Extra: Group Thinks Outside the Box!

by on

[corrected 1/13]
Rick Sincere's blog draws attention to a new group in the old dominion called the Virginia Family Values PAC. But hold on, it's actually a group that's fighting against elected officials who support anti-gay legislation, among other things. But this PAC is using the language of small-government conservatism to do so. As Rick puts it:

Dated January 9, the group's initial press release uses buzzwords that are sure to catch the attention of Goldwater Republicans like myself:

Virginians from across the commonwealth today announced the formation of a non-partisan political action committee to strengthen family values and families' political influence in Richmond and in the November elections....

Virginia Family Values has named four of the candidates that they'll be targeting for removal from office for their anti-family votes ... All four candidates have consistently voted against family and parental rights, and have introduced bills that would increase the size of government while decreasing family freedoms and privacy.

"The family is the foundation of our society," explained PAC founder Waldo Jaquith. "Every time that these legislators have been given the choice between family values and bigger government, they've chosen wrong. They're way out of touch with Virginia values, and we intend to show them the door."

Rick comments further:

It's rare to see a group made up of Democratic and liberal activists ... using terms like "RINO" to describe Republicans...for whom "RINO" is more accurate than they would be willing to admit. What a pleasure it would be if more Democrats wanted to rid our legislatures of RINOs and replace them with authentic, small-government, Goldwater conservatives.

Jon Henke, who describes himself as a "neo-libertarian," picked up on this too, noting that "some groups are taking what seems to me to be very effective grassroots action.... They've co-opted the language of the religious right and turned it on them. That's pretty clever."

This is an interesting strategy, and although the Virginia Family Values PAC is not a gay group (I originally misreported that, as Rick informs me), I hope local gay groups will be inspired to likewise think outside the liberal-left box. But don't expect the large inside-the-beltway crowd to follow along, given the Human Rights Campaign's smackdown for even considering support for personally owned Social Security accounts that gay partners could bequeath to one another.

0 Comments

The Ratzinger Record

by on

Updated from the original published January 13, 2005, in Bay Windows.

The elevation of arch-conservative Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger as Pope Benedict XVI illustrates an enduring trait of the Catholic Church that was evident even in the tumultuous years of the early 1960s: the tenacity of the Roman Curia (the Vatican bureaucracy) in resisting reform. Ratzinger is the consummate Vatican operative.

The Sixties began promisingly for Holy Mother Church, with Pope John XXIII and the Second Vatican Council, and the general opening of the Church to modern times. But the reformist Pope put the Curia in charge of reforming itself. The decade ended with the more repressive Pope Paul VI, an encyclical attacking "the Pill," and a crackdown on dissenting priests. After the brief tenure of the "Smiling Pope" John Paul I in 1978, Pope John Paul II took repression to a new level.

Swiss theologian Hans Küng, who as a young man influenced the agenda for Vatican II, said of John Paul II, "He is a man of what I would call the mediaeval, anti-reformation, anti-modern paradigm of the church, and he tried to convince the whole church to join him in re-establishing this mediaeval papacy." John Paul's chief enforcer in this effort was Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger.

Before his elevation, Ratzinger had been prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith since 1981 and dean of the College of Cardinals since 2002. In 1986, Ratzinger issued his notorious "Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons," stating of homosexuality that "the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder."

Also in the letter, after deploring anti-gay violence, Ratzinger justified it:

"When civil legislation is introduced to protect behavior to which no one has any conceivable right, neither the Church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase."

His sympathy for violent reactions recalls the phrase in Leviticus 20:13, "their blood shall be on their own heads."

In the same letter, Ratzinger called gay rights advocacy a threat to the family.

In his July 2004 "Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Collaboration of Men and Women in the Church and in the World," Ratzinger took on feminism and connected it with the gay movement:

"The obscuring of the difference or duality of the sexes ..., intended to promote prospects for equality of women through liberation from biological determinism, has in reality inspired ideologies which, for example, call into question the family, in its natural two-parent structure of mother and father, and make homosexuality and heterosexuality virtually equivalent, in a new model of polymorphous sexuality."

Temple University professor Leonard Swidler, co-founder and president of the Association for the Rights of Catholics in the Church and a former colleague of Ratzinger's at the University of Tübingen, wrote to Ratzinger in response, "If you truly wanted a dialogue, why didn't you invite a group of the outstanding women we have in the Catholic Church to talk with you? In your Holy Office you have a whole staff of theological experts who provide you with the results of their research. As far as I can tell, none of them are women theologians - of which there is no dearth."

Küng, who in 1966 helped Ratzinger obtain his faculty position at Tübingen, suggests that Ratzinger's suspicion of liberalism dates to 1968, when he witnessed student revolts at the university. Ratzinger left the university the following year. "To the present day," Küng writes in his recently published memoirs, "Ratzinger has shown phobias about all movements 'from below', whether these are student chaplaincies, groups of priests, movements of Church people, the Iglesia popular or liberation theology."

At Tübingen, Ratzinger was appalled by what he regarded as the supplanting of religion by Marxist political ideology, and later told an interviewer, "There was an instrumentalization by ideologies that were tyrannical, brutal, and cruel." In this one sees echoes of Karol Wojtyla's fight against Soviet Communism, which he continued when he became Pope. Both men made the mistake of over-generalizing from their own experience. As they might realize if they were not acclimatized to authoritarian surroundings, not all critics of Rome are Marxists.

Ratzinger has had his moderate moments. For example, he reportedly dissuaded John Paul II from issuing "infallible" pronouncements declaring the Blessed Virgin Mary "co-redemptrix of the world" and prohibiting birth control. But this moderation appears to be motivated by tactical considerations. Given his other pronouncements, it is likely that the only reason Ratzinger did not re-institute the old Index Prohibitorum (the list of forbidden books that was abolished in Vatican II, and which at times included works by Copernicus, Machiavelli, Erasmus, and Descartes) was that he knew it would be treated as a joke, and would give excellent publicity to the condemned authors.

In one of two June 1997 letters to the Austrian Bishops Conference responding to efforts by the liberal International Movement "We Are Church," Ratzinger wrote,

"The content of these 'Petitions of the People of the Church' consists of a series of demands, several of which deny Catholic teachings and are in flagrant opposition to Church discipline. It is self-evident that such initiatives cannot be condoned by the Church in any manner."

He was not merely saying that the liberal activists were wrong, he demanded their exclusion from the Second European Ecumenical Assembly that year. He wrote,

"These groups far exceed the bounds of legitimate concerns ... they propagate among the faithful an unacceptable democratic model of the Church...."

Dissent and open discussion were simply not to be tolerated.

After the release of the letters caused a media firestorm, Ratzinger wrote a follow-up letter in March 1998 in which he appeared to backtrack:

"A dialogue that seeks to serve the well-being of humanity and the expansion of the God's Kingdom will on the one hand be open to all people of good will and recoil from no important request, but will, on the other hand, lose sight neither of the charge of being custodians of the Gospel and Tradition nor the missionary calling of the Church."

He added, "In principle, there are no objections to the carefully circumscribed participation of members of the 'We are Church' group in the events of the 'delegate day.'"

As Küng observed, "This represents a form of offensive, a maneuver to relieve pressure, rather than genuine dialogue." Not only does Ratzinger declare the We Are Church Movement out of step with Church teaching without bothering to explain why, he reminds the bishops that they are "custodians of the Gospel and Tradition" - by which he means the same Vatican dogma to which the We Are Church movement objects.

Ratzinger and his allies have resisted any accountability to worldly authorities, even in criminal matters. For example, Ratzinger has protected the Rev. Marcial Maciel Degollado, founder of the conservative Legion of Christ, from charges that he sexually abused nine seminarians three decades ago. Ratzinger halted a canonical proceeding against Maciel in late 1999 without explanation. When ABC News' Brian Ross asked Ratzinger about Maciel in 2002, Ratzinger literally slapped Ross's hand.

Küng says of John Paul II, "I would agree that he preached the gospel for the poor, he was for human rights in the world. But all this was in blatant contradiction with what he has done in his own Church, because he repressed human rights in the Church." This is unlikely to change with John Paul II's Grand Inquisitor in the Chair of St. Peter, except perhaps to get worse.

0 Comments

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Translate Terrorist Secrets

by on

First published byScripps Howard News Service on January 13, 2005. Reprinted by permission of the author courtesy of Scripps Howard News Service.

Name the greater risk to national security: patriotic military translators who happen to be homosexual or anti-American Islamofascist terrorists who happen to be homicidal? If you picked the latter, thanks for putting U.S. safety first. Alas, the Pentagon disagrees.

According to new Defense Department data, between fiscal years 1998 and 2003, 20 Arabic- and six Farsi-language experts were booted from the military under President Clinton's 1993 Don't Ask/Don't Tell policy. These GIs trained at the elite Defense Language Institute in Monterey, California. Had they graduated - assuming 40-hour work weeks and two-week vacations - they could have dedicated 52,000 man-hours annually to interrogate Arab-speaking bomb builders, interpret intercepted enemy communications, or transmit reassuring words to bewildered Baghdad residents.

Preparation for these vital activities ends when a dedicated warrior is found to be gay. Under Don't Ask, if that GI's homosexuality becomes evident he must stop conjugating verbs and head home.

Just ask former Army sergeant Ian Finkenbinder. The 22-year-old Eugene, Oregon, native spent eight months as an Arabic linguist with the Third Infantry Division in Iraq. As a noncommissioned military intelligence officer, he helped other linguists collect information from captured Iraqis. "Our efforts saved lives and improved the quality of life for soldiers around us," he says from his Baltimore home. He served in units that took enemy fire and merited an Army Commendation Medal and Good Conduct Medal. He earned about $36,000 annually.

After the 3rd I.D. returned to Fort Stewart, Georgia, Finkenbinder sensed that some in his reorganized unit were discussing his personal life behind his back. In November, after a year of increasing discomfort, he handed his commander, Captain James Finnochiaro, a written statement of his homosexuality. Finkenbinder was honorably discharged last month.

"I went to Iraq once," Finkerbinder says. "I met that challenge. I knew perfectly well I would be able to meet that challenge again." Still, he wondered, "whether I would be able to serve an institution that had discriminated against me for four years by asking me to maintain my silence, as well as these isolated incidents of people saying things that they shouldn't."

Since being booted from the Army, Finkenbinder seeks other work for his Arabic-language skills.

At least 74 gay language specialists were jettisoned between 1998 and 2003, including at least 37 after the Sept. 11 attacks.

This problem extends beyond those who can communicate with combative Iraqis, duplicitous Saudis, or atom-splitting Iranians. Including Finkenbinder, at least 74 language specialists have been jettisoned from the military between fiscal 1998 and 2003. At least 37 were dismissed after September 11, reports Nathaniel Frank, an adjunct history professor at New York University. Dr. Frank is also a Senior Research Fellow at U.C. Santa Barbara's Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military. His findings appear in the January 24 New Republic.

Those whose homosexuality impressed the Pentagon more than their rare verbal talents include 18 Korean speakers (visualize Kim Il-Sung), 11 Russophones, eight Spanish specialists, three Mandarin Chinese experts, three Serbo-Croatian speakers (Kosovo, anyone?), and one each steeped in German, Hebrew, Italian, and Vietnamese.

War with Italy seems highly unlikely, but Americans need to communicate with our Italian Coalition partners in Iraq. Lacking a U.S. Italophone in combat could get Americans, Italians, or innocent Iraqis killed.

Even worse, Arabic- and Farsi-speaking Islamists plot to murder Americans, even as the U.S. sacks those who prepare to interrogate them and unravel their plans. While the Pentagon purges these dedicated public servants, Islamic extremists chatter away.

America "is without a working channel of communications to the world of Muslims and Islam," the Pentagon's Defense Science Board recently warned. The 9/11 Commission concluded that Uncle Sam "lacked sufficient translators proficient in Arabic and other key languages, resulting in significant backlog of untranslated intercepts."

"This is a cycle of inertia by design," Nathaniel Frank says. "The Pentagon routinely defers to Congress because it's now federal law. But when Don't Ask was devised, Congress deferred to the Pentagon."

While many military officers endorse this policy, others seem frustrated about losing vital teammates. But most will stay mum until Congress acts.

Congress should replace Don't Ask with a nondiscriminatory policy based on conduct, rather than orientation: Soldiers on duty, gay and straight, must keep their hands to themselves, or face expulsion. Barring such reform, commanders should be allowed to retain soldiers whose value to unit safety and mission outweighs any reservations about their sexuality.

Elements of the 3rd I.D. returned to Iraq January 8, this time without Ian Finkenbinder. He is troubled that they are there, and he is here, unable to speak Arabic to help protect them.

"In a way, going to war with people makes them your family, and I am still very close to all of them," he says. "We still communicate as frequently as possible. But there are definitely moments when I wish I were there with them - with my family."

\

***

Interview with Ian Finkenbinder

The following is Deroy Murdock's interview with former Army sergeant Ian Finkenbinder, a one-time Arabic linguist who served in Iraq with the Third Infantry Division. The Army discharged the 22-year-old Eugene, Oregon native under the Don't Ask/Don't Tell policy after he disclosed his homosexuality. Finkenbinder now lives as a civilian in Baltimore.

Deroy Murdock - Question: When were you discharged from the Army?

Ian Finkenbinder - Answer: I got back from Iraq in August '03 and came out with the fact that I am gay in November '04, and I was discharged in December '04. It was an honorable discharge. What I did was I wrote up a statement stating the fact that I am gay and that was pretty much it. I turned it into my commander, Capt. James Finnochiaro.

Q:Why did you offer that statement?

A:I had reached the point where I decided I did not want to live under the fear of possible retribution from the chain of command, or what have you, due to the fact that I am gay. So, I turned in this statement saying I would be willing to serve as long as I could do so as an openly gay soldier.

Q: Did you feel threatened or harassed?

A: There were isolated incidents throughout my service. There was no specific threat upon me at the time. However, I felt the atmosphere where I worked no longer was as comfortable as it had been in the past. As a linguist, I was in the military intelligence community. I was constantly around other people who are at a level of high education who are open and tolerant of different ideas and different kinds of people. Over the course of the past year, after I got back from Iraq, there was a lot of unit reorganization. So I was around people who, even though they were great soldiers, I still didn't feel as comfortable working as openly as I had before.

Q: What would you say to people who wonder whether you made others around you uncomfortable?

A: For the most part, the people I worked with on a one-on-one basis didn't show any signs of being uncomfortable at all, even though they knew about my sexuality. I was not out to the chain of command, but I was to my peers. They were cool with it.

There had been times when my friends had heard people in the chain of command talk about me in reference to my homosexuality. While I dealt with that appropriately at the time, that signaled to me that I was in a different atmosphere than what I was comfortable with.

Q: How do you answer those who might ask if you announced you were gay to avoid being sent back to Iraq?

A: That is the $64,000 question. I went to Iraq once. I met that challenge., I knew perfectly well I would be ale to meet that challenge again. But it came down to me to be sort of a moral question and a personal question for myself: whether I would be able to serve an institution that had discriminated against me for four years by asking me to maintain my silence as well as these isolated incidents of people saying things that they shouldn't. I loved serving in the Army, but it got very tiring to deal continually with these issues that are unique to being gay in the military.

Q: What was your greatest accomplishment as an Arabic-language expert in Iraq? How best did your skills save lives, catch terrorists, etc.?

A: There's nothing really remarkable that I could put it print.

There were times when my abilities as a linguist were put to the test, as were the abilities of those around me. Our efforts saved lives and improved the quality of life for soldiers around us.

Q: Did any of your discussions in Arabic get vital information out of captured Iraqis or others?

A: I myself did not specifically get exceedingly vital information out of Iraqi nationals; there were definitely those who I worked with who gained excellent intelligence that was pretty vital.

I was part of the intelligence gathering effort. My position was military intelligence throughout my Army career, both as a lower enlisted soldier as well as a non-commissioned officer.

Q: What medals or commendations did you earn?

A:I got the Army Commendation Medal while in Iraq. Also, the Good Conduct Medal and the Army Achievement Medal.

Q: Were you shot at? Attacked? Injured?

A: I was not injured. There were times in Iraq where the unit I was serving or attached to came under fire.

Q: Where were you serving when you have your written statement to your commander?

A: Fort Stewart, Georgia.

Q: How much money were you making when you were discharged?

A: I got about $2,200-per-month in take-home pay. That includes all of the entitlements, such as a housing allowance. If you are the best linguist in the Army, you make an extra $200-per-month, as I did. I made about $36,000 annually.

Q: Why didn't you just "not tell," keep your homosexuality to yourself, and serve our country in Iraq?

A:Because it really became important to me that I, as an individual, were recognized as being as important as the heterosexual soldiers around me, and that I had the same individual freedoms as the others around me. The very same rights that we are trying to establish in Iraq as a democracy, I feel I was being denied, to a degree.

There are very few restrictions placed on heterosexual soldiers based on the nature of consensual relationships in which they are allowed to partake. I, on the other hand, was not allowed to be in any form of consensual relationship that would be true to my nature as a gay man. Any restriction in that sense restricted my rights as an individual.

Q: Is the 3rd Infantry Division back in Iraq? Has anyone in it been hurt lately? If so, could you have helped to keep those folks safe?

A: Elements of the 3rd I.D. went back on January 8. None of them has been hurt. Every soldier over there has the potential to keep their comrades safe, but especially those in the field of intelligence gathering.

Q: What do you think about being here when they are in harm's way, and you might be able to help to keep them safe?

A:The decision to come out of the closet was very difficult for me. The people I served with who are over there right now were with me in Iraq the first time. In a way, going to war with people makes them your family, and I am still very close to all of them. We still communicate as frequently as possible. But there are definitely moments when I wish I were there with them - with my family.

0 Comments

Lincoln’s Closet?

by on

The long-awaited publication of the final work by the late psychologist/Kinsey associate C.A. Tripp, claiming that Abe Lincoln was gay (based on an analysis of circumstantial evidence), has, expectedly, drawn some critical reaction. Richard Brookhiser, an historian and senior editor at the conservative National Review, but writing in the New York Times, offers one of the more balanced perspectives, finding:

Tripp can lay out a case, but his discussion of its implications is so erratic that the reader is often left on his own. One wonders: What does it mean to be homosexual?" ...

Tripp argues that a cultural innocence - the word "homosexual" had not yet been coined - allowed acts of physical closeness between men that had no deeper meaning, as well as acts that did but could escape scrutiny. We know more than our ancestors, and our reward is that, in some ways, we may do less. In any case, on the evidence before us, Lincoln loved men, at least some of whom loved him back. Their words tell us more than their sleeping arrangements.

On the other hand, disgruntled former Tripp associate Philip Nobile, writing in the conservative Weekly Standard, labels the work "a hoax and a fraud: a historical hoax, because the inaccurate parts are all shaded toward a predetermined conclusion, and a literary fraud, because significant portions of the accurate parts are plagiarized..." (from Nobile's own work, that is). And he adds a tale of this encounter with gay firebrand Larry Kramer:

"If you don't stop making a stink about Tripp's book, I'm going to expose you as an enormous homophobe," Larry Kramer telephoned me to say last October. "For the sake of humanity, please, gays need a role model." I replied that the book was so bad, it would backfire on the homosexual movement when reviewers and readers caught on to the fabrications, contradictions, and general nuttiness of The Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln.

Still, even Nobile admits:

The Gay Lincoln Theory, for all its jagged edges, may be a more satisfying explanation for the president's weird inner life than the Utterly Straight Lincoln Theory. "I have heard [Lincoln] say over and over again about sexual contact: 'It is a harp of a thousand strings,' Henry Whitney told William Herndon in 1865. Leaving aside Tripp's bad faith, it is not utterly beyond imagining that Lincoln may have played a few extra strings on that harp.

Yet perhaps more telling about the conservative response is the Weekly Standard's cover, featuring a limp-wristed, erring-wearing Lincoln and the text "The First Log Cabin Republican?" That mocking response captures how most social conservatives are going to react to the "gay Lincoln" claims.

Updates: Andrew Sullivan argues it's Nobile who is guilty of fraud, not Tripp. And Tim Hulsey compares the Weekly Standard's Lincoln cover with another offensive Lincoln representation, this time over at liberal Salon.com. Writes Tim, "Judging from these two publications, it's disturbingly easy for heterosexual Americans - regardless of ideology - to make light of silly fairies, especially if we dare to claim Honest Abe as one of our own."

Rich Tafel explains why he's not offended by the Weekly Standard cover.

0 Comments

Right or Not, Focus Shifts to Legislatures.

by on

The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hear an appeal to Florida's law banning gays from adopting children, leading social conservatives to pledge more such laws.

But opponents of the Florida law say they are ready to combat efforts to duplicate it - and will continue to encourage Florida lawmakers to repeal the ban. And even Florida's attorney in this matter, Casey Walker, told the Supreme Court that "Even though some may disagree with it as a policy matter, the place to change it is the Legislature and not the courts."

I believe courts do have a fundamental role in protecting basic equality under the law, even in the face of the "tyranny of the majority." But we also have to face facts, and in the current political climate even when courts do rule for equal treatment for gays, their decisions can be overturned by state ballot initiatives (or even a U.S. constitutional amendment). There is simply no getting around the need to engage the public (i.e., the voters who either elect judges, or elect those who appoint judges) and win them over.

0 Comments

Don’t Fear Battle of Ideas.

by on

Warning: the following viewpoints are controversial and may offend. Please don't write and try to get me fired (actually, I'm not employed by IGF, so that really won't work anyhow).

The above jest is prompted by this: A recent alert from the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) took socially conservative columnist Thomas Sowell to task for recently writing, among other things, that "Marriage is not a right extended to individuals by the government. It is a restriction on the rights they already have," and "Society has no such stake in the outcome of a union between two people of the same sex. Transferring all those laws to same-sex couples would make no more sense than transferring the rules of baseball to football" - statements that GLAAD dismisses as "so silly that, despite their underlying offensiveness, it is difficult to take them seriously."

Sowell also went further into offensiveness, writing "What the activists really want is the stamp of acceptance on homosexuality, as a means of spreading that lifestyle, which has become a death style in the era of AIDS."

That's an ugly comment that should be responded to and exposed for its mendacity. But GLAAD's alert does something else - it also calls on people to write Sowell's distributor, Creators Syndicate, and complain about its distributing "Thomas Sowell's repugnant, bigoted attack on gay and lesbian Americans."

As emotionally satisfying as that might make people feel, it's a questionable tactic. Sowell is very popular, and Creators Syndicate won't drop him because of letters prompted by a gay organization when those letters are clearly from folks who aren't part of Sowell's conservative readership base. Worse, it's a tactic that mirrors what religious conservative groups like the American Family Association do - try to get things banned, or taken off the air, because they don't approve.

Creators Syndicate also distributes lesbian columnist Deb Price. GLAAD's response, "Please write Creators and ask why the presence of one inclusive columnist excuses the publication of anti-gay bigotry from another." But many social conservatives find Price's views deeply offensive to their fundamentalist sensibilities, too.

My experience is that GLAAD doesn't much like to debate; it doesn't seek out opportunities to intellectually engage opponents on the social and religious right. For GLAAD, if it's not hobnobbing with the Hollywood set, it's unleashing angry broadsides. Or trying to get TV/radio personalities off the air (or, in this case, mau-mauing a syndicate over a columnist). Again, this is just what the American Family Association does with authors/personalities/shows it doesn't like.

When we adopt our enemy's tactics, we become what they are. Liberty is based on the active engagement of ideas, and through that engagement convincing the public that your principles are truer and more virtuous than your opponents'. In the words of an old political slogan of the left, "To be attacked by your enemy is a good thing," as it gives you an opportunity to engage the battle (and, in this case, the battle of ideas). We shouldn't be afraid of stepping up to that challenge.

0 Comments

Jamaica: Heart of Darkness.

by on

Today's LA Times story on anti-gay violence in Jamaica puts into perspective the rights and freedoms we enjoy as Americans and Europeans (that is, as non-Third-Worlders). But Jamaica does seem to be a hate-infested hell in a league of its own. As the Times reports:

When gay rights activist Brian Williamson was stabbed to death in June and jubilant crowds danced around his mutilated body, police said he was a robbery victim. When Jamaican reggae dancehall musicians were bumped from U.S. and British concert appearances last year over lyrics encouraging the killing of gays, people here called the censure a failure to respect free speech.

When Human Rights Watch issued a withering condemnation of homophobia in Jamaica in November and accused police and politicians of condoning anti-gay violence and harassment, government spokesmen rejected the report as "lies" and "nonsense," and a senior police official called for sedition charges to be brought against its authors.

The Times also notes that celebrated dancehall singer Beenie Man swoons, "I'm dreaming of a new Jamaica - come to execute all the gays." Similar lines in songs by dancehall artist Sizzla prompted British authorities to deny him a visa for five concerts late last year. Another popular singer, Buju Banton, took part in the beating of six gay men in June, as a crowd cheered on the attackers.

Just a sad reminder of how benighted much of the world truly is.

Update: Columnist Mark Steyn thrashes the U.K.'s leftwing Guardian newspaper for trying to to blame Jamaican gay-bashing on the island's colonial heritage.

More Recent Postings
1/02/05 - 1/08/05

0 Comments

LCR on the Outs.

by on

As the inauguration approaches, Bay Windows takes a look at splits between gay conservatives who support President Bush and Log Cabin leaders who opposed Bush (hat tip: Gay Patriot).

No official Log Cabin events are scheduled for the inauguration, but LCR will have to deal with the fact that "This year's election saw 23 percent of gay, lesbian, and bisexual voters cast ballots for Bush according to exit polls, down just two percent from 2000, indicating that conservative gay and lesbian people generally remained faithful to the president."

So, what do you do when your membership (or pool of prospective members) are heading in one direction and you're going the other way?

0 Comments

Sontag and Identity Politics.

by on

OK, just a few final words on Sontag, then I'll shut up. Michael Bronski writes in Bay Windows:

The more interesting question concerns Sontag herself. Given that we know Sontag was a woman who enjoyed sexually intimate relationships with other women (indeed, Sontag's friend Doug Ireland recalls in a blog post published the day Sontag died that, "We often talked about sexuality - she was quite amusing in recounting her own amorous adventures with women,") what does it mean that Sontag, given her feminism, her progressive politics, and her commitment to human rights - would not publicly identify herself as a lesbian?

One possible, even obvious, answer is that Sontag's career benefited by her remaining closeted.

That's the conclusion many are now reaching. And what it reveals is something interesting about the left - that the very identity politics it promotes can be so limiting that an intellectual of the left would actively dissuade public reporting of her being gay, so as not to be reduced to a "lesbian intellectual."

That might have served Sontag's career, but it unfortunately reinforced some very negative cultural attitudes (not just, of course, on the left) that must be confronted by those of us who are openly gay and don't want that to be viewed as limiting whatever else we may choose to accomplish in public life.

0 Comments

It Was a Good Bad Year

by on

New Year's is a time for looking at where we've been and where we're going. It's a time for resolutions, such as "I resolve not to eat so much and spend so much during next year's holiday season." (Yeah, sure.)

As a college professor, I tend to organize my life in terms of the academic calendar, not the regular calendar. Years begin in September and end in May, and June through August is "free time," sort of. Actually, it bugs me when people tell me I have summers "off": just because I'm not teaching doesn't mean I'm not working, okay? Or do you think my articles and columns write themselves?

(Memo to self: resolve to be less defensive in 2005.)

So when New Year's rolls around, the "year" I look back on has really been only four months long. And how has the last four months been?

Pretty lousy, actually.

Before reacting, do me a favor. Please do not tell me "Yes, I understand. That horrible election..."

I agree that the election was upsetting. But to give you some perspective, let me tell you about my life over the last few months:

Early September: I am harassed by a large, armed Texas state trooper who after seeing me kiss another guy tells me that "homosexual conduct is against the law." Although I cite Lawrence v. Texas and point out that Texas state law never banned mere kissing, he maintains his position. I relent, he lets me go, and the following week I file a formal complaint. (More on that later.)

Late September: A close friend commits suicide. 32 years old, bright, attractive, talented. Now dead. Turns out that, among various other problems, he had become involved with crystal meth.

Early October: My grandmother dies. Certainly more expected than my friend's death, but still a terrible blow. She was one of the first people I came out to, and she's always been one of my great supporters. Grandma Tess, rest in peace.

Late October: One week after burying his mother, my father is fired from his job. He and my mother decide to leave New York and retire to Texas, close to my sister, where the cost of living is better. (Be sure to say hi to my favorite trooper!). I am briefly reminded that Dad, my hero, is not invincible.

Early November: the election. Yes, it's bad. But by comparison with other things happening in my life, it seems like a minor blip.

Late November: my sister undergoes surgery. She's fine, but Mom and Dad - who have had their share of challenges in the past month - are further drained emotionally.

Early December: I discover that I need a new roof on my house - soon. A very costly new roof. (Better not ask Dad for help.)

So, how am I doing?

Just fine, thank you.

Abraham Lincoln once said that most folks are about as happy as they make up their minds to be. He was right.

This is not to say that we don't face challenges that threaten our well being. But if we constantly dwell on the challenges, and never look at the "bright side," we're guaranteed to be miserable.

Admittedly, there is no "bright side" to a friend's suicide. But I am thankful for my own health and well being. I'm thankful, too, that my sister is recovering well.

I'm thankful for 35 years of knowing a wonderful grandmother. Some people never know their grandparents. I knew all four (two still living) as well as five of my eight great-grandparents.

I'm thankful that my parents, who worked hard for many years, are able to retire comfortably. I'm thankful that, although I'll have to tighten my belt in 2005, somehow I'm managing to pay for my new roof.

I'm thankful that I live in a country that holds regular elections. I'm thankful that my partner and I have a wonderful life together, even without recognition from the shortsighted Michigan voters who supported Proposal 2. I'm thankful we have the freedoms that we do.

And I'm thankful that the ignorant trooper who harassed me is being put on six months probation, was given a formal written reprimand, and will be required to take additional classes on Texas state law. Sometimes the system does work.

2004 wasn't so bad after all. Resolve to be happy in 2005.

0 Comments