A recent message on www.artsandfaith.com........

Anti-gay bigotry seems more firmly entrenched than ever when reviewing message boards dedicated to discussions of arts and the relationship between art and faith. I recently visited a message board dedicated to discussions of the arts, and found the following comment pertaining to homosexuality posted on one of the message boards:

"It's very depraved behavior." (referring to gay sex).

My response is as follows:

I cannot express, in words, the extent to which comments of this nature both sicken and disgust me.I am openly gay, and am considered by some people to be a gay "activist." I have no formal legal training, but decided, several years ago, to learn as much about US Constitutional law as possible, because I concluded that the fight for gay equality and eventual full acceptance in the US will inevitably involve the federal and state court systems. I have been vindicated in this conclusion by a string of recent victories won by the gay and lesbian community.Few heterosexuals are aware of the fact that it remained illegal, in about 14 states, for gay Americans to have sex, even in the privacy of their bedrooms, up until June 2003. In 1986, the US Supreme Court -- packed by Ronald Reagan -- handed down a decision upholding the Georgia sodomy statute (and other state statutes criminalizing gay sex), which mandated that any person convicted under this measure receive a minimum prison term of one year and a maximum prison terms of 20 years (see Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986)). A gay bartender named Michael Hardwick was arrested in his own bedroom in 1982 after the police, who were admitted into his home in error by a houseguest to serve Hardwick with a warrant for public drunkenness, found him engaging in oral sex with another man. Although the District Attorney declined to prosecute Hardwick under the sodomy statute, Hardwick filed suit against the State of Georgia, contending that this statute (and, by extension, similar statutes in 24 other states) violated his right to sexual privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The state Attorney General, Michael Bowers, appealed the decision of the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, which found in Hardwick’s favor, to the US Supreme Court. In an opinion that stunned even many conservative Court-watchers, the Court upheld the sodomy statute as applied to gay sex, even when such sex occurred in the privacy of the homes of gay Americans. The tone of the 5 – 4 majority was sneering, contemptuous, and vitriolic; Chief Justice Burger’s concurrence piously observed that “to hold that the act of homosexual sodomy is somehow protected as a fundamental right would be to cast aside millennia of moral teaching” and “in constitutional terms there is no such thing as a fundamental right to commit homosexual sodomy.”

Justice Lewis Powell, who cast the deciding fifth vote in favor of the State of Georgia, admitted in October 1990 to the National Law Journal that he had made a serious mistake, and that, on reflection, he should have voted in Hardwick’s favor. Welcome as it was to hear that this Justice (who by then had retired) admitted that he had made a mistake, this did nothing to ameliorate the damage that Bowers worked in the lives of gay Americans up and down the country. Conservative federal judges expanded the narrow holding of the Court (which merely upheld the right of the states to criminalize gay sex) to create a “gay exception” to other Constitutional protections. Legislative bodies cited Bowers in all-too-frequently successful attempts to derail the enactment of anti-discrimination measures on the grounds that they could not pass legislation that would, by definition, protect a class of criminals from discrimination in employment, housing, and access to places of public accommodation. Lesbian mothers lost custody of their own children on the grounds that they were unconvicted felons. But while Powell deserved some measure of thanks for his acknowledgment that he had made a mistake, the behavior of Attorney General Michael Bowers was nothing less than risible, not to mention a case study in gross hypocrisy.

For almost an entire decade during the 1980s – while defending the right of his office to prosecute gay men and lesbians for having sex in the privacy of their own homes – Michael Bowers had been engaged in an adulterous relationship. At that time, adultery was a serious crime in the State of Georgia, carrying similar stiff penalties as those retained for gay sex. This did nothing, however, to slake Bowers’ prosecutorial thirst for the blood of gay Americans. In 1990, Bowers further attempted to slake that thirst by withdrawing a job offer that had been made to an openly gay woman named Robin Shahar, who had applied for and been offered a job working for the Georgia Attorney General’s office – on the grounds that, by entering into a commitment ceremony with her female partner, she was no longer fit for purpose. A deeply divided US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, applying the balancing test established by the US Supreme Court in Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968), determined that Sharhar’s First Amendment rights to intimate and expressive association were outweighed by Georgia’s interest “as an employer in promoting the efficiency of the Law Department’s important public services.” Attorney General Bowers apparently saw no conflict of interest in his personal criminal behavior and the “important public services” of his office.

For almost two decades following the blow dealt to the gay community by the US Supreme Court in Bowers, gay activists turned their attentions to the refuge offered them by state constitutional guarantees. Most state constitutions are more generous, either by their terms or as construed by state supreme courts, in the privacy guarantees they afford their citizens than is the US Constitution, as interpreted by the US Supreme Court. A decision handed down by a state supreme court, finding a state statute unconstitutional on state constitutional grounds, cannot be appealed to the US Supreme Court. The US Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of US Constitutional law and issues arising from interpretations of the US Constitution; a state high court, on the other hand, is the ultimate arbiter of state constitutional analysis and issues arising from interpretations of the relevant state constitution. Only when a state constitution is amended in such a manner as to deny to any of the citizens of that state a right which is guaranteed them by the US Constitution can the US Supreme Court (or any other federal court) interfere with or review a decision handed down by the state supreme court (for example, a decision striking down the amendment in question). Gay activists won their first victory by attacking state sodomy statutes in state court in Kentucky, and went on to win a string of victories in state after state.

On June 6, 2003, the US Supreme Court handed down a decision (Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)) explicitly and bluntly reversing Bowers. By this point in time, the number of states with sodomy statutes prohibiting consensual gay sex had dropped from 25 at the time Bowers was handed down, to about 14, reflecting the victories that the gay community had won at the state constitutional level. The grounds on which Bowers rested had also been seriously eroded by a case involving the rights of gay Coloradans following the passage, in that state, of the infamous “Amendment 2” to the state constitution. Enforcement of this amendment was permanently enjoined by the District Court for the City and County of Denver (a state court) and never took effect (the US Supreme Court upheld the permanent injunction in Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996), using strong language to emphasize the dignity of gay Coloradans, thereby implicitly undermining Bowers). This state constitutional amendment had the “immediate effect” of repealing all ordinances, statutes, and executive policies, in both the public and the private sectors, insofar as these measures protected gay Coloradans from discrimination at the hands of heterosexual Coloradans. The amendment had the “ultimate effect” of permanently restructuring the political process in the State of Colorado by making it impossible for legislative or executive bodies ever again to pass similar, or more protective, measures protecting gay people from discrimination at the hands of heterosexual Coloradans, regardless of how rampant or severe such discrimination would have become. Existing measures, however, still protected heterosexual Coloradans from discrimination at the hands of gay Coloradans, and future measures could still have been passed protecting heterosexual Coloradans from discrimination at the hands of gay Coloradans. One class of Coloradans, and only one class of Coloradans (gay men and lesbians) was identified by “Amendment 2,” and the adoption of measures intended to prohibit any and all forms of discrimination against members of this class was permanently removed from consideration by the normal political processes within that state. For all intents and purposes, heterosexual Coloradans had granted to themselves an unconditional and unrestricted license to discriminate against gay Coloradans; the US Supreme Court held that “A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws.” The Court held that "Amendment 2" was nothing less than a facial violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, and threw this amendment out in a strongly-worded opinion.

Fundamentalist Christians and other gay-bashers repeatedly claim that gay Americans seek “special rights,” and the backers of Colorado’s “Amendment 2” made it clear that they intended this measure to prevent gay Coloradans being granted “special rights” or “special protections.” The Romer Court eviscerated this claim, declaring that “We find nothing special in the protections Amendment 2 withholds. These are protections taken for granted by most people either because they already have them or do not need them; these are protections against exclusion from an almost limitless number of transactions and endeavors that constitute ordinary civic life in a free society.”

Lawrence involved a fact pattern remarkably similar to that implicated in Bowers. On this occasion (on September 17, 1998), Houston sheriff’s deputies entered the home of a gay man (John Lawrence) and found him having sex with a partner (Tyron Garner) (a homophobic neighbor tried to get these openly gay men into trouble by filing a false complaint alleging a weapons disturbance, calculating that the police would arrive to find Lawrence and Garner having sex; this neighbor subsequently served a 30-day jail term for filing a false police report). This sexual act ran afoul of Section 21.06 of the Texas Penal Code, which prohibited same-sex oral and anal intercourse. Although the men were convicted by a trial court and although their convictions were affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Fourteenth District (an influential Texas state court of appeals), the men continued to fight, eventually petitioning the US Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. To the amazement of many legal observers, the US Supreme Court granted the writ, and insisted that both the petitioners and the State of Texas brief the Court as to whether Bowers v. Hardwick should be overruled. The decision was handed down on June 26, 2003; the US Supreme Court explicitly and bluntly reversed Bowers, apologizing to the gay community both for its failure to apprehend the true nature and extent of the liberty interest at stake, and for the manner in which the Court had slighted and demeaned the gay community in Bowers. More specifically, the Court wrote that “Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today. It ought not to remain binding precedent. Bowers v. Hardwick should be and now is overruled.” The Court also noted that “The present case does not involve minors. It does not involve persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent might not easily be refused. It does not involve public conduct or prostitution. It does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter. The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. "It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter." Casey, supra, at 847. The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual.”

In ringing tones, the Court observed that “Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.”

We do not live in a theocracy. We do not live in a society where the will of religious fundamentalists is inscribed into the criminal laws. We live in a multicultural, pluralistic society; a society in which people of vastly divergent belief systems live together, cheek by jowl. The sentiment expressed by the person who opined that gay sex is “depraved behavior” is illustrative of the extent to which religious intolerance is systemic in American society, and continues to disease the cultural discourse despite the opinions of developmental psychologists, clinical psychologists, cognitive psychologists, and psychiatrists, the overwhelming majority of whom concluded in 1973 that homosexuality is not a form of mental illness. It saddens and depresses me that such backward thinking continues to flourish in the US in 2007. But, given the opening of the joke in Kentucky referred to as the “Creation Museum,” I should have expected to encounter such flagrant hostility and cruelty on this message thread.

Nevertheless, I remain optimistic. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor observed that “These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.”

I am thankful for the fact that no religious extremists can change the laws to force people like me back into hiding. Soon, the so-called “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy will come down (Congress is already studying the manner in which other nations have integrated gay men and lesbians into the Armed Forces). Gay marriage is legal in both name and substance in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Gay marriage is legal in substance but not name in Vermont, Connecticut, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon, and at least one other state (in these states, gay marriages are referred to as “civil unions” or (in the case of Oregon) as “domestic partnerships”). Notwithstanding repeated efforts to condemn gay marriage, religious fanatics are losing the fight. This year, they did not even succeed in introducing the so-called “Marriage Protection Amendment” (last year, this proposed measure failed to garner even a majority vote in the Senate during a procedural vote to end debate).

I am presently visiting the UK. Gay marriage is legal in all but name here. Gay marriage is legal in both name and substance in Canada, Germany, Belgium, The Netherlands, Spain, and South Africa. Gay marriage is legal in all but name in the Scandinavian countries (e.g. Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Iceland, etc.). Gay marriage is also legal in all but name in many South American countries (e.g. Colombia, Argentina, Brazil, and Venezuela). The history of progress with respect to any social movement shows that a critical mass is reached, at which point progress continues exponentially.

We have reached that “tipping point,” and gay marriage will soon be legal here in the USA, just as it is in the UK and in Canada.


PHILIP CHANDLER

Lies told about the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007

Lies told about the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007

I have read all kinds of rubbish over the years, but the conservative whining about the proposed Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 takes the cake. Contrary to the tripe that I have read so many times, not all crimes are hate crimes. When a mugger pushes an old man to the ground and steals the old man's wallet, the mugger does not necessarily or even usually hate the victim -- injury to the victim is incidental to the true motive of the mugger, which is to steal money. In such cases, the mugger often does not even know the name of the victim he or she is about to assault and rob. The mugger does not act out of a frenzied hatred of old men carrying wallets; he or she merely seeks to relieve the victim of that person's money. Such behavior can be classified as showing disregard for the rights of the victim, but that is a far cry from hating the victim. A tenant who fails to pay his or her rent does not hate his or her landlord -- the tenant merely seeks to remain on the premises without paying the rent.

Contrast the above, hypothetical crime of a mugger pushing an old man to the ground on the one hand with the crime perpetrated against Matthew Shepard on the other hand. This young gay man was pistol-whipped by two local Laramie thugs (one of whom was a professed Mormon); the blows to his head were so severe the bones of his skull were smashed to powder, following which he was driven to the outskirts of Laramie and tied, in a crucified position, to a split-rail fence (his attackers used a rope to lash him to the fence). Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson initially stated that they beat Shepard (who died several days after being cut down from the fence without ever regaining consciousness) because Shepard had made sexual advances towards them (as though it is acceptable to kill a person who makes unwanted sexual advances towards the individual concerned). During the trial of Aaron McKinney, McKinney's counsel advanced this "gay panic" defense, to the disgust of many Laramie residents. Both attackers were convicted.

Now -- tell me seriously that there are no qualitative differences between the above crime, which occurred in 1999, and the hypothetical crime posited earlier. Shepard was killed because he was gay. Attempts have been made by various right-wing commentators and organizations to muddy Shepard's name and character. These attempts do not change the underlying motive or the facts. Perpetrators of hate crimes frequently engage in precisely the "overkill" behavior manifested in the attack on Shepard.

The hatred that motivates such crimes is not directed only towards the individual victim -- it is directed towards all members of the class to which the victim belongs (in Shepard's case, gay Americans). When news of Shepard's attack circulated throughout the gay community, many members of that community felt threatened and vulnerable.

That is the difference between hate crimes and crimes such as muggings. Hate crimes are intended to intimidate all members of the class to which the victim belongs, whether that class consists of gay Americans, black Americans, Asian Americans, or any other group of Americans, the members of which share a real or perceived common characteristic. These crimes occur because of who the victim is, as opposed to whether or not the victim is carrying money.

The lies told about the proposed measure are almost beyond belief. On May 2, 2007, the "Human Rights Campaign" (HRC) -- a gay organization that lobbies Congress for the passage of measures such as the proposed addition of sexual orientation to the list of characteristics encompassed by the existing federal hate crimes statute -- released a statement cataloging the lies and filthy tricks engaged in by some so-called "pro-family" organizations.

One of the lies circulated by these groups asserts that there currently exists no federal hate crimes statute at all, and that the proposed measure would therefore be the first, and only, piece of federal legislation addressing hate crimes, and that it would only enhance penalties for those hate crimes motivated by hatred of the victim's sexual orientation. In fact, the federal hate crimes statute has existed for 40 years, and it already strengthens punishments for crimes motivated by hatred of the victim's race, color, national origin, or religion.

One of the most frequently promoted lies by the opposition is that the hate crimes law will make anti-gay bigots criminally liable for their hate speech. While the writer believes it to be fundamentally un-American and un-Christian to embrace the message of white supremacists and hate groups, the religious right has nothing to fear from the hate crimes bill, as it applies only to acts of violence. Nothing in this act would prohibit the lawful expression of one’s deeply held religious beliefs. As ugly and inflammatory as these comments can be, people will remain free to say things such as: “Homosexuality is sinful,” “Homosexuality is an abomination” or “Homosexuals will burn in Hell.” Yet we hear constant, incessant whining about the possibility of the proposed measure being used to prosecute religious figures who voice their disapproval of gay relationships and / or of gay people. This whining conveniently overlooks the fact that any attempt to apply this measure against religious figures would fall flat as a matter of constitutional law. The US Supreme Court, in Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), made it clear that speech or advocacy cannot be criminalized "...except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." (Obscenity is another form of speech which does not enjoy First Amendment protection, but that is not relevant to this issue.)

Thus, a priest or minister of religion could not possibly be prosecuted under the proposed legislation, unless he or she actually incites a riot. Is that really what conservatives fear? Do these conservatives and fundamentalists wish to incite their followers to riot?

The organization that calls itself the "Family Research Council" (FRC) stands front and center in promoting the lie that the addition of sexual orientation to the existing federal hate crimes statute will result in ministers of religion and priests being prosecuted for preaching that homosexuality is “sinful” or wrong. The FRC is currently peddling a DVD that purports to show "shocking examples of how hate crime laws trample free speech, lead to arrests, and censor speech." This 40-minute DVD features Dr. D. James Kennedy (of the notoriously homophobic organization named "Coral Ridge Ministries," which peddles the lie that homosexuality is an illness that can be "cured" through faith in Christ and “reparative therapy”); Christine Sneeringer, billed as an "ex-lesbian;" pastor Ake Green; and pastor Danny Nalliah (among other figures). Pastors Ake Green was arrested under hate crimes legislation for anti-gay “witnessing,” and Pastor Danny Nalliah was prosecuted under hate crimes legislation for anti-gay “witnessing.”

What is not mentioned on the FRC Web site relative to these prosecutions, however, is the fact that pastor Ake Green was arrested in Sweden in 2004 for anti-gay preaching under Swedish law, and pastor Danny Nalliah was prosecuted in Australia, under Australian law. Sweden included sexual orientation in its hate crimes legislation in 2004, and Green became the first person to be prosecuted under this law (as amended). The Swedish hate crimes legislation permits for the imprisonment of persons who demonstrate “disrespect” for gay people, and it was under this amended non-US legislation that Green was prosecuted. What the FRC utterly fails to mention, furthermore, is the fact that the Swedish Supreme Court (upholding the judgment of an intermediate appellate court) overturned Green’s conviction in a unanimous decision. As discussed above, preaching that homosexuality is a sin cannot be prosecuted in the US, due to the fact that the US (unlike Sweden or Australia) has a First Amendment that guarantees all persons near-absolute rights to free speech, including the right to advocate breaking the law (see Brandenburg, supra).

Then there is the talk of "special rights" being afforded gay Americans by such legislation. Why is this argument is not raised with respect to other groups protected by the proposed legislation? Only when sexual orientation is added to the language of the existing legislation do people cry out about "special rights" being afforded members of the gay community by such legislation. The FRC and other conservative groups do not seem to have any problems with hate-crimes legislation unless this legislation enhances penalties handed down to people convicted of committing hate crimes against gay Americans. Then, and only then, does the hard right claim that hate crimes legislation confers “special protections” on members of the groups included in the protective ambit of such legislative measures.

The US Supreme Court, throwing out a state constitutional amendment voted into existence by the citizens of the State of Colorado in 1992 ("Amendment 2"), had the following to say about the "special protections" supposedly sought by gay Coloradans:

"We find nothing special in the protections Amendment 2 withholds. These are protections taken for granted by most people either because they already have them or do not need them; these are protections against exclusion from an almost limitless number of transactions and endeavors that constitute ordinary civic life in a free society" (Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996)).

Stephen Bennett -- a spokesman for the anti-gay group called "Concerned Women for America" (CWA) -- used his action network to promote the anti-gay videos of John Smith, a white-supremacist filmmaker with numerous videos posted on YouTube.com. Smith's hateful online video collection includes such titles as “Keep America White,” “Black Intelligence” (a video purporting to prove that blacks are mentally inferior to whites) and “Hitler” (a homage to Hitler on the occasion of his birthday).

YouTube.com – which hosts movies made by ordinary people who wish to publish their movies – pulled these anti-gay videos, which violated YouTube.com's terms of service. Peter LaBarbera -- a former employee of both CWA and the FRC -- picked up where YouTube.com left off circulation of these anti-gay videos, posting them on a religious right Web site in Massachusetts.

In a particularly disgusting insult to the memories of the victims of the Virginia Tech massacre, Tony Perkins (President of the FRC) and Matthew Barber (spokesman for CWA) wrote the following statements, respectively, to argue against enactment of H.R. 1592:

"Under this legislation, the crimes at Virginia Tech, which some are calling one of the deadliest rampages in U.S. history, would not be punishable to the level of these so-called ‘hate crimes.’ If the House approves H.R. 1592 and the Senate follows, a homosexual would have more federal protection under the law than the 32 victims of last week’s massacre." (statement by Perkins)

"The FBI’s latest statistics show that there were zero ‘hate crimes’ murders committed against homosexuals or those perceived to be homosexual in 2005; yet we already know of 32 so-called ‘hate crimes’ murders committed against perceived ‘rich kids’ in a single day. But under H.R. 1592, those ‘rich kids’ would shamefully be denied the same protections and justice as homosexuals. The whole ‘hate crimes’ concept really places logic and reason on its head." (statement by Barber)

Not to be outdone, the "Traditional Values Coalition" (TVC) created and disseminated a fake transcript of the House Judiciary Committee hearing on the hate crimes bill in an attempt to “prove” that the legislation would punish anti-gay thoughts. The falsified transcript did not even remotely resemble the official transcript of the proceeding (see http://tinyurl.com/yvncxp to view both the real transcript and the forged transcript).

Not content with violating the Ninth Commandment (condemning the bearing of false witness), the TVC produced a “wanted poster” in which Jesus Christ, wearing a crown of thorns, is wanted for violating the proposed hate crimes bill. The poster states that Christ is “wanted for revealing the truth about homosexuality in ‘The Bible’ and encouraging his followers not to offend God by committing such behavior.” The deep-seated, raw hatred of gay people that motivates such groups could not be more evident than is manifested by this depraved attempt to spread flat-out lies, using Christ's name in vain in the process.

Furthermore, critics of adding sexual orientation to the grounds included in the proposed legislation forget the fact that the legislation classifies on the basis of sexual orientation -- it does not protect only gay people. Just as a crime would be punishable under this legislation were it to be perpetrated by a heterosexual motivated by animus towards gay people, a crime would similarly be punishable under this legislation were it to be perpetrated by a gay person motivated by animus towards heterosexual people. Conservatives "forget" the fact that such legislation is a sword that cuts both ways. It becomes clear, when one conducts a more searching review of the proposed legislation and its impact, that conservatives are prepared to tell blatant lies in their efforts to derail the proposed legislation. Nobody could prosecute religious figures under this legislation. Nobody could punish thoughts under this legislation.

But truth never stood in the way of cultural conservatives, who have lied and spread disinformation up and down the country.

PHILIP CHANDLER

Indiana Disgraces America -- Homophobia Rides High.....

Yet again, the US has embarrassed itself -- this time, in response to an article written by a sophomore at Woodlan Junior-Senior High School, in one of the most morally backward parts of the country (northeastern Indiana).

The sophomore, Megan Chase, wrote an article stressing the virtues of tolerance and respect for the differences between gay students and heterosexual students. As a direct result, the school newspaper adviser, Amy Sorrell, now stands to lose her job.

I stress what I have stressed in previous messages pertaining to the homophobia that is rife throughout the US. Quite bluntly, the US is morally backwards, obtuse, and childish in its refusal to acknowledge the differences between gay people and heterosexual people. Only in America, in the year 2007, could a school teacher face losing her job as the result of permitting the article in question to be printed.

The "controversial" material in question? Read the following, quoted directly from Chase's article:

"I can only imagine how hard it would be to come out as homosexual in today's society," she wrote. "I think it is so wrong to look down on those people, or to make fun of them, just because they have a different sexuality than you. There is nothing wrong with them or their brain; they're just different than you."

Yes -- this statement, published in the school newspaper, led the school district to recommend the sacking of Amy Sorrell, who has been placed on administrative leave following the publication of this "controversial" statement.

I know that this is difficult to believe. As the entire world moves forward and embraces the humanity of gay and lesbian people, America disgraces herself in public. Sorrell now faces the loss of her job -- merely because she permitted the school newspaper to include an article stressing the need for tolerance of people who are different from the majority of their peers.

There is one glaring irony to this display of moral infantilism. Because Sorrell works for a public school, which is a political subdivision of the State of Indiana, she can bring suit against the school district for violation of her First Amendment rights -- and should Sorrel bring suit, she stands an excellent chance of winning, given the clear and unambiguous line of decisional law handed down by the US Supreme Court and the US Courts of Appeals with respect to cases of this nature.

What is shocking, however, is the fact that the advocacy of tolerance of human differences could lead to the possibility of a school district firing a teacher. What is shocking is the fact that tolerance is seen as being "controversial" and that writing about the difficulties faced by gay and lesbian students as they come out to their peers could become the fodder for a group of bloody-minded, pious, mealy-mouthed hicks.

The following statement, made by the assistant superintendent of secondary education and technology, Andy Melin, is illustrative of the mentality of so many Americans, who appear to be incapable of independent thought (that is to say, incapable of dealing with any material that they have not heard uttered from church pulpits):

"The way we view it is the broad topic of homosexuality is a sensitive enough issue in our society that the principal deserves to know that it's something the newspaper is going to write about."

Unbelievable!

Unbelievable, but true. A bona fide insight into the mindsets of so many self-professed "Christians" in America today.

Fortunately, a gay advocacy group named Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (P-FLAG) has taken up this issue and is firmly on the side of Sorrell and Chase. Should the school district actually be so stupid as to fire Sorrell in the face of First Amendment jurisprudence that bears directly on this, and similar, situations, the school district will almost certainly lose, and lose big time. Even the most conservative Courts of Appeals have found, consistently, for teachers and students in the face of dilemmas such as that in which Sorrell is now mired.

I am a US citizen. There was a time that this made me proud.

Now I am ashamed.

PHILIP CHANDLER

What a Fool Believes......

In early September 2006, at the International Conference on AIDS hosted in Toronto, South Africa's Minister of Health, Dr. Manto Tshabalala-Msimang, was met with boos and hoots of derision when she denounced the role of antiretroviral drugs in the treatment of AIDS, and instead made the claim that a diet of African potatoes, garlic, lemon, and beetroot could keep the disease under control. She made this announcement with the imprimatur of the South African President, Thabo Mbeki, who has long been an HIV denialist and who has repeatedly claimed that antiretroviral drugs are "toxic" and useless in treating AIDS. More specifically, Mbeki has insisted that HIV is not the cause of AIDS, and has instead insisted that this disease is really the outcome of "colonialism" and "apartheid." Five years ago, Mbeki gave a speech in which he stated that conventional views of AIDS causation reinforced the image of Africans as "germ carriers." After bitter accusations from AIDS scientist Malegapuru Makgoba to the effect that Mbeki was responsible for "genocide," Mbeki relented and agreed to distribute antiretroviral medications; however, Mbeki never renounced his view that AIDS is really caused not by HIV but by poverty and "the legacy of apartheid."

Following the Health Minister's announcement that a diet of African potatoes, garlic, lemon, and beetroot could keep the disease at bay, more than 60 internationally acclaimed AIDS scientists, including the putative "co-discoverer" of HIV, Dr. Robert Gallo, demanded that Mbeki fire Dr Manto Tshabalala-Msimang, describing her as an "embarrassment" who has "no international respect." How could Mbeki -- who graduated from the British University of Sussex with a Master's degree in Economics -- have fallen prey to the line of thinking, influenced by Dr. Peter Duesberg, that holds, in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary, that HIV is not the cause of AIDS? There are now more than 30 drugs available to treat HIV infection -- nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors and nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs), non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs), protease inhibitors (PIs), fusion inhibitors (FIs), integrase inhibitors (IIs), and adjunctive therapies such as hydroxyurea -- and more drugs become available almost every year as science evolves (one integrase inhibitor was recently released, and another is currently in late-stage testing).

By combining these drugs -- typically by combining protease inhibitors with reverse transcriptase inhibitors and / or non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors -- doctors in the US and the UK are now able to keep patients with HIV alive indefinitely. This is not to deny the reality of serious side-effects associated with Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy (HAART), including lipodystrophy and peripheral neuropathy, but the bottom line is that these drugs are highly effective, when taken in strict compliance with treatment regimens, in preventing the advance of this disease, and are able to suppress HIV to the extent that the most sensitive assays available are no longer capable of detecting the presence of HIV particles in the bloodstream of infected patients. Yet in the country that now has the highest prevalence of HIV in the world, the government insists that these treatments should not be the mainstay of treatment, and instead resorts to measures that caused the scientists who authored the letter demanding the firing of South Africa's Minister of Health to write the following: "To deny that HIV causes AIDS is farcical in the face of the scientific evidence; to promote ineffective, immoral policies on HIV/AIDS endangers lives; to have as health minister a person who now has no international respect is an embarrassment to the South African government. We therefore call for the immediate removal of Dr Tshabalala-Msimang as minister of health, and for an end to the disastrous, pseudo-scientific policies that have characterized the South African government's response to HIV/AIDS."

When confronted with criticism of his handling of HIV / AIDS treatments, Mbeki insists that his detractors are "racists" and that "traditional African medicine" is as effective, if not more so, than established, highly effective modern treatment regimens. AIDS activists and scientists were outraged by the views expressed by Dr. Tshabalala-Msimang in Toronto, and by a display of vegetables as part of the treatment for AIDS at the government stand (no antiretroviral medicines were on display). Yet Dr. Tshabalala-Msimang was selected by Mbeki to become Health Minister precisely because of her discredited and ludicrous views, and because she has expressed the view that antiretroviral medications are both dangerous and useless.

It is estimated that as many as one in five South Africans carry HIV, and in some parts of the country, doctors believe that the prevalence of this disease is much higher. As this quackery masquerades as science, the health of between five and 10 million people infected with HIV continues to decline. These people will almost certainly die unless the South African government changes course immediately.

PHILIP CHANDLER

Why do straight people hate gay people with such vehemence?

The following is a copy of an open letter to the heterosexual community written by gay activist Larry Kramer and published in the Los Angeles Times on March 24:

_____________________________________________________________________

DEAR STRAIGHT PEOPLE,Why do you hate gay people so much? Gays are hated. Prove me wrong. Your top general just called us immoral. Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, is in charge of an estimated 65,000 gay and lesbian troops, some fighting for our country in Iraq. A right-wing political commentator, Ann Coulter, gets away with calling a straight presidential candidate a faggot. Even Garrison Keillor, of all people, is making really tacky jokes about gay parents in his column. This, I guess, does not qualify as hate except that it is so distasteful and dumb, often a first step on the way to hate. Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama tried to duck the questions that Pace's bigotry raised, confirming what gay people know: that there is not one candidate running for public office anywhere who dares to come right out, unequivocally, and say decent, supportive things about us.

Gays should not vote for any of them. There is not a candidate or major public figure who would not sell gays down the river. We have seen this time after time, even from supposedly progressive politicians such as President Clinton with his "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays in the military and his support of the hideous Defense of Marriage Act. Of course, it's possible that being shunned by gays will make politicians more popular, but at least we will have our self-respect. To vote for them is to collude with them in their utter disdain for us.

Don't any of you wonder why heterosexuals treat gays so brutally year after year after year, as your people take away our manhood, our womanhood, our personhood? Why, even as we die you don't leave us alone. What we can leave our surviving lovers is taxed far more punitively than what you leave your (legal) surviving spouses. Why do you do this? My lover will be unable to afford to live in the house we have made for each other over our lifetime together. This does not happen to you. Taxation without representation is what led to the Revolutionary War. Gay people have paid all the taxes you have. But you have equality, and we don't.

And there's no sign that this situation will change anytime soon. President Bush will leave a legacy of hate for us that will take many decades to cleanse. He has packed virtually every court and every civil service position in the land with people who don't like us. So, even with the most tolerant of new presidents, gays will be unable to break free from this yoke of hate. Courts rule against gays with hateful regularity. And of course the Supreme Court is not going to give us our equality, and in the end, it is from the Supreme Court that such equality must come. If all of this is not hate, I do not know what hate is.

Our feeble gay movement confines most of its demands to marriage. But political candidates are not talking about — and we are not demanding that they talk about — equality. My lover and I don't want to get married just yet, but we sure want to be equal.

You must know that gays get beaten up all the time, all over the world. If someone beats you up because of who you are — your race or ethnic origin — that is considered a hate crime. But in most states, gays are not included in hate crime measures, and Congress has refused to include us in a federal act.

Homosexuality is a punishable crime in a zillion countries, as is any activism on behalf of it. Punishable means prison. Punishable means death. The U.S. government refused our requests that it protest after gay teenagers were hanged in Iran, but it protests many other foreign cruelties. Who cares if a faggot dies? Parts of the Episcopal Church in the U.S. are joining with the Nigerian archbishop, who believes gays should be put in prison. Episcopalians! Whoever thought we'd have to worry about Episcopalians?

Well, whoever thought we'd have to worry about Florida? A young gay man was just killed in Florida because of his sexual orientation. I get reports of gays slain in our country every week. Few of them make news. Fewer are prosecuted. Do you consider it acceptable that 20,000 Christian youths make an annual pilgrimage to San Francisco to pray for gay souls? This is not free speech. This is another version of hate. It is all one world of gay-hate. It always was.

Gays do not realize that the more we become visible, the more we come out of the closet, the more we are hated. Don't those of you straights who claim not to hate us have a responsibility to denounce the hate? Why is it socially acceptable to joke about "girlie men" or to discriminate against us legally with "constitutional" amendments banning gay marriage? Because we cannot marry, we can pass on only a fraction of our estates, we do not have equal parenting rights and we cannot live with a foreigner we love who does not have government permission to stay in this country. These are the equal protections that the Bill of Rights proclaims for all?

Why do you hate us so much that you will not permit us to legally love? I am almost 72, and I have been hated all my life, and I don't see much change coming.

I think your hate is evil.

What do we do to you that is so awful? Why do you feel compelled to come after us with such frightful energy? Does this somehow make you feel safer and legitimate? What possible harm comes to you if we marry, or are taxed just like you, or are protected from assault by laws that say it is morally wrong to assault people out of hatred? The reasons always offered are religious ones, but certainly they are not based on the love all religions proclaim.

And even if your objections to gays are religious, why do you have to legislate them so hatefully? Make no mistake: Forbidding gay people to love or marry is based on hate, pure and simple.

You may say you don't hate us, but the people you vote for do, so what's the difference? Our own country's democratic process declares us to be unequal. Which means, in a democracy, that our enemy is you. You treat us like crumbs. You hate us. And sadly, we let you.

_____________________________________________________________________

This is a powerful letter. Larry Kramer has been a passionate gay rights activist for many years, and he has written numerous (and in some cases, very controversial) columns, books, and articles about the manner in which gay men and lesbians are treated at the hands of their heterosexual counterparts. This commentator agrees with almost everything written in Kramer's letter, with one glaring exception. Kramer states the following: "Gays do not realize that the more we become visible, the more we come out of the closet, the more we are hated."

This commentator believes that, at minimum, the above statement requires qualification.

Poll after poll has shown that those heterosexuals who state that they know gay people personally tend to be less homophobic than those heterosexuals who state that they do not know any gay people personally. Of course, this could reflect bias in that those respondents who state that they do not know any gay people personally could be denying the fact that they actually do know gay people personally; these respondents may feel that, by distancing themselves from gay people through denial of personal relationships with gay people, their hatred of gay people becomes less difficult to admit. This is certainly a factor that should be explored before taking the results of these polls at face value.

Anecdotal evidence, however, supports the contention that those individuals who claim to know gay people at a personal level are less likely to be homophobic than is the case with respect to those individuals who claim not to know gay people at a personal level. I know many gay people, and am aware of the experiences which many of them underwent upon coming out to their friends, family members, fellow employees, and neighbors. In the vast majority of cases (including that of my own personal experience when I came out), gay adults have reported receiving unexpected support from some of the most unexpected quarters; several recent conversations with gay men who had just come out of the closet were both interesting and thought-provoking. While there will always be people blinded by zealotry and raw hatred who are prepared to sever relationships with members of their own families based on the sexual orientation of those members, most parents realize that their adult children are the only adult children they will ever have, and those parents who do not immediately accept their sons' or daughters' sexual orientation usually (but not always) continue to love their children, and most (but not all) of these parents eventually accept the fact that the sexual orientation of their children is something for which they are neither "responsible" nor to be "blamed"; many such parents educate themselves about sexuality and become supportive and accepting of their children. Note that the writer employs the term "accepting" as opposed to "tolerant;" these two attitudes are worlds apart, and tolerance very rapidly disintegrates when passions are aroused.

Some of the ugliest and most hate-filled organizations in the US (organizations bearing such benign-sounding names as the "American Family Association" (AFA) (at http://www.afa.net/) and the "Family Research Council" (FRC) (at http://www.frc.org/)) fully understand the difference between tolerance and acceptance, and will do just about anything to ensure that neither tolerance nor acceptance of gay Americans becomes the prevailing norm (perhaps recognizing the fact that tolerance can and does transmute into acceptance under the right societal conditions). The former organization is particularly vitriolic and unapologetic in its frenzied attempts to link homosexuality (and male homosexuality in particular) to pedophilia, incest, bestiality, and religious bigotry. The AFA routinely calls for its members to boycott corporations that extend domestic partner benefits to the spouses of their gay employees; right now, the AFA is engaged in an almost laughable attempt to blackmail Ford Motor Company into dropping its gay-friendly policies (specifically, its "promotion of homosexual marriage" and its more general adoption of "the homosexual agenda" -- Ford has supposedly endorsed voter guides that urge the defeat of state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage, and Ford regularly advertises its vehicles in publications targeted towards gay audiences). (NOTE: Since writing this article, the AFA has dropped its boycott, claiming that Ford complied with the AFA's demands; in fact, Ford has made no substantive changes whatsoever, and the AFA has clearly lost its nerve.) This commentator refers to this boycott as "almost laughable" due to the fact that, while it is painfully obvious to any clear-thinking individual that such a "boycott" is likely to generate pro-Ford attitudes and consumer brand name loyalty in the gay community (which has proved itself, time and time again, to be extremely loyal to corporations that include the gay community in their outreach efforts, and that offer gay employees the same spousal benefit packages as are offered to straight employees), the extent of the sheer hatred espoused by this boycott is truly frightening. The AFA posts a link on its Web site to an excerpt from the FX channel's drama named "Dirt," referring to this excerpt as an "explicit, sickening homosexual scene." The scene in question shows a passionate same-sex kiss followed by oral sex (the latter is seen from a distance, as is done in literally countless heterosexual scenes in literally countless heterosexual-oriented movies and soap operas). Because Ford was one of several sponsors of this drama, Ford has been targeted in the cross-hairs of the AFA's puny boycott. Fortunately, Ford refuses to be intimidated or cowed into submission by these religious fanatics; when this commentator called Ford to commend Ford for its pro-gay attitude and to warn Ford executives that the AFA was orchestrating a mail-in campaign to flood the C.E.O. (Alan Mulally) with emails, this commentator was assured by Ford management that Ford executives recognized orchestration when they saw it, and gave the AFA orchestration the back of its corporate hand.

What can be distilled from the above is the extent to which some organizations (the AFA being just one right-wing group of religious fanatics) are willing to wear their unadulterated hatred of gay men and lesbians on their collective sleeves. Kramer is correct in noting that attitudes such as these are, in any meaningful sense of the word, evil. Kramer is also correct in noting that not one politician in this country actually stood up to Marine General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, when Pace made his statement referring to gay Americans as immoral. The best that the gay community received in terms of a defense were luke-warm rejections of this position by some of the politicians that we like to think of as allies. Kramer is correct in stating that there is not one politician who will not hesitate to sell us down the river. We are reduced to voting for the politician who will do the gay community the least damage once elected, as opposed to voting for the candidate who will strive to make America live up to the promise, enshrined in stone on the pediment of the US Supreme Court building, of equal justice under law. This tells us volumes about the gap -- the gap between what is said and what is done in our society; between what is promised and what is actually delivered. This commentator observed then-President Bill Clinton sell the gay community down the river as his very first act of political maneuvering -- as alluded to elsewhere on this blog, Clinton folded like a house of cards upon being presented with the first hot potato of his career as President, crafting (with a little help from the military) the ludicrous "don't ask, don't tell" (DADT) policy which is actually a policy which encourages gay servicemembers, as a matter of both fact and law, to tell lies about themselves and to hide the truth about themselves. Again, it is with respect to self-identification that this commentator disagrees with Kramer's assertion that "...the more we become visible, the more we come out of the closet, the more we are hated." The bastards who fashioned the DADT policy were well aware of the power of coming out to transform the lives of both gay people and those who love gay people, whether as relatives or as friends. The authors of DADT knew exactly what they were doing when they implemented a policy intended to prevent gay people from coming out of the closet. No single tool is more oppressive than the closet, and efforts by right-wing politicians have, consistently, been to force gay people back into the closet. Commentator Bill Boushka has written about this very issue extensively in his book "Do Ask, Do Tell," in which he takes a scalpel to this policy and examines the shattering impact that it has on the self-esteem and self-identity of those servicemembers who labor under its yoke.

Kramer also identifies the manner in which Bush has packed virtually every Article III court (including the US Supreme Court) with jurists who are less than friendly to gay men and lesbians. However, notwithstanding the seriousness of this development, we have to acknowledge that a conservative US Supreme Court handed down Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996), effectively halting the movement to exclude gay Americans from the protective ambit of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, and that a conservative US Supreme Court handed down Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), rendering all state sodomy laws unconstitutional as applied to consensual sexual activity between same-sex partners in private, non-commercial settings. These were crucial decisions, reflecting a sea change in the manner in which the federal judiciary now treats gay Americans. Furthermore, we have won the right to marry, either in both name and substance, or in substance alone, by invoking state constitutional analysis before state supreme courts. Gay marriage is now legal in both name and substance in Massachusetts, and in substance but not name in New Jersey, Connecticut, and Vermont. New Hampshire is poised to become the next state to enact a comprehensive civil unions statute that will grant to gay couples all of the rights and responsibilities (at the state level) of heterosexual marriage, and California could well become another state to enact gay marriage in both name and substance (as nearly happened in 2006, when this measure was passed by both chambers of the legislature but vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger).

We need only look to the UK to see how different the attitudes of UK citizens are towards gay Britons relative to the attitudes of US citizens towards gay Americans. Civil Partnerships were backed by both the New Labor party and by the Conservative Party. Gay men and women are open about their sexual orientation to a much greater degree than is the case in the US, and British law flatly prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of sexual orientation (the legislation in question is actually much broader, and will be discussed elsewhere). In most parts of the UK, sexual orientation is simply not an issue. Most UK citizens simply do not seem to care about the sexual orientation of their neighbors. The British armed forces have managed to integrate gay servicemembers into their ranks with very few problems. The writer does not discount the gay-bashing and abuse that does occur from time to time, but it is not nearly as prevalent and as vicious as is the case in the US. This is reflected in art, culture, and popular music. Whereas "The Pet Shop Boys" is only mildly successful in terms of sales and market impact in the US, this group is a huge success in the UK -- to the extent that both gay and straight British citizens are familiar with the lyrics and the music of this group (which is referred to as a "notorious" homosexual band by the FRC and other right-wing anti-gay American organizations). Other nations are much more accepting of gay citizens than is the US.

South Africa became the latest nation to offer full gay marriage to those of its gay citizens who wish to marry. In doing so, South Africa joined Spain, Belgium, Germany, The Netherlands, and Canada in offering marriage in both name and substance. The UK, France, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Iceland, and several South American countries have all adopted sweeping and comprehensive measures offering gay marriage in all but name to their citizens. As the US falls further and further behind the curve, it will become subject to increased ridicule. The time will come when gay industrialists, skilled laborers, and other much-needed professionals will refuse to enter the US upon being informed, at entry, that their relationships with their spouses will be nullified as soon as they set foot on American soil.

Hopefully, our state-by-state strategy, which has won us four states to date, will continue to succeed, even in the face of state constitutional amendments prohibiting state supreme courts from recognizing gay marriages. Many states have rejected such proposed amendments to their constitutions, and Kramer's unadulterated pessimism may prove to be exaggerated.

PHILIP CHANDLER

The so-called "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy......

The US now stands as perhaps the only Western nation to retain a bigoted and entirely impractical attitude towards those of its citizens who wish to join the military and who are gay. Under the so-called "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) policy, any statement by a servicemember to the effect that he or she is gay -- whether uttered in a public forum or written in a personal diary -- automatically triggers "separation" proceedings, resulting in the servicemember being dismissed from the armed forces. This cruel and bigoted policy prohibits recruiters from asking applicants about their sexual orientation, yet some recruiters continue to do so, notwithstanding military regulations prohibiting this question from being asked of the applicant. The policy was fashioned after ex-President Bill Clinton folded like a house of cards on being presented with the first political hot potato as a sitting President. Instead of standing firm on his promise that, if elected, he would issue an executive order scrapping the prohibition against gay people serving in all arms of the military, he displayed the backbone of a squid, groveling and kowtowing to the armed forces (and the hard right) in the face of protests from the some of the generals under his command, enacting the so-called DADT policy that now stands as a supposed "compromise."

Congress then acted, codifying the ban on gay servicemembers and making it even harsher. Federal law now states that "homosexuality is incompatible with military service" (hearkening implicitly back to the days in which homosexuality was considered to be a mental illness, before both the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association dropped homosexuality from the official nosology of mental disorders (the "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders," which is now in its Fourth Edition)). Federal law bluntly prohibits anybody who is gay from serving in the armed forces, whether or not that person is open about his or her sexual orientation. The so-called "compromise" is therefore of extremely dubious legality, since the regulations described above are supposedly intended to permit closeted gay US citizens to serve in the armed forces. Right-wing groups have tried to pressure the Executive branch of the US government into scrapping the policy in its entirety and reverting to the old regulations, in which individuals wishing to join the armed forces are asked about their sexual orientation and are prohibited from serving if they are gay, regardless of whether or not they are closeted. Ironically, some gay rights organizations and activists would prefer a return to the old, total ban, to highlight the hypocrisy of the armed forces.

This hypocrisy derives from the fact that both the old ban and the current DADT ban appear to apply only in times of peace. During the Vietnam war, gay draftees were frequently permitted or forced to serve, and were then dishonorably discharged upon returning to the US. During the first Iraq war, many gay men and lesbians whose status became known during their tour to Iraq were permitted to continue serving, only to be discharged upon their return to the US. (By then, honorable discharges were usually granted, notwithstanding the cruelty and stupidity of this ban.) As other activists and commentators (e.g. Bill Boushka) have observed, the hypocrisy of the old policy could at least be displayed and employed as a tool to shame those US citizens possessing any semblance of a sense of fairness, whereas the hypocrisy of DADT can be hidden by false claims to the effect that gay servicemembers discharged from the armed forces under this policy were "flaunting" their sexual orientation.

Officers are supposed to ignore rumors about the sexual orientation of a gay servicemember who does not state that he or she is gay. The policy is truly bizarre in its Byzantine configurations. Should a member of the armed forces be sighted in a gay bar that has not explicitly been declared off-limits to members of the armed forces, that piece of evidence, alone, does not constitute a statement that, or proof to the effect that, the servicemember in question is gay, and cannot be used, in and of itself, to initiate an investigation into the sexual orientation of that servicemember. Should a servicemember be seen marching in a gay rights parade, that piece of evidence, in and of itself, is also not supposed to trigger such an investigation. Should a servicemember read gay political literature, that piece of evidence, in and of itself, is also not supposed to trigger an investigation. Should a servicemember be seen kissing another member of the same sex, however, an investigation can be triggered.

Once an investigation is triggered, all hell can break loose. The servicemember can be questioned about his or her sexual orientation, and cannot invoke the Self Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment by refusing to answer these questions. Civilians who know, or who are related to, the servicemember can be subpoenaed and forced, under threat of being incarcerated for civil contempt of court, to answer questions about the servicemember. The brother of a man who is being investigated can be forced to testify before a military tribunal as pertains to his knowledge of his brother's sexual orientation. Mothers can be hauled before military tribunals and can be forced to testify as to the sexual orientation of their children. The telephone of a suspected gay servicemember can be tapped. His or her hard drive can be confiscated for the purpose of forensic examination to find "incriminating" evidence (the email equivalent of love letters, gay pornography, etc.). Internet Service Providers (e.g. AOL) can be, and have been, complicit (whether willingly or reluctantly) in providing information about the identities of gay servicemembers who choose screen names (e.g. NavyBoy22) that reflect the fact that they are both gay and actively serving in the armed forces. The former employer of the servicemember in question can be forced to answer questions about the servicemember's social activities (to the extent that the former employer has such knowledge). The servicemember's mail can be intercepted and read. The writer cannot overemphasize the fact that all of these techniques can be, and in many cases have been, invoked in efforts to establish that servicemembers are gay.

The constitutionality of the DADT policy has been tested in federal court, and although the US Supreme Court has never addressed this issue directly, it has refused to grant certiorari in those cases that have been appealed to the intermediate courts of the US federal judiciary (the US federal judiciary has three tiers -- the Federal District Courts, the US Courts of Appeals, and the US Supreme Court). Those US Courts of Appeals which have heard cases arising from judgments handed down by the Federal District Courts have found for the US government in those instances in which the constitutionality of the DADT policy has been tested. However, the US Supreme Court has never issued a writ of certiorari (a decision to take an appeal from a lower court -- in most cases, one of the US Courts of Appeals) relative to a case in which the constitutionality of the DADT policy has been upheld. Refusal by the US Supreme Court to grant certiorari does not amount to endorsement of the decision of the lower courts, however, and recent changes in case law pertaining to the rights of gay Americans (e.g. Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996), Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)) may pave the way for the US Supreme Court to grant certiorari in a future case in which the constitutionality of the DADT policy and the underlying federal legislation is tested. In Romer, the Court struck down a Colorado state constitutional amendment which would have (1) repealed all statutes, ordinances, executive orders, and policies, applicable to both the public and the private sectors, prohibiting heterosexuals from discriminating against gay Coloradans in employment, housing, access to places of public accommodation (e.g. restaurants, hotels), and the extension of credit, and which would have (2) prohibited any governmental entity from ever again passing similar, or more protective, measures to protect gay Coloradans from such discrimination (the Court held that this amendment, known as Amendment 2, violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment on its face; the decision was written in tones sympathetic to gay Coloradans, who prevailed when the Court held that Amendment 2 reflected animus towards gay Coloradans, striking down the Amendment on the grounds that giving effect to animus towards a politically unpopular group of people can never, in and of itself, constitute a legitimate state interest). In Lawrence, the Court struck down the Texas "homosexual conduct" statute (and, by extension, all other anti-gay sex statutes, which existed in about 14 states at the time that the Court handed down its decision), declaring it to be violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; this decision was similarly written in tones stressing the dignity of the lives of gay Americans, further emphasizing that laws intended to inflict injury on any group of Americans for purely "moral" reasons cannot be sustained (A.J. O'Connor wrote a concurrence in which she joined in the judgment of the majority, employing the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to declare that "moral disapproval" is not a legitimate state interest and that "we have never held that moral disapproval, without any other asserted state interest, is a sufficient rationale under the Equal Protection Clause to justify a law that discriminates among groups of persons.").

Recent changes in the composition of both the House of Representatives (very roughly equivalent to the House of Commons in the UK in terms of its position in the constitutional structure of the US) and the Senate (even more roughly equivalent to the House of Lords in the UK in terms of its position in the constitutional structure of the US) have made both legislative bodies more gay-friendly, although the US remains morally backwards when compared to the UK in terms of the manner in which both nations treat their gay citizens (Civil Partnerships, which grant to gay couples who enter into them here in the UK all of the rights and responsibilities of marriage, were supported by both the New Labor and the Conservative Parties; in the US, only one state (Massachusetts) permits gay marriage in both name and substance, and only three states permit Civil Unions, which are identical to gay marriage in substance but not in name (New Jersey, Connecticut, and Vermont) (New York and California have created domestic partnerships, which grant to gay couples a small subset of the rights granted to gay couples who are married or who are in civil unions)). The outcome of the next Presidential election will be crucial to the issues of gay marriage, Civil Unions, Domestic Partnerships, and the right of gay Americans to serve in the armed forces on the same terms as heterosexual Americans. Should a Democrat win the Presidential elections, the ludicrous DADT policy could well be overturned. Attitudes towards gay Americans have undergone a very real shift since the DADT policy was implemented in 1993, as reflected in Romer and Lawrence (Lawrence overturned a 1986 opinion (Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986)), in which the Court upheld anti-gay sex statutes in tones of sneering contempt for the gay plaintiff and, by extension, for all gay Americans; the Lawrence majority bluntly and unequivocally repudiated its own analysis in Bowers, stating that "...The central holding of Bowers has been brought in question by this case, and it should be addressed. Its continuance as precedent demeans the lives of homosexual persons...Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today. It ought not to remain binding precedent. Bowers v. Hardwick should be and now is overruled."). Although the US remains almost unbelievably obtuse and morally backwards when compared to the UK, attitudes have changed, and more and more states have enacted statewide antidiscrimination statutes in the absence of action by the US government.

Those who wish to see the abolition of the DADT policy and who wish to see the US catch up with other Western nations now face the real possibility that, at some point in the foreseeable future, this wish could be realized. It is up to gay Americans and those who care for them -- friends and family -- to keep this issue alive by putting this issue front and center at every possible opportunity. With two major victories behind it, the gay community cannot to slow down or to dwell on these successes. Equality results from attitudinal change, which in turn is a reflection of evolving social norms. Young people are, as a demographic group, more sympathetic to gay Americans, and the writer believes that outreach to this group is critical if we are to succeed in joining our allies in the creation of a fully integrated and functional military.

PHILIP CHANDLER

An Open Letter to the American Family Association......

To: The American Family Association (www.afa.net)

Dear Sir / Madam,


I am profoundly disturbed by your repeated defamation and vilification of the gay community, both here and abroad. In writing this, I realize full well that I am wasting my time – but I consider it to be my moral and social imperative to ensure that efforts to harm a minority – particularly when those efforts are motivated by religious bigotry – are, at a bare minimum, subjected to comment and dispassionate analysis.

My understanding is that one of the largest “ex-gay” organizations in the US is an organization named Exodus International. This organization claims to have a very high “success” rate in terms of “curing” homosexuality – but has never released the raw data that would permit informed professionals to determine the manner in which this “success” rate is computed or derived. The sharing of information – particularly information pertaining to issues that generate considerable controversy – is considered to be central to the advancement of the scientific process, and failure to provide non-biased professionals with raw data is indicative of what can only, sadly, be described as a complete lack of intellectual integrity. How are scientists to evaluate the claims of “sexual reorientation” when those organizations responsible for such claims refuse to share information pertaining to the manner in which they conducted their studies?

I am, however, aware of the fact that two of the founders of Exodus International fell in love with each other and denounced the efforts of Exodus International as being both fruitless and damaging to the psyches of vulnerable gay men and lesbians who feel pressured by society to conform to strict notions of gender roles and identifies, regardless of whether or not such efforts could ever be successful. This speaks volumes about the integrity of Exodus International and, by extension, other organizations that make reckless and ill-informed claims about the lives of gay men and lesbians.

I am also aware that the poster child of the “ex-gay” movement – John Paulk – was thrown out of his position at the Family Research Council after he was caught chatting up men for sex in a gay bar off DuPont Circle, in Washington, DC, several years ago. He spent about an hour in this bar. When a gay activist recognized Paulk and telephoned another gay activist, who arrived with a camera and started taking pictures, Paulk beat a hasty retreat from this bar. Paulk then made a number of excuses for being in the gay bar (which is widely known as a “pick-up” bar) – including the claim that he merely wished to use the restroom (despite the fact that there were numerous restaurants and stores near the gay bar at which he could have relieved himself), followed by the claim that he was simply “interested” in seeing how his life had changed since his “conversion” to heterosexuality.

The hard, cold fact is that there is not one – I repeat, not one – reputable, unbiased psychiatric or psychological professional that considers homosexuality to be a mental illness, and that no reputable scientific authorities believe that it is possible for a person to undergo a change of sexual orientation. Some forms of organic brain damage (Kluver-Bucy syndrome, which is the result of bilateral damage to the temporal lobes of the neocortex, is an example) are associated with abrupt reversal of sexual polarity – which, when viewed from within the scientific paradigm to which I allude above, as opposed to the religious fanaticism to which you subscribe, would seem to reinforce the assertion of the overwhelming body of mental health professionals to the effect that sexual orientation is definitely a function of biology as opposed to personal choice. It is certainly true that gay men and women can become chaste and refuse to engage in behavior that, for them, comes naturally – or can even marry members of the opposite sex (as in the case of John Paulk) – but this does not render them heterosexual. A heterosexual man or woman who, for religious or other reasons, becomes celibate (as in the case of Catholic priests) does not cease to be heterosexual by virtue of the creation of a behavioral vacuum. What applies to heterosexuals also applies to gay men and lesbians – a young gay man can be terrorized by religious fanaticism into chastity, but that does not change his sexual orientation one iota.

What puzzles and amuses me the most is your unwillingness to listen to the reports of those people who know, better than anybody else, what it is to be gay – specifically, what puzzles me is your refusal to accept the assertions of literally millions of Americans who, when asked, repeatedly inform members of organizations such as yours that they are gay, and that they have neither the ability nor the desire to change their sexual orientation. Normally, one listens carefully to self-reporting in the context of a study of complex psychological phenomena – it is simply not possible to quantify, file, spindle, staple, fold, and reference states of arousal. Yet with respect to this issue – which continues to generate much controversy – organizations such as yours simply refuse to accept the direct testimony of gay men and lesbians. Are we to conclude that you believe that all members of the gay and lesbian community are involved in a massive conspiracy?

You further ignore the prevalence of homosexuality in every society ever studied by anthropologists, as well as the extraordinary consistency of the percentage of the population that is thought to be gay across all such societies. Even in societies in which homosexuality is punishable by the death penalty, gay men and lesbians continue to exist and to meet. Facile attempts to explain this away by comparing gay men and lesbians to criminals disintegrate when viewed more carefully, since the prevalence of criminal behavior is not consistent across societies. If there is any characteristic that can be best compared to homosexuality, it is laterality. Just as approximately 10% of the male population is considered to be gay, about 10% of the population is thought to be left-handed. Vicious and physically violent attempts to stamp out usage of the left hand in writing met with the same dismal failure as the “therapeutic regimens” of organizations such as Exodus International (many members of which report, following their discharge from this organization, that gay sex is rampant behind the backs of the “counselors” and “therapists”).

The parasympathetic nervous system, which regulates heartbeat, respiration, pupillary dilation, and other bodily functions not within the conscious control of the vast majority of human beings (Tibetan monks and experts in meditation aside), does not lie. When shown heterosexual pornography, the pupils of a heterosexual male subject dilate. When shown gay pornography, the pupils of a gay male subject dilate. These are hard facts. Regardless of religious teaching, the parasympathetic nervous systems of gay men and lesbians act on desire for members of the same sex. This cannot be explained away.

In this country, freedom of religion is cherished, and is enshrined in the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause. Courts of law regard any legislation that classifies people on the basis of their religious beliefs with great suspicion; in legal parlance, classifications on the basis of religion are “suspect.” Any classification impacting a fundamental right is considered to be “suspect.” Additionally, a “suspect class” is any group, the members of which are no less capable of contributing to society than the members of any other group, which has suffered a history of persecution where such persecution has been on account of an “immutable” characteristic shared by members of that group; the group in question is also relatively politically powerless, usually due to its small size. Race is the most obvious suspect class. Several state supreme courts consider sexual orientation to be a suspect class (see Footnote 1 to Baehr v. Miike, No. 91-1394-05 (1996), in which the Hawaii Supreme Court declared, authoritatively, that for all purposes other than marriage, classifications based on sexual orientation are suspect; see also Commonwealth v. Wasson, No. 90-SC-558-TG (1992) (striking down the Kentucky sodomy statute on state constitutional grounds)). Even were it to be proven that homosexuality is chosen, this would not justify the imposition of societal sanctions, violence, and rhetorical abuse against gay men and lesbians. Religion is chosen; in fact, Christianity places heavy emphasis on free will and its role in the lives of men and women. Judge Stephen Reinhardt of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit summed this up in his dissent in the case of Holmes / Watson v. California Army, No. 96-15855 (1997):

"I recognize that we are bound by this court's recent decision that the military may discharge service members who engage in homosexual conduct. See Philips v. Perry, 106 F.3d1420 (9th Cir. 1997). Although I must follow that decision here, I note that it is necessarily rooted in Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), a decision that I have previously described as similar in its bias and prejudice to Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896). I remain confident that some day a Supreme Court with a sense of fairness and an adequate vision of the Constitution will repudiate Bowers in the same way that a wise and fair-minded Court once repudiated Plessy. Indeed, I hope that day will not be long in coming. In my view of the Constitution, there is no more justification for discrimination against individuals because of their sexual orientation, which is most frequently a happenstance of birth, than there is for discrimination against blacks, Hispanics or Asians -- or against Catholics, Jews, or Muslims, who at least have the option to convert." [emphasis added].

Judge Reinhardt expressly articulated this principle despite the fact that he clearly does not believe that sexual orientation is chosen; in his view, discrimination against gay men and lesbians is as pernicious as discrimination against members of any given religion; in fact, the former form of discrimination is even more reprehensible, due to the fact that gay people cannot change their sexual orientation, whereas members of religious minorities can change their religions. While this may offend many religious people, the logic is unassailable. Simply put, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. (Judge Reinhardt’s wish was realized in 2003, when the US Supreme Court bluntly and expressly overturned Bowers v. Hardwick, openly acknowledging that it had made a very serious mistake in its analysis in Bowers (see Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)))

A few years ago, organizations such as yours were convinced that there was one particular struggle in the “culture war” (or, as Associate Justice Antonin Scalia so delicately and evocatively described it in his dissent in Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996), the “kultuurkampf” (a particularly interesting choice of language and noun from a man whose tool is the written word, given the fact that Scalia was writing about the rights of a group of Americans who have been repeatedly and systematically abused, and who were also targets of the Nazis during the Holocaust) could be won; while Scalia whined about the homosexual “problem” in the State of Colorado, organizations such as yours were confident that gay men and lesbians would never win the right to marry in this country. Wrong again. One state recognizes gay marriage in both name and substance (Massachusetts). Three other states recognize gay marriage in substance, but not name (Vermont, New Jersey, and Connecticut, the last of which implemented civil unions without any prompting from its judiciary). California could well become the fifth state to recognize gay marriage in substance and the second state to recognize gay marriage in name, as soon as this year. The most recent attempt to amend the US Constitution to ban gay marriages did not even attract a simple majority of members of the US Senate, let alone the 67 votes needed to ratify the proposed Amendment.

Around the world, the US has become the international laughing stock of more progressive societies. Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Iceland, and the United Kingdom now recognize civil unions that confer upon gay couples all of the benefits, privileges, and responsibilities of marriage. Belgium, Germany, Canada, The Netherlands, Argentina, Spain, Brazil, and South Africa have gone even further, recognizing gay marriage in both name and substance. The dominos are falling. Has your organization given a moment’s thought to the damage that would be done to this country were thousands of gay industrialists, scientists, professionals in short supply in the US, and other needed sources of high-tech labor to decide not to immigrate to this country due to the fact that their relationships with their spouses would be instantly annulled upon entry to the US?

You are entitled to your religious beliefs, and you would be surprised by the vigor with which I would fight for your right to believe in them and to live by them. But when your religious beliefs become the mace of government coercion – when the wall of separation between Church and State is breached, and organizations such as yours – organizations which portray gay men and lesbians as filthy and disease-ridden people who are morally debased and sexually depraved – attempt to force your beliefs down the throats of the rest of us, I will fight back. We will fight back. We will do so because we are not fodder for religious zealotry, and we will not stroll back into the camps.

Got it?

Good.

PHILIP CHANDLER