Da Bulls, Da Bears, Da Queers

The Chicago City Council approved a resolution this week calling for repeal of the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" ban. The council unanimously approved the resolution urging Congress to pass the Military Readiness Enhancement Act, a bill pending in Congress to repeal the military's ban and allow gay and lesbian citizens the opportunity to serve openly. The Chicago resolution was introduced by Alderman Tom Tunney of the 44th Ward.

The Chicago resolution follows similar measures adopted by the New York, West Hollywood and San Francisco city councils. Earlier this year, a statewide resolution calling for an end to the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law was introduced in the California State Legislature.

The Chicago City Council stands in stark contrast to the Cook County Board. Earlier this month, the Board passed a resolution welcoming the Gay Olympics to Chicago in 2006, but the five Republican members of the Board later recanted, "unsigning" the resolution. Tony Peraica, one of the five Republicans on the 17-commissioner board, said: "I must have been out of the room” when the proclamation came before the board, I'm a pro-family kind of person and conservative on social issues.

Yeah, right. Out of the room, my ass.

The Republicans voted for the resolution, but backed down after Peter LaBarbera, head of the Illinois Family Institute, issued an action alert and social conservatives flooded the Republican commissioners with mail.

The difference between Chicago and Cook County is simple: Da Mare, Richard M. Daley, is supportive of GLBT rights, down and including the right to marry, and while the Cook County Republican Party is dominated by social conservatives, Chicago politicians understand that gays and lesbians vote.

Love in Action

Paula Zahn Now about "Love in Action", a fundamentalist ministry for gay and lesbian teenagers.

As I noted in an earlier post about the ministry (see "Jeff and Zach") "Love in Action" does not claim to be able to "Pray Gay Away" -- that is change gays and lesbians into straights -- but instead is focused on changing and modifying behaviors.

The Paula Zahn piece offers a further look into the ministry. The following are excerpts from the show's transcript:

.....

DEBORAH FEYERICK, CNN CORRESPONDENT: So, when people say you cure gays, what's your answer?

REV. JOHN SMID, LOVE IN ACTION: I don't cause it; I don't cure it; I don't create it. There is no way I can cure gays. There isn't a cure for homosexuality. What we find is, there is an opportunity to learn how to live responsibly, even with homosexual attractions or desires.

.....


BEN MARSHALL, LOVE IN ACTION GRADUATE: There is that lust that's still there. It's subsiding. I don't know that it will ever go away altogether. But it's not nearly as strong as it used to be. I don't go to the same places in my head that I used to.

FEYERICK: Asked if he's gay?

MARSHALL: I have trouble with the word gay, period, because that is a label, and I don't necessarily think anyone is clearly heterosexual or homosexual.

FEYERICK: Before Love in Action, Ben planned to go to New York to study journalism. Now he's part of a church group and plans to study psychology in Memphis, with an eye towards theology and a seminary. As for a wife and children:

MARSHALL: I think it's possible. I think I'm attracted to women enough right now that it can eventually develop into a relationship. I know I'm capable of that. If it don't get that, that's fine. Celibacy is an option for me right now.

.....

"Love in Action", however, is not typical of Ex-Gay ministries. Most claim to be able to cure homosexuality, and I think that is deceptive.

Good Point, Phil

New Hampshire is holding "town meetings" to discuss marriage as part of the state's much-delayed legislative inquiry into the question, and the Union Leader reports this interchange from a town meeting in Keene, New Hampshire this week:

Massachusetts State Representative Philip Travis: ""This is a difficult problem. For 5,000 years, marriage has represented the union of a man and a woman. Just because Canada has taken a different position doesn't make it right. This is something the people should vote on that the courts have taken away." "

Psychologist Stephen Clark: "I see the same arguments being made against gay marriage now that were made against interracial marriage 40 or 50 years ago. Sexual orientation is a very complex thing. There are arguments for gay genes, experiences in the womb, early childhood experiences. But one thing is clear: homosexuality is not a choice."

Travis: "Homosexuality is a choice that's made over time. We read hundreds of studies on this in Massachusetts. You never heard of an interracial marriage involving two black men."

Wow. Good point, Phil. I never heard of a mixed religious marriage involving two Catholic men, either.

In a Snit ...

VoteYesMarriage, a California coalition attempting to amend the California state constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage and civil unions, is in a snit about California Attorney General Bill Lockyer:

"True to his liberal bias, but untrue to his constitutional duty, Bill Lockyer has dumped on us an inaccurate and prejudicial paragraph that is anything but impartial and fair as the law requires. Once again, Bill Lockyer is derelict of duty. We will challenge him in court within the next few days." - Randy Thomasson, one of the organizers of VoteYesMarriage.com, quoted in a VoteYesMarriage press release July 26

"Bill Lockyer is a Bay Area liberal who has been pushing homosexual "marriage" for a long time now. In 1996, Lockyer personally killed Pete Knight’s marriage protection bill by sucking it into a state Senate committee, where it never received a hearing. In 2000, Lockyer opposed Proposition 22, the Protection of Marriage Initiative, on the statewide ballot. Last year, he dragged his feet in the San Francisco gay marriage crisis and never prosecuted the Mayor of San Francisco as the state constitution required him to. We think a judge will be much fairer than Lockyer because protecting marriage for a man and a woman deserves respect, not ridicule." - Retired California Assemblyman Larry Bowler, quoted in a VoteYesMarriage press release July 26

The reason for the snit?

VoteYesMarriage was organized earlier this year, after the California legislature passed a Domestic Partnership law granting many of the rights of marriage to same-sex couples who choose to register with the state. The purpose of the group was to amend the California state constitution to prohibit courts or legislature from granting the "rights of marriage" to same-sex couples, or "counterfeit marriages", as social conservatives like to describe civil unions and domestic partnerships.

As the VoteYesMarriage website explains it:

"Not just any constitutional marriage amendment will do. A marriage amendment that doesn't protect the rights of marriage doesn't protect marriage. That's why we're asking you to read the Voters' Right to Protect Marriage Initiative. It's clear and principled because it protects everything about marriage -- marriage licenses, marriage rights, and marriage under law -- for one man and one woman. The Voters' Right to Protect Marriage Initiative is the true-blue standard we must unite under to truly protect marriage."

"Why is this needed? Wasn't Proposition 22 enough? Not according to the actions of liberal judges and politicians. In March 2000, 61.4% of Californians voted for a statute (a regular law on the books, not in the State Constitution) that said marriage is only for a man and a woman in California. But out-of-control legislators unconstitutionally "amended" this statute by creating "gay marriage by another name," and are now trying to completely reject this statute by pushing full-blown same-sex marriage "licenses." Meanwhile, judges such as Richard Kramer of San Francisco have ruled that man-woman marriage has "no rational basis" and is "unconstitutional.""

"The answer to this problem is to override the judges and politicians by protecting marriage in the California State Constitution. All state legislators and state judges must follow the State Constitution. The Voters' Right to Protect Marriage Initiative is the only true-blue California marriage amendment that will protect marriage once and for all. It protects everything about marriage for a man and a woman in the California State Constitution, far above the reach of judges and politicians."

"That's because the Voters' Right to Protect Marriage Initiative honors and protects marriage for one man and one woman -- from marriage licenses to marriage rights to marriage under law. It defends the institution of marriage in law and society, and prohibits judges and politicians from creating counterfeit marriages."

Plain and simple, huh? I'd say so. The purpose of the "Voter's Right to Protect Marriage Initiative" is to (1) "defend the institution of marriage and law and society" by limiting it to straights, and (2) "prohibit judges and politicians from creating counterfeit marriages", eliminating civil unions and domestic partnerships.

The actual words of the initiative bear out VoteYesMarriage's interpretation:

Section 3: Marriage Protection
Section 1.1 of Article I of the Constitution is added to read: "SEC. 1.1. a) Only marriage between one man and one woman is valid or recognized in California, whether contracted in this state or elsewhere. b) Neither the Legislature nor any court, government institution, government agency, initiative statute, local government or government official shall abolish the civil institution of marriage between one man and one woman, or bestow statutory rights or incidents of marriage on unmarried persons, or require private entities to offer or provide rights or incidents of marriage to unmarried persons. Any public act, record, or judicial proceeding, from within this state or another jurisdiction, that violates this section is void and unenforceable.

You don't need to be a Supreme Court Justice to understand it.

And if that isn't clear enough, read the "Declaration of Findings and Purposes" in the initiative:

"The People of California have a compelling responsibility to protect the essence of marriage by ensuring that the civil institution of marriage between one man and one woman is not abolished or diminished. The People find that marriage between one man and one woman is diminished when government bestows statutory rights or incidents of marriage on unmarried persons or when government requires private entities to offer or provide rights or incidents of marriage to unmarried persons."

How plain could it be? It seems to me that it is as plain as a goat's ass. But it isn't that simple, apparently, to VoteYesMarriage. And that's the rub.

When Attorney General Lockyer approved the initiative for the ballot, allowing VoteYesMarriage to start collecting signatures to put the initiative to the voters, he renamed the initiative from "Voters' Right to Protect Marriage Initiative" to "Marriage. Elimination of Domestic Partnership Rights. Initiative Constitutional Amendment" and approved the following summary of the initiative:

"MARRIAGE. ELIMINATION OF DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP RIGHTS. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Amends the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between one man and one woman is valid or recognized in California, whether contracted in this state or elsewhere. Voids and restricts registered domestic partner rights and obligations, for certain same-sex and heterosexual couples, in such areas as: ownership and transfer of property, inheritance, adoption, medical decisions, child custody and child support, health and death benefits, insurance benefits, hospital visitation, employment benefits, and recovery for wrongful death and other tort remedies. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Unknown, but probably not significant, fiscal effect on state and local governments. The impact would depend in large part on future court interpretations."

Again, accurate. The initiative, if adopted, would void California's Domestic Partnership law, which grants many of the rights and imposes many of the obligations of marriage on same-sex couples in registered domestic partnerships in the state, including the rights and obligations described in the summary.

But an accurate summary, it seems, is not what VoteYesMarriage wants, despite the plain and clear language on their website. What VoteYesMarriage wants, apparently, is a summary that skirts the issue of domestic partnership vitiation, using language something like the following language from the "Legal Effect of the Voters' Right to Protect Marriage Initiative" summary on the group's website: "Domestic Partnership Registry. Domestic partners may continue to register their relationships with the government, but cannot be awarded marriage rights of a husband and wife."

Notice how this language, like VoteYesMarriage's proposed title ("Voters' Right to Protect Marriage Initiative", which implies that voter's are somehow protecting their "right to protect marriage" rather than eliminating same-sex marriage, civil unions and domestic partnerships by passing the initiative), is inherently deceptive. The language used in VoteYesMarriage's summary implies that California Domestic Partnerships will continue, when in fact the law would be effectively eliminated, because all of the rights granted by the law would be eliminated.

And why is this so important to VoteYesMarriage?

It is important to VoteYesMarriage because the group's purpose is to eliminate California's Domestic Partnership law, but VoteYesMarriage knows that most Californians support the "civil union compromise" currently in effect in the state, whether or not they support same-sex marriage.

VoteYesMarriage knows full well that the initiative doesn't stand a chance if voters understand what they are voting for, and so VoteYesMarriage needs to obscure the purpose and effect of the initiative from the voters at large, while whipping the faithful into action.

And that, Angel Children, is why VoteYesMarriage clearly lays out the purpose of the initiative on its website but is so upset by Attorney General Lockyer's description. VoteYesMarriage needs to accurately described its intent on its website to whip up the faithful but cannot afford to have the general population understand the initiative.

We've seen this before, of course, in Michigan, Ohio and Utah, among other states, where social conservatives sold so-called "protect marriage" amendments to the general public by obscuring the effect of the "incidents of marriage" clause on civil unions and domestic partnerships. And after the voters bought the pig, social conservatives initiated lawsuits to vitiate the rights and benefits won by gay and lesbian families.

Attorney General Lockyer put VoteYesMarriage's cards on the table. And they don't like it. And so we have yet another court case to watch over the next few months.

Social conservatives are lawyers' best friends.

Republican Dilemma

John Roberts, whatever his confirmation to the Court may mean for gay and lesbian equality, is a "lose-lose" for the Republican Party.

The Republican Party has cynically beat the abortion drum for three decades now, rallying social conservatives to the cause, and done not a single damn thing about abortion. Overturning Roe v. Wade has been a cornerstone of the Republican platform for years, allowing Republicans to castigate the Supreme Court for "mandating abortion", but claim, at one and the same time, that they were powerless, powerless, powerless to do anything, neatly avoiding the need to do anything to outlaw abortion.

George Bush promised, promised, promised to fix that when he made judicial appointments to the Supreme Court, going so far as to opine that his models for the Court were Justices Scalia and Thomas, both of whom are on record in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade.

And now he has made his first appointment. A second will no doubt follow within a year or two, at most. My guess is that President Bush will nominate Justice Scalia to replace Chief Justice Rehnquist and elevate his friend Ernesto Gonzales to the vacancy created by Scalia's elevation.

And then the shit hits the fan for Republicans, because Roe will come before the Court, and the Bush-appointed justices -- Roberts and Gonzales -- will determine the outcome.

The best case -- not a good situation, but better than the alternative -- for the Republicans is if the Court does not overturn Roe. President Bush will have egg on his face, of course, but he will be in the last year or two of his term, and he'll primarily be looking forward to his pension at that point. The Republican Party 2008 nominee -- Romney, Frist, whoever -- can start the cynical abortion game all over again, suggesting that while George Bush was a bit of a pansy, he would appoint justices with some teeth.

As long as Roe remains in place, the worst that happens is that the Republicans will have a tougher time holding social conservatives in line in 2008 than in 2004, but that isn't much of a task. The social conservative movement grew out of the old Dixiecrat movement, and has nowhere else to go, when you get right down to it. Republicans have been betraying them for thirty years, and "faggot, faggot, faggot" will probably keep them in line for another few elections.

Meanwhile, Republicans can "signal" that all the talk about abortion is just that -- talk. It was no accident that the 2004 Republican Convention featured prime-time appearances by many pro-choice and pro-gay-rights Republicans, including Rudy Giuliani and Arnold Schwarzenegger, and that 2008 candidates like Mitt Romney are double-talking the issue, just like George Bush did.

But look at the other side of the coin.

If the Court overturns Roe, the battle moves to the states, where Republican legislators are going to have to vote on the issue, state by state, across the country. And the simple fact is that Americans, by broad consensus, favor the right to abortion, with reasonable restrictions. If the Republican Party spearheads efforts to legislate abortion out of existence, white Republican women will leave the party in droves in all but a few of the most conservative states. If the Republican Party dodges the issue in the states, as it probably will in all but a dozen, social conservatives will finally figure out that they've been dupes all along, and large numbers of them might sit out the election. Either way, the Republicans can't win.



Mitt Romney is getting a taste of a post-Roe world.

The "Massachusetts Emergency Contraception Bill" passed the Massachusetts House and Senate with veto-proof margins.

The bill requires hospital emergency room doctors to offer the medication to rape victims, and would make it available more widely available from pharmacies. The medication, which is different from the abortion pill RU-486, is a hormone in pill form which, when taken after unprotected sex, prevents ovulation, stops the egg from being fertilized by sperm, or stops a fertilized egg from attaching itself to the uterus wall.

For weeks, speculation has mounted over whether Romney, who's running for President and needs to polish his credentials with social conservatives, would veto the bill.

Romney returned from vacation to veto the bill just hours after it landed on his desk, surrounded by pitures of his children and grandchildren -- great theater and symbolism. Romney, no slacker as a politician, knows full well that photo ops with gurgling children are the red meat of "family values".

But although Romney's veto was largely symbolic, in light of the margins in both houses, his veto unleashed a flood of praise from anti-abortion activists and fury from abortion rights advocates. Polls will show, in a few days, what ordinary women think about his grandstanding.

Romney's dilemma illustrates the problems Republican politicians will face in a post-Roe world. The issue over the bill roared to life because Romney is trying to court social conservative voters, critical to his Presidential run.

In 2002, when Romney was running for Governor, he supported wider access to emergency contraception. But after the bill was introduced into the Massachusetts legislature, Romney changed his tune, saying that he need to consult with experts on its impact. In his statement to the Boston Globe, Romney noted that the medication could prevent a fetilized egg from attaching if the medication was not taken before fertilization, and characterized the medication as an abortificant: "Signing such a measure into law would violate the promise I made to the citizens of Massachusetts when I ran for governor. I pledged that I would not change our abortion laws either to restrict abortion or to facilitate it."

The abortion issue, I think, will turn on the Republican Party in a post-Roe world, because if and when Roe is overturned, Republicans are going to have to "walk the walk" instead of just "talking the talk".

So do you wonder why the Republicans have been pounding the "faggot, faggot, faggot" drum so hard in the last couple of years, while barely whispering about abortion?

I don't.

Judicial Restraint

John Roberts was a surprise because he was far better than I expected from George Bush.

Roberts seems to be, unlike most of the other judges floated by the White House as potential nominees, a legal technician rather than a legal ideologue, a lawyer of rare skill and experience. Roberts edited the Law Review at Harvard, clerked for Judge Friendly on the United States Court of Appeals in New York and Justice Rehnquist on the Supreme Court, has been a consummate advocate in and out of public service, and has been a workmanlike judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. He is a textbook example of the kind of judge Presidents should put on the Supreme Court.

Judge Roberts, absent an unexpected surprise like the pot smoking admission that tanked Judge Douglas Ginsburg years ago – and Ginsburg, another textbook example, would have been an excellent Justice, as all of us who knew him in law school will tell you -- will be confirmed.

And he should be, because Roberts is not, unlike the other potential nominees floated by the White House, a vocal "movement conservative", a man with an axe to grind and the lack of restraint to grind it. Instead, Roberts shows promise of being a legal technocrat in the tradition of Benjamin Cardozo, Felix Frankfurter, John Harlan or Hugo Black, men whose dedication to the law outweighed their political views.

And that is why I am surprised by his nomination. I did not expect George Bush to nominate a man of high quality to the Court, given his own limited vision and the demands by social conservatives that the nomination be payback for Republican support by the Religious Right. I expected a man who believed that the Republican Platform and the Constitution were woven from a single thread, and Roberts shows no sign of mistaking the one for the other.

Republicans, like circus elephants Jack Kennedy once likened them to, dutifully grabbed on to each other's tails and began performing tricks for the crowd, praising Roberts with accolades usually reserved for dead grandparents. Even James Dobson, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, who have every reason to be furious at this point, have "made nice" for Roberts.

But, as everyone in the United States is now aware, we know very little about Roberts' judicial philosophy. Roberts is an unknown quantity, a man has left few clues to his judicial thinking in his wake over the years. He is likely to surprise us all before he is done.

And that is important, because Roberts will likely serve for several decades, and the Supreme Court has become, in the last several decades, the focal point for resolution of cultural issues that have largely defied political consensus. The Court itself, in recent years, has been dominated by a moderate consensus that has turned, again and again, on the views of Justice O'Connor, who Roberts will replace.

The paper trail that Roberts did leave behind – at least the paper trail that has surfaced so far, and it looks like there might well be a fight over getting confidential memoranda written by Roberts while he was at Justice – suggests to me that Roberts believes in judicial restraint, respects precedent, and will be unlikely to rule on the basis of his political views, whatever they may be. He does not seem to be a "true believer" in the sense that Justice Thomas or Justice Scalia are, ready and willing to ignore precedent in order to further their political agendas.

In a recent opinion involving the drug industry, Roberts broke with radical conservatives on the court, pointedly reminding them that courts are wise "to observe the wise limitations on our function and to confine ourselves to deciding only what is necessary to the disposition of the immediate case” – words quoted from Felix Frankfurter.

But I can't predict how Roberts will deal with the issues of gay rights as the cases percolate through the system to the Supreme Court in the next two decades.

I believe that the issue of gay equality will be a critical element of the Court's agenda over the next two decades, in the way that the Civil Rights issue was a critical element of the Court's agenda during the 1960's and 1970's, and abortion was during the 1980's and 1990's. And at stake are basic questions about the nature of our society and our Constitution, as I've noted in other posts over the last six months.

We might get an indication of how Roberts will approach gay and lesbian equality during the next term. As far as I know, there is only one case on the Court's docket next year that touches on gay and lesbian issues, and that case does not directly concern gay and lesbian equality. But we might learn something of Roberts' approach from the questions he asks and the opinion in which he joins.

The case involves, oddly, law school recruiting. The AALS, which is the accrediting body for law schools in the United States, excludes from its membership any law school that does not ban law firms which refuse to hire openly gay or lesbian lawyers from interviewing at the school. The school policies clash with recruiting by the military, which, of course, hires gay and lesbian lawyers but does not, under "Don't Ask; Don't Tell", allow gay and lesbian lawyers to serve openly. In an attempt to force law schools to permit military recruiters to interview prospective lawyers, social conservatives in Congress passed a law barring federal funding of any law school that does not permit the military to recruit lawyers. The question before the Court is whether the law – the so-called Solomon Amendment – passes muster under the Constitution. .

The Solomon Amendment case is not a clean case – the case involves issues of national defense, free association and other matters not directly involving gay and lesbian equality – and does not bear directly on gay and lesbian equality.

But other cases, now percolating through the federal court system, will present themselves in the next two decades – cases involving, specifically, same-sex marriage.

In May, a federal district judge in Nebraska struck down a recent amendment to that state’s constitution which banned gay marriage and civil unions; an appeal of that ruling is pending. The Court will almost certainly be asked to decide whether gay marriages in Massachusetts must be honored by other states, and my guess is that a case involving this question will be on the docket within two or three years.

My guess is that the Court will rule in favor of the government, because most of the Court has a history of deferring to the needs of the military. Roberts’s history of judicial restraint suggests to me that he will come down in favor of the military, as well, because he has demonstrated a reluctance to invalidate legislative actions in cases he has decided on the District of Columbia court. But I will be interested in the questions he asks and the reasoning behind his decision, if he joins in an opinion.

Judicial restraint – and judicial restraint appears to be foundational to Roberts' judicial philosophy – is likely, in the long run, to disappoint social conservatives, because social conservatives have tried to use the courts to push their agenda. Judicial activism of the "movement conservative" variety, a willingness to ignore precedent and overturn established law, is critical to the success of their agenda. Roberts, unlike Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas, does not appear to be on board with that agenda. Social conservatives may come to rue the day.

Life is Sweet

Lord, the sun keeps beating me down and it's hotter than hell.
And if I'm lucky I'll catch a ride but you can never tell.
I'd rather be here with the bugs and flies than back there hearing your alibis
Heard all that I'm gonna hear you say, I'm gonna take my pride and go the other way.
- Lyrics from "87 Southbound", Hank Williams III

I got back to Chicago Thursday night, all ready to blog, when I discovered that the air conditioner in the room with my computer had clogged up or something, and had been happily dumping condensate into the room, rather than out of it.

It wasn't all that hard to fix -- I cleaned out the drain to the outside, and remounted the air conditioner so that it tilted down properly -- but it meant that I had to clean the carper and then let it dry for a couple of days. Meanwhile, no access to the computer.

So I got a break from blogging and you got a break from reading.

Not a bad thing, all in all.

And just in time, too. It was 103 in Chicago on Sunday, with a heat index of around 115. It was hotter than hell. But the air conditioner purred along.

Meanwhile, I was treated to the sight of Michael talking to his parents in Texas on the phone Sunday, carrying on about how Chicagoans thought the world was coming to an end over a little heat, all the while -- get this -- sitting six feet from an air conditioner.

Life is sweet.

Nasty, Petty in the Gay State

Mitt Romney, the Governor of Massachusetts, the Gay State, is running for President. Because he presided over the state's transition to legalizing same-sex marriage, he has a problem with social conservatives, despite his Mormon credentials.

Mitt is, to be blunt, either a bit limp-wristed on the issue -- he did not, for example, call out the National Guard to bar the courthouse doors, which any good segregationist in the old days would have done in an instant -- or he is, like George Wallace was in his own time with respect to the struggle for full citizenship for African-Americans, a living symbol of the futility of trying to deny equal citizenship for gays and lesbians. Either way, his situation does not inspire confidence among social conservatives, who depend on maintaining the belief that gays and lesbians can be forced back into the closet.

Mitt, as you will recall, tried a number of maneuvers to stop the Goodwin decision from being actuated. The maneuvers were, for the most part, right out of the segregationist handbook.

In the beginning, he sat on his hands, refusing to involve the state executive branch in preparing forms and regulations to handle same-sex marriage, apparently hoping that if the executive issued no guidelines, chaos would result. We've seen that one before, of course, when Dixiecrat governors defined "with all deliberate speed" to mean "dead stop". Gay Staters saw through that one, and he caved.

Then he tried threat/incitement, repeatedly predicting the imminent onset of rampant civil disorder, in an apparent effort to whip up civil disorder to get others to do the "standing in the courthouse door" for him. We've seen that one too, numerous times, when Dixiecrat governors claimed that they were "powerless, powerless, powerless" to stop the good citizens of the state from burning down black churches and committing mayhem. Gay Staters saw through that one, too, and nothing happened.

Then Mitt tried a delicate dance with the Massachusetts constitution, waffling back and forth between a proposed amendment that converted same-sex marriages into civil unions and a proposed amendment that let existing same-sex marriages stand but barred future same-sex marriages and civil unions, claiming that "the people's will" trumped the opinions of "activist judges". Recent polls indicate that Gay Staters aren't buying that, either, and that a growing majority don't want to amend the state's constitution. It is not clear whether Mitt will now follow the lead of the Dixiecrat governors like George Wallace who quietly "got religion" during the 1970's or grudgingly fade away like Lester Maddox, but neither course is a tactic likely to lead to the White House.

In recent months, Mitt has been deploying another tactic of the Dixiecrats (think George Wallace in 1972), traveling around the country from rubber chicken dinner to rubber chicken dinner, spewing forth heated anti-gay rhetoric to the Republican faithful. Whether this will overcome social conservative reluctance to let Mitt practice his brand of leadership in the White House, I don't know, but certainly can't hurt. "Faggot, faggot, faggot" worked well for the Republicans in 2004, is bringing money into the coffers of the Religious Right in record numbers, and there's no reason to believe that it won't continue to work in 2008. Nothing, it seems, scares social conservatives quite as much as the thought that they will be forced to become gay some day.

Oh well, enough of that ...

It turns out that Mitt, like most bullies, is really, really petty. And plain nasty to boot. The Boston Globe reported last week that the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, on orders from the Governor, is instructing hospitals to cross out the word "father" on birth certificates for the children of same-sex parents and substitute the phrase "second parent," a practice that has angered municipal clerks.

Eric Fehrnstrom, a spokesman for Mitt, said that the certificates are legal. But the clerks, who register and store birth records, say the cross-outs could make them open to challenges by passport agents, foreign governments and other officials, such as Barnstable Town Clerk Linda E. Hutchenrider, a past president of the Massachusetts Town Clerks Association. who said: "They should not have a birth certificate that has crosses on it. They should be allowed to have a birth certificate that really looks valid."

Isn't that choice? If you can't stop same-sex marriage, try petty harassment, just to make a point.

But what point?

And what's next?

Smote Canada?

"You have no idea what a difference it makes to the human spirit to know that you are treated equally under the law." - Text of an e-mail read by Ione Christensen, a Senator from the Yukon, and the last word spoken in Canada's debate over legalizing same-sex civil marriage throughout the country.

With that, the Canadian Senate voted 47-21 to enact the bill that allows civil marriage.

The bill was signed into law today.

Canada joins Holland, Belgium and Spain in legalizing same-sex marriage.

God has, as far as I can tell, refrained from smoting Canada so far, but we'll have a front row seat if Canada is reduced to a smoldering ash.

Jeff and Zach

In 1977, during the height of the Anita Bryant hoopla, a college friend of my wife's, soon to be a friend of mine, came to visit with us for a few days in Chicago.

As it turned out, he stayed about six weeks. Jeff stayed because, an evangelical Christian, Jeff was trying to decide whether to go to Denver to be cured of homosexuality or to accept the fact that he was gay and return to Texas and find a way to live as a gay Christian. It took a while.

Jeff decided to return to Dallas.


A recent series of articles about a gay Tennessee teenager named Zach Stark, who entered "Love in Action", a fundamentalist ministry for gay and lesbian teenagers, at the insistence of his parents, got me thinking about the so-called "Ex-Gay" movement and about "Love in Action" in particular.

"Love in Action", unlike most "Ex-Gay" organizations, does not claim to change sexual orientation and takes issue with the organizations that do. As Love in Action's website puts it:

"There are over 100 ministries in the United States devoted to helping people and their families practically and biblically process through the dliemma of homosexuality (Exodus International, www.exodus-international.org). These ministries are commonly called "ex-gay" ministries. Even in this slang title there is a subtle message that people used to be "homosexual" and they aren't any longer. This message is clearly understood when we are talking about an adulterer or a thief because we know that we are speaking of a behavior, but when we are talking about leaving homosexuality, so many see it as a change in a more innate way than in behavior. Some christians might be thinking of a miraculous change from one kind of person to another!"

"Over the many years I have worked with Love In Action International I have heard of one common burden from many men and women: "John, I prayed all my life to be free from homosexuality, and God has not done anything to help me. I guess He either doesn't care about me, or He doesn't care about my homosexuality." This kind of thinking falls into deep theological error due to a great misunderstanding about the real issue of homosexual temptation, thought and behavior. God has never promised that He would take away the temptation (see II Corinthians 12:7-10). It is often the case that we have a lifelong struggle in which God gives us the grace to live obediently according to His will and good purpose. Some people who have homosexually addictive thoughts or behaviors will pray that God would take them away. If He doesn't, they conclude there is no other option but to act on them."

"Love in Action" instead claims to change a gay Christian's response to sexual orientation: "Love In Action International exists to be a Christ-centered ministry for the prevention or remediation of unhealthy and destructive behaviors facing families, adults, and adolescents."

The organization's approach is guided by three foundational principles, according to their website:

"Truth One: There is no such creation as a "gay" or "homosexual" person. There is only homosexual attraction and behavior; accordingly, there can be no "change" from a sexual identity that never existed in the first place."

"Truth Two: The truth for most men and women who struggle with homosexual behavior is that they will, at times, continue to experience attractions in large and small ways for a lifetime. It is often misleading and harmful to speak vaguely of "total" deliverance without mentioning the normal, ongoing struggles with temptations all believers have."

"Truth Three: God sees homosexuality as sin like any other, and directs us to apply the same biblical model to it that we would to any other sin. His real solution for deliverance and healing is based on repentance and obedience."

"Biblical change from homosexuality requires that we respond correctly to the message God speaks of in I Corinthians 6. This message of repentance will bring forth the truth that will, in fact, set people free from this kind of bondage. When we begin to see homosexuality as a sin, a behavior and a wrong mindset, then and only then can we find forgiveness and freedom."

"There is no such thing as a homosexual! There are many individuals, however, who struggle intensely with homosexual temptation and addictive behavior. Once we get the message right, then we will be effective in ministering to those caught in this kind of deceptive bondage."

Most interesting. Maybe the Ex-Gay movement is starting to face facts.

For all the standard rhetoric about the idea that homosexuality is "a mirage, a cloud, something we will never be able to grasp", the group does not claim that sexual desire is a matter of choice or argue with the fact that most men and women who go through "treatment" do not experience a change in sexual desire.

In fact, "Love in Action" seems to explicitly suggest that reparative therapy does not change sexual desire: "Does this mean that people choose homosexuality? Not exactly. The feelings, the temptations, or the desires are certainly not chosen. They culminate from what we might call a conspiracy of factors and then as with any temptation, they just come about. We believe God holds us accountable for the ways we act upon those challenges that come to us. People are responsible for the choices they make when acting on wrong sexual desires or behaviors. "

Accordingly, the goal of the program, according to "Love in Action" founder, the Reverend John Smid, who said he was once gay but now renounces homosexual behavior, is not necessarily to turn gays into practicing heterosexuals, but to "put guardrails" on their sexual impulses -- to change behavior rather than desire: "In my life I've been out of homosexuality for over 20 years, and for me it's really a nonissue. I may see a man and say, he's handsome, he's attractive, and it might touch a part of me that is different from someone else. But it's really not an issue. Gosh, I've been married for 16 years and faithful in my marriage in every respect. I mean I don't think I could white-knuckle this ride for that long."

And the program, with these limited goals, does appear to work for some at least.

"Love in Action" released a statement by Gerard Wellman, a graduate of the 9-month "Source" program run by the organization:

"My name is Gerard Wellman and I am a graduate of the 9-month Source program of Love In Action International. I have experienced same sex attractions for as long as I can remember, and I have acted upon these feelings on many occasions in the past. As my faith in God and I matured, I became more and more convicted with each instance of homosexual behavior that what I was doing was wrong. Often, the distinction between me and my behavior became blurred, and I began to experience self-hatred and feelings of worthlessness, insignificance, and inadequacy. I assumed that if everyone knew of my behavior, they would automatically reject me. Unfortunately, out of fear I placed God in that category, along with my family."

"In November of 2002, God, through his word, brought me to the realization that my behavior was destroying me, and that I needed help. I found what I needed in Love In Action. I found acceptance and love. I found peace and hope. I learned that “homosexual” describes actions – not people. I found the distinction between what I do and who I am. But the most incredible thing I discovered was that I have a choice. I am not bound to act upon my same-sex desires – I do not have to dishonor myself and my body with anything I do not want to do. I do not have to enter any lifestyle I do not choose to enter."

"Since my graduation from the Source, I have discovered that God does not ask anything impossible of me. I am here to tell anyone who’s listening that there is an alternative to homosexuality. I strongly believe that if there is a conflict between my Christian faith and homosexual activity, then my actions must change – not my faith. I cannot adjust God to fit me…I must and can adjust me to fit God."

"Love in Action", focused as it is on behavior rather than orientation, seems to me to be an improvement over most "Ex-Gay" ministries, which seem to be believe that you can "Pray Gay Away". And despite the fact that the organization seems to be a bit being slippery in defining a way around the question of the existence of sexual orientation while rejecting the idea of choice of sexual orientation, the organization is at least upfront about the danger of most "Ex-Gay" ministries, doomed to failure as they are because they claim to be able to "Pray Gay Away".

I don't have a serious problem with "Love in Action" at core. It seems to me that celibacy is an acceptable response to sexual desire for those who believe that sexual activity outside of marriage is sinful, and I have no problem with organizations that promote sexual responsibility for gays or straights, period. Sexual responsibility is something a lot of people -- particularly young men -- would do well to ponder.

To my mind, "Love in Action", unlike most "Ex-Gay" ministries, is not deceptive in its goals or expectations. Most "Ex-Gay" ministries are, it seems to me, deceptive. But "Love in Action" does not claim that gays and lesbians can "Pray Gay Away", and it seeks to try to moderate behavior rather than change orientation. If that is what gay and lesbian clients of the organization want to do, more power to them, and more power to "Love in Action".

But Zach, of course, is 16, and his participation in the "Refuge" program is not voluntary. He was, according to his father, Joe Stark, sent to "Love in Action". The dangers of reparative therapy for teenagers are well documented, and there is a good chance that Zach's stay in "Love in Action" will do more harm than good, overall.

But despite the hue and cry that has arisen over Zach, I have no argument with the right of parents like Zach's mother and father to take strong measures to protect their kids from behaviors that the parents see as harmful and destructive. Joe Stark told CBN (in an interview last week): "Zach has got a mind of his own, and that's a God-given gift. And Zack will have to make those choices when he is an adult as to what exactly he is going to do with his life. But until he turns 18 and he's an adult in the state of Tennessee, I'm responsible for him. And I’m going to see to it that he has all options available to him."

I understand Joe Stark because I am a father and I've been there, with respect to other dangerous behaviors, with my own sons. His response to Zach's orientation would not be my response, but I don't think that Joe Stark is a an evil man. He is doing his best by Zach according to his own religious lights. Joe Stark did not, as so many social conservative parents seem to do, throw his kid out on the streets, abandoning him. He is, in his own way, standing by Zach.

I don't know how this story will turn out. I hope that it will turn out well, in time, both for Zach and his parents. Joe Stark indicated that Zach and his parents were communicating more since Zach entered the "Refuge" program, and I hope that the communication goes both ways. Joe Stark, it seems to me, has a lot to learn from his son. I hope that Zach and his parents will come to accept the other for what they are, realizing and valuing the love that seems to be at the heart of this story.

I hope, in short, that God will find a way.

Straight and Ugly

The Reverend Willie Wilson, pastor of the Union Temple Baptist Church in Washington, National Executive Director of the "Millions More March" marking the tenth anniversary of the "Million Man March" this October, and a member of Board of Trustees of the University of the District of Columbia, tried his hand at sociology, teen dating angst and anatomy during a sermon on July 3 titled "You've Got the Right to be Free":

"… We live in a time when our brothers have been so put down, can't get a job, lot of the sisters making more money than brothers. And it's creating problems in families. That's one of the reasons our families' breaking up. And that's one of the reasons many of our women are becoming lesbians. You got to be careful when you say you don't need no man. I can make it by myself. Well, if you don't need a man, what's left? Lesbianism is about to take over our community. I'm talking about young girls. My son in high school last year, trying to go to the prom, he said, "Dad, I ain’t got nobody to take to the prom because all the girls in my class are gay. There ain't but two of them straight and both of them are ugly. I ain't got nobody to take to the prom."

"Now, can I talk here? I ain't homophobic, because everybody in here got something wrong with him. Whoever you point at, you can point at your own self. You got something wrong with your life."

"But when you get down to this thing, women falling down on another woman, strapping yourself up with something, it ain't real. That thing ain't got no feeling in it. It ain’t natural. Any time somebody got to slap some grease on your behind, and stick something in you, it's something wrong with that. Your butt ain’t made for that. You got blood vessels and membranes in your behind. And if you put something unnatural in there, it breaks them all up. No wonder your behind is bleeding. It's destroying us. Can't make no connection with a screw and another screw. The Bible says God made them male and female. The Hebrew word "neged," which means complementary nature — there is something unique to man and unique to woman and it takes those two things to complement each other. You can’t make a connection with two screws. It takes a screw and a nut!”

As the Reverend Wilson points out, "Whoever you point at, you can point at your own self. You got something wrong with your life."

Sure enough.

And I hope your boy gets a date.

Sure enough.

Slothing Back to Work

Vacation is over, and I'm slothing my way back to work.

Vacation was refreshing. I enjoyed every day of it.

I didn't read or listen to the news to speak of -- I found out that London had been suicide bombed, for example, the day after the bombings. I didn't think about George Bush or Jerry Falwell or Pope Benedict or any of the rest of the dolts for more than a few seconds at a time. I didn't read blogs, except for Damien Scott's, and then only when prompted by him. My blood pressure, no doubt, dropped.

I just hung out, for the most part, visiting with people I like around the Midwest, canoeing down the Wisconsin River, listening to small concerts in small town squares in small towns, building this and that here and there, chomping on ribs, and making runs to the Unique Thrift Shops. It was peaceful. So peaceful, in fact, that I was mellowed out to the point where I didn't even grind my teeth while waiting in a long line to renew my liscense plates in 90 degree heat down at 95th and MLK. I just chatted with the other people in line.

I could get used to it. I plan to soon enough, since I'm not all that far from retirement.

Today was a rude awakening, however. I logged into my work network, and found about 50 e-mails, all wanting me to get off my ass and do something. I made it through the pile in a couple of hours. I think I'll let voicemail wait until tomorrow, when I get to Detroit.

I'm catching up on the news, bit by bit.

New polls in Canada show that 55% of Canadians support same-sex marriage now, and 39% oppose same-sex marriage, a flip-flop from a couple of years ago. Canadians, having lived with same-sex marriage, have learned that the sky didn't fall. Massachusetts polls show the same thing, a year after same-sex marriage was legalized there. It is not a surprise.

Texas Governor Perry, apparently, is even dumber than I thought, since he is now apologizing to Jews in the state for having invited the "Jews for Jesus" as the token Jewish group to the meeting in which he announced that GLBT veterans in the state could leave Texas if they didn't like his homophobic statements. Governor Perry is either stupid, ignorant or offensive, and maybe all three. Or maybe he just knows his audience. "Jews for Jesus" is a fundie front, and is an enemy of Judaism. I wonder if Governor Perry is going to confuse the "ex-gay" movement with the GBLT community for his next act.

Not to be outdone, Catholic bishops continue to reduce Catholicism to new lows. The latest example is Marc Cardinal Ouellet's statement that the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops has decided that if both parents in a same-sex couple want to sign the certificate of baptism the church for their child, the baptism will not be allowed. The reason? It appears that it will screw up the paperwork. The Catholic Church continues to teach that baptism is necessary for salvation, so the Canadian Conference is putting record-keeping convenience ahead of the salvation of children. I don't need to ask WWJD. I know.

Nigerian courts are sentincing gay men to be stoned to death. Meanwhile, gays and lesbians have started to marry in that most Catholic nation, Spain, and 50,000 gays and lesbians demonstrated in Rome seeking the right to marry.

The world goes on ...