That statement by Defoe’s attorney Wednesday was the one thing on which he and his courtroom opponent agree in the legal battle over the Anderson County school system’s quarter-century-old ban on the display of the Confederate flag.
It was 18-year-old Defoe who was suspended from Anderson County High School in 2006 after repeatedly refusing, albeit politely, to take off or cover a T-shirt and belt buckle bearing the Rebel battle flag. It was Defoe who has been sitting at the table in U.S. District Court this week as the plaintiff in a lawsuit that labels the ban an unconstitutional violation of the teenager’s right to free speech.
If you are inclined to believe he should be able to wear his t-shirt and belt buckle would you then also say he should be free to show up in hot pink knee-length boots?
The boy’s parents, Dawn and Gregory King, along with his younger brother, Rocky King, are seeking unspecified damages related to the fatal shooting of the 15-year-old boy as he sat in English class at E.O. Green School on Feb. 12. …
In the claims, the Kings say school and county staff members failed to enforce the middle school’s dress code.
That put the feminine-dressing King at particular risk at a time when staff members knew he had “unique vulnerabilities” and was “susceptible to abuse” because of his perceived sexual orientation, the claim says. …
King had told friends he was gay, and he wore makeup, jewelry and high-heeled boots with his school uniform — something Dannenberg said the teen had the freedom to do under his First Amendment rights.
The school’s dress code prevents students from wearing articles of clothing considered distracting. Much broader — and thus more likely to survive a court challenge? — than the specific Confederate flag ban in Tennessee.
My own thought is that dress codes for kids are fine. I see us demanding that schools do more and more of our parenting, so we shouldn’t take away their tools.
For those following the case of Brandon McInerney (the teen who shot King), he entered a not guilty plea last week. The judge has ruled that his lawyers may view records documenting King’s behavior.
In a Daily Standard exclusive interview, John McCain explains that he could choose a pro-choice running mate but not one who is pro-gay:
“I think it’s a fundamental tenet of our party to be pro-life but that does not mean we exclude people from our party that are pro-choice. We just have a–albeit strong–but just it’s a disagreement. And I think [Tom] Ridge is a great example of that. Far moreso than Bloomberg, because Bloomberg is pro-gay rights, pro, you know, a number of other issues.”
Think Progress points out that McCain has sought the support of the gay comunity and in 1998 told Chris Matthews that the Republican Party shouldn’t “discriminate against anyone” because of “their sexual orientation“ but…
Now McCain is more than respecting the views of the Christian right when it comes to gay rights, he’s kow-towing to them. Earlier this year, McCain personally met with the president of the Log Cabin Republicans, but the group has yet to officially endorse him.
What do the Log Cabin members think of a candidate who now supports excluding those who are “pro-gay rights?”
Marc Ambinder has a spokesman’s comment that McCain’s statement is really a “message of inclusion.” I am inclined to think McCain is of the generation that’s personally uncomfortable around ‘out’ gay people but happy to be around them so long as they know their place and stay quietly in the closet. That would also be consistent with his accepting a $23,000 contribution from a gay sex site.
Karin Klein takes us behind the scenes at the LATimes editorial board meetings they had with opponents and supporters (separately) of Proposition 8 as they came up with last week’s editorial.
She tells us supporters were “careful to avoid appearing anti-gay.” Still:
At one point, the conversation turned to the “activist judges” whose May ruling opened the door to same-sex marriage, and how similar this case was to the 1948 case that declared bans on interracial marriage unconstitutional. According to one of the Prop. 8 reps, that 1948 ruling was OK because people are born to their race and thus are in need of constitutional protection, while gays and lesbians choose their homosexuality. So much for the expert opinions of the American Psychological Assn. and the American Academy of Pediatrics that people cannot choose their sexuality. Oh, those activist doctor types.
In any case, one Prop. 8 supporter said, gay rights are not as important as children’s rights, and it’s obvious that same-sex couples who married would “recruit” their children toward homosexuality because otherwise, unable to procreate themselves, they would have no way to replenish their numbers. Even editorial writers can be left momentarily speechless, and this was one of those moments. Aside from this notion of a homosexual recruitment plot — making it understandable where the word “homophobia” came from — this made no logical sense at all.
11,000 couples later, gay marriage largely a nonevent in Mass.
Says Kevin, “Good.”
Ampersand quotes from the California court ruling (pdf) that proposition 8 can be officially described as “Changes California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry” (opponents and advocates both recognized that the change of description worked in favor of those who oppose the initiative):
There is nothing inherently argumentative or prejudicial about transitive verbs, and the Court is not willing to fashion a rule that would require the Attorney General to engage in useless nominalization.
Says Ampersand, “Personally, I’d enjoy watching the news if high government officials were required to engage in useless nominalization at all times.”
One thing I’ve heard is, “at least he didn’t break the law.” Well, depending upon where his trysts took place, Edwards may have broken the law. Here in Massachusetts, for example, adultery is a crime that carries a penalty of incarceration in state prison for up to 3 years, jail up to 2, or a fine of up to $500. As of 2004, 24 states criminalized adultery. (Cossman, 2007: 209. fn6). Admittedly, such laws are rarely enforced, and the no-fault system means that even if cheating takes place, it’s less likely to be the legal “reason” for the divorce [”Irreconcilable differences” or its equivalent is the norm].
Marriage is a regulatory system. When folks stand in front of their witnesses, and take their vows (the state won’t allow you to marry without a public ceremony), they are entering a three-way contract, with conditions set by the state. One of those conditions is sexual monogamy. Mess around, and you’ve violated the terms of the contract. You’ve sinned against the state, and have committed a criminal offense.
Adultery itself has changed. At the founding of the Republic, it wasn’t sex outside of marriage but involved a married woman having sex with a man not her husband. Adultery laws were put in place to establish men’s property rights over their wives, and particularly to ensure that the children born into such relationships were theirs and not some other man’s. It wasn’t about violations of intimacy or trust, as we take it to be today. It was about stealing another woman’s womb. [Ed. Oops. Big difference]
Indeed, the comment of Edwards’s, that he “didn’t love” the woman with whom he had the affair is a sign of that. In contemporary society, marriage has become about companionship and intimacy [see, for example, Giddens or Seidman]. One of the things that makes same-sex marriage imaginable to many people is the fact that marriage itself has changed in such ways as to make it imaginable. We no longer have the explicit gender-based marital roles established in law. (Everyone say, “Thank you” to the feminist legal activists who brought about a lot of those changes.) Marriage isn’t gender-role based, at least legally, in the rigid ways that it once was.
Assembly Republicans who bucked party leaders and voted to legalize same-sex marriage in New York have been rewarded with an outpouring of donations from gay rights advocates across the nation.
The lawmakers…have benefited from a fund-raising network stretching to at least nine other states. The money has flowed in at such a rapid pace that these Republicans have seen more than half of their individual contributions in the latest filing cycle come from donors with addresses outside the state.
Their donations also far surpassed political giving from the national gay rights movement to Assembly Democrats who voted for the bill, including Democratic members in upstate districts with conservative leanings.
“It was very shocking to me to watch it come in,” a Republican assemblywoman, Teresa Sayward, one of four Republicans who voted in favor of gay marriage, said.
Tim Gill’s strategy pays off. It didn’t hurt that Sayward, a Roman Catholic, had a gay son who “over time she came to accept.” State Republican leaders have reaffirmed their opposition:
A Republican senator of Brooklyn, Martin Golden, said the support received by Assembly Republicans would not influence his conference. “It’s a strong belief among many Republicans that it’s not the way to go. It’s a core belief that we have. We stick with our core beliefs,” he said.
“Many of them are a bunch of fossils from a bygone day,” a Republican assemblyman of Dutchess County, Joel Miller, who also backed the bill, said of the Senate Republicans. “Constituents have changed. More of us represent a district in which there’s a lot more people of diverse views.”
I like Miller! He’s feisty:
Mr. Miller, a dentist who is facing a Democratic challenger, said his Republican colleagues last year urged him not to speak out in favor of gay marriage on the Assembly floor and to wait until the Democrats voted — and the bill’s passage was a foregone conclusion — before placing his vote.
“I wanted it recognized that my vote counted. I told them I was prepared to leave the conference,” Mr. Miller said.
[A] Christian legal group from Arizona will face off against representatives of the governor’s office in the first direct legal challenge to Governor Paterson’s executive order mandating that all state offices recognize out-of-state same-sex unions.
The Alliance Defense Fund is suing Mr. Paterson, citing an online [edition of the Merriam-Webster dictionary as evidence that the word “marriage” applies only to a bond between a man and a woman] and claiming that legal recognition of such marriages “will undermine the democratic process and force taxpayer dollars to fund benefits for same-sex couples.”
Many wonder. Jonathan Rauch points to his 1996 article in The New Republic,Making the case for gay (and straight) marriage, and says ever since then he’s “been concerned that G&L people might demand marriage but then neglect it.”
He finds in a study (pdf) from the Williams Institute at UCLA “welcome evidence” that we won’t:
We analyze data from states that have extended legal recognition to same-sex couples. We show that same-sex couples want and use these new legal statuses. Furthermore, they react more enthusiastically when marriage is possible. More than 40% of same-sex couples have formed legal unions in states where such recognition is available. Same-sex couples prefer marriage over civil unions or domestic partnerships. In the first year that marriage was offered in Massachusetts, 37% of same-sex couples there married. In states that offered civil unions, only 12% of same-sex couples took advantage of this status in the first year and only 10% did so in states with domestic partnership registries.
Focus On The Family’s CitizenLink will have none of it. They argue that the “supposedly unbiased” institute “claims to be a public-education program” but it can’t be because it “receives funding from Tim Gill — a gay activist and software mogul who has spent millions promoting the gay agenda.”
Jenny Tyree, associate marriage analyst for Focus on the Family Action, cited data from the U.S., Canada and Europe that show, after an initial rush, a dramatic decrease in the number of same-sex unions following legalization of gay “marriage.”
“The report’s projections assume that the inherent nature of male-male and female-female relationships is the same as male-female and that they will respond similarly to legal recognition,” she said. “But it seems unlikely when science tells us that male and female are unique, even at the cellular level.
“Marriage traditionally celebrates the differences between male and female, and gives a mother and father to children. There will be little to celebrate, however, if marriage is reduced to nothing more than benefits for two consenting adults.”
Jonathan’s cautious optimism makes more sense to me:
It takes generations to establish a culture of marriage in a social milieu where marriage has always been not just illegal but inconceivable. Low take-up rates, by themselves, would not vitiate the case for SSM. But it is good to know that gay culture is already responding to this powerfully life-enhancing institution.
In the meanwhile, Obama has reaffirmed his support for LGBT adoption rights, CA Attorney General Jerry Brown said in a court filing Monday that Prop 8 will not undo same-sex legal marriages, and with Prop 8 supporters raising more money than opponents some on the Right have declared it “the Armageddon of the culture war.”
The Army may begin paying a retention bonus of as much as $150,000 to Arabic speaking soldiers in reflection of how critical it has become for the US military to retain native language and cultural know-how in its ranks. Only one other job in the Army, Special Forces, rates such a super-sized retention bonus. Now, as the military makes a fundamental shift toward rewarding the linguistic expertise it needs the most, it is expanding a program to train and retain native Arabic and other speakers from the same regions in which it is fighting.
Nowhere in the article is there mention of how the same U.S. Army has been discharging expensively trained Arabic linguists by the dozens…because they are gay.
As of May 2007, the military had kicked out at least 58 Arabic linguists because of their sexual orientation, and because of “Don’t ask, Don’t Tell,” a policy that prohibits openly gay individuals from serving in the military.
A couple of weeks ago, on the occasion of the House of Representatives’ first hearing in 15 years on the policy, I commented on the absurdity, shame, and cost of this policy.
Specifically referring to the waste in skills, talent, money and, most importantly, human resources and dignity that this policy is costing our nation, I wrote:
Never mind that the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy cost taxpayers nearly $191 million in lost training and personnel and skills replacement costs during the policy’s first 10 years, according to a GAO report.
Never mind that the policy has resulted in the release of 12,000 good troops for reasons of sexual orientation, including dozens of Arabic speakers whose skills are of immense value to the military in the war on terrorism.
Yes, we frivolously kicked out dozens of these “capable, highly skilled Arabic linguists…[a loss that] continues to compromise our national security during time of war,” as stated in a letter from the House of Representatives to the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee after three more gay linguistic specialists were fired a year ago.
In continuing to stress the importance of having Arabic linguistic experts in the war on terror, the Christian Science Monitor shares with us:
After the invasion of Iraq and the insurgency that followed, the US military recognized its dearth of linguistic competence in the country it had just toppled, and it scrambled to identify Arabic and other linguists. The military’s conventional language training program, the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, Calif., could not churn out enough American soldiers proficient in Arabic, Kurdish, Dari, Pashtu, and Farsi, and the military quickly turned to private contractors to fill the gap.
Yet, not a word about those linguists the U.S. Army has shown the door because of their sexual orientation.
Why are we paying $150,000 bonuses when a little tolerance might have sufficed?
Michael Mehas says it’s too bad for Brandon McInerney that he wasn’t born 19 days later. “If he were 19 days younger, he would be legally unfit to be tried as an adult.”
You will recall that Brandon is the Oxnard, CA, youth charged with first-degree murder and a hate crime in connection with the Feb. 12 killing of his classmate Larry King, 15, who sometimes wore makeup and told friends he was gay.
Brandon is scheduled to be arraigned Thursday. He will be tried as an adult under the provisions of California’s Proposition 21, which allows prosecutors to bring murder charges against juveniles as young as 14.
Because Brandon is being tried as an adult, and if convicted — which appears assured — he will spend the rest of his life in a California men’s adult prison. […]
The sad part about all of this is that there are Brandon McInerneys all over our country. According to Human Rights Watch, at least 227 people, who were under 18 at the time they committed their crimes, have been sentenced in California to life without the possibility of parole. In the United States, at least 2,380 people are serving life without parole for crimes they committed when they were under 18.
In the rest of the world combined, only seven people are known to be serving a life sentence for crimes committed when they were juveniles. International law prohibits the use of life without parole for those who are under 18. The United States is in violation of those laws.
Our wonderful neighbors at the Second Presbyterian Church in Knoxville opened their sanctuary to the members of the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church to hold a candlelight vigil.
It was a moment of solidarity.
It was a moment of hope.
By now, many stories have come out about the motives and background of the shooter, Jim Adkisson. But last night, during a powerful electrical storm that lit up the East Tennessee sky, we focused on more important things.
Healing.
Community.
Peace.
Social justice.
Human dignity.
Hope.
We proudly affirmed who we are and why we are Unitarians.
After a few beautiful songs played by our pianist, Vicki Masters, our Reverend Chris Buice gave some words of hope. The pastor at the Westside UU Church even suggested that it was audacious for us, in this dark hour, to hope for healing.
The President of the Unitarian Universalist Association of America in Boston informed us that a large candlelight in vigil in Boston was being held to show support for us. He asked the community to raise their hands if they were members of TVUUC. About half raised their hands. He asked those who belonged to Westside UUC to raise their hands. A solid group in the middle of the sanctuary raised their hands. He asked those at Second Presbyterian to raise their hands and several scattered throughout the crowd did so. He asked those at the Hebrew Congregation Beth El (on the other side of TVUUC on Kingston Pike) to raise their hands and a proud section sitting right near us raised their hands. Then he asked those not affiliated with one of our neighboring congregations to raise their hands if they had come here just to support us. And nearly half the sanctuary raised their hands. It was so moving. We all started to applaud them. This community will not be intimidated. We will not be terrorized.
In an iconic UU moment, the President told us that a reporter had asked him if he thought the shooter was going to Hell. Everybody started chuckling in the crowd and the President said, “I don’t know what will happen after he dies, but I do know that he has been living in his own Hell for years.” And that was the true compassion of the Unitarian Universalist Church - to show sympathy even for those who would harm us. To love our enemies. It was a powerful example for those of us who may not accept the divinity of Jesus that, at the very least, he was a powerful teacher. This moment was not just Unitarianism at its best. It was Christianity at its best.
After lighting candles and singing a few more hymns, we were in for the biggest surprise of the night. Vicki Masters broke into a familiar tune - but one not on the program for the night’s service. It was “Tomorrow,” the theme song from “Annie.” As you all probably know, the disrupted service was a performance of Annie, Jr. The kids never had the chance to put on their show.
But when Vicki broke out into “Tomorrow,” all the kids ran up to the stage and led the entire congregation in song. With a thunderstorm literally howling outside the church walls, we sing in unison: “The sun will come out, tomorrow!” The courage of those kids, who just a day earlier witnessed something no human being should ever have to see, inspired us all. There really was hope. The sun really will come out tomorrow.
Yes, the sun will come out for TVUUC. After the service we mingled and hugged and shared stories about what happened yesterday. The tales of bravery were real. Greg McKendry really did save lives. Had he not stood up and confronted the gunman, a family of four directly in the line of fire would have been killed. We sat next to a woman whose father was shot in the eye and who has lost his vision. He was in good spirits, she relayed to us: “I won’t look too scary to the grandkids.”
My wife and I walked into the TVUUC sanctuary and stood exactly where the shooter was, saw where Greg McKendry stood, and sat where we normally sat in church - right behind Greg McKendry. We thought about all the wonderful moments we’ve had at TVUUC - the prayers, the songs, the sermons, the fellowship, the moments when my son embarrassed us by blurting out during the religious education director’s story, the plays, the spirit of the place. We saw the Welcome sign with the rainbow on it. On the back of the sign was a note remarking that a similar sign in 1950 that said “Welcome” had encouraged controversy back then. In 1950 Knoxville was segregated and Tennessee Valley Unitarian Church (later TVUUC) admitted African Americans and whites to worship together. For this, the church was punished by the city. The only thing that has changed on the sign is the rainbow and the word “Universalist” in the name. There is clearly a direct line between the civil rights movement in Knoxville in the 1950s and the gay rights movement today. TVUUC has proudly stood on the front lines both times, no matter the cost.
Some people say that Unitarians don’t believe in anything. Or that we are dry and intellectual. Last night, it was very clear that we do believe something very real and very powerful: The sun will come out, tomorrow.
Last week a California judge ruled that trying a 14-year-old boy accused of murder in an adult court does not violate the constitution:
“I cannot say that this is unconstitutional,” said Ventura County Superior Court Judge Douglas Daily.
Teenage defendant Brandon McInerney of Oxnard is charged with first-degree murder and a hate crime in connection with the Feb. 12 killing of classmate Larry King, 15, who sometimes wore makeup and told friends he was gay.
Today a Ventura County Star editorial pleads with District Attorney Greg Totten to use his discretion to rethink that decision:
The Star Editorial Board respectfully asks Mr. Totten to step out of his office, ask for counsel outside his prosecutor peers to lessen the real influence of groupthink, look at the question anew and reflect again on the circumstances before making a final decision. (His initial decision was made within just two days of the shooting and his office had left open the possibility it could change as more facts were learned.)
We hope Mr. Totten also considers the information that has come forward recently in the national discussion of whether children should be tried as adults. A November 2007 report by the Equal Justice Initiative, a nonprofit law organization in Montgomery, Ala., stated that the United States is one of the few countries in the world that allows children to be prosecuted as adults and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole.
The majority world opinion of civilized nations is that juveniles should not be subject to dying in prison — certainly not 14-year-olds.
There is science on the competence of 14-year-olds that ought to inform our legal and ethical decision as to whether or not we should declare kids adults fit for trial. William Saletan, for example, has reported:
In a forthcoming review of studies, Laurence Steinberg of Temple University observes that at ages 12 to 13, only 11 percent of kids score at an average (50th percentile) adult level on tests of intellectual ability. By ages 14 to 15, the percentage has doubled to 21. By ages 16 to 17, it has doubled again to 42. After that, it levels off. […]
Steinberg reports that on tests of psychosocial maturity, kids are much slower to develop. From ages 10 to 21, only one of every four young people scores at an average adult level. By ages 22 to 25, one in three reaches that level. By ages 26 to 30, it’s up to two in three.
Emphasis mine. The case at hand presents a psychosocial challenge that was daunting for all involved. In fact, the evidence indicates it pretty much overwhelmed all of the adults involved.
Arguably, what we have here is the scapegoating of kids for the inability of adult individuals and institutions to cope with the complexities of psychosocial challenges of our own making. We built this society; we birthed those kids; we raise and educate them!
Some of the indicators become clear in last week’s Newsweek Cover Story — no matter what your political persuasion (or perspective on the objectivity or lack thereof of the reporters of the story). Extended illustrative excerpts follow. Read the rest of this entry »
(Author’s Note: In the excitement created by Obama’s overseas travels and successes, we may be overlooking two important anniversaries this week, and two different views by the presidential candidates on one of the “anniversary” issues…Their opinions at the end of the post)
July 26 marks the 60th anniversary of the desegregation of our armed forces.
It was 15 years ago when President Bill Clinton signed a law that came to be known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t tell.”
It may be a coincidence–and if so, a very appropriate one–that on Wednesday of this same week (July 23), the House of Representatives held its first hearing in 15 years on the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, a policy that prohibits openly gay individuals from serving in the military.
An appropriate coincidence, because many of the arguments that are being put forward today to keep gays and lesbians from openly serving in our armed forces, are the same as or similar to the ones that were advanced more than 60 years ago to keep our military segregated.
A gay man, I had lots of interest in the Larry Craig story; far less in the John Edwards story. But I don’t see the double standard that my co-blogger Shaun does (be sure to check out the comments); or that Jack Shafer articulates in his Slate piece. In fact, I see Schafer stipulate the differences that count:
A cop charged Craig with a misdemeanor, and he pleaded guilty. [Emphasis mine.] There’s no denying the police blotter is always news, and there’s no denying that Craig deserved the hypocrisy scrutiny. Edwards, as far as we know, is guilty of nothing beyond running away from tabloid reporters in a Beverly Hills hotel stairway in the wee a.m. after visiting a female friend in her room. Also, all of the Enquirer’s published “evidence” of an Edwards affair comes from unnamed sources. And I should mention that an Edwards political operative, Andrew Young, claims that he is the father of Hunter’s child. (Young is married with children of his own.)
Furthermore, the fact is that the press is and will be all over the Edwards story. I bet it leads the morning shows tomorrow. These are the means and methods of the modern media machine. The press is doing the dance they always do — and indeed must do if they are to technically abide by their journalistic standards and not wholly succumb to those of the tabloid or blogger.
But I specifically take the time to write because of Shafer’s introduction of Larry Craig for comparison, and the deep, deep popular misunderstanding of the closet and the press, the notion of special privileges for gay people, and the confusion over the controversial practice of “outing” whereby gay activists make public the private facts of an individual’s intimate relationships.
You see, I do think there is a double standard I’d like to emphasize, but it’s not the one Schafer identifies. (And admittedly not relevant to this story — but then, I didn’t introduce Larry Craig into the story either!) Using the occasion of Jodie Foster’s public acknowledgment of her 14-year long obvious though unreported relationship with her lesbian partner, Chris Crain clarifies:
Here is the double standard on outing. When it comes to heterosexual celebrities, the entertainment media can’t get enough, reporting every salacious detail they can get their hands on. And when closeted celebrities are caught in scandals, they’ll jump in with gusto. But gay celebrities in happy, well-adjusted relationships — whether Ellen or Rosie or Jodie (why are they all lesbians?) — the public is told nothing about until the celebrity says OK. Even if the gay star shows up escorted in public by her partner at event after event.
The same type of double standard holds sway with closeted politicians as well, with those accused of shenanigans investigated without any regard to privacy. But it’s hands off on those with long-term relationships until they come out. Mark Foley is an example of both standards.
The alternative I have advocated for years is “equality.” Apply the same rules to gay and straight celebrities, and the same rules to gay and straight politicians. Ask about their personal lives, as they would otherwise, and report their answers, whether they lie, equivocate or refuse to answer. Then report the public facts that fit or contradict what they’ve said.
Digging deeper into their private lives is a judgment call, just as it is with straight politicians, that inevitably involves balancing the newsworthiness of the information versus how much personal privacy must be invaded to get it. It’s unthinkable that a heterosexual Hollywood celebrity of Jodie Foster would have a 14-year-relationship that went completely unreported. It’s way past time that it be unthinkable for gay celebrities, too.
Public attitudes about gays in the military have shifted dramatically since President Bill Clinton unveiled what became his administration’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy 15 years ago today.
Seventy-five percent of Americans in a new Washington Post-ABC News poll said gay people who are open about their sexual orientation should be allowed to serve in the U.S. military, up from 62 percent in early 2001 and 44 percent in 1993.
Majorities of Democrats, Republicans and independents alike now believe it is acceptable for openly gay people to serve in the U.S. armed forces. […]
Fifty-seven percent of white evangelical Protestants now support allowing openly gay service members in the military, compared with 82 percent of white Catholics and 80 percent of those with no declared religious affiliation. Three-quarters of both married and single people support the idea, both significantly higher than in 1993.
Here’s the polling detail. Stephen H. Miller wonders will a President Obama be willing to push for a removal of the gay ban? While Pam Spaulding tweaks John McCain for his “intolerable risk” position on gays and lesbians serving openly.
Saro, who first said he liked boys to a classmate in sixth grade, is like many of today’s lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youths who openly discuss their sexual orientation and identity with friends, and sometimes family, before entering high school. In doing so, experts say, these youths are escaping the isolation of generations before them but also finding themselves vulnerable to harassment — or worse. A California eighth-grader who expressed interest in asking another boy to be his valentine was fatally shot in February in a case that drew national attention.
“Within any given school system, there may be a very accepting crowd and a very hateful crowd,” said Robert-Jay Green, executive director of the Rockway Institute in San Francisco, a national center for LGBT research and public policy. “You have to find a way to avoid the people who will hurt you and keep close to the group that will accept you.”
In recent years, 110 Gay Straight Alliance clubs, which are common in high schools nationwide, have sprouted in middle schools, including nine in Maryland and Virginia. Kevin Jennings, the founder of the first club, said he “never anticipated” they would also form in middle grades. His organization, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, is creating age-appropriate pamphlets to respond to the trend.
This year, students in 1,046 middle schools took part in the Day of Silence, a protest against LGBT intolerance, organizers said, double the participation level of the previous year.
“Unlike people of my generation, where there was very little visibility and a great sense of sadness, these kids know gay people are out there,” Jennings said. “They have a language now to understand their feelings.”
And there’s this:
The first time Saro said aloud what he had always felt — that he liked boys — came when he lived in Prince George’s County. The words tumbled out, Saro said, as he and another sixth-grader were walking home. The boy shrugged it off with a “So?”
Later that year, that boy called him an anti-gay slur. When Saro ran to tell the teacher, according to a letter his parents wrote to the school, he was told: “Well, you act like one, so you should be used to it by now.”
The issues are difficult and complex — for parents and for kids. The article is sensitive and complete. Please read it.
The first story, “Fighting the Bottle,” is about a former marine and Iraq war veteran who turned to heavy drinking upon his return home and whose drunken driving caused the death of a 16-year-old cheerleader. The author says:
[The marine’s] case is part of a growing body of evidence that alcohol abuse is rising among veterans of combat in Afghanistan and Iraq, many of them trying to deaden the repercussions of war and disorientation of home. While the numbers remain relatively small, experts say and studies indicate that the problem is particularly prevalent among those suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, as it was after Vietnam. Studies indicate that illegal drug use, much less common than heavy drinking in the military, is up slightly, too.
The second story, “Gays in Military,” starts as follows:
Congress should repeal the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law because the presence of gays in the military is unlikely to undermine the ability to fight and win, according to a new study released by a California-based research center.
It then proceeds to summarize the results of the study, which was conducted by four high-ranking, retired military officers:
“Evidence shows that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly is unlikely to pose any significant risk to morale, good order, discipline, or cohesion,” the officers stated. To support its contention, the panel points to the British and Israeli militaries, where it says gay people serve openly without hurting the effectiveness of combat operations. Undermining unit cohesion was a determining factor when Congress passed the 1993 law, intended to keep the military from asking recruits their sexual orientation. In turn, service members can’t say they are gay or bisexual, engage in homosexual activity, or marry a member of the same sex.
However, there are still die-hard supporters of the ban, such as Lieutenant Colonel Robert Maginnis, who retired in 1993 after working on this issue for the Army. Maginnis contends in the Boston Globe article that “The issue is trust and confidence” among members of a unit, and that when some people with a different sexual orientation are “in a close combat environment, it results in a lack of trust.”
Of course, there have been many other studies and many other high ranking military officials contradicting such claims. Some, like Air Force Lieutenant General Robert Minter Alexander, a Republican, who was part of the 1993 panel that examined the issue of gays in the military and who signed an order “that prohibited the military from asking a recruit’s sexual orientation” now believe the law should be repealed as cultural attitudes are changing.
But my first reaction when reading the two headlines in Defense News was: How can we continue to spend resources and emotional capital in researching, rehashing, dissecting and debating “What risk gays pose in the military.“ I have never heard of a war or a battle that was lost, or a troop that was killed or wounded because of the actions of a gay soldier, or of any other real and serious risks faced by our men and women in battle because of gay soldiers. On the other hand, there are many real and grave risks that affect our troops and their families, but these emanate from entirely different quarters. For example,
It is the risk we place our troops in when we send them off to war ill equipped, ill-protected and ill-prepared.
It is the risk our heroes face when we don’t provide them with the highest quality health, mental health and rehabilitative care upon their return home.
It is the risk we place our troops in when we neglect to properly take care of their families back home by cutting corners, cutting budgets, or just plain cutting benefits.
It is the risks posed to our society when our veterans and their families have to go on welfare, use food stamps, go on charity.
It is the risk posed by the alarmingly increasing veterans‘ suicide rates, unemployment, homelessness, divorce rates, crime rates, substance abuse and other complications of post-traumatic stress disorder and, yes, the “risk of the bottle.”
It is the risk posed to all decent Americans when the very same government agencies charged with the almost sacred task of taking care of our veterans and their families fail miserably at it; then manipulate or destroy data and statistics, stonewall, cover-up, and when called before Congress and the American people deny, deny, deny…and lie.
“The issue is trust and confidence” someone said about gays serving in the military. How about trust and confidence in those who we have been entrusted with the care of those men and women–straight, lesbian or gay–who risk it all for us.
In his hilarious post Monday noting that the American Family Association’s OneNewsNow website auto-replaces the word “gay” with the word “homosexual” — which led to some blogger fun when a sprinter named Tyson Gay won the 100 meters at the U.S. Olympic track and field trials — Jazz asks:
Is the word “homosexual” somehow perceived to be more pejorative than “gay” these days?
The answer, Jazz, is YES! There is a linguistic battle going on. And in my circles it’s got a long and contentious lineage.
While, as gays and lesbians, we seek to expand ourselves and our relationships to become whole people and full participants in broad communities, the Religious Right seeks to reduce us to nothing more than a sex act.
It’s as if we reduced every heterosexual to that too explicit coupled moment we all wish we hadn’t been forced to watch taking place on the park bench or at the beach or in the movie theater or any place else in public! Only with the gay person, the Religious Right hopes to evoke that moment — to force us to witness it — with just that one little word…
H o m o S E X u a l
For that — or whatever reason — the Religious Right has fought to keep the word homosexual in use in newsrooms across the country. And I have been following their fight for decades. In February The Washington Times, pretty much the last big hold out, tossed ‘homosexual’ out and approved the use of the word ‘gay’ instead.
Most everywhere else long ago accepted the use of ‘gay’ and/or ‘lesbian.’ In 2006 the AP updated its stylebook. Here is a history of LGBT-related Stylebook entries. Here the New York Times, Washington Post LGBT-Related Style Guidelines.
In 1982 I wrote a paper on the etymology of the word gay. I’ve excerpted a good bit of it again below…
I do not agree with all of the cases where opponents of Barack Obama have characterized him as “flip flopping” on various issues, and throwing various people or subjects “under the bus.” (And no, I do not subcribe to “This Week in Bus and Driver“) However, it certainly does appear that the Illinois Senator has once again taken up the issue of gay marriage and done a double back flip, pike position with a half twist.
In a letter to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club read Sunday at the group’s annual Pride Breakfast in San Francisco, the Illinois senator said he supports extending “fully equal rights and benefits to same-sex couples under both state and federal law.”
“And that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states,” Obama wrote.
Obama had previously said he opposes same-sex marriage but that each state should make its own decision.
I remember quite clearly when Obama raised some eyebrows among his base as he came out during the debates opposing gay marriage but supporting civil unions. While I didn’t agree with him, I didn’t find it a shocking position and one held by many politicians trying to straddle the fence on this divisive issue. Just for the record, I don’t agree with McCain either. Even Bob Barr takes the states’ rights stance on it, while I feel that government at all levels needs to get entirely out of the business of marriage.
But back to Senator Obama, if he wants to be taken seriously he should pick a position and stick to it. This is a definite reversal in such a short period of time that one can not assume that his position has simply “evolved” over time as he ages and considers the matter further. This was an absolute flip-flop on an issue which raises controversy all across the country. I don’t see it as being quite as high on voters’ priority lists as energy policy, the economy or foreign affairs, but it would still be nice to see some conviction and consistency on the part of the candidates seeking the White House.
Knowing that it hasn’t got the slightest chance of passage, I completely ignored the introduction of a marriage protection amendment in the U.S. Senate this week.
Now of course this is old news to all of you, but it only hit me just now that two of the principal sponsors are a far-right Republican who hired prostitutes and another far-right Republican who was arrested for soliciting gay sex in an airport men’s room.
I couldn’t let it pass without posting. What kind of gay blogger would I otherwise be???
IN OTHER MARRIAGE NEWS: The LATimes reports that same-sex unions have boosted California’s June wedding totals — more than two and a half times the usual number of couples were issued a license.
Arizona Friday, “In the final hours of one of the longest state legislative sessions on record, state Senators approved a measure sending a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage to the fall ballot.”
Today Gloria Borger said on Chris Matthews that pollsters are wondering if, for the first time in history, young voters will outnumber those over 60. Whether this time or next, beware their wrath! They will take their country back!
As lgbt pride marches step off in big cities across the country, it’s important to note what takes place at some of the smaller ones.Central Pennsylvania was a focal point in the Democratic primary for its white working class voters. Those same voters are made uncomfortable by gays on the march.While this year marks the 38th pride march in San Francisco and New York, it will be only the third time that gays march in Pennsylvania’s state capital, Harrisburg.
When marchers there were greeted that first year by a strong chorus of opposition, a husband and wife team spontaneously set up a program rooted in their church’s teachings. [See clarification below.]
Silent Witness PA (SWPA) is an organization of gay and straight allies dedicated to providing a non-confrontational buffer between those who condemn others based on their sexual orientation or identity and those they condemn. We provide visual protection from “street preachers” and protesters at events such as Pridefests…using our bodies and rainbow umbrellas as shields. In times of need, we intervene to prevent confrontations between protesters and event participants, often acting as escorts for those who would like to attend such events. Where there are those who publicly promote hate, we will be there to help provide a loving, supportive front opposing them. We are not counter-protesters. Instead, we provide a visual representation of support for those in our society who may feel marginalized… Our purpose is to act as a “human spiritual firewall” between GLBT folks and those individuals who believe GLBT’s are an abomination on the face of the earth.
They travel to pride events throughout PA. Their event schedule is here. Their training schedule is here.
RELATED: Those Pennsylvania protesters hit the big cities too. They lost a court battle in Philadelphia in January 2007. Said the judge, “There is no constitutional right to drown out the speech of another person.”
UPDATE: Alanna Berger emails a clarification:
We did not spontaneously set up a program rooted in our church’s teachings. Originally, Silent Witnesses, organized by MCC of the Spirit in Harrisburg, held up signs welcoming the GLBT community to the PrideFest. In 2005, this tactic no longer proved adequate in preventing angry and violent responses to the protesters, so Blaise and I worked with one of the original Silent Witnesses and brainstormed new tactics. We came up with ideas in the spring of 2006, purchased safety vests that we modified to be easily identified as Silent Witnesses, found a donor of 24 rainbow umbrellas and trained more than 70 additional people from four Unitarian Universalist churches as well as members of the Greater Harrisburg Area in responding to spiritual violence with non-violence. The teachings are similar to Gandhi’s and Dr. Martin Luther King’s and not exclusive to Unitarian Universalism. We were asked by the Harrisburg Parade organizer to lead the parade, so this was not spontaneous – we knew months in advance.
The original founder is Yvonne Wilson from MCC of the Spirit in Harrisburg, and we refer to that group she started as the Original Silent Witnesses. Blaise and I – along with Rosemary Mirocco from MCC – came up with the ideas to use the safety vests and umbrellas. We consider this the second generation of silent witnesses, which we refer to as Silent Witness PA.
My mind started thinking of the infamous Senator Larry Craig, then of Conservatives, then of hypocrisy, and then of “family values and moral values”–perhaps not in that exact order.
Then, my mind somehow wandered back to the 2,000 and 2004 elections, and how, during those elections, Conservatives blanketed the electronic and printed media with messages of how our country had lost its moral compass; how Americans had lost their family and moral values; how Republicans and Conservatives–if elected–were going to re-instill those values in government, in society and anywhere else they could; how our new president would “restore honor and dignity to the White House.”
As a matter of fact, just prior to the 2004 elections a whole new class of voters was created, the “values voters,” and political analysts claim that moral values and family values trounced every other value or issue in the 2004 elections–even the economy, the Iraq war, and terrorism–and were responsible for the Republican victories that year.
Our great, fair and balanced Fox News proudly proclaimed on November 4, 2004,
“Though the airwaves preceding the election were rife with talk of Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, the management of the war in Iraq, job creation and even the so-called legions of angry, young voters — it turns out good old ‘family values‘ may have been the key to President Bush’s successful Election Day strategy.”
The Democrats were “doomed” until they can woo the voters who belong to this new political force, the values voters.
But wait, it is now 2008 and the presidential campaign is in full swing. It is awfully quiet out there when it comes to “good old” family values and moral values. Where are the Republicans to once again tout their moral and family values superiority and to claim such values as Conservatives-only territory?
The last time I remember a Republican presidential candidate addressing that issue was Mitt Romney back in December of 2007.
… there are signs that family values have lost their punch as a campaign issue. Most voters say family values in general are important to them, but a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds they don’t care much about candidates’ personal lives. Political analysts say voters and candidates have broader, more immediate concerns: the ongoing U.S. action in Iraq and Afghanistan, nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea, the threat of terrorism and an economy that’s putting stress on low- and middle-income people.
And,
The “traditional” family — a married couple with kids — made up fewer than 22% of U.S. households last year, according to the Census, down from 40% in 1970. Roughly one-fifth of Americans have been divorced. Nearly two in five U.S. births last year were out of wedlock, more than twice as high as in 1980. More than half the country says same-sex partners should be able to marry or form civil unions.
It could also be that when comparing the major Republican presidential candidates against the major Democratic presidential candidates during this year’s elections in terms of “family values,” the Republicans do not fare as well as the Democrats. According to USA Today:
Among the Republicans, Giuliani is in his third marriage while McCain and Thompson are each in his second… Romney and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee are married to their high school sweethearts. On the Democratic side…Dennis Kucinich, 61, is in his third marriage…Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, former North Carolina senator John Edwards and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson are married to their original spouses. So is New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, despite her husband’s affair while he was president…Overall, “the Democratic candidates actually have more stable family lives than the Republicans,” says Tony Fabrizio, a GOP pollster
On Giuliani, in particular, USA Today said:
The most surprising candidate this year has been Giuliani. He remains a top GOP contender despite his longstanding support for abortion rights and his widely publicized extramarital affair with Judith Nathan — to whom he is now married — during his previous marriage. He’s even been endorsed by Pat Robertson, a leading Christian conservative who says the key issue is who can best fight terrorism.
And finally,
Americans also have seen major cultural changes become woven into society. Divorce, blended families and women in the workforce are common, and polls show most people support gay civil rights. “First we had the feminist and the sexual revolutions, and then we went through a long period where so much of politics was a backlash against those movements,” says Frances Fox Piven, a sociologist and political scientist at the City University of New York Graduate Center. “That’s kind of been worked out now. People have adjusted.”
Yes, these are all plausible explanations as to why Democrats are not being lectured as much on “values” by Republicans. But on a lazy, summer Saturday afternoon in Texas, the mind does funny things, like recalling names such as:
David Vitter, Jack Abramoff, Mark Foley, Bob Packwood, Bob Ney, Randy “Duke” Cunningham, Ted Haggard, Rick Renzi, Bob Allen, and, yes, the one that got my mind wandering to begin with, the inimitable Larry Craig.
And the mind comes up with additional and interesting explanations.
A note to my gay friends and readers: This lazy afternoon’s epistle should in no way be viewed as critical of anyone’s sexual orientation. On the contrary, I find it distasteful when people cover-up their God-given sexual orientation for political purposes, and I find it morally unforgivable when people misuse their positions of power to legislate against, prosecute or punish the perfectly legal and human actions and behavior of those of their own sexual orientation.
I do not agree with all of the cases where opponents of Barack Obama have characterized him as “flip flopping” on various issues, and throwing various people or subjects “under the bus.” (And no, I do not subcribe to “This Week in Bus and Driver“) However, it certainly does appear that the Illinois Senator has once again