The Obama administration’s declaration that it plans to use foreign assistance, international diplomacy and political asylum to promote gay rights abroad is a momentous step that could dangerously backfire if not pursued with delicacy and an appreciation of how the challenges faced by gays and lesbians vary by nation, human rights activists said.
President Barack Obama, in a memorandum to executive departments, and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, during a speech before the U.N. Human Rights Council, issued a coordinated denunciation Tuesday of anti-gay discrimination, stating that equal treatment of gay, lesbian and transgender people was an explicit U.S. foreign policy goal.
The White House said the twin moves represented the U.S. government’s first comprehensive strategy to combat sexual orientation-based human rights abuses around the world. Gay rights groups cheered the actions, noting that gays and lesbians can be arrested, tortured and even executed in some countries.
Wayne Besen, founder of Truth Wins Out, a group that monitors religious organizations with anti-gay views, listed Russia, Nigeria, Cameroon, Uganda, Iran and Zimbabwe among the nations that had recently “declared war on sexual minorities” and said that he hoped they would be chastened by the administration’s blunt talk.
“This was one of those times where our nation demonstrated true international leadership and made me incredibly proud to be an American,” Besen said. “There were no carefully crafted and focus grouped code words that sugarcoated the abuses — just the honest truth spoken from the heart.”
Last month, an equality advocate named Sai launched a new viral site called gayhomophobe.com. The site (which is already receiving critical acclaim, even from across the pond!) features a countdown tally at the top of the page listing the number of days since a prominent homophobe was caught in a gay-related scandal (the currently-featured ex-homophobe is John Smid of Love in Action, who came out of the closet and recanted his “ex-gay” teachings eight days ago) along with a list of previous notables including Eddie Long, George Rekers, Larry Craig, and Mark Foley.
According to the site, Sai’s goal is to list people “who used a position of power to promote or support an anti-gay agenda, and turned out to be a closet case,” regardless of political or religious affiliation. He also includes people such as Ken Mehlman and Roy Ashburn who reversed their anti-gay views after their respective scandals and came out publicly in support of LGBT rights, in order to show that people can change (not from gay to straight, but from self-loathing to self-accepting). Check it out — it’s a very handy resource!
And now, for some news: Truth Wins Out is honored to announce that Sai has decided to donate all of the ad revenue from gayhomophobe.com to TWO in support of our work fighting anti-LGBT religious extremism and the “ex-gay” myth. Additionally, equality supporter and Google employee Lee Colleton used his employer’s gift matching service to double Sai’s contribution.
All of us here at Truth Wins Out — Wayne, myself, Evan, and the rest of the team — are humbled by and grateful for the investments that Sai, Lee, and all of our other contributors make in our work for LGBT equality. We very truly could not do it without your support.
My sincere hope is that every time Truth Wins Out stands up to anti-LGBT extremism, breaks a major news story, and fights “ex-gay” lies with facts — every time we strike a blow for equality, whether it’s convincing Apple to nix an “ex-gay” iPhone app, holding celebrities like Tracy Morgan accountable for homophobic remarks, or exposing the Bachmann clinic for its use of “ex-gay therapy” — our contributing members like Sai and Lee are aware of how great a share they have in each and every victory, and how truly thankful we are that they help to make them possible. Thank you!
To visit Sai’s site, go to gayhomophobe.com
If you’d like to join Sai, Lee, and many others in contributing to Truth Wins Out, click here.
A U.S. District Court judge dealt a setback today to Christian Right efforts to weed gay judges out of the federal judiciary system.
Chief Judge James Ware rejected the argument by Christian Right political organizations that no gay judge who is in a relationship may rule on a case involving legally recognized relationships such as marriage. Narrowly speaking, antigay groups had sought to prevent any gay person other than a celibate or “ex-gay” from serving as a judge in family-law matters. More broadly, the Christian Right groups sought to rationalize a future ban on female, black, atheist, and Jewish judges serving in cases involving minority constitutional rights.
On the question of whether Judge Vaughn Walker should have recused himself from a trial against California’s Christian Right-sponsored Proposition 8, Ware ruled:
“The sole fact that a federal judge shares the same circumstances or personal characteristics with other members of the general public, and that the judge could be affected by the outcome of a proceeding in the same way that other members of the general public would be affected, is not a basis for either recusal or disqualification under Section 455(b)(4). Further, under Section 455(a), it is not reasonable to presume that a judge is incapable of making an impartial decision about the constitutionality of a law, solely because, as a citizen, the judge could be affected by the proceedings. Accordingly, the Motion to Vacate Judgment on the sole ground of Judge Walker’s same-sex relationship is DENIED.”
Ware further explained:
“Requiring recusal because a court issued an injunction that could provide some speculative future benefit to the presiding judge solely on the basis of the fact that the judge belongs to the class against whom the unconstitutional law was directed would lead to a Section 455(b)(4) standard that required recusal of minority judges in most, if not all, civil rights cases. Congress could not have intended such an unworkable recusal statute.”
Ware emphasized that all Americans are bound to protect one another’s fundamental rights, and that everyone has an equal stake in protecting those rights. Members of a minority group are neither more nor less vested in protecting the rights of all, than the general public:
The fact that this is a case challenging a law on equal protection and due process grounds being prosecuted by members of a minority group does not mean that members of the minority group have a greater interest in equal protection and due process than the rest of society. In our society, a variety of citizens of different backgrounds coexist because we have constitutionally bound ourselves to protect the fundamental rights of one another from being violated by unlawful treatment. Thus, we all have an equal stake in a case that challenges the constitutionality of a restriction on a fundamental right.
Those who pit majority privilege against minority rights undermine constitutional law and civil society.
While Ware’s ruling represents a step toward restoration of constitutional equality and pro-family policy in California, the struggle to overturn the antigay, antifamily, and un-American Proposition 8 continues.
The state Supreme Court must still decide whether Christian Right groups — operating under the banner ProtectMarriage.com — can step in and defend the proposition, since those who had legitimate jurisdiction over the proposition opted not to appeal Walker’s original ruling.
Focus on the Family and ProtectMarriage.com yesterday reiterated that gay people are unfit to be judges, because gay people have a vested stake in every facet of law — you know, like everybody else.
Of course, that’s not how Focus worded its bigotry; the organization instead suggested that a non-celibate gay judge (for example, retired District Judge Vaughn R. Walker) should recuse himself from any case involving recognition of family relationships. But the broader ramifications of Focus’ contention were obvious to all, at a hearing held yesterday before U.S. District Chief Judge James Ware.
Ware will decide today whether Walker’s ruling, which struck down California’s unconstitutional ban on same-sex marriage, should be overturned because he failed to divulge his sexual orientation, sever ties with his partner, and forego any future relationship before issuing his ruling.
Yesterday, Ware bluntly questioned the Christian Right’s implicit contention that black judges should recuse themselves from civil rights cases, and that female judges (who are at higher risk of sexual assault) should recuse themselves from assault cases.
Ware also indicated that he was likely to deny the Christian Right’s demand that video coverage of the previous Prop 8 trial under Vaughn Walker be surrendered to the court for permanent suppression.
Focus on the Family admitted none of this news in its summary of the proceeding. Instead, Focus quoted Ed Whelan, president of the so-called “Ethics and Public Policy Center.” Whelan contended that it is appropriate for members of a majority to have a stake in the seizure of others’ rights — but inappropriate for a minority to have an equal stake in preserving the rights of all.
Focus said it fears that, if the public gains access to video of the original trial proceedings, the Christian Right might be “exposed to harassment” (embarrassment) at the hands of “gay activists.” The organizations that favor marriage equality, however, contend that public exposure of the trial testimony — and the poor in-court performance of the Christian Right witnesses — would be more damaging to the antigay alliance than any activist press release.
While Focus and its allies in the alliance maintain a united public front, their influence among other conservatives may be fading along with their courtroom credibility. The conservative Fox News rejected Focus’ ridiculous assertions. Guest host Gregg Jarrett and Fox legal analyst Andrew Napolitano both agreed that the Christian Right case against Walker is without merit.
DISCUSS: Should Jewish and atheist judges be required to convert to evangelical Christianity before ruling on matters of minority religious freedom?
Disturbing news out of my home state of Wisconsin: Yesterday in the central Wisconsin town of Waupaca, 71-year-old former bus driver Delton Gorges was sentenced after being convicted on multiple counts of sexual assault of a child. Waupaca County Circuit Court Judge Philip Kirk made the following remarks from the bench while delivering the sentence:
I was looking for it here, Mr. Gorges, in one of the three reports I got, I couldn’t find it, but it described you as, or your self-description, as a heterosexual. That’s about the only piece of information in these three reports that I would correct as patently incorrect. Listening to all this stuff, it seems to me that… if you give [a] $10 bill to somebody and you buy $4 worth of goods, you ask for 2 threes back or one six. I think you were born gayer than a sweet-smelling jock strap, and I think that if anyone believes that in the last 10 years or 15 years, all of a sudden you developed an interest in homosexuality and young boys, then, uh, I must have looked ravishing in my prom dress this year. It is just wrong.
I don’t even know where to start with this one. “Gayer than a sweet-smelling jock strap?” Judge Kirk doth protest too much, methinks. The image is so vivid that I can’t help but wonder how often visions of sweet-smelling jock straps sassily sashay through his honor’s subconscious. How many hours of research went into his sweaty, stereotype-filled statement?
Kidding aside, Judge Kirk’s homophobic comments were unprofessional and inexcusable. In addition, they show that the spurious conflation of homosexuality and pedophilia remains so thoroughly embedded in popular culture that even an ostensibly well-educated circuit court judge has internalized the myth. As Equality Matters points out, this roundly-discredited meme is “one of the most cherished smears” of anti-gay groups like NARTH, the Family Research Council, Porno Pete’s AFTAH, and the American Family Association (and even the Vatican!). We at Truth Wins Out are all too familiar with these organizations — we spend a huge amount of time fighting back against their pernicious propaganda, so we find it incredibly disturbing that Judge Kirk would use the bully pulpit of the bench to spread their lies, regardless of whether or not he intended to do so.
Finally, many have rightly pointed out that Judge Kirk went on to make seemingly sympathetic remarks about the plight of gay people forced by society to remain closeted. That’s all well and good, but in our fervent search to find a silver lining, let’s make sure we don’t forget the facts: Delton Gorges is a convicted child molester. Homosexuality and child molestation arenotconnected. Kirk should never have linked the two in the first place. Saying that his later, friendlier remarks somehow mitigate the earlier, offensive ones, or taking them as evidence that Judge Kirk “means well,” makes just about as much sense as putting lipstick on a pig or gold plating on a pile of dung.
Yesterday, I spoke to college students at North Dakota State University in Fargo and Concordia College in neighboring Moorhead, Minnesota. I also spoke to a smaller group of engaging students training to be mental health professionals. Having talked to these youth, it was disturbing to read two articles in the local newspaper, The Forum, that discussed how ideologues in North Dakota were trying to essentially brainwash youth with religious propaganda disguised as science.
The first article I read was about North Dakota lawmakers’ efforts to pass House Bill 1229, which would require schools to lie to students about sex and force failed abstinence programs on them — at the expense of their health and reality. The laughably absurd bill would make schools across the state teach that abstinence is the expected standard and sexuality outside marriage is likely to have harmful psychological effects.
What a bunch of ridiculous fundamentalist talking points masquerading as research! Contrary to what religious fanatics are pushing, there are no known harmful side effects to the out-of-wedlock orgasm. The harm usually comes when those having sex are not informed about birth control or engage in unsafe sexual activity because they were lied to about the effectiveness of condoms. In other words, the zealots are the cause of harm, not the solution, as they are disingenuously presenting themselves.
The foolish bill goes on to insult single parents by claiming that bearing children out of wedlock is likely to have harmful consequences for the child, the child’s parents, and society. Of course, two parents is preferable in that it takes pressure off one parent. However, there are countless examples of amazing children from single parent homes — as well as countless instances where children from two-parent homes turn out to be less than ideal.
For example, Tuscon shooter Jared Loughner came from a two-parent home. So did Seung-Hui Cho who perpetrated a massacre at Virginia Tech in 2007. Meanwhile, the president of the United States, Barack Obama, came from a single parent situation. Placing the blame for society’s ills on single parents is insulting and shows that promoters of this bill live in a “Leave it to Beaver” fantasy world.
The most comical part of the bill would have teachers tell students to attain “economic self-sufficiency” before engaging in sexual activity. Of course, we all know that in today’s “fair” America, students often leave universities with massive debts and do not achieve financial stability until much later in life.
Are those in favor of this bill really suggesting that North Dakota’s citizens abstain from sex into their thirties and forties when college loans are paid off and marriage is more affordable? What planet do these Bismarck Buffoons live on?
Now get ready for the biggest laugh of all:
“Students often tell me that they didn’t realize that saving sex for marriage was ever an option or that anybody ever did that,” said Rebecca Meidinger of Make a Sound Choice. “It’s a new idea to them. Nobody else is giving them this message.”
The extreme dishonesty of this woman is breathtaking. The idea of abstinence until marriage is age-old and anybody with a set of ears and eyes is aware of it by the time they are eight. To repackage and present abstinence as new or revolutionary shows the chutzpah of these peddling this lie. These charlatans are all about public relations and really do not seem to care how backward public policies affect real people.
Of course, we know that abstinence programs do not work and are a huge waste of money. Here is the truth.
A 2008 study by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health found that “pro-life” abstinence-only programs — marketed by the religious right, funded by the Bush administration, and imposed upon public schools in conservative school districts across the United States — may achieve the opposite of their intended objectives. According to The Washington Post, the study focused on “virginity pledges,” a core element of abstinence-only education:
The new analysis of data from a large federal survey found that more than half of youths became sexually active before marriage regardless of whether they had taken a “virginity pledge,” but that the percentage who took precautions against pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases was 10 points lower for pledgers than for non-pledgers.
“Taking a pledge doesn’t seem to make any difference at all in any sexual behavior,” said Janet E. Rosenbaum of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, whose report appears in the January issue of the journal Pediatrics. “But it does seem to make a difference in condom use and other forms of birth control that is quite striking.”
The study is the latest in a series that have raised questions about programs that focus on encouraging abstinence until marriage, including those that specifically ask students to publicly declare their intention to remain virgins. The new analysis, however, goes beyond earlier analyses by focusing on teens who had similar values about sex and other issues before they took a virginity pledge.
The data on this matter is clear — and it defies logic and shows a shows a stunning lack of integrity to push programs that are a complete and utter failure. It seems that some so-called conservatives care more about deception than deficits and have no compunction about lavishing public money on social programs that are ineffective.
If the abstinence farce weren’t bad enough, the same “Bismarck Buffoons” are proposing a bill (SB 2367) that would make divorce much more difficult. If the bill becomes law, anyone wanting a divorce would have to wait one year and go through mandatory marriage counseling.
According to The Forum, “marriages with sustained allegations of of domestic abuse would be exempt. I’m not sure what to make of this provision. How many times does one have to batter his wife before it becomes “sustained”? Will the legislature empower bureaucrats to start counting bruises so abused wives can qualify as victims of “sustained” beatings?
This bill’s extraordinary overreach is a vivid example of Big Government gone awry. For example, within the one-year waiting period, couples would need to participate jointly or separately in at least 10 one-hour marriage counseling sessions.
And right wing conservatives call liberals socialists?
This busy-body bill has got to be the single biggest example of government intrusion and control of citizens’ personal lives that I have ever seen. This bill is something that one would expect to see in Iran, not North Dakota. Any voter that cares about individual freedom and liberty should throw the bums out of office that proposed this legislation.
It is clear that this campaign of control does not stop with gay people. We are simply their first target. The long overreach of this bill and the attempt to turn North Dakota into a big government Nanny State run by fundamentalist scolds proves my point. If we lose our rights, you will surely lose yours. The writing is on the wall, if you care to read it.
I met so many amazing people in Fargo and Moorhead. It is a shame that North Dakota ideologues are divorced from reality and abstaining from facts. The state’s youth will be the big losers if they succeed. I sure hope sanity will prevail.
Tomorrow night, on the eve of the 10th of Tevet—a day of remembrance on the Jewish calendar for those who have died in violence—a broad coalition including leaders from the Jewish and queer communities will gather to mourn those whose lives have been destroyed due to senseless hatred, and to demand an end to anti-LGBT rhetoric that is spoken “In God’s Name.”
The event, organized by grassroots activist group Queer Rising, will start with a rally at 7:30pm at the Parade Grounds of Brooklyn’s Prospect Park. The group will then begin a march through the heart of the Jewish neighborhood in Flatbush, the site of recent homophobic activity. The event will culminate with a communal recitation of the Jewish Mourner’s Kaddish Prayer.
“Many of us are deeply concerned about the rising tide of violence against LGBTQ people, here in the United States and all over the world,” said Rabbi Sharon Kleinbaum, the Senior Rabbi of Congregation Beit Simchat Torah (CBST), New York City’s synagogue for LGBTQ Jews. “As Jews, we are horrified at the anti-gay bigotry coming in the name of Judaism at many of our youth, Jewish and non-Jewish.”
“When a rabbi says that gays are the cause of earthquakes, that gays desecrate the soil of Jerusalem, that gays are coming to pervert your children, I ask: what message does that send to a young, confused and isolated, gay, Jewish kid,” said Mordechai Levovitz, the co-Founder and co-Director of JQYouth, a social/support group for Orthodox queer youth. “It says, ‘We don’t want you.’ It says, ‘Leave the community.’”
The Pentagon has concluded that allowing gay men and women to serve openly in the United States armed forces presents a low risk to the military’s effectiveness, even at a time of war, and that 70 percent of service members believe that the impact of repealing the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law would be either positive, mixed or of no consequence at all.
In an exhaustive nine-month study on the effects of repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell,” the 17-year-old policy that requires gay service members to keep their sexual orientation secret or face discharge, the authors concluded that while in the short run a repeal would most likely bring about “some limited and isolated disruption to unit cohesion and retention,” it could be mitigated by effective leadership.
The report, by Jeh C. Johnson, the Pentagon’s chief counsel, and Gen. Carter F. Ham, the commander of the United States Army in Europe, also found that much of the concern in the armed forces about openly gay service members was driven by misperceptions and stereotypes. Leaving aside those with moral and religious objections to homosexuality, the authors said that the concerns were “exaggerated and not consistent with the reported experiences of many service members.”
So, the objections are driven by misperceptions and stereotypes. That sound about right — except it is really anti-gay propaganda deliberately designed to scare people.
With the release of this report, is it the beginning of the end for the miserable and pernicious DADT policy? Or, will Republicans find a way to stall until the lame duck session of Congress is over, essentially sinking repeal?
On the question of whether Judge Vaughn Walker should have recused himself from a trial against California’s Christian Right-sponsored Proposition 8, 
Yesterday, Ware 
