PC-USA Approves GLBT Ordination

Big news in the church world: the Presbyterian Church USA -- not to be confused with its more conservative cousin, the Presbyterian Church of America -- has finally approved allowing the ordination of GLBT ministers. It only took 33 years!

Well, no one can ever say that they needed more time to discuss the issue!

Pastor John Shuck has the details for those interested in the technicalities.

To me this is just another brick felled in the wall preventing full inclusion in our society for gays and lesbians. Try as some folks might, you can’t stop the culture from changing. They couldn’t stop blacks and whites from marrying, and you won’t be able to stop the gays, either.

Meanwhile, yesterday we read news that the U.S. Navy was preparing for the repeal of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” by writing guidelines for performing same sex marriages on Naval bases. This prompted the usual freak-out, and an immediate reversal:

Washington (CNN) -- The Navy did an abrupt about-face late Tuesday, suspending earlier guidance that could have allowed same-sex marriages on military bases once the Pentagon scraps its present Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy.

A memorandum from the Chief of Chaplains, Rear Admiral M.L. Tidd, suspended one he issued about a month ago.

"My memorandum of 13 April 2011 is hereby suspended until further notice pending additional legal and policy review and inter-Departmental coordination," Tidd wrote on Tuesday to all Navy chaplains and "religious program specialists."

The green light for gay marriage on military bases prompted a new round of Congressional opposition to ending Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

Of course it did. But don’t worry, brothers and sisters. The bricks are falling. This one will, too.

Years ago I served on the session of a local Presbyterian church which had welcomed several openly gay families into our congregation. These people were talented and active in the church; we knew they had a lot to contribute to the life of our congregation, so we nominated two individuals to be part of the church’s Session, which is basically the church board. And then we all had to be reminded that in approving their inclusion on our church session we were running afoul of official PC-USA policy. While no one expected this to happen, it was possible our pastors could be removed from their positions.

This was a sobering thought, and it hardened our resolve. We approved their nomination and became what I believe to be Nashville’s first PC-USA church to have two openly gay elders serving the congregation. It sent a powerful message when these folks went to Presbytery meetings and other denominational functions. Several other congregations followed. And now the entire denomination has changed.

This is how change happens. The first step is always the hardest, but those steps have already been taken, long ago. Throughout our history, as our understanding of the human family has grown, we have opened the doors of our society wider to more people. Those fighting against full equality are marginalizing themselves by standing on the wrong side of history.

Courage & Anger

Frank Rich’s column yesterday, “Gay Bashing At The Smithsonian,” brings to mind an issue which has troubled me for some time. And that’s the issue of courage.

Rich discusses the removal of the late artist David Wojnarowicz’s work from an exhibit at the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery. He writes:

When his mentor and former lover, the photographer Peter Hujar, fell ill with AIDS in 1987, Wojnarowicz created a video titled “A Fire in My Belly” to express both his grief and his fury. As in Haring’s altarpiece, Christ figures in Wojnarowicz’s response to the plague — albeit in a cryptic, 11-second cameo. A crucifix is besieged by ants that evoke frantic souls scurrying in panic as a seemingly impassive God looked on.

This is the piece that was originally included in the Smithsonian’s exhibition, "Hide/Seek: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture," which is advertised as “a serious examination of the role sexual identity has played in the creation of modern American portraiture.” The National Portrait Gallery yanked “Fire in My Belly” from its exhibit in early December after the Smithsonian caved to a manufactured piece of outrage which I daresay few Americans even heard about.

Back to Rich:

Like many of its antecedents, the war over Wojnarowicz is a completely manufactured piece of theater. What triggered the abrupt uproar was an incendiary Nov. 29 post on a conservative Web site. The post was immediately and opportunistically seized upon by William Donohue, of the so-called Catholic League, a right-wing publicity mill with no official or financial connection to the Catholic Church.

[...]

It took only hours after Donohue’s initial battle cry for the video to be yanked. “The decision wasn’t caving in,” the museum’s director, Martin E. Sullivan, told reporters. Of course it was. The Smithsonian, in its own official statement, rationalized its censorship by saying that Wojnarowicz’s video “generated a strong response from the public.” That’s nonsense. There wasn’t a strong response from the public — there was no response. As the museum’s own publicist told the press, the National Portrait Gallery hadn’t received a single complaint about “A Fire in the Belly” from the exhibit’s opening day, Oct. 30, until a full month later, when a “public” that hadn’t seen the exhibit was mobilized by Donohue to blast the museum by phone and e-mail.

The museum caved. They caved. Why?

Time and again we see groups (and politicians) cave in the face of such obviously manufactured political theater. Where is the courage? Who thinks capitulation is a winning strategy, that it does nothing more than ensure future fake campaigns?

Why was Shirley Sherrod asked to resign so quickly last summer? Why was Van Jones thrown under the bus? Why do our Democratic leaders and institutions cave to the right wing noise machine, time and time again?

Why do they act so afraid that some pundit somewhere is saying something mean about them?

The fact that Republicans are allowed to do the same (or worse) without any pearl-clutching in the media proves how politically motivated these “fauxtrages” are. It’s all about framing, fear-mongering, indulging in stereotypes and retreading that well-worn path allowing the majority to pretend it is a persecuted minority, thus redirecting anger to a more politically expedient target.

Yes, it pisses me off. And with all of that swirling around in my head I turned the page and read Ishmael Reed’s op-ed piece in the same issue of the New York Times (expanded upon at blogs like my second home, The Swash Zone). Apparently, progressives calling for President Obama (and other Democrats) to show some backbone in the face of unprecedented GOP obstructionism need to STFU because we simply don’t understand what it’s like to be a black person in America:

One progressive commentator played an excerpt from a Harry Truman speech during which Truman screamed about the Republican Party to great applause. He recommended this style to Mr. Obama. If President Obama behaved that way, he’d be dismissed as an angry black militant with a deep hatred of white people. His grade would go from a B- to a D.

What the progressives forget is that black intellectuals have been called “paranoid,” “bitter,” “rowdy,” “angry,” “bullies,” and accused of tirades and diatribes for more than 100 years. Very few of them would have been given a grade above D from most of my teachers.

Um, here’s a news flash for you: President Obama has already been dismissed as an angry black militant with a deep hatred of white people. Or haven’t you been listening to Glenn Beck, the very same right wing commentator who cost Van Jones his job? Were you paying attention when Ben Stein came out and called then-candidate Barack Obama an angry black man on Fox News in 2008? No? Well, we progressives were, and we countered those accusations every time. Where were you?

Look, the “angry” label is nothing new, nor is it unique to black intellectuals. Maybe you weren’t paying attention when Republicans called Hillary Clinton “too angry” to win a presidential election in 2008. Karl Rove called Al Gore “one angry dude.” Howard Dean was too angry to be president in 2004 and here he is screaming after a primary win to prove it! We’re “the angry left,” and voters “don’t elect angry candidates,” as former RNC Chair Ken Mehlman famously told ABC News. (For some reason anger isn’t a negative for the Tea Party, though -- despite their guns and Town Hall shouting matches and hanging representatives in effigy. IOKIYAR.)

I get that there is a strategy among those in power exploiting cultural stereotypes and stoking fear of the “angry black male” to oppress black advancement in this country. That's the same reason we hear women are too emotional and gays are pedophiles and all Muslims are terrorists. We all have our baggage and yes, some people’s baggage might be heavier than others. But that doesn’t mean we capitulate to it. Caving to the whims of the hate machine which makes these erroneous claims does not make them go away. It enables them!

This is standard issue right wing framing. Liberals have been labeled “angry” (even “too angry”) for decades, and guess what, we are angry. We were angry when protestors rioted at the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago and we were angry when we protested the Vietnam War and we were angry when we burned our bras in the 1970s and we were angry when we protested apartheid in the 1980s and we were angry when we protested the WTO conference in Seattle in 2000. Hell we were so angry over the stolen election in 2000 and subsequent Bush presidential misdeeds that we created a bumper sticker about it, which the Tea Party has conveniently co-opted.

It’s okay to be angry. Angry people get things done. I just never understood why being angry was supposed to be a bad thing, anyway. Just because the RNC says it is?

So no, I’m not going to tell Democrats not to be angry because Tweety might have a sad or Joke Line may wring his hands about frothy-mouthed liberal bloggers. Getting angry is okay, if you are fighting for your principles.

This is where courage comes in. Getting back to Ishmael Reed’s op-ed, I have to say I was mighty offended when I read this:

Unlike white progressives, blacks and Latinos are not used to getting it all. They know how it feels to be unemployed and unable to buy your children Christmas presents. They know when not to shout. The president, the coolest man in the room, who worked among the unemployed in Chicago, knows too.

Well damn, there’s a stereotype for you! Here’s a news flash for Mr. Reed: not all white progressives are used to getting it all, either. And I’ll be damned if I’ll be lectured on stereotypes by someone who can’t even recognize one when it pops out of his own keyboard.

Stand up and show some backbone, Democrats. Don’t cave to the right wing noise machine. Don't agree to a political approach which neuters liberal outrage, and only allows conservatives to get angry. Every time you do so progress takes a step back. Every capitulation emboldens the opposition. It's OK to be angry and it's even better to use that anger to harden your resolve.

And I guarantee you that the Republicans are going to say mean things about you. You can take that to the bank. You know what? They're going to say mean things anyway.

Christian Music’s Loss Will Be Mainstream Music’s Gain

This week the enormously talented Christian singer/songwriter Jennifer Knapp came out.

I have interviewed Knapp many, many times over the years. I’ve always admired her as a songwriter and performer. She’s been nominated for Grammy Awards, won Dove Awards, had major Christian radio hits, you name it. And now, of course, her Christian music career is over.

Seriously, if Amy Grant’s albums could be yanked off store shelves for getting a divorce, I’m not holding out much hope that the Christian music industry will continue to play Knapp’s music or sell her CDs. Hey, they could surprise me, but I’m a realist.

Knapp’s decision to come out was extraordinarily brave; already I’ve seen so-called Christians label her “an example of hellbound Christianity.” I'm sure the next few weeks will be un-fun for Knapp as the intolerant freak show rears its head. So I just wanted to send a cyber-hug to Knapp for having the courage and faith to step out of the closet in which so many of her fellow Christian music artists remain--you know who you are, people! And guess what: so does everyone else!

This is the dirty little secret of the Christian music industry, of course. There are loads of gay artists, and I daresay most of them suffer with the psychological trauma of feeling there is something wrong with them, of having to live a lie or live in the shadows. How screwed up is that: make someone choose between a career and living an authentic life, just so we can maintain the comfortable status quo? That was the exact opposite of what Jesus was about.

And here's another thing: everyone knows who these gay artists are and they are happy to ignore it because they are all making loads of money off of these artists. Until someone has the courage to step out and say, “enough. I’m not going to live like that anymore.” And then they’re gay-listed from the radio playlists and their CDs are pulled off the shelves of the Family Christian bookstore. That’s pretty hypocritical, if you ask me. And it also just proves how wrong your worldview is and how intolerant and anti-Christian your brand of religion is.

So here’s one of Jennifer Knapp’s songs, performed on Live From Studio B. It’s a Christian music TV program, so watch it before they yank it to purge themselves of teh gaiii. If you like her style of music, consider checking out her new CD, “Letting Go,” which releases in May.

Is Vanderbilt Tolerating Intolerance?

Uh-oh. Vanderbilt University is in a little bit of trouble with GLBT activists since this video started making the rounds:



Asked by a student whether he accepts or rejects that part of the Koran which calls for execution of practicing gays and lesbians, Vanderbilt’s Muslim chaplain Awadh A. Binhazim tried to pass the buck and say, well, Islam is not the only religion which has intolerant views towards gays and lebsians.

Binhazim also indicated it didn’t matter really since there is no such thing as a country which follows Islamic Law 100% of the time, that all Muslim countries follow a mixture of laws. The student pressed on, however, and Binhazim was forced to admit that homosexuality is punishable by death under Islamic Law.

Well, this is a bit of a pickle. I don’t know very much about Islam and have never read the Koran, but I don’t get the sense that Muslims are allowed to do too much interpretation of their holy text. Maybe I’m wrong but it seems that unlike Christianity, where the Bible is interpreted in hundreds of different ways and as a result there are hundreds of different Christian denominations, the Islamic faith is a little more rigid on that score. So while one can argue that there are Christian religious denominations that take a dim view of homosexuality, there are plenty of others that do not.

And I think that was the corner Binhazim got backed into here. He can't come out and say that some Koranic teachings are still valid while others are no longer abided in modern times, so he danced around it with his "mixture of laws" point.

Anyway, this blogger opines:

All of which has Vanderbilt racing to distance itself from Binhazim: "Vanderbilt University is dedicated to a policy of non-discrimination on the basis of race or sexuality," the school says in a statement. "Awadh A. Binhazim is not and has never been a Vanderbilt employee, and is not paid by the university. He is the university's Muslim chaplain under a working agreement that is similar to those signed with chaplains of other faiths at Vanderbilt. This working agreement requires Binhazim to observe Vanderbilt rules, including its non-discriminatory policies. Vanderbilt does not limit the free speech of its students, faculty, staff or its chaplains in any way."

Not limiting the free speech of its chaplains is a fantastic policy, and one we support at any school. But what would happen if a visiting chaplain came along and said his religion called for the extermination of Jews? Would Vanderbilt be letting him return to campus?

Of course there is no religion that calls for extermination of Jews so that’s a bit of a straw argument. And as a general principal I think it’s bad form to make people defend their religion. You shouldn’t have to defend why you accept or reject your religion, and your job shouldn’t be on the line when you can’t.

That said, when a religious teaching is itself intolerant, and calling for the execution of gays is certainly that, then people have every right to speak out. Especially when there have been news reports that gay teens are possibly being executed in Iran.

In Judeo-Christian religions we debate what the Bible says about anything and everything; indeed there are entire fields of study devoted to Biblical and Talmudic hermeneutics. But hermeneutic debates on cultural issues like homosexuality are never fruitful because a progressive Christian will never convince a fundamentalist that they are wrong, and vice versa. So we end up with this uncomfortable stalemate and endless bickering when cultural issues enter the public policy arena.

Where Islam is concerned, I just don’t know. Is there a Koranic hermeneutic discipline? Do people debate what the Koran actually says about homosexuality, what the intent of the text was or the context in which it was written? I don’t know. If anyone does, please enlighten me.

In the meantime, while I’m all for being tolerant and accepting of our nation’s religious diversity, I don’t think it’s a good idea to do so at the expense of our GLBT citizens. So I’m less concerned about Binhazim’s interpretation of Islamic Law than I am with how he would counsel someone on this issue.

We follow American laws here, not Islamic ones.

Schmierer-monger

Don Schmierer, former board member of “pray away the gay” group Exodus International, was one of three American evangelicals who traveled to Uganda last year to participate in a conference about sexual orientation. Following that visit Uganda proposed legislation that would imprison and execute gays. Needless to say, there’s been a bit of negative fallout from that trip.

So Don Schmierer and the rest have gone into damage-control mode. I heard a short interview with him on today’s Here & Now (give it a listen yourself here, it’s short). Schmierer is trying to distance himself from some of the more hateful messaging at that conference by fellow panelist Scott Lively, who compared homosexuality to beastiality and pedophilia. But Schmierer is in deep denial if he thinks his stance on gays is any less intolerant or hateful than those of folks like Lively.

Schmierer did say he thought the Ugandan anti-gay law was “horrible”:

I can’t believe anybody’s doing that type of thing. Not today. I mean, good night.

Shocking that our patented American fearmongering tying gays to pedophilia and beastiality would, in a Third World country not known for its high democratic standards, result in extreme measures like a gay death penalty. I kept waiting for Schmierer to take some responsibility but he never did, in fact, he denied any responsibility at all and tried to claim he was brought to the conference under false pretenses. He said he “didn’t know what I was walking into.”

That explains why he vociferously objected to Scott Lively’s hate speech at the time, to make sure his Ugandan audience knew where he stood. Oh wait. It doesn’t appear he did. (Furthermore, it’s a lie: Ex-Gay Watch says they warned Exodus International about what they were getting into.)

Here & Now interviewer Robin Young asked Schmierer what he counsels parents whose children have come out and he responded (keep in mind this is my own quickie transcript):

I teach parents how to help connect with their kids. One of the first things I say .. some of the nicest people I’ve ever met on the face of the earth are gay people. We talk about how to listen to each other. The second thing I teach them is how to affirm them for who they are.

“Affirm” is one of those liberal church words which means to accept GLBT folks and their families unconditionally. If you are a gay person looking for a church home, you look for one that advertises itself as “affirming,” or sometimes, “welcoming and affirming.” It’s a type of code word and everyone in the church world knows what it means. And let me add: there are lots of affirming churches out there, even right here in the Bible Belt. I can think of half a dozen here in Nashville right off the top of my head.

So to hear Don Schmierer say he counsels parents to “affirm” their gay children when he in fact meant no such thing struck me as the height of weasledom. I’ve got no doubt in my mind that Schmierer knew exactly what he was saying. I suspect he’s trying to change the definition of “affirming” among church people from “we accept you and your family--your partner, your children--unconditionally, just as you are. Welcome to God’s table,” to “we won’t kill you or throw you in jail.”

And in fact, kudos to Robin Young for asking the follow-up question,

Do you teach parents to affirm their children if they are gay?

to which Schierer responded

I didn’t say that!

Schmierer sounded annoyed that Young even asked the question. Methinks Schmierer got smacked in the face by the reality that his own argument is just as intolerant as Lively’s, just a different shade.

Schmierer and his fellow “pray away the gay” people have this crackpot theory that sexual orientation is connected to a person’s “disconnect” from the same sex parent. In other words, if you’re a gay guy, you are that way because you didn’t connect with your father, and if you’re a lesbian woman, you are that way because you didn’t connect with your mother. That’s the craziest thing I’ve ever heard, and it’s certainly completely at odds with modern psychiatric beliefs and practice. It sounds like an old wive’s tale, to me.

Schmierer went on in this interview to equate sexual orientation with “other addictions” (!!) and said he’d never met a healthy, happy homosexual person. So that pretty much tells us all we need to know about Don Schmierer. He can say he was “duped” all he wants, but you are deep in denial if you think a life’s work devoted to telling gays that there’s something wrong with them could somehow not lead to an extreme measure like the Ugandan gay death penalty.

When “Controversial” Really Means “Gay”

Apparently a strip club with a "controversial new twist” has one Metro Nashville councilman just "sick":

Metro Councilman Michael Craddock does not want Nashville to become known as host to one of the south's only male strip clubs.

"I'm sick to my stomach - I'm just absolutely sick," said Craddock.

"It's different for a man to show himself than a woman. It's another step in the wrong direction."

It’s different? Really? How, exactly?

Care to elaborate, Councilman?

And what’s this “another step” stuff? What other steps in the “wrong direction” have we taken here in Nashville lately that make you just “sick”?

I have some ideas: I’m thinking Craddock is worried about the whole “gay” thing. I think what’s different about when a man “shows himself” is that there might be other men watching and that just freaks Councilman Braddock out to no end. Feel free to correct me, Councilman Braddock, but I think it's the "gay" thing that has you "sick." Am I right?

Owners of the new club, to be called “Arrow Nashville,” say they are not a “gay” strip club, however; patrons of both sexes will be welcome.

I dunno, I’ve been to one strip club in my life, in New Orleans (of course). I was with a mixed group of people, and the women said if we were going to do this wacky thing we by God were going to make sure we went to one of the “unisex” strip joints so that we could enjoy the show, too. The male dancer was obviously gay but he had far more talent than the female dancer, who seemed strung out on something and not very aware of her surroundings. The whole thing was rather seedy, the drinks were watered down, and when we left about 30 minutes later I felt like I never needed to see another strip show again.

But to each his or her own. Councilman Braddock is looking pretty ridiculous here. He needs to explain his idea that it’s somehow one thing when a woman takes her clothes off for money and something else entirely when a man does it. What exactly is the difference, if it's not fear of the gay?

And I’m going to scold NewsChannel5 here too, which seems to precede every story involving anything that might be vaguely gay with the word “controversial.”

I’m not seeing anything controversial in this story. A councilman is behaving like an ass. So what else is new?

It’s Official: You Can’t Pray Away The Gay

At dinner Tuesday night the guy at the next table was speaking extremely loud, the kind of loud that you can’t help but overhear, much as you wish you could. And I really wished I could, because what he was saying was standard-issue evangelical Christianese.

Yuck. Reminded me of the time my mother and I went to Tony Roma’s and the couple at the next table waxed enthusiastically through the entire meal about how great God is to have created such awesome barbecue.

Anyway, such things wouldn’t be noteworthy here in the buckle of the Bible belt except Tuesday’s dinner yakker set off my gaydar big time. In fact, the disparity between the evangelical religious-speak and the clanging gaydar made it difficult for me to concentrate on my food, which I needed to do because we were using chopsticks, which I’ve never mastered. I just wanted to go over and ask the guy if he was aware he was gay and I hoped his church was okay with that, because if they weren’t, there are plenty of churches in Nashville that are.

Now of course I don’t know this person or what kind of church they are part of, so it’s very possible they’ve found a welcoming and affirming congregation, though there are precious few of those of the evangelical flavor.

But it’s really sad that so many religious folks have this completely messed up attitude toward gays and lesbians, even promoting these totally abusive “therapy” programs that the APA has now officially concluded don’t work:

There is no evidence to support the claims of some practitioners that sexual orientation can be changed through therapy, a special committee of the American Psychological Assn. reported today. Mental health professionals should not tell patients that they can change their sexual orientation and instead should help them "explore possible life paths that address the reality of their sexual orientation," according to the report, which was released at a Toronto meeting of the association and online.

I wonder if the American Family Assn.’s Charlie Butts will be all over this story like he was the APA’s statement on the "gay gene" that he misconstrued and redacted to say what he wanted it to. That lie ricocheted around the right wing media, including WingNut Daily.

It seems to me it’s better for everyone all around if we just accept people for who they are and be done with it, and avoid such tragic experiences as the ones "ex-gay therapy" survivor Patrick McAlvey relates here:

News You Won’t See On TV

I did not know that there was something called the “World Outgames,” a kind of gay and lesbian Olympics, taking place in Copenhagen, Denmark right now.

I did not know that two Nashvillians, Sam Felker and Keith Little, are competing in these games and writing about it on their blog.

I did not know that on Tuesday the track and field competition was disrupted by a bomb attack that injured one runner. Sam and Keith were there during the attack and posted pictures on their blog.

You’d think with Nashville debating its non-discrimination ordinance right now, and the fact that at least two Nashvillians are actually at the games and witnessed the attack, that there might be some local media interest in this incident.

Silly me. Outside the GLBT media and blogs: **crickets**

I think it would be helpful for everyone to know about this, and the fact that hate crimes against the GLBT community occur even in progressive cities like Copenhagen.

Thank you, Nashville blogosphere, for doing the job our local media would not.

This Week In Intolerance

Book burnings? Really? Sadly, when it comes to library books that don’t portray GLBT folks as demons, yes:

Ginny Maziarka, 49, said the books in the section of the library aimed at children aged 12 to 18 included homosexual and heterosexual content she thought was inappropriate for youths.

She and her husband also asked the library to obtain books about homosexuality that affirmed heterosexuality, such as titles written by "ex-gays," Maziarka said.

"All the books in the young-adult zone that deal with homosexuality are gay-affirming. That's not balance," she said.

[..]

Outside West Bend, the fight caught the attention of Robert Braun, who, with three other Milwaukee-area men, filed a claim against West Bend calling for one of the library's books to be publicly burned, along with financial damages.

The four plaintiffs -- who describe themselves as "elderly" in their complaint --- claim their "mental and emotional well-being was damaged by [the] book at the library."

The claim, unconnected to the Maziarkas, says the book "Baby Be-bop" -- a fictional piece about a homosexual teenager -- is "explicitly vulgar, racial and anti-Christian."

Braun, who says he is president of a Milwaukee group called the Christian Civil Liberties Union, said he singled out the book because it "goes way over the line" with offensive language and descriptions of sex acts.

So, just to recap: A Wisconsin mom wants to remove books about gays from the young adult section of her public library because they don’t portray gays as having some kind of disorder.

Meanwhile, some old farts who don’t even live in that town claim to have been so traumatized by one of the books in the library that they want it to be burned and they are suing for damages.

Let’s be even more clear: West Bend, where the library is located, is in Washington County, “an hour’s drive north of Milwaukee.”

Braun lives in West Allis, in Milwaukee County, which is just west of downtown Milwaukee. Not very close to West Bend, at all. I’m wondering if he couldn’t be emotionally damaged by some library books a little closer to home?

However, I did learn that West Allis is home to the International Clown Hall Of Fame. I think they have a new member to induct.

America The Awkward

I’m so glad we have an African-American president and gay marriage in five (or is it six?) states and all of the other things that prove America has moved past its historic squeamishness of all things non-white, non-straight and non-male.

That means we can ignore people like the Family Action Council of Tennessee’s David Fowler, who objects to a proposed ordinance that would protect Metro Nashville GLBT employees from discrimination on the grounds that it would be “awkward”:

Asked about the unintended consequences, he said passage of a bill would lead to lawsuits and confusion and awkward situations, citing a recent publicized case in Maine in which a transgender student who was biologically a boy was allowed to use the girls restroom.

For the perfect takedown of this idiocy, read Aunt B. I just loved the whole “awkward situations” thing, though. Heavens, we can’t have that. Let’s make sure gays, lesbians and transgendered folks continue to face job discrimination because to do otherwise would be, ahem, “awkward.”

Meanwhile, in Philadelphia we have inner city kids barred from a private swimming pool because of “complexion” issues:

Creative Steps Day Camp paid The Valley Swim Club more than $1900 for one day of swimming a week, but after the first day, the money was quickly refunded and the campers were told not to return.

At first there was no explanation, but some of the campers recalled overhearing comments about the color of their skin while at the club.

Then the swim club president John Duesler issued this statement: "There was concern that a lot of kids would change the complexion … and the atmosphere of the club."

Yes, well, if you take a look at the club’s website, the patrons are all of a certain, shall we say, complexion. I imagine having all of those brown inner city kids in the pool would be very awkward, indeed.

Finally, on Fox & Friends we have host Brian Kilmeade going into full meltdown mode as he claims whites marrying non-whites has weakened our gene pool, leading to things like Alzheimer’s. You just can’t make this shit up:

Brian Kilmeade: We keep marrying other species and other ethnics--

Gretchen Carlson: Are you sure you are not suffering from some of the causes of dementia right now?

Brian Kilmeade: The problem is the Swedes have pure genes. They marry other Swedes, that's the rule. Finns marry other Finns; they have a pure society. In America we marry everybody. We will marry Italians and Irish.

Dave Briggs: This study does not apply?

Brian Kilmeade: Does not apply to us.

Italians and Irish as another species? A rule that Swedes can only marry other Swedes? Intermarriage leading to Alzheimer’s?

Is Kilmeade on crack?

Gosh I’m glad we live in a post-racial America, an America where we don’t need things like anti-discrimination laws. To admit otherwise would just be too darned awkward.

Lost In Homophobic Translation

[UPDATE]:

Welcome AmericaBlog readers!

The ironically-named columnist Charlie Butts of OneNewsNow (the American Family Assn.'s "news" division) is leading a parade of wingnuts crowing over a statement on sexual orientation from the American Psychological Assn. This is supposedly “scientific proof” that there is no gay gene:

The attempt to prove that homosexuality is determined biologically has been dealt a knockout punch. An American Psychological Association publication includes an admission that there's no homosexual "gene" -- meaning it's not likely that homosexuals are born that way.

For decades, the APA has not considered homosexuality a psychological disorder, while other professionals in the field consider it to be a "gender-identity" problem. But the new statement, which appears in a brochure called "Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality," states the following:

"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles...."

This story has been picked up at WingNut Daily and conservative blogs as proof that gays don’t deserve to get married or even exist because if sexual orientation is a “choice” not, you know, something you have no control over, then we don’t have to protect GLBT folks with hate crime laws and stuff, and obviously they are just that way because everyone loves a great queer party.

Or something.

So smelling the aroma of bullshit wafting my way, I headed over the APA to read this supposed new statement for myself. Tell me if you notice anything missing:

There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.

Again, did anyone notice anything missing from Butts’ quote?

That's some "knockout punch," all right.

A Few Words On Marriage Equality

Just got an e-mail from a blog friend who has decided to wed his partner of 14 years this fall. They will travel to one of the handful of states to recognize gay marriages for the ceremony.

Here's the part of his e-mail that touched me the most:

Marriage may be no big deal to a lot of people, but it's every -- every -- little thing to me. [We] have been through everything a couple could possibly go through, from the greatest joys down to homelessness and near-death sickness. We're not redefining marriage -- we have lived it. Having that piece of paper and a ring on my finger means everything in this world to me.

Compare that to some folks I know--even some celebrities--who treat marriage like some silly little excuse for a party, and I have to think those folks who claim gay marriages threaten "traditional" marriages just don't have a fucking clue.

Giant Gay Repellent Umbrella

I'm probably the last one to see this parody of the "Gathering Storm" advertisement, but in case you missed it, I think it is by far the funniest:

A Gaythering Storm from Jane Lynch

GOP Priorities

[UPDATE]:

Aunt B. has more. To fully appreciate the truly Orwellian nature of this bill, you must read her post, now.

---------------------------------------

Tennessee’s jobless rate is nearly 8%, we have an environmental disaster in the east part of the state and retirees losing promised healthcare benefits, we have Tennessee’s higher education system facing budget cuts, and what is the priority for Evangelical Christian Republican Paul Stanley of Memphis?

Senator Stanley wants to know what’s happening in your bedroom. I bring you *SB 0078 , filed today at the state legislature:

Adoption - Prohibits any individual who is cohabitating in a sexual relationship outside of a marriage that is valid under the constitution and laws of this state from adopting a minor. - Amends TCA Title 36 and Title 49.

In other words, it bans adoptions by gays and lesbians and anyone else who is unmarried and living with a partner.

Hey, Paul Stanley: it’s none of your business what people do in their bedrooms.

Shame on you. Shame on you! What a horrid little man.

I’ll have more to say about this later but right now I wanted to let people know that with all the important issues facing the people of Tennessee, the one that Paul Stanley wants to tackle is preventing unmarried folks from adopting children.

Pass the popcorn, this is going to get interesting.

Same As It Ever Was

We saw "Milk” this weekend. Good movie, but it depressed me.

It was 30 years ago that Dan White murdered Harvey Milk and Mayor Moscone. I was living in California at the time, and I remember it well. I remember Anita Bryant’s jihad against gays and the Briggs Initiative (although I was too young to vote). Seeing actual interview clips of Bryant in the film just reminded me how little has changed in 30 years. You can’t hear Bryant and John Briggs talk about “God’s law” and “homosexuals want to recruit our children” and not think of recent battles over marriage equality and gay couples adopting children.

Are we seriously having the same conversation after 30 fucking years? Let’s just stop it, already.

I love these people who insist we are a “Christian” nation. Really? Which flavor Christian are we? Catholic? Episcopal? “Non-denominational” (i.e., Southern Baptist? Come on, you aren’t fooling anyone with the linguistic whitewash.) I attend a pretty liberal Presbyterian church. We have a lot of GLBT families in our congregation; we welcome everyone. Are we my kind of Christian nation? Somehow I think the answer would be no.

And do you really want the government deciding which religious doctrines are valid and which are not?

Of course not.

So give it a rest already. Let gays get married. If you don’t agree with it, then don’t do it. No one will force a church to perform a ceremony they don’t agree with -- that’s what separation of church and state means, you nitwits. After you people have behaved so horribly towards GLBT folks, what makes you think they’d even want a church wedding, anyway?

The more things change, the more they don’t.

With that in mind, I leave you with this:

Pair launches campaign to encourage youths to pull up pants

Arguing that the sagging-pants fashion trend promotes an unhealthful lifestyle of gangs, crime and violence, they've launched the Pull Up Your Pants education campaign, designed to persuade young people to abandon the look -- especially pants often worn so low that their underwear, or more, is exposed.

They already have the support of one Louisville Metro Council member, who plans to introduce a resolution in support of their campaign next month.

Somewhere in the ruins of Pompeii archeologists have found a father’s lament that his daughter’s toga is too tight/revealing/low cut/whatever, which by yea Gods never happened back in his day, by Juno!

No, some things never change, but that doesn’t mean they should always stay the same, either.

Beware The Tyson Agenda!

Hilarious. The American Family Assn. tries to make a “moral values” point, and instead gets bitten on the ass by its own bigotry. God surely does have a sense of humor.

Via Salon.com’s War Room:

Some far-right sites that subscribe to the Associated Press feed, for example, will use auto-correct to change "Democratic Party" to "Democrat Party." This, of course, is because they have the temperament of children.

But the American Family Association's OneNewsNow website takes the phenomenon one step further with its AP articles. The far-right group replaces the word "gay" in the articles with the word "homosexual." I'm not entirely sure why, but it seems to make the AFA happy.

The problem, of course, is that "gay" does not always mean what the AFA wants it to mean. My friend Kyle at Right Wing Watch reported this morning that sprinter Tyson Gay won the 100 meters at the U.S. Olympic track and field trials over the weekend. The AFA ran the story, but only after the auto-correct had "fixed" the article.

That means -- you guessed it -- the track star was renamed "Tyson Homosexual." The headline on the piece read, "Homosexual eases into 100 final at Olympic trials."

The article, before it was corrected, was even funnier:

Tyson Homosexual easily won his semifinal for the 100 meters at the U.S. Olympic track and field trials and seemed to save something for the final later Sunday.

His wind-aided 9.85 seconds was a fairly cut-and-dry performance compared to what happened a day earlier. On Saturday, Homosexual misjudged the finish in his opening heat and had to scramble to finish fourth, then in his quarterfinal a couple of hours later, ran 9.77 to break the American record that had stood since 1999. [...]

Homosexual didn't get off to a particularly strong start in the first semifinal, but by the halfway mark he had established a comfortable lead.... Asked how he felt, Homosexual said: "A little fatigued."

Not that there’s anything wrong with that, of course!

Is This What You Episcopal Folks Had In Mind?

[Update I & II below]

Memo to the handful of “breakaway” congregations that left the Episcopal Church for the Anglican Church of Nigeria over the issue of gays. I realize you were really upset over the ordination of Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire, but I’m wondering if this is really what you had in mind:

Anglican bishop calls LGBT people inhuman

The Anglican Bishop of Uyo, Rt. Rev. Isaac Orama, this month condemned the activities of homosexuals and lesbians, and described those engaged in them as “insane people.”

In an interview with the News Agency of Nigeria, earlier this month, Orama said: "Homosexuality and lesbianism are inhuman. Those who practice them are insane, satanic and are not fit to live because they are rebels to God's purpose for man."
...
The Bishop noted that the Anglican Church in Nigeria had continued to lead the fight against the practice especially in the US where it led the opposition to same sex marriages.

Is this really your vision for the modern American Episcopal church? Do you agree with Rt. Rev. Orama that gays and lesbians are "satanic" and "inhuman"?

Just wondering.
[UPDATE]: John in comments links to this article, in which the quote is denounced as false:

A spokesman for the Church of Nigeria, Archdeacon Akintunde Popoola, told The Living Church the quote attributed to the bishop was false.

The Bishop of Uyo “denied making such a statement,” Canon Popoola said. While the bishop’s address to his diocesan synod did speak to the issue of human sexuality dividing the Communion, and the Church of Nigeria’s position on these issues, “he did not say that [gays and lesbians] are to be hated, nor that they are insane or unfit to live.”

The News Agency of Nigeria reporter has “apologized for the misrepresentation and promised a retraction,” Archdeacon Popoola told TLC.

This is an interesting story, for a lot of reasons. For one thing, the story appeared in UPI, owned by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon’s Unification Church. Rev. Moon, the controversial cult leader, has called gays and lesbians "dung-eating dogs,” so if the report truly was false, I wonder if there will be any repercussions?

Nor does it let the African Anglican churches off the hook for preaching homophobia. There have been plenty of other incidents involving the Anglican Communion in Africa, less heinous ones, perhaps. From the Boston Globe last week we have this:

Criticizing the Episcopal Church's embrace of gays and lesbians, the Rev. Samuel Muchiri told the 1,000 worshipers "we in Kenya feel this is not what God wants." An usher advised a visiting reporter to "remember that Sodom and Gomorrah was demolished because there were homosexuals." Another warned that the reporter could be assaulted if he asked worshipers about the issue, and said that America's permissiveness toward homosexuality had led Osama bin Laden to attack.

Those sentiments have been building for years, and now a group of Anglican archbishops is attempting to plant the seeds for a new, conservative Anglicanism in North America that will either transform or replace the Episcopal Church.

This is truly ominious for the American “Anglicans.” Here in Nashville we have one church that covered the “Episcopal” in their church sign with a black banner following the ordination of Bishop Robinson. They now call themselves “St. Andrews Parish Anglican Communion.”

I wonder, do they believe gays are the reason for the 9/11 attacks?

[UPDATE II]:

Another blogger on the story points to this bill before the Nigerian Parliament that would strip gays and lesbians of all rights.

Division in the church is hurtful, if not inevitable, but those American congregations who feel the need to split over the issue of gays need to know what kind of deal they’re making.