The Stonewall Inn

Forty years ago, patrons and supporters of the Stonewall Inn in New York City resisted police harassment that had become all too common for members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community. Out of this resistance, the LGBT rights movement in America was born. During LGBT Pride Month, we commemorate the events of June 1969 and commit to achieving equal justice under law for LGBT Americans.

LGBT Americans have made, and continue to make, great and lasting contributions that continue to strengthen the fabric of American society. There are many well-respected LGBT leaders in all professional fields, including the arts and business communities. LGBT Americans also mobilized the Nation to respond to the domestic HIV/AIDS epidemic and have played a vital role in broadening this country’s response to the HIV pandemic.

Due in no small part to the determination and dedication of the LGBT rights movement, more LGBT Americans are living their lives openly today than ever before. I am proud to be the first President to appoint openly LGBT candidates to Senate-confirmed positions in the first 100 days of an Administration. These individuals embody the best qualities we seek in public servants, and across my Administration — in both the White House and the Federal agencies — openly LGBT employees are doing their jobs with distinction and professionalism.

The LGBT rights movement has achieved great progress, but there is more work to be done. LGBT youth should feel safe to learn without the fear of harassment, and LGBT families and seniors should be allowed to live their lives with dignity and respect.

My Administration has partnered with the LGBT community to advance a wide range of initiatives. At the international level, I have joined efforts at the United Nations to decriminalize homosexuality around the world. Here at home, I continue to support measures to bring the full spectrum of equal rights to LGBT Americans. These measures include enhancing hate crimes laws, supporting civil unions and Federal rights for LGBT couples, outlawing discrimination in the workplace, ensuring adoption rights, and ending the existing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy in a way that strengthens our Armed Forces and our national security. We must also commit ourselves to fighting the HIV/AIDS epidemic by both reducing the number of HIV infections and providing care and support services to people living with HIV/AIDS across the United States.

These issues affect not only the LGBT community, but also our entire Nation. As long as the promise of equality for all remains unfulfilled, all Americans are affected. If we can work together to advance the principles upon which our Nation was founded, every American will benefit. During LGBT Pride Month, I call upon the LGBT community, the Congress, and the American people to work together to promote equal rights for all, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim June 2009 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month. I call upon the people of the United States to turn back discrimination and prejudice everywhere it exists.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this first day of June, in the year of our Lord two thousand nine, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-third.

Barack Obama

This isn’t the first time they’ve attempted such legislation, either. Senator Stanley and Rep. John Deberry were the same people who filed a more strictly anti-gay adoption bill last year, which failed. They also had a similar bill which would prevent unmarried opposite-sex couples from adopting. It foundered as well. This new bill is a combination of both of the previous bills.

Apparently, not only do bad ideas come from the same legislators, but the same bad ideas come from the same legislators. If it doesn’t pass the first time, then try, try, again. One doesn’t have to stretch the imagination too far to observe the visceral and sensitive nature of same-sex relationships and homosexuality in general. Just what do they hope to accomplish?

They have failed to establish — at any level — whether or not such bills are even needed. Those on both sides of the issue will come down with passionate and strong opinions. Sometimes the right questions aren’t asked. Facts, however, are often left in the sidelines.

One such example of sidelining facts for the sake of opinions was seen this past week when Tara Greene, a Democrat from Sumner County, was to join a scheduled appointment with her state senator, Diane Black (R-Gallatin). She was to meet with Senator Black on Advancing Equality Day on the Hill, sponsored by the Tennessee Equality Project. The day was set aside for members of TEP and affected constituents to visit with state legislators and discuss issues important to the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender community.

Greene was informed the night before their appointment that Senator Black had abruptly canceled the meeting. When asked, Black confirmed that she did indeed cancel the meeting which was to include discussion about Sen. Stanley’s adoption bill. In an email, Black wrote:

“This is a question of what is best for the child who is in the state’s custody and I will not be moved from my position that a child has a better chance of growing up healthy in a traditional home with a mother and a father. Those who have already had a tough break in life, like those children in state custody, should have every opportunity possible to be placed in an optimal family setting. The traditional nuclear family is still that setting.”

She said she did meet with the group briefly despite the cancellation, and that they “agreed to disagree.”

The account was told a little differently by Greene, who explained that she and her group arrived at Black’s office at the scheduled time despite Black’s cancellation, and that Black met with them for five minutes. Black allegedly insisted that they “agree to disagree” before relenting to the brief meeting.

Unfortunately, many Tennesseans (and it seems, some legislators) are unaware of not only the process that adoptive parents must go through, but they’re equally unaware of the the highly-trained professionals who work with each of our children in state’s custody to help them be placed into safe, loving homes. Equally distressing is the fact that few activists on either side even bother to talk with people who are actually in the field.

When looking for specific numbers of adoption-ready children in the state of Tennessee, it was time to go straight to the source. Calista Doll, a Communications official with the state’s Department of Children’s Services, said that as of January 1, 2009, there are currently 7,683 children in the state’s custody. “Of those,” she said, “914 are in full guardianship…[with] 330 who do not have a permanent family identified.”

When asked if those numbers are similar to a month-by-month analysis, she indicated that the numbers do fluctuate but it’s “pretty consistent.” Doll also explained that “full guardianship” means that the birth parents no longer have any legal claim to the child.

Hard fact number one: there’s already a shortage of single adults and couples who are willing to adopt children. As of January 1st, there are over three hundred children who are still waiting just to be considered by a prospective parent or parents to be adopted. Senators Black and Stanley, along with Rep. DeBerry want to actually reduce the numbers of parents who are considered to adopt children. Good luck with explaining that to the kids who are left to bouncing around group homes and foster care.

First and foremost, it’s the children that would be affected by a potential law that would prevent them from being adopted by those who are in cohabiting relationships (same- or opposite-sex). To hear it told by those who advocate for such asinine laws, one would think that children are dispensed to parents like a hamburger through a drive through window with diapers in tow. In fact, quite the opposite is true.

Hard fact number two: Tennessee already has a very restrictive adoption policy in place. To be even considered as an adoptive parent, a single adult or couple must go through an arduous and time-consuming process.

They must first complete a parent preparation class called “PATH” — Parents as Tender Healers. PATH, according to the DCS website, is a 30-hour education and self-assessment process:

“It explores communications styles. It helps families understand the feelings of grief and the loss that children can experience. It helps identify family strengths. The process also helps adults identify the child they feel that they can most successfully parent.”

Sandy Bradley, a social worker in Clarksville, explained that PATH is a one night per week class that really helps singles and couples be properly prepared to bring foster children into their homes.

Bradley said that the next step is to have a home study, which involves looking into their financial status, every room of the home, living conditions, and interviewing character witnesses and family members.

Along with the home study, a thorough background check is conducted, which was described by Doll, and confirmed by Bradley, as a “full FBI investigation.” The background check goes through credit, criminal, and past associations. In most cases, even a misdemeanor can prevent a couple or individual from fostering. A drug test is also conducted. All adults over 18 who live in the household must undergo similar background checks.

Finally, the family must have served as a foster parent for six months before adoption can be considered. “The social worker has the most weight on how a child is placed in a home,” Bradley said. She explained that each child is matched with the home that is best for that child. “There’s a local same-sex couple that has two beautiful biracial babies, and they’re thriving.”

Hard fact number three: the authors and supporters of this bill clearly believe that the state is better equipped to care for children than loving, nurturing parents who happen to be unmarried or gay.

I’ll never imagine what Senator Stanley and Rep. DeBerry hope to accomplish, especially knowing that these trained professionals do all they can to ensure that children are placed in the best homes. When asked if there was a shortage of parents to adopt, Bradley answered emphatically. “Absolutely. Especially for older children.”

Why do some members of our state’s legislature want to add to an already difficult adoption process, and keep more children in state custody? Clearly, they ignore the very clear reality that our DCS and social workers are already tasked with this thankless task, and it’s completely absurd to make it even more difficult.

State Senator Tim Barnes and District 67 Representative Joe Pitts have already confirmed that they will not support this bill. The bill, HB 0605/*SB 0078, should be completely and soundly rejected.

Some time ago the APSU Gay-Straight Alliance decided to attend this conference, which has affectionately become known as the alphabet soup people conference, or somewhat more quickly as the big gay conference.

So, at 2 a.m.  in the morning on Saturday, I find myself reflecting on the first day of the conference, or really the first evening. I remember my first distinct impression after our six hour or so drive to lovely but somewhat frigid Bloomington, Indiana was “Sacre merde. This place is (expletive) huge.”

MBLGTACC logo

Indeed, it took as a good 30 minutes after finding a parking spot to figure out where on the campus we needed to get to for registration. Of course, the lack of directional signs on campus was hardly surprising, as we’d already learned of the Indianan aversion to street signs. Thankfully, the Indiana Memorial Union is pretty hard to miss, as the Union is a huge, multi-story building that puts AP’s Morgan Center to absolute shame. The building single-handedly has a greater accommodation capacity than ALL of the AP dorms combined. Of course, after that it was off to another big building, the auditorium. Of course, with the clue of the size of the IU Memorial, the scope of the auditorium became somewhat less impressive, though any school with the resources to build an auditorium building wherein one theatre holds 1 500 people with seats left over is still impressive.

Of course, the real point of the conference is what was going on INSIDE these impressive buildings. Mr. Kand McQueen, a transgendered man, was already in full swing by the time us country bumpkins managed to figure out where the hell we were. Fortunately, one was quickly able to grasp the point of his presentation. Mr. McQueen spoke of the gender/sex dichotomy that has become so deeply entrenched within our society. Certainly, Mr. McQueen recognizes that categorization can’t be avoided (throwing in some Ayn Rand here, categorization is one of the functions of our rational intellect that lets us deal with the world in a meaningful way). And the male/female categorization has and will continue to serve us well, but he argues we must be aware of this false dichotomy. Or, more Rand, when confronted with information that fails to fit our paradigm we should question the paradigm we’ve constructed, not the information we’ve gathered. Further, Mr. McQueen makes a convincing point that this is an issue for every part of that MBLGTA group.

Of course, after such serious fare, the entertainment for the night, while keeping a point, was delightedly politically incorrect and funny. OutMedia’s Queer Riot quartet put on a really quite amusing performance, although Vidur Kapur’s politically incorrect digs about rural Tennessee in general and Clarksville specifically (hah! He thinks Clarksville is rural?) probably should have been insulting (though accurate). The highlight would have to qualify as the closing act, a really amusing song about gay marriage, possibly entitled “I Want to Civil Union You.” While humorous, the song serves to highlight the inadequacy of the separate but equal doctrine of civil rights.

Thus, it seemed the conference was off to a good start, so cut to about an hour later at 1:15 or so when our little group is clustered in the Hilton waiting for our pizza and perusing the conference options on workshops for the next day. The fare for that is delightfully varied, ranging from transgendered film seminars to how-to sessions for BDSM. None of our delegation chose to go to the latter, sorry to disappoint oh kinky readers, instead opting for some of the more serious fare. This writer personally plans on attending a lecture on the impact of hate and a student organization round-table before noon.

So, in short, despite 1,500 college aged homosexuals descending in mass on the mid-western town, things look to be off to a promising, if sleep-deprived start. Look forward to further conference commentary as we experience it.

Republicans have been in power in the Tennessee State Legislature for mere weeks, and already they’ve set their crosshairs on the gay and lesbian community once again. Two years ago, Tennessee was the battleground for “marriage protection amendment” to the state’s constitution which prevents gay and lesbian couples from marrying.

That amendment passed in 2006 by more than 80 per cent of the vote. This time, it’s adoption rights.

A new bill, SB 0078, filed by State Senator Paul Stanley (R-Memphis) would dictate: “a minor may not be adopted if the individual seeking to adopt is cohabiting outside of a marriage that is valid under the constitution and laws of this state.”

Similar legislation failed in 2006, but unlike that bill, the new bill isn’t an exclusively anti-gay legislation. To be fair, Stanley decided he should stick it to unmarried straight couples as well. According to the official summary:

This bill prohibits certain individuals from adopting a minor child. Under this bill, any individual who is living with another person and is involved in a sexual relationship with that person (”cohabiting”) outside of a marriage that is valid under the constitution would not be allowed to adopt a minor child. This bill states that it would apply to cohabiting opposite-sex and same-sex individuals.

The bill would not affect single adults who live alone.

The Urban Institute, a non-partisan think tank in Washington, D.C. compiled a comprehensive study in March of 2007 regarding adoption by families with gay and lesbian couples. It includes state-by-state data that offers some startling numbers.

In Tennessee, there are 30,980 adopted children, with 384 of those children having been adopted by same-sex couples, making it 28th out of 51 in the number of children in gay adoptions. The study reveals that Same-sex couples are more likely to adopt children with physical differences, and are more likely to adopt minority children.

Nationwide, more than two million gay and lesbian couples are interested in adopting. At present, an estimated 65,500 adopted children are living with a lesbian or gay parent.

The Urban study also researched fostering, which is also relevant to the discussion. More than 14,000 children in foster care are estimated to be living with gay and lesbian parents nationwide. Of foster children with non-kin families, 44% are living with couples who aren’t married heterosexuals. In fact, 30% of the children are with single heterosexuals, and 8% are with unmarried heterosexual couples.

But how would that relate to Tennessee, should Senator Stanley decide to go after foster parenting too? Right now, there are between 198 to 297 children in Tennessee which are in foster care under gay parents. If those gay parents were to be taken off the foster parenting list, nearly 300 children would be put back into state custody, which would cost the state between $1.5 Million to $2.3 Million each year. Put simply, the notion of denying gay or unmarried couples the ability to adopt is an expensive one.

Several arguments have been presented in an attempt to submit legitimate reasons to deny adoption by same-sex couples, many of which are anecdotal at best:

• “Children are better off with one father and one mother.” Whether or not this is true, it is entirely irrelevant to issues of adoption. Every state allows adoption by single adults. Denying adoption by same-sex or cohabiting couples is ridiculous, especially when a single adult would seemingly – and likely – eventually form a relationship that may every well result in cohabiting.
• “Gay children shouldn’t be allowed to adopt because the statistics show that they’re likely to be child molesters.” This is a popular, if not mean-spirited myth. However, it IS a myth. In fact, a 1998 study Journal of the American Medical Association, only about 2% of the convicted child molesters say they are gay (that’s lower than the total national average of gay men, by the way). What gets a bit dodgy in its application is the fact that adult men are more likely to molest male children. This is due to the fact that they’re more likely to have unsupervised access to male children. Nearly all child molesters identify as straight, and many are married and in roles that allow direct access to their victims. Quite simply, there is simply no established connection between pedophilia and adult male homosexual orientation.
• “Children raised by gay parents will turn gay.” Just like children raised by straight parents always turn out straight?
• “It’s morally wrong to cohabit.” Yes, many people believe this due to religious conviction, but religion does not dictate public policy in the United States. Sorry.

The reality is that there is an entire network of highly-trained professionals who are specifically suited to help decide what is best for each individual child. In January 2002, the Child Welfare League of America made a similar observation:

The CWLA’s Standards of Excellence for Adoption Services state, “Applicants should be assessed on the basis of their abilities to successfully parent a child needing family membership and not on their race, ethnicity or culture, income, age, marital status, religion, appearance, differing lifestyles, or sexual orientation.” Further, applicants for adoption should be accepted “on the basis of an individual assessment of their capacity to understand and meet the needs of a particular available child at the point of adoption and in the future.”

The task handed to social workers, state agencies, and judges is to determine what is a suitable home for a child in the public child welfare system. But, as (Joan Heifetz) Hollinger points out, “there are no tests of suitability. Where is the standard? Where is the evidence that certain parents do better?”

In other words, each adoption is handled on a case-by-case basis. Removing hundreds of couples from even being considered is a disservice to not only those couples, but the children they would have otherwise been able to adopt.

In April 2001, the American Sociological Review published an article by Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz of the University of Southern California. The article, which reported the findings of an examination of 21 studies on gay parenting found that the studies shared a common theme: gay parents do just fine. More specifically:

Stacey and Biblarz also found that the children of homosexual parents show no difference in levels of self-esteem, anxiety, depression, behavior problems, or social performance, but do show a higher level of affection, responsiveness, and concern for younger children and “seem to exhibit impressive psychological strength.”

Gay parents were found to be more likely to equally share child care and household duties, and the children of gay partners reported closer relationships to the parent who was not their primary caregiver than did the children of heterosexual couples. “These findings imply that lesbian coparents may enjoy greater parental compatibility and achieve particularly high quality parenting skills, which may help explain the striking findings on parent-child relationships.”

But the Child Welfare League of America isn’t the only organization which supports adoption by gay couples. They are joined by:

• The National Association of Social Workers
• The American Psychiatric Association
• The American Academy of Pediatrics

When we consider all of these facts, it becomes clear that denying same-sex couples and unmarried opposite-sex couples the right to even be considered from adopting, the only people who are truly hurt are the children. I’m astonished that Sen. Stanley and other conservatives would rather attack his skewed vision of “morality” instead of letting the our Department of Children’s Services do their job.

Who do our legislators think they are, that they believe that they are more qualified than the thousands of social workers, judges, and other professionals who work to ensure the best possible home for our children? Senator Stanley should be utterly ashamed that he filed this bill, and it should be soundly and completely rejected by all of his peers.

Our state — and our children — deserve far better.

The movie introduces you to several families that have two things in common 1) strong religious ties, and 2) a family member that is a homosexual. Director Daniel Karslake’s selection of families with different backgrounds is sure to connect with a variety of viewers. Theres a Midwest lawyer and stay at home mother that are Lutheran; a African American couple from North Carolina who are ministers in a AME church; there a Episcopalian elderly white couple from blue collar rural Kentucky (no spoiler here but their child was the first openly Gay bishop in the Anglican church, Gene Robinson); a single middle class mother, and a long time politician Dick Gephardt and his family.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Karslake introduces each family through a historical lens, letting the viewer get comfortable and details the love stories of the parents, their marriage, child birth, and the eventual coming out of that child. The parents and family members frankness is refreshingly honest. We see the story of each family, their struggle, grief, and reconciliation; each in their own way but with all the different views it draws the audience into the families lives like your attending their Thanksgiving dinner.

Intermingled between the life stories of these God fearing families, Karslake sprinkles in traditional Biblical arguments, from Leviticus to Romans, regarding homosexuality. Historians, Pastors, Theologians, family members, and others (including clips from news reels and tele-evangelists) all give their interpretation of the Bible.

Later, the movie analyzes how the Bible is often used to demonize and condemn homosexual behavior. It takes those Biblical passages that are typically quoted to say that God thinks its an abomination, and puts them into the context of the time they were written, to offer a different opinion.

The film reveals how religious families react to their child coming out of the closet. We see their fears, confusion, struggles, and how they focus that energy. We see the difference between having supportive parents versus unsupportive. When the director asked Christians what the Bible says about homosexuality, that they didn’tt know what the Bible says but only what they’ve been told.

I thought the movie was good, and at just over 90 minutes was just long enough. The access to the families is intimate and compelling. The historical references to the Bible were informative. For those who are well read, there probably isn’t anything new here. The power in the film lies with the families’ individual stories that really draws the viewer into their story with a fresh perspective.

I encourage you to check out the film and make your own decision.

About the Movie

Can the love between two people ever be an abomination? Is the chasm separating homosexuals and Christianity too wide to cross? How can the Bible be used to justify hate? These are the questions at the heart of Daniel Karslake’s FOR THE BIBLE TELLS ME SO. A World Premiere in competition at the 2007 Sundance Film Festival, FOR THE BIBLE TELLS ME SO was also honored with Audience Awards at the 2007 Seattle and Provincetown International Film Festivals and The Kathleen Bryan Edwards Award for Human Rights at the 2007 Full Frame Documentary Film Festival. This provocative, entertaining film concisely reconciles homosexuality and a literal interpretation of Biblical scripture.

Through the experiences of five very normal, very Christian, very American families — including those of former House Majority Leader Richard Gephardt and Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson — we discover how people of faith handle, or sometimes tragically fail to handle, having a gay child. Informed by such respected voices as Bishop Desmond Tutu, Harvard’s Peter Gomes, Orthodox Rabbi Steve Greenberg and Reverend Jimmy Creech, FOR THE BIBLE TELLS ME SO offers healing, clarity and understanding to anyone caught in the crosshairs of scripture and sexual identity.

Some of what we hear from the Theologians

Reverend Dr. Laurence Keene, Disciples of Christ:

“When people ask questions about homosexuality, almost always they follow with, ‘and what does the Bible really say about it?’”

“When the term ‘abomination’ is used in the Hebrew Bible, it is always used to address a ritual wrong – it never is used to refer to something innately immoral. Eating pork was not innately immoral for a Jew, but it was an abomination because it was a violation of a ritual requirement.”

“I have a soft spot in my heart for literalists because I used to be one. However, when someone says to me ‘this is what the Bible says,’ my response to them is, ‘No, that’s what the Bible reads.’ It is the struggle to understand context and language and culture and customs that helps us to understand the reading, or what it is saying.”

“There’s nothing wrong with a fifth grade understanding of God, as long as you’re in the fifth grade.”

“There is no ability to procreate when you engage in homosexual behavior, so it was a violation of a cultural norm. [This was] the sin of Onan in the Old Testament, where Onan is sentenced to death because he ejaculates out of the woman’s body, so his partner doesn’t get pregnant. As the King James Version says, ‘Onan spills his seed upon the ground, and God strikes him dead.’ It was ritually impure. It was an abomination.”

Reverend Peter Gomes, Harvard:

“There are about 6 or 7 verses in all of Scripture that speak to even remotely what we might call homosexual activity or homosexual conduct.”

“[Literalists] are failing to read the Bible within the context of its authors and of its original culture.”

Reverend Steven Kindle, Clergy United:

“In this particular one, it’s Leviticus Chapter 20, Verse 13, it says if a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination, they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them – if you read the Bible on a face value level, that reading disregards several very important things: the first one is just a few verses before that Moses teaches in Leviticus that it is an abomination to eat shrimp….It is an abomination to eat a rabbit.”

Rabbi Brian Zachary Mayer:

“A few verses above and below it says you shouldn’t plant two different seeds in the same hole, you shouldn’t commingle your crops… There is other text that says you shouldn’t wear linen and wool together. To just pick out, this is the one that we’re going to follow…the Bible doesn’t come that way – it’s selective reading…Those Biblical laws, they’re known as the Holiness Code. They were laws that were supposed to help people at that time find holiness in their lives.”

Reverend Susan Sparks, American Baptist Church:

“To me that’s the important thing to recognize: the historical context in which this was written. That particular section on a man not lying with a man goes to procreation. It is about a nation trying to grow. At the time, the Hebrew people understood that male seed was actually all of nascent life contained right there – women had nothing to do with actually the birth except for just incubation, so that particular section was about saving seed, saving seed only to procreate so the nation could grow.”

Revered Mel White, Soulforce:

“When I was on Larry King Live, somebody called in and said, ‘What do you guys do in bed?’ Larry hung up on him and said, ‘that’s none of your business.’ And I said, ‘We’ve been together in the same bed for 24 years – we’re like everybody else, we sleep in bed. And King said: ‘Once they find out you’re as boring as we are, it’s all over.’”

“Now it (the Bible) is being used, misused, to condemn gay people – it’s an old trick. Fundamentalist Christians have been using it throughout the ages, and now they’re doing it again.”

Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate:

“The Bible is the word if God through the word of human beings, speaking in the idiom of their time, and the richness of the Bible comes from the fact that we don’t take it as literally so that it was dictated by God.”

Some of what we hear from the families

The Gephardt Family

Chrissy Gephardt: “Growing up in the Catholic Church, it was never something that I heard explicitly, but I definitely knew that that was part of the Bible and in fact, there were two things that I remember were an abomination: homosexuality and suicide. And I’ll never forget thinking that ‘Oh my gosh, you can never commit suicide because you’re going to go to hell and you can never be gay because you’re going to go to hell.’”

Dick Gephardt: We thought she was…

Jane Gephardt: She was always a jock.

Dick Gephardt: She was athletic

Jane Gephardt: She was good, too. She was a good athlete.

Dick Gephardt: She was a good athlete – she also wore pants more than skirts and dresses

Jane Gephardt: But that was because she was trying to be like Matt, like her older brother

Dick Gephardt: We thought that, but…

Jane Gephardt: Well that’s what we thought, and I still think that…

The Robinson Family

Isabella “Boo” McDaniel (Bishop Gene Robinson’s ex-wife): “I was just glad to be there for the consecration, because I thought by my presence I could really show that I was supportive. I mean, there was just huge security, Gene had a bullet proof vest under his vestments and I realized how scary it must have been for him.”

Bishop Gene Robinson: “My parents are probably the two best Christians I know and they don’t do it because they ought to do it, they just do it because it’s who they are. So to have them presenting this [the consecration vestments] to me – it’s just kind of a coming out for them as well. They’re all of a sudden just completely light hearted and relieved about this and are able to be proud.”

The Reitan Family

Jake Reitan, activist: “I remember very distinctly when I was a kid when I first learned that so much of the world wasn’t Christian – and that just kind of blew my mind – because I was of the perspective that everyone is Christian because everyone wanted to go to Heaven, you know, and then I learned that only one third of the world was Christian and I thought to myself: are that many people going to Hell?”

“I remember one Sunday where my pastor preached on homosexuality and it wasn’t in the best of light, but I didn’t want to question because I knew that the answers wouldn’t be good.”

The Poteat Family

David Poteat: “I had good kids. We had one of each sex – when my kids were growing up, I said ‘God, please don’t let my son grow up to be a faggot and my daughter a slut.’ And he did not. He did not do that. He reversed it.”

Brenda Poteat: “I can’t say where in the scheme of things that I saw this talk show [the Phil Donahue show] and I realized that what I was embarrassed about was that I was thinking totally of how she was having sex and not about her as a person. When I saw the talk show with two guys — buff, good looking guys — and they were asked the question ‘which one of you guys takes on the female role in the relationship’ and they said ‘neither one of us, we are attracted to men, if we were attracted to women, we’d be with women.’

“I’m sitting there thinking, but what about the ones that twist their butts and act like women, what are they attracted to? Who are they? And I’m thinking ‘but that’s all you’ve ever seen.’ That’s what comes to mind when you hear ‘homosexual’: you think of the girlfriend-acting fellow, the butch dykey-acting woman. You don’t think about everyday people, and there are ‘everyday people’ who are gay, and you’re thinking about how they’re having sex.

“I had to realize that she was my daughter: she had the same personality, she enjoyed the same things that she did before I knew she was gay. Then I had to stop thinking about Tonia that way. Although I still do not approve of the lifestyle, it was a big burden off me, that I could relate to her better and I stopped trying to push her.”

Awards

For more information

Visit the official movie web site at http://www.forthebibletellsmeso.org/

About First Run Features

First Run Features was founded in 1979 by a group of filmmakers to advance the distribution of independent film. Under the leadership of the late independent film pioneer, Fran Spielman, First Run Features quickly gained a reputation for its controversial catalog of daring independent fiction and non-fiction films. Today First Run remains one of the largest independent theatrical and home video distributors in the United States; its legacy includes films by such notable directors as Spike Lee, Michael Apted, Jane Campion, Ross McElwee, Michael Winterbottom, Sven Nykvist, Peter Jackson, Dariush Mehrjui, David O. Russell, Lizzie Borden, Claude Chabrol, Jan Svankmajer, Peter Watkins, Radley Metzger, Victor Nunez, the Quay Brothers, Kim Ki-Duk and Satyajit Ray.

For more information, or to browse their many other films, visit their web site at: http://www.firstrunfeatures.com/

Campfield (at right), during his short tenure in the House, has gained a reputation for introducing controversial, if not peculiar, legislation that many view as antagonistic and bizarre. His past history of failed attempts to limit academic freedom are also well known. In 2005, he introduced HB0432, which was an attempt to limit instructional content by specifically denying classroom teachers the opportunity to express their own personal beliefs with regards to the material that they present. At the same time, Campfield made it clear that he felt as though students should have the right to “speak without fear of hurting their grades.” Many view this as an attempt to legitimatize the rights of free speech for students, but to limit them for classroom instructors.

Last year, Campfield has introduced legislation calling for the removal of the sales tax on food, replacing the lost revenue to the state with additional taxes on pornography. As a Christian, he justifies the potential for financial gain through the taxation of an industry that many of his fellow Christians would call immoral, by defining it as a “luxury item.” Many viewed this legislation as an attempt to give good reason for the sale of pornographic materials and the peddling of human flesh through a motive to fill the State’s coffers.

His most recent attempt to pass a enact HB2997 has, according to many in the media, left equality leaders scratching their heads. Here is the full wording of the bill:

HOUSE BILL 2997

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 49, Chapter 6, Part 10, relative to education.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE:
SECTION 1. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 49-6-1005, is amended by adding the following as new subsection (c) and by relettering the existing subsection (c) accordingly:

(c) The general assembly recognizes the sensitivity of certain subjects that are best explained and discussed in the home. Human sexuality is an immensely complex subject with enormous societal, scientific, psychiatric and historical implications that are best understood by children with sufficient maturity to grasp such issues. Notwithstanding law to the contrary, no public elementary or middle school shall permit any instruction or materials discussing sexual orientation other than heterosexuality.

SECTION 2. This act shall take effect upon becoming a law, the public welfare requiring it.

In a manner consistent with his other attempts to pass legislation, Campfield expresses in his daily blog that certain segments of the public clearly misunderstand his motives: “Some people have tried to paint it as anti-gay. It is not.” In an attempt to justify his position, he seems to differentiate terminology into two categories: permissible and impermissible. He clearly limits “the topics of sexual orientation” as “topics best left to parents and guardians,” to the exclusion of schools, community leaders and the clergy. He justifies his exclusion of discussion of orientations other than heterosexuality as a need to “concentrate on the basics,” and to teach heterosexuality as the basis for the biology of sexual reproduction. He also states that:

“Without allowing reference to heterosexuality then I am sure some group would sue the state [sic] and say that we can no longer teach “Jack and Jill went up the hill” or how George and Martha Washington were husband and wife because they would say it promotes heterosexuality. You may laugh but these types of things are already happening [sic] in some states.”

This and many other statements regarding curricular innovation are on Mr. Campfield’s blog site.

Tennessee Equality Project responds

The Tennessee Equality Project, a 501c4 organization incorporated in Tennessee for the specific purpose of advancing and protecting the rights of LGBT citizens, is presently attempting to fight the passage of HB2997.

Chris Sanders, TEP’s Chair and President, said the organization is clearly opposed to HB2997 and its companion bill SB3733, introduced by Sen. Dewayne Bunch (R-Cleveland).

The Tennessee Equality Project opposes the bill because it is not only “overly broad in scope,” but that it seems to be a “bill in search of a problem” as it does not demonstrate adequate evidence of problematic discussion of any sexuality in K-8 instruction. In other words, Campfield has not reasonably justified a need for amending the Tennessee State Code.

Sanders continues by stating that the bills “inhibit the free speech of communities, teachers and leaders,” which seems to be consistent with a good amount of the criticism levied against Campfield’s legislation. He notes that there are inconsistencies in these bills, and specifically that “they contradict their own reasoning by saying on the one hand that sexuality is complex and then seeking to reduce that complexity to heterosexuality on the other hand.”

Additionally, it is worthy of mention that Campfield himself seems to criticize his own logic in saying that teaching about sexual orientation is unnecessary, as it is complex, yet teaching about heterosexuality is necessary as a basis for instruction on sexual reproduction. Succinctly, according to Sanders, the bills “contradict the spirit of education, which requires open discussion of the various branches of knowledge in the search of truth.”

The Tennessee Equality Project plans to voice their opinions regarding this and other proposed legislation that would affect the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender communities at their annual Advancing Equality Day on the Hill on February 19, 2008. If you are interested in participating, or if you would like further information regarding TEP, please contact Todd Hughes at .

The Tennessee Equality Project is a 501c4 organization incorporated in Tennessee. Gifts to TEP are not deductible for purposes of federal income tax.

Discriminatory legislation should be rejected

Yesterday, Rep. John Deberry (D-Memphis) and Senator Paul Stanley (R-Memphis) filed companion bills that would prohibit “any individual who is cohabitating in a sexual relationship outside of a marriage that is valid under the constitution and laws of this state from adopting a minor.”

The companion bills are SB3910 and HB3713. It is more than a little disturbing to realize that people believe–even in today’s world– that gay and lesbian people can not be (or already are) great parents. I think it goes deeper than that. Gay and lesbian people have consistently been the great whipping boys (and girls) of conservative neocons who appeal to a deep hatred for the gay community to help boost their own popularity. Sadly, this kind of contempt goes far beyond mere religious views.

Clarksville’s own representative, Rep. Joe Pitts, stands in stark contrast to Deberry and Stanley. Pitts has sponsored or co-sponsored several bills that directly affect a real threat to our children– child sexual offenders– which I applaud. These predators should be identified, deterred, and imprisoned at all cost. These vile predators are the real threats to our children, not loving, committed gay and lesbian people who want to provide safe homes for children.

Gays and lesbians aren’t the only people affected by this proposed bill. It states:

The prohibition of this section applies equally to cohabiting opposite-sex and same-sex individuals.

That’s right. Unless a couple is actually married, they would be prohibited from adopting. The bill does not affect singles who adopt.

This isn’t the first time such a bill has been proposed. Three years ago, a similar bill was introduced and died in legislation. One important fact we need to remember is that every single major medical and psychological organization in the country recognizes that homosexuality is neither a disease to be cured nor a disorder to be treated. The American Psychological Association has a policy statement on gay parenting which opposes any discrimination based on sexual orientation in matters of adoption, child custody and visitation, foster care, and reproductive health services.

In an article dated Februrary 13, 2005, I wrote:

The American Psychiatric Association along with over a dozen other health and mental health organizations, has a clear understanding that homosexuality is neither a disorder to be treated nor a disease to be cured. These organizations include the American Bar Association, the American Medical Association and the National Association of Social Workers.

Another of these professional groups, the American Psychological Association, has gone on record regarding gay and lesbian parents: “Studies comparing groups of children raised by homosexual and by heterosexual parents find no developmental differences between the two groups of children in their intelligence, psychological adjustment, social adjustment, popularity with friends, development of social sex role identity or development of sexual orientation…” This statement and others are readily available on their website.

The reality is that our current system works. Children aren’t arbitrarily tossed into homes. In fact, judges currently have complete oversight as to who gets to adopt whom. Our judges are given the opportunity to weigh every single family situation, and they are given stacks of report from the Department of Children’s Services (DCS) on the viability of the adoptive parents’ homes.

Homes are studied and the would-be-parents are carefully screened and given psychological evaluation as to whether or not they’re fit to be parents. All of this has one thing at heart: the best interest of our children. Quite simply, a person’s sexual orientation is not a major consideration. DCS workers have far more important questions: Is the home safe? Is the couple (or individual) sound? Is there a history in their past that might jeopardize the safety of the children? And finally, what’s best for the child?

Apparently, there are those who believe that these highly qualified and skilled people should be denied the opportunity to consider thousands of committed, loving couples based solely on the nature of their relationship. It is simply not right, just, or even fair, that a vocal group of people who know little about the adoption process should think they’re better qualified to decide who gets to adopt. Their only consideration is that, as the Arkansas Supreme Court said in a ruling against a ban on gay adoption, they are biased against homosexuals.

In many cases, gay and lesbian couples are the ONLY people who’ll adopt older children, or children who have disabilities. Should these kids who’ve been rejected at every opportunity be denied their best, sometimes last, hope at finding a loving and stable home? Rep. Deberry and Senator Stanley seem to think so.

They are wrong.

My partner and I will seek to adopt in the (hopefully) not-too-distant future. The reason we haven’t already is that we both know we’re not in a financial place where we can support a family. That will change in the future.

Several friends of mine, including my own spiritual mentor, are in same-sex relationships and have either adopted successfully or are in the process of adopting. These are teachers, deputies, florists, and shop owners who all have one thing in common: they absolutely love children, and have devoted their lives to their kids. They’re great parents, and this fact is supported by the judges and DCS social workers who have closely evaluated their homes and lives.

I urge anyone to call their state representative and state senator to add their voices to those who oppose this hateful bill. It is unfair, it is discriminatory, and as I said before, it is just flat-out wrong. It has no place in our laws, nor in our great state.

Such is the case with the hate crimes bill, familiar to many as the Matthew Shepard bill, a meticulously drafted act that would have categorized crimes based on gender identity or sexual orientation as hate crimes. Matthew Shepard was a young, gay university student in Wyoming who was beaten into a coma and subsequently died.

The Matthew Shepard Bill was a bill whose time had not only come but was terribly overdue, but being incorporated into a package of military spending (i.e. Iraq War funding) resulted in a kill on the battlefield of equal rights and civil liberties. Matthew Shepard and gays across America have become casualties of war.

Sponsored by Sen. Edward Kennedy and garnering the support of most Democrats and many Republicans, the bill still fell some forty votes short of passage in the U.S. House of Representatives, and that failure should be considered a crime against human rights. The root cause of this failure was the link to escalating cost of war in Iraq.

Perhaps it is time for truly important bills to be presented on their own merit and not be linked to such an unrelated hot button items as military spending. It is my fervent hope that the leaders in our Congress who supported this bill will not allow it to fade away.

The Matthew Shepard Bill would have been landmark legislation for the protection of millions of Americans against hate crimes. Instead, a vote against Defense Department spending became a vote against human rights.

The report, which can be found here, is one of the most comprehensive reports ever filed and gives a broad picture of just who is being attacked and why. In Clarksville, authorities reported a total of ten hate crimes. Three of those crimes were due to a person’s race, four were attacks based on religion, two were motivated by the victim’s sexual orientation, and one was bias against the person’s ethnicity. The FBI report indicates that the single most targeted ethnic group is Hispanics/Latino-Americans.

The national statistics are fare more interesting. According to the report, there were 770 attacks across the US against Hispanics/Latino-Americans last year. Antisemitism still rears its ugly head, since 1,027 incidents against Jews occurred. In contrast, there were 1,485 attacks based on the victim’s sexual orientation. These hate crimes are everything from graffiti to robberies to assaults to hanging nooses. The report indicates “crimes against property” and “crimes against person,” and lists some broad categories of each. The crimes against persons would include assault, robbery, murder, etc. Crimes against property would be vandalism, graffiti, and other related incidents.

Sadly, the report indicates a lot of silence as well. In fact, in Tennessee only 65 agencies even bothered to submit a report. “Well,” one might say, “Aren’t there 95 counties in the state?” Yes, there are. However, in those 95 counties, there are 459 law enforcement agencies. In fact, the national average isn’t much better with a little less than 17 percent of all agencies providing hate crime data.

Unfortunately, other Southern states are not at all interested in reporting their hate crimes, with only one Alabama agency reporting, and Mississippi was completely silent. Four agencies in Georgia (including one in Atlanta) reported a combined 13 hate crimes. Were there really zero hate crimes in Mississippi? Somehow, I think that’s a little far-fetched. And if the only hate crime in Alabama was not one of was the infamous noose hanging in Jena (that noose led to the “Free the Jena Six” campaign), then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell for dirt cheap (I incorrectly stated that Jena was in Alabama, which was pointed out in a comment by Kladner on Buzzflash – Interestingly, neither the city of Jena nor LaSalle Parish submitted any data to the FBI for this report).

Even though a handful of agencies in Tennessee reported their hate crime statistics to the FBI, the numbers are still staggering. Along with the ten hate crimes recorded here in Clarksville, there were 30 hate crime incidents in Nashville. Memphis had 36 crimes, including one committed with a motivation based on disability.

Anti Hispanic Hysteria

Scanning through all of the data can be a bit of a daunting task, one of my largest concerns is that the growing hysteria of nationalism would be that Hispanics would be targeted more and more. Alas, this appears to be exactly what’s happening. By “nationalism,” I’m referring to the rising call to “close the borders” and to “get rid of all of the illegals.” After all, “illegals are committing lots of crimes” or “are taking government services,” and what’s worse, “they’re taking all of our jobs.”

You know, I read about this kind of talk just a few decades ago in 1930’s Germany. Only then, there was another group that was being blamed for their country’s woes: Jews. We all know how that turned out. The reality is that it’s no surprise that Hispanics and Latinos are targeted for hate crimes.

How long will it be before someone actually calls for concentration camps for anyone who looks Latino or Hispanic? Well, that’s already started. How long before we start asking people for their “papers?” Yep, you guessed it. That’s happening too. In fact, last June, one Clarksville woman who was born in Puerto Rico was asked for her green card to renew her driver’s license. By the way, anyone born in Puerto Rico is an American Citizen. Several states and cities have passed laws that have blanket penalties for anyone who hires or even transports someone who is “illegal.”

“What part of ‘illegal’ do you not understand?” or so the mantra goes. Replace “illegal” with “Jews” in that sentence, and you can see just how dangerous this attitude really is. No, it’s not really “that simple.” Anyone who’s dealt with the Immigration and Nationalization “Service” knows very well how visas can expire, and how much of a hassle it is to renew. In fact, one colleague of mine recently went to inquire why his permanent visa had expired, and was told he’d have to leave if he wanted to get a new visa… or become a citizen. He chose the latter, and that put an end to the problem.

In fact, I, too, am a naturalized citizen. I was born on foreign soil (Germany), and thus have a German birth certificate. Even though my parents are both Americans, I still had to be naturalized. Why isn’t anyone asking me for my “green card?” Well, it could be due to the fact that I have blond hair and blue eyes. However, anyone with dark skin and black hair is immediately suspect. One man I spoke with has a great job as a manager of a local shop and lives comfortably in a well-to-do neighborhood. Once when he was mowing his own yard while wearing T-shirts and cutoffs, he was asked by a neighbor how much he would charge to cut their lawn. Racial profiling, anyone?

These instances only illustrate just how “low” so many of us will view our Hispanic or Latino neighbors. It’s unfortunate that today’s America has forgotten that we’re all immigrants. Our country has always been made richer by its diversity. Maybe we should remember that next time we talk about “closing the borders.” We are the land of the free and the home of the brave, so why not welcome anyone who is searching for a better life? And spare me the “what about terrorists” line. We are the land of liberty, not oppression. Or are we?

Crimes with a Sexual Orientation motivation

For the first time in a major report, we’ve been given data that clearly lists crimes that were committed based on a motivation of the victims’ sexual orientation. Unfortunately, gender identity isn’t included in the data, but rather is combined with the others. There were nearly 1500 incidents across the country last year, including at least two right here in Clarksville. Unlike our Hispanic/Latino neighbors, those of us that are gay or lesbian have absolutely no protection whatsoever when it comes to hate crimes.

Some have said “show me how people are attacked because they’re gay.” Well, we have that now. All of this goes on while the Matthew Shepard bill languishes in a Senate committee, and is in jeopardy of being killed outright. For the record, the Matthew Shepard bill is a bill that would provide federal resources to investigate and prosecute hate crimes, and would include sexual orientation and gender identity in the list of hate crimes.

Now that we know there are real numbers, this should be a clear indicator that it’s time to add sexual orientation and gender identity to non-discrimination clauses everywhere (including in Clarksville’s new charter). I’ve always been an advocate for complete equality, so this is just the right thing to do. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 has been updated a few times since its passing, and has since added age and disability to its protections. Several states have added sexual orientation to their civil rights laws, and it’s time for Tennessee to do the same.

Many conservatives are afraid that such an addition would force churches to hire gay people or would force a Christian landlord to allow two men to rent a one-bedroom apartment they own. A person’s religion has little to do with their sexual orientation or their perceived sexual orientation. Some people won’t hire someone just because they might look a little effeminate. At the moment, that’s perfectly legal. It doesn’t mean it’s right.

Can someone please tell me what’s “Christian” about denying a qualified person a job, or kicking a couple out on the street because they might be gay? “Well, it’s behavior,” some say. I tell you what. If you see someone having sex on the job, then that’s a different story. But seriously… how many of us actually engage in sexual activity in the work place? That’s just a rhetorical question, by the way; I really don’t want to know.

Let me be perfectly clear: By sexual orientation, I’m referring to whether a person is sexually attracted to members of their own sex, and might engage in healthy consenting relationships among adults. Gender identity disorder (GID) is a legitimate diagnosis for persons who have the firm belief that they are the wrong physical sex. Neither of these impacts on a person’s ability to do their job or to form healthy relationships. Interestingly, GID is the only psychological disorder that has a proven cure: gender reassignment surgery and hormone therapy.

No matter how we slice it or how we sugarcoat it with Bible verses or doctrines, discrimination is wrong. Hate crimes are clearly committed against people for their sexual orientation, and as of right now, there is zero federal protection for them. Hate crimes aren’t listed by how much someone hates another group, but rather by their motivation in a crime they’ve committed. No one is talking about “thought police.” We simply need to have protections in place that will allow local law enforcement agencies to prosecute and investigate properly these incidents which are all-too-often swept under the rug.

Local victims like Jerry Cope (P’Knutts) and Barry Winchell deserve to know that their deaths were not meaningless. Cope’s murder remains unsolved after over fifteen years. Even now, there seems to be little interest in actually finding out who killed him.

Thankfully, the FBI has been directed to tabulate this data. My greatest hope is that we’ll find a way to bring down these numbers, and to have a level of equality for everyone that we are indeed a beloved community that a person’s appearance, sex, national origin, ethnicity, age, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity without being an issue. Until that time, we need to ensure that there are protections for everyone.

Editor’s Note: Also published in David W. Shelton’s blog Skipping to the Piccolo 

I’m not sure if I can adequately relate just how refreshing it was to read a book that so accurately portrays the struggle that young gay Christians endure. I’ve seen so many stories about young gay teens and adults that are all about the sex, drugs, and clubbing that is so often associated with the gay community.

To me, “refreshing,” is neither accurate nor appropriate to describe my feelings as I read through its pages. A far better word is “living.” This is a story about life, faith, and love in a way that is as crisp as it is timely.

From the book cover:

High-school senior Paul has dated Angie since middle school, and they’re good together: they have a lot of the same interests, like singing in their church choir, and being active in Bible club. But when a new boy, Manuel, transfers to their school, Paul has to rethink his life. Manuel is the first openly gay teen anyone in their small town has ever met, and yet he says he’s also a committed Christian. Talking to Manuel makes Paul reconsider thoughts he has kept hidden, and listening to Manuel’s interpretation of Biblical passages on homosexuality causes Paul to re-evaluate everything he believed. Manuel’s outspokenness triggers dramatic consequences at school, culminating in a terrifying situation that leads Paul to take a stand.

“I wasn’t sure who was crazier, him or me. During prayers one night, I’d ask forgiveness for hanging out with Manuel, but the next day I’d thank Jesus for bringing him into my life. I couldn’t stop thinking about Manuel, and every time I stormed away from him, swearing never to return, five minutes later I wanted to come running back. How could I choose between my sexuality and my spirituality, two of the most important parts that made me whole?”

It’s rare that I can find myself relating to any young character in any book for teens, and not just because I’m in my thirties. But as I turned the pages I found a part of myself in the lead character, Paul. As a Christian, I wasn’t interested in sex. I wanted something real, a relationship that was meaningful. I thank God every single day for my partner, who still miraculously puts up with all of my shortcomings.

What makes this story so powerful is that it shows the compassionate heart behind evangelical and even fundamentalist Christianity. These are people that genuinely believe they’re working for our very souls, often not realizing just how hurtful their actions truly are. Even as I was angered by their actions, I felt compassion for them because they were just SO close to the truth.

When the characters begin to bond friendships and seek to form a gay-straight alliance, the adults in their otherwise-conservative town are reluctant to embrace it. The new club eventually brings out the best and worst of their classmates and neighbors.

Although most readers can find The God Box to be somewhat predictable, it’s only because of their own life experiences. Anyone who’s gone through the coming-out process can go back into their life and see some of their own story in these pages. The joys, the frustrations, and the tragedies; we all know them too well. Sanchez knows them well too, as he writes from a distinctly gay and Latino perspective.

I’ve read plenty of stories of how young gay and lesbian people eventually come to terms with both their faith and their sexuality. The beauty of fiction is that all of those elements can be wrapped together into one package, and can become a story for all of us.

The God Box is recommended for young adults, teens, and anyone who works with youth.

On the Web: The God Box by Alex Sanchez

Read an excerpt from the book here.

I know we have the capability and the calling to rise above the petty behavior of …the armchair activists… who would rather lock themselves into the fading obscurity of subculture…

A few weeks ago, a friend of mine told me that she put in an application to a GLBT publication in New Mexico. She told me what the job would entail, and how she’d really enjoy doing it, especially since a lot of it could be done remotely. After a few minutes of jovial conversation, she came to the rather grim reality that she would probably not even be asked to interview for the job.

After all, she is straight, married, and has two very active daughters. Now, to be fair, she is very GLBT-friendly and has long been an advocate and ally to those of us who are struggling for equality. When I came out to her, she voiced her strong support for gay rights. She’s lived next to gay neighbors, and has even enjoyed conversations about men with her gay friends. However, labels have a way of affecting us pretty heavily in the GLBT community, and I wonder if we’ve done exactly what those boys did way back in the days of the “Little Rascals.”
Oh, you remember them, don’t you? They were Alfafa, Spanky, Buckwheat, and Petey the dog. Those boys always got into any trouble they could. Then then was Darla. She was the precocious little girl who was always excited about some scheme that would net them “hundreds of thousands of dollars.” That’d buy little more than a Bentley today. But hey, this was way back in the black-and-white serials era.

You see, the “Rascals” had this thing where girls just weren’t allowed in their club. After all, girls have cooties. Their club had a special name, of course. It was the “He-Han Woman Haters Club.” No girls allowed! And of course, by the end of the show, the girl would always find a way to foil their nefarious plans at domination in the neighborhood. Oh, to have been in one of those soabox cars!

But we’ve pretty much done the same thing in today’s GLBT society, haven’t we? A few weeks ago, I read how at least one gay organization made clear that their transgender members were no longer welcome. Gay men have called into gay radio shows like Sirius Out-Q’s “Derek & Romaine” to complain about how lesbians were coming into their precious gay clubs. Their complaint was simple: why would they want to have women hanging around? They’re gay, for chrissakes! Women–not even lesbians– were clearly not welcome to these clubbers.

Okay, so we don’t have the “He-Man Woman Haters Club” today, but when I hear some of my fellow gay men in popular culture, I wonder if we’re not behaving much differently. My concern is that these all-too-extreme examples of pettiness might begin to reflect an overall attitude in GLBT culture.

I had a very interesting conversation after a book signing I held a few months back. The discussion revolved around how the Christian subculture has become the overwhelming culture in America, and gay subculture is relegated to cult status. The question was raised, “How can we build bridges in this kind of oppressive culture?”

This is an excellent question.

In response, I’ll ask another question: How can we even think about bridging the gap if we’re too obsessed about our own identities? Instead of the “He-Man Woman Haters Club,” it appears to some of our critics that we have what seems to be an emerging attitude where we want to seclude ourselves from mainstream heterosexual society. We might even call it the “Gay-Man Straight Haters Club.” Either way, it’s an exclusive club that demands an inclusive world.

Is it possible that we, who are quick to scream “discrimination” if someone doesn’t hire us because we’re obviously gay, are in fact just as hypocritical? After all, we’ll might refuse to talk to someone because they’re Baptist, or because they’re straight. Are we just as guilty of prejudice if we don’t hire a straight person for a GLBT publication? Discrimination is a two-edged sword.

To be sure, it’s hard enough for gay men, lesbians, bisexuals, and members of the transgender community to all get along with each other, let alone with the heterosexuals. It’s absolutely critical for us to understand that we can’t even begin to build bridges with our straight neighbors and bring about equality for GLBT person until we start to treat each other equally.

I’ve talked about Soulforce before, and I think it merits mention once again. Dr. Mel White and his organization are working tirelessly to reach out to the Christian and religious community in a way that few other organizations have even thought about. He follows the teachings of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, who insisted on absolute excellence in everything that Black Americans did during the Civil Rights movement.

This is a message that we simply must embrace today, my friends. Dr. King’s vision of the Beloved Community was one where everyone worked together and side-by-side to make our nation and our world a better place to be. Our voices today will never be heard unless we’re those voices are joined with the actions of people who care about our society, and who are ready to embrace all that our nation has to offer. Our task is no longer just in building bridges. We must strive to rebuild the bridges that some in our own GLBT community have burned into bitter ashes.

I’m not in any way disillusioned, dear friends. I know we have the capability and the calling to rise above the petty behavior of a few vocal people…the armchair activists… who would rather lock themselves into the fading obscurity of subculture. The rest of us know that we have a world to reach out to; a world that needs to know what diversity is all about.

And to teach about diversity, my friends, we need to first learn it ourselves… and then live it.

Cross-posted on www.skippingtothepiccolo.com

A day without the art work that one is used to viewing on campus on a daily basis is a silent, yet poignant vigil to those who have died, or been infected from the disease. World AIDS Day bills itself as “one of the most successful international days with activities taking place in almost all countries at the national and local levels.” The theme for 2006, according to www.worldaidsday.org, will be: “Stop AIDS, Keep the Promise.”

In memory of those who have died from the disease, the Gay-Straight Alliance will distribute literature on AIDS and HIV awareness with current statistics readily available. Inside the gallery, a volunteer will ring a bell every ten seconds to signify when another person dies of the virus. Recent 2006 statistics for the United States from the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS, www.unfpa.org, indicate that while AIDS related deaths were near a low 16,000 last year, there were a landmark 1.2 million persons living with AIDS and HIV, the most ever recorded. 

Complacency has spawned further apathy in recent years, especially in the Southern U.S. There has never been a greater need for Day Without Art. The goal this year: to jolt people out of their apathy and into a heightened state of action. AIDS is neither “just a gay disease,” nor is it “something that doesn’t affect us.” AIDS affects everyone, and is on the rise worldwide. 

People can help by wearing AIDS ribbons, spreading the word, and supporting Nashville Cares, a lifeline for AIDS/HIV patients and awareness. This event provides an exemplary opportunity for Austin Peay students, the university community, and the Clarksville community at large to unite against the spread of HIV, and AIDS.

A few weeks ago, I began a series on my blog and right here at Clarksville Online on Christianity & Homosexuality. There are a total of six passages in the Bible that are used as “clobber” verses for the GLBT community, and the series deals with each of them individually.

So many of us who either know gay or lesbian people, or who are gay, know the kind of religious verbal violence that is hurled at an alarming rate. This series is an effort to take a step back from our pet theologies and look at their literary, historical, and original language contexts.And that’s just the beginning!

This is a special 8-part series that is the basis of my new book (Coming Soon!), “The Rainbow Kingdom: Christianity & the Homosexual Reconciled.” At Christian Community Church of Clarksville, we’ve explored these themes in great detail. The time has come to put it into writing. The book, of course, will carry these into even greater detail that on my blog.

With the permission of Clarksville Online owner Bill Larson, I’ve decided to refer all readers of this series directly to my blog, Skipping to the Piccolo. My regular commentaries will return to their focus on Clarksville life and politics, which will be much more appropriate for this forum. My hope and prayer is that we can begin to overcome years of bad information and abusive theology so that we can walk together as Christians… ALL Christians.

As challenging as the idea may be for some of us, I provide this information as a service to the community; an opportunity for some of us to take a closer look at long-held biases and maybe look at our gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender neighbors with an eye for love rather than judgement or condemnation.

Here are the links: Skipping to the Piccolo

NOW ONLINE:

• Part 1: Can a person be gay and a Christian?
• Part 2: When in Rome… Exploring Romans 1:26-27
• Part 3: Burn, Baby, Burn! Sodom & Gomorrah
• Part 4: The Abominable Snowjob: Leviticus Uncovered
• Part 5: 1 Corinthians 6:9-10…who inherits the Kingdom?
• Part 6: David & Jonathan

COMING SOON:

• Part 7: Other Biblical stories of note
• Part 8: How then shall we live?

So won’t you join me? You can easily subscribe to the blog on the page to be notified when the new posts are added over the next few days.

See you there!

On a national scale, 782 were discharged, which is up from 668 in 2004. The only base that had a higher number of discharges was Ford Leonard Wood with 60.

The Pentagon has a long history of being resistant to showing any kind of tolerance for GLBT people. In fact, they didn’t even consider removing “homosexuality” from their list of psychological disorders until this year. It wasn’t until they were forced to reconcile their documents with long-standing APA guidelines that top brass even bothered to make the needed adjustment.

In the meantime, able-bodied and honored soldiers still have to live under the threat of being outed and ejected. Recent polls have indicated that most Americans support an end to the ban, and there’s even been talk in Congress about it, even from a few Republican members. As of right now, 110 congress members support an end to the ban.

I’m greatly encouraged by the fact that so many of our neighbors support letting GLBT people serve openly in the military. And the 49 people who were discharged from Fort Campbell last year can take comfort in knowing that the ban will indeed end in the not-too-distant future.

In the end, there is one man who has the capability of striking down the ban outright. Sadly, he is showing no sign of even considering such an executive order. President Bush has pandered to the right-wing so much that he has destroyed any hope of fair and equal treatment of GLBT people under his administration.

When will we have a President that had the backbone, integrity, and courage of Harry Truman? When will we have someone who will stand in the face of religious and institutional bigotry and outright ignorance—and do the right thing for once? President Truman signed two executive orders back-to-back in 1948 which called for the integration of the armed forces and ended racial discrimination in Federal employment.

This was sixteen years before the civil rights act of 1964, and long before Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks ever came on the national scene. Segregation was still in full swing. But Truman saw a different future where people were treated equally no matter what. Why is this so difficult for the current resident of: