Barney Frank digs in, again slamming ‘Uncle Tom’ Log Cabin Republicans

Editorial

Barney Frank

Congressman Barney Frank today released the following statement as a follow-up to his recent comments during the Democratic National Convention about the Log Cabin Republicans.

I am not surprised that members of the Log Cabin Republicans are offended by my comparing them to Uncle Tom.  They are no more offended than I am by their campaigning in the name of LGBT rights to elect the candidate and party who diametrically oppose our rights against a President who has forcefully and effectively supported our rights.

That is the first reason for my admittedly very harsh criticism.  This election is clearly one in which there is an extremely stark contrast between the two parties on LGBT rights.  The Democratic President and platform fully embrace all of the legal issues we are seeking to resolve in favor of equality.  The Republican candidate for President and the platform on which he runs vehemently oppose us in all cases.  On the face of this, for a group of largelyLGBT people to work for our strong opponent against our greatest ally is a betrayal of any supposed commitment to our legal equality.

But my use of “Uncle Tom” was based not simply on this awful fact that they have chosen to be actively on the wrong side of an election that will have an enormous impact on our right to equality, both in fact and in the public perception of the popularity of that cause.  If the Log Cabin Republicans – or their even more outlandish cousins, the oddly-named GOProud –were honestly to acknowledge that they let their own economic interests, or their opposition to strong environmental policies, or their belief that we need to be spending far more on the military or some other reason ahead of any commitment to LGBTequality, and on that ground have decided to prefer the anti-LGBT candidate to the supportive one, I would disagree with the values expressed, but would have no complaint about their logic.

The damaging aspect of the Log Cabin argument, to repeat the most important point, is that they may mislead people who do not share their view that tax cuts for the wealthy are more important than LGBT rights into thinking that they are somehow helping the latter by supporting Mitt Romney and his Rick Santorum platform.

It is a good thing for Republicans to try to influence other Republicans to be supportive of LGBT rights.  The problem is when they pretend to be successful when they haven’t been, and urge people to join them in rewarding the Republicans when they have in fact continued their anti-LGBT stance.  I have been hearing the Log Cabin Republicans proclaim for years that they were improving the view of that party towards our legal equality.  In fact, over the past 20 years, things have gotten worse, not better.  Most recently, on DOMA, when the House Republicans offered an amendment to reaffirm it, they voted 98% in favor of it, while Democrats voted more than 90% against the amendment.  And it is not surprising that they have not been successful.  Giving strong political support to people who are maintaining their anti-LGBTstance is hardly an effective strategy for getting them to change it.

The argument Mr. Cooper and the others in the Log Cabin Republicans have put forward in their defense is that they have succeeded in getting the Republicans to reduce the extent to which they denounce us, and, in Mr. Cooper’s phrase, the fact that Paul Ryan is “willing to engage” with gay Republicans.  That is where Uncle Tom comes to mind.  They are urging people to vote for the anti-LGBT candidate over the most supportive LGBTcandidate and platform imaginable because the “antis” are calling us fewer names and are willing to talk to some of us.  It is this willingness to acquiesce in a subordinate status as long as the masters are kinder in tone, although in substance, that emulates Uncle Tom.

I note Mr. Cooper points to a couple of Republicans as reasons for supporting that party and helping advance its anti-LGBT crusade.  As to Representative Ryan, in addition to his “willingness to engage with them,” Mr. Cooper cites his vote for the Employment Nondiscrimination Act.  In fact, Paul Ryan has an overwhelmingly anti-LGBT voting record, including opposition to the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” and a transgender-inclusive hate crimes bill, and support for a constitutional amendment not just to ban future same-sex marriages but to dissolve existing ones.  It is true that on one occasion he voted for ENDA, but he did so only after voting minutes before for a Republican procedural maneuver – a motion to recommit the bill – which falsely invoked the specter that passage of ENDA would compel same-sex marriage and which, if it had passed, would have killed the bill.  In other words, Paul Ryanhas always voted against us, except for one occasion when he voted for us only after first trying to make the bill he theoretically supported inoperative.

Mr. Cooper also cites Susan Collins.  She was very good on the question of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”  But the argument that supporting Susan Collins advances LGBT rights ignores the fact that Senator Collins has twice defeated Democrats who were far more supportive of our issues than she was.  And an example of that is the current referendum in the state of Maine on marriage.  We have a very good chance of winning in Maine, and winning a referendum is important both for the substantive rights of the people in Maine and for the political point that it demonstrates.  Unlike the two Democratic Representatives from Maine, Chellie Pingree and Mike Michaud, Susan Collins has been stubbornly silent.  That is, in a state where marriage is on the ballot, and in a year in which she is not up for reelection, Senator Collins is withholding her support from us, unlike any Democrat who would have run against her.  And remember, these are the best that the Log Cabin Republicans can cite.

Some have complained that in comparing the Log Cabin Republicans toUncle Tom, I was ignoring the fact that they are nice.  I accept the fact that many of them are nice – so was Uncle Tom – but in both cases, they’ve been nice to the wrong people.

ADDENDUM

Recent headlines in the Washington Blade make the point as clearly as I did.  In the August 10^th issue, a headline proclaims that the “Log Cabin seeks to purge anti-gay language from Republican [platform] document.”  In the August 31^st issue, another headline states that “Republicans affirm anti-gay views in platform, speeches.”  In the September 7^th issue, a third headline reports that “Democrats embrace marriage; hundreds of LGBT delegates take part.”

 

Read the original story at LGBTWeekly

Romney’s Insensitivity To LGBT People: ‘I Didn’t Know You Had Families’

By Zack Ford

Boston Spirit magazine has dug a bit deeper into Mitt Romney’s past interactions with LGBT people, particularly during his time as governor. Many of these stories are known: his firing of two state employees ostensibly for marrying their same-sex partners, his dissolution of the Governor’s Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth,  his blocking of an anti-bullying guide because it contained the words “bisexual” and “transgender,” and histestimony against marriage equality to the Senate Judiciary Committee after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled the state’s ban was unconstitutional. But this new profile illustrates a more profound level of insensitivity to the experience of LGBT people than his past position statements suggest.

David Wilson and Julie Goodridge, two of the plaintiffs whose case led to the legalization of marriage equality in Massachusetts, described meeting with Romney to discuss their experiences. According to Wilson, “it was like talking to a robot. No expression, no feeling.” At one point, Romney remarked, “I didn’t know you had families.” Goodridge recalls her final exchange with the governor, which proved to her that he had “no capacity for empathy”:

GOODRIDGE: Governor Romney, tell me — what would you suggest I say to my 8 year-old daughter about why her mommy and her ma can’t get married because you, the governor of her state, are going to block our marriage?

ROMNEY: I don’t really care what you tell your adopted daughter. Why don’t you just tell her the same thing you’ve been telling her the last eight years.

Romney described the meeting to the press as “pleasant,” as Goodridge cried.

This lack of understanding for the experience of same-sex families seems to have played out even on the occasions in which he was open to supporting LGBT protections. Josh Friedes, who once served as advocacy director for the Massachusetts Freedom to Marry Coalition, explained Romney’s business-informed rationale:

FRIEDES: He made clear that he was willing to listen to business leaders about the issue of family recognition. The impression was that if business leaders told him certain benefits and protections would increase the productivity of gay workers, he would be open to supporting those. … It was not really about what these protections would do for gay families, but what they would do for the titans of industry… It felt like there was a lord/serf relationship.

Ardith Wieworka knows she cannot prove that she was fired as the state’s Office of Child Care Services just because she was going to marry her same-sex partner, but she remembers what Romney’s administration told her when they fired her: they wanted someone more “like them.”

Read the original at Think Progress

Dan Savage vs. Brian Brown – The Dinner Table Debate

Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage, and Dan Savage, writer of the Savage Love column, met at Savage’s home in Seattle for dinner and a debate over same-sex marriage and the Bible.

Lincoln, Neb., LGBT ‘fairness ordinance’ unlikely to appear on ballot

LINCOLN, Neb. — A proposed ordinance which would prohibit discrimination against LGBT people in the areas of employment, housing and public accommodations in Lincoln, Neb., will likely not appear on the November ballot.

A member of Lincoln Mayor Chris Beutler’s staff confirmed to LGBTQ Nation on Thursday that the “fairness amendment” would have to be on Monday’s City Council agenda in order to meet the Lancaster County election commissioner’s Sept. 4 deadline.

But the council’s agenda, released today, makes no mention of the ballot issue, reported the Lincoln Journal-Star.

Lancaster County election commissioner David J. Shively said that in order for the measure to appear on the ballot, the language for the ballot issue would have to be on the council’s agenda by Monday, August 20.

“After much discussion with Carl Eskridge (the city councilman who has been promoting the fairness issue), it was decided the issue would not be on the November ballot.” said Diane Gonzolas, a spokeswoman for the mayor.

“Councilman Eskridge will be discussing the future of the fairness ordinance and vote when he returns to Lincoln next week,” she said.
The “Fairness Ordinance” added sexual orientation and gender identity to the city’s non-discrimination law and passed with a 5-0 vote May 14 with the two Republican council members abstaining. However, citizens can seek a referendum on any newly passed ordinance by collecting enough signatures in a 15-day period.

The Nebraska Family Council and Family First gathered petitions, collection 10,092 signatures by the deadline, forcing the council to put the measure up for a referendum vote by city residents, or let the ordinance die, reported the Journal-Star.

Legally, a resolution with the “fairness” language could be introduced as late as the August 27 council meeting, with a hearing and vote on the same day, according to City Clerk Joan Ross.

But for now, unless the council takes action and places the issue on a future ballot as an amendment to the city charter, the ordinance has effectively been killed off by its opponents.

 Read the original story at LGBTQNation

Smith becomes first gay general officer to serve openly

With her promotion to brigadier general on Friday, Tammy Smith, right, acknowledged publicly for the first time that she is gay. Her wife, Tracey Hepner, left, co-founded the Military Partners and Families Coalition, a key voice in the debate over benefits and military programs for same-sex partners. (Photo: Servicemembers Legal Defense Network)

WASHINGTON — Army reserve officer Tammy Smith calls her recent promotion to brigadier general exciting and humbling, saying it gives her a chance to be a leader in advancing Army values and excellence.

What she glosses over is that along with the promotion she is also publicly acknowledging her sexuality for the first time, making her the first general officer to come out as gay while still serving. It comes less than a year after the end of the controversial “don’t ask, don’t tell” law.

“All of those facts are irrelevant,” she said. “I don’t think I need to be focused on that. What is relevant is upholding Army values and the responsibility this carries.”

But Smith’s pinning ceremony on Friday marks an important milestone for gay rights advocates, giving the movement its most senior public military figure. She has already been assigned as deputy chief at the Office of the Chief at the Army Reserve, and spent much of 2011 serving in Afghanistan.

Stars and Stripes interviewed Smith last summer before the “don’t ask, don’t tell” repeal was finalized. Speaking under a pseudonym, she said she had no plans to come out to her colleagues, but was looking forward to the relief of knowing that her career wouldn’t be threatened if she was found out.

“Finally my partner and I will be able to go out and have drinks together without worrying,” she said then.

A year later, Smith, 49, said she is still more focused on the work ahead than the significance of her personal life. But her wife, Tracey Hepner, said the last year has been a dramatic transformation for both of them.

“The support we’ve received has been amazing,” she said. “I wasn’t surprised that people were so accepting, but in some cases it has been even celebratory. It’s like nothing has really changed for us, and yet everything has changed.”

Smith’s wife is much more of an activist than she is. Hepner co-founded the Military Partners and Families Coalition, a key voice in the debate over benefits and military programs for same-sex partners.

Friday’s private promotion ceremony for Smith wasn’t the first that Hepner has attended, but it was the first where the pair didn’t have to hide any details of their relationship. The pair have been together for more than a decade.

Advocates noted that Smith is not the first gay general officer, just the first who is able to serve without hiding that fact for fear of her career.

“It is a great day for our military and for our nation when this courageous leader is finally able to recognize her wife for her support and sacrifice in the same way that all military families should be recognized for their service to our country,” said Sue Fulton, an Army veteran and a member of the OutServe board of directors.

Servicemembers Legal Defense Network Executive Director Aubrey Sarvis called Smith a role model for all senior enlisted troops and officers.

“[She] made history today, not only as an exemplary servicemember who renders outstanding service to our nation with integrity and honor, but as a proud lesbian acknowledging the tremendous sacrifice her family makes in order for her to serve and advance,” he said.

For her part, Smith downplayed any talk about her place in history.

“For me, the story is about the promotion and the opportunities it brings,” she said.

Read the original story at Stars and Stripes

The Battle Begins: Ryan Vs LGBT Rights, Catholic Bishops, More

Posted by: Bridgette P. LaVictoire on August 12, 2012.

Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin

“The House-passed budget resolution fails to meet these moral criteria.” stated the US Conference of Catholic Bishops to Representative Paul Ryan. Sister Simone Campbell stated that Ryan’s budget “rejects church teaching about solidarity, inequality, the choice for the poor, and the common good. That’s wrong.” The faculty of the Jesuit affiliated Georgetown University told Ryan that “Your budget appears to reflect the values of your favorite philosopher, Ayn Rand, rather than the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Her call to selfishness and her antagonism toward religion are antithetical to the Gospel values of compassion and love.”

It has been twenty-four hours since the announcement of Paul Ryan as Mitt Romney’s running mate, and it still does not look good. From video of Ryan attacking the nation’s military leadership to the rank opposition to his budget from religious groups, Ryan could be a disaster, or at least as David Frum put it, a drag on the ticket.

The Romney Campaign has managed to set the world record for naming a running mate and then throwing him under the bus. Romney has already started to try and distance himself from the Ryan Budget even though he has recently praised it and even been said to be willing to sign it. Kevin Madden, a Romney spokesman, stated “Gov. Romney is at the top of the ticket. And Governor Romney’s vision for the country is something that Congressman Ryan supports.”

The Romney Campaign even sent out these talking points:

1) Does this mean Mitt Romney is adopting the Paul Ryan plan?

· Gov. Romney applauds Paul Ryan for going in the right direction with his budget, and as president he will be putting together his own plan for cutting the deficit and putting the budget on a path to balance.

· Romney’s administration will go through the budget line by line and ask two questions: Can we afford it? And, if not, should we borrow money from China to pay for it?

· Mitt Romney will start with the easiest cut of all: Obamacare, a trillion-dollar entitlement we don’t want and can’t afford.

· Mitt Romney also laid out commonsense reforms that will make good on our promises to today’s seniors and save Social Security and Medicare for future generations.

2) Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan have different views on some policy areas — like Medicare spending, entitlement reform, labor, etc. — do you think those differences are going to hurt or help?

· Of course they aren’t going to have the same view on every issue. But they both share the view that this election is a choice about two fundamentally different paths for this country. President Obama has taken America down a path of debt and decline. Romney and Ryan believe in a path for America that leads to more jobs, less debt and smaller government. So, while you might find an issue or two where they might not agree, they are in complete agreement on the direction that they want to lead America

Which seems to be along the lines of someone saying that ‘we’re going to spin the Ryan Budget into something else, but we’re going to actually just stick with it.’ So far, Romney has been unwilling to do more than talk in generalizations about his plans for the economy and government hoping that no one will notice. This makes it very easy for the Democrats to attack the Romney Campaign using the Ryan Budget.

David Axelrod, Obama’s senior adviser, called Ryan a “right wing ideologue”, and stated “It is a pick that is meant to thrill the most strident voices in the Republican Party, but it’s one that should trouble everybody else – the middle class, seniors, students.” Jim Messina, Obama’s campaign manager, stated that “The architect of the radical Republican House budget, Ryan, like Romney, proposed an additional $250,000 tax cut for millionaires and deep cuts in education, from Head Start to college aid. His plan would also end Medicare as we know it by turning it into a voucher system, shifting thousands of dollars in health care costs to seniors.”

Ryan, who used his father’s Social Security death benefits to go to college and has little in the way of private business experience, has had some praise and some defenders. Mark McKinnon at The Daily Beast stated:

A failure to act. A terrible, stunning legacy for any leader. But far worse when it is the president of the United States. And that’s the point driven home by Mitt Romney’s selection of the young Paul Ryan as his running mate. For Ryan dared to lead when Barack Obama did not.

After more than three years of what promised to be a historic, transcendent presidency, the nation still faces record unemployment, with nearly $16 trillion in debt and the looming insolvency of Social Security and Medicare. Yet Congress is paralyzed. And the president appears powerless to heal divides or change the direction of the country.

McKinnon apparently forgets the fact that Obama did lead, but that the Republicans did everything in their power to undermine and block Obama’s attempts at leadership. What is more, Ryan appears to be leading in the same way that the 7th Earl Cardigan lead. For those who do not know him, he was the Lieutenant General who lead one of the most celebrated defeats in military history- the Charge of the Light Brigade.

Romney Campaign surrogates are already trying to spin the Ryan VP nomination into something that they can use or at least deflect from. For instance, RNC Chairman Reince Priebus stated that Obama “stole $700 billion from Medicare to fund Obamacare. If any person in this entire debate has blood on their hands in regard to Medicare, it’s Barack Obama. He is the one that’s destroying Medicare.”

This is, of course, a blatant lie. The reduction in money going to Medicare are not cuts, but reductions in spending as people are shifted off of Medicare into other insurance structures. The Huffington Post notes that:

Republicans frequently use this Medicare talking point, even though it’s false. While the Affordable Care Act does reduce Medicare spending, as Politifact has explained, “Those dollars aren’t taken out of the current budget, they are not actual cuts, and nowhere does the bill actually eliminate any current benefits.”

Instead of targeting beneficiaries, the spending cuts largely come from reduced payments to hospitals, discounts on prescription drugs and cuts to private insurers under Medicare Advantage.

With regards to his social views, Paul Ryan stated in his acceptance of the nomination that “Our rights come from nature and from God, not government. That’s who we are. We promise equal opportunity, not equal outcomes.” This, of course, flies in the face of what the Founding Fathers believed.

With regards to LGBT rights, Ryan would rather not talk about them. In this video, at around 1:55, Ryan downplays the importance of marriage equality. He also voted against repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act, no longer supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and wants a Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage and civil unions. In 2007, he stated that gays do not have a choice in being gay, but we are not sure if that is his position today. Of course, his theocratic views of government means that he would rather ignore the idea that LGBT people are born that way and, instead, punish them for being born as they are.

Read the original post at Lez Get Real

HRC: Romney-Ryan ticket out of touch with Americans on LGBT equality

LGBTQNation Staff Reports

The Human Rights Campaign – the nation’s largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender civil rights organization – on Saturday denounced presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney’s selection of Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) as his vice-presidential running mate.

Paul Ryan (left) and Mitt Romney

Ryan’s voting record in Congress – and his public remarks – make it clear that he does not support the dignity of LGBT Americans; a matter on which he is out-of-touch with the majority of Americans – even those within the Republican Party, the HRC said, in a statement.

“Paul Ryan does not support LGBT families, and has voted against allowing gay and lesbian couples to adopt. He voted against hate crime protections. He opposed repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” and he does not support marriage equality.

“Recent polling shows just how out-of-touch Ryan’s positions on LGBT equality are: support for marriage equality stands at 54 percent nationwide, with those between the ages of 18 – 34 supporting marriage equality by 73 percent; according to a June CNN/ORC International Survey. Nearly 50 percent of Republicans under the age of 35 also support marriage equality, according to an NBC News/WSJ poll.”

“Ryan’s record of voting against fairness, dignity and equality is out of touch with the majority of Americans and a fast growing majority of Republicans,” said HRC President Chad Griffin. “LGBT Americans need leadership that will continue to fight for their rights to protect their families, marry the person they love, and enjoy equal protections under the law.”

“Mitt Romney’s record is no better than Ryan’s on matters of LGBT equality. Romney does not support relationship recognition for LGBT people – making him even more conservative on LGBT issues than former President George W. Bush, who supported civil unions while in office.

“Romney views workplace protections for LGBT people as an “unfair burden on employers,” and he does not acknowledge the dignity and respect LGBT families deserve. As a signer of the National Organization for Marriage’s (NOM) “marriage pledge,” Mitt Romney has committed himself to vigorously pursuing a federal marriage amendment – a goal his running mate shares; defending the Defense of Marriage Act; and even setting up a McCarthy-like commission to investigate those who do not support NOM’s anti-LGBT views.

“In the House, Ryan voted against hate crimes protections for LGBT people twice. He does not support marriage equality – in fact, he has twice supported the Federal Marriage Amendment that would ban loving, committed same-sex couples from marrying, and he supported a similar constitutional amendment in his home state of Wisconsin. Ryan does not support LGBT families – he voted in favor of banning gay and lesbian couples from adopting in the nation’s capital. He also voted against repealing ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’”

More on Paul Ryan’s anti-LGBT votes are available at HRC’s Congressional Scorecards. For more on Mitt Romney’s anti-LGBT positions, click here.

Read the original article at LGBTQNation

Christians Who Are Against LGBT Misuse The Bible

by Greg Carey

I offended a friend recently. It’s not something I like to do, as I’m more of a conflict avoider, but here’s what I said:

I used to think that Christians who oppose the civil rights and full participation of LGBT persons simply happened to disagree with me about a very important issue. I now regard that assumption as naïve. People either use religion to justify their bigotry or they refuse to give up their bigotry for the sake of maintaining false religious security. In the end it’s all bigotry.

My friend expressed dismay. In his mind my harsh judgment shuts down conversation. Yes, that’s probably true. But who is the victim here? My friend may pretend to be the victim, but he’s not. The real victims are the countless gay and transgender people who are victimized by the church every day. In many contexts right-wing Christians actively persecute sexual minorities. From the pulpit pastors have recommended striking little boys who fail the masculinity text. I’m sorry if the truth shuts down a conversation, but let’s be clear on who’s hurting whom here.

Hiding behind the Bible doesn’t exempt us from responsibility for our beliefs and behaviors. The Bible is a complicated book. Using the Bible to condemn sexual minorities requires that people make a series of choices and assumptions. Let’s examine those choices and assumptions.

First, people assume that the Bible is a sort of rule book that “teaches” us what to think about countless issues, including sex. But the Bible doesn’t say anything directly about “homosexuality” — and yes, I know about each one of the passages people use to justify discrimination. Several passages do condemn same-sex sex; then again David found Jonathan’s love greater than that of women (2 Samuel 1:26), while Jesus healed a centurion’s “boy” (Greek: pais) without any comment on that relationship (Matthew 8:5-13; Luke 7:1-10).

Whatever proof texts one side or the other cooks up, the Bible simply doesn’t work as a rule book. That’s why very few Christians want biblical government (judges and kings!), why we ignore biblical finance (no banking industry!) and why we have abandoned biblical cosmology (in which heaven is somewhere “up there”). Treating the Bible as a rule book has justified all sorts of evil, including genocide, slavery, segregation and women’s subordination. Ignoring the context of Paul’s teaching, many domestic rapists appeal to Scripture. They know that Paul tells women they owe sex to their men (1 Corinthians 7:3-6). This is not how to use the Bible.

Second, many apply an interpretive double standard to homosexuality. Simply, the Bible has a lot to say about sex and gender, and Christians — all Christians — conveniently skip by the scary stuff. We don’t require rape victims to marry their rapists (Deuteronomy 22:28-29); we don’t tell women to lay off the jewelry (1 Peter 3:3); and we choose not to remember that the Bible provides specific instructions for the sexual use and marriage of slave girls (Exodus 21:7-11). We even ignore the New Testament’s teachings — and they are diverse — on divorce (compare Mark 10:2-12 with Matthew 19:3-12 and 1 Corinthians 7:10-16). Yet somehow we think the Bible directly condemns LGBT persons. It’s pretty clear: We straight people apply the Bible to the sex lives LGBT folk in ways we’d never apply it to our own.

Third, the appeal to Scripture to condemn sexual minorities requires that we ignore the vast cultural gap between the ancient world and our own. Again, hypocrisy comes into the picture. When we read the biblical prophets, we ask ourselves about their historical contexts. Who were the Assyrians, was the prophet addressing Israel or Judah, and what can we know about the politics of that time? When we read Paul’s letters, Christians automatically wonder about the circumstances Paul is addressing. What can we know about the local culture, the ongoing conversations that motivate Paul to write, and popular popular religious and philosophical movements in the ancient world.

These are routine questions for Christians. But when it comes to sex we ignore the astonishing gap between the ancient world and our own. Not one biblical marriage resembles marriage in our society. No biblical couple meets, falls in love and mutually chooses a lifetime of companionship. (Some would see Ruth as an exception, but Ruth marries for survival.) So patriarchal was the culture that the Bible defines adultery only in terms of one man’s offense against another, with everything depending on the woman’s status as married or betrothed. (Many people are surprised to learn this.) This is not to deny that ancient couples grew to love one another deeply; it is simply to point out how far our culture is removed from that of the Bible.

Likewise, our concepts of “homosexuality,” sexual orientation and gender identity have no counterparts in the ancient world. Free adult men frequently had sex with their wives, with prostitutes, with male and female slaves, and with other people they could find. In the ancient world same-sex sex was almost always exploitative in nature. No one was talking about homosexual identity or seeking egalitarian same-sex marriage in the ancient world. When it comes to homosexuality, the Bible simply isn’t talking about what we’re talking about. Those who misuse the Bible to condemn gays choose to ignore this reality.

I suspect that many Christians hold on to an anti-gay stance out of fear. Having been told the Bible condemns homosexuality, they assume that embracing sexual justice implies defying God’s Word. Many Christians I talk to feel they can rely on the Bible for direct guidance concerning everyday affairs. If the Bible won’t hold up to that use for whatever reason, they fear they might lose their moral compass and chaos might ensue. But the Bible has never delivered that sort of certainty, nor can it. That’s why every town has dozens of fundamentalist churches that think they’re the only ones who have it right. There’s no avoiding the problem of interpretation — or the responsibility that goes with it.

Julius Caesar said, “People believe what they want to believe.” Modern psychology has confirmed his wisdom: Our moral choices tend to reflect our biases and passions more than an unbiased process of moral reflection. Let’s be honest: if you’re anti-gay, you’re anti-gay. Just don’t blame the Bible for your bigotry.

Read the original column at Huffington Post

 

Clinton hails gay rights activists in wary Uganda

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (L) meets with Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni at the State House in Kampala August 3, 2012. REUTERS/Jacquelyn Martin/Pool

By Andrew Quinn

KAMPALA | Fri Aug 3, 2012 3:30pm EDT

(Reuters) – U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Friday praised activists who opposed a tough draft law in Uganda targeting gays and lesbians, calling them an inspiration for others struggling to secure equal rights around the world.

Clinton presented a coalition of Ugandan rights groups with the State Department’s 2011 Human Rights Defender Award, a signal to African and Islamic nations that Washington will not backtrack in its fight against the legal and political persecution of homosexuals.

“It is critical for all Ugandans – the government and citizens alike – to speak out against discrimination, harassment, and intimidation of anyone. That’s true no matter where they come from, what they believe, or whom they love,” Clinton said.

Clinton said she raised the issue in talks on Friday with Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni, whose government has been accused of allowing political and religious leaders to drum up anti-gay feeling in the deeply conservative East African nation.

“You are a model for others and an inspiration for the world,” Clinton said to representatives of the group, formed in 2009 to combat draft legislation which proposed the death penalty for anyone convicted of “aggravated homosexuality”.

The bill, which spurred a global outcry, stalled in parliament but has been reintroduced in a watered down form by a member of Museveni’s party.

The new version dropped the death sentence, but would still outlaw the “promotion” of gay rights and punish anyone who “funds, sponsors or abets homosexuality”.

Clinton’s strong expression of support for Uganda’s beleaguered gay community came as she continued a seven-nation trip across Africa.

She began Friday with a visit to South Sudan, Africa’s newest nation, where she urged the new government in Juba to make a deal with their old rulers in Khartoum to resolve a dispute over oil revenues which has driven both countries to economic crisis.

On Saturday, she will continue on to Kenya, before heading south to Malawi and South Africa.

Read the original story ar Reuters

LGBT Rights: What have we learned from history?

by Maureen Gill

Between 1930 and the close of World War II, homosexuals found Washington, D.C. to be a safe environment to live and work.

Roosevelt’s New Deal provided opportunities for thousands of young people and many homosexuals were in this number and when World War II brought thousands of servicemen and women to Washington the city became well known for its tolerant “anything goes” attitude ­ an attitude that was also mirrored in the policies and practices of federal agencies that did not make judgments ­ or even inquire ­ about employees’ private lives.

(David K. Johnson brilliantly documents this history in his excellent book, “The Lavender Scare: The Cold War Persecution of Gays and Lesbians in the Federal Government.”

This climate of sexual freedom didn¹t last long.

The end of the war ushered in a period of international and national stress and gave rise to fear mongers who insisted morality was in rapid decline.

Historically, discussions about the decline of morality have almost always been subsumed into fears about national security, and the rise of McCarthyism was no different. Senator Joseph McCarthy charged that both communists and homosexuals had infiltrated the federal government and this, of course, was going to lead to the total destruction of America.

American historians do a fairly good job documenting and analyzing McCarthyism, but David Johnson¹s book demonstrates how the hysteria about communism went hand-in-glove with a cultural war on homosexuals.

Johnson shows how communists and homosexuals were viewed as pernicious subcultures that had secret meetings, subversive/perverted literature, unique cultural memes, and pathological loyalty. Communists and homosexuals were seen as able to insidiously corrupt and recruit those who were psychologically weak and disturbed and they were, of course, also seen as godless.

David Johnson writes that McCarthy¹s Republican colleagues asked him to drop claims that the State Department sheltered communists; they suggested he focus on the problem of homosexual infiltration instead. Republicans weren¹t alone in this; President Truman’s aides also thought homosexuals were a threat to national security.

Why was the emphasis shifted from communists to homosexuals?

Perhaps proving what a person does with the junk between his or her legs is easier than trying to figure out the junk buried between the ears but the most significant driving force behind the rise of the Lavender Scare was the belief homosexuals were susceptible to blackmail by enemy agents and easily coerced into revealing government secrets.

This is incredibly important so let¹s repeat it: the official rationale was that homosexuals could be used by communists because the shame associated with being outed was so catastrophic that a homosexual would choose to sell out the nation rather than face exposure.

A Senate subcommittee spent months investigating whether this was true and found no evidence that this was a reasonable assumption or that any homosexual had been blackmailed into revealing state secrets. The best the Senators could come up with was the well-known case of a WWI Austrian double-agent.

Undeterred, the Senate subcommittee issued a report stating that homosexuals posed a threat to national security. The report called for the firing of homosexuals from all federal offices.

Government records suggest several thousand gay men and lesbians lost government jobs but researchers like David Johnson believe the real number is much higher because many government workers voluntarily resigned rather than endure brutal, humiliating interrogations.

Also, thousands of private-sector employees whose jobs required them to hold a federal security clearance were also fired or resigned.

Although the government didn¹t disclose why a person was denied a security clearance, any denial had a chilling effect because many private companies fired or refused to promote anyone who couldn¹t obtain a government security clearance.

How can we use this history to advantage today?

Clearly, just as history has proven that homosexuals have marched with every major army in history and done so heroically, we now know that American homosexuals have no record of ever having sold out their country for fear of being exposed as a homosexual and if not then, certainly not now.

To me this seems to give more reason for a broad national acceptance of LGBT rights and one that we can perhaps justify as a national security measure.

Read the original article at LGBTQ Nation