Archive for category Homophobia

No Rational Basis: The Prop 8 Verdict

There’s been a flood of commentary about the Judge Walker’s 138 page decision striking down California’s Prop 8 as unconstitutional.  Much of that commentary has been interesting and insightful much of it has been ludicrous.  I’ve been reading almost all of it and trying to organize my thoughts.

Back in March,  I quoted Ted Olson about the Lawrence decision:

TED OLSON: Well, and let me say that I have enormous respect for all of the members of the United States Supreme Court and I’ve had wonderful relationships in one way or another with all of them. So, it’s, my friends are not on one side or the other. Secondly, Justice Scalia, he writes beautifully. And he has passionate, powerful views. But he lost. And he went on to say in that very opinion, “If we decide this case that way, what’s to prevent same sex marriage from being held to be a constitutional right?” Well, he’s right.

And once you make that decision in that case, and you put it together with the marriage cases, that’s the end of it, as far as that’s concerned. We hope to persuade everyone on that court. And part of what you just read was some people don’t want a homosexual to be a teacher in a school. Well, I don’t think today hardly anyone would agree that you could make a law that said a person whose sexual orientation is homosexual can’t teach in a public school.

Olson and Boies “connected the dots” of a series of court rulings over the last 50+ years and said the cumulative weight of these rulings points directly to legalizing same sex marriage.  They started with the Loving case which held marriage is a fundamental right and followed a series of rulings to the Lawrence case which held that the Constitution does not permit the state to tell adults they may not have sex with other adults.  Olson and Boies also collected a mass of evidence to support their position.  By contrast, the defendants – the far right legal group Alliance Defense Fund – had two actual witnesses who were annihilated on cross examination.  It wasn’t supposed to be that way. Read the rest of this entry »

10 Comments

Critique of Timothy J. Daily Article: “Homosexual Parenting: Placing Children at Risk”

Introducing guest Blogger Diana Black Kennedy (another exception to the ever loosening OneUtah editorial policy).

Follows is Ms. Kennedy’s response to an article written by Dr. Timothy J. Dailey is a Senior Fellow at the Center for Marriage and Family Studies of Family Research Council in which Dr. Dailey attempts to dismiss the “conclusion… echoed in the official statement on homosexual parenting by the American Psychological Association’s Public Interest Directorate, “that children raised in gay and lesbian households fare no worse than those reared in traditional families.”

Diana Kennedy writes:

Specializing in issues threatening the institutions of marriage and the family

Dr. Timothy J. Dailey: Specializing in issues threatening the institutions of marriage and the family (from the perspective of a Bible Thumper)

I have a friend on Facebook with whom I often debate politics. I am the self-described flaming liberal and he is the Mormon libertarian. We have some great debates—always respectful, and always challenging. Recently, during a discussion of the recent Prop 8 ruling, he posted an article by Timothy J. Dailey Ph.D., called Homosexual Parenting: Placing children at risk. This is my critique.

1) Daily spends a lot of time pointing out methodological problems in the pro-equality literature and then totally abandons those strictures in his citing of anti-gay literature.

“Thus, all generalizations must be viewed with caution. . . . Because all uncorroborated self-report data are subject to biases, and because parents may deliberately or unconsciously minimize the extent of conflicts with their children, these findings cannot be accepted at face value.24″

However, when discussing anti-gay literature, he writes: “A survey conducted by the homosexual magazine Genre found that 24 percent of the respondents said they had had more than 100 sexual partners in their lifetime. The magazine noted that several respondents suggested including a category of those who had more than 1,000 sexual partners.31″

Could not the same presentation bias have something to do with over-estimating the number of partners gays have had in their lifetime? Talk to any 22 year old frat boy, gay or straight, (outside BYU, of course) and I think you’d see a similar presentation bias.

Also, in the “comparison with heterosexual couples” section, he offers no direct comparison. He goes from studies of homosexual couples who have been together 1-37 years to look at monogamy, and then compares that stat with heterosexual couples in marriage. I bet if you included hetero couples living together before marriage, the comparison number would be almost identical.

Again, in the comparisons section, he says, ” In Sex in America, called by the New York Times “the most important study of American sexual behavior since the Kinsey reports,” Robert T. Michael et al. report that 90 percent of wives and 75 percent of husbands claim never to have had extramarital sex.36″ Oy. Talk about presentation bias! Someone calls you on the phone and asks if you have been faithful to you spouse–well, you don’t think people may want to present themselves as better than they are? Read the rest of this entry »

, , ,

3 Comments

Actual Statements Made by VERY HOT Utahn Against Gay Marriage

This just in hot off Facebook

Diana Black Kennedy

“Yeah go ahead EMILY and DIANA… marginalize me as a ” HATER” that seems to be the M.O. of people who were just faced with an insurmountable argument.. “”the homosexual community takes from society. end of story. they are a parasitic group that care about nothing but themselves and how best they can manipulate and destroy our country. ” This is an example of hatred and bigotry.

” you will do the same with any law passed im sure. you will bend the rules and whine and march on Washington till you get it your way, regardless of what toll it takes on society.” This is an example of hatred and bigotry and a personal attack against Michael.

“that is a deterioration of our society, your kind are parasites. you add nothing, yet want everything. ” Hatred, bigotry and personal attacks.

“you are proof that Darwin and God are both right. I’m glad you cant procreate.” Hatred, bigotry and personal attacks.

“it is a degenerative act that at a primal level mankind has shunned. it is a non productive anomaly much like albino-ism, a freakish mutation with no redeeming qualities what so ever.” Hatred and bigotry

“yet when you hear Honesty you dismiss it and go back to your knitting circles to hear the same opinion as your own.” weird assumptions based on stereotypes that aren’t true I don’t knit–not sure about you, Shelley; and I remain engaged in conversation with people I don’t agree with).

” you wouldn’t walk one step in the shoes of a middle aged white heterosexual parent if it would cure cancer.” Um, I’m a middle-aged white heterosexual who is trying to become a parent–don’t know what level of empathy you feel I am lacking, unless you assume that if I were more like you I would hate gay people as well.

“truth be known I don’t Hate anyone.” I won’t speak for what is in your heart, but what is on the page is venomous hatred.

Those are the actual hateful comments you (Name removed by request*) made–I don’t have to try to marginalize you–your anti-gay rhetoric does it for you.

Now, tell me where the insurmountable argument is.See More

31 minutes ago ·

*Against OneUtah policy, I have made an exception and removed the name of the person, at his request, who wrote all these hateful comments things. I did so because I truly believe this person regrets saying the things he said but only after discovering the level of responsibility that comes with publishing ANYTHING on the Internet.

5 Comments

“The gibberish of diversity, equality, tolerance, pluralism or multiculturalism has rendered you irrelevant”

I saw this comment on Bagley’s latest and I just had to post it.  If you live in Utah, this is par for the course.  But for our wider audience (the rest of the modern world), this is REAL!

Yep, its true, there are very serious, not legally insane people who really DO say AND BELIEVE this:

etb says:
In a society that has abolished all boundaries, the only boundary left is to abolish that society.

That’s the endgame in this “race to the bottom” scenario. Your allegiance to “moral relativism” under the guise of “honoring” the gibberish of diversity, equality, tolerance, pluralism or multiculturalism has rendered you irrelevant in any discussion about the state of the culture.

You are the fruit of a mass media educated population. All the self-esteem in the world, but you can’t think, or argue, your way out of a wet paper-bag. You are the type of people who have been groomed to welcome the economic and cultural calamities all around us. Your life mantra hasn’t changed since the 60s, if it feels good…do it!

These latest rounds of various court rulings are more of the circus of the absurd, only important in chronicling the speed of the decline and debauchery of reason. That being said, I’ve done what I can do. I’m going out dancing, not sitting in a cave. You enjoy the affects of the blue pill as long as the ride lasts.

Copyright 2010 The Salt Lake Tribune. All rights reserved.

Copyright 2010 The Salt Lake Tribune. All rights reserved.

, , ,

55 Comments

In the name of Christ, Anne Rice Quits Christianity

From Anne Rice’s Facebook page:

I quit being a Christian. I’m out. In the name of Christ, I refuse to be anti-gay. I refuse to be anti-feminist. I refuse to be anti-artificial birth control. I refuse to be anti-Democrat. I refuse to be anti-secular humanism. I refuse to be anti-science. I refuse to be anti-life. In the name of Christ, I quit Christianity and being Christian. Amen.

I love the double meanings embedded in the line “In the name of Christ, I refuse . . .”  She is invoking the name of Christ in two ways, to say that she refuses to use the name of Christ to be anti-gay, anti-feminist and so on and that in the name of Christ she refuses to be those things.

Andrew Sullivan observed her statement: Read the rest of this entry »

11 Comments

Professional Standards of Conduct Matter – even if you call yourself a Christian

Julea Ward was enrolled in the counselling program at a university; she refused to meet the standards of her academic program, said her objection was that they violated her faith as a Christian which did not permit her to counsel gay people, the program responded by saying “We are upholding the standards of the profession; these standards apply no matter your faith and we expect you to conform,” she said “I won’t because I’m a Christian” and the program booted her out.  She sued and lost.

From the Chronical of Higher Education: Read the rest of this entry »

No Comments

Flaming Ex-Gay

flamingThe video by this goombah - Adam Hood –  has been making it’s way around the internet to much gleeful and cruel chortling.  Despite his gold flecked ascot, pitch perfect Charles Nelson Reilly voice, and FAAAABULOUS hand gestures, he claims to be totally completely straight. (Is it my imagination or is he wearing a brownish red velvet jacket with that gold flecked ascot?)

 Now, you really can’t judge such things purely by behaviors – but when this big queen tells us he straight while embodying every gay stereotype, it’s difficult to take him seriously.  GLBT bloggers have been laughing all week.

Andy Towle at his place used the headling “Does this gold-flecked ascot make me look ex-gay?”  Pam Spaulding responded with “Tuesday AM laff-fest: the gayest ‘ex-gay’ ever“.  Joe Jervis summed it up this way: “I’m Not Gay Anymore He Said While Wearing The Gayest Outfit In History.”  One blogger asked “How long till Adam Hood falls off the wagon onto a pile of men?  My bet is next Tuesday.”

All of which is true and good for a laugh.  Read the rest of this entry »

7 Comments

Why George Rekers (and His Rentboy) Matters

The scandal around George Rekers and his hiring of a male sex worker to accompany and provide services while on a recent ten day European vacation is distasteful.  There’s almost no way to discuss that doesn’t become distasteful to many people.  Rekers paid for access to nubile young male flesh for his vacation.  His rentboy has been interviewed by a host of news organizations and blogs.  He’s found himself the unexpected focus of a great deal of attention.  Rekers, meanwhile, has largely been disappeared by the right wing that once embraced him.  On the surface, it seems like just another sex scandal involving a right wing culture warrior, yet another revelation of yet another right wing hypocrite.

Rekers – like other right wingers caught in these scandals – has spent much of his adult life actively working to make life harder for other people.  Rekers has made been generously compensated for his work in the anti-gay industry.  Some of that money has come from states defending anti-gay laws which were inspired by Rekers and the groups with which he is associated.  Rekers and his associates have set up “research” groups which have published anti-gay information (supported by generous donations from right wing donors which have paid generous salaries), they have then offered seminars to right wing politicos (who have paid sizable registration fees), politicos who have in turn been inspired by those seminars and people to pass anti-gay laws which have been legally challenged.  The states have then paid (using taxpayer dollars) Rekers to testify in trials as an expert witness to defend their anti-gay laws.

Nice work if you can get it. Read the rest of this entry »

2 Comments

If Christianity is to survive it needs to reclaim the body of Christ

Christian theology is a mishmash of ideas from two thousand years of history.  The earliest Christians were Jewish citizens from Roman occupied Judea, a cultural and political backwater in the sprawling, cosmopolitan world of the late Hellenic era.  Christianity was absorbed into the Roman world and its earliest centers were places like Alexandria, Antioch and Constantinople.  Christian thinking evolved as it came into contact with the Hellenic world.  Saul of Tarsus, later known as Saint Paul, has been described as having one of the most dynamic religious imaginations in history.  Hyam Maccoby credits Paul with the “invention” of Christianity.

In the Hellenic world, Christianity absorbed so deeply the ideas of that world that they are largely invisible.  Christianity defined itself by two dualisms – the first is the spirit/body dualism, the second male/female dualism, in case accepting that the first item is superior to the second.  So deeply embedded in Christian theology are these dualisms that most Christians simply accept the theological outcomes of these dualisms without examining them. 

Examining the behavior and policies of Christian churches you can see these dualism as play.  The resistance in many denominations to women as priests and pastors can only be realistically defended if you accept that men are spiritually superior to women.  Arguments that women “can’t” be priests are simply untrue – the skills and knowledge required to successfully preach and teach don’t require having a penis.  Christian hostility toward women is often packaged in pleasant sounding crap – assertions that women have such a special role in rearing children that they shouldn’t work outside the home, think for themselves or generally behave a fully fledged, morally aware adults. 

It’s no accident that strongly authoritarian faiths (the Catholic church, Mormonism) resist women in leadership, a resistance ultimately grounded in profound levels of sexism – distrust of and diminishment of women’s abilities and gifts.  The teaching in many conservative faiths that men must be the head of household, that women are to support male leadership, to trust male judgement.  (I don’t fully grok, but as I undrestand doctrinal Mormonism, any priesthood holder is considered worthy and able to give counsel to people, to make decisions, to lead even those who are older and wiser who do not “hold” the priesthood; there’s a lot that could potentially be unpacked from the language used in this area.)  Read the rest of this entry »

No Comments

Catholics Offer Searing Indictments of the Vatican – and the Pope (updated)

I missed an article from Andrew Sullivan - I’ve added it below.

In a moment of breathaking tone-deafness the Catholic church compared the critcism it is receiving over its handling of the child sex abuse scandal to the treatment of Jews.  During the Holocaust.

Although the priest who said that later apologized, it is becoming increasingly difficult to treat with any seriousness the Vatican’s response to the crisis.  Perhaps the harshest words are coming from people raised Catholic:

Maureen Dowd:

“There is no doubt about it,” the 85-year-old priest said, according to the Catholic News Agency. “Because he is a marvelous pope and worthy successor to John Paul II, it is clear that the Devil wants to grab hold of him.”

The exorcist also said that the abuse scandal showed that Satan uses priests to try to destroy the church, “and so we should not be surprised if priests too … fall into temptation. They also live in the world and can fall like men of the world.”

Actually, falling into temptation is eating cupcakes after you’ve given them up for Lent. Rape and molestation of children is far beyond what most of us think of as succumbing to worldly temptation.

This church needs a sexorcist more than an exorcist.

Sinead O’Connor:

Benedict’s apology states that his concern is “above all, to bring healing to the victims.” Yet he denies them the one thing that might bring them healing — a full confession from the Vatican that it has covered up abuse and is now trying to cover up the cover up. Astonishingly, he invites Catholics “to offer up your fasting, your prayer, your reading of Scripture and your works of mercy in order to obtain the grace of healing and renewal for the Church in Ireland.” Even more astonishing, he suggests that Ireland’s victims can find healing by getting closer to the church — the same church that has demanded oaths of silence from molested children, as occurred in 1975 in the case of Father Brendan Smyth, an Irish priest later jailed for repeated sexual offenses. After we stopped laughing, many of us in Ireland recognized the idea that we needed the church to get closer to Jesus as blasphemy.

To Irish Catholics, Benedict’s implication — Irish sexual abuse is an Irish problem — is both arrogant and blasphemous. The Vatican is acting as though it doesn’t believe in a God who watches. The very people who say they are the keepers of the Holy Spirit are stamping all over everything the Holy Spirit truly is. Benedict criminally misrepresents the God we adore. We all know in our bones that the Holy Spirit is truth. That’s how we can tell that Christ is not with these people who so frequently invoke Him.

Irish Catholics are in a dysfunctional relationship with an abusive organization. The pope must take responsibility for the actions of his subordinates. If Catholic priests are abusing children, it is Rome, not Dublin, that must answer for it with a full confession and in a criminal investigation. Until it does, all good Catholics — even little old ladies who go to church every Sunday, not just protest singers like me whom the Vatican can easily ignore — should avoid Mass. In Ireland, it is time we separated our God from our religion, and our faith from its alleged leaders.

Andrew Sullivan:

So the crimes against the defenseless now coming to light are once again “the gossip of the moment”. Gossip. Anyone who can use the term gossip to refer to highly credible, indeed indisputable, cases where priests raped children and the Pope himself once either looked away, or actively enabled the abuse to continue to protect the reputation of the church … is too far gone to understand what is happening right now.

And this roundhouse to the Hierarchy’s temple:

I can only speak for myself — a wayward Catholic sinner, a married homosexual who still clings to the truth of the Gospels and the sacredness of the church. I wouldn’t do any of those things. Full stop. If I knew I had any role — witting or unwitting — in allowing children to be raped by someone I could have stopped, by someone over whom I had authority, I would not be able to sleep at night. I would be haunted for the rest of my life. The thought of covering up for someone who forced sex on deaf children in closets at night is incomprehensible to me. Allowing someone who had raped three children to go elsewhere and rape many more, when you were explicitly warned that this man was a walking danger to children? I don’t want to sound self-righteous, but: no. Never. Under any circumstances; in any period of time; for whatever reason. Even if my failure were mere negligence, my conscience would be racked.

So, why, to ask the obvious question, isn’t the Pope’s? Even criminals in prison treat child molesters as the lowest of the low, the darkest manifestation of human evil. How can the Pope have any moral authority on any subject until and unless he has explained this series of events, held himself accountable and repented, if not resigned? Instead he carries on as if nothing has changed, as if nothing in these revelations about his life really matters.

It has to matter. A pope with no moral authority simply cannot function as a pope. Yes, he has ecclesiastical power. But ecclesiastical power without moral authority merely exposes the hollowness of an unaccountable, self-perpetuating clerisy. Does he think we don’t know? Does he understand that any parent of any child will be unable to imagine themselves in the same moral universe as this man?

He will not quit, of course. And he will not personally repent for these personal failings in public. This is all “petty gossip” fomented by enemies of the church. It’s old news. He has reformed things. He has, in the words of the Vatican, “nonresponsibility”. Others will take the fall for those crimes of the past. And the broken souls and bodies that remain out there — the scarred victims of this abuse of power — where are they this Easter? What place do they have on this, our holiest day?

They will have to seek justice from the state and healing from God. If they retain the hope of Easter, that good can eventually outlast evil, that darkness can cede to light, I pray they can cling to the faith that is still ours in a church that is increasingly alien. Peter denied Jesus three times. But Easter still came.

That is what many of us still cling to, through the incomprehension and betrayal. We still have our faith even if we can no longer trust the hierarchy of our church. Its moral authority is over. Our moral struggle never ends — until we find salvation in the God who loves children and doesn’t rape them.

Sullivan – like many Catholics – has reached the end of his rope with a church which has utterly failed to protect the most vulnerable and which has portrayed itself as the victim.

The season of Lent, now ended, is supposed to be a time of reflection, of self-evaluation.  Read the rest of this entry »

5 Comments

The very special cowardice of Chris Buttars

So I’m watching KUTV’s ten o’clock news last night and they did a story about the Prop 8 film at Sundance, including an interview with Chris Buttars giving him a chance to correct any misimpressions about him the film created for viewers.

Buttars offered the most ridiculous defense I’ve ever heard: Sure he said offensive things but he was tricked into it by people wearing BYU shirts.

You can’t make this shit up.  If someone put this in a film and tried to pass it off as fiction, no one would buy it, it stretches credulity beyond the breaking point.

The film-maker sent the TV station photos from the day showing that he and his crew weren’t wearing BYU shirts.  So, not only is Chris Buttars a bigot, he’s a liar.  But we knew that.

In essence, Buttars’ is saying that what he said (gays are the biggest threat to America) is okay but he would only say it to someone in the club – i.e. to good BYU Mormons who would agree and who would keep his comments secret so he wouldn’t look bad.

What we’re seeing is a very special kind of cowardice on Chris Buttars’ part.  It’s not that he misspoke or said something and he’s changed his mind; he believes what he said and he’d say it again and still believe it.  Chris Buttars wants to not be held accountable for his words.  Like so many anti-gay conservatives, he wants to be able to say anything he wants and not have consequences.  Go to Uganda, tell the folks there that gays are the biggest threat to humanity there is and they must be stopped any way you can and when Uganda says, “Okay, let’s pass a law with the death penalty for gay people” you throw up your hands and say, “Oh my, I never imagined anyone would do such a thing after hearing me speak.”

Chris Buttars: a man of cowardly convictions.  Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

17 Comments

Republican Jesus

Jesus With Handgun

The foregoing was lifted without permission and in its entirety. Republican Jesus is the central figure in the Republican religion and is the Jesus worshiped by Christian conservatives.

Republican Jesus shares many superficial qualities with the biblical Jesus, and in fact a minority of historians believe the two are actually the same figure. However, a growing body of evidence suggests that Republican Jesus was actually born in 1964 aboard a Goldwater campaign bus east of Flagstaff, and was recognized as the one true Republican messiah in 1980, in which role he continues to this day. Some of the more significant differences between the two Jesus’ philosophies:

The biblical Jesus preached at length about renouncing worldly possessions and giving to the poor. Republican Jesus believes that such handouts merely encourage the poor to be lazy, and that Christian charity is better practiced through massive tax breaks for the wealthiest citizens, who could then be expected to let the money “tinkle down” to the poor in the form of honest, if low-paying, jobs at upright Republican institutions like Wal-Mart.

Whereas the biblical Jesus is not known to have ever addressed the subject of homosexuality at all, let alone gay marriage, homosexuality is just about all Republican Jesus ever talks about. Indeed, in contrast to the biblical Jesus’ instruction to “love thy neighbor,” Republican Jesus specifically commands his flock to “Hate they neighbor, unless thou art sure he is not one of those fucking degenerate ass-bandits.” (Italics in the original.)

Likewise, the biblical Jesus’ views on abortion are unknown, whereas Republican Jesus made his feelings clear in the Parable of Harry Blackmun, in which a Supreme Court justice votes to legalize abortions and is subsequently cast into a pit of liquid fire for all eternity. The Parable of Harry Blackmun is believed to be the basis for the Christian conservative belief that it’s okay to pray for the death of a liberal as long as you don’t actually try to kill him yourself, or at least if you’re not likely to get caught.

The biblical Jesus threw the money changers out of the Temple. Republican Jesus welcomed them in, even going so far as to open the first known church inside a Wal-Mart.

The biblical Jesus spent most of his time among lepers, prostitutes, and other people who were shunned by society. Republican Jesus is notoriously afraid of AIDS, which he believes can be contracted in such ways as shaking hands with an infected person or using the same toilet seat, so he spends most of his time at the gun club or at home watching NASCAR races on television. Republican Jesus frequently talks about his intention to start donating money to hospice organizations or the Red Cross, but there is no evidence that he has ever done so.

In the Gospel of Matthew, the biblical Jesus says: “Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.”

In the equivalent passage in the Gospel of George, Republican Jesus says: “Ye have heard that it hath been said: Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you. But I say unto you, Sendeth thou those Iraqi camel jockeys back unto the Stone Age before they dost get it into their filthy rag-wrapped heads to do the same to thee; sendeth thou a rain of cruise missiles on the unjust sand niggers, and maketh a sun of nuclear fire rise upon their evil asses. If anyone doth ask, just say they had weapons of mass destruction.” – Lifted without permission and in its entirety.

, , , ,

91 Comments