June 2011 Archives

This morning, I read an article by Michael Gormley about the status of New York legislation that could bring about marriage equality here in the Empire State.  I've been following this story pretty closely in my private time and am excited that my state may soon allow me to marry my (hypothetical) partner rather than requiring me to elope to Massachusetts[1].  I practically cheered to learn that they only need one more state senator to sign on to guarantee passage.

Gormley reports that the current hold-up is discussions over religious protections:

Democrats and Republicans emerged from meetings with Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo and said there is progress toward proposed additional religious protections that could bring a gay marriage bill to the Senate floor for a vote as early as Wednesday night.

By the sounds of it, Cuomo and supporters are trying to take the teeth out of the old arguments currently be raised by the National Organization for Marriage of Moralists.  I'm a bit troubled by that, as the arguments about religious freedoms are all based on lies.  Truth be told, churches and religious organizations already have plenty of protections.  A minister or church cannot be compelled to host or perform any marriage -- even any opposite sex marriage -- they do not approve of.  Any stories about such nonsense (such as the Ocean Grove pavilion controversy) are usually misrepresented, and a careful examination of the facts demonstrate that the situation is not about religious freedom at all.  To be frank, the Religious Right crowd is fond of spreading misinformation to make themselves look like martyrs and to drive fear-based political action and decisions.

My pragmatic side almost wants to just shrug and give a thumbs up to the unnecessary "religious protections" that may get put into the new legislation.  After all, if such legislation forces NOM and company to shut up (or at least makes it easier for people to see their lies for what they are), then it's not all bad.  But then, I read this part of the article (emphasis mine):

More protection for religious organizations such as adoption agencies and marriage counselors is sought by undecided Republican senators who are key to the vote.

You see, the mention of adoption agencies tells me that someone is thinking about situations like what's going on with Catholic Charities in Illinois[2].  And this is the exact kind of lying that I'm talking about.  You see, NOM would have you believe that Catholic Charities in Illinois is being forced to close their adoption services if they continue discriminate against same sex couples.  However, that's not true, unless you assume that the rich and powerful Catholic church needs government assistance to do its charity work.

You see, that's the part that NOM and company fail to mention:  Catholic Charities operates their adoption services in Illinois (and elsewhere) under a government contract and with state funding.  And the state regulations require that any organization or business who uses taxpayer money to provide a service must not discriminate against anyone who seeks out that service.  This isn't a case of Catholic Charities losing their religious freedom.  When it comes to their adoption services, they gave up that freedom[3] when they became a contracted agent of the state funded by that same state.

If the religious protections in this new legislation goes on to say that religious groups can offer state-funded and state-contracted services and still discriminate, then those clauses are no longer about religious protections.  They are about state endorsements of religious privilege.  They are about using taxpayer money -- including gay taxpayers -- to support an agent of the state who is allowed to engage in discrimination while acting as an agent of the state.

And that's just not cool.  It's also why even my pragmatic side cannot get behind these so-called "religious protections," even if they do bring marriage equality to my state.  Because marriage equality that still allows religiously motivated agents of the state to discriminate against me isn't actually marriage equality.  It's still a form of second-class citizenship.



[1]  Seriously.  New York would consider me married right now if I went and had the ceremony in a state that already performs same-sex marriages, but will not currently allow me to have the ceremony here among my loved ones.  That's just a strange state of affairs.

[2] This also took place with Catholic Charities in Massachusetts and looks like it will be a common theme across the country.

[3]  In fairness, they only gave up that right in terms of how they conduct their state-contracted and state-funded services.  They're still free to give homily's about how gay people are inherently disordered to their heart's content.

Tuesday, I blogged about a recent CDC study that suggests that gay teens tend to engage in riskier behaviors than heterosexual teens.  Yesterday, Alvin McEwen drew attention to a blog post by Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage of Moralists that mentions this study.  Except that Brian tries to use the study to demonstrate that gay teens are "safer" in states that ban same-sex marriage than in states that have embraced such unions.  He does this by comparing some of the statistics for Wisconson and Massachusetts:

For example, about 25 percent of Massachusetts teens who self-identify as "gay" said they had missed schools because they felt unsafe, compared to 14 percent of Wisconsin teens. More than half (50.5 percent) of Massachusetts gay teens said they felt "sad or hopeless" compared to 29 percent of Wisconsin teens. Thirty-three percent of Massachusetts gay teens attempted suicide, compared to less than 20 percent of Wisconsin teens. Massachusetts gay teens were about twice as likely as Wisconsin gay teens to commit a suicide attempt serious enough to require medical care (15 percent to 8 percent). (By contrast, heterosexual teens in both states were about equally likely to have committed a suicide attempt that required medical care: around 2 percent.)

You see?  Brian Brown has shown that this survey says that kids do better in Wisconsin than they do in Massachusetts.  But Brown also plays with some of the figures from the study.  For example, Brown notes that a whopping 25% of Massachusetts teens that self-identify as gay miss school due to feeling unsafe, compared to 14% of teens in Wisconsin.  Those figures come out of Table 18 (page 27) of the study.  The problem is, Brian is comparing the wrong numbers.

The 14% of students in Wisconsin are students who (1) have had sexual contact and (2) have only had sexual contact with members of the same sex.  This percentage comes from a sample set that is defined by sexual activity, not self-identity.  That is a qualitative difference.  The importance of that of that difference become obvious when you look at the table, find the figure that corresponds to the group of Massachusetts students specified by sexual activity rather than self-identity, and discover the comparable figure in Massachusetts drops to 12.6%.*  We have nothing to compare the Massachusetts students who self-identify as gay with, because that data is not available for the state of Wisconsin.

Brian plays this same shell game with the other statistics he cites.  Comparing the correct figures makes the results for those two states much closer** together.  The fact that Brian plays the shell game to make his argument more compelling is particularly ironic hypocritical, as the whole point of his blog post is to whine that the media and homosexual activiists play with statistics to get them to say what they want.  I'm sure that some members of the media and gay people do exactly that.  However, I know Brian Brown does it.  I just showed you where he does it.

Of course, what's bizarre is that Brian brings up the CDC survey, not to discuss anti-gay bullying, but to defend his opposition to marriage equality by conflating the two issues:

Why is this stark clear evidence that marriage is not responsible for gay teens' suffering never, ever considered worthy of mention in the debates over bullying?

The answer to Brian's question is actually quite obvious:  No LGBT person I know considers the fact that same-sex marriage is not yet a reality to be a cause of anti-gay bullying.  No LGBT person I know considers achieving marriage equality to be the solution to ending anti-gay bullying.  GLSEN does not hand out "support marriage equality" buttons to raise awareness of or stop anti-gay bullying.  They hold the National Day of Silence.  They push schools and educators to create safe spaces for LGBT teens.  They push schools to adopt anti-bullying policies that explicitly mention LGBT students.  Dan Savage starts the It Gets Better campaign and associates it with the Trevor Project.

The only link that LGBT people make between marriage equality and anti-gay bullying is that they are both issues that arise out of the same anti-gay animus.  Beyond that, we understand that they are issues that need to be approached in different ways through solutions meant to address them appropriately.

It's people like Brian Brown and the other folks of NOM that tend to conflate such issues.  It's NOM who tried to link a California educational program about gender identity and bullying to marriage equality, for one example.  In reality, NOM tries to link this issue to anything that will scare people into fighting against marriage equality.  They do this because they know that they can't stand on their anti-gay animus alone.

Brian Brown and the rest of NOM are simply projecting their bad faith tactics onto us, their opponents intended victims.

---

* This does raise interesting questions as to what differences there are between students who self-identify as gay and those who have actually had sexual contact exlucisvely with members of the same sex.

** I'm hoping Erin will confirm or correct me on this, but based on the CI values, I believe ate least some of these percentages are too close to really comment on which state is better or worse, statistically speaking.

Last night after I got home from my coven's business meeting, my seventeen year old unofficial godson* sent me a text asking if we could make a run to Dunkin Donuts before school in the morning.  He explained that he had some exciting news he wanted to share with me.  He explained he couldn't tell me over the phone, despite my efforts to talk him into doing so.  I finally relented and went to bed, agreeing I'd find out in the morning.

So this morning, I got up, showered, and headed out to pick him up.  As he climbed into my car, he handed me an envelope made of heavier paper -- the kind of paper some greeting cards come in.  I flipped it over and saw the envelope was addressed to him.  Then I saw the return address on it.  Whatever I was about to look at, it had come from the White House.  You know, the one at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.  In Washington D.C.  I was excited.

I pulled out the first piece of cardstock in the envelope and began to read a beautifully printed invitation for my godson to attend the White House LGBT reception later this month.  I took a few seconds to let what I was reading sink in, then I hugged my godson tight.  (Not an easy task when you're buckled into the driver's seat of a Mercury Sable, let me tell you.)

We're not exactly sure how someone at the White House got his name.  I'm guessing that someone from GLSEN's national office submitted it, as he's had some involvement at the national level** and is a student member of our local chapter's board of directors.  Between that and his involvement with the local LGBT community center and his school GSA (holding leadership roles in all of them, no less), it's no surprise that his name got submitted, really.  In fact, the invitation is a testament to and wonderful reward for everything he's done.  He's proud and excited about going to the White House.  And I don't blame him.

I'm proud of him too.  And maybe a little jealous.  ;)

----

*  Godfather and godson are the best terms we've come up to describe the friendship that has developed between the two of us, though our use implies no official status as such.

** That includes having his picture appear on both the national website and the promotional literature for GLSEN's Safe Space campaign.

I ran across an AP article this morning that says that some research suggests that LGB teens* are more likely to engage in risky behavior than their heterosexual counterparts.  According to the article:

Investigators asked about dozens of risky behaviors, ranging from not wearing a bicycle helmet, to drug use, to attempting suicide. Gay, lesbian and bisexual students reported worse behavior in half to 90 percent of the risk categories, depending on the survey site.

The article goes on to give statistics on cigarette usage, suicide attempts, and purging:

• About 8 percent to 19 percent of heterosexual students said they currently smoke cigarettes; 20 percent to 48 percent of gay and lesbian students smoked.
• About 4 to 10 percent of heterosexual students said they attempted suicide in the previous year. For gay and lesbian students: 15 percent to 34 percent. For bisexual students: 21 percent to 32 percent.
• About 3 percent to 6 percent of heterosexual students said they threw up or used laxatives to lose weight or stay thin. For gay and lesbian students: 13 percent to 20 percent. For bisexual students: 12 percent to 17.5 percent.

At first glance, it might seem strange to talk about not wearing a bike helmet and suicide attempts in the same article.  However, when you consider that both behaviors are inherently self-destructive and an indicator of self-image and self-worth issues, it makes perfect sense.  When people don't value themselves as much as they should, they tend not to care as much what happens to themselves or take proper care of themselves.

Unfortunately, the anti-gay crowd does not help this, when it comes to LGB youth*.  The anti-gay crowd is invested in stigmatizing them, encouraging them to feel bad about themselves and lower their sense of self-worth.**  They tell these youth how horrible it is to be gay, and all the horrible things that means about them.  They tell these youth how bad their life is going to be, painting a "gay lifestyle" that must be by its very nature filled with self-destructive behaviors.

One thing anyone who has worked with children and teens will tell you is that if you tell a child or teen long enough that they're bad and they do bad things, a teen is going to decide to do those things.  So in effect the anti-gay crowd is engaging -- and I have to assume at this point that it's done knowingly -- in pushing a self-fulfilling prophecy.

And of course, once the fruits of their smear campaign starts showing, they self-righteously point to the self-destructive behavior and insist it's because "gay people know that what they're doing is wrong."  Note how it turns into a vicious cycle.  One that we QUILTBAG adults and our allies need to break.

It's important that we remind the QUILTBAG youth in our communities that the anti-gay crowd is lying to them.  We need to remind them that they are worth far more than the anti-gay crowd want them to know.  We need to remind them that they deserve to treat themselves with care and respect rather than engaging in risky, self-destructive behavior.  Because QUILTBAG youth are being inundated with some awful messages, and they are listening.  We need to make sure they hear and listen to our message too.

Our message to QUILTBAG youth is that they are better than that.

---

* I suspect the same can be said about all QUILTBAG teens, but that would be pure extrapolation on my part, not something supported by the studies mentioned.

** Oh, the anti-gay crowd will tell you that it's untrue and that they only want such youths to "find freedom from homosexuality."  But first, they have to convince those same youths that they're sexual orientation is the same as "bondage."

A recent article on Medical News Today reports that there's a certain class of young gay men who are particularly susceptible to HIV infection right now:

Gay young men in serious relationships are six times more likely to have unprotected sex than those who hook up with casual partners, according to new Northwestern Medicine research.

The article goes on to explain how this tendency, combined with the fact that young men often don't get tested frequently enough, makes those in serious relationships vulnerable to HIV infection.

I've seen this in action.  To some degree*, I've even been guilty of it.  It's far too easy to fall into the belief that HIV is a problem that mostly -- or even only -- affects those gay men who visit bath houses or goes cruising in parks.  It's easy to tell ourselves that as long as we tend towards serious relationships and only have a few partners -- all serially, of course -- and only get involved with men who do the same, we'll be safe.  And to be honest, given the way some of us -- even those of who know better and are careful even when we're in a monogamous relationship -- reinforce this idea, it's not surprising.

How do we reinforce this idea?  By the way we talk about and treat those men who do visit bath houses or go cruising.  I've seen so many gay men call these "promiscuous" men irresponsible** and automatically accuse them of getting and spreading STD's.  And I've seen many gay men assume that if a guy happens to be HIV+ or have any other STD, he must have been "promiscuous."

And that's how you get young men who assume that HIV and STD's are a problem for men who cruise or hook up.  Because the rest of us send them that message by our words and actions, even if it's unintentional.  Those young men don't hear -- at least not as loudly -- that they don't have to have hundreds of sex partners to get HIV or any other STD.  People who only have two or three partners*** can become infected, especially if one of those partners hasn't been tested because he figures he's HIV- and STD-free simply because he has only had one or two partners who seemed to be STD-free at the time.

Let's quite pretending that being HIV+ or having an STD is a sign of "promiscuity."  It's unfair to everyone and especially harmful to young men who assume they must be safe if they can still count the number of partners they've had on one hand.

h/t Edge on the Net

---

* Though as a rule, I still used protection.

** Some of them may well be irresponsible, but it's still an assumption made without evedence.

*** Let's face it, the likelihood of any of us meeting our perfect life-partner the first time and never having sex again is low.

Personal Failure linked to and responded to a post about religious devotion.  Her response understandably focused on the slight the post made against atheists.  I wanted to explore this post a bit more myself though as someone who is also a strong believer in religious devotion*

After giving his speech about the importance of piety -- a word I might have personally avoided, given the immense negative connotations that have gotten attached to it and even made their way into the dictionary definitions -- and offered his patronizing disapproval of those who do not follow (his) God, Fr. Zuhlsdorf offers a quote from Pope Benedict:

If we let Christ enter fully into our lives, if we open ourselves totally to him, are we not afraid that He might take something away from us? Are we not perhaps afraid to give up something significant, something unique, something that makes life so beautiful? Do we not then risk ending up diminished and deprived of our freedom?

I'll note that, in my opinion, this underlines the problem with many Christians' understanding of piety and morality in general:  It's about giving things up and refraining from things.**  When morality, piety, and devotion become nothing more than avoiding those things which are deemed bad, it's bound to feel restrictive.  It's also bound to leave people wondering what they should do.

Fr. Zuhlsdorf goes on to talk about sins of omission, recognizing that morality, piety, and devotion do require positive action, but he still speaks in negative terms, in terms of failing to act:

That is where we ferret out our negligence in regard to the virtue of religion, negligence in respect to God and to neighbor.

The problem with this approach is that if you're thinking in terms of what you should have done and failed to do, you started a good thing way too late.  It would have been far better to go throughout your day asking what you should be doing, what good you can do.  This enables and encourages positive action rather than guilt over negative action or a failure to act.

Fr. Zuhlsdorf finally gets that idea, but only at the end.  And he glosses over it but briefly.

Second, during the day, silently to yourself, perhaps say a brief prayer.  Pick one.  How about, "Jesus, meek and humble of heart: Make my heart like unto Thine."

His blog post would have been much better if he had started his missive on personal devotion with this prayer, especially if he had expanded on it.  It could have been a post on what it means to have a heart like Jesus, and what kinds of acts such a heart leads to.  Effectively, it could have led into something very similar to my own Prayer for Living Worship.  Such a prayer, written with passages like 1 Corinthians 13 and Galations 5 in mind, would have been a perfect lead in to a sort of devotion that any person -- even one of those "awful atheists" would have trouble finding fault with.

---

*  My own.  Whether or not anyone else is religiously devoted is none of my business, let alone subject to any actual judgment on my part.

** I'll note that this is a problem I have when many Pagans seem to reduce our ethics to nothing more than "don't hurt anyone" as well.

Alvin McEwen over at Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters pointed out that Peter Heck, a guest columnist at One News Now is whining about all the gay celebrities that came out recently.  Alvin wrote a wonderful response, explaining (though I hope to add to it) how coming out is not the same as discussing your sexual escapades, and I highly encourage my readers to check out his post.  However, he left a lot of stuff in Heck's column untouched, so I want to take a closer look at the column.

CNN host Don Lemon recently became the latest in a string of high-profile individuals to "come out of the closet" and inform everyone who would listen that he enjoys practicing homosexuality.  Every time this occurs, and we are treated to the seemingly endless litany of interviews that applaud the recently outed individual's courage and fortitude, I'm left scratching my head.

The reason Peter is scratching his head is because he simply doesn't understand what's so courageous about coming out.  I mean, sure, he's writing a column for a "news agency" run by the American Family Association, an organization that spends a great deal of energy vilifying and dehumanizing QUILTBAG individuals.  But surely, the fact that people like Peter actively encourage open hostility towards us wouldn't make the thought of opening yourself up to such hostility a daunting thought, right?

But what really gets Peter is the fact that in his mind, people are telling him about their sex lives:

First, why do the very people who constantly tell us that what a person does in their bedroom is no one else's business, simultaneously find it necessary to inform everyone of what they do in their bedroom?  If this is a private matter, Don, then let's keep it private.  Perhaps I'm the only one who feels this way, but frankly, I don't care to know what kind of sex the evening news anchor is into.

Here's the thing:  I doubt Pete's hypothetical news anchor isn't telling Pete whether he's a top or bottom.  I doubt he's telling him whether he prefers to do it doggy style or has a preference for the reverse cowboy position.  That would be telling Pete about his sex life.  And yeah, i can see where that might be considered inappropriate*.

But saying, "Hey, I'm gay."** is not the same as discussing one's sex life.  Yeah, it tells you that if one is going to have sex, it's going to be with someone who's the same sex as the person speaking.  But then, that same information is transmitted in different ways.  If Peter casually "checks out" -- or even just takes a second look -- at a woman, he's announcing to everyone present that he's heterosexual and will probably have sex with a woman at some point in his life.  Somehow I doubt Peter sees anything wrong with that.  It's just gays he has a problem with letting people know.

And let's face it, I doubt Peter gets upset about wedding announcements in his local paper, either.  And yet, those announcements make it pretty clear that the couple will be having sex.  In fact, they're probably having a lot of sex at the moment Peter is reading their wedding announcement, as they're most likely on their honeymoon.  And yet, Peter is okay with knowing that.

Of course, Peter doesn't read a wedding announcement and immediately start thinking of a couple having sex.  No, he thinks of everything that comes with marriage.  He's picturing that couple holding hands in public.  He's picturing that couple having breakfast.  he's picturing that couple making plans for the weekend or discussing how to pay an upcoming bill as they have dinner together.  Because Peter knows marriage is about more than sex.

But to him, being gay or being in a same-sex relationship is only about sex.  We don't hold hands.  We don't cuddle while watching a movie on television.  We don't discuss our household budget or do any of that stuff.  To Peter Heck, we just strip and get it on the moment we both get home.  In effect, Peter thinks about gay people (and mostly gay men) having sex.  He thinks about it more than most gay people!***

But then we get into Peter's real problem:  He's a persecuted hegemon, and the fact that gay people are coming out and not immediately being tossed into prisons**** fires up his persecution complex:

Does anyone actually think that in the politically correct world of American media there was any chance Don Lemon was going to be publicly criticized amongst his peers for such a declaration?  Lemon's home network of CNN has become notorious for their one-sided reporting of the emerging face-off between homosexual rights claims of sexual anarchists on the left and the rights of conscience for the traditional morality crowd on the right.

Of course Peter's argument is completely flawed.  Peter and the company he keeps are not merely "expressing their conscience about traditional morality here."  Peter is out to vilify not only QUILTBAG people, but anyone on the "left."  He tars us all as "sexual anarchists."  This is not the act of a "proponent of traditional morals."  This is the act of  an anti-gay propagandist.  Even as he tries to claim victim status for himself, he cannot resist the urge to take a swipe -- not to mention a false claim (apparently, dishonesty is okay with today's "proponents of traditional morality) at those he sees as worthy of his disapproval.

But that doesn't keep Peter from trying.  He draws out how he and his fellow Bible-believing "defenders of morality" are the real persecuted people

If Lemon really wanted to demonstrate courage, let's see him "come out" in the media as a Bible-believing, born-again follower of Jesus Christ whose faith teaches him that homosexuality is morally improper.  Rather than basking in the glow of the entertainment crowd's unyielding affection, he would be immediately tarred and feathered for his draconian allegiance to discriminatory and prejudicial fairy tales coming from an ancient, bigoted book.

The thing that Peter keeps ignoring -- and hoping everyone else will ignore as well -- is that he and his kind are not just saying what they believe.  They are trying to make us agree with him, or at least let them dictate our actions based on what they believe.  They're trying to vilify, dehumanize, and even control and outlaw other people.  That's not standing up for "traditional morals."  That's attempting to become a privileged oppressor.

The fact that Peter Heck cannot see the difference between these two things says a lot about him.



*  Granted, I will be the first to admit that I'm perfectly happy to discuss my sexual preferences in certain social settings.  I see nothing wrong with that, as I think having a healthy attitude and openness about sex rather than being all uptight and secretive about it.  But that's still a far cry of telling every random person I meet about these things.

** Or bisexual for that matter.

*** Please stop to think about how creepy this is.  Peter Heck and people like him spend more time thinking about my sex life more than I do, despite not even knowing me.  Quite frankly, the only person who arguably has any healthy reason to think about my sex life more than I do is my own partner.  And I am not sleeping with Peter Heck.

**** I actually don't know whether Peter believes that QUILTBAG individuals should be criminalized, but the people who gave him his platform do.