John Shore has this story for us, and it is absolutely insane. Here’s the basic set-up. A pastor at a relatively large church, who had really stayed away from the issue of homosexuality, in general, posted an article about the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell on his Facebook page. Though he is personally pro-equality, he did not make any commentary on the repeal — just posted the article. So here’s what had happened was:

I’d like to share with you what’s just recently happened in my life. I’ve been serving as the Pastor of [Super Cool-Sounding Job Title] at [Church Name] in [Big American City] for the past five years. My wife and our two boys (at the time; our fourth is due in December) moved here from [State] to join [Church], which at the time was a small church of two hundred. Now it is a thriving community of over 1500 people committed to [Slogan That Could Be Easily Googled to Identify Church].

However, four weeks ago, all that changed. Four weeks ago the discriminatory law of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” was finally abolished. Even though no one in my church community was aware of my views on homosexuality (I have been intentionally tight-lipped about it, knowing how divisive that issue is), and I’ve never talked about it, I felt like it was good to celebrate the end of discrimination. So I posted a link to an article about the end of DADT on my Facebook page. I made no commentary on the article–which was not about the “issue” of homosexuality at all. [He shared the article to which he linked: written by a leading politician, it simply could not be more innocuous.--J.]

Over the next few hours, several people from my church started commenting on my wall: “How can a Christian be pro-homosexuality?” “Why is a pastor actively promoting the gay-lifestyle?” and so on. Even more people were calling/texting/emailing our lead pastor and the chair of our elder board.

What resulted over the next six days was not fun. The chair of the elder board called for an emergency board meeting to deal with me. I was summoned to the board meeting, where I was forced to give my stance on homosexuality (even though the church has no official stance on the matter, and has never before talked about the issue). And even though I reminded them that we all agree on our church’s statement of faith, ultimately, when they learned that I don’t view homosexuality as a sin, and that I would be in favor of two gay people being allowed to get married, they came to the conclusion that I was unfit to be a pastor at [Name of Church]. And within a week of posting the article on FB page, I was fired from a church I’d served faithfully and helped to build for five years.

Three cheers for the inner workings of [some] Christian churches! Please click over to read John’s entire piece, which includes the entire letter from the pastor. John describes it, quite rightly, as “shameful, shameful bullshit,” and I could not agree more.

Many of you might remember my article last week about the state of the LGBT community in my hometown of Green Bay, Wisconsin, and how the local city council engages in anti-LGBT bullying. After a longtime city employee, David Fowles, formally requested health coverage from the city for his registered domestic partner, the council’s personnel committee voted unanimously and spitefully to recommend against offering ANY benefits to domestic partners of LGBT city workers — benefits that opposite-sex spouses of city workers are given, no questions asked. The measure was sent, without committee recommendation, back to the full council for a vote.

UPDATE: That vote happened last night. The Green Bay City Council could and should have ignored the malicious recommendation of the Personnel Committee by voting to offer the benefits. After all, it’s a matter of basic fairness and a wonderful opportunity for the City of Green Bay to join the 21st century (in which a clear majority of Fortune 500 companies extend domestic partner health benefits to employees because they recognize that, in addition to it being the right thing to do, offering these benefits helps them attract and retain the best and brightest workers.).

Well that’s what they should have done. Instead, though, the full Green Bay City Council voted, 4-7, to bully and dehumanize the local LGBT community by denying domestic partners of city workers access to city benefits.

Alderpeople Ned Dorff and Amy Kocha, the two most outspoken pro-LGBT voices on the council, stood up once again in favor of basic fairness. Said Kocha, “People who vote against [domestic partner benefits] are simply being unkind to others, and when those others are our employees I think its unconscionable.” She also pointed out the double standard for same-sex and opposite-sex couples under current city policy: “If you have an employee who happens to be gay and has a domestic partner, and that employee leaves the city and a [heterosexual] married person takes the position, we’re going to extend benefits to that person.” Dorff, who sponsored the measure, was quoted by the local newspaper as saying that

“…the city’s current policy of extending benefits only to married men and women wrongly deprives other city employees of basic rights. ‘It doesn’t threaten anyone’s marriage,’ he said. ‘That’s asinine to think so.’”

Opponents of Dorff’s measure put their ignorance and homophobia on full public display. Alderman Tony Theisen, who voted against domestic partner benefits in committee and again at last night’s meeting, seemed to think the debate was a good time to throw in some anti-government Tea Party talking points:

“This should be looked at just as any benefit is looked at. The public sector should look to the private sector to model its benefits. Why do I feel that way? Because without a private sector there would not be a public sector.” (Earth to Tony: the private sector is already there, waaaaay ahead of sleepy little Green Bay.)

Alderman Chris Wery, another anti-LGBT personnel committee member, voiced his belief that health insurance for same-sex domestic partners somehow undermines the marriages of local heterosexual couples: “I firmly believe in the traditional family, and I do believe this is an attempt to redefine and weaken it.” Wery added, “It does attack marriage.”

What saddens me most is that Green Bay Mayor Jim Schmitt went on record as an opponent of domestic partner benefits. The measure would have failed without the mayor weighing in, yet he still felt the need to make his hurtful views public. Jim is a personal friend, and although his relationship with his LGBT constituents up to this point may not have been perfect, he had made a noticeable effort to reach out, even delivering remarks at the local pride festival. His needless attack on Green Bay’s LGBT community last night is a slap in the face that’s particularly disappointing.

I’ll close with a bit of irony. The issue of domestic partner benefits was not the only contentious one on last night’s agenda: against committee recommendation, the city council voted 8-3 to allow concealed weapons into city buildings. According to the local newspaper,

Alderman Tony Theisen said he heard from members of the community who are afraid of concealed weapons, but who cannot provide any factual basis for their emotion. “You know what fear is without any facts?” he said. “That’s a phobia.”

Fear without facts. Phobia. How aptly these words apply to the way Theisen, Wery, Schmitt, and the Green Bay City Council treats Titletown’s LGBT community.

(Video courtesy of WBAY-TV)

I grew up in Allouez, Wisconsin, one of several suburbs adjacent to the city of Green Bay. Green Bay is a typical medium-sized middle-class city, one that the average American wouldn’t know about at all were it not for the presence of a certain football team. The people of Green Bay are, by and large, good and hardworking folks, well-meaning if a little insular. Green Bay was a good place in which to grow up, and I still harbor great affection for the city that shaped me and deep love for my many wonderful family members and friends who still call it home.

Politically and culturally, the area trends conservative, which makes life more difficult for its lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender residents. However, Green Bay has made many wonderful strides toward acceptance and affirmation of LGBT people in recent years. In the wake of a bitter and divisive 2006 ballot fight that resulted in a marriage discrimination amendment being added to Wisconsin’s constitution, community leaders in Green Bay decided to hold a Pride festival. The city’s Republican mayor has appeared several times at the festival and even gave an address in 2009. This summer marked the fourth year of Northeast Wisconsin Pride, and it’s still growing. Green Bay is home to a vocal, actively LGBT-affirming church. A dedicated group of LGBTs and allies (including, I’m proud to say, my own parents) consistently works to make the city’s public spaces, schools, churches, and culture more accepting of all people, regardless of sexual orientation and gender identity. Green Bay-area residents even banded together last January to record an anti-bullying video.

Unfortunately, while the people of Green Bay are continuing to move towards acceptance, their elected officials use local government to engage in anti-LGBT bullying. In November 2010, after a city employee named David Fowles formally requested domestic partner health care coverage from the City of Green Bay, Tea Party-backed City Council Alderman Shae Sortwell introduced a resolution for the city to officially join Wisconsin Family Action’s lawsuit aimed at dismantling the statewide domestic partnership registry. Local leaders, LGBT community members, allies, and the statewide LGBT rights organization Fair Wisconsin fought back, and 100 people attended a City Council meeting to show their opposition to Sortwell’s mean-spirited measure. The council voted 9-2 to table the resolution indefinitely, and WFA’s lawsuit was later defeated in court.

The Green Bay City Council wasn’t done spitting in the face of the city’s LGBT community, though. At a meeting of the council’s Personnel Committee last night, Alderman Ned Dorff again raised the issue of benefits for same-sex partners of city workers, calling the city’s current exclusionary policy “discriminatory” and saying that Green Bay is “discriminating against a certain segment of our work force. I see this definitely as a social justice issue.” The committee, however, disagreed, voting 3-0 against recommending the city offer domestic partner benefits, including health care. The measure will go before the full City Council next month, so it’s possible that they’ll choose to ignore the committee and actually uphold the human dignity of LGBT people for a change. To be honest, though, I’m not holding my breath.

Incidentally, if you’d like to make your opinions known to members of the Green Bay City Council, contact information for each alderperson can be found here. The three committee members who voted against basic protections for LGBT workers are Anthony Theisen, Chris Wery, and Steven Denys. Conversely, feel free to send messages of encouragement to Ned Dorff and Amy Kocha, the two most outspoken pro-LGBT voices on the City Council.

Just popped up at Maggie and Brian’s Online Hate Emporium:

Washington, DC – The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) announced today that John Eastman, a distinguished Constitutional law scholar, is taking on the role of Chairman of the Board for NOM.

Dr. John Eastman is the former Dean of Chapman University Law School in California and is the Founding Director of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, a public interest law firm associated with the Claremont Institute. He has participated in over 50 cases in our nation’s highest courts, including such landmark cases as the Pledge of Allegiance case, the Boy Scouts of America case, the Ohio school vouchers case, the Kelo case involving property takings, and the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act case. Dr. Eastman is a former clerk to United States Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. He received his J.D. from the University of Chicago and a Ph.D. in government and political philosophy from Claremont Graduate School.

Brian Brown, President of NOM, stated, “John Eastman is one of America’s foremost constitutional scholars and has distinguished himself as a fierce advocate for families and religious liberty. As a legal scholar, he has participated in dozens of cases before our nation’s highest courts, including the United States Supreme Court. When important constitutional principles are on the line, people frequently turn to John Eastman to advocate a conservative, pro-family position. He will be a great asset to NOM.”

John Eastman stated, “Marriage has quite correctly been described as a bedrock of civilization. Protecting the institution of marriage is a critically important issue, and I’m honored to join such distinguished company on the Board of such a phenomenally effective organization as the National Organization for Marriage.”

Maggie Gallagher, the previous Chairman of the Board, stated, “My original intention in co-founding the National Organization for Marriage was to launch a politically sophisticated national activist organization to fight for the views of millions of Americans who believe that marriage is and should remain the union of husband and wife. I think it’s fair to say that NOM has been launched, and is now far more successful than even I dreamed (and I dreamed big!). I’m grateful to NOM’s President Brian Brown for leading this organization, and the addition of an eminent public intellectual like John Eastman to the NOM team is a great sign as we move forward to the battles ahead.”

“I will remain on the NOM board, and continue to work on specific projects for NOM, as well as taking on some additional outside projects I’ve long deferred, such as finishing my book Debating Same-Sex Marriage¸ which I’ve been working on for Oxford University Press with Prof. John Corvino,” Gallagher added.

She just wants to spend more time with her family, maybe. Does the new board chair appear in public without a wedding ring? Does he refuse to appear in public with his husband? Or is that just Maggie?

In the lead-up to DADT repeal, the Religious Right went to great lengths to portray the members of the United States armed forces as an elite fighting force which happens to be populated by people are too sissy to deal with being around openly gay people. It was super weird.

But now that repeal is about to become official [tomorrow], it looks like the military is going to be just fine, thankyew:

For some gay service members, the fear of discovery and reprisals dissipated months ago when a federal court halted all investigations and discharge proceedings under “don’t ask, don’t tell,” while military leaders prepared the armed services for its end.

Several have come out to their peers and commanders.

A few have since placed photographs of their same-sex partners on their desks and attended military barbecues and softball games with their significant others. In San Diego, about 200 active-duty personnel — both gay and heterosexual — made up the nation’s first military contingency to participate in a Gay Pride march this summer, carrying banners identifying their branches of service. An Army soldier had tears, saying she was touched by the thousands cheering them on, after hiding her identity for so long.

[...]

Air Force Capt. Diane Cox, whose gay son served in the Navy, said she got into heated debates with service members vowing not to take showers and share rooms with gays before Congress voted to repeal the law, but after the military held sensitivity trainings to explain the new rules “everybody just shut up.”

Ha. The rest of the article sadly features more “not shutting up” from, you guessed it, chaplains. They are still very worried whether or not they, who are supposed to be able to minister to any and all troops in a time of war, will still be free to get a little gay-hatin’ in on the side. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: that these chaplains are so worried about people taking away their precious right to discriminate says more about them as human beings than it does about gay troops.

An interesting case is unfolding in the Ninth Circuit right now, involving a lesbian who was dismissed from a jury for a case involving homosexuality:

Trial lawyers should be barred from dismissing potential jurors because of their sexual orientation, defense attorneys argued Thursday in a case that, if successful, could extend constitutional protection from discrimination to homosexuality along with race, creed and gender.

The arguments made to a panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Pasadena arose from a prosecutor’s decision last year to strike a lesbian from the jury weighing assault charges brought against a gay Nigerian inmate at the federal lockup in Los Angeles.

The defense claims that the judge in the original case accepted a “bogus” reason for dismissing the woman as a juror, while the U.S. Attorney on the case claims that it had nothing to do with her sexual orientation in the first place.

This is actually a really interesting case to me, partially because I recently experienced Jury Duty for the first time.  During the voir dire process, attorneys are given fairly free reign to accept or dismiss jurors for pretty much any reason.  They’re not, however, allowed to dismiss jurors solely based on race, sex or religion, and if this case is successful, sexual orientation would be added to the list.  That’s as it should be.  We understand that a gay judge is going to be just as impartial as any other judge, even when ruling on issues that directly affect gay people, just as we understand that to ask an African-American judge to recuse herself on a case involving African-Americans would be the height of bigotry.

What’s funny to me is that this actually did come up when I had Jury Duty, and I barely noticed it at the time.  The case I was called for involved a young man who had been murdered, and we were informed by the defense attorney that the case “involved homosexuality,” and he asked if anyone in the room had a problem with that.  It was left unclear whether we were dealing with a hate crime, a crime of passion, a closet issue, all of the above or something else.  I had not made it into the jury box yet, but having seen a journalist dismissed out of hand, I had a sneaking suspicion that, even if I made it into the jury box, I wouldn’t be called for that sequestered jury.  When the defense attorney mentioned homosexuality, I absolutely knew that I wasn’t going to be called for that jury.  The strange thing was that, though I had been grousing about having jury duty all day long, at that point I was actually kind of interested in serving on that jury, as it looked like it would be a fascinating experience.  So, yes, I was a bit relieved when the jury was put together before they had a chance to question me, but I certainly had a little moment of indignation, realizing that my impartiality would have been called into question, because I’m a gay man who happens to be an opinion writer and reporter.  [Frankly, the latter part might have bothered the lawyers the most.]  Just as the jury was composed of several different races and ethnicities, on this case involving young African-American men, there should have been no reason to strive for an all-straight jury on a case involving gay people.

According to the article linked above, it’s hard to tell where this specific case will go, as the merits of this juror’s dismissal are a bit of an open question, and if the panel decides that it really had nothing to do with her sexual orientation, the broader question of anti-discrimination in jury pools may go unanswered.  But it’s just one more little place where LGBT people end up on the receiving end of discrimination, even if we don’t always realize it.  And little places add up.

During my hiatus from computer-land, I vaguely caught wind of this story of a lesbian couple being harassed at Dollywood because one of them was wearing a t-shirt that said “Marriage Is So Gay.”  My first reaction to that was, well, if this is true, Dolly’s not gonna be happy, not one bit.  Here’s the background:

The tempest over Odom’s T-shirt happened on July 9, when she and Tipton, accompanied by a friend and her daughters, arrived at the popular Pigeon Forge, Tenn., park.

Odom and Tipton said what really rankled them was the explanation from the gatekeeper.

“He said it was a family park,” Tipton told the Knoxville News Sentinel newspaper. “Families come in a wide range of definitions these days, and we were with our family.”

Odom said she was furious but agreed to the gatekeeper’s demand because she “didn’t want to make a scene in front of the girls.”

And, as I predicted, Dolly’s not happy about this:

Country star Dolly Parton has personally apologized to a lesbian couple that was stopped at the entrance to her Dollywood theme park because one of the women wore a T-shirt that read, “marriage is so gay.”

“I am truly sorry for any hurt or embarrassment regarding the gay and lesbian T-shirt incident,” she wrote in a statement. “Everyone knows of my personal support of the gay and lesbian community. Dollywood is a family park and all families are welcome.”

That’s right, rogue Dollywood staff. EVERYBODY KNOWS Dolly loves her some gays and lesbians, so be nice.

All of this makes me want to post this song.

Through ABC Family and the Christian Broadcast Network, industrialist and Christian Right evangelist Pat Robertson (not his real name) has spent more than 30 years using Hollywood and the cable television industry to inject his social prejudices — and his failed threats of destruction against various cities — into North American households. Mind you, these are households that never asked their cable company to pollute their living rooms with his Christian cash-crazed telethons such as The 700 Club.

While Robertson used Hollywood domestically to preserve various social bigotries and to market himself as a kindly Christian gentleman, he also used his industrial empire to profit from forced labor in the diamond and gold trade in Liberia, and to support notorious African war criminal Charles Taylor.

Few Americans know about Robertson’s history of international human-rights abuses, because he has focused his television empire on other issues to distract public attention. Robertson doesn’t choose issues such as social violence, middle-class poverty, inaccurate news shows, or infidelity and divorce — issues that might enjoy broad public agreement, but which would hit too close to home among his viewers and donors.

Pat Robertson says the primary threat that America faces is from homosexuals who are using Hollywood to glamorize gay people’s rights and to pressure straight actors into accepting gay roles.

Homosexual Hollywood — it’s an alarming prospect, isn’t it? There’s just one problem: Straight actors are taking gay roles (for pay) because directors and casting agents refuse to hire openly gay actors!

The 1996 documentary The Celluloid Closet had no problem finding homophobia in Hollywood 15 years ago. If things have changed, tell that to all the openly homophobic celebrities that AfterElton found last month. Respected straight actor Colin Firth says he sees discrimination against gay actors and feels “complicit” for having accepted a gay role that could have been performed by a gay actor. Actor Rupert Everett has been outspoken about antigay discrimination in Hollywood, as has veteran actor Richard Chamberlain:

Homophobia is alive and well in Hollywood — and few should know that better than Robertson, who is a product of Hollywood conservatives’ glamorization of Christian Right war criminals and human-rights violators.

Hat tip: People for the American Way

It always sneaks up on me because down South, so many of our Pride celebrations have been moved to the month of October, due to the fact that the heat becomes overwhelming by June, which leads many of us to not want to do anything outside that doesn’t involve a swimming pool.  But it is June, which means that it’s time for Pride!

We have a lot of things to celebrate this year.  The tide has truly turned, as for the first time, a majority of the American people, in multiple polls, support true equal rights for gays and lesbians, all the way up to marriage.  People are starting to speak up and speak out like never before on behalf of gay kids, due to things like the “It Gets Better” project.  Celebrities and other well-known figures are coming out of the closet in areas once considered “The Final Frontier,” and even professional athletes are starting to express their support for the LGBT community.

But there remains much work to be done.  Teddy Partridge has an important piece up at FireDogLake which reminds us that, while we’re celebrating, we must remember that in certain very important ways, we still have disadvantages in this society that we must fight to fix.  For one thing, despite myths to the contrary, the LGBT community, on average, makes less money than the greater population.  Teddy points to an APA report on the socioeconomic status of the gay community:

Gay men earn up to 32 percent less than similarly qualified heterosexual men.

Up to 64 percent of transgender people report incomes below $25,000.

While 5.9 percent of the general population makes less than $10,000, 14 percent of LGBT individuals are within this income bracket.

Moreover, it sort of depends on where we live. In Tennessee, bigots just passed a big government bill designed to hurt the gay community, prohibiting cities from establishing their own nondiscrimination policies. And these problems still exist in many places across the country:

Termination of an employee based on sexual orientation remains legal in 31 American states.

Termination of an employee based on gender identity remains legal in 39 American states.

Up to 68 percent of individuals identifying as LGBT report experiencing employment discrimination.

Those are big numbers. And while there are many of us who are mobile enough to look at those numbers and say “screw it, I’ll move to a real state where we aren’t treated like crap,” many more of us simply don’t have that option.

This is without even getting into the differences that exist for LGBT youth, and the fact that, according to the same report, twenty-six percent of youth that come out to their parents are kicked out of their homes. ["Pro-family" parents are amazing, aren't they?]

Go read Teddy’s piece, and this month, as you are celebrating, however you are celebrating, if you are celebrating, keep in mind the good and the bad, the jobs finished and those yet to be tackled.

This is the pink-shirted David Fowler, head of the cutely named Family Action Council of Tennessee [FACTn] [sic], standing on a playground and talking with his hands a hell of a lot, and gloating about the fact that his organization, a wang of the national hate group known as the Family Research Council, was able to pressure intellectually dead Tennessee legislators into passing a big government bill disallowing Tennessee cities from setting their own nondiscrimination policies, and instead lording their own goat-romancing “pro-family” ways over all of us.

I really have nothing to say about this, I’m just posting the video.

The failure of the American educational system right there, in that pink shirt, y’all.