old, is an evangelical Christian church guided both by the Apostle's Creed and the belief that gay people can embrace their sexual orientation as God-given and seek fulfillment in committed same-sex relationships.

Disagreements over homosexuality and the Bible have divided mainline Protestant churches for years. In evangelical churches, though, the majority view has held firm – the Bible clearly condemns homosexual acts. The common refrain at evangelical churches: "love the sinner, hate the sin."

But with younger evangelicals and broader society showing greater acceptance of homosexuality, many evangelical churches can expect, at the least, a deeper exploration of the issue.

"Highlands Church represents a breakout position, where you have a gay-affirming stance that moves beyond the traditional kind of liberal-conservative divide," said Mark Achtemeier, an associate professor at University of Dubuque Theological Seminary, which is affiliated with the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). "I'm finding lots of moderate conservatives just think there's something wrong with a default position of excluding gays from the life of the church."

David Dockery, president of Union University, a Southern Baptist school in Jackson, Tenn., believes Highlands is – and is likely to remain – outside of the mainstream of evangelical churches.

Gay marriage became legal on New Year's Day in New Hampshire

2010-01-01T23:43:00.000-08:00

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Friday, Jan. 1, 2010

CONCORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE – Jubilant gay couples have rung in the New Year in New Hampshire with wedding vows to celebrate the state's new law legalizing same-sex marriage.

At midnight, New Hampshire joined Massachusetts, Vermont, Connecticut and Iowa in allowing gay marriage.

About 15 couples braved the cold to exchange vows outside the New Hampshire State House in Concord. Others planned private ceremonies around the state.

The law grants no new rights to gays but eliminates the separate status for civil unions.

Couples already in civil unions have three options to convert their statuses to marriages. They can have marriage ceremonies, file marriage paperwork with their town clerks to convert their statuses during 2010 or wait until the unions are automatically converted in 2011.

Out And About: LGBT Legal -- The Call of the New Decade

2009-12-31T00:45:00.000-08:00

Huffington Post

2010 sounds like a futuristic place way over there and yet, here we are. The completion of a decade. What progress has been made and what have we learned?

2009 marked the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall Riots, when gay patrons of this Greenwich Village bar fought back during an unprovoked police raid "sparking the gay revolution." This was the start of something much more than annual parades and expressions of pride: this was the birth of a civil rights movement focused on social justice and equality under the law.

Looking at the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) Movement today the glass might look half empty. The FBI reports that hate crimes based on sexual orientation increased by 11 percent last year. The National Coalition of Anti-Violence Projects has reported a trend across the country demonstrating an escalation in violence against LGBT people, and there are many examples that support this trend. This summer, two transgender women, Leslie Mora and Carmella Etienne, were viciously attacked in Queens, New York on two separate occasions.

Also in Queens this fall, Jack Price, a 49-year-old man was beaten nearly to death for being gay, by two 20-somethings who shouted hateful epithets during their attack. After he regained consciousness Mr. Price reportedly said, "I don't understand how someone can do this to another human being." Me neither.

In September, armed members of the Atlanta Police Department's special force known as the "Red Dog Unit" dressed in paramilitary garb, rushed the Atlanta Eagle, a gay bar. Police shoved patrons to the floor while shouting obscenities and anti-gay remarks at them. They handcuffed and kicked some of the patrons, and searched their pockets and wallets for identification violating the men's Fourth Amendment rights prohibiting unlawful searches and seizures. The raid lasted over two hours, and when finished there was not a single arrest of a patron for any crime or violation. Is the 2009 Atlanta Eagle incident not eerily reminiscent of the 1969 Stonewall Inn raid?

In November, 19-year-old Jose Mercado was murdered by 26-year-old Juan Martinez Matos in Puerto Rico. Matos had been out looking for a female prostitute when he met Mercado, who was dressed in women's clothing. When Matos later realized Mercado was a man, he stabbed Mercado, decapitated him and burned his body. Matos has been charged with murder, but not as a hate crime, despite repeated confessions that he killed Mercado because Matos "hated gays." Why is this very clear case of hatred not being prosecuted as a hate crime when Puerto Rico has had a hate crimes law on the books since 2002? And what does it mean that federal authorities are merely monitoring this case as a "possible" hate crime in view of the recently enacted Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. hate crimes legislation?

Similar episodes of violence and hatred against LGBT people are reported elsewhere in the world. Recently in London there was a number of highly publicized crimes which left gay men dead, paralyzed or suffering from significant injuries. A well-known Honduran gay activist was kidnapped and then murdered in December following months of murders, rapes and other assaults of gay and transgender people in Honduras.

Earlier this month, Uganda shocked many with news of its proposed anti-gay legislation which mandated the death penalty for certain LGBT people. Representatives of the World Council of Christian Churches have publicly condemned this hate-filled legislation as violative of Christian teaching, and the Ugandan government has said that it will likely eliminate the death provision. Uganda will however, maintain the life imprisonment penalty for gays convicted of "homosexual acts" for, in the words Nsaba Buturo, whose title of Ethics and Integrity Minister appears something of a misnomer, homosexuality is a "moral perversion that must not be allowed to spread."

These examples of violence, discrimination and human rights violations underscore the view that the glass remains half empty for LGBT people worldwide. In the U.S., gays may still be expelled from the military despite risking their lives to protect the country because of the federal policy known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." LGBT people remain without federal workplace protection against discriminatory employment termination, and our relationships are still not accorded the universal acceptance and legal safeguards given to opposite-sex married couples.

Fortunately, we have also seen progress in the past ten years and these advances must not be undervalued.

In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Texas sodomy law in Lawrence v. Texas, finding a constitutional due process right of sexual privacy for consenting adults regardless of sexual orientation. The Lawrence decision resulted in the crumbling of criminal sodomy laws throughout the country leading legal scholar Lawrence Tribe to describe it as the "Brown v. Board of Education of gay and lesbian America."

This was the decade that saw gay people raised as religious leaders. Gene Robinson was confirmed as the first openly gay bishop in the Anglican Communion in 2003. Six years later the Reverend Mary Glasspool, a lesbian priest, was named a second bishop in the Episcopal Church. And in northern California Lisa Larges was ordained as the first lesbian minister in the Presbyterian Church.

LGBT people continued to emerge as political leaders during this decade. This year saw the election of Annise Parker as the first openly gay mayor of Houston, Texas. While a first in Houston, Ms. Parker is not the only gay mayor in the country. David Cicilline of Providence, Rhode Island, Sam Adams of Portland, Oregon, Denise Simmons of Cambridge, Massachusetts, (who succeeded Kenneth Reeves, the first openly gay African American mayor in the United States) are all openly gay. According to the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund, openly gay politicians have been elected to positions in city and state governments in Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia and Washington. Openly gay individuals have taken their place in our federal government as well, some of whom were appointed by President Obama who has spoken of his "unwavering" commitment to supporting LGBT people and our families.

And it was President Obama who addressed nearly 3000 people at this year's Annual National Dinner of the Human Rights Campaign, and promised that "you will see a time in which we as a nation finally recognize relationships between two men or two women as just as real and admirable as relationships between a man and a woman."

Which brings me to marriage equality. Despite continued resistance to same-sex relationships by many Christian conservatives and other opponents, we have witnessed marriage equality for LGBT people in jurisdictions all over the world.

In 2003, Massachusetts became the first state in the U.S. to recognize the constitutional right of same-sex couples to marry. Same-sex couples may now marry in Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire (as of January 1, 2010), Vermont and the District of Columbia. Marriage equality was won in California in 2008, when the state's supreme court recognized the constitutional right of marriage for LGBT people. The controversial voter referendum known as "Prop 8" subsequently eliminated this right, but 18,000 same-sex marriages already performed were upheld.

In May 2009, Maine's governor signed a freedom to marry law that permitted same-sex couples to marry in that state which was later overturned by a Prop 8-like voter referendum.

Other states in the country such as Nevada and New Jersey have broad legal protections for LGBT people in the form of domestic partnerships and civil unions, and still others now recognize same-sex marriages legally entered in foreign jurisdictions.

Same-sex couples may now marry in the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, South Africa, Norway, Sweden, and Mexico City. Just last month, a judge in Buenos Aires, Argentina granted a same-sex couple the right to marry.

In the U.S. there are several lawsuits challenging the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which discriminates against same-sex couples by permitting states to refuse to recognize valid civil marriages of LGBT people, and defines marriage as the legal union between a man and a woman. The Respect for Marriage Act, which was introduced in the House this fall, will repeal DOMA in its entirety if it becomes law.

We are making progress toward LGBT equality. But we have not yet evolved as a society to the point where we have implemented a compassionate, non-judgmental, "live and let live" mindset that will lead to full recognition of the civil rights of LGBT people and those in other marginalized groups.

The New Yorker recently ran an article on Caster Semenya, the South African runner who won the gold medal at the 2009 World Championships in Athletics. Ms. Semenya's gender was called into question following her win, and she was required to undergo gender testing. The article posited the following questions: What if we were to admit that we don't know the difference between men and women? Will we not then start to wonder about the way we've organized our entire world? To take this inquiry to the next level, what if we are not defined by our gender, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity and other differences, but rather by our commonalities? Where would the hatred go?

As this decade ticks to its close, I am left thinking about fear. Racism, heterosexism, misogyny and xenophobia are still fueling our lives and shaping our world, and the common denominator is fear. This fear, says Bishop Gene Robinson, has driven us to stop listening to one another. "Fear is a terrible thing...it is the opposite of faith", writes Robinson in his book, In the Eye of the Storm. Perhaps the call of the new decade will give us the strength to push beyond this fear, listen generously to those we perceive as "the other", and come together to create something extraordinary. Surely Coretta Scott King's wisdom applies to our time: hate is too great a burden to bear.

Two gay weddings on two continents, but only one happy ending

2009-12-30T03:52:00.001-08:00

It was a tale of two weddings continents apart, but there was to be only one happy ending.

In Argentina, Jose Maria Di Bello and Alex Freyre made history as the first same-sex couple to marry in Latin America. Thousands of miles away, Tiwonge Chimbalanga and Steven Monjeza became the first gay men to tie the knot in Malawi.

The different reactions to the two ceremonies, however, suggested that while gay rights in Latin America are advancing, in Africa they are going into reverse.

Although Di Bello and Freyre had to rely on subterfuge, a progressive provincial governor and a 1,500-mile trip to the continent's southern tip, their union was greeted as a breakthrough. Chimbalanga and Monjeza, however, were swiftly arrested and charged with gross public indecency. Campaigners warned that the move indicated a conservative backlash against homosexuality across Africa.

The couple took part in a symbolic, traditional ceremony on Saturday. They were watched by hundreds of onlookers in the conservative southern African state, where homosexuality is illegal and carries a maximum prison sentence of 14 years.

"We met at church where we both pray and we have been together for the last five months," Monjeza told Malawi's Nation newspaper.

The two men are due to appear in court tomorrow. Dave Chingwalu, a police spokesman, told the Reuters news agency they were likely to face further charges and would be held in separate cells.

Marlow Valentine, community engagement and empowerment manager of the Triangle Project in South Africa, said: "We are disgusted and outraged that this couple has been arrested and we call for their release. It is an infringement of their human rights." He said a hardening of attitudes towards gay rights across Africa was being encouraged by US-based Christian evangelical groups.

Uganda's parliament is debating legislation that will allow homosexuality to be punishable by death. Sudan and northern states in Nigeria can already enforce the death penalty. Burundi criminalised homosexuality this year, joining 37 African countries where gay sex is outlawed.

"We are certainly going backwards in terms of legislation," Valentine said. "South Africa is the only country in Africa that constitutionally protects the rights of gay people, but it has been
very quiet about other countries here becoming more conservative."

Daniel Molokele, a human rights lawyer based in South Africa, said: "It's very disappointing news and continues to take Africa backwards. Countries like Malawi and Uganda should be following the trend set by South Africa and adapting its constitution in a progressive way."

In Latin America policies and attitudes have mellowed over the past two decades and in most countries it is now illegal to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Buenos Aires, Bogota and Mexico City boast gay pride parades and gay-friendly districts where same-sex
couples can kiss and hold hands in public.

Yesterday Di Bello, 41, and Freyre, 39, became the continent's first gay married couple. The pair sidestepped a court ruling blocking theirwedding in Buenos Aires by holding the ceremony in Ushuaia, capital of Tierra del Fuego province and the world's southernmost city.

They exchanged rings at a civil ceremony witnessed by state and federal officials, prompting jubilation by gay rights activists and consternation from the Catholic church.

"My knees didn't stop shaking," said Di Bello. "We are the first gay couple in Latin America to marry." The couple, both Aids activists who have HIV, wore sports coats and red ribbons.

Argentina's constitution does not specify whether marriage must be between a man and a woman, in effect letting provincial and city officials interpret the law.

After officials in Buenos Aires balked at the last minute, Di Bello registered as a resident of Tierra del Fuego, hoping the governor, Fabiana Rios, a champion of gay rights, would back the wedding. The registration and ceremony were kept secret to avert legal challenges.

The governor said the marriage was "an important advance in human rights and social inclusion and we are very happy that this has happened in our state".

Same-sex civil unions have been legalised in Uruguay and parts of Argentina, Brazil and Mexico but same-sex marriage, which confers extra rights including adoption, was banned. Mexico City legalised same-sex marriage last week.

Houston Is Largest City to Elect Openly Gay Mayor

2009-12-21T02:31:00.000-08:00

By JAMES C. McKINLEY Jr.

Published: December 12, 2009

Cheers and dancing erupted at Ms. Parker’s campaign party as her opponent, fellow Democrat Gene Locke, a former city attorney, conceded defeat just after 10 p.m. when it became clear he could not overcome her lead.

Twenty minutes later, Ms. Parker appeared before ecstatic supporters at the city’s convention center and then joked that she was the first graduate of Rice University to be elected mayor. (She is, by the way.) Then she grew serious.

“Tonight the voters of Houston have opened the door to history,” she said, standing by her partner of 19 years, Kathy Hubbard, and their three adopted children. “I acknowledge that. I embrace that. I know what this win means to many of us who never thought we could achieve high office.”

With all precincts reporting, Ms. Parker had defeated Mr. Locke by 53 percent to 47 percent.

Throughout the campaign, Ms. Parker tried to avoid making an issue of her sexual orientation and emphasized her experience in overseeing the city’s finances. But she began her career as an advocate for gay rights in the 1980s, and it was lost on no one in Houston, a city of 2.2 million people, that her election marked a milestone for gay men and lesbians around the country.

Several smaller cities in other regions have chosen openly gay mayors, among them Providence, R.I., Portland, Ore., and Cambridge, Mass. But Ms. Parker’s success came in a conservative state where voters have outlawed gay marriage and a city where a referendum on granting benefits to same-sex partners of city employees was soundly defeated.

Turnout was light across the city on a rainy, foggy day, with only about 16 percent of registered voters going to the polls.

Ms. Parker’s sexual orientation did not become an issue in the race until after the general election produced no winner and led to a run-off between her and Mr. Locke, who is black and enjoys strong support among African-American voters.

The two Democrats differed very little on the issues. Mr. Locke, who is 61, promised to crack down on crime and expand the police department. Ms. Parker, 53, said her experience as controller made her a better candidate to steer the city through the tough financial times it now faces.

The candidates also started slinging stones at one another in final weeks as it became clear neither had a huge advantage in the few polls conducted here. Mr. Locke bashed Ms. Parker as “soft on crime” and suggested she favors tax increases. She portrayed him as nothing more than a lobbyist for developers.

But the ugliest attacks came from a group of black pastors who spoke out against Ms. Parker for what they called her gay agenda and two separate anti-gay advocates who sent out fliers in the mail calling attention to her support from gay groups and to her relationship with her partner. Mr. Locke denied having anything to do with the attacks, but two members of his finance committee gave $40,000 to help finance one of the mailings.

Some national gay-rights groups, meanwhile, came to the aid of Ms. Parker’s campaign with money and volunteers to staff telephone banks in a get-out-the-vote effort and to urge her likely supporters to vote.

Political strategists said that to win, Mr. Locke needed to carry a large majority of the black vote, which is usually around a third of the turnout, and to attract significant support from conservative whites, many of them Republicans, who are also about a third of the voting mix here.

The crowd at Ms. Parker’s speech included dozens of young gay men and lesbians who had volunteered on her campaign. Many were elated with the sense of history being made.

“It’s a huge step forward for Houston,” said one of the volunteers, Lindsey Dionne, who is lesbian. “It shows hate will not prevail in this city.”

Robert Shipman, who is gay and worked long hours for Ms. Parker, said: “The diversity in this room, it’s not just gay people, it’s gay, straight, black, white, Jew, Christian, Muslim, every kind of person. It took all of us to get to this point.”

For his part, Mr. Locke was gracious in defeat, calling for unity after what had sometimes been a heated campaign. “We have to all work together to bring our city closer and closer together,” he said.

Ms. Parker appeared to have cobbled together a winning coalition of white liberals and gay people, who were expected to turn out in large numbers.

Rachel Marcus contributed reporting from Houston.

Evangelical church opens doors fully to gays

2009-12-20T15:51:00.000-08:00

Evangelical church opens doors fully to gays

By ERIC GORSKI (AP)

DENVER — The auditorium lights turned low, the service begins with the familiar rhythms of church: children singing, hugs and handshakes of greeting, a plea for donations to fix the boiler.

Then the 55-year-old pastor with spiked gray hair and blue jeans launches into his weekly welcome, a poem-like litany that includes the line "queer or straight here, there's no hate here."

Disagreements over homosexuality and the Bible have divided mainline Protestant churches for years. In evangelical churches, though, the majority view has held firm — the Bible clearly condemns homosexual acts. The common refrain at evangelical churches: "love the sinner, hate the sin."

But with younger evangelicals and broader society showing greater acceptance of homosexuality, many evangelical churches can expect, at the least, a deeper exploration of the issue.

David Dockery, president of Union University, a Southern Baptist school in Jackson, Tenn., believes Highlands is — and is likely to remain — outside of the mainstream of evangelical churches.

"I don't think it can be taken for granted anymore that the traditional evangelical view will be adopted by the coming generations given the changes and shifts in our culture," Dockery said.

That makes it all the more important, he says, for evangelical leaders to clearly teach the traditional views on homosexuality.

The people of Highlands Church — those who stood with their renegade pastor and others who left feeling betrayed — have learned that taking an uncommon road comes at a cost.

___

Craig Ellsworth grew up in an Assemblies of God church and has spent most of his life in evangelical churches. He was an administrative pastor at a large church for 10 years.

But because Ellsworth is gay, he said he felt he could never fully be himself. While straight co-workers were encouraged to date and find partners, Ellsworth would risk losing his job if he did.

"There was what I was told in churches, and there was hearing God and knowing what I believe is true of God," said Ellsworth, 48, who is not in a relationship. "The two didn't really line up."

Ellsworth started attending Highlands Church last summer.

"I love being in a faith community that is loving and being Christlike to others without an agenda and without labels," said Ellsworth.

Tidd said Highlands is not a one-issue church but one committed to social justice. He describes it as "radically inclusive but still rooted in the essentials of the Gospel." The church discourages promiscuity and encourages healthy lifelong relationships.

Tidd said he supports gay marriage and would perform same-sex blessings if asked. A gay man in a committed relationship sits on the church's board of trustees.

"Our position is not one of lenience, but a matter of justice," said Tidd, a married father of five. "It's not that we don't acknowledge the reality of sin. It's not a sin to be gay or act in accordance with your nature."

Tidd was raised a nominal Catholic in Boulder, Colo. He had a born-again Christian experience and joined the Jesus movement of the 1960s, which blended hippie culture and Christianity. Eventually Tidd was ordained in the Christian Reformed Church and shared its conservative position of homosexuality.

His change of heart began when, as a pastor in Boulder, a distraught couple sought his counsel when their young daughter began identifying as a boy — introducing Tidd to the transgender issue.

He began to question applying the "plain meaning" of ancient Biblical text to here-and-now homosexuality. The Bible, read literally, suggests the earth is flat and could be used to justify slavery, he said.

He accepted the Biblical interpretation of other gay-affirming Christians: that verses condemning homosexual behavior refer to idolatrous pagan worship or violence.

"We reach an understanding of the Bible not just by studying God's word, but by studying his world," Tidd said. "If you think he's the author of both, they both inform each other."

If evangelicals can disagree about end-times theology and baptism methods and still be considered authentic Christians, he thought, why can't the same tent hold disagreements about homosexuality?

Tidd took his beliefs in 2006 to a job as a pastor at Denver's Pathways Church, an urban evangelical congregation that prides itself as a safe place to ask questions. Tidd said he didn't hide his views from church leaders but didn't air them at length as a pastor, either; homosexuality was never a central issue for the church.

But behind the scenes, the societal debate over homosexuality and Pathways' welcoming posture had forced its hand. Ed Briscoe, a member of Pathways' board of elders, said leaders felt they needed guidance on whether gay and lesbian members not living in celibacy should be allowed in church leadership.

A church elder produced a nine-page case for the traditional evangelical stance. While making clear the church does not consider homosexuality "the worst sin or the most evil practice," the statement says the Bible uniformly condemns homosexual relationships and only permits sex between a man and woman united in marriage. "God made male and female to fit together," it says, and homosexual acts violate God's intent.

The door at Pathways would remain open to gays and lesbians. But with leadership had to come celibacy.

___

There is disagreement about how the issue played out as Tidd was to launch Highlands as a Pathways satellite in a gentrifying Denver neighborhood last year. Tidd said he was told his stance on homosexuality would not be a problem, but Briscoe said it wasn't clear what Tidd intended for the new site.

Last summer, the Pathways statement on homosexuality, which had not been intended for general distribution, began circulating among church members. Tidd, who said he had only recently learned of the paper, began fielding questions about where he stood. Some Pathways members made it known they would stop donating if Tidd remained on staff, he said.

So Tidd and Pathways parted ways. Highlands become a stand-alone church no longer under Pathways' authority and Tidd announced it would be open and affirming to LGBT people.

Tidd said that in light of the decision, he also plans to give up his Christian Reformed Church ministerial credentials because his position conflicts with the denomination's.

The exodus from Highlands began as the reason for the break became known. Tidd said over two months, the church lost half its attendance and two-thirds of its financial support.

Jim and Chris Stuhr, who were members of Highlands' leadership team, said they were initially troubled after learning of Tidd's views and set out to research a subject they didn't know well.

Their conclusion — that the Bible strictly prohibits the practice of homosexuality — led to what the couple called a heart-wrenching decision to leave a church they had such hopes for.

"I have read the explanations and Biblical arguments of those who promote the gay lifestyle as acceptable in the Bible and it seems to me that they are an exercise in hermeneutical gymnastics," Jim Stuhr said.

At the same time, the church's position began to attract new members and strengthened the resolve of existing ones like Maura Weiler and Chad DiPrince, a married couple from the neighborhood.

"We have no real reason to champion this thing, other than we think it's right," said DiPrince, a 34-year-old Web developer and artist. "I just didn't feel God would tell a person to deny a big part of who they are and to keep it a secret."

For others, it's not black and white. Briscoe, the Pathways elder, said he and his wife are still weighing where they stand and worship at both Highlands and Pathways.

"I think people are going to reopen their Bible and look at it and not assume anymore," Briscoe said, adding that he thinks the Highlands position can be held by "mature, faithful, Bible-believing people."

The two churches maintain a relationship — their members will head to New Orleans over spring break to work on a housing rehabilitation project, and other joint service projects are planned.

Just over a month ago, 81 adults showed up for 10 a.m. services at Highlands Church. Tidd started draping white ribbon over the back rows so people would sit together up front.

Last Sunday, there was a record crowd of 220. The auditorium was twinkling with Christmas lights. And four couples carried babies to the front of the church for Tidd to bless.

Ireland, once a Catholic bastion, promises civil unions for same-sex couples

2009-12-07T22:21:00.000-08:00

Ireland, amid fast cultural change, is set to approve civil unions for same sex couples.

By Jason Walsh | Correspondent

Christian Science Monitor

12.07.09

Dublin, Ireland – As the United States engages in a heated debate over gay marriage, European Union countries are rapidly striding toward total recognition of same-sex civil unions, if not marriage. The most recent example is Ireland.Last Thursday saw Ireland become the latest country to edge toward marriage equality for homosexual couples. The Irish parliament read and debated the Civil Partnership Bill 2009, introduced by Minister for Justice Dermot Ahern.

Despite Ireland’s socially conservative image, opposition to the bill is virtually non-existent and will likely pass into law this month with widespread support from opposition parties Fine Gael and Labour as well as the governing coalition of Fianna Fáil and the Green Party.

If passed, the bill would see Ireland join a club of nine EU members that officially recognize civil unions. In addition, a further four EU countries – Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain and Sweden – fully recognize same-sex marriages.

In the US, meanwhile, Maine and New York last month became the 31st and 32nd states, respectively, to vote against same-sex marriage though five states allow it and New Jersey may soon make six.

The Irish bill would grant same-sex couples rights in relation to domestic violence, residential tenancies, succession, refugee law, pensions, medical care, and equal access to state benefits and immigration.

Minister Ahern has told the few dissenters in his Fianna Fáil party that he would not allow the bill to be reworded to include a “freedom of conscience” amendment that would see businesses, organizations, and individuals who objected to homosexuality choose to treat gays in a civil union as singles.

Despite the fact that the bill represents a sea-change in Irish attitudes to sexual orientation, many have complained that it still allows some discrimination.

“The bill is clearly a stepping stone but does not go far enough,” says political commentator and election adviser Robert Cassidy. “It has failed to address the rights of the child within a civil partnership as described with the bill and that is a major flaw.”

MarrigEquality, a group that argues for full recognition of same-sex marriages, complains that the bill in fact institutionalizes discrimination. “Civil partnership without the option to marry sends a clear message out to the public that the government do not consider gay and lesbian relationships to be equal,” says the organization’s director Moninne Griffith.

Similar laws in the UK are set to be tested as a heterosexual couple, Tom Freeman and Katherine Doyle, have threatened to take the British government to the European Court of Human Rights after they were refused a civil union on the basis that only homosexual couples could be registered.

The latest move in Ireland comes against the backdrop of a country undergoing radical social and economic change. Ireland’s furious economic growth – and recent decline – are well known around the world, but the country is also undergoing a spiritual transformation.

Despite the passage into law of an act outlawing blasphemy, Ireland is a less religious country today than at at any point in its history. The Catholic Church, long the lodestone of Irish life, has been hard-hit by seemingly endless revelations about child sex abuse perpetrated by priests – and covered-up by the Church hierarchy with the support of police.

Ireland’s transformation has been relatively rapid. Condoms were legalized in 1985 and divorce in 1997. Homosexuality ceased to be a criminal offense in 1993 after the country was taken to the European Court of Human Rights by academic David Norris, an openly gay man who is now a senator in the Upper House of Ireland’s parliament.

Abortion remains outlawed in Ireland with the primary objections being from religious groups, both Catholic and Protestant, who stand united on the issue.

Latin America's first gay marriage halted

2009-12-06T11:37:00.000-08:00

Buenos Aires, Argentina (CNN) -- Latin America's first same-sex marriage, set to be held in Argentina on Tuesday, appeared derailed after a judge filed an injunction to stop the union until the issue can be reviewed further.

Judge Marta Gomez Alsina's ruling blocks an earlier holding by another judge that found city laws banning same-sex marriage unconstitutional, the court said in a statement.

Alex Freyre and Jose Maria di Bello had planned to make their marriage official at a civil ceremony and chose December 1 because it is World AIDS Day.

The registrar responsible for the civil marriages in Buenos Aires has been notified of the ruling, the court said.

The couple would attempt to get their wedding license anyway, the official Telam news agency reported.

"We're continuing with the preparations because we, as planners, nor the couple itself, have not been notified" of the injunction, said Maria Rachid, president of the Argentine Federation for Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals and Transsexuals, according to the news agency.

Gomez Alsina's injunction could not overturn the earlier ruling because she is a trial-level judge and not an appellate judge, Rachid said.

The original ruling was made on November 10 by another trial-level judge, Gabriela Seijas, who responded to a petition made by Freyre and di Bello.

Seijas ruled that the ban on same-sex marriage was illegal and ordered the proper authorities to grant the couple a marriage license if they applied for one.

The court's decision applied only to Buenos Aires. Same-sex unions in most of Argentina remain illegal.

"The law should treat each person with equal respect in relation to each person's singularities without the need to understand or regulate them," Seijas said in her ruling.

Buenos Aires Mayor Mauricio Macri said after the ruling that his government would not appeal the decision.

Monday's ruling was a temporary measure to postpone the marriage until Seijas' original ruling could be reviewed in depth, presumably by an appeals court or the supreme court, the court statement said

Countries in Latin America, a region strongly identified with the Catholic Church, have recently given more attention to gay rights.

In September Uruguay became the first Latin American country to allow same-sex adoption.

Brazil, Colombia and Ecuador are also addressing the issue of same-sex civil unions.

World AIDS Day: Witness to Compassion

2009-12-02T03:22:00.000-08:00

World AIDS Day: Witness to Compassion

By: Diana Butler Bass

Tuesday December 1, 2009

Categories: AIDS, Christians

December 1 is World AIDS Day--a day to remind the human family of the toll of the AIDS epidemic and take stock of progress against the disease. It is, indeed, a global day that connects rich and poor, people of all races and creeds, and men, women, and children in a common understanding of our fragility, our responsibilities, and our compassion for one another.

For those of us personally touched by AIDS, it is also a day to remember friends and family lost--a sort of contemporary Day of the Dead. In many ways, I was the last person one would expect to have been directly affected by the AIDS epidemic. In the late 1970s, I was a student at an evangelical Christian college in California, a place known more for New Testament scholarship and mission trips than wild weekends in San Francisco.

Yet the late 1970s were the heady days of the gays rights movement and Harvey Milk. When Anita Bryant's anti-gay crusade came to our state, many of my evangelical classmates supported her movement. But a few classmates did not. Instead, they choose to come out.

One was my friend Jeffrey Michael. We were part of a tight group of people who formed a community of questioners at the college; we tended toward theological, literary, and political edginess in the midst of the evangelical environment. In the safe embrace of youthful friendship, Jeffrey Michael told us that he was gay.

He was the first person I ever knew who had come out; the first person I ever knew who said he was "gay"; and the first person I knew who was seriously a gay Christian. He was kind, funny, caring, faithful, and thoughtful--with a blistering theological intellect and a profound trust in God's presence in one's life. He wanted to become an Episcopal priest (long before such things were openly discussed). While we were students, he was in a car accident, nearly died, and suffered brain damage. But, miraculously enough, he pressed through intensive therapy and graduated with honors in religious studies.

But our friendship was not easy. Of the questioning friends, I was usually the last person to change my mind on any issue; I struggled with Jeffrey Michael's confident sense of identity. I had been raised to believe that it was wrong to be gay--socially, morally, and biblically. Jeffrey Michael and I had blistering fights over scripture and theology. Although I was loath to admit it at the time, his arguments shook me to the core. And many days, it was easier to ignore him and escape to my own comfortable prejudices than to deeply engage the challenges he presented to my small world.

I tried not to listen, but I had heard. I heard his testimony of joy, of self-discovery, of pain, of fear--of all the complex emotions of a young gay man seeking to understand God and the world. After college, he became a nurse to AIDS patients and poured himself out to the "untouchables" of the 1980s as a sort of "Brother Teresa," a priest without formal ordination, among those whom the church then wanted to forget. Eventually, he died with them: A priest who became a victim, the nurse who succumbed to the plague.

If you googled him, you would not find him. For all these things happened in the days before the Internet. Jeffrey Michael's witness exists only in the memory of friends and family. His name may be on the AIDS quilt. Yet, in life, Jeffrey Michael heroically embodied three great concerns of our day: faith, homosexuality, and AIDS. By the way he lived and died, he showed that compassion is the foundation of true Christianity, compassion toward those who are outsiders by either identity or disease. He taught me that the way of Jesus is marked by practicing hospitality--the act of welcoming the stranger--no matter how different or frightening the stranger may be--to the table of God.

All these years later, evangelicals like Rick Warren take great pride in their involvement in AIDS issues in Africa and get "face time" on cable news trumpeting their compassion. Yet Rick Warren still thinks it is appropriate to deny gay and lesbian persons basic human rights in both the US and Africa. Apparently, his compassion only extends to people who don't "deserve" AIDS. My evangelical hero is Jeffrey Michael. As a young believer, he didn't just preach compassion or donate money to a cause. He lived compassion. And he lived it courageously by taking the risk to be fully human--just as God created him--and was willing to challenge his community in friendship and love no matter what the cost. And Jeffrey Michael knew the cost of compassion. On this World AIDS Day, I remember him.

http://blog.beliefnet.com/progressiverevival/2009/12/world-aids-day-witness-to-comp.html

If Uganda Executes Gays, Will American Christians be Complicit?

2009-12-01T05:59:00.000-08:00

If Uganda Executes Gays, Will American Christians be Complicit?
Posted: 12/1/09

A bill currently before the Ugandan Parliament sounds like an absurdist scenario from some liberal nightmare about a theocratic state: Under the proposed law -- which appears to have strong public support -- criminal penalties on homosexual acts in the East African nation would be made much harsher, and include the death penalty.

Killing homosexuals for having sex? Just as shocking, however, are the links between the proposal and American Christians who have at times been rousing cheerleaders for Uganda's draconian statutes.

A key episode in the trail of evidence was an event in March 2009 in the capital, Kampala, that drew three well-known conservative Christian activists from the United States who are prominent in the so-called ex-gay movement that seeks to "convert" homosexuals to make them straight.

The three men, Scott Lively of Abiding Truth Ministries, Don Schmierer of Exodus International and the International Healing Foundation, and Lee Brundidge, who often works with a group called Extreme Prophetic, were invited to the conference of the Family Life Network of Uganda to help organize what Lively called "an effective social and political force" to combat "anti-family Western agitators." Those agitators, he said, are led by gay activists in Europe and the United States who "plan to spread sexual anarchy throughout the world under the guise of 'human rights' and 'family planning.' "

If that message sounds over-the-top to American ears, it plays well in places like Uganda, where grass-roots sentiment against gays and anti-gay (and anti-Western) rhetoric from hardline Muslims can set the tone of the discourse.

In their talks to the conference of parents, politicians and educators, the trio provided a host of other anti-gay talking points as well. They said homosexuals are "out to destroy the country," according to reports from the scene, and they said that legalizing homosexuality is akin to legalizing "the molestation of children or having sex with animals." Lively, who has gained notoriety for arguing that homosexuals were the real force behind the rise of Nazism, was also invited to address the Ugandan Parliament. By his own account, his hosts "were very pleased."

Soon after the conference, the Family Life Network and its political allies got to work and on Oct. 15 introduced the Anti-Homosexuality Bill of 2009, which aims to "protect the traditional family by prohibiting any form of sexual relations between persons of the same sex."

Although some proponents argue that the proposed legislation is not that much worse than current laws in Uganda that criminalize gay sex, the current bill creates severe new penalties: For one thing, it would add a seven-year jail term for anyone who "attempts to commit the offense" of homosexuality or who "aids, abets, counsels or procures another to engage in acts of homosexuality." And anyone convicted of publishing information about homosexuality, or providing funds or premises for homosexual activity, would receive a seven-year jail sentence or a fine of $50,000. Authorities who fail to report homosexuals within 24 hours of discovering their behavior can be punished by up to three years in prison. Moreover, the bill defines homosexual sex (it's pretty explicit) as even attempting to touch another person of the same sex with the "intention" of having sex; this can even occur through clothing.

But it is the provision for capital punishment for "aggravated homosexuality" -- defined as having gay sex with disabled people or anyone under 18, or when the accused is HIV-positive -- that has raised alarms among human rights groups and some American Christians.

Ten days after the bill's introduction, Warren Throckmorton, a well-known evangelical speaker who is himself affiliated with gay-switching ministries, wrote an online column denouncing the actions of the Lively, Schmierer and Brundidge, and pointing the finger of responsibility at his fellow believers in America:

"Jailing or killing gays or those suspected of being gay cannot create a righteous people, and in fact may further a self-righteous people," Throckmorton wrote. "Christians in the U.S may have unwittingly contributed to the deteriorating state of freedom in Uganda. Now, we need to help right those wrongs by calling on our Ugandan brothers and sisters to back away from this bill."

American commenters on his piece ranged from those who applauded Throckmorton's courage to those who supported the criminalization of homosexuality.

Lively himself struck back in one of the comments: "I do not now and have never supported incarceration for homosexuals and was in Uganda to advocate for treatment of homosexuals as an alternative to incarceration, similar to what benefited me when arrested for drunk driving years ago in my pre-Christian days." He added that he does not support "the harsh law as currently proposed."

Lively's approach would maintain the criminalization of homosexuality, however. And writing in June about his Uganda trip, Lively boasted that he encouraged Ugandans to maintain a "sufficient legal deterrent to prevent the international 'gay' juggernaut from homosexualizing the society." In a Nov. 27 interview with LifeSiteNews, a conservative Catholic Web site, Lively again blamed gay men in the West for prompting the new law. He repeated that he thought the current bill too "harsh" but he defended the criminalization of homosexuality.

Yet much more is in play here than the actions and arguments of a handful of Christian activists from America.
Many leading U.S. Christians have longstanding ties to churches in Uganda, and may, some argue, have had a hand in promoting the policies that culminated in the new anti-homosexuality bill.

Many top U.S. politicians are also invested in Uganda. The Bush administration liked to present the country as a model of pro-abstinence, anti-condom AIDS prevention policies (a claim that some dispute), and author Jeff Sharlet recently revealed close ties between The Family -- the secretive network of conservative American Christians that includes leading Sens. James Inhofe, Sam Brownback, Tom Coburn and Mike Enzi -- and the Ugandan legislator, David Bahati, who introduced the tough new anti-gay bill.

These American and African Christians have many things in common, but a frequent tie is a shared dislike -- bordering on detestation -- of homosexuality and homosexuals. Ugandan Christianity, like the faith in much of Africa and the Southern Hemisphere, is booming and orthodox on matters of sex, and is seen by Americans evangelicals in particular as fertile territory for mission work. It is also seen as a bulwark against an even more traditionalist Islam, as well as a breeding ground for Christian allies in the culture wars being fought in the West.

Rick Warren, perhaps America's most prominent megachurch evangelical and author of the mega-selling "Purpose-Driven Life," has particularly strong ties to Uganda, which he has declared a "Purpose-Driven Nation." Warren's point man in Uganda was Martin Ssempa, a pastor who is a strong backer of the Anti-Homosexuality bill. Ssempa has appeared at Warren's Saddleback Church, although Warren distanced himself from Ssempa's views in October and said he had cut ties with him in 2007.

But in a statement to Newsweek on Sunday, Warren also declined to condemn the pending legislation that Ssempa and others back:

"The fundamental dignity of every person, our right to be free, and the freedom to make moral choices are gifts endowed by God, our creator," Warren said. "However, it is not my personal calling as a pastor in America to comment or interfere in the political process of other nations."
Yet as Throckmorton has said, American Christians who have been cultivating ties and sharing views with Ugandan Christians are past the point of taking such a hands-off approach. In March 2008, Warren told Ugandan media that he supported a boycott of the Lambeth Conference of the Anglican Communion by Uganda's bishops over the issue of homosexuality -- even though Warren is a Southern Baptist. Warren also said homosexuality is not a natural way of life and thus not a human right and added, "We shall not tolerate this aspect at all."

At the very least, such rhetoric is like throwing a lighted match into a tinderbox. Homosexuality is a taboo in many African societies to a far greater extent than it is in the United States, and in Uganda it can be a weapon against adversaries; politicians will, for example, leak the names of opponents they say are gay, and accommodating tabloids will print the names, which can end a career or result in jail time.

American Christians who help sow such sentiments may be held liable -- at least morally -- for the results. A Nov. 18 report, "Globalizing the Culture Wars: U.S. Conservatives, African Churches, and Homophobia," from the liberal think tank Political Research Associates (PRA), documents how extensive -- and influential -- those contacts are.

"Just as the United States and other northern societies routinely dump our outlawed or expired chemicals, pharmaceuticals, machinery, and cultural detritus on African and other Third World countries, we now export a political discourse and public policies our own society has discarded as outdated and dangerous," Tarso Luís Ramos, head of the PRA, says in the foreword to the report. "Africa's anti-gay campaigns are to a substantial degree made in the U.S.A."
Whether those campaigns will succeed is still an open question. Despite wide support for the bill in parliament, Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni may seek to stall the legislation for fear of losing international support.

But many Ugandan church leaders have also signaled their support for the broader bill if the death-penalty provision is removed. "I think the death penalty is not acceptable," Anglican Bishop Stanley Ntagali of Masindi-Kitara diocese has said. "I think taking someone to jail for a period of time would be sufficient."

With an estimated 500,000 gays and lesbians among Uganda's 31 million residents, they better start building prisons fast.

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/12/01/if-uganda-executes-gays-will-american-christians-be-complicit/

Uganda Uganda considers death sentence for gay sex in bill before parliament

2009-11-30T04:55:00.000-08:00

Uganda Uganda considers death sentence for gay sex in bill before parliament

• Minimum penalty is life in jail, under anti-homosexuality bill

• US evangelists are main activists behind measure

As a gay Ugandan, Frank Mugisha has endured insults from strangers, hate messages on his phone, police harassment and being outed in a tabloid as one of the country's "top homos". That may soon seem like the good old days.

Life imprisonment is the minimum punishment for anyone convicted of having gay sex, under an anti-homosexuality bill currently before Uganda's parliament. If the accused person is HIV positive or a serial offender, or a "person of authority" over the other partner, or if the "victim" is under 18, a conviction will result in the death penalty.

Members of the public are obliged to report any homosexual activity to police with 24 hours or risk up to three years in jail – a scenario that human rights campaigners say will result in a witchhunt.Ugandans breaking the new law abroad will be subject to extradition requests.

"The bill is haunting us," said Mugisha, 25, chairman of Sexual Minorities Uganda, a coalition of local lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex groups that will all be banned under the law. "If this passes we will have to leave the country."

Human rights groups within and outside Uganda have condemned the proposed legislation, which is designed to strengthen colonial-era laws that already criminalise gay sex. The issue threatened to overshadow the Commonwealth heads of government meeting that ended in Trinidad and Tobagotoday, with the UK and Canada both expressing strong concerns. Ahead of the meeting Stephen Lewis, a former UN envoy on Aids in Africa, said the law "makes a mockery of Commonwealth principles" and has "a taste of fascism" about it.

But within Uganda deeply-rooted homophobia, aided by a US-linked evangelical campaign alleging that gay men are trying to "recruit" schoolchildren, and that homosexuality is a habit that can be "cured", has ensured widespread public support for the bill.

President Yoweri Museveni appeared to add his backing earlier this month, warning youths in Kampala that he had heard that "European homosexuals are recruiting in Africa", and saying gay relationships were against God's will.

"We used to say Mr and Mrs, but now it is Mr and Mr. What is that now?" he said. In a interview with the Guardian, James Nsaba Buturo, the minister of state for ethics and integrity, said the government was determined to pass the legislation, ideally before the end of 2009, even if meant withdrawing from international treaties and conventions such as the UN's Universal Declaration on Human Rights, and foregoing donor funding.

"We are talking about anal sex. Not even animals do that," Butoro said, adding that he was personally caring for six "former homosexuals" who had been traumatised by the experience. "We believe there are limits to human rights."

Homosexuality has always been a taboo subject in Uganda, and is considered by many to be an affront both to local culture and religion, which plays a strong role in family life. This negative stigma and the real threat of job loss means that no public personality has ever "come out".

Even local HIV campaigns – which have been heavily influenced by the evangelical church with a bias towards abstinence over condom use – have deliberately avoided targeting gay men for both prevention and access to treatment.

"This means many gay men here think Aids is a non-issue, which is so dangerous," said Mugisha, who together with a few colleagues, has risked arrest by agitating in recent years for a change in the HIV policy.

At the same time, some influential religious leaders have warned about the dangers of accepting liberal western attitudes towards homosexuality.

Both opponents and supporters agree that the impetus for the bill came in March during a seminar in Kampala to "expose the truth behind homosexuality and the homosexual agenda".

The main speakers were three US evangelists: Scott Lively, Don Schmierer and Caleb Lee Brundidge. Lively is a noted anti-gay activist and president of Defend the Family International, a conservative Christian association, while Schmierer is an author who works with "homosexual recovery groups". Brundidge is a "sexual reorientation coach" at the International Healing Foundation.

The seminar was organised by Stephen Langa, a Ugandan electrician turned pastor who runs the Family Life Network in Kampala and has been spreading the message that gays are targeting schoolchildren for "conversion". "They give money to children to recruit schoolmates – once you have two children, the whole school is gone," he said in an interview. Asked if there had been any court case to prove this was happening, he replied: "No, that's why this law is needed."

After the conference Langa arranged for a petition signed by thousands of concerned parents to be delivered to parliament in April. Within a few months the bill had been drawn up.

Christopher Senyonjo, a retired Anglican bishop, said the bill would push Uganda towards being a police state. "This law is being influenced by some evangelicals abroad," he said. "There's a lack of understanding about homosexuality – it's not recruitment, it's orientation."

But among religious leaders of all faiths his is a rare voice. Langa, the pastor, said the only thing lacking in the legislation was a clause for "rehabilitation" of homosexuals, whom he "loves" and wants to help. Gay rights had the potential to destroy civilisation, as the west could soon find out, he said.

"As one parent told me: 'We would rather live in grass huts with our morality than in skyscrapers among homosexuals'."

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2009

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/29/uganda-death-sentence-gay-sex/print

Conservatives vow resistance on abortion, gay marriage

2009-11-22T01:41:00.000-08:00

By ADELLE M. BANKS

RELIGION NEWS SERVICE

11/21/2009

WASHINGTON -- Facing what they consider "threats" from American culture, prominent Catholic, evangelical and Orthodox Christian leaders are vowing unspecified civil disobedience against abortion, same-sex marriage and limits on religious liberty.

"We are Christians who have joined together across historic lines of ecclesial differences to affirm our right -- and more importantly, to embrace our obligation -- to speak and act in defense of these truths," reads the seven-page "Manhattan Declaration."

"We pledge to each other, and to our fellow believers, that no power on earth, be it cultural or political, will intimidate us into silence or acquiescence."

More than a dozen Christian leaders -- including Catholic bishops, an Orthodox priest, and officials of evangelical organizations -- endorsed the document at the National Press Club. Organizers on Friday (Nov. 20) claimed about 150 initial signatories.

Archbishop Justin Rigali of Philadelphia cited increasing numbers of troubling incidents that he said sparked the new concerted approach, including doctors expected to refer or perform abortions despite their own objections, acceptance of embryonic stem cell research and assisted suicide, and the risk of marriage being "redefined in its very essence."

"If someone asks, `Why now? What is the urgency of a declaration of conscience by Eastern Orthodox, Protestant and Catholic leaders?', we say we must speak now because justice, which is love in action, demands that we not remain silent in the face of these threats," Rigali said.

Supporters said possible civil disobedience would be up to individuals, but could include closing facilities or paying fines.

Princeton University professor Robert George, a drafter of the document, said people need to be "prepared to make sacrifices," just as the late Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. did when he faced jail during the civil rights movement.

The declaration specifically states initiatives to recognize same-sex marriage are not the "cause" of damage to the institution of marriage, which has been eroded by divorce and infidelity.

"What we don't want to do is lock in any understanding of marriage that will become itself an impediment to us rebuilding the marriage culture," said George, a Catholic layman and prominent ethicist.

Ronald Sider, director of the traditionally progressive group Evangelicals for Social Action and a signatory, said he viewed the document as "not partisan" but an embracing of Christian values.

"This is not a political ploy," Sider said.

Several supporters said their concerns existed before President Obama took office last January, but the administration's support for expanding embryonic stem cell research only enhances their need to speak up.

Critics, including the group Americans United for Separation of Church and State, questioned whether the motives of the declaration's supporters were ultimately political.

"I am optimistic that the people in the pews will not heed their leaders' misguided call to action," said the Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United. "Polls show that most churchgoers do not want to see their faith politicized. But I am well aware that religious leaders have vast lobbying power that cannot be ignored."

Bill to extend benefits to same-sex partners advances

2009-11-19T00:38:00.000-08:00

By Joe Davidson

Washington Times

Thursday, November 19, 2009

The effort to expand domestic benefits to the same-sex partners of federal employees took another step forward Wednesday when a House committee advanced legislation to do just that.

After sometimes heated debate, the 23 to 12 vote in the Oversight and Government Reform Committee broke down along party lines, with the victorious Democrats arguing that the measure is a matter of fairness and equality. Republicans opposed it because, among other things, they said it would undermine the concept that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

"As a matter of simple fairness and equality, this is the right step for the federal government to take at this time," said Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-N.Y.), the committee chairman. "Providing gay and lesbian federal workers with the same family benefits that their married colleagues receive will ensure that the federal government maintains its role as a model employer in the United States."

Under the legislation, same-sex partners would be able to share the workers' benefits, including those covering health insurance, retirement and disability. The employee would have to sign an affidavit certifying that the relationship meets certain standards in the measure that define domestic partnership.

Democrats said that the current lack of benefits for same-sex partners conflicts with the principle of equal pay for equal work. With a significant portion of employee compensation coming from the benefit package, employees who can share those benefits with members of their households are effectively more highly compensated than those who cannot.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) was succinct in his opposition. "I, for one, stand tall for traditional marriage. I think the American people stand tall for traditional marriage," he said, citing the repeated failures of gay-marriage advocates to pass state referenda on the issue.

Seemingly unaware that Republicans lost the last election, Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.) cited opposition to the legislation from the Office of Personnel Management -- the agency's stance under President George W. Bush.

In stark contrast to that position, President Obama's OPM director, John Berry, told a House hearing in July that "the White House and the Office of Personnel Management wholeheartedly endorse passage of this bill."

That same month, Obama issued a presidential memorandum that extended a limited set of benefits to same-sex partners. The directive allows them to be added to long-term-care insurance policies and says employees will be allowed to use their sick leave to care for same-sex partners.

Much of the discussion centered on a series of defeated Republican amendments. In one of the more heated moments, Rep. Patrick J. Kennedy (D-R.I.) accused Republicans of "playing on bigotry" during debate on an amendment that would have required those getting benefits to prove they were not illegal immigrants.

The largest federal employees union has asked the president to end the Federal Career Intern Program, saying "it undermined merit system protections and restricted the federal, competitive hiring process."

In a letter to Obama, the American Federation of Government Employees complained that managers use the program to bypass the measures that are designed to ensure fairness in federal hiring.

"If not eliminated or dramatically revised, FCIP's inherent lack of transparency has the ability to undermine basic civil service protections that date back to the Pendleton Act over 100 years ago," AFGE President John Gage said in a statement Wednesday. "The FCIP simply is not compatible with merit system protections. And we know that the federal workforce cannot succeed at the expense of merit systems principles or at the expense of competitive fairness."

Not to be confused with a summer intern program for college students, the FCIP is a two-year, highly structured program meant to help agencies fill critical needs.

Along with the letter, Gage sent a proposed executive order that he would like Obama to issue. It would revise the program by calling on OPM to establish merit-based principles for the recruitment, placement and development of career interns.

The program also has long been a target of the National Treasury Employees Union, which has taken legal action against it. The NTEU says that rather than using the program as a supplement to merit-based hiring, some agencies misuse it through overuse.

According to the NTEU, Customs and Border Protection has used the intern program for years as its sole means of hiring new officers, and 62 percent of the Social Security Administration's new hires came through the program in fiscal year 2008.

New Turn in Debate Over Law on Marriage

2009-11-16T16:53:00.000-08:00

By IAN URBINA

New York Times

Published: November 12, 2009

WASHINGTON — The fight over a proposed same-sex marriage law here heated up this week as the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Washington said that if the law passed, the church would cut its social service programs that help residents with adoption, homelessness and health care.

Under the bill, which has the mayor’s support and is expected to pass next month, religious organizations would not be required to perform same-sex weddings or make space available for them.

But officials from the archdiocese said they feared the law might require them to extend employee benefits to same-sex married couples. As a result, they said, the archdiocese would have to abandon its contracts with the city if the law passed.

The church’s social services arm, known as Catholic Charities, serves 68,000 local residents, including about a third of the city’s homeless people, who go to city-owned shelters managed by the church, city officials said.

The threat is not the first time a religion-based provider of social services has said it would stop providing services in response to a same-sex marriage law, gay rights advocates say.

In 2006, Boston’s archbishop, Sean P. O’Malley, said that Catholic Charities there would stop its adoption-related work rather than comply with a state law requiring that gay men and lesbians be allowed to adopt children.

On Wednesday, the Washington Archdiocese said it had no choice.

“Religious organizations and individuals are at risk of legal action for refusing to promote and support same-sex marriages in a host of settings where it would compromise their religious beliefs,” Susan Gibbs, spokeswoman for the archdiocese, said in a statement. “This includes employee benefits, adoption services and even the use of a church hall for non-wedding events for same-sex married couples.”

Ms. Gibbs added that religious organizations like Catholic Charities could be denied licenses or certification by the government, denied the right to offer adoption and foster care services, or could no longer partner with the city to provide social services.

In the last three years, Catholic Charities has received more than $8.2 million in city contracts, according to the City Council.

“This is a decision that the archdiocese will make on its own, and the city will be prepared to respond accordingly,” said Councilman David A. Catania, the sponsor of the bill.

Councilman Phil Mendelson, a Democrat, said the city would not, based on threats, broaden the exemptions the law offers to religious groups.

“Allowing individual exemptions opens the door for anyone to discriminate based on assertions of religious principle,” Mr. Mendelson said. “Let’s not forget that during the civil rights era, many claimed separation of the races was ordained by God.”

Some religious groups in Washington echoed Mr. Mendelson’s sentiment.

“The Catholic Church hierarchy is at a crossroads,” said the Rev. Dennis W. Wiley, the co-chairman of Clergy United for Marriage Equality and the pastor of Covenant Baptist Church. “They must decide whether they are in the charity business for charity’s sake, or if imposing their will on the D.C. City Council and the citizens of the district is their primary interest.”

But in a letter sent this week to Mr. Mendelson, Jane G. Belford, the chancellor of the archdiocese, said the debate over the proposed legislation must be seen in the context of balancing competing interests, and, specifically between “the interest of the homosexual community to be able to marry freely and the interests of the religious community to be able to practice religion freely.”

A Sapphic Victory, but Pyrrhic

2009-11-16T02:00:00.000-08:00

By FRANK BRUNI

Published: November 14, 2009

New York Times

BEFORE millions of television viewers, under the dewy and beneficent gaze of Oprah Winfrey, the two of them traded moony glances. They held hands. They spoke the language of sonnets and torch songs.

“It was like an arrow was shot through my heart,” one said, describing an early meeting. “I felt weak at the knees.”

“I’m going to be with her until the day I die,” responded the other. Then their wedding video was played. It showed them in white — both of these brides.

In what may have been the most public display of gushingly romantic affection between two gay or lesbian celebrities, Ellen DeGeneres and Portia de Rossi professed their love in the secular chapel of Oprah Winfrey’s daytime talk show on Monday.

The moment came less than a week after voters in Maine, like those in 30 states before it, rejected same-sex marriage, and just a day before New York legislators would again postpone consideration of a bill to legalize such weddings, conceding inadequate support.

And it underscored what a fascinating example Ms. DeGeneres is setting, not to mention how tough it is to figure out precisely where Americans stand on an issue so fiercely contested that the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Washington, D.C., said last week that it would scale back social service programs if the district legalized same-sex marriage.

In the handful of states where same-sex marriage is legal, legislatures and courts — not voters — have made it so. A few polls in recent months have suggested that while a majority of Americans believe that gay couples should be able to enter into unions with some of the legal protections of marriage, a minority believe that gays and lesbians should be permitted to “marry,” per se. Same-sex marriage doesn’t fit into the kind of family that many Americans believe should be idealized; it offends many others’ deeply felt religious principles.

And yet Ms. DeGeneres, who exchanged vows with Ms. de Rossi during a span last year when same-sex marriage was legal in California, seems more popular than ever — and among audiences squarely in the mainstream.

A decade ago, she had trouble getting work, a development that she and many observers chalked up to her being “the most famous lesbian in the world,” as Ms. de Rossi described her on “Oprah.”

But now she’s on the cover of the current issue of O magazine, exclusive real estate usually inhabited by Ms. Winfrey alone. She’s a pitchwoman not only for American Express but also for Cover Girl makeup, a heartland product if ever there was one.

Come January, she’ll join the other judges on “American Idol,” the highest-rated prime-time television program in America, one that Middle American moms, dads and kids watch together.

And the audience for her own daytime talk show — designed less to challenge viewers than to tickle and warm them, like a fuzzy blanket — hasn’t diminished since Ms. de Rossi began popping up frequently in Ms. DeGeneres’s remarks, according to Nielsen figures.

Several gay and lesbian leaders speculated that Ms. DeGeneres’s good fortune was a harbinger of where same-sex marriage is headed, and said it exemplified the way issues involving gays and lesbians often play out. Culture leads politics, and support for familiar, respected individuals precedes support for a larger, more abstract idea.

“The story of Ellen is, in a way, a sort of metaphor for the story of the movement,” said Toni Broaddus, the executive director of the Equality Federation, an alliance of state-based gay-rights groups.

Then again, Ms. DeGeneres isn’t exactly the lesbian next door. She lives in that exotic galaxy called Hollywood, whose brightest stars are seldom asked to conform to the same rules as others. That’s the fun and wonder of them: the way they color so vividly outside the lines.

What’s more, she’s a comedian, cushioning much of what she does and says in the social Bubble Wrap of laughter.

“She’s dancing in her sneakers and making everybody else get up and dance, too,” observed Rachel Maddow, the openly lesbian host of an evening political talk show, on MSNBC. “She’s unthreatening by the nature of her comedic gift.”

Perhaps by dint of her gender, too. The lengthening list of prominent “out” lesbians on the small screen — Ms. DeGeneres, Ms. Maddow, Suze Orman, Jane Velez-Mitchell, Wanda Sykes — isn’t quite mirrored by a comparable list of openly gay men.

Ms. Maddow and others said that may be because some of the most damaging, off-putting parts of the persistent stereotype for gay men — that they’re promiscuous, even predatory — don’t extend to gay women, who are generally seen in less sexual terms.

“When you press people on their opposition to gay marriage and gay rights, very often it reverts to anal sex,” said Dan Savage, the openly gay editorial director of The Stranger, a Seattle newsweekly, and the author of “The Commitment: Love, Sex, Marriage and My Family.”

They look at gay men and that’s all they see, Mr. Savage said, adding: “They look at Ellen and they don’t know what she does with Portia.”

Ms. Maddow said that it may also make a difference that Ms. DeGeneres never winked and crowed about going on hot dates but instead rhapsodized about being in love and tying the knot.

Perhaps everything is a matter of delivery, context and timing. When Ms. DeGeneres came out as a lesbian in 1997, and her well-established, prime-time situation-comedy alter ego came out with her, there was a bluntness to the revelation (“Yep, I’m Gay” were the words with her picture on the cover of Time) and her sexual orientation took center stage. She was gay first, funny second.

Now she’s funny first, and as apt to refer to animal welfare or her vegan diet as to having a wife. Ms. de Rossi has appeared only once on Ms. DeGeneres’s talk show, where references to gay political issues have been fleeting, with some exceptions. Ms. DeGeneres did grill John McCain about same-sex marriage, and she jokingly asked Laura Bush and her daughter Jenna Bush Hager if she could use the Bush ranch in Texas, as Ms. Hager had, for her own wedding.

More recently she has been saying and sharing more, including the “Oprah” wedding video, on which she and Ms. de Rossi feed each other bites of cake. They look like countless other newlyweds. Then again, not.

India's third gender gets own identity in voter rolls

2009-11-12T12:04:00.000-08:00

By Harmeet Shah Singh, CNN
November 12, 2009 11:40 a.m. EST

NEW DELHI, India (CNN) -- Indian election authorities Thursday granted what they called an independent identity to intersex and transsexuals in the country's voter lists.

Before, members of these groups -- loosely called eunuchs in Indian English -- were referred to as male or female in the voter rolls.

But now, they will have the choice to tick "O" -- for others -- when indicating their gender in voter forms, the Indian election commission said in a statement.

"Enumerators and booth-level officers (BLOs) shall be instructed to indicate the sex of eunuchs/transsexuals etc as 'O' if they so desire, while undertaking any house-to-house enumeration/verification of any application," a statement from election authorities said.
India, home to more than 1 billion people, has 714 million registered voters.

Intersexual people are seen as a marginalized community in India. Many end up begging on the streets, becoming prostitutes or earning their livelihood by dancing at celebrations.

In July, an Indian court delivered a landmark ruling legalizing gay sex between consenting partners in the country.

The July verdict meant the law -- Indian penal code section 377, which had previously criminalized consensual homosexual acts between adults -- was partly struck down but remains in place as far as forced homosexual acts are concerned.

It was not clear whether the ruling -- which was later challenged by an astrologer in India's highest court -- would eventually lead to legalization of gay marriages in the country.

Mormons throw support behind gay-rights cause

2009-11-11T18:12:00.000-08:00

By ERIC GORSKI (AP) – 2 hours ago

It looked like a stunning reversal: the same church that helped defeat gay marriage in California standing with gay-rights activists on an anti-discrimination law in its own backyard.

On Tuesday night, after a series of clandestine meetings between local gay-rights backers and Mormons in Salt Lake City, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints announced it would support proposed city laws that would prohibit discrimination against gays in housing and employment.

The ordinances passed and history was made: It marked the first time the Salt Lake City-based church had supported gay-rights legislation.

The Mormon church — which continues to suffer a backlash over its support last year of Proposition 8, the measure banning gay marriage in California — emphasized that its latest position in no way contradicts its teachings on homosexuality.

But the action is one of the strongest signs yet that even conservative religious groups that oppose same-sex marriage might be willing to support legal protections for gays that fall short of that.

At the same time, the church's position has angered some of its conservative allies on social issues, prompted questions about whether public relations is its real motivation, and put the church on the spot over how far it will go on similar legislation on the state and federal level.

"This is a very good public relations response that has the additional benefit of actually representing the way the current church leadership thinks," said Armand Mauss, a retired professor at Washington State University and scholar of Mormonism.

Some of the church's conservative allies in the gay marriage battles, however, call it a setback. The two new ordinances make it illegal to fire or evict someone for being gay, bisexual or transgender.

Such legislation robs employers and landlords of their rights and gives legal ammunition to judges sympathetic to gay marriage, said Peter Sprigg, senior fellow for policy studies at the conservative Family Research Council.

"It's disappointing and I'm fearful that it reflects in part a reaction to the attacks they came under after Proposition 8 — an effort to bend over backwards to exhibit tolerance toward homosexuals in some way," Sprigg said.

Michael Otterson, director of public affairs for the Mormon church, said Wednesday that church leaders were able to support the ordinance because it doesn't carve out special rights for gays.

Supporting "basic civil values," Otterson said, does not compromise the church's religious belief that homosexuality is a sin and that same-sex marriage poses a threat to traditional marriage.

"There are going to be gay advocates who don't think we've gone nearly far enough, and people very conservative who think we've gone too far," Otterson said. "The vast majority of people are between those polar extremes and we think that's going to resonate with people on the basis of fair-mindedness."

The position is not a reversal, Otterson said. In August 2008 the church issued a statement saying it supports gay rights related to hospitalization, medical care, employment, housing or probate as long as they "do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches."

Church officials say the city ordinances were not discussed in the recent meetings between church staff and gay rights leaders, and that it was the mayor who put the proposals on the table.

Harry Knox, director of the religion and faith program at the gay-rights group Human Rights Campaign, said the Mormon church's stand on the Salt Lake City ordinances could help alter the debate over gay rights.

"The church deserves credit, but that credit really comes because people have been pushing for it," Knox said. "It's not something thing they arrived at on their own and out of the goodness of their hearts."

The church's action is the latest sign of a softening among some conservative Christians toward offering some legal protections to gays.

Activists are trying to garner support from evangelicals for a federal employment anti-discrimination law that would cover gays. However, religious reaction was largely negative to a federal hate crimes act protecting homosexuals that President Barack Obama recently signed into law. Several conservative Christian groups argued that preaching against homosexuality could be deemed a hate crime under the legislation.

The Mormon church has not taken a stance on either piece of federal legislation.

Otterson, the church spokesman, said that in the case of the Salt Lake City ordinances, Mormon leaders weighed in because they were responding to a request for feedback on specific legislation.

Asked whether the church would take a stand on similar state or federal legislation, Otterson said: "The church leadership is not inclined to offer free advice where it's not being requested."

Conservative group links gay-rights movement to Islamic terrorism

2009-11-10T01:17:00.000-08:00

A prominent social-conservative activist group is using comments made by readers on a gay-rights Web site as "evidence" that the LGBT movement is mulling using "organized terrorism" against Christians.

The Liberty Counsel released a statement on Monday linking Nidal Malik Hasan, the alleged shooter in last week's Fort Hood massacre, to the gay-rights movement.

"In the wake of the horrific act of Islamic domestic terrorism at Fort Hood Texas, it has been learned that militant homosexual activists recently made similar online postings to those of Nidal Malik Hasan, threatening additional acts of terrorism against Christians," stated an email from Matt Barber, Liberty Counsel's director of cultural affairs, as well as an associate dean at Liberty University Law School.

Liberty University is an evangelical school founded in 1971 by televangelist Jerry Falwell. Barber's email came from a Liberty University account.

In response to Maine’s natural marriage victory last Tuesday, “gay” activists have directly threatened to retaliate with “terrorism” and the “killing” of Christians on the popular homosexual activist JoeMyGod weblog. Liberty Counsel notified the FBI which is investigating the matter. As of this morning, the offending blog entry had been removed.

Matt Barber commented: “All potential threats of terrorism and murder are very serious business. As we learned just last week, there are ideologically driven terrorists who walk among us. After passage of Proposition 8 in California we saw that many homosexual activists are capable of threats, vandalism and even violence. Those who either threaten or attempt to incite terrorism must be immediately brought to justice. Churches and Christian leaders around the country need to be on high alert. These threats of homosexual activist terrorism must be taken very seriously."

Barber's statement did not address the question of whether Christians and heterosexuals are also "capable of threats, vandalism and even violence," or whether he believes that to be the domain of Islamists and homosexuals.

The statement listed off a long series of reader comments on the JoeMyGod blog by people evidently upset at the loss of a gay-marriage initiative in Maine in last week's elections.

According to the Liberty Counsel letter, a commenter calling himself “ColdCountry” wrote: “Will someone please give me a gun?” Another commenter, dubbed “Fritz,” warned: “What I fear is that once gay and lesbian people give up hope of achieving equality through nonviolent means, there will be radicals who will begin to hunt down haters. … All it will take is a small group of radical zealots who are willing to kill for their cause.”

The Liberty Counsel statement said commenter “tex” replied: “Fritz....you say this like it's a bad thing? Maybe a bit of well organized terrorism is just what we need. ... This happens in all cases where people are oppressed and lack representation. We will have gay and lesbian people strapping bombs to their chests and blowing up churches. All it will take is one or two more losses like this.”

As the Liberty Counsel email noted, the comments have since been taken down from the site. The group did not provide evidence that the people writing the comments were "homosexual activists," as the email claimed.

But it does appear that Barber may have been motivated by a personal element: The story on which the comments were purportedly made quoted his hailing of last week's loss for gay-marriage rights in Maine. In the wake of that outcome, the Justice Counsel referred to same-sex marriage as "oxymoronic" and "counterfeit."

The Liberty Counsel has been a prominent promoter of conservative social values for two decades. This week the group announced its seventh annual "Friend or Foe Christmas Campaign," which argues for the use of the word "Christmas" instead of "holidays" and seeks to suss out who is a "friend" of Christmas and who is a "foe."

Evangelicals Provide Another Perspective on Homosexuality

2009-11-09T13:29:00.000-08:00

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Mark Tidd, Pastor
Highlands Church
303.557.8312
revtidd@comcast.net

Joe Quillin
303.525.9886
joe@joequillin.com

Denver, CO - November 3rd - Highlands Church, an evangelical church located in the heart of Denver’s Highland district, will host a free symposium later this month presenting a different perspective on homosexuality, the Bible, and the evangelical church. Speakers at the event are Dr. Mark Achtemeier, professor of theology and ethics at Dubuque Theological Seminary, and Justin Lee, founder of the Gay Christian Network. Lee has been featured on many radio and television programs including CNN Headline News, Dr. Phil, and Anderson Cooper 360, as well as a front page New York Times article. Both speakers are internationally recognized.

Highlands Church, in imitation of what it calls “the ridiculous love Almighty God has for each of us and all of us”, desires to live and love without labels. It is a vision that seems like the natural and right thing to do, according to Pastor Mark Tidd who stated that, “All manner of people who were not acceptable by the religious standards of the first century found the wide embrace of God in Jesus Christ. Since God doesn’t pick and choose who will be invited into full participation of the church and faith community, neither should we. If it can include me, I don’t see how it could exclude anyone.”

Traditionally, most evangelical churches have treated homosexuals differently than heterosexuals and considered homosexuality as incompatible with the Christian faith. The church decided to host the event because it feels it is important to simply provide a different perspective from an evangelical point of view. The symposium will take place on Saturday, November 21st, 2009 from 9:00 am to 3:00 pm. Highlands church is located at 3241 Lowell Blvd, Denver, CO, 80211. The event is free to the public. You can learn more about the event at www.highlandschurchdenver.org

###

Gay-Marriage Fight Heads to New Jersey

2009-11-07T00:39:00.000-08:00

By KEITH J. WINSTEIN

Wall Street Journal

The battle over gay rights will move to New Jersey and the federal government, advocates said, after Tuesday's narrow rejection of same-sex marriage by Maine voters in a hard-fought contest.

The Democrat-controlled legislature in New Jersey, which currently recognizes same-sex couples in civil unions, is under pressure to pass a bill authorizing gay marriage before Gov. Jon Corzine ends his term in mid-January.

See a state-by-state breakdown of same-sex marriage laws.

Mr. Corzine, a Democrat unseated in Tuesday's election, said he would sign such a bill. His successor, Republican Chris Christie, opposes same-sex marriages.

"New Jersey is at the very top of our list, and it's going to happen in the next few weeks if it happens at all," said Maggie Gallagher, the president of the National Organization for Marriage, which opposes same-sex marriages. "They're doing it in a lame duck, because it's as far away from an election as possible."

Gay-marriage advocates have resisted "civil union" licenses, saying the separate term is demeaning and the status isn't honored by many employers.

Some gay-rights advocates said, their priorities have shifted away from the ballot box and toward nonmarital issues.

Thursday, a U.S. Senate committee held a hearing on a bill that would prevent businesses from discriminating against employees on the basis of sexual orientation or "gender-related" mannerisms. Thomas Perez, an assistant attorney general, called the bill, known as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, "a top legislative priority for the Obama administration."

"That's really an essential protection that we need on the national level," said Leslie Gabel-Brett, the director of education and public affairs for Lambda Legal, a gay-rights group. About 20 states currently grant such protection to gays.

Ms. Gabel-Brett said her group's priorities also focused on ending the U.S. military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy toward homosexuals, and on repealing the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a male-female couple for federal purposes, such as filing taxes.

Neither gay-rights activists nor their opposition said they expected imminent attempts to repeal same-sex marriage in the four states that currently grant it -- Massachusetts, Iowa, Connecticut and Vermont -- or in New Hampshire, which will begin granting such marriages in January.

Ms. Gallagher said her organization remained committed to attempts to repeal same-sex marriage in New Hampshire and Iowa by electing new legislatures to repeal the laws. Unlike in Maine, residents of those states can't repeal laws or amend their constitutions without action by the state legislature.

The defeat for same-sex marriage in Maine, by a 53%-47% vote, was a tough loss for advocates of same-sex marriage. It marked the 31st time a plebiscite of state voters has rejected same-sex marriage in the U.S. Activists had hoped it would gain momentum for their movement.

Meanwhile, efforts to provide marriage-like rights to same-sex couples have continued to advance. Tuesday, Washington state voters approved an expanded "domestic partnership" registry giving same-sex couples the same rights as marriage. Wednesday, the Wisconsin Supreme Court let stand a decision upholding that state's new domestic-partnership status for same-sex couples.

"Every civil-rights movement has setbacks," Ms. Gabel-Brett said. "It's tempting to feel like the public debate is going in the wrong direction, but that's really not the case. We now have five states where same-sex couples can marry. Six years ago, we had none."

Gay-marriage foes claim victory in Maine

2009-11-04T10:56:00.000-08:00

By GLENN ADAMS and DAVID CRARY (AP)

PORTLAND, Maine

Gay-marriage opponents are claiming victory in a closely watched referendum in Maine on a new state law that would have allowed same-sex couples to wed.

The law in question was passed by the Legislature in May but never took effect because of a petition drive by conservatives.

With more than 84 percent of precincts reporting Tuesday, the side seeking to repeal the law had 53 percent of the vote. Their campaign organizer, Frank Schubert, claimed victory and declared that Maine voters had helped preserve the institution of marriage.

Gay-marriage supporters refused to concede, holding out hope that that the tide might turn as the final returns came in. They had been hoping Maine would become the first state to approve same-sex marriage at the ballot box.

Gay marriage appeared in danger in Maine in a closely watched referendum Tuesday that the nation's gay rights movement had hoped would yield a breakthrough victory at the ballot box.

Voters were asked to decide whether to repeal or affirm a state law that would allow gay couples to wed. The law was passed by the Legislature in May but never took effect because of a petition drive by conservatives.

With 481 of 608 precincts reporting, the pro-repeal side had 52 percent to 48 percent for gay-marriage's supporters.

A vote to uphold the law would mark the first time that the electorate in any state endorsed gay marriage. That could energize activists nationwide and blunt conservative claims that same-sex marriage is being foisted on states by judges or lawmakers over the will of the public.

However, repeal — in New England, the region of the country most supportive of gay couples — would be another heartbreaking defeat for the marriage-equality movement, following the vote against gay marriage in California a year ago.

It would also mark the first time voters had torpedoed a gay-marriage law enacted by a legislature. When Californians rejected same-sex marriage, it was in response to a court ruling, not legislation.

Maine's secretary of state, Matthew Dunlap, said turnout seemed higher than expected for an off-year election and voter interest appeared intense. Even before Tuesday, more than 100,000 people — out of about 1 million registered voters — had voted by absentee ballot or early voting.

Frank Schubert, organizer for the campaign to repeal gay marriage, said a victory by his side would be a "backbreaking loss" for gay-rights activists, given the heavy mobilization and fundraising efforts put into their campaign.

Jesse Connolly, manager for the pro-gay marriage campaign, said the results bore out his prediction of a "razor thin" election.

"At the end of the day we're going to see a positive result," he said late Tuesday. "We might not see that tonight. It might be tomorrow."

Five other states have legalized gay marriage — Iowa, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire and Connecticut — but all did so through legislation or court rulings, not by popular vote. In contrast, constitutional amendments banning gay marriage have been approved in all 30 states where they have been on the ballot.

"If we don't win, then Maine will have its place in infamy because no state has ever voted for homosexual marriage," said Chuck Schott of Portland, who stood near a polling place in Maine's biggest city with a pro-repeal campaign sign.

Another Portland resident, Sarah Holman said she was "very torn" but decided — despite her conservative upbringing — to vote in favor of letting gays marry.

"They love and they have the right to love. And we can't tell somebody how to love," said Holman, 26.

Hundreds of gay-marriage supporters gathered in a Portland hotel ballroom in the evening to await the results. On display was a three-tiered wedding cake topped with two grooms on one side, two brides on the other, and the words "We All Do."

In addition to reaching out to young people who flocked to the polls for President Barack Obama a year ago, gay-marriage defenders tried to appeal to Maine voters' independent streak — a Yankee spirit of fairness and live-and-let-live.

The other side based many of its campaign ads on claims — disputed by state officials — that the new law would mean "homosexual marriage" would be taught in public schools.

Both sides in Maine drew volunteers and contributions from out of state, but the money edge went to the campaign in defense of gay marriage, Protect Maine Equality. It raised $4 million, compared with $2.5 million for Stand for Marriage Maine.

Elsewhere on Tuesday, voters in Washington state decided whether to uphold or overturn a recently expanded domestic partnership law that entitles same-sex couples to the same state-granted rights as heterosexual married couples. And in Kalamazoo, Mich., voters approved a measure that bars discrimination based on sexual orientation.

David Crary reported from New York.

Gay Christians in Australia: A Perspective

2009-10-22T15:35:00.000-07:00

By MichaelAnthony, 24th September, 2009

www.samesame.com.au

The results are in from the Gay Census and we’re taking a long, hard look at religion. It’s not surprising, given religion’s history of gay persecution, that we’re a little wary of the whole thing. They always told us it was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, but is the Bible about to change?

If you thought religion an unlikely pastime for gays and lesbians, you would be correct. The majority of respondents (59% of gay men and 61% of gay women) to the Australian Gay and Lesbian Census indicated they are not a member of any organised religion.

Of those who responded that they were members of a religion, the Census found that 28% of gay men and 22% of lesbians are Christian, a figure much lower than that of the general population. The 2006 Australian Census found that 58% of the general population aged 15 to 44 are Christian.

Anthony Venn-Brown, author of A Life of Unlearning and convenor of Freedom 2 b[e] (a network of gay Christians from Pentecostal and Evangelical backgrounds) who attends the Hillsong church at Waterloo says, “Having a majority of non-religious gays and lesbians is reflective of our secular society in Australia.” His statement is supported by findings that show the vast majority of those who indicated that they are religious are lapsed or non-practicing, with 52% indicating they never attend service or prayer.

One explanation for the lower percentage of Christians amongst the gay community, when compared to the general population, is that many Christians who come out as gay often repudiate their spirituality because of a conflict between their spirituality and their sexuality.

Former High Court Justice Michael Kirby, a practicing Christian, explains this general sentiment by saying, “It is hardly surprising that so many gay people give religion away. With few exceptions, religion, and religious people, are hostile to gays. Even the Dalai Lama has made unfriendly statements. When I tackled him on them, he said: ‘I know. In America many of my supporters are gay. But the problem is the old scriptures’.”

However, Kirby notes the change happening within Christian churches. “In the Christian context, the languages are Greek or Hebrew and the further we study these histories and scriptures the further we learn about the historical and cultural context or particular phrases,” says Kirby. “Just as Christians, Jews and Muslims have to read afresh the Genesis passages that say the world was created in seven days, in the light of Darwin’s discoveries about evolution, so religions have to re-read passages antagonistic to gays in the light of the knowledge we now have from Alfred Kinsey, Evelyn Hooker and modern science. People do not deliberately choose their sexual orientation to be difficult or defiant. It is just part of the variety of nature. If it exists, it has a purpose in nature and evolution. Eventually all the religions will come around to this, but a lot of violence, stigma and cruelty will be done in the meantime,” Kirby says.

Venn-Brown agrees with Justice Kirby’s on the interpretation of scriptures. Venn-Brown says, “There are only six passages that can be assumed to speak about same-sex behaviour, but when they are looked at in their historical and cultural context and in their original languages, then one discovers that they are actually talking about temple prostitution, idolatry, exploitative relationships (pederasty) and rape. They are not talking about same-sex orientation as we know it today.”

Venn-Brown also notes, “The word ‘homosexual’ did not appear in any English translation of the bible until 1946 at 1 Corinthians 6:9” (Revised standard version).

David Barrow, a 23-year-old queer activist who is also Christian and is currently the President of the National Union of Students believes that generational change is also a contributing factor. “There is a progressive shift in theology in line with generational change that coincides with attitudes towards climate change, women, gays and international poverty,” says Barrow.

This change in the understanding of theology seems to be happening even in the most unlikely of churches – the Pentecostal church, to which Mr Venn-Brown is a member.

In responding to my shock at the acceptance by the Hillsong Church of homosexual members, Venn-Brown says, “We often focus on the Christian extremists. For example, the Westboro Baptist Church in the south of the US. (Westboro Baptist Church own the website Godhatesfags.com.) We should focus on the changes happening in the Christian movement. The Westboro Baptist church is an incestuous cult of about 100 members. They are not representative of Christianity.”

While he recognises the damage done by religion, Justice Kirby is optimistic about a future where it’s a little more gay friendly. “My partner, Johan, rejects religion. I stick with my Christian beliefs because the fundamental message of Jesus is love and reconciliation. Eventually, Christian leaders will remember this. The churches will give a great big apology to gay people. I hope I live to see it,” says Kirby.

Mr Venn-Brown believes that, “the debate within Christianity is done and dusted. It is only a matter of time before [homosexuality] is not going to be a problem.”

Interestingly, Census data reveals that 12% of respondents experienced conflict between their sexuality and their religion, which is less than those who chose Christianity as their religion. Most respondents indicated that they don’t have conflict between their sexuality and their religion, or if a conflict does exist, they don’t care about it.

Venn-Brown acknowledged the assumptions in the gay community about the conflict between Christianity and homosexuality, but says that this scepticism and antagonism towards Christianity is changing. “What is happening now [within the gay community] is similar to what happened in the early 70s. The gay rights movement was birthed and people began coming out. Now, three decades later, with the shift in understanding about Christianity, many are coming out about their faith and spirituality also.” Venn-Brown calls this ‘the second coming out.’

Venn-Brown goes on to say that there is actually an increasing number of gay members of the church. “Gay people of faith and religion are an emerging group within the gay community. Walk into any gay bookstore and you can see how much impact they are having,” says Venn-Brown. An author himself, Venn-Brown recalls, “It’s not long ago that you would never find a single book on being gay and Christian, only books about how poorly the church has treated homosexual people over the centuries. Now in all gay bookstores there are entire sections of gay Christian books. Including stories, such as mine, theology and observations of the gay Christian movement. An even further development, is the recent appearance of several books on being gay and Moslem.”

David Barrow would be an example of emerging members of the gay community who are also proudly Christian. He says he didn’t feel any pressure to be one or the other, but says, “Many of my friends responded to my Christianity with suspicion, derision, concern and condescension. However, they have learned to accept my sexuality and my Christian identity, which are both important to me.”

Looking at its popularity amongst the generations, it seems that spirituality is mainly practiced by older generations. The Australian Gay and Lesbian Census found that older gay men and women are more likely to be religious.

The Australian Gay and Lesbian Census also found that more gay men and women belong to alternative or eastern religions (Hindu, Buddhism, Wicca/Paganism) than the general population.

So maybe the future of homosexuality and religion is as Michael Kirby said, less about blame and sin and more about love and respect.

CA Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger changes tune, signs pro-gay bills

2009-10-13T08:51:00.000-07:00

Sonoma County Civil Rights Examiner

Megan Coffey

In a surprising reversal of his earlier positions, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed two pro-gay bills just before the deadline of midnight on Sunday, October 11. The governor had previously vetoed two similar bills, and had been expected to veto these pieces of legislation as well.

One of the new laws establishes a state-wide “Harvey Milk Day” on the slain gay activist’s birthday, a provision that Schwarzenegger had vetoed last year. The other new legislation provides for CA recognition of same-sex marriages performed in other states during the five-month period in 2008 when such unions were legal in California, while affording full domestic-partnership benefits to same-sex marriages performed out-of-state since Proposition 8 went into effect. The governor had vetoed two earlier bills recognizing marriage rights for gay couples, in both 2005 and 2007.

It is unclear what caused Schwarzenegger to change his mind about either of the bills he signed, especially the bill honoring Harvey Milk, which was virtually identical to the one the governor vetoed just last year (ostensibly because Milk was only relevant “at the local level”), and which Schwarzenegger had hinted he would veto again, despite President Obama’s posthumous awarding of the Medal of Freedom to Milk earlier this year. Perhaps Obama’s gesture shamed the governor into signing the bill after all?

As for the legislation recognizing out-of-state same-sex marriages, Schwarzenegger certainly could have been expected to veto that bill under cover of respect for the “will of the voters” who passed Proposition 8, much as he claimed he vetoed earlier gay-marriage recognition bills because of the “will of the voters” reflected by Proposition 22—the ballot initiative with identical wording to Proposition 8—which passed in March 2000. Moreover, Equality California reported that the governor’s office was “flooded” with calls from anti-gay-rights voters urging him to veto the out-of-state same-sex marriage recognition bill.

So, what caused Arnold Schwarzenegger to change his tune and support these pro-gay bills whose predecessors he so recently vetoed? Could it be that he has political ambitions beyond the governorship that require him to court more moderate voters? Might the governor be proof that an old dog can learn new fairness and compassion for oppressed minorities? Or is it possible that Schwarzenegger has always favored LGBT rights, but it just took him this long to grow the political spine to stand up to his hate-mongering base? (Sadly, though, he still didn't grow enough spine not to veto trans-rights legislation that would have improved prisoner safety and access to birth certificates for transgender Californians.)

Poll Shows 57% of Americans Support Civil Unions for Gays and Lesbians

2009-10-12T01:45:00.000-07:00

October 10, 10:17 AM

Rochester Independent Examiner

Thomas Mangan

A new poll, by the Pew Research Center reports that 57% of Americans support the idea of allowing gays and lesbians to enter into civil unions or domestic partnerships to protect their rights.

The results of the national survey, Majority Continues to Support Civil Unions, (released Oct. 9, 2009) found that “support for civil unions stands at an all time high.”

A clear majority of Americans (57%) favors allowing gay and lesbian couples to enter into legal agreements with each other that would give them many of the same rights as married couples....”

Only 37% of Americans oppose allowing gay and lesbian couples to enter into legal agreements with each other.

The poll found that support for civil unions is widespread across the political spectrum - 59% of moderate and liberal Republicans support civil unions, as do 54% of moderate and conservative Democrats, 76% of liberal Democrats, and 63% of independents.

Only a slim majority (53%) of conservative Republicans still oppose civil unions for gay and lesbian couples.

The poll also found that the widespread support for civil unions among almost all religious groups, even those opposed to legalizing gay marriage - 62% of Catholics support civil unions, as do 66% of white mainline Protestants, 68% of the religiously unaffiliated, and 68% of the white evangelicals who attend church less frequently.

Support for civil unions was low only among White Evangelicals (39%) and Black Protestants (43%).

A majority of men (54%) and women (60%) favor civil unions, and support is particularly high among college graduates (70%) and Americans under age 30 (68%).

One surprising result is that the poll found growing support for civil unions among the opponents of same-sex marriage.

There has been a six-point increase in support for civil unions (from 24% to 30%)” among Americans who oppose same-sex marriage.”

The number of Republicans who support civil unions also rose significantly, from 40% in 2008 to 48% in 2009.

Americans are also very aware of how widespread discrimination against gays and lesbians is. This almost certainly explains the growing support for legalized civil unions that would guarantee same-sex couples the same legal rights and protections that married couples have.

According to the survey, 64% of Americans think “gays and lesbians face a lot of discrimination.”

Americans also think that gays and lesbians face more discrimination than any other group including; Muslims (58%), Hispanics (52%), Blacks (49%), Women (37%), Evangelical Christians (27%), Atheists (26%), or Mormons (24%).

While support for civil unions has reached an all time high (57%), only 39% of Americans favor legalizing same-sex marriage, and 53% of Americans still oppose same-sex marriage.

Awareness is growing, and the trend is toward more tolerance not less, but supporters of same-sex marriage are almost evenly divided about which strategy to pursue in their struggle for equal rights.

Among those who support legalizing same-sex marriage, 45% think they should push hard to make it legal as soon as possible, while 42% feel they should not push too hard to make same-sex marriage legal immediately, because of the risk of creating a backlash against gays and lesbians.

Americans have a long history of recognizing discrimination and taking the steps to eliminate it. We’ve outgrown legalized discrimination against many groups including Catholics, blacks, and women. Eventually, we’ll outgrow discrimination against gays and lesbians too.

And we’ll probably do it one step at a time.

Hawaii evangelical churches plan election push

2009-10-11T03:16:00.000-07:00

By HERBERT A. SAMPLE (AP) – 13 hours ago

HONOLULU — In the last 50 years, religious conservatives have scored few victories in Hawaii. They did manage to oust a half-dozen pro-gay marriage lawmakers and lead a successful drive for a constitutional amendment to reject same-sex marriages a decade ago.

Beyond that, they've had little influence in a state known for its moderate to liberal leanings.

Catholic and evangelical Protestant leaders hope to push Hawaii politics rightward, preparing an election-year effort in 2010 to organize their parishioners into voting blocks that can help elect like-minded candidates. And they are hoping to use the issue of civil unions to get them there.

The state Legislature next year is expected to reconsider a proposal to allow gay and lesbian couples to form civil unions. The measure, which is on hold in the state Senate, generated some of the largest rallies ever seen at the normally placid Capitol earlier this year.

"Conservatives (almost) never win here," said Garret Hashimoto, chairman of the Hawaii Christian Coalition. But "we won big in 1998, and this issue is coming up again in 2010. So hopefully, 1998 will again surface in 2010."

Civil union supporters say they have no qualms with evangelicals trying to improve their political influence, but contend that voter opinions on civil unions and gay marriage have turned more favorable since 1998. They cite the support of religious leaders in Hawaii, including several, mostly mainline Christian churches.

"We're now at a point where the mainstream position that's supported by the majority, both here in Hawaii and the whole country, is civil unions," said Alan Spector of the Family Equality Coalition, which backs equal marriage rights for gays and lesbians.

Still, Christian conservatives sense an opportunity and they are coalescing to take advantage.

"We don't want to tell people who to vote for," said Bishop Larry Silva of the Catholic Diocese of Hawaii. "But we do want to talk about moral principles and lead them through that discussion of moral principles to decide who best then can express those principles for us as a leader."

Federal tax law prevents churches from openly endorsing candidates, and pastors shied away from discussing their preferences.

But intended or not, it is clear which gubernatorial candidate their efforts will most benefit: Lt. Gov. James "Duke" Aiona, the leading contender for the Republican nomination.

Aiona has made no secret of his strong religious convictions nor his conservative views on social issues, including opposition to civil unions, gay marriage and abortion. He has attended religious rallies and in 2004 told a prayer gathering that "Hawaii belongs to Jesus." He also has insisted his faith will not interfere with his duties.

U.S. Rep. Neil Abercrombie, who intends to run for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination, supports abortion rights, civil unions and gay marriage. A potential primary election foe, Honolulu Mayor Mufi Hannemann, has refused to reveal his positions on those issues.

In recent years, the number and popularity of evangelical Protestant churches have risen, much as it has in the continental United States, said George Tanabe, a religion professor emeritus at the University of Hawaii.

Their political prowess was noticed in February when they and allied groups rallied several thousand civil union opponents at the state Capitol. The bill would have given gay and lesbian couples the same legal rights under state law as married couples.

Evangelical leaders fervently oppose the bill but also welcome its reconsideration by the Legislature, hoping the ire of their parishioners will carry into the voting booth months later.

"If we allow people that don't have a strong moral character to be in office and make those decisions on laws and issues, we will suffer the consequences," said Rev. George Nagato, superintendent of the Hawaii Assemblies of God Inc. "So we need to do something now."

The conservatives are eying Hawaii's 235,000 Catholics and tens of thousands who attend evangelical Protestant services, including mega-churches New Hope Oahu and Hope Chapel Nanakuli, and the state's 70 Assemblies of God churches.

The goal of the effort — dubbed "The 80/80 Vision" — is to convince 80 percent of Christian churchgoers to register to vote and then persuade 80 percent of them to vote "Christian values" on abortion, gay rights, euthanasia and other issues.

If successful, the bloc will be instrumental in a state where 456,000 voted last November, said Frances Oda, chairman of Hawaii Family Forum, a nonprofit research group with ties to the Hawaii Catholic Conference.

The Voice of Truth ministry at Honolulu's First Assembly of God church was organized last year and hopes to prod parishioners next year into registering to vote and provide them with information on candidate positions, much of it from Oda's group.

But Voice of Truth lay leader, Noela Nance, said the church will not try to convince parishioners who hold varying views on public policy issues to vote for a particular candidate.

"It's kind of like giving you the menu at a restaurant and then you decide what you want to eat," she said.

An early test of this effort next September could be Honolulu Councilman Gary Okino's Democratic primary challenge against House Majority Leader Blake Oshiro. Okino opposed the civil unions legislation, which Oshiro sponsored.

The conservatives' efforts however may "wake up" civil union proponents to get more politically involved, said Rabbi Peter Schaktman of Temple Emanu-El, a supporter of civil unions and gay marriage. "It may prove," Schaktman said, "to be ultimately their undoing."

Obama Pledges Again to End ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’

2009-10-11T03:10:00.000-07:00

By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

New York Times

Published: October 10, 2009

WASHINGTON — President Obama on Saturday renewed his vow to allow gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the military, but failed to offer a timetable for doing so — an omission likely to inflame critics who say he is not fighting aggressively enough for gay rights.

“I will end ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’ ” Mr. Obama told an audience of nearly 3,000 people at a fund-raising dinner for the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest gay advocacy group. “That is my commitment to you.”

The president’s emphatic declaration, on the eve of a major gay rights rally here, brought a huge roar from the crowd at the star-studded black-tie dinner, where tickets cost as much as $1,000 and entertainment was provided by the singer Lady Gaga and the cast of the new Fox comedy “Glee.” But outside the room, the president’s words met with a chillier reception.

Bil Browning, a blogger for Bilerico Project, a Web site aimed at a gay audience, said moments after the speech ended that the site was flooded with critical comments by people who said they had heard nothing new. “I could have watched one of his old campaign speeches and heard the same thing,” one wrote.

Even inside the room, reaction was mixed. Terry Penrod, a real estate agent from Columbus, Ohio, said some gay rights advocates were being impatient with the president, while Raj Malthotra, 29, a management consultant from Washington, said he thought the speech was a rehash of Mr. Obama’s past promises.

“For him, it’s buy more time until he needs our votes again,” Mr. Malthotra said.

Mr. Obama campaigned as a “fierce advocate” of equal rights for gays, he said, and he used Saturday’s speech to lay out his vision of the day when, as he said, “we as a nation finally recognize relationships between two men or two women are just as real and admirable as relationships between a man and a woman,” and when “no one has to be afraid to be gay in America.”

Yet the president’s relationship with the gay community has been a conflicted one. He does not support gay marriage — as a matter of Christian principle, he has said — and he got off to a bad start with the gay community when he invited the Rev. Rick Warren, who opposes same-sex unions, to deliver the invocation at his inauguration.

In the nine months since, Mr. Obama has made only limited progress on the issues that are important to gays. He has pushed for hate crimes legislation, and a bill, approved in the House on Thursday, now appears headed for passage. He has put forth a package of domestic partnership benefits for federal workers, but faced criticism that the effort did not include health benefits. He has said he would push to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which allows states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages in other states, but it remains on the books.

But of all the issues Mr. Obama has vowed to address, the Clinton-era “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy is perhaps the one that stirs the most emotion. Mr. Obama said Saturday night that he was working with the Pentagon and with House and Senate leaders to repeal the policy, but many gay rights supporters have accused him of dragging his feet.

In the days before the speech, many advocates for gay rights said they hoped he would lay out a timetable for overturning the policy or otherwise offer specifics on how he will achieve his goal.

“An opportunity was missed tonight,” Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, which represents gay and lesbian soldiers, said in a statement afterward.

Mr. Obama spoke for about 20 minutes inside the packed Washington Convention Center; outside, a small band of protesters on the sidewalk carried banners urging the president to live up to his promises. Among them was Mark Katzenberger, a software trainer from San Francisco, who said that despite his disillusionment with Mr. Obama, he would probably vote for him again.

Capturing the feeling of many in the gay community, Mr. Katzenberger said, “Even our friends sometimes need a kick in the butt.”

Jeremy W. Peters contributed reporting.

Obama to speak to gay audience

2009-10-05T23:58:00.001-07:00

By PHILIP ELLIOTT (AP)

WASHINGTON

— President Barack Obama plans to address the nation's largest gay rights group this weekend in an effort to mollify an uneasy Democratic constituency frustrated with the White House's slow pace.

Obama plans to address Saturday's Human Rights Campaign fundraising dinner gala, the organization and the White House announced Monday afternoon.

"It is fitting that (Obama) will speak to our community on the night that we pay tribute to his friend and mentor Sen. Edward Kennedy, who knew that as president, Barack Obama would take on the unfinished business of this nation — equal rights" for the gay community and for "every person who believes in liberty and justice for all," said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese.

The dinner falls on the eve of the National Equality March, expected to draw thousands of gay and lesbian activists to the National Mall. Many have been critical of Obama's slow pace on redeeming campaign promises to end a ban on gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military and pushing tough nondiscrimination policies.

"Eleven months after his election, he has failed to deliver on any of his commitments to gay Americans, but even worse has been his refusal to engage around these issues," said Richard Socarides, who advised President Bill Clinton's administration on gay and lesbian policy.

"What he needs to do now is engage and deliver," said Socarides. "Spend some of his political capital on ending the gay military ban, a hugely symbolic issue. And with no intellectually sound arguments left against it, come out squarely for gay marriage equality."

Obama wasn't likely to go that far, though, despite a rocky relationship with gay grass roots activists. He has taken a slow and incremental approach to the politically charged issues. He has expanded some federal benefits to same-sex partners, but not health benefits or pension guarantees. He has allowed State Department employees to include their same-sex partners in certain embassy programs already available to opposite-sex spouses.

But that remains far short of his campaign rhetoric.

"At its core, this issue is about who we are as Americans," Obama said a 2007 statement on gay issues. "It's about whether this nation is going to live up to its founding promise of equality by treating all its citizens with dignity and respect."

Since then, he publicly has committed himself to repealing the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that allows gays and lesbians to serve in the military as long as they don't disclose their sexual orientation or act on it. On Jan. 9, Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs answered "yes" when asked whether the administration would end a policy that has seen the dismissal of more than 12,000 troops after their sexual orientation was revealed.

But as president, Obama hasn't taken any concrete steps urging Congress to rescind the Clinton-era policy that some former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have acknowledged is flawed.

Yet the office of the current chairman, Adm. Mike Mullen, signed off on a journal article that called for lifting the ban, arguing that the military is forcing thousands of military members to live dishonest lives.

Obama also pledged during the campaign to work for repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, which limits how state, local and federal bodies can recognize partnerships and determine benefits. But lawyers in his administration defended the law in a court brief. White House aides said they were only doing their jobs to back a law that was already on the books.

Even before Obama took office, he disappointed gay and lesbian activists who objected to the invitation to evangelist Rev. Rick Warren's participation in the inauguration despite Warren's support for repealing gay marriage in California.

God and Gays

2009-10-01T19:51:00.000-07:00

God and Gays
Three films take a closer look at faith and homosexuality.
Todd Hertz | posted 9/30/2009 09:19AM

Three recent films approach the topic of homosexuality and Christianity from different viewpoints, but share one clear message: The church has a lot of loving work to do when it comes to reaching out to gays.

One young man interviewed for the heartbreaking documentary Through My Eyes (Gay Christian Network) says he stopped praying because the church had taught him that gays were not righteous; Proverbs 15:29 says that God hears the prayer of the righteous, so why pray?

In another documentary, SoleJourney (First Run Features), a woman blames the words of Focus on the Family's James Dobson for her attempted suicide. Mel White, cofounder of the controversial group Soulforce, says reconciliation with Focus depends not on theological agreement about homosexuality but on hearing Dobson say that both he and God love gay people—the way they are.

Regardless of their theological underpinnings, the personal stories at the heart of both films show how some Christ-followers have left a wake of injury—not because of the offensiveness of Scripture but because of the offensiveness of the messengers. In Exodus Student Ministries' The Question of Homosexuality (Harvest House Publishers), the ministry's director says that while Christians must stand firm on biblical truth, we must also "repent of all the times we've thought of our sins as less than those with homosexuality."

Watching these DVDS back to back to back was a moving, thought-provoking experiment. No Christian viewer will agree with everything in these diverse films, but they undoubtedly will be given discussion fodder. And with 70 percent of U.S. adult homosexuals identifying themselves as Christians (27 percent as "born again"), according to a recent Barna survey, it's a topic we all should be discussing.

In fact, two of these films—The Question of Homosexuality and Through My Eyes—are made precisely for small-group discussion. Question is a slick, scripted youth talk staggered with real-life interviews. It challenges arguments that homosexuality is biological and focuses on the possibility, based on 1 Corinthians 6:9—11, that homosexuals can change.

Through My Eyes, on the other hand, features no-frills, no-narration footage of young people talking about finding Christ, discovering same-sex attraction, wrestling with the truth of Scripture, and trying to change. This is where Eyes differs from Question. None of these young people were changed, and that's where their stories end. It's not clear if these Christians are involved in same-sex behavior or not. And that's the point: It's for viewers to debate. In fact, the group behind Through My Eyes, the Gay Christian Network, is itself divided on the legitimacy of homosexual relationships.

The only true documentary of this group is SoleJourney, which follows Soulforce's protests against Focus on the Family's anti-gay-marriage stance. The film champions Soulforce—one interviewee repeatedly equates the group's fight with Martin Luther King Jr.'s fight for civil rights—and paints Dobson as a villain. Despite being one-sided, the film challenges viewers to ask, How did the Good News end up being called—as it is here—"the primary source of homophobia"?

Todd Hertz, who works with youth, is a film critic for CT Movies

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/september/41.86.html

Where Did ‘We’ Go?

2009-09-30T11:35:00.000-07:00

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

New York Times

Published: September 29, 2009

Article

I hate to write about this, but I have actually been to this play before and it is really disturbing.

I was in Israel interviewing Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin just before he was assassinated in 1995. We had a beer in his office. He needed one. I remember the ugly mood in Israel then — a mood in which extreme right-wing settlers and politicians were doing all they could to delegitimize Rabin, who was committed to trading land for peace as part of the Oslo accords. They questioned his authority. They accused him of treason. They created pictures depicting him as a Nazi SS officer, and they shouted death threats at rallies. His political opponents winked at it all.

And in so doing they created a poisonous political environment that was interpreted by one right-wing Jewish nationalist as a license to kill Rabin — he must have heard, “God will be on your side” — and so he did.

Others have already remarked on this analogy, but I want to add my voice because the parallels to Israel then and America today turn my stomach: I have no problem with any of the substantive criticism of President Obama from the right or left. But something very dangerous is happening. Criticism from the far right has begun tipping over into delegitimation and creating the same kind of climate here that existed in Israel on the eve of the Rabin assassination.

What kind of madness is it that someone would create a poll on Facebook asking respondents, “Should Obama be killed?” The choices were: “No, Maybe, Yes, and Yes if he cuts my health care.” The Secret Service is now investigating. I hope they put the jerk in jail and throw away the key because this is exactly what was being done to Rabin.

Even if you are not worried that someone might draw from these vitriolic attacks a license to try to hurt the president, you have to be worried about what is happening to American politics more broadly.

Our leaders, even the president, can no longer utter the word “we” with a straight face. There is no more “we” in American politics at a time when “we” have these huge problems — the deficit, the recession, health care, climate change and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — that “we” can only manage, let alone fix, if there is a collective “we” at work.

Sometimes I wonder whether George H.W. Bush, president “41,” will be remembered as our last “legitimate” president. The right impeached Bill Clinton and hounded him from Day 1 with the bogus Whitewater “scandal.” George W. Bush was elected under a cloud because of the Florida voting mess, and his critics on the left never let him forget it.

And Mr. Obama is now having his legitimacy attacked by a concerted campaign from the right fringe. They are using everything from smears that he is a closet “socialist” to calling him a “liar” in the middle of a joint session of Congress to fabricating doubts about his birth in America and whether he is even a citizen. And these attacks are not just coming from the fringe. Now they come from Lou Dobbs on CNN and from members of the House of Representatives.

Again, hack away at the man’s policies and even his character all you want. I know politics is a tough business. But if we destroy the legitimacy of another president to lead or to pull the country together for what most Americans want most right now — nation-building at home — we are in serious trouble. We can’t go 24 years without a legitimate president — not without being swamped by the problems that we will end up postponing because we can’t address them rationally.

The American political system was, as the saying goes, “designed by geniuses so it could be run by idiots.” But a cocktail of political and technological trends have converged in the last decade that are making it possible for the idiots of all political stripes to overwhelm and paralyze the genius of our system.

Those factors are: the wild excess of money in politics; the gerrymandering of political districts, making them permanently Republican or Democratic and erasing the political middle; a 24/7 cable news cycle that makes all politics a daily battle of tactics that overwhelm strategic thinking; and a blogosphere that at its best enriches our debates, adding new checks on the establishment, and at its worst coarsens our debates to a whole new level, giving a new power to anonymous slanderers to send lies around the world. Finally, on top of it all, we now have a permanent presidential campaign that encourages all partisanship, all the time among our leading politicians.

I would argue that together these changes add up to a difference of degree that is a difference in kind — a different kind of American political scene that makes me wonder whether we can seriously discuss serious issues any longer and make decisions on the basis of the national interest.

We can’t change this overnight, but what we can change, and must change, is people crossing the line between criticizing the president and tacitly encouraging the unthinkable and the unforgivable.

When Gay People Get Married

2009-09-24T14:24:00.000-07:00

An Interview With Author M. V. Lee Badgett

09/24/09- by Lori Hahn

Lezgetreal.com

M.V. Lee Badgett recently published her book, When Gay People Get Married, What Happens When Societies Legalize Same-Sex Marriage, a work that was researched while living and working in The Netherlands. Dr. Badgett is the research director of the Williams Institute for Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy at UCLA School of Law. She also directs the Center for Public Policy and Administration at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.

What gave you the idea to do the study regarding gay marriage in Europe?

I’ve been interested in gay marriage for a long time primarily from the perspective of economics. Thinking about it from that perspective brought me into the public debate about gay marriage.

As I lived in The Netherlands for a while and as things happened with the Goodrich decision here in Massachusetts, I realized there was more to the debate than the economic side. The book itself evolved out of a lot of different experiences while I was there from meeting people who were married and hearing their stories to getting in a debate with Stanley Kurtz, the right-wing political pundit. I took advantage of the fact I could interview couples and that was something that was relatively new for me in terms of research and quite revealing and really, a lot of fun. Working with numbers, which I love, was one thing. Hearing people’s stories, which were exciting and moving and enlightening, well, that piece was my favorite part of my book.

The legalities of gay marriage in Europe aren’t the same, right? Married couples don’t enjoy all the benefits of marriage we do in the US, right?

That’s right. In The Netherlands you get probably three-quarters of all the rights and benefits and obligations just by living together. Marriage itself only adds a bit to that. I think one of the reasons rates are low is because marriage has changed in those places. It’s less common to get married in those places.

In fact lots of the couples I interviewed said their parents were thrilled they got married because their straight brothers or sisters didn’t marry. Siblings and friends are not getting married so they are a little slower to get married. But, people are getting married over time. These decisions are very complex. It might involve two people who need to negotiate – who don’t necessarily agree about whether they should get married. Sometimes they are waiting until they decide to have kids or buy a house together.

How can we equate what goes on here to what is going on in Europe? European culture seems to generally have a more liberal outlook towards all social institutions. What’s the major difference between there and here?

There certainly are some differences and religion is one of them. We are more religious as a society than most European countries – at least more than the countries which have gay marriage. But we are a lot alike in a lot of ways. We share a common cultural understanding of marriage and laws around marriage. There are some differences, but we are similar in things like how our economies are structured, the role of women, and our relative affluence. It does suggest that some of our decision-making might be similar.

Most interesting for me while in The Netherlands was to understand what marriage meant to people when it did not have a lot of value to it (as far as rights/benefits). When you do see people marrying, it has to be for something more than what we sometimes hear here, “My partner needed health insurance, so we did.”

I ended up tapping into a group of bi-national couples and several couples had one of the partners who were American. The marriage component was very important as to why they lived in The Netherlands – because they couldn’t live together here. The American partner had to give up a job or career to move to the one country that would allow them to live with their Dutch partners.

How can a study like this influence policy here?

What some people have said is that this book is intended to be a rational approach to thinking about marriage. The problem is that the issue is not rational here because it’s all about religion, it’s all about morality. But, I think we’re entering into a new phase of the debate where people do want to know a little more about what it really looks like instead of the wild predictions or fears. Even though there’s not a majority of US people being surveyed who support the concept of gay marriage, if you add together those who support civil unions and gay marriage, that number is over 50%, so there is a growing recognition that same-sex couples need some kinds of protection.

So, what I’m trying to do with the book is use it to challenge some of people’s stereotypes.

I do think people read magazines and blogs and newspapers that help sift through what to think about these topics. I do think that a book that is trying to take a more careful, measured, not-so-emotional look at the issue has a role to play in the debate.

One of the things I noticed was the fact that a rose by any other name is not necessarily a rose. Civil union, domestic partnership, and marriage are not the same. How do we bring that conversation around, in a rational way, to the fact that the terms are not interchangeable? For example, when I was living in Germany, anyone (straight) wanting to marry had to go get a civil marriage with the government and if they wanted a church wedding they could. France and the Netherlands have something similar – you get married in town hall, it’s secular. There still is a distinction between marriage in Germany and life partnerships.

In the US we have the same thing, but we have a broader definition of who is allowed to officiate, including clergy. The church doesn’t get to decide what it means; it’s determined by the government.

It’s a great thought experiment. Let’s say we changed everything to civil unions instead of marriage. My question would be: How are people going to think about it. You’ve wiped out the concept of legal marriage, but that other huge piece of it, that the historical, social and cultural meanings of marriage are kind of out there floating around and I think they’re going to be attached to whatever you change it into. I think people would still say, “You got married.”

We can’t do that in the US in a situation like California where there’s same-sex domestic partnership and straight marriage because they are two different things. Straight couples cannot get domestic partnerships unless they are over 62 and gay couples can’t get married. So, the word separates out those two groups – this is how you’re different.

The Dutch couples have three options:

1. Live together and be treated as a couple legally

2. Get married to formalize the relations

3. Registered partnerships

Gay and straight couples both are more likely to get married rather than form a partnership to formalize their relationship. The couples I spoke with were very clear. They believed registered partnership is about second-class citizenship. It was a political compromise to keep gays from getting married. They said, “We don’t want to get a registered partnership because we don’t know what it means.”

Even those who haven’t formalized their relationship said that if they did, they would choose marriage – that registered partnerships are, according to one of them a “bit of nothing.” Registered partnerships don’t have a lot of value to them.

What do you see as the next hot-spots?

California is certainly important, but the next hot spot is Maine’s referendum in November. I think that’s quite important to try to defend the right to marry there. Looks like New York and New Jersey are getting close to letting gay people get married or at least having that debate. Some people think Rhode Island might not be in the too distant future. That would give us pretty much the Northeast.

Certainly the other west coast states; Washington and Oregon have had domestic partnerships or civil unions that are giving gay couples some rights. Perhaps those states can transition to marriage.

I think that as more people get married and their friends and family come and see them get married it’s a recognizable, familiar process that they’ll go back home taking that with them and over time experience will dispel the fears and it will make it easier for people to see that giving marriage equality is a good thing – not just for the couples but for everybody.

Excluded in this conversation: The entire Southern Belt.

Yeah! When will that happen? Well, that’s a really tough one. The one state being pointed as not out of the realm of possibility is North Carolina because it doesn’t have a constitutional amendment. I’m from North Carolina originally and it’s not known as a particularly liberal state. There have been some changes. They have some openly gay elected officials there now and a lot of organizing going on so it’s a place to watch.

Thank you Dr. Badgett!

Lori Hahn

Coming Out in Middle School

2009-09-23T15:48:00.001-07:00

By BENOIT DENIZET-LEWIS

New York Times

Published: September 23, 2009

Austin didn’t know what to wear to his first gay dance last spring. It was bad enough that the gangly 13-year-old from Sand Springs, Okla., had to go without his boyfriend at the time, a 14-year-old star athlete at another middle school, but there were also laundry issues. “I don’t have any clean clothes!” he complained to me by text message, his favored method of communication.

When I met up with him an hour later, he had weathered his wardrobe crisis (he was in jeans and a beige T-shirt with musical instruments on it) but was still a nervous wreck. “I’m kind of scared,” he confessed. “Who am I going to talk to? I wish my boyfriend could come.” But his boyfriend couldn’t find anyone to give him a ride nor, Austin explained, could his boyfriend ask his father for one. “His dad would give him up for adoption if he knew he was gay,” Austin told me. “I’m serious. He has the strictest, scariest dad ever. He has to date girls and act all tough so that people won’t suspect.”

Austin doesn’t have to play “the pretend game,” as he calls it, anymore. At his middle school, he has come out to his close friends, who have been supportive. A few of his female friends responded that they were bisexual. “Half the girls I know are bisexual,” he said. He hadn’t planned on coming out to his mom yet, but she found out a week before the dance. “I told my cousin, my cousin told this other girl, she told her mother, her mother told my mom and then my mom told me,” Austin explained. “The only person who really has a problem with it is my older sister, who keeps saying: ‘It’s just a phase! It’s just a phase!’ ”

Austin’s mom was on vacation in another state during my visit to Oklahoma, so a family friend drove him to the weekly youth dance at the Openarms Youth Project in Tulsa, which is housed in a white cement-block building next to a redbrick Baptist church on the east side of town. We arrived unfashionably on time, and Austin tried to park himself on a couch in a corner but was whisked away by Ben, a 16-year-old Openarms regular, who gave him an impromptu tour and introduced him to his mom, who works the concession area most weeks.

Openarms is practically overrun with supportive moms. While Austin and Ben were on the patio, a 14-year-old named Nick arrived with his mom. Nick came out to her when he was 12 but had yet to go on a date or even kiss a boy, which prompted his younger sister to opine that maybe he wasn’t actually gay. “She said, ‘Maybe you’re bisexual,’ ” Nick told me. “But I don’t have to have sex with a girl to know I’m not interested.”

Ninety minutes after we arrived, Openarms was packed with about 130 teenagers who had come from all corners of the state. Some danced to the Lady Gaga song “Poker Face,” others battled one another in pool or foosball and a handful of young couples held hands on the outdoor patio. In one corner, a short, perky eighth-grade girl kissed her ninth-grade girlfriend of one year. I asked them where they met. “In church,” they told me. Not far from them, a 14-year-old named Misti — who came out to classmates at her middle school when she was 12 and weathered anti-gay harassment and bullying, including having food thrown at her in the cafeteria — sat on a wooden bench and cuddled with a new girlfriend.

Austin had practically forgotten about his boyfriend. Instead, he was confessing to me — mostly by text message, though we were standing next to each other — his crush on Laddie, a 16-year-old who had just moved to Tulsa from a small town in Texas. Like Austin, Laddie was attending the dance for the first time, but he came off as much more comfortable in his skin and had a handful of admirers on the patio. Laddie told them that he came out in eighth grade and that the announcement sent shock waves through his Texas school.

“I definitely lost some friends,” he said, “but no one really made fun of me or called me names, probably because I was one of the most popular kids when I came out. I don’t think I would have come out if I wasn’t popular.”

“When I first realized I was gay,” Austin interjected, “I just assumed I would hide it and be miserable for the rest of my life. But then I said, ‘O.K., wait, I don’t want to hide this and be miserable my whole life.’ ”

I asked him how old he was when he made that decision.

“Eleven,” he said.

As the dance wound down and the boys waited for their rides home, I joined Tim Gillean, one of Openarms’s founders, in the D.J. booth, where he was preparing to play the Rihanna song “Disturbia.” An affable 52-year-old with wire-rimmed glasses and salt-and-pepper hair, he founded Openarms in 2002 with his longtime partner, Ken Draper. In addition to the weekly dances, the couple lead discussion groups every Thursday — about self-esteem, healthy relationships and H.I.V./AIDS.

When I asked Gillean if he ever expected kids as young as Nick and Austin to show up at Openarms, he chuckled and shook his head. Like many adult gay men who came out in college or later, Gillean couldn’t imagine openly gay middle-school students. “But here they are,” he said, looking out over the crowd. “More and more of them every week.”

I heard similar accounts from those who work with gay youth all across the country. Though most adolescents who come out do so in high school, sex researchers and counselors say that middle-school students are increasingly coming out to friends or family or to an adult in school. Just how they’re faring in a world that wasn’t expecting them — and that isn’t so sure a 12-year-old can know if he’s gay — is a complicated question that defies simple geographical explanations. Though gay kids in the South and in rural areas tend to have a harder time than those on the coasts, I met gay youth who were doing well in socially conservative areas like Tulsa and others in progressive cities who were afraid to come out.

What is clear is that for many gay youth, middle school is more survival than learning — one parent of a gay teenager I spent time with likened her child’s middle school to a “war zone.” In a 2007 survey of 626 gay, bisexual and transgender middle-schoolers from across the country by the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (Glsen), 81 percent reported being regularly harassed on campus because of their sexual orientation. Another 39 percent reported physical assaults. Of the students who told teachers or administrators about the bullying, only 29 percent said it resulted in effective intervention.

A middle-school counselor in Maine summed up the view of many educators I spoke to when she conceded that her school was “totally unprepared” for openly gay students. “We always knew middle school was a time when kids struggle with their identity,” she told me, “but it was easy to let anti-gay language slide because it’s so imbedded in middle-school culture and because we didn’t have students who were out to us or their classmates. Now we do, so we’re playing catch up to try to keep them safe.”

As a response to anti-gay bullying and harassment, at least 120 middle schools across the country have formed gay-straight alliance (G.S.A.) groups, where gay and lesbian students — and their straight peers — meet to brainstorm strategies for making their campus safer. Other schools are letting students be part of the national Day of Silence each April (participants take a vow of silence for a day to symbolize the silencing effect of anti-gay harassment), which last year was held in memory of Lawrence King, a 15-year-old gay junior-high student in Oxnard, Calif., who was shot and killed at school by a 14-year-old classmate.

Both G.S.A.’s and the Day of Silence have been controversial in places, as some parents and faculty members object to what they see as the promotion of homosexuality in public schools and the “premature sexualization of the students,” as a lawyer for a school in central Florida that was fighting the creation of a G.S.A. put it. But there is a growing consensus among parents and middle-school educators that something needs to be done to curb anti-gay bullying, which a 2008 study at an all-male school by researchers at the University of Nebraska and Harvard Medical School found to be the most psychologically harmful type of bullying.

“I certainly don’t believe school districts should force a sexual agenda on the community,” says Finn Laursen, the executive director of the Christian Educators Association International, “but we can’t just put our heads in the sand and ignore the kind of harassment that’s going on.”

The challenging school experience of so many gay and lesbian students — and the suicides last spring of a sixth grader in Massachusetts and a fifth grader in Georgia, both of whom were relentlessly bullied at school for appearing gay — reinforces the longtime narrative of gay youth in crisis. Studies in the ’80s and ’90s found gay teenagers to be at a significantly higher risk for depression, substance abuse and suicide than their heterosexual peers.

When I went to work in 1998 for XY, a national magazine for young gay men, we received dozens of letters each week from teenagers in the depths of despair. Some had been thrown out by their families; others lived at home but were reminded often that they were intrinsically flawed. My arrival at XY (at 23, I was only three years out of the closet myself) coincided with the founding of the Trevor Project, which runs a national 24-hour crisis and suicide hot line for gay and questioning youth, and with the firstlarge wave of G.S.A.’s in high schools. (They are now in more than 4,000 high schools, according to Glsen.)

But by the time I stopped writing for the magazine nearly three years later, the content of the letters we received was beginning to change. A new kind of gay adolescent was appearing on the page — proud, resilient, sometimes even happy. We profiled many of them in the magazine, including a seventh grader in suburban Philadelphia who was out to his classmates and a high-school varsity-football player from Massachusetts who came out to his teammates and was shocked to find unconditional support.

That’s not to say that gay teenagers didn’t still suffer harassment at school or rejection at home, but many seemed less burdened with shame and self-loathing than their older gay peers. What had changed? Not only were there increasingly accurate and positive portrayals of gays and lesbians in popular culture, but most teenagers were by then regular Internet users. Going online broke through the isolation that had been a hallmark of being young and gay, and it allowed gay teenagers to find information to refute what their families or churches sometimes still told them — namely, that they would never find happiness and love.

Today, nearly a decade after my time at XY, young people with same-sex attractions are increasingly coming out and living lives that would be “nearly incomprehensible to earlier generations of gay youth,” Ritch Savin-Williams writes in his book “The New Gay Teenager.” A professor of developmental psychology at Cornell University, Savin-Williams told me recently that being young and gay is no longer an automatic prescription for a traumatic childhood.

In particular, openly gay youth who are perceived as conforming to adolescent gender norms are often fully integrated into their peer and school social circles. Girls who come out as bisexual but are still considered “feminine” are often immune from harassment, as are some gay boys, like Laddie, who come out but are still considered “masculine.” “Bisexual girls have it the easiest,” Austin told me in Oklahoma. “Most of the straight guys at school think that’s hot, so that can make the girl even more popular.”

Still, the younger they are when they come out, the more that youth with same-sex attractions face an obstacle that would be unimaginable to their straight peers. When a 12-year-old boy matter-of-factly tells his parents — or a school counselor — that he likes girls, their reaction tends not to be one of disbelief, dismissal or rejection. “No one says to them: ‘Are you sure? You’re too young to know if you like girls. It’s probably just a phase,’ ” says Eileen Ross, the director of the Outlet Program, a support service for gay youth in Mountain View, Calif. “But that’s what we say too often to gay youth. We deny them their feelings and truth in a way we would never do with a heterosexual young person.”

I was guilty of my share of that, too, the first time I met Kera — then a 12-year-old seventh grader — and her 13-year-old best friend, Justin, last spring in a city in New England. Kera had small, delicate features. Justin had freckles and braces. They seemed like kids. Yet there they were at a bookstore coffee shop after school, talking nonchalantly — when they weren’t giggling uncontrollably about one of their many inside jokes, that is — about their sexual identities. Kera said she was bisexual. Justin said he was gay. The effect was initially surreal to me, and before long I heard myself blurt out, “But you’re so young!”

My reaction surprised me. After all, I’d known on some level that I was gay when I was their age. If I were growing up today, it’s possible that I would feel emboldened enough to confide in my parents, or at least a close friend, that I was gay. I’d also spent the morning of my visit reading a handful of studies about when gay and lesbian youth first report an awareness of same-sex attraction. Though most didn’t self-identify as gay or lesbian until they were 14, 15 or 16, the mean age at which they first became aware of that attraction was 10. Boys tended to be aware about a year earlier than girls. (Of course, not all kids with same-sex attractions go on to self-identify as gay.)

Those findings are consistent with what many adult gay men have been reporting for years: they may not have come out until adulthood, but they knew they were attracted to the same sex as early as elementary or middle school. Kera and Justin knew that, too, but they’re among the first generation of young gay adolescents to take on an identity that many parents and educators associate with adult lifestyle choices.

Kera says she was 10 when she realized she was interested in both sexes. “It was confusing for a while, because for some reason I thought that you had to be straight or gay, and that you couldn’t be both,” she told me at the coffee shop. “So I thought about it a lot, like I do about everything, and I went online and looked up bisexuality to read more about it. I realized that was me.”

She told her mom soon after (more on that later) and then came out to her close friends at school, including Justin, who she had suspected was gay. Last year, the entire school found out when she briefly dated a female classmate. “We didn’t think we had anything to be ashamed of, so we didn’t want to go around hiding,” she told me. “It was a whole big drama at school. Some guys made fun of us, others hit on us. Most middle-school guys are total, complete morons.”

Though he wishes he could be as “brave” as Kera, Justin is out to only a few friends at school. “I lie when people ask me if I’m gay,” he told me. “Sometimes they leave me alone after that, but other times they still call me names.”

Kera doesn’t back down when someone harasses her or one of her gay friends. “I don’t want to be a bully back, but if I get mad, I will say mean things back,” she told me, adding that she has gotten into two fights at school.

Middle school was even worse last year for another boy named Austin, who lives in a small town in Michigan. A tall, heavyset 15-year-old now in his first year of high school, Austin said his eighth-grade classmates regularly called him the “gay freak.” They groped themselves in front of him. Not a day went by when someone didn’t call him a “fag,” sometimes with teachers present. And at a football game last fall, several classmates forced him off the bleachers because it wasn’t “the queer section.”

“I would have preferred that he not come out in school, but he wanted to be honest — he wanted to be true to himself,” Austin’s mother, Nadia, told me. “So I took a job as the lunch lady at school because I felt like I needed to be his bodyguard. It seems like I spent the entire year in the principal’s office trying to get them to protect my son. But they would say things like, ‘Well, what did he do to provoke them?’ We live in a very conservative area with very vocal parents, and I believe the school didn’t want to be seen as going out of their way at all to protect a gay student.”

The school’s principal would not comment specifically about Austin, but he insisted that the school “does not tolerate harassment and bullying of any kind.” He did concede that teachers don’t react to anti-gay language as consistently as he would like, which is something I also heard from a counselor at Kera’s school. “We have veteran teachers who have been teaching for 25 years, and some just see the language as so imbedded in the language of middle-schoolers that it’s essentially unchangeable,” she said. “Others are afraid to address the language because they feel like it would mean talking about sexuality, which they aren’t comfortable doing in a middle school setting.”

Jennifer Mathieu Blessington, who teaches at Johnston Middle School in Houston, said she has been forced to address the issue in her class. “Many boys at that age are so unsure of themselves and are incredibly worried about being perceived as gay, so they call everything and everyone else gay,” she told me. She relayed to me a recent incident when a boy in her class held up a book with a pink cover and said he wouldn’t want to read it because it “looks gay.” “Everyone in the class started laughing like it was the funniest thing they’d ever heard,” Blessington continued, “but I said: ‘We don’t use the word “gay” in a negative way in this classroom. Gay people are human beings, and that’s the way we talk about them in here. Is that understood?’ ”

By far the most common usage of the word “gay” in middle schools is in the expression “that’s so gay,” a popular adolescent phrase that means that something is dumb or lame. The phrase has become so ubiquitous in the culture of the average middle school that even friends of gay students sometimes use it. Still, the expression is offensive to many, and last year Glsen and the Ad Council embarked on a media campaign to combat it. (Glsen would have preferred to go after more incendiary language, “but broadcasters would be very reluctant to let us say the word ‘faggot’ on television,” Eliza Byard, Glsen’s executive director, told me.)

Though the commercials (featuring the celebrities Hilary Duff and Wanda Sykes) are aimed at teenagers, many of those who work with gay youth say that teachers also need to get the message. “Teachers would never let students say, ‘That’s so black,’ ” says Eileen Ross from the Outlet Program in Mountain View, “but I’ve had teachers look at me like I’m crazy when I suggest that they should say something to a student who says ‘that’s so gay.’ They’ll say, ‘If I have to stop what I’m doing every time a student says that, I won’t have any time to teach!’ ”

A few years ago, when I first heard from educators that young adolescents were coming out of the closet, I visited a middle school in Northern California where three eighth graders (a gay boy named Justin and two heterosexual girls, Alison and Amelia) took me on a tour of the school. They wanted to show me how many students were gay, bisexual or “confused,” but they wanted to do it discreetly — or as discreetly as middle-schoolers can.

All three were members of the school’s G.S.A. “Even though this is a liberal area,” Alison explained, “it’s still hard to be gay at this school. Most people won’t even come to G.S.A. meetings because they don’t want people other than their close friends to know they’re gay or lesbians, even though straight people also come to meetings. I get called a lesbian all the time even though I’m not.” She continued, “People are totally paranoid.” She suggested that they “come up with some code words on the down low so we can tell you what’s up without anyone knowing what we’re saying!” (They settled on “paw” for gay and “woof” for bisexual.)

As we walked past the gym, a group of boys came rushing out. Justin pointed to a short, muscular eighth grader in a baseball cap. “Paw!” he said.

Alison looked surprised. “Isn’t he a woof?”

“No, he just thinks he’s a woof,” Justin said.

Amelia looked confused. “What does woof mean again?”

A minute later, they fixed their gaze on a boy sitting against a wall listening to his iPod. “Paw,” Alison told me. “I mean woof!”

“Yeah, he’ll make out with anyone,” Justin confirmed. “Totally bisexual.”

“No, he’s not!” Amelia said, apparently distraught by the news.

“Oh, stop getting all mad just ’cause you like him,” Alison told her. “Everyone knows he’s a woof.”

After pointing out a handful of girls who are “definitely woofs,” Alison turned to me and recalled a recent “lesbian moment” of hers. “I totally had the hots for this girl in ‘Jesus Christ Superstar,’ ” she said with a giggle. “I was, like, ‘Whoa, I’m really attracted to you right now!’ ”

“Jesus was hot in that, too,” Justin offered.

Midway through our tour we were joined by Sayre, a handsome and soft-spoken 12-year-old. Sayre was one of the few students at the school who was out to everyone, which had earned him the respect of the G.S.A.’s dozen or so members. “I really admire him,” Justin told me as we walked. “I’ve only come out to my close friends, but Sayre doesn’t care what people think.”

I asked Sayre if he was interested in any boys at the school. “I like this one guy over there,” he said, pointing toward classmates playing soccer on a grass field, “but I think he’s straight, so that’s probably not going to happen.” A few minutes later, Sayre added that he was in no rush to start dating. “It’s not like I have a lot of options anyway,” he said, echoing what I would go on to hear from many gay middle-schoolers. “I like guys who are nice and caring and don’t act like jerks to everyone. But this is middle school, where guys think it’s funny to pick their nose and fart really loud and laugh.”

As we came to the end of our tour, we approached a handful of boys sitting in a circle on the pavement eating lunch. “Woof, woof, woof, woof, woof!” Justin said, barely able to contain himself. “They’re all woofs.” One boy heard him and turned to us. “What’s a woof?” he asked us.

“Never mind,” Justin said.

“I don’t think he’s really a woof,” Alison told me, referring to a boy in the circle. “I think he’s straight but just confused.”

“He’s not confused,” Justin assured her. “He’s confused,” he said, referring to another boy in the circle. “He doesn’t know what he is. He changes his mind a lot.”

I was certainly confused trying to keep track of it all, but Alison told me not to worry. “We can’t even keep up with who’s gay or bi and who’s into who, and we go to school here!” she said.

All of this fluidity, confusion and experimentation can be understandably disorienting for parents and educators. Is an eighth grader who says he’s gay just experimenting? Could he change his mind in a week, as 13-year-olds routinely do with other identities — skater, prep, goth, jock — they try on for a while and then shed for another? And if sexuality is so fluid, should he really box himself in with a gay identity? Many parents told me they especially struggled with that last question.

Nadia, the mother of Austin in Michigan, told me that she and her husband “blew up” at him when he came out to them. “I really lost it, and my husband took it even harder than I did,” she said. “We just couldn’t wrap our heads around the idea that Austin would know what he was at 13, and that he would want to tell other people.”

A year earlier they asked Austin if he was gay after they discovered his call to a gay chat line. He promised them that he was straight, and he promised himself that he would cover his tracks better. It’s not uncommon for gay youth to have their same-sex attraction discovered thanks to a rogue number on a phone bill or, more often these days, a poorly concealed Internet search history. “We see a lot of kids get outed by porn on the computer,” Tim Gillean told me in Tulsa. “I knew one kid who told his mom: ‘I don’t know how that got there. Maybe it was dad!’ ”

Austin eventually ended up telling his parents he was bisexual, which he knew was a lie (he wasn’t attracted to girls) but which he hoped would lessen the blow. But the plan backfired. “My mom said something like: ‘What does that mean, you’re bisexual? Do you just wake up in the morning and willy-nilly decide what you’re going to be that day? Straight yesterday, bi today, gay tomorrow?’ ” Austin recalled. “For the next two months my parents tried to convince me that I couldn’t know what I was. But I knew I was different in second grade — I just didn’t really put a name to it until I was 11. My parents said, ‘How do you know what your sexuality is if you haven’t had any sexual experiences?’ I was like, ‘Should I go and have one and then report back?’ ”

While Austin’s mother correctly assumed that Austin wasn’t yet sexually active, other parents heard the words “gay” or “bisexual” and immediately thought “sex.” In reality, many of their kids hadn’t had any yet. Some (including Kera’s friend Justin) hadn’t even kissed anyone. Those who had been sexual in some form often reported that it was with a heterosexual friend who they presumed was just experimenting.

Though many of the parents I spoke to needed a period of adjustment before accepting their children’s announcement that they were gay or bisexual, others offered immediate and unequivocal support. “The biggest difference I’ve seen in the last 10 years isn’t with gay kids — it’s with their families,” says Dan Woog, an openly gay varsity boys’ soccer coach at Staples High School in Westport, Conn., who helped found a gay-straight alliance at his school in 1993. “Many parents just don’t assume anymore that their kids will have a sad, difficult life just because they’re gay.”

That was certainly the case for Kera’s mother, who told me she hardly batted an eye when Kera came out to her. I visited them last spring in their small two-story house on a quiet street in a middle-class neighborhood. We sat at the kitchen table. Kera’s mother, who had just finished her shift as a nurse, hadn’t had time to change out of her blue scrubs.

Kera handed me a poem she wrote for her mom a year earlier. “It’s not one of my best,” she insisted, covering her ears in embarrassment after she agreed that I could read a portion of it into my tape recorder.

I like girls. I know it’s true

I like girls, I really do

Not just boys, but girls as well

I’m bisexual as you can tell

“My first reaction to the poem, which she slipped under my bedroom door before going to hide in her room, was that she seemed really worked up about this,” her mother recalled. “But I knew I was interested in boys when I was her age, so it didn’t strike me as unusual that Kera might know she’s interested in boys and girls, put two and two together and call herself bisexual. Kids just know what those words mean a lot earlier than when I was growing up.”

On the national Day of Silence last April, I visited Daniel Webster Middle School in Los Angeles, one of 21 middle schools in California with a G.S.A. California is one of only 12 states that have passed laws to protect students from bullying and harassment on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity or expression. (In May, Representative Linda Sanchez of California introduced the Safe Schools Improvement Act, a federal anti-bullying bill that would require schools to implement comprehensive anti-bullying policies that include protections for gay students.)

I arrived at Daniel Webster, a school of some 850 students, most of them Hispanic or African-American, at lunchtime. About 50 kids milled around two large wooden tables at the center of the school’s leafy courtyard. Many of them wore pink T-shirts, and some filled out cards that would later be strung together and displayed: “You Are What You Are — Embrace It,” “Never Put Someone Down, and Never Let Someone Put You Down.” Others communicated using hand gestures or by writing notes to one another. But most had given up trying to be mute. “Good luck getting middle-schoolers not to talk,” the school’s counselor and G.S.A. co-adviser at the time, Ruben Valerio, told me with a smile.

One of the loudest students at the tables was Johnny (a nickname), a tall, handsome seventh grader. A leader of the G.S.A., he had only managed to stay quiet for about 30 seconds that morning. “It’s just really exciting to be at a school where it’s O.K. to be gay,” he told me as he bear-hugged his friend, an outgoing seventh grader known to her friends as Lala, who’d come out earlier that year as bisexual. At his previous school, Johnny didn’t feel safe and had little support when he came out to his mother. “She would go back and forth between saying things like: ‘I love you. I just don’t understand why you would choose this lifestyle at this age,’ to ‘It’s disgusting what you’re doing. Are you a faggot now?’ No one would ever use that word here.”

Johnny estimated that there were about 35 girls and 10 boys at Daniel Webster who were out as bisexual, lesbian or gay. (The vast majority of those girls identified as bisexual.) He introduced me to a handful of them, including two members of the G.S.A.: Tina (also a nickname), a seventh grader who considered herself bisexual and was dating a boy at another school; and a popular eighth-grade girl who used to date Tina.

They were joined at the tables by dozens of their straight friends and a handful of teachers. One teacher, Richard Mandl, approached me and asked what I thought of the school. I told him that I’d never seen so many happy gay kids in one place. “It’s a little disorienting,” I told him. “I feel like I’m in a parallel gay universe.”

He laughed. “Yeah, it’s pretty unusual what’s happened here,” he said. “It definitely wasn’t always this way.”

When Mandl began teaching at the school in 2002, he said that there weren’t any openly gay students — and that it was common to hear anti-gay language. “Kids would run by you and be screaming at another kid: ‘You fag! You’re so gay!’ ” he said. “It wasn’t until a few years ago when the faculty sort of came together and said: ‘You know what? We need to stop this.’ ”

That became a lot easier two years ago when one of the school’s most popular boys came out to his classmates. Because he was so well liked, and because so many of his friends rallied around him, “it became cooler at Daniel Webster to be accepting and open-minded,” Mandl said.

The principal, Kendra Wallace, told me that she didn’t hesitate when the school’s science teacher approached her (on behalf of the boy and several of his friends) about starting a G.S.A. “I had some staff who were livid at first, because they thought it would be about sex, or us endorsing a lifestyle,” she said. “But the G.S.A. isn’t about that, and they’ve come around. This is a club that promotes safety, and it gives kids a voice. And the most amazing thing has happened since the G.S.A. started. Bullying of all kinds is way down. The G.S.A. created this pervasive anti-bullying culture on campus that affects everyone.”

Not all principals have reacted as enthusiastically to students or teachers hoping to start a G.S.A. (Teachers often wait for students to make the request, because they don’t want to be perceived as “having a political agenda,” as one school counselor told me.) At a middle school in Massachusetts, the G.S.A. adviser told me that the school’s principal initially balked when students asked to observe the Day of Silence and start a G.S.A. “She argued that it wasn’t age-appropriate, and she worried about having to deal with negative editorials in the local paper,” the adviser said. But because the school had other extracurricular clubs, “the principal was made aware that blocking a G.S.A. from forming is against the law.”

Indeed, courts — citing the Equal Access Act, which requires public schools to provide equal access to extracurricular clubs — have consistently ruled against schools that try to block G.S.A.’s from starting. (The 1984 law was the brainchild of Christian groups fighting to allow students to form religious clubs in schools.)

When Yulee High School in northeast Florida was forced by a federal judge last spring to let a G.S.A. meet on campus, the school asked students to change the name of their proposed club to something other than Gay Straight Alliance. The students refused, and a court backed them up in August. Administrators at Austin’s middle school in Michigan used the same tactic when he tried to start a G.S.A. there, he said. “They told me I needed to change the name to something ‘less controversial,’ ” Austin recalled. “I didn’t feel like fighting them, so I just called it the Peace Alliance.”

And because there were so few openly gay students at Austin’s middle school last year, all but 2 of the 15 or so students who attended each meeting were straight. At G.S.A. meetings at Daniel Webster, gay and straight members spend two periods a week reading and discussing news stories about gay issues, organizing events like the Day of Silence and talking about navigating the outside world — which isn’t always as supportive as their campus. Lala, for example, said the backing of the G.S.A. was critical when she came out to her family.

“They’re a lot better now, but the first thing one of my relatives did when I told them I was bisexual was hit me on the head with a Bible,” she told me. “So while I was dealing with that insanity at home, I at least had a safe place at school to talk about what was happening.”

Later that day, as I sat in a conference room with a handful of the G.S.A members from Daniel Webster, they spent a lot of time talking about dating. Asking 13- or 14-year-olds if they think they’re old enough to date is a little like asking them if they’re old enough to stay up past 11, so I didn’t even bother. I was more interested in learning how their parents reacted to the news that they not only had gay kids — but also that those kids had same-sex boyfriends or girlfriends.

Tina surprised me when she said her father actually prefers that she date girls. “His biggest fear has always been that I’ll get pregnant before I’m 18,” she told us, “so my dad’s really supportive of the girl thing.”

Johnny said his mom has made it very clear that he’s not allowed to bring a boyfriend over to the house. “She’s like, ‘O.K., I accept you, but you better not bring any of those people around,’ ” he told me.

That’s one of about 50 “rejecting behaviors” identified by Caitlin Ryan of San Francisco State University, who has spent the last eight years studying the link between family acceptance or rejection of gay children and their mental health in early adulthood. (Ryan found that teenagers in “rejecting families” were significantly more likely to have attempted suicide, used drugs and engaged in unprotected sex than those who were raised in accepting families.)

Of course, many parents of middle-schoolers don’t want their child dating yet, no matter their sexual orientation. But several parents I spoke to conceded that it wasn’t always easy to fashion the same rules for their gay and straight kids. Their instinct was to tell their gay children to wait longer before they could date. Austin from Michigan said he could see the struggle playing out in his parents. “When I came out, they said I couldn’t date anyone until I was 18,” he said. “Then I think they realized that was ridiculous, so they changed it to 16.”

In a rural area outside of Tulsa a few years ago, I visited a mother and her 14-year-old gay son, Ely, who were struggling to fashion the rules of when, and in what context, he could date. I listened as Ely tried to persuade his mother to let his latest crush spend time in his room (“With the door shut,” he clarified):

Ely: So, can we hang out in my room?

Mother: I don’t trust you two alone in there. Period.

Ely: What about if there are no body parts touching?

Mother: You don’t have that kind of self-control.

Ely: Yes, I do!

Mother: No you don’t. How old is he again?

Ely: 15.

Mother: And he has a shaved head and piercings everywhere. Is this who you really want to date?

Ely: All kinds of people have shaved heads.

Mother: I don’t think you’re ready to have a relationship right now.

Ely: Ugh.

Mother: I know, I know, you can’t wait to move away from me. You have the most unfair mother in the world!

As I listened to them bicker, I couldn’t help remembering what Ritch Savin-Williams, the professor of developmental psychology at Cornell, told me the first time we spoke: “This is the first generation of gay kids who have the great joy of being able to argue with their parents about dating, just like their straight peers do.”

Though dating and sexual activity were a reality for some of the middle-schoolers I spent time with, others were more concerned with simply making gay friends their age. Those who attended a school with other openly gay students or who lived near a gay youth group (Openarms in Tulsa, for example) were the lucky ones. But many, like Austin in Michigan, had never met another openly gay boy.

“He has his close girl friends, but he doesn’t have any gay friends,” his mother told me. To meet other gay people, he has gone with his father to nearby meetings of Pflag (Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays), where gay kids often accompany their parents. And in June, she agreed to let him attend the gay-pride parade two hours away in Chicago.

“I told Austin he could go if either me or his dad went with him,” she recalled. “So he chose his dad, probably because he knew it would be the thing his dad would want to do least in the world. But off they went, and I give my husband credit, because he will do anything for his son. He doesn’t totally understand why Austin is gay, or how he can know for sure at his age, but he’s trying to be there for him. And he’s rarely seen Austin happier than at the parade. Austin warned his dad, ‘You can’t get mad at me when I scream at cute guys in Speedos!’ And boy, did Austin scream. He was in gay teenage heaven.”

Benoit Denizet-Lewis, a contributing writer for the magazine, is the author of “America Anonymous: Eight Addicts in Search of a Life.” His new book, “American Voyeur,” a collection of his writing, will be published in January.

4 Ways to Judge "Values Voter Summit"

2009-09-19T08:28:00.000-07:00

By Robert P. Jones

president, Public Religion Research

This weekend, conservative Christian activists will gather at the fourth annual "Values Voter Summit" in Washington, DC. Sponsored by Family Research Council and other conservative Christian and political groups, the gathering will feature prominent conservative Christians and other leaders and sessions with titles such as "Silencing the Christians," "Obamacare: Rationing Your Life Away," and "Thugocracy: Fighting the Vast Left-wing Conspiracy."

With titles like that, there is sure to be good, perhaps irresistible, religious and political theater, but sorting out the realities from the rhetoric can be a real challenge both for reporters and for readers who hope to come away from new stories with a critical understanding of the current state of the conservative religious activist movement and its relationship to the wider group of white evangelical Christians for which it claims to speak.

Below are four recommended questions that readers should use to evaluate the quality of the upcoming media coverage. These recommendations are largely based on findings from our newly released 2009 Religious Activists Surveys, conducted by the Bliss Institute of Applied Politics in partnership with Public Religion Research.

Question 1: Does the story note that conservative Christian activists are only one kind of "values voter"?

Our recent Religious Activists Surveys, the most comprehensive comparative portraits of conservative and progressive religious activists to date, are an important reminder that the conservative Christian activists attending the "Values Voter Summit" are just one kind of religious activist with one set of values. There is also another group of religious activists, progressive religious activists, who hold their own set of values and who have been making their presence known in recent years.

We found activists on both the right and the left who were both politically engaged and more highly religious than the general public. Referencing the so-called "God gap" during his remarks at our recent press conference, Michael Cromartie, Vice President of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, concluded, "Well clearly, from this data, the God Gap is not only closing, it is closed." In fact, in our surveys, while conservative and progressive activists didn't agree on many political issues, they did agree that progressive religious groups had wielded a greater influence than conservative religious groups in the 2008 election.

Question 2: Does the coverage give a nod to the important differences between the priorities of conservative religious activists and the broader group of white evangelical Christians for whom these activists claim to speak?

Activists are elites who close ranks easily, and their views rarely correspond in a one-to-one fashion with the more diverse and less predictable rank and file. The Religious Activists Surveys confirmed that conservative religious activists ranked only two issues as the most important for religious people to engage: abortion and same-sex marriage. While this narrow agenda has the strategic advantage of being focused and clear, it does not map cleanly onto the priorities of white evangelicals overall, who have broader political priorities. The 2008 Faith and American Politics Survey (FAPS), for example, found that white evangelicals did not rank abortion or same-sex marriage in the top five issues that were most important to their vote. White evangelicals overall ranked these cultural issues lower than the economy, terrorism, energy and gas, the war in Iraq, and health care as the important factors in their vote. This is not to say that white evangelicals do not have strong opinions about opposing abortion and same-sex marriage (even here, not surprisingly, activist opinions are more polarized than opinions of white evangelicals in the general population), but it is important to note that the priorities of conservative religious activists do not necessarily square with the priorities of evangelicals overall.

Question 3: Does the story attempt to understand the deeper cultural and theological influences underneath the issues?

Underlying the most contentious arguments in the national health-care reform debate are deep disagreements about the appropriate role for government. On this broad issue, which provides a partial window into a religio-cultural worldview, conservative activists views are perhaps stronger but basically track the views of white evangelicals overall. Among conservative religious activists in the Religious Activists Surveys, 86% believe that government should provide fewer services and cut spending. The 2008 Faith and American Politics Survey, which contained a slightly different question, found similarly that two-thirds of white evangelicals overall reported favoring smaller government offering fewer services, rather than larger government providing more services.

But what is most interesting--and what gets to the passionate reactions in the health care debate--are the ways in which these views about the role of government are rooted in deeper theological beliefs that shape activists' predispositions toward more individualistic or more structural approaches to solving social problems. For example, the Religious Activists Surveys found that more than two-thirds (67%) of conservative Christian activists agree that "if enough people were brought to Christ, social ills would take care of themselves," a view shared by only 13% of progressive Christian activists. Understanding the links between theological beliefs about religious salvation and political strategies for solving social problems (which are perhaps an analogous albeit limited kind of this-worldly salvation) goes a long way not only towards taking religious people seriously, but also towards casting light on what may seem to some like perplexing visceral reactions.

Question 4: Does the coverage attend to the role of younger activists and to generational differences that challenge conventional wisdom?

One additional recommendation is to examine important issues through the prism of generational differences. While the views of younger and older white evangelicals are similar on some issues such as abortion, on others such as the role of government and gay and lesbian rights, there are significant generation gaps.

On these issues, white evangelicals have a larger generation gap than any other major religious group. A small majority (53%) of younger (under 35 years of age) evangelicals overall side with conservative religious activists favoring a smaller government offering fewer services. However, 44% of younger evangelicals say they favor a larger government offering more services, compared to only 23% of older evangelicals (age 35 or older)--a generation gap of 21 points. Likewise, a majority of younger evangelicals favor some legal recognition of same-gender relationships, either same-sex marriage (24%) or civil unions (28%). In contrast, only about one-third of older evangelicals favor either same-sex marriage (9%) or civil unions (25%)--a generation gap of 18 points (FAPS 2008).

In addition to dealing with the significant generational differences in attitudes, it is worth asking how conservative Christian activists are dealing with the considerable challenge of recruiting and integrating younger activists. One of the most striking findings of the Religious Activists Surveys is dearth of younger activists in the ranks of both conservative and progressive religious activists. Less than 1-in-5 conservative and progressive activists are 50 years of age or younger (16% and 17% respectively), compared to approximately 3-in-5 in the general population. And conservative religious activists are even older, with nearly half (49%) clocking in at 65 years of age or more. With the passing of so many dominant conservative Christian leaders in the past few years, one key question for the conservative religious movement is how it will reach out to a new generation of activists, especially one that is not necessarily looking for the next great leader and does not seamlessly share the issue priorities or the strategies of the previous generation.

In short, an event like the "Values Voters Summit" can present challenges to reporters (especially those whose primary beat isn't religion) and readers alike who want to accurately locate these conservative religious activists in the context of American religion. But it also presents an opportunity. These four questions are at least one way readers can arm themselves with tools to differentiate between reporting that critically distinguishes between rhetoric and reality, stereotype and complexity. Done carefully and well, the coverage of this event has the potential to advance our understanding of the broad and dynamic American religious landscape.