Ex-Gay Watch

I’m not a soldier, and I never have been. But I’m guessing if you have the mental and physical strength to protect lives and take lives while preserving your own life in the face of constant deadly danger most of us will never experience, you also have whatever it takes to share close quarters with a soldier you know to be gay.

Today, the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell goes into effect. The US military no longer requires gay soldiers to remain in the closet. Gays and lesbians can now get on with serving their country without the unnecessary, unjustifiable and discriminatory pressure of having to hide their partners, families and the basic facts of who they are.

The DADT repeal is not only a victory for equality, but also a victory for common sense. If you can handle bombs, guns, violence, death and destruction, you can handle the fact the guy next to you is gay. If you can’t get over that, you shouldn’t be in the military.

Congratulations to the brave gay men and women of the American military who now have the freedom to be honest and open with their fellow soldiers.

In the video below, a US soldier and formerly anonymous video blogger phones home to tell his dad he’s gay:

Our local team joins this excellent effort, so I just had to post it.  Thanks guys!

Our friend, Jim, over at Teach The Facts brought this up and I thought it was an ideal theme to start the New Year off with.

Imagine Peace in 2011

It is a New Year, 2011, war is raging, hatred abounds, greed is rewarded with power, love is reviled as filth. Good people need to be vigilant, paradoxically to fight for peace.

I m a g i n e:

War is over, if you want it

Dozens of Orthodox Rabbis have signed a statement of principles expressing support for the inclusion of gay Jews in their community, but still rejecting complete acceptance of same-sex partnering and marriage. One particular point stands out:

5. Whatever the origin or cause of homosexual orientation, many individuals believe that for most people this orientation cannot be changed. Others believe that for most people it is a matter of free will. Similarly, while some mental health professionals and rabbis in the community strongly believe in the efficacy of “change therapies”, most of the mental health community, many rabbis, and most people with a homosexual orientation feel that some of these therapies are either ineffective or potentially damaging psychologically for many patients.

We affirm the religious right of those with a homosexual orientation to reject therapeutic approaches they reasonably see as useless or dangerous. [emphasis added]

So while lip service is paid to those in the Orthodox community who see value in ex-gay therapy, it is made explicitly clear that such therapy can rightfully be avoided.

Also of note is the use of the phrase “homosexual orientation.” Ex-gay therapy is based upon the rejection of the existence of specific sexual orientations. Rather, only heterosexuals with “homosexual problems” exist. Said heterosexuals are simply “struggling with temptation.” But the rabbis who have signed on have acknowledged the existence of a unique group of people who have intrinsic non-heterosexual orientations.

This can also be considered just the latest of several blows to JONAH, the ex-gay organization that claims to cater to those in the Orthodox community.

Despite the best efforts of activists, and political and social commentators, ignorance abounds concerning the atrocious Anti-Homosexuality Bill being proposed in Uganda at the moment.

Among the myths being perpetrated are that the legislation is only there to protect the “vulnerable,” such as children and the disabled, and that the death penalty either is being proposed only for these offenses or has been dropped altogether. All of these claims are false. The bill is effectively a mandate for the genocide/mass slaughter/mass murder/wholesale execution – call it what you will – of gays. Read more…

Today, the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams told the worldwide Anglican Communion that the “infamous legislation” now being discussed in Uganda was rightly received with “repugnance.”

Meanwhile, the Anglican Church of Uganda released an official statement on the same Anti-Homosexuality Bill 2009. Its verdict? The Church supports the death penalty for “serial offenders” (practicing homosexuals) and sentences of up to life imprisonment for a variety of lesser offenses, including failure to report homosexuality. Its suggestions for the bill were all designed to make its aims clearer.

It would appear that gay bishops, priests and communicants are a minor issue. The most timely issue for Anglicans worldwide at the moment is whether you and I deserve death.

[Edit: Mea culpa. The actual position of the Church of Uganda is more complicated than I first understood. Contrary to the report by Christianity Today, it appears what the Church is suggesting is an amended version of the already-existing Penal Code Act, incorporating revisions to reflect the general aims of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill. The Church's statement explicitly affirms some aspects of the Bill (in particular, stating that sexual orientation must never become a "protected human right"), but it does not explicitly affirm the death penalty for homosexual offenses.]

The US Government’s Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission will hold a hearing on the Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality Bill this afternoon.

Over the course of 90 minutes, the TLHRC will hear evidence and testimony on the legal and humanitarian aspects of the proposed bill, which as it stands at the moment will see the execution of practicing homosexuals, and sentences up to life imprisonment for lesser offences such as promoting and aiding homosexuality.

LGBT POV has posted an illuminating video edited by Bruce tracing the connection between certain American evangelicals and the current legislation in Uganda. It focuses on “spiritual warfare” experts George Otis, Jr, and Ed Silvoso, with prophets and “prayer warriors” such as Cindy Jacobs, and their disturbing message of Christian dominionism. There is no doubt they have directly encouraged Ugandans, including President Museveni and other powerful political figures, to impose conservative moral values in the belief that God has given them spiritual and moral authority.

Disturbing aspects revealed in the video include claims to miraculous healings from HIV and Aids, and the dangerous pushing of an abstinence-only agenda, bolstered by myths and scaremongering about condom use.

In other Uganda news, NTV reports that the Ugandan Cabinet have rejected a proposed withdrawal of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill.

Iris Robinson, the wife of Northern Ireland’s First Minister, has resigned as a UK Member of Parliament after confessing to marital unfaithfulness. The controversial politician said she had suffered severe mental illness and had attempted suicide as a result of her actions.

Robinson compounded her already-notorious reputation for homophobia in 2008 when she described homosexuality as “disgusting, nauseous, loathsome, shamefully wicked and vile,” and suggested that psychiatric help could turn gay people straight.

Her affair was roughly 18 months ago, which indicates she was engaging in adultery at the same time she went public with her egregious judgments on homosexuals.

The LGBT community will not be surprised that another of its most vicious attackers is revealed to have been harboring ugly sexual sins of her own.

But I bear Iris Robinson no ill will. While homophobia is ugly, so is mental illness, depression and the destructive forces that lead people to attempt suicide. I wish love, peace and healing for Iris and her family. And yes, I also hope that love, peace and healing will translate into a more gracious, understanding and tolerant attitude towards gays and lesbians.

A panel called “Being Gay in the Orthodox World: A Conversation with the YU Community” was held on Tuesday at Yeshiva University, a prominent Orthodox Jewish college in New York City. The event drew about 1,000 attendees. Although the head of YU spoke out against even the idea of such an event, many people attending were outwardly supportive, if not tolerant, of the gay Orthodox Jews who spoke.

The hope was not that people would change their hearts and minds about halakha (Jewish Law) – the hope was that people would attend and see that queers are not an abstract “other,” but in fact are fellow human beings who are much more similar to straights than different from them. Gay men and women in the Orthodox Jewish world have a growing number of resources available to them both online and in New York City, YU’s home. Many are compiled by the Gay and Lesbian Yeshiva Day School Alumni Association (GLYDSA), an Orthodox Jewish group that is located in NYC.

An unofficial transcript of the event can be found at “The Curious Jew” blog, and several videos of the event were posted at “Tirtzah,” a blog for queer frum women.

Since I am gay, Anglican and British, I am more than disturbed to hear a priest in my own church and my own country concede that “the Ugandans, who are currently considering draconian legislation regarding homosexuality, might actually have a point.”

Writing on his blog today, the Reverend John Richardson points to the failure of a recent legal case to criticize Britain’s supposed lack of religious freedom and to suggest that Uganda has good reason to avoid following the West in “normalizing” homosexuality.

The case in question is that of Lillian Ladele, a Christian registrar who refused to carry out civil partnerships for same-sex couples. Note that we’re not talking about a priest or religious leader, or a church refusing to carry out a religious marriage ceremony. We’re talking about a public officer employed to undertake a public role, namely registering marriages and civil partnerships. Ladele claims that she was “bullied and harrassed” by her public employer because of her refusal. She initially won a case against them, but the ruling was overturned. And rightly so, it seems. Why should a public officer with public duties to fulfill be allowed to decide to fulfill only those duties she agrees with?

From this, Richardson takes the following unwarranted logical leap:

The outcome of this case, as it stands, means that traditionalist Christians could soon be excluded from all public office and employment. All that is needed is for applicants for any post to be asked their views on homosexuality —whether or not they accept it on an equal footing with heterosexuality. If the answer is ‘No’ (as it must be for the traditionalist Christian), then that may be deemed sufficient grounds for them to be unsuitable for such employment or to hold such an office.

This is fallacious. Ms Ladele was not dismissed simply because of her personal views, but because her personal views prevented her from carrying out the job she was employed to do. How will that lead to traditionalist Christians being fired from “all public office and employment,” as Richardson claims?

He laments the increasing tolerance of homosexuality since it was legalized in the UK in the 1960s (he supports the initial legalization, but detests its “unintended consequences”), and surmises that there is currently no possibility that “social normalization of homosexuality can co-exist with Christian morality.” He concludes:

At very least, this suggests that the Ugandans might look to our experience before making any decisions regarding their own situation, for the exercise of godly compassion in our case has clearly not resulted in a more godly society.

This is not the first time Richardson has seen fit to comment on African anti-homosexuality laws. In March, when many in the West condemned the Church of Nigeria for its metaphorical stone-throwing at homosexuals, the Reverend invoked the story of Jesus and the woman caught in adultery – but only to suggest that by holding the Church to account for its support of Nigerian anti-gay laws, liberal western Christians were the ones throwing stones.

Interestingly, this is the first comment Richardson has made on the Uganda situation.* First with Nigeria and now with Uganda, he has said little, breaking his silence only to sympathize with the oppressors.

Up until now, I had thought silence was the worst I could expect from fellow Christians in the Anglican Church. Cynical as I am, I never expected this much worse response – especially from my own nation and my own church. Frankly, it scares me.

___________________________________________________________

*Correction: Richardson did in fact address the Uganda situation in October, advising against the legislation.