This is Called a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

Cardinal Francis George Warns That Chicago Gay Pride Parade Might 'Morph Into Ku Klux Klan': MyFoxCHICAGO.com

The controversy is simple. The gay parade in Chicago is too big for the old route. So the city had it extended and moved slightly to make it easier for floats to turn some corners along the way.

The change in the route has a Catholic priest upset because his church is on the route and he doesn't want gays around.

So the Archbishop (a totally unbiblical position) weighs in and then arbitrarily compares gays to the Ku Klux Klan and says he doesn't want gays protesting the church. Well, maybe if he didn't compare them to the Klan such demonstrations would be far less likely. I can't see how he couldn't think that such comments would encourage the very thing he claims he doesn't want.

Conservatives, gays and überbitches

The above discussion is of some interest, but also, in some ways, very unsatisfactory, at least to a libertarian. The topic itself is of zero interest to libertarians: "Is There a Place for Gay People in Conservatism and Conservative Politics?" Libertarians simply are not conservatives. My only regret about the way modern conservatives view gay people is that they have pushed a large number of people into alliances with the Left and thus many gay people end up buying the entire Left agenda, even when they shouldn't.

The second problem is that conservatism is an incoherent, unspecified, every-shifting set of values. As Hayek noted, conservatives may hold to certain "moral" values very strenuously but they lack any clear cut set of political principles. David Boaz, in his introduction of the discussion, referred to that when he noted that conservatives spent much of the last century opposing equal rights for Jews, blacks, women and gay people, and then wonder why those groups are reluctant to vote for them. He also noted that conservatives today go as far as pretending they never opposed equality for said groups once equality is accepted by most people. Conservatives like to rewrite their bigoted history in order to appear to be classical liberals. They aren't.

The third issue with this debate is that the participants were 2/3rds unsavory and 1/3 coherent and interesting. The 1/3 that was worth listening to was Nick Herbert, Conservative MP from the UK. The worst aspect of the debate was having to listen to Andrew Sullivan and Maggie Gallagher. Certainly if I were the deity I sentence them to spend eternity together—now that's what I call hell.

Sullivan's problem is the same one he always has. As for as Andrew is concerned there are only two topics of discussion: those that deal with him, and those that should deal with him. I find him incredible nauseating since he seems incapable of discussion anything unless he can make it about himself. In this debate he was überbitch. It is one thing when he's being rude and nasty to Maggie, since she actually deserves it, but Sullivan was the pompous ass with everyone. He was particularly snippy because he has created a fake conservatism where he supports Obama and Obama's big government agenda. When Dave Boaz asked a question regarding Sullivan's support of the president and his agenda Sullivan denounced the question instead of answering it.

When James Kirchick asked the same question and how Sullivan's views qualified as conservative, Sullivan responded by invoking authority: himself, of course. He merely said he knows more about the topic than Kirchick and then refused to answer.

I found Sullivan tedious in print and in person and can't think of any good reason that anyone should care what he thinks. His solipsistic view of politics screams self-esteem issues to me. Quite honestly, I can't stand the man. Watching him spar with Gallagher brings no pleasure as I don't want either of them to come out on top. Sullivan's prime point, when he wasn't pitying himself, was that conservatives are nasty. There is no serious debate there, at least not from me.

Gallagher was her usual self as well except she kept trying to emphasize that making gay people second class citizens doesn't mean she's a bigot. She kept whining that it is unfair to say that people are bigot if their views are deeply held, religious views. Of course, bigotry is bigotry, regardless if the the justification of it is theological, racial, or political. That her church, Roman Catholic, had promoted anti-Semitism for centuries is no less repugnant because they thought it was based on the New Testament. Gallagher is basically arguing that religious arguments ought to get a "free pass" in the realm of debate and politics; that one should not question them because they "are deeply held." Sincerity is the same thing as reasonable and sincerely held, wrong beliefs are still wrong. Just because you didn't believe a bus was turning the corner doesn't mean it won't flatten you.

The great problem with the Gallagher's religious nuts is that they honestly believe two very bad premises. First, they assume that religious beliefs hold some sort of protection from scrutiny, debate or even ridicule, not afforded to any other belief. Second, they then assume their religious beliefs should be the foundation for the law. This is a recipe for authoritarianism. A creed can be claimed to be religious, thus unavailable for debate or discussion. Then that creed should serve to regulate the lives of everyone else, even those who don't hold to the creed. This is really what Gallagher is asking for.

She also spends a certain amount of time saying that because evangelical Christians are fearful that we should placate them politically. She, of course, does her best to fan the fear any chance she gets. And she did it again in this discussion by lying about legal cases around gay issue. For instance, she claimed that Catholics in Massachusetts stopped adoption services because they were forced to allow gays to adopt. She neglected to say that the law on that matter only applies to agencies who are state funded. Mormon adoption services still operate in Massachusetts without having to be non-discriminatory because they weren't ripping off taxpayers to fund their activities. One can still discriminate in adoption if one is privately funded. But if gay taxpayers are forced to pay the bills they should have equal access to the services.

The problem is that the Catholic Church wanted tax funds, not that it was handling adoptions. If the church was willing to do that with it's own money (if it has any left after paying victims of abuse by Catholic priests) it would be free to do so, without having to consider gay parents. This was precisely the situation in Washington, DC. The church wanted taxpayer funding with the restrictions on their ability to discriminate that comes when you are a tax supported agency.

Sullivan did call Gallagher on this question and asked her if she were aware of this. She said she didn't know what the facts where even though she had just used this case as an example in her campaign of fear. Galllagher has regularly lied about situations to make them sound like a violation of private rights, when they were regulations on how to use taxpayer funding instead.

Gallagher's big claim was that when gay people make liberty claims they are on strong ground but when they make equality claims they are not. The problem is that she doesn't actually define equality and it can mean several different things. Equality of rights is very different from equality of results. Hayek noted that in The Constitution of Liberty that the two types of equality are incompatible. But what of equality of liberty and equality of rights before the law? Gallagher seems to think the two are at odds with one another.

They are not, for in many ways, they are one in the same thing. Gallagher is free to marry her partner, a gay person is not free to marry their partner. Gallagher has freedoms that gay people do not enjoy. The state treats gay people differently and at a disadvantage. In fact, many of the ways that the state treats gay couples differently means a direct transfer of wealth from gay couples to straight couples. Gallagher, in essence, has certain benefits (which I would abolish) that come to her because gay people are partially subsidizing them. She, for instance, will be able to collect social security benefits when her spouse dies. For gay couples, they pay in equally but collect unequally so that Maggie will be eligible for higher benefits than if the system didn't discriminate. I also believe her husband (who is not the father of her first child), a Hindu, is a immigrant. She is allowed to marry a foreigner who can live with her in the US. Gay men and women are not given the same freedom.

The only interesting aspect to the debate came from Nick Herbert and I found myself agreeing more with his comments than with anyone, other than David Boaz, who I only disagree with advisedly, since I respect his opinions highly. Herbert did say a few things that would set conservatives to howling, but that is a good thing. He also said a couple of things libertarians would disagree with and in fact, Nigel Ashford, who is a good guy and a friend, did disagree with Herbert on the issue of hate crimes.

Part of the problem with the hate crime debate in the US is that the Right intentionally confuses hate crime laws with hate speech laws. The two are not the same. Secondly, legal precedents from other nations don't apply here as they have different constitutional systems. Gallagher, of course, equates the two as if these different systems have no impact on how law is interpreted in other nations.

But Herbert raised an interesting reply, and one that has me seriously rethinking my views on hate crime legislation. Herbert noted that hate crimes are not like most crimes in that they are also a way that bigots inflict distress or trauma on a larger group. When a man is attacked for being gay, the attacker wants all gay people to be fearful. His direct assault may be on one individual but a hate attack is meant as a message to all other members of that group. It is, basically, a threat intended to instill fear in the hated group. Certainly if that is the case, and it typically is in hate attacks, then threatening many individuals, though immediately attacking the one, may well deserve a greater penalty. The greater penalty is not one for attacking a person who is gay, but for engaging in an activity that is meant to threaten all gay people.

For a libertarian, the first question is whether a "threat" is plausible and believable. In the case of hate crimes they clearly are since the attacker only faces such penalties after actually carrying out the kind of attack he is threatening.

Nor am I particularly bothered when groups of individuals who are particularly vulnerable are afforded extra legal protection from actual crimes. I would not be bothered if a violent attack on an elderly woman were punished with greater severity than one on a football player. It is not because the football player has few rights than the grandmother but because he is more capable of protecting himself and less vulnerable. Ditto for laws that inflict higher sentences on attacks on children. I would most certainly feel comfortable sentencing a man to a much longer term in prison for bashing an infant than for the same act in a barroom brawl. I can also see why some groups are simply more vulnerable than others. A person may be more vulnerable simply because they are part of a group that a significant number of people hate and that group is simultaneously a small portion of the population.

Herbert brought up antigay bullying in schools and on the sports field. Now, the school aspect I can immediately understand. Government schools should not tolerate bullying—neither should private schools by the way. Bullying should not be permitted in schools. The sports issue had Maggie implying this is a violation of private life. But this would need to be clarified.

Certainly I' ve lived in countries where sports was heavily subsidized by government and sometimes directly, or indirectly, controlled by government. National teams were not private entities at all. The distinction between private and public is more murky and without clarification from Herbert, and knowing more about the state of sports in the UK I simply can't agree or disagree. Unfortunately sports today is substantially a government enterprise. Even in the US sports teams, while privately owned, are heavily subsidized by taxpayers. These teams actively seek state funding. Again, if that is the case, then I don't see a problem with government saying that all taxpayers must be treated with respect at events they are forced to fund. If a team wants to allow verbal harassment of gay people at their events, then should refuse all state funding. Of course they won't do that, they want taxpayer funding too badly.

Enjoy the discussion. Please remember that Sullivan and Gallagher are on you computer screen and that if you smash your fist into the screen it will hurt only you and your pocketbook. Running time is about 80 minutes.

Tears and anger

This entry will be updated periodically as information becomes available and updates will be in bold.

It is hard for me to get a handle on my emotions about this incident. I am fucking furious and deeply saddened by the incident tonight in Tel Aviv. A group for gay teens was meeting at a local gay community center when a man with a machine gun broke in and sprayed the room with bullets.

These were kids who are came together for counseling and emotional support. They were there with the counselor who runs the group. And some fucking bastard walks in and wants to murder them.

Let's take a guess, a wild stab in the dark. Anyone think it might have to do with hatred for people who are gay? Anyone want to guess the odds that the murdering SOB was religiously inspired?

Be clear, as some media reports are wrong, this was not a bar or club that was open to the public. This was a support group for gay teens. The killer had to have picked this group in particular, research was necessary to carry out this crime. The killer knew who he was targeting, this was not a random act of violence, but one that was particularly pointed at gay young people.
At least eleven, some reports say as high as 15, young people were hospitalized, and two are dead. Two of the hospitalized are in critical condition though some reports say four are in critical condition. And for their parents this is a double-shock. Many of the parents were unaware that their children were dealing with the difficulty of being gay. The BBC confirms: "One worker at the centre said some parents of the teenagers did not know their children were gay until they received phone calls telling them their children had been injured."

Or Gil, 16, said the group was "for 14- to 21-year-olds" and says, "I'm horrified to think that this was the way parents of some of my friends will find out [that there children are gay.]" Gil describes the incident:

At about 10:40 P.M. someone came over, all dressed in black and wearing a black mask. I thought it was a joke at first, but he immediately opened fired. People took cover under the bed and tables, but there were no screams. I hid under the table with someone else. It's a small place, there's just one terrace. Once you're inside, there's nowhere to run."

Police say they are searching for the gunman and have made it clear that they do NOT believe the attack was carried out by Palestinians or that the attack is connected to the continuing conflict in the region.

Let me state that while the murderer himself bears the ultimate responsibility, that all purveyors of hate and bigotry play their role. Those groups that preach hatred, teach hatred, know that ultimately people act on their beliefs. I am not saying that their free speech should be curtailed. But I am also saying that decent people ought to point fingers at these hate-mongers and let them know that they help encourage these very things. Maggie Gallagher helps encourage this sort of thing. Jennifer Roback Morse helps encourage these sorts of things. Michael Reagan helps encourage these sorts of things. The Mormon sect helps encourage these sorts of things.

Conservatives love to preach: "Ideas have consequences." And they are right. Ideas do have consequences. When thousands of fundamentalist preachers around the world get up in their pulpits and preach that God hates gays and that he demands "that their blood shall be upon their head," then someone is going to put "God's word" into action. When millions of conservatives campaign for laws that explicitly say that gay people do not deserve the same legal rights as other people, the first step toward dehumanization has taken place.

While religiously-motivated hatred is pervasive, we know, with complete certainty, that people will act on that hatred. When you tell these people that their hatred is godly, and divine in origin, you justify, in their minds, the actions that they will take.

This is precisely why I constantly speak out against bigotry, in all forms. Bigotry is not just an attack on one group. It is an attack on the very principles of a liberal, free society. It is an attack on decency and true morality. Haters are destroyers. And sometimes, like tonight, it is the young, our children, who become their targets.

For that, we should all weap.

They were just kids. They were just kids wanting to understand who they were. For that they should be murdered? What a fucking messed up mind has to be responsible for this. Three years ago I took a pledge to myself to NEVER tolerate bigotry or bigots again. I urge you to do the same. When you encounter it, speak out against it. Don't be silent.

This report says all that needs to be said.

This is a policy that Ron Paul called "decent." This is a policy Obama said he would end. Guess what? Obama lied, again.

Prominent Mormon: Count me Out

Prominent Mormon Bill Marriott, a major shareholder in the Marriott chain of hotels has used his company blog to distance himself from his church's campaign to fund Proposition 8 to strip gay couples of the right to marry. Marriott says he is a Mormon and that some people might conclude "that our company supported the recent ballot initiative to ban same sex marriage in California." But he assures his readers: "This is simply untrue. Marriott International is a public company and is not controlled by any one individual or family. Neither I, nor the company, contributed to the campaign to pass Proposition 8."

Marriott says he is "very careful about separating my personal faith and beliefs from how we run our business" and says the company "was built on the basic principles of respect and inclusion". He wrote: "We embrace all people as our customers, associates, owners, and franchisees regardless of race, sex, gender identity or sexual orientation."

Marriott wrote: "We were among the first in our industry to offer domestic partner benefits, and we've earned a perfect 100% score on the Human Rights Campaign's Corporate Equality Index for two years in a row. Many of our hotels have hosted LGBT community functions and events for years. "

A search of the database of contributers to the Prop 8 campaign show only four people named Marriott as contributors. Three gave to the Prop 8 campaign and one opposed it. The three supporters gave a total of $1,200 and none had links that were immediately associated in my mind with Bill Marriott or the company so he may well be telling the truth. My only question is that while he starts out speaking of his hotel and his family when it gets to the point where he states that no contributions were made he drops reference to his family and instead says that he personally didn't contribute. That might be poor wording. Or it might be very carefully considered wording. It might indicate that one of the contributors was, in fact, a family member just not Bill Marriott himself. However, I'm satisfied with Marriott's statement and don't see a reason why anyone should shun his hotels, at least not in relationship to Prop 8.

However, that said, I'm not sure this is going to placate a lot of gay travellers. The real story in the response to Prop 8 passing is that this one measure, like nothing else in history, has united and angered the gay community. Millions of gay people are enraged across the country and at the same time. If Prop 8 was meant to harm the rights of gay people, and it was, the net result, long term, may be the very opposite. Millions of gays who had previously been apolitical are pissed off and contributing and marching and this is not going to stop for some time.

If there is a slogan that captures it try this one: "We're mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore." The Mormon Church and their deceptive campaign have prodded a sleeping bear and then they kept prodding it until it woke up very angry. That may well mean the bear will sometimes pick the wrong targets but it doesn't mean the bear is going back to sleep very quickly.

For me, as a libertarian, my concern is that the gay community will go overboard and ask for things which I don't believe anyone has the right to ask for. But I can't really blame them. Marriage rights were a legitimate request and ought not be denied. Conservatives who acted to deny gays their legitimate rights may not only lose that battle but end up seeing badly crafted laws on "hate speech" and private discrimination as well. That is, in order to win a small battle the conservatives may have lost the war and, in the end, lose what little they gained in the small battle as well.

How Progressives helped the Religious Right mug gay rights.

There are issues where the Progressives, from the classical liberal view, are on target, or close enough for government work. Social freedom tends to be that area. They deserve thanks for leading the battle to expand the rights of gay people until they are coequal to those granted heterosexual. Liberalism, that is true liberalism, as Hayek noted is always ready to expand liberty into new areas which terrify conservatives. So true liberals and Progressives have some common ground in those areas.

And many Progressives are disturbed by the well-funded campaign of religious zealots to strip gay couples of marriage rights in California. As am I. But what our Progressive friends don’t realize, recognize or, perhaps even know, is that Progressives were the accomplices of the Religious Right in this campaign to strip people of their rights. They made this antigay campaign possible. To understand how let us look at some history.

America’s founders were not advocates of democratic rule. They worried that people’s passions were too easily riled up by demagogues and that mobs could easily be persuaded to strip individuals or minorities of their rights. The Founders tried to avoid the tyranny of the majority. They created a government that was inherently anti-majoritarian in many ways -- certainly it was openly antidemocratic. The president was not elected directly, he was elected by electors not by the people. And while most people still don’t understand the Electoral College that is pretty much how it is done today.

Secondly, the Founders had the Senate representing the states not the people. They were appointed by each state legislature not directly elected.

The third branch of government was the Supreme Court where justices were appointed by the president (himself not directly elected) and approved by the Senate (which was not directly elected). To give it an even stronger antidemocratic nature they made sure the Justices were appointed for life and couldn’t be removed by popular vote.

The reason they did this was simple. They were not establishing a democracy but a free society where the rights of all people would be respected -- at least that was the goal whatever failings they had in achieving it. They didn’t want the rights of minorities subjected to popular vote. Thomas Jefferson said, “It is ridiculous to suppose, that a man had less rights in himself than one of his neighbors, or, indeed, than all of them put together.” Even a unanimous vote of everyone but the person being targeted is not a legitimate reason for denying rights. The Yes on 8 people don’t understand this and keep harping about previous popular votes to deny rights to gay couples. Rights, properly understood, should not be subject to popular vote,

Jefferson said that when the rights of individuals or minorities are subject to majority approval, “This would be slavery, not the liberty which the bill of rights had made inviolable, and for the preservation of which our government has been charged.” The writer Frank Chodorov warned, “the idea that a number of people, acting together, have a right, which supersedes the rights of the individual is pure fantasy, and one which as experience shows, has been invented for no good purpose.”

We shouldn’t vote on which churches should have freedom of religion. We shouldn’t vote on which minorities have the right to attend schools and which don’t. The rights of minorities do not rely upon majority approval. That was what the Founders were attempting to accomplish. Subjecting the rights of individuals to majority approval leads to social warfare, to conflict between groups and individuals. It increase social instability and breeds violence. Oscar Wilde once described pure democracy as “the bludgeoning of the people, by the people, for the people.” He was right. When rights are subject to majority approval people get bludgeoned. And in California what is happening is nothing short of electoral gay bashing.

So how did we reach the situation where minorities must come begging to the majority for equal protection before the law? Was it some crusade by Religious Right fanatics? Not at all, the religious fanatics exist and are using the law but they didn’t set it up.

The advocates of the ballot initiative process were the Progressives -- or socialists. Hiram Johnson was California’s governor and in 1911 he and local Progressive put through a series of reforms to give the majority more say in politics. Johnson went on to be a founder of the national Progressive Party and was the party’s vice presidential candidate. He was also a supporter of the racist Alien Land Law of 1913 which stripped Asian immigrants of the right to property--a law overturned by the California Supreme Court. Presumably something the Yes on 8 people would resent -- damn activist judges going around protecting rights.


One of the things that stymied the Progressives was that the Constitution limited government powers and the socialists wanted government to have more power. They believed that ballot initiatives would allow them to bypass the legislatures and push through measures that promoted socialism. They believed that the majority would use the power to confiscate wealth from the rich. And they would when they can, and have done so -- see rent control and the measures to mandate lower insurance costs as an example.

But it wasn’t the poor versus the rich. It was a majority of people against a minority of people. The wealthy were, and are, a minority. The socialists were using a method they believed would attack the rights of a minority, the well-off. So majorities tend to favor passing costs on to people other than themselves and focusing the benefits on themselves. That is what majoritarian initiatives tend to do.

The initiative was created so that majorities could strip minorities of rights. The socialists thought it was okay to do this because the minority was wealthy. But, once that process exists, all minorities face problems. If there is sufficient hatred for one minority, say whipped up by religious crazies, then that minority may be stripped of rights barring other Constitutional protections enforced by judges.

In California, the Progressives allowed the Constitution to be changed by majority vote. So voters in California can, in regards to matters that are under state control, such as marriage, impose their own biases on that document and strip a minority of their rights.

One of the things I have harped on, repeatedly, to the exhaustion of some readers I suspect, is the matter of expanding state power. I have argued that when the Left expands the powers of the state to do what they consider to be good things, they create a situation where their opponents can then win office and use those expanded powers for what the Left would consider to be bad things. That is precisely how gay people are being stripped of their right to marry in California.

It was understandable that this process was pushed through but short-sighted. The California government was corrupt and in the back pockets of certain business interests. But this is only a problem when we have government with massive powers. If government has few, clearly delineated powers and no ability to redistribute rights and wealth from majorities to minorities (which is what tends to happen in the legislative process) then few corrupt business interests would be interested in owning the legislature. It is the power they wish to purchase and when the power is limited the value of corraling the legislature is very low.

But the Left believed that the goals of liberalism, such as expanded rights, greater wealth, more equality, could best be achieved by conservative means -- the use of state power. So their dilemma was keeping the power in place for their own use and removing the corrupt businessmen from the arena. And the initiative process was one way they came up with for doing that.

The Left created a process called ballot initiatives. That allows majorities to vote for the redistribution of the rights and wealth of minorities. It does more than allow it, it encourages it. The result is being seen today. More state power is never the answer. It will always be grabbed by the powerful and used against the powerless. In this case the majority is using it against a small minority. And the only recourse the small minority has is to beg the majority of people to please not let it happen. A right should not depend on majority approval but the Progressives set up a system where that was inevitable.

Expanded state powers never stay in the hands of those who first created them. Eventually their enemies get hold of the reins of power and then those new state mechanisms get used for purposes very much in opposition to their original intentions. As much as I support sex education for the young I long felt that having such programs would eventually backfire. We have now had millions of federal tax dollars used to change the courses into anti-sex education. The same is true with the initiative process in California. The Progressives didn’t see it as a means of stripping minority groups of their rights (though they were then fairly weak on the topic), they wanted it to hurt the business interests. But the powers created for one purpose are easily diverted to contrary purposes.

The great conflict between the classical liberal and the socialist has been over precisely this issue. The classical liberals warned that the use of illiberal means (state power) to achieve liberal goals will eventually be perverted into the means for the destruction of liberal goals. That is what we are seeing with Proposition 8. True liberals know that both means and ends must be consistent. A true liberal wants Proposition 8 defeated but then ought not rest until the initiative process itself is abolished.

PS: I do see one role for initiatives, to veto legislation passed by the state assembly. As the nature of legislative law is to pander to special interests to confiscate rights from majorities to minorities, a people’s veto would allow the repeal of laws that do this. But the majority should not be allowed to reverse the process, that is to strip minorities of their rights or wealth. By acting as a break on legislative tendencies to pander to organized interests a people’s veto, as opposed to an initiative process, helps restrain the evils of government.

Tolerance and state education.

State education, as it exists, is a nightmare of contradictions and conflicts. One can’t have a coercive educational system without putting individuals and groups into conflict with one another. It is unavoidable. The ultimate solution is always a voluntary system of education. But that leaves unanswered the question of how to deal with real problems today.

Should we simply ignore those problems and let the state sort them out? Or should we pick the least bad of the alternatives? Sometimes we even get to pick from competing goods, though not often.

To me the great problem is that America’s young are forced into these educational camps. The use of taxation to fund such centers removes from most parents the ability to seek out alternative schools for their children. So parents are forced to send their children in and forced to pay for the experience. Then they are forced to hear one side or another on any issue.

For instance a California legislator wants to mandate that all children be indoctrinated into the global warming doomsday theory, much the way Sunday School was used to indoctrinate children about theology -- and for much the same reason, I think.

When politicians aren’t forcing specific ideas from being taught they are working to forcibly prevent other ideas from being taught.

Thepublican state senator, Stacey Campfield, has introduced legislation in Tennessee that would ban the discussion of any “sexual orientation other than heterosexuality” in the schools. Campfield is a brain-dead conservative, but I repeat myself. He (you’d think he’d change his name to something more butch than Stacey) says unless such discussions are forbidden then Tennessee will become like California where he falsely claims “they’ve banned using ‘mom’ and ‘dad’ in books. He says he is particularly opposed to the schools promoting understanding or acceptance toward groups like gays, lesbians, bisexuals or the transgendered. Certainly no one in their right mind would want a good Christian state like Tennessee associated with subversive notions like tolerance of others.

The reality is that the schools have students who are gay or transgendered, or perceived to be so by their peers. These students are forced to attend these states centers or face incarceration or fines for failing to do so. And this means they can face daily torture and torment by the sort of students who, no doubt, would side with Stacey the Heterosexualist.

It doesn’t really matter if the student in question is actually gay or transgendered or whatever. The mere perception that he, or she, is so is sufficient to bring down the bullying of the intolerant. I suggest such bullies have a career ahead of them in the state legislature as Republicans.

But the students being victimized can’t escape without violating the law. At the same time the school would be prevented from discussing the issue that is actually the inspiration for the bullying. Under Stacey’s little bill it would illegal for the school to encourage the bully from understanding the issues that is causing him, or her, to harass another student. Instead the school is forced to allow this intolerance to fester.

While Stacey the Heterosexualist is trying to ban the teaching of tolerance about gay students another drama was unfurling in the town of Oxnard, California.

Lawrence King was 15 years of age and attending E.O. Green Junior High. While reports claimed that King was gay the descriptions I’ve read are more indicative of a gender identity issue. And certainly many teens who are transgendered first make the assumption that they are gay. Either way King was perceived as “gay” by fellow students. Many of them were okay with that but others were not.

One of the students who wasn’t tolerant of King was 14-year-old Brandon McInerney. Brandon regularly harassed and bullied King because of his perceived sexual orientation. Students report that this bullying went on all the time and that Brandon was just one of a pack of thugs who harassed King. McInerney didn’t believe in tolerating sexual orientations other than heterosexual. If he weren’t in jail he’d have a budding career in the Tennessee legislature.

Mr. McInerney went to the junior high the other day intent on settling his hatred for King, once and for all. He settled it by shooting the other boy in head several times and then fleeing the school. He was apprehended, is now in jail, and will be facing first-degree murder charges as an adult.

The killing sent shock waves through the city of Oxnard and through the students themselves. Two local high school students decided to hold a “peace” march promoting the idea of tolerance. They hoped for a hundred or two hundred students to be there. The Los Angeles Times reports:

The Goths in their black T-shirts were there. So were the punks with fluorescent hair and multiple piercings.

There were even a few adolescent boys carrying skateboards among the nearly 1,000 Oxnard youth and other supporters who turned out Saturday for a hastily organized peace march to pay tribute to Lawrence King, 15, the Oxnard student shot to death in a classroom last week.

Courtney LaForest, 16, was one of the organizers of the event. She said that like many students there she didn’t know King but that didn’t matter. “We are saying you don’t need to accept people who are gay, but you should tolerate them.”

Thirteen-year-old Connor Spies attends another junior high. But when he heard about the march he and two of his buddies joined in. He put it well when he said: “It will be a better future if we are more tolerant.”

Absent from the march, for the most part, were the adults. It was by students for students not for politicians looking to score points over someone’s tragedy. The local superintendent of the school district did join his students that day. But his official involvement was limited. When he learned of the students planning this march he sent words to the schools that were to support the idea.

How would this situation be handled by schools if the law proposed by Stacey were in effect? Ask yourself what it mean?

It would mean that the schools couldn’t make any moral distinction between the harasser and the victim. Whether or not the killer should have been tolerant or not would be entirely outside the realm of the school. It would require a moral neutrality as to whether or not students should tolerate others. Odd that the conservatives whine so much about morality and then dish the concept when it comes to hating people.

Stacey the Heterosexualist doesn’t seem to comprehend something so simple that even a 16-year-old high school student grasped it. That is the point made by Courtney LaForest. Tolerance merely means that you agree to leave other people alone, in other words you afford them their basic rights as a human being. Acceptance means you put your stamp of approval on them.

In a free society tolerance is absolutely necessary while acceptance is not. And to foster tolerance one must, paradoxically not tolerate intolerance. The great classical liberal Ludwig von Mises wrote:

Liberalism, however, must be intolerant of every kind of intolerance. If one considers the peaceful cooperation of all men as the goal of social evolution, one cannot permit the peace to be disturbed by priests and fanatics. Liberalism proclaims tolerance for every religious faith and every metaphysical belief, not out of indifference for these "higher" things, but from the conviction that the assurance of peace within society must take precedence over everything and everyone. And because it demands toleration of all opinions and all churches and sects, it must recall them all to their proper bounds whenever they venture intolerantly beyond them.

Liberalism demands tolerance as a matter of principle, not from opportunism. It demands toleration even of obviously nonsensical teachings, absurd forms of heterodoxy, and childishly silly superstitions. It demands toleration for doctrines and opinions that it deems detrimental and ruinous to society and even for movements that it indefatigably combats. For what impels liberalism to demand and accord toleration is not consideration for the content of the doctrine to be tolerated, but the knowledge that only tolerance can create and preserve the condition of social peace without which humanity must relapse into the barbarism and penury of centuries long past.

Against what is stupid, nonsensical, erroneous, and evil, liberalism fights with the weapons of the mind, and not with brute force and repression. The conservative wishes to have the option to use state force in order to prevent discussion, to shackle ideas. Libertarianism, in the quest, for freedom must demand the right to speak and discuss and therefore must oppose the sorts of laws this Theopublican is pushing.

Photo: The photo is of Lawrence King .

Looking in on the Anglican neighbors.

To comment about the internal strife within the Anglican church almost seems to be intruding on the squabbles of the family next door. If you aren’t a member of the family it might be seen as intruding.

Well, not only am I not an Anglican. I’m not even a distant cousin. I possess not one whiff of what purports itself as “spirituality” and tend to place theology into the same camp as phrenology, astrology, divination, spell casting and other imaginary theories for discerning reality.

At its best theological constructs are quant attempts to find meaning without actually doing the hard work of thinking. The old saying, “God said it, that settles it,” is quite indicative of the theological mind. It asserts conclusions while simultaneously arguing that there is no need for evidence or logic. Since the conclusion is the revelation of a supernatural being the rest of us are supposed to shut up and obey. Certainly in olden days, and many Third World religious havens today, those who don’t shut up find themselves permanently silenced in one way or another.

Whatever claims to moral superiority that religion may make for itself the realities of the past often indicate a highly immoral system of persecution, intolerance and coercion. Of course, in a competition between two divine revelations, each in conflict with the other, the only recourse to solve the conflict is an appeal to superior force. And that is how it has been throughout history: the followers of one deity slaughtering the followers of another deity. In Europe sufficient numbers of “pagans” were tortured, put to the rack, set alight, or dealt with in sufficiently painful ways as to pretty much eliminate any competition.

And so it went for centuries. Now and then some poor heretic was publicly exterminated as an example and a certain unity of faith was obtained. Through this same process unity was maintained for some centuries. The problem then arose that European political structure was broken into thousands of small city-states or tiny principalities. The large nation-state of today didn’t exist -- which was a good thing for European development. This division of political power made it possible for individuals to entertain competition revelations from the same deity who apparently was whispering different ideas into the heads of different divines.

With political power diffused the ability to wipe out this competition became more and more difficult. The result was a massive increase in bloodletting. And for some centuries Christians were putting one another to the sword with such relish that the Muslims could only watch with amazement. It seemed to them that Christians were doing Allah’s work for them.

Eventually this lead to such bloodshed that the people started to weary of it. A few centuries of constant warfare begins to lose the thrill after some time, no matter how sure one is of the righteousness of one’s cause. And some thinkers started toying with the idea of toleration. A goodly number of them suffered for such evil ideas but eventually this “sinful” concept spread about. And it didn’t hurt that by now the “one true faith”, of the many one true faiths, had splintered into so many diverse sects and creeds that it was becoming increasingly more difficult for one of them to dominate the others.

Out of this mixture eventually arose the Anglicans, founded by a King intent on remarrying in violation of the Catholic Church’s teaching on such things. When Rome refused to bow to the King he simply grabbed control of church property and started his own sect. Anglicanism thus originated primarily as a vehicle for one King to do that which the church deemed improper. There was no great theological divide in reality.

Of course after Anglicanism separated from Catholicism it began to work on its own theology. Over the next couple of hundred years there did develop, within Anglicanism, a view of the world with much in common with the Enlightenment values that were starting to flourish in Europe and which caused Europe to flourish

Eventually the politicians and public ignored the constant splintering of the faith. And as the one true faith became segmented in thousands of sects, the idea of putting one another to death had pretty much been abandoned. And necessarily so: with so many segments of the church competing any battle to solve the questions of the divine would result in a sea of blood.

The conflict in competing revelations eventually came down to issues of more mundane matters. People were less willing to kill over the Trinity but more willing to kill over whether or not people were acting in a proper way. And the major conflict of the 19th century was over the concept of slavery. Here, much of Anglicanism sided with the angels -- in that they had eventually become opponents of slavery. But certainly not all of them, by any means. And even this shift took centuries to accomplish.

For most of recorded history the Christian Church accepted the practice of slavery and Christians were prominent practitioners of the institution. John Newton is often seen as a prominent figure in the abolitionist movement and in the Reader’s Digest version of his life he became a Christian, an Anglican cleric in fact, and opposed slavery. Well, not exactly.

He did have a religious conversion and was morally outraged at swearing, drinking and sins of the flesh. Slavery didn’t bother him. He continued on as slaver for several years after his conversion. And when he did retire from the slave trade in 1754 it was not related to his disgust over the practice but because of his desire to become a minister. His first discourse against slavery only came 33 years after he left the slave trade.

But Newton did eventually become an anti-slaver. Other prominent “evangelicals” like George Whitefield, the orator who was credited with the “Great Awakening” in the United States, that sowed the seeds for fundamentalist Christianity there, were avid advocates of slavery. Whitefield is the one most credited with legalizing slavery in Georgia and thanks to his efforts some 1 million people had gone through slavery in that state alone.

Eventually the anti-slave theologians dominated in England and, with the rise of classical liberalism and liberal values, slavery was eventually abolished. Anglicans by the time of the American Civil War were more likely to be opponents of slavery. But American Christianity divided over the issue of enslaving human beings. Various “Southern” break off denominations were formed in defense of the morality of enslaving human beings. The Southern Baptists are the largest denomination in the United States today and they were formed over a defense of slavery. Ditto for groups like the Southern Methodist and the Southern Presbyterians.

And that brings me to today. What is the issue that is splintering the Anglican Church? Whether or not they should treat homosexuals really badly or only slightly badly. A few even seem to be more tolerant and want them treated with equality.

And right-wing Anglican churches in the United States are sending berobed bishops and archbishops to Uganda, Nigeria and Kenya, of all places, to be blessed by authoritarian Anglican bishops there. One of them, Archbishop Peter Akinola, finds contempt for homosexuals to be one of the key doctrines of his Christian faith. And antigay American Anglicans see him as the great Black Hope of antigay theology. Akinola is one strange bird. He says silly things like: “Many people say I embarrass them with my humility.” Okay!

Archbishop Akinola is so antigay that he wants the laws changed. Under Nigerian legislation he endorsed it would be illegal for gay people to meet one another or to petition government to change antigay laws. The law would make it illegal to announce meetings for gay people and would ban other churches from providing any blessing of sanction on gay relationships. This sort of Brown-shirt mentality has American Right-wing Anglicans flocking to Africa to get blessed and will splinter the Anglican church.

I guess I think of all this because I was outside Canterbury Cathedral today, the church home of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the head of the Anglican faith. And his conundrum is that Anglicanism is relatively stagnant with few members in the developed world. Where people are largely uneducated, such as central Africa, the faith is large. So the African Anglicans have the numbers. But the Western Anglicans have the money.

The Western Anglicans want the numbers and the African Anglicans want the money. The African Anglican church has been subsisting off funds from the West for decades. But it feels that with the numbers it should call the shots. And when it comes to shots they want to target homosexuals. Western Anglicans tend to be educated and tend to be socially liberal. They don’t find this raw sort of hatred very appealing. And now the church is splintering. The African Anglicans have ordained 17 archbishops for antigay Anglican churches in the West and are gunning for a showdown.


The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, would prefer the whole thing just go away. But how can it? Most Western Anglicans are children of the Enlightenment, whether they know it or not. Most African Anglicans have no idea what that means. They are authoritarians who put faith above reason and obedience above liberty. The gulf between them can not be surmounted. But Williams has attempted to hold these two contradictory views of the world together. And all that does is make the eventual divorce even more explosive.

I would acknowledge that the Anglican Church has the right to any theology it wishes to invent. They even have the right to be antigay, just as they had the right to support slavery for so many years. Any sect has the right to belief anything they can concoct. Unfortunately, when people adopt such beliefs for themselves, and convince themselves they speak for the deity of the universe, the temptation to impose such values on others, through coercive means, is difficult to shun. Most succumb to this totalitarian temptation and look across the kingdoms of this world and dream of dominating them -- for the greater good, of course. Archbishop Akinola is one such man. He stopped playing theology and went to politics much as the Religious Right in the United States has done (the religious Left has done so as well but they hide it better).

There is little doubt that the Akinolas of the world are sincere believers in their antigay theology. But sincerity is a much overrated virtue and perhaps one of the more dangerous ones. Certainly one need only look back 150 to 200 years ago to see that theologians defending slavery were terribly sincere. Churches splintered over slavery. People killed over it. Laws were put into place to defend that institution. Thousands and thousands of people died in a great war, fought in part, over the cultural conflict between Northern abolitionists and Southern slavers.

If you think the cultural conflict that divides America today is new you are sadly mistaken. You need only go back to the 1850s to see competing cultural values tearing the nation apart quite literally. I happen to oppose “Southern” values in both cases, and for the same reasons. The American South was defending slavery while the North was hiding slaves from their owners. The South was whining that the North was imposing impious values on their Christian culture --- George Bush is their revenge for that.

Of course, after more than a century, only the most rabid Southern fundamentalist defends slavery as a Godly institution today. Most have accepted the cultural liberal values that saw each human being as an end in himself and not the property of others. The consensus is that the “Biblical” teaching of slavery was actually not the Biblical teaching and the secularists and abolitionists and liberals were right -- slavery was, and is, immoral.

The massive role of the church in promoting and expanding slavery is now ignored and they prefer to focus any attention on that issue to those individual believers who eventually became abolitionists. To paraphrase Nixon: we’re all abolitionists today.

So I have little doubt that in 100 years the church, as it will exist then, will look on the church of today, with a similar sort of embarrassment. That one of the old, traditional faiths of the West could splinter down the middle over gay people will, I suspect, be a point of shame for the Christians of the future. And Archbishop Akinola will be seen in the same moral light as the men of faith who so adamantly defended the enslavement of individuals, some of whom, no doubt were relatives of the Archbishop.

Archbishop Akinola will be forgotten. He will join the long line of the theologians who preached inhumanity and the faith will move forward -- just a century or two behind the general culture. But in the end the dominant culture will lead and the church will follow. And eventually the church will claim that the culture of today, which so many of them oppose, was actually the culture of faith that they propose. The more tolerant world of liberalism truly has many fathers while the intolerance of the past is an orphan.

Sad sex scandal hits Republican leader.

Oops, another Republican sex scandal. And once again, a closet case. The Republican at the center of the incident is Glenn Murphy, chair of the Young Republicans National Federation. Mr. Murphy has stepped down from that position. He cited business reasons.

But there may be much more involved such a police investigation. Local media in Indiana, Mr. Murphy’s home state, say he is under investigation “for alleged deviate conduct” with a young man. The man was staying at the home of Murphy’s sister and asleep when he awoke to find Mr. Murphy performing oral sex on him.

It should be noted that in 1998 another young man said the same thing had happened to him. He complained to the police but the police didn’t file charges.

According to police reports the man, along with Murphy and others, had attended a Republican meeting at the sister’s home. There was a lot of drinking and several of them decided to stay the night instead of trying to return home.

The man awoke to find Mr. Murphy engaging in oral sex with him. The alleged victim says he pushed Murphy away and left the premises. Later Murphy called the man and said they had to meet. Murphy told the man the story of what allegedly happened. Murphy claimed he had been feeling ill and climbed down from an upper bunk bed and for some reason laid down on the floor. The alleged victim claims that Murphy tried to tell him that he, the victim, had started stroking Murphy’s head so Mr. Murphy concluded that it was fine to have oral sex with him. The victim says he was sound asleep and woke up when Mr. Murphy started this. Very different stories.

The alleged victim says he also became worried that Murphy had used his cell phone to take pictures of the man and that he grabbed Murphy’s phone and crushed it to destroy them. The alleged victim says that both Murphy, and his sister, had called him numerous times begging him not to file a complaint or tell anyone what had happened. If the victim crushed the phone and Murphy did not file a complaint about that it would seem to indicate that Murphy was very worried about the situation. If Murphy's story is correct, and the victim came on to him by stroking his head, then there is no reason not to complain about the vandalism. The actions of Mr. Murphy here indicates he doesn't believe his own story.

Murphy’s attorney is claiming the incident was consenting. So there is no doubt there was an incident. I find it a bit coincidental that this is the second time the same scenario has played out with Mr. Murphy. At the same time I find the situation more sad than anything else. Certainly if I were the victim in this case I’d be a bit peeved myself. But I don’t think I’d file a police complaint. I don’t think it reaches the level of trespass that I personally find sufficient to warrant the arrest of someone. Other people might feel differently.

If Mr. Murphy is a social conservative who has promoted the antigay agenda of the Theopublicans then I have a hard time feeling too sorry for him. And I find it unlikely that he got to a top position in the Republican Party without being complicit in this antigay agenda. It permeates the party and is hard to miss. At the same time I can see why many gay people can’t exactly join the Democrats either.

Regardless of which party someone is in I would hope they would be working to change it and not simply going along to promote himself.

I clearly am ambivalent on this. He didn’t attack a child. I don’t know of him being a moralistic crusader from the religious fringe. But he certainly gives aid and comfort to the Republicans who are, these days, opponents of freedom and equal rights. But, at the same time, this appears to be such a desperate act that it is sad to witness a man resorting to this to get a little sexual satisfaction out of his life. No doubt his position in the Republican Party forced him to spend a lot of time in the closet. And that is a psychologically damaging place to be.

What is the ideal situation? I would hope that Mr. Murphy realizes, and fully accepts, his own sexuality. Second, I would hope he recognizes that his own party has declared war on him. Regardless of whether he does nor not the GOP is probably finished with him. SInstead of blaming the victim I would hope Mr. Murphy would simply apologize. And I personally would hope the victim withdraws his complaint and the police get on to other more serious matters.

I would then hope Mr. Murphy takes a good, long hard look at himself and his life. He needs to realize how sad it is to fondle and perform oral sex on a sleeping individual. He needs to deal with the reality. Perhaps he should find a nice partner and settle down. His political career is most likely over, at least with the Republicans. And that may be good. It was no doubt lethal to his psychological well-being. I hope he finds himself and some happiness and satisfaction in life and never again find himself driven to such a sad act of desperation.

I should note that this situation is one that worries me. Some years ago I knew a young conservative (far too conservative) ambitious, would-be politician in Indiana. He was a bit strange on some things and wrong on many topics. But like most people he was fundamentally decent. I worked for him for a period of a few months. And there was little that I didn't learn about him. I knew he was sleeping with another Right-wing leader, also a man. I never told anyone. This was before the big anti-gay campaigns and he never discussed the issue and I saw no reason to do so myself.

One day I was informed by the media that he killed himself. They wanted me to comment about the situation. In that moment I had the awful realization that this was someone who just couldn't live with who he was. For the first time in my life I spoke out in favor of the rights of gay people because I knew what drove this man to that final act. And this is one reason, a major reason, that I am so strongly opposed to the efforts of the anti-gay Right. I know precisely how destructive such ideas can be to people. The man I knew didn't deserve to die but he didn't know how to live according to his own values. I wish I could have told him the values were wrong. I couldn't, I was far, far too young and naive myself to have been able to do that. So I truly hope Glenn Murphy finds peace and happiness with who he is.

They said he was hero, now what will they say?

Here is a powerful story on several levels. According to ABC News, Staff Sgt. Eric Alva was the first U.S. Marine to be seriously wounded in Iraq. He enlisted when he was fresh out of high school -- just 19-years-old. His father had been in the Army and served in Vietnam and so had his grandfather who served in World War II and Korea. He said: “I wanted a bigger challenge” so he joined the Marines.

A decorated officer Alva had done duty in Japan and Somalia and was then sent to Iraq by President Bush. He was leading his men to Basra from their base in Kuwait. The desert was dark that night and the sand blowing made it difficult to see. They stopped momentarily and Alva went to retrieve something from his Humvee when the explosion went off. It was a land mine that changed Alva’s life.

Evacuated to Kuwait Alva awoke to find his leg was gone. “It was like a nightmare. And I remember just crying for a few minutes, and I fell back to sleep because the drugs were really heavy.”

The Department of Defense has a web page dedicated to Eric Alva with this headline: “’Credit to the Corps,’ Hispanic War Veteran Honored.” They have a picture of him receiving he Heroes and Heritage Award from Major General Christopher Cortez. It was Cortez who said that Alva was “a credit to the Corps”. He also said: “We are grateful for his faithful service and proud to honor him today.”

Alva was touted as a symbol by the pro-war crowd. President and Mrs. Bush paid him a visit when he was transfered to Bethesda Naval Hospital . Then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld stopped in to say hello. So did Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California.

Another visitor, one not noticed so much by the media, was Lois Alva, his mother. Eric’s first impulse was to apologize to her. Two weeks before Alva was sent to Mr. Bush’s war he decided to fly his mother out to California to see her one more time before deployment. He hadn’t been able to go home for Christmas. The one thing he promised her, as he dropped her off at Palm Springs Airport for her return flight to Texas, was “I’ll come back. I won’t get hurt.”

From Kuwait Alva was sent to Germany for surgery but before his surgery he asked to call his parents. He said he wanted to speak to them and to tell his mother he was sorry for not keeping his word. He hadn’t kept his promise to her. He couldn’t keep his word. He told her: “I’m so sorry I got hurt.” Lois said she could barely breath at that moment and told him all she cared about was that he was still alive.

That night in the desert Alva’s friend, Brian Alaniz, rushed to his side to help his comrade. "I knelt down to put together a suction device,” said Alaniz. Alva was in such pain he couldn’t understand what was happening and he temporarily lost his hearing from the force of the explosion so he couldn’t hear what anyone was saying to him.

As Alaniz was helping his friend there was another explosion. He said, “the second explosion went off underneath me”. Alaniz lost his leg in that explosion. “I didn’t realize that it was -- that it was -- that it was Brian that actually got hit that time,” says Alva.

Lois says that Eric feels bad and blames himself for Brian’s injuries because he thinks “if it hadn’t been for him, [Alaniz] wouldn’t have stepped on the mine.” Eric told one news crew: “You think of the what-ifs in the beginning. And if I hadn’t gotten hurt, then Brian would still be -- have both legs... I felt responsible for what had happened to him.”

Alva says: “I went through countless nights of agony and tears but there was never any doubt, I kept faith that I could recover, and I’m still recovering.”

Lois said that lying in the hospital Eric had already been contemplating his future. “I look at Eric having a strong heart; he’s very strong-spirited and not the type to easily give up. He’s talking about working with children with disabilities.” He is now studying for a degree in physical therapy.

Brian Alaniz says he’s learned so much from Eric Alva. “Eric’s a hero for everything that he’s accomplished since his injury. It’s easy when you’re on top. But when you hit rock bottom and then try to climb back up, you know, it really defines who you are and -- and what you stand for.... He inspires me a lot.” Eric says the same of Brian. He says he has become the brother he never had. “I thank him every day for -- for -- for the effort and the job that he did that day.... To me he’s a hero.”

Eric Alva is putting his life back together. He was a marathon runner in the Marines and has been learning how to ski again, without one leg. He’s been asked to join the U.S. Disabled Ski Team. “It’s amazing how quickly I was able to get back into skiing. Cross country skiing was a bit tougher than downhill, though, because I had to use a lot more upper body strength and I’m still getting used to my right arm not being as strong.”

Each week Alva takes time out to speak to various groups about the war. He says at the schools children always want to talk about he guns but that he tries to steer them away and toward more important things. “I want to get across to them that I was lucky to make it home, and others were not so lucky. I also want to motivate them do something with their lives.”

Perhaps that ought to be the theme for Alva’s own life. Here was a young man who wanted to do something with his life. He wanted to make an important contribution. And certainly he has inspired people. The testimonies of his friends and family bear witness to that.

Alva dreamed of running again in the Marine marathon. And he seems like a man who can do whatever he sets him mind to do. But he can’t. He is no longer considered fit to be a Marine or to serve his country in the military. And it's not because he lost a leg.

He was home one evening spending time with the love of his life, who said to him that Alva lost his leg defending freedom and rights that he himself will never be allowed to enjoy. He was told: “Look at the rights that people are being denied. And look at the rights that you are fighting for. Look at the rights that you put your life on the line for, for this country. And yet you don’t get any of them.”

Alva was shocked, perhaps a little hurt, but he realized it was true. His partner is another man and Alva is gay. That night he realized: “I’m just a second class citizen who isn’t going to get anything unless I say something. And I’m in a position to do something.”

So war hero Staff Sgt. Eric Alva publicly announced he was gay and that he would fight for the repeal of government policy that prevents men like himself from serving in the military. “There are certain things you do in life at a certain time and a certain place. In my heart, I this this is the right time.”

Some of his friends in the Marines knew his secret. He tells of a night when he was having drinks in a bar with a fellow Marine who commented on some of the women. Alva didn’t say anything and the other Marine made a remark: “Dude, what’s the matter? Are you gay or something?” With two margaritas under his belt he was feeling bold and replied “As a matter of fact I am. So what do you have to say about that, jerk off?”

When the other Marine realized he was serious he told Alva he’d keep his secret. He didn’t. He would tell others and repeatedly he found himself shot down because the other service men didn’t care.

Eric says he just want to “be your regular, average American citizen who has a voice, who has a point to make and wants to empower other people about the rights and equality of what people really deserve in this country.”

Eric Alva is truly a second class citizen. His sexual orientation makes him ineligible to serve the country which honored him for the very service they say he is incapable of giving. He can’t marry his partner. As Eric says: “Any American willing to serve their country shouldn’t have to worry about whether or not the government will give them fair and equal treatment when they return home.” Of course he is right but then neither should it deny them fair and equal treatment even if they don’t enlist in the military.

Equal rights before the law ought to be the birthright of every American. Jefferson’s magnificent Declaration didn’t say that “all men are created equal (except for homosexuals)”.

In one interview he was asked about the wedding band he wears on his hand. He told about his recent flight to Washington to speak out in favor of equal rights for gay military personnel. He was waiting to board the plane: “This very nice woman next to me said she recognized me. She looked at my ring and asked about my wife. I told her I have partner. His name is Darrell. She paused and said, ‘Good for you.’”

Good for him, indeed.

Religious Right distorts facts about Scottish report.

The story is going about the internet that the British National Health Service has put out a report stating that using words like “Mommy” and “Daddy” is offensive to gay people and homophobic. An outfit called “Family First” (it’s always a dangerous sign when any political group says it is “pro family” since that almost always is code for “we hate gays”) claimed “Use of ‘Mom’ or ‘Dad’ Too ‘Homophobic’, Scottish Nurses Told.”

Family First repeats the story from LifeSiteNews, another Religious Right bastion of distortion, bias, and inaccuracy. And LifeSiteNews claims to get the story from one of the most anti-gay groups in the United States, Americans for Truth. These are people so anti-gay they ought to wear pink sheets and burn Lamdas on the front lawn. They said this new report was “a revolutionary assault on sex and gender norms”.

Sounds scary. Except I actually went and read the report that has the fundies in such knotted knickers. And I don’t think it’s all that scary or wrong. In fact it doesn’t really do what has been claimed. Surprise, surprise, Religious Right groups lie! They certainly know how to exaggerate and distort. They are masters at that skill.

Consider what is being covered here. This is for health care professionals who are dealing with the public without knowing lots of things about these people. Say that you are a nurse and a woman has brought her child to you because of a medical problem. Do you know if the woman is in a relationship or not? You don’t. If in a relationship do you know if she is married or not? You don’t. And do you know if the partner is a man or a woman? You don’t. In light of a lack of knowledge the wisest policy is one that doesn’t presume because such presumptions can cause discomfort for the person you are treating. It simply isn’t necessary. It's bad customer service.

At no point does the report say that terms like “mother” are homophobic or offensive. That was the spin put on the report by some religious extremists. The report is suggesting that people realize that they are making presumptions about others that may not be true and which may cause discomfort to them. Nothing more.

There is no blanket condemnation of using the word mom or dad. The problem is if make assumptions which often happens and which can often be uncomfortable for the patient.

It used to be widely practiced to refer to a person’s first name as their “Christian name” which was discomforting to anyone who was not a Christian. To ask someone who is Jewish or Hindu or an atheist what their “Christian name” is would be inconsiderate. It isn’t a sign of bigotry just a sign that you aren’t considerate and cognizant of the situation.

This is basically the point of the material in the report. And they note that if a health care worker does this it “is also inclusive of all heterosexual couples regardless of their marital status.” That disarms the claim that they are saying the word is “homophobic”. That is not their point at all. They say such terms exclude people and is uncomfortable for them and suggest ways to avoid this. Since when was it a revolutionary assault on gender to suggest to health care workers methods which help their patients feel more at ease in what may be a stressful situation.

They also mention the term “next of kin” and advise language to avoid problems with this term. I’ve been asked for “next of kin” on forms and have left it blank. I’ve been told I had to fill it in but I had to tell them I had no next of kin that I wished listed. I could do something like list an elderly aunt but since she has been living thousands of miles away from me for much of my adult life that would be silly. I would replace the term with “emergency contact”. When it was insisted I list someone anyway I usually list a friend. What they really want is someone to contact in case of an emergency not someone who is literally your closest living relative. Again the manual says using other more neutral terms includes all couples including straight couples who are not married. Consideration is not revolutionary. (Well maybe it is in certain Right-wing circles.)

The final recommendation the report made concerned talking to children. I think they are on the right track but don’t know how to handle the problem. They suggest: “When talking to children, consider using ‘parents’, ‘carers’ or ‘guardians’ rather than ‘mother’ or ‘father’.”

One in five of Scottish gay people have children. But more importantly we also need to realize that some children don’t have fathers, or might not have a mother, or have no parents at all. My father died when I was young. I regularly had people asking me about my father when I was a kid. It actually was painful to constantly have to tell people he was dead.

Some children are raised by grandparents or by older siblings. Now I can see why the term “parents” makes some sense and the child would understand that. But “carers” and “guardians” are silly. A child wouldn’t necessarily know what “guardian” means. I think a better way of handling the problem would be to ask the child right off: “So tell me where you live and who you live with?” A few quick questions like this will elicit the information needed. If he says “I live with my mommy and daddy” you know those terms are fine to use. If he says, “I live with mommy and mom” you know what terms make the child comfortable. He might say, “I live with my gran” or something else that gives you some idea what terms are correct and make the child comfortable.

That is what is key here. You are working with children and you use terms that the child is comfortable using. But suddenly helping children feel comfortable while being treated at hospital, or the doctor’s office, ---which is a scary time for many children--- is another revolutionary assault by gay radicals. Please!

Nowhere does the manual say that the words “mom” and “dad” are homophobic or offensive. What it said was that in many, many cases they are inaccurate and not indicative of the situation of the people who are being treated. And it suggests terms which don’t exclude people needlessly.

I can relate easily because I was raised by a single mother after the death of my father. I know what it’s like being asked for “next of kin” without really having a next of kin that it would be useful to list. I know what is like being asked my “Christian” name when I’m not a Christian. I know people who were raised by grandparents or older siblings. Asking them about their “mother” or “father” is possibly painful to them. This isn’t about homophobia or political correctness. This is about being a good nurse or doctor, treating people well and not causing them undo discomfort of pain.

This is really what the small section on language is about. It is rather disgusting that some anti-gay groups would distort that sort of issue to create a political football so they can do some anti-gay propaganda on the net.

And to illustrate the point and annoy these groups here is a music video from a Dutch television show. The boy singing is a regular on the show and he's being rased by "two fathers" as he sings about here. There are subtitles in English if you don't speak Dutch. And the kid can actually sing and I like the tune. I know this will give the Right something else to bitch about. I can hardly wait.