Pam Spaulding's Blog, page 141

Paul Cameron: ' Prop 8 trial was lost because supporters were scared to use my work'

crossposted on Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters

I just caught on to something that happened two months ago regarding me and the discredited researcher Paul Cameron and at first, I was unhappy about it. But now, my opinion has changed a bit

In September of this year, Cameron posted a long, rambling diatribe on his web page of his organization, The Family Research Institute, entitled  Prop 8 Decision — Triumph of ‘Scientifically Proven Sameness’.

Allow me to break down the main thrust of his piece if I can:

Judge Walker made the Prop 8 trial a ‘social-science-evidence-based case,’ in which a ‘scientifically proven sameness’ — in reality, a deception by the professional associations in support of gay rights — was legally recorded as “fact.” This strategy mimicked the professional associations in making the issues of gay rights and marriage political, rather than empirical — willing to dissemble to advance ‘the noble cause.’ He put every assertion by the defenders of Proposition 8 to what might be considered ‘rigorous scientific test’ (including disregarding an expert witness because he had not published in peer-reviewed journals).

To be sure, homosexual activists have been building a ‘scientific case’ that homosexuality is irrelevant to marriage or successful child rearing — and also unrelated to child molestation, etc. — by publishing quasi-bogus conclusions appended to empirical studies in the journals of the major psychiatric professions, or by getting these associations to make exculpatory pronouncements. Consistent with Judge Walker’s legal argument, most of these studies purport to ‘prove’ that the outcomes and consequences of homosexuality are no different than the outcomes and consequences of heterosexuality.

Since a trove of such studies exist, then if what ‘science’ is is what gets published in peer-reviewed professional journals or declared by professional associations, the homosexuals ‘win.’ After all, homosexual sympathizers have generated more pro-gay conclusions based on social science studies than conclusions in studies that refute their ‘proof.’

The huge argument Cameron seems to be making is that those who were defending Proposition 8 were scared away from referring to studies that would adequately defend the law:

The American Psychological Association, for instance, is ‘all in’ for gay rights, declaring that the outcomes of homosexual parenting or gay mental health are ‘the same’ as heterosexual parenting or heterosexuals. Walker was well aware of these studies, and undoubtedly thought it was time to ‘put marriage to the scientific test.’ If a larger number of studies on one side carried the day, homosexuals would win. As it turned out, since the Proponents (i.e., those trying to defend Prop 8 ) presented essentially no studies, the ‘scientific case’ was easily ‘won’ by the homosexuals.

But quantity does not equal quality, as the saying goes. And so it is with research on homosexuality. In fact, even the claim that the quantity of evidence favors gay rights is bogus, for in study after study promoted by homosexual activists, the actual data at the heart of the research often belies the conclusions drawn by the authors. Instead, a careful sifting of the existing research shows that the great bulk of social science evidence — particularly from better-done studies — stacks against homosexuality being just as valuable as heterosexuality. For instance, homosexuals contribute to the West’s current demographic decline, gay unions appear to exacerbate the burden of homosexuals on public health, and homosexuals exhibit poorer parenting outcomes (including higher rates of molesting their charges), etc.

Given this context, the decision of Proponents’ lawyers to downplay the existing empirical findings about homosexuals verges on astounding.

. . . Proponents did not rebut much of the evidence presented by Plaintiffs, including claims homosexuals were no more apt to molest children (another bogus ‘scientifically proven sameness’). Proponents, including their key expert witness, went on record with “We have never disputed and we have offered to stipulate that gays and lesbians have been the victims of a long and shameful history of discrimination” and also allowed that permitting gay marriage would make our society ‘more fair.’

And these statements were made by our side.

Cameron claims they were especially scared away from using his research. And then he had the nerve to cite my book, Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters, to make this case:

We at Family Research Institute (FRI), of course, have ‘skin in this game.’ As researchers, we have published more extensively on homosexuality in peer-reviewed scientific journals than any one else on ‘our side.’ Long ago, we recognized that the move to base public policy on social science research would catapult gay rights to the ‘cat bird seat’ unless quality counter-evidence was assembled.

As a consequence, FRI’s Chairman and founder, Dr. Paul Cameron, has been an expert witness on homosexual issues for a number of states and two federal governments. However, our beliefs that
that homosexuality ought to be made illegal so that ‘gay parades,’ ‘gay curricula’, and the subsidization of the homosexual movement through ‘AIDS education’ can be stopped;that ‘reparative therapy’ is of rather limited value in changing those addicted to homosexuality; andthat granting ‘gay domestic partnerships’ is a long step in the wrong direction,have put FRI at odds with first, the homosexual movement, and secondly with many in the ‘Evangelical establishment.’

By scouring FRI and our research from their defense of Prop 8, its Proponents have almost assured that our side cannot win on the ‘social science’ battleground. Why? Alvin McEwen, of Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters: Exposing the Lies of the Anti-Gay Industry fame, put it correctly when he opined

Sheldon, Dobson, etc., may be leaders and the spokespeople of the anti-gay industry, but it is Cameron who has provided the framework for almost every study, statistic, and claim that the anti-gay industry uses against the gay and lesbian community. All forms of anti-gay propaganda they use are rooted in some form or another in his work. (Pp. 41-42)

This, coupled with the fact that a great deal of our work is anchored in peer-reviewed scientific articles, is why Martha Nussbaum, whom the San Francisco Chronicle calls “America’s most prominent, and most prolific, philosopher of public life” recently singled out Dr. Paul Cameron — not James Dobson, Tony Perkins, Jay Sekulow, Maggie Gallagher, etc. — for attack.

I'm touched. The snake read my book.

By the way, the majority of Cameron's work is not peer-reviewed in the regular sense. A lot of his work was published in Psychological Reports, a vanity pay-for-play publication. "Peers" can review the work that goes into Psychological Reports, but they have no power to make the publication reject said work.

Cameron's whining is ridiculous.

Those defending Proposition 8 were spooked away from using studies, particularly Cameron's work, because they knew they couldn't cite studies unchallenged in court like they could in a commercial or a speech.

In the words of Prop 8 lawyer David Boies:

"In a court of law you've got to come in and you've got to support those opinions, you've got to stand up under oath and cross-examination. And what we saw at trial is that it's very easy for the people who want to deprive gay and lesbian citizens of the right to vote [sic] to make all sorts of statements and campaign literature, or in debates where they can't be cross-examined.

"But when they come into court and they have to support those opinions and they have to defend those opinions under oath and cross-examination, those opinions just melt away. And that's what happened here. There simply wasn't any evidence, there weren't any of those studies. There weren't any empirical studies. That's just made up. That's junk science. It's easy to say that on television. But a witness stand is a lonely place to lie. And when you come into court you can't do that.

"That's what we proved: We put fear and prejudice on trial, and fear and prejudice lost."

Proposition 8 passed not because people were trying to "protect marriage." It passed because people who voted for it were led to believe that THE GAYS were going to harm their children. It passed through horror stories substantiated by lies and junk science.

Cameron should be used to lies and junk science. He has made a career out of utilizing both.

It's nice that Cameron will acknowledge the fact that perhaps those in the religious right who have used his work are aware of his errors.

And when I give it further thought, I'm flattered that Cameron actually read my book, particularly the chapter I devoted to his history of stigmatizing the lgbt community via lies and distortions.

But it's strange that he didn't bother to refute anything in it.

Maybe it's because he can't.

Related posts:

Homophobic 'researcher' Paul Cameron in all of his repulsive glory 

More homophobic lies from the Paul Cameron Poland tour

Why we should care about Paul Cameron

AOL article sanitizes Paul Cameron and bad science

My "Happy Birthday" Wishes to HRC's Marty Rouse

[image error]

I cannot tell you all how much I have missed being here on the Blend. The past political season has been a very long one indeed and it's good to be "home", even if it is just for a quick visit! ~ Louise

Good ole Facebook; it never fails to remind me of when a friend has a birthday.

Today is HRC's Marty Rouse's birthday and the notice reminded me that I owed him a note. Back in August, he posted a photo album of the glitzy Las Vegas HRC gala that at the time had me sputtering mad.

So, being the shy and reserved Louise that I am, I sent him a message on his wall. Hit "send"- and immediately had some misgivings, as I believe he is a decent man. So I deleted my snark.

Well, it still appeared on his email notifications- and Marty nicely wrote a message back saying that he would like to discuss the matter with him. I wrote back that I would be contacting him soon and thanked him.

Then got busy with local politics. Which can best be summarized:

[image error]

"So, other than that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?"

(More on THAT another day...)

Below the fold, my letter this morning to Marty Rouse.

 
[image error]

Hi Marty,

My apologies in the delay of getting back to you; was extremely busy with Maine politics all season. But the FB notice of your birthday reminded me- hope you are having a great day!

It's probably just as well that I didn't write at the time; was in an especially annoyed place and while anger used correctly is an important tool, it can also be quickly and correctly classified as unproductive. I remember it was in regards to seeing the very lovely photos of the glitzy HRC gala in Vegas that "got" me- and I can address why that was a hot button better now than I could have then.

The thing is, the majority of the LGBT community can't relate to the fancy dressing up and meeting political figures in that sort of setting  and see it as in any means relevant or productive to their daily lives. And yet, that is how many see HRC and their efforts- connecting to the DC folks and ignoring everyone in rural communities.

They can't see how they and Joe/HRC executives have anything in common, frankly.

THIS IS WHERE HRC, IMO, HAS AN OPPORTUNITY. To not only change this perception, but to grow and expand into smaller communities.

Think of this way: McDonald's did not become a huge franchaise for selling filet mignons and champagne; they sold hamburgers and soda on practically every roadside in America.

Frankly, the DNC is also guilty of not going after the rural populations as well and I think this is, in large part, exactly why the extraordinarily disorganized Tea Party "movement" was so successful 2 weeks ago. People in high places with lots of money and the ability to hide it (thanks, SCOTUS and Citizens United!) were very, very good at quickly organizing and taking advantage of discontent with the selection of a black President. They put money into the pockets of smaller community political races across the nation and hid their tracks very well.

NOM (whose financing will never be publicly known!) is just one group taking advantage of the fear and misinformation out there, connecting with these same GOP-oriented groups, and working on electing into ALL offices people who will make sure that the LGBTQ communities will never have full equality.

And where some equalities have been established, removing them- look at the push to remove marriage equality in NH. The removal of judges in Iowa. Talk of Maine's 2005 anti-discrimination law being removed with the next legislative session. The implications of THAT, in my home state, are terrifying- and infuriating.

Terrifying for my friends; infuriating for me, as it will not affect my household directly one whit. Other than re-establish my position as a person of unfair privilege.

So, what do we do? Well, we need to have all of the local state communities (EQCA, EQME, etc etc) be connected together nationally, hopefully via HRC (who is already in place to be the leader we all need), and work on the same page to do some real grassroots connecting and HUGE growth of visibility in the rural communities.

Show REAL PEOPLE. Not cliches and not fancy party attendees- real every day people. Real teachers, farmers, police, firemen, town clerks, CSRs, factory workers- you name it.

We need to encourage people to join or establish GSAs. To be openly gay church members. Leaders in our communities. To be NORMAL, REGULAR, EVERY DAY FOLKS THAT LIVE AND ARE PRODUCTIVE IN OUR COMMUNITIES EVERY DAY.

I have long thought that Equality Maine did many things right and a few things absolutely wrong last year. The tones were correct, the visibility and openness were spot-on, the messages clear and certainly they had an extraordinary team of connected communities throughout the country helping them. The field ops was imo beyond reproach- they did an amazing job.

BUT- where they (EQME) failed was in fully engaging the rural community. And that was a fatal flaw- now that Maine has a Tea Party governor as well as lost both sides of the Statehouse (the first time this has occurred in my lifetime!), it may well take almost another decade before Maine gets a marriage equality law on the books.

EQME went with what I think of as a "Portland mindset", ie, they banked on stronger support in Maine's urban populations than rural. They tracked their support with a brilliant and tangible postcard campaign, but it showed them right along that they had a huge rural problem.

I can't say as I blame them (playing to their strength), but it was a gamble that lost.

The ONLY way we are ever going to have full equality in the state levels and indeed, in the national level, is if we play not just to our strength- but engage where we are weak.

Will this be easy? Hell NO; if that were the case I wouldn't be writing this today, would I? BUT WE HAVE NO OTHER OPTION. We have to win over the minds and the support of those in the rural sections of the country.

Anyways, there's my long winded thoughts and I thank you for reading. Have a wonderful birthday! :)

Louise

melouise.phb@gmail.com

Pam's House Blend

www.pamshouseblend.com

Sarah Palin's endorsement worth squat in Washington. How about in your state?

Map last updated Nov. 3rd. I re-colored the WA figures to reflect outcomes as of Nov. 12th.

Sarah Palin really bombed in Washington state.  Palin endorsed Clint Didier for Senate and John Koster and Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers for House, according to Washington Post's Palin endorsement tracker (pictured right).  Didier lost in the primaries, Koster lost in the general and McMorris Rodgers was a shoe-in regardless.

There's no doubt that some of the Republicans newly-elected to the House of Representatives were endorsed by Sarah Palin.  But in how many races was her endorsement actually meaningful?  I wonder how many times Palin stacked her "success" deck by endorsing sure-winners like Washington's Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers.  

From what I can tell, the candidates that Palin endorsed in Washington all won or lost independent of her endorsement.  Below the fold are some details on the three of them.

What about in your state?  Did Palin wave a magic tea bag and influence the outcome, or was she a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing?
Clint Didier (U.S. Senate challenger)

Washington Redskins tight end turned eastern Washington alfalfa farmer and tea party darling, Clint Didier was the first candidate in Washington to be endorsed by Sarah Palin.  In a publicity stunt, Palin summoned Didier away from potential supporters at the Washington State Republican conference back across the state to Richland for a meeting.  "All geared up for the convention. Then I got the call from Sarah," he tweeted.

Palin's endorsement probably didn't hurt Didier's tea party credibility, but it couldn't counterbalance serious credibility flaws in the candidate like this:

Despite his fierce anti-government rhetoric, Didier's 1000-acre Pasco farm has benefited from direct federal crop subsidies, as well as government-subsidized irrigation water. See my article on that from earlier this week.

Other embarrassments included Didier's participation one week before the primary in a smear campaign aimed at Dino Rossi, Didier's major Republican opponent.  A proxy war, the smear campaign was conducted by fixtures of Washington's radical-right, Sen. Val Stevens and Pastor Joe Fuiten.  Stevens endorsed Didier, Fuiten endorsed Rossi.  Beginning with an open letter from Stevens, the Didier camp alleged that Rossi wasn't anti-choice enough.  The unseemly sight of "pro-life" advocates turning the fetus into a political football earned the Didier campaign criticism from other conservatives.

Didier came in 3rd in the primary with only 12.8% of the vote.  Dino Rossi would go on to challenge Senator Patty Murray in the general election.

After getting routed in the primary, Didier held hostage his own endorsement of Dino Rossi, conditioning it on Rossi agreeing to pledge.

Didier said he wants Rossi to sign a pledge that he won't raise taxes, to promise to vote against any plan to increase federal spending, and to personally sponsor the Sanctity of Life Act, a measure that would attempt to ban the U.S. Supreme Court from ruling state abortion restrictions unconstitutional.

Didier quickly became a laughingstock.

[Former state Republican Party Chairman Chris] Vance said Didier, as a political newcomer, didn't realize how politics should be played. For example, he noted that once Didier made his demands public, Rossi would only seem weak if he agreed to them.

"I would not be so arrogant to give Clint Didier advice on how to block an outside linebacker, but he's brand new to politics and he doesn't know how things work," Vance said.

John Koster (WA-2 House Challenger)

"Arch-conservative" is the term that usually comes to mind when describing John Koster.  After the 2010 election, perhaps "law-breaker" and "debate-ducker" will be used as well.  Late in October Publicola reported

...Koster has been accepting illegal corporate campaign contributions. The Federal Election Commission wrote Koster an angry letter back in September, demanding he return all the campaign contributions he received from corporations during the July expenditure reporting period. (Corporations are prohibited from giving money directly to federal political campaigns). ...

This quarter's reports have just been filed, and we checked them today to see if he'd returned the money. Nope. In fact, it looks to us as if Koster is still taking contributions from corporations. Silvergate Farms LLC, Quantum Construction Inc, and Boyden Robinett Association all sound like contributors that are sure to raise flags with the FEC.

On the matter of ducking debates, by the time Koster had backed out last minute of an October 21st televised debate, he'd already ducked three previous public fora.  The press was particularly mystified over Koster's October 21 cancellation since the reason given by his campaign was that Koster didn't "like one of the proposed debate panelists, a reporter who works for a newspaper that endorsed him.".  Poor performance in public debates and interviews was widely recognized to be an Achilles heel for Koster's big endorser, Sarah Palin.  Indeed, The Stranger's Eli Sanders postulated that Koster was avoiding televised debates because his campaign realized that he came across as angry and extreme on television.  The best bet was to just stay out of the spotlight and try to ride the anti-incumbent wave.

Although the 2010 election result wont be officially certified until November 22nd, as of Nov. 12th Koster was trailing Rep. Rick Larsen 48.9% to 51.1% and has conceded.  A few days previously, as Koster's election-night lead began slipping away, Koster's campaign manager Larry Stickney "implied Democrats might try to steal the election."

"Though John Koster remains in a position to win, we are keenly aware that there are those who will do everything they can to keep this seat out of the hands of the new House majority," Koster's campaign manager Larry Stickney said in a statement.

Larry Stickney also managed Koster's 2000 bid for the same seat which he also lost to Rick Larsen.

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-5, WA)

Cathy McMorris Rodgers is a 3-term Republican incumbent in a heavily Republican district covering half of eastern Washington.  Running for re-election against a little-known Democrat, McMorris Rodgers was heavily favored to win re-election before Palin's endorsement, and did so easily.  Palin's endorsement was entirely superfluous.

Log Cabin Republican Clarke Cooper: "McCain Will Do The Right Thing."

Lawrence O'Donnell invited Executive Director of the Log Cabin Republicans, Clarke Cooper on his show to discuss prospects for legislative repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in the lame duck. In brief, possible, but there's very little time on the clock.

(Don't you wish you could just go home, whether the job was done or not? That hasn't been MY employment experiences over the years. Senator Reid seems like a great boss.)

Lawrence frames his questioning by calling McCain's position "transparently fraudulently," a bait that Cooper declines to take, breezing right past it. Cooper expresses his confidence that, if the leaks of the Pentagon report prove to be true:

"...once the comprehensive review is published and shared with members of congress, I do believe that he will come around and do the right thing."

My faith in the good will of John McCain and of Republicans in general, is perhaps, substantially less than that of Cooper. But let's hope he's right. The fate of legislative repeal pretty much rests in them being complicit or Harry Reid playing some serious hardball, like keep Senate in session right through Christmas if necessary. They can filibuster their bigotry right through the Baby Jesus' birthday if Reid wants to take a stand.

Another interesting question O'Donnell brings up is:

"Is there any Democrat who's willing to filibuster the bill if it does not have a repeal of don't ask don't tell in it?"

Cooper appropriately doesn't comment, because, well, he's a Republican, and likely doesn't have any insight into what Democratic strategies exist.

It does seem like a good question to put to our Democratic leaders: Will you use the filibuster on any NDAA bill that does not include repeal?

A Requested Catholic Church Annulment On My Mind

It's been a difficult week for me, this past week. I've had writer's block that hasn't been because of a lack of ideas to write about, but because my mind has been focused on other things.

The big issue is that my ex-wife is pursuing a Catholic Church annulment of our marriage. We were together for about thirteen years, and separated about six-and-a-half years before our divorce was finalized. We were never Catholic -- I actually joined the Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints (The Mormons) as a product of our relationship; we were active in the Mormon Church for about a year-and-a-half before giving up on the idea of she and me should have a Mormon Temple Wedding.

After my ex-wife's and my divorce was finalized, my ex-wife joined the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church by default considers my ex-wife's and my wedding a valid and binding marriage. Since the Catholic Church doesn't grant divorces, but instead only annulments...well, to quote from the website AmericanCatholic.org:

The Catholic Church presumes that marriages are valid, binding spouses for life. When couples do separate and divorce, therefore, the Church examines in detail their marriage to determine if, right from the start, some essential element was missing in their relationship. If that fact has been established, it means the spouses did not have the kind of marital link that binds them together for life.

Obviously, the Catholic Church may consider my coming out as a transsexual (after our divorce) as a possible essential element that would explain why I didn't enter a "marital link that binds [my ex-wife and I] together for life." The website explains essential elements in a little more detail in a section entitled On what grounds does the Church declare nullity for some failed marriages?:

In technical language, the most common reasons are insufficiency or inadequacy of judgment (also known as lack of due discretion, due to some factor such as young age, pressure to marry in haste, etc.), psychological incapacity, and absence of a proper intention to have children, be faithful, or remain together until death.

These grounds can manifest themselves in various ways. For example, a couple, discovering her pregnancy, decide to marry; only much later do they recognize the lack of wisdom in that decision. Or one spouse carries an addictive problem with alcohol or drugs into the marriage. Perhaps a person, unfaithful during courtship, continues the infidelity after marrying.

In cases like these, the Church judges may decide that something contrary to the nature of marriage or to a full, free human decision prevents this contract from being sound or binding.

Many of us are aware what the Catholic Church thinks about transsexuals. In the same Christmas 2008 Message where Pope Benedict stated (per an audio translation by Australia's ABC News):

We need something like human ecology, meant in the right way. The Church thinks of human nature as man and woman, and asks that this order is respected. This is not out of date meta physics, but comes from the faith and the creator, and listening to the language of creation.

...Adding that the distinction between male and female gender is blurring, and stating that human beings deserve to be protected from self-destruction:

Rainforests -- yes -- deserve our protection, but the human being, as a creature which contains a message that is not in contradiction to his freedom, but is the condition of this freedom, does not deserve it less.

The Pope took a more subtle stab at transsexuals in that same Christmas message. According to Time Magazine's The Pope's Christmas Condemnation of Transsexuals:

Without actually using the word, Benedict took a subtle swipe at those who might undergo sex-change operations or otherwise attempt to alter their God-given gender. Defend "the nature of man against its manipulation," Benedict told the priests, bishops and cardinals gathered Monday in the ornate Clementine hall. "The Church speaks of the human being as man and woman, and asks that this order is respected." The Pope again denounced the contemporary idea that gender is a malleable definition. That path, he said, leads to a "self-emancipation of man from creation and the Creator."

Fr. William P. Saunders-Herald took the Pope's basic statement regarding transsexual people a step farther in a Catholic Herald piece, entitled Straight Answers: The Morality of 'Sex Change' Operations, arguing condemnation:

[A] transsexual will never be able to enter validly into the sacrament of Matrimony. A man who undergoes sexual reassignment will never really be a woman, or vice versa; rather, a man will be a man (or a woman will be a woman), except with a mutilated body and profound psychological disordering. Moreover, a transsexual will never be able to consummate the marriage in the fullest expression of love of husband and wife, and never will there be a real openness to life and the creation of children.

To destroy organs purposefully that are healthy and functioning, and to try to create imitation organs which will never have the genuineness and functioning of authentic organs is gross and lacks charity. Such surgery which purposefully destroys the bodily integrity of the person must be condemned.

Need more? Well, the Catholic News Service reported, in a January 16, 2003 news brief entitled Vatican says 'sex-change' operation does not change person's gender:

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- After years of study, the Vatican's doctrinal congregation has sent church leaders a confidential document concluding that "sex-change" procedures do not change a person's gender in the eyes of the church. Consequently, the document instructs bishops never to alter the sex listed in parish baptismal records and says Catholics who have undergone "sex-change" procedures are not eligible to marry, be ordained to the priesthood or enter religious life, according to a source familiar with the text. The document was completed in 2000 and sent "sub secretum" (under secrecy) to the papal representatives in each country to provide guidance on a case-by-case basis to bishops. But when it became clear that many bishops were still unaware of its existence, in 2002 the congregation sent it to the presidents of bishops' conferences as well. "The key point is that the (transsexual) surgical operation is so superficial and external that it does not change the personality. If the person was male, he remains male. If she was female, she remains female," said the source.

An Associated Press article from January of 2003 spoke to the Catholic Church's views on transsexuals as well. From the piece entitled Vatican Denounces Transsexuals (link added to text):

Transsexuals suffer from "mental pathologies," are ineligible for admission to Roman Catholic religious orders and should be expelled if they have already entered the priesthood or religious life, the Vatican says in new directives.

The Vatican's orthodoxy watchdog, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, sent the directives to the superiors of religious orders worldwide. The leaders were told to implement the directives or turn cases over to the Congregation for handling, Vatican officials said Friday.

The directives were the latest in a series of Vatican pronouncements on eligibility for the priesthood issued ahead of a long-awaited set of guidelines for seminaries in accepting candidates for the clergy.

...In the new directives, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith said transsexuals should be barred as priests, monks, friars, nuns and brothers in religious orders.

"When, from clear external behavior and the testimony of those assigned to formation, there emerges the prudent doubt about the presence of transsexuality, the superior should arrange for a careful medical and psychiatric exam," said the directive, which , a liberal Catholic news agency...

So, the Catholic Church considers me to have a mental pathology, as someone who isn't respecting a divine order of male and female, and considers me to be engaging in "self-emancipation of man from creation and the Creator." And, of course, this is to be condemned.

My ex-wife is likely expecting the Catholic Church diocese that's handling the annulment request to give a lot of weight into to previous comments of mine, such as one from a Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) My Story piece on the Human Right's Campaign (HRC) website. In that piece, I stated:

At fourteen a flashbulb seemed to go off in my head, and the reason I had felt "off" for most of my childhood became clear: my body [in puberty] was starting to develop in a way that didn't match my female gender. The discordant feelings I'd always felt [had,] for a short time[,] became very lucid. However; the mantra at the time was that male-to-female transsexuals needed to be sexually attracted to men to be considered "true" transsexuals, so I was particularly confused that I felt female, but was nominally attracted to women...and not to men at all. Because I wasn't by the standards then considered a transsexual, I identified myself as a transvestite.

But I said more than that in that accounting of my personal history. I also said:

I graduated high school in 1977 and seemed to drift a few years, identifying myself as an "ex-transvestite," with most of the trappings that apply these days to "ex-gays."

I went to some reparative therapy in 1978, which was the foundation of my self-delusion that I was "cured." I entered into my marriage without trying to evade marital responsibility -- I very much loved my now ex-wife, and I wanted (and did have) children with her. I disclosed that I considered myself an ex-transvestite to my ex-wife before we I asked her to marry me.

However, I have to admit that one of the unarticulated, unconscious reasons I entered into marriage was wanting to become the man I subconsciously knew I wasn't. Although that particular reason was far from the primary reason I wanted to marry my ex-wife, it was among the reasons I married my ex-wife -- even though it was at the time it was a subconscious reason. Just because I now consciously understand it was one reason among many reasons of why I wanted to get married, I didn't understand that as a personal truth then.

As I said, my ex-wife and I had children together. My oldest son was adopted, and the adoption was contested. We first took that son home the day after he was born, but the adoption wasn't completed until about five-and-a-half years later -- there was a long court case involved in the adoption.

I currently have a good relationship with my oldest son.

I also have twin boys though who currently want nothing to do with me. Those sons were conceived through in vitro fertilization as my ex-wife and I both had conditions that contributed to our infertility as a couple. So, it took several years of trying various treatments to reach the point where they were conceived and born.

My ex-wife's and my children, in other words, weren't products of sexual intercourse in the marriage bed. These children weren't accidents, but instead were brought into our then family with great effort and by great expense.

One of the difficulties I'm having with the idea of the Catholic Church annulling my ex-wife's and my marriage is what I see as secondary effect. That secondary effect would be the Catholic Church functionally declaring the three children of my ex-wife and my marriage to be illegitimate children -- at least, that's my take on what that would mean. From an integrity standpoint, I don't want the Catholic Church to functionally state that my children are illegitimate children. These three children were all wanted by my ex-wife and me, and these children were outgrowths of a marriage that I know to have been a real marriage -- a real marriage in both the spiritual and secular sense.

There is going to be a tribunal taking up my ex-wife's request to have the Catholic Church annul our marriage, and I'm asking the tribunal to deny my e-wife's request. It irritates me to realize that if I had not decided to contest my ex-wife's request for annulment, the Catholic Church would have likely grated her request pro forma, with the assumption that I didn't honestly intend to enter into a lifetime marital link with my ex-wife. I know I actually intended no such a thing -- I know I entered into my past marriage with full intent to have it be a lifetime marriage.

There are things I can point to that indicate my ex-wife believed, and still believes, our marriage was a real marriage, but I don't plan to make those things public in a Pam's House Blend article for reasons of privacy -- but I will be bringing these up to the tribunal. My ex-wife is aware of the basic arguments that I'll be bringing to contest the annulment.

Well, even though my ex-wife's pursuit of a Catholic Church annulment for our past marriage isn't the only issue that has contributed to the writer's block I experienced last week, it certainly was the biggest contributor to that writer's block. Hopefully the writer's block is over, but if my writings seem a bit infrequent and sparse for a bit into more the future, you'll have an idea why -- This requested Catholic Church annulment is on my mind.

.

Guest column by Irene Monroe: Not only "For Colored Girls"

Not only "For Colored Girls"

By Rev. Irene Monroe

If you're looking for Madea (Tyler Perry in front of the camera in drag), or Black-faced versions of Sex in the City or He's Just Not That Into You, then Mr. Perry's adaptation of Ntozake Shange's 1975 womanist choreopoem "For Colored Girls Who Have Considered Suicide/When the Rainbow Is Enuf" will gravely disappoint you.

And if you are also looking for Perry's high-profile ensemble of African American actresses -- Janet Jackson, Loretta Devine, Kimberly Elise, Thandie Newton, Phylicia Rashad, Anika Noni Rose, Tessa Thompson, Kerry Washington, Whoopi Goldberg, and Macy Gray -- to perform as "Big Mammas," "Hoochie Mommas," and "Welfare Mommas" mouthing off "Madea-isms," these sister-girls will disappoint you too; they have more depth, dignity and dimensionality to their character development than that.

While the movie, in my opinion, is a must see, it won't be blockbuster hit. You won't have to worry about waiting in long lines. I went to view the film at prime time with an audience of six of us -- all women -- in the theater.

With some critics having already bad-mouthed For Colored Girls as an anti-male melodrama, emasculating black males, who would sit for 134 minutes of that?

But those critics are wrong, and let me give you some reasons why.

For Colored Girls illustrates the universal sisterhood of struggle, strife, and survival that women find themselves in certain types relationships with men.

These characters in the film are you, me, and us all at certain junctures in our life's journey. And For Colored Girls reminds us about the ongoing "dark phrases" of womanhood that women of all colors of the rainbow, even in our supposedly "post-feminist" era of 2010, continue to confront, like spousal abuse, incest, rape, infanticide, and infidelity, to name just a few.

However, with the film set primarily in Harlem, many will see the film as solely the typical "black faces" of African American women.

But that was neither the intent of Shange's play, nor is it the intent of Perry's film.

"Driving along Highway 101 one morning, she found herself passing beneath the arc of a double rainbow. Seeing the entire rainbow take shape above her, Shange realized that she wanted to live, that she had to live; she had something to say, not only about the fragility of her own existence, but about the lives of the other colored girls she knew and loved and imagined," Hilton Als wrote in "Color Vision: Ntozake Shange's Outspoken Art" in a recent New Yorker.

Ntozake Shange's "For Colored Girls Who Have Considered Suicide/When the Rainbow Is Enuf" was written during the height of the second wave feminist movement, giving voice and visibility to an era deluged with white women's scholarship and sensibilities, and an era discriminated with not only their racial and ethnic biases but also with their class and sexual orientation biases.

Shange was part of the burgeoning black women writers', poets', and artists' era of the 1970s where Toni Morrison published her first novel, and still my favorite, The Bluest Eye. Alice Walker, Maya Angelou, Nikki Giovanni, Sonia Sanchez, and Toni Cade Bambara, to name a few, are some of the early foresisters of the era.

With her signature style of writing -- the choreopoem -- blending music, dance, poetry, and an amalgamation of what she heard on the street, Shange's play has influenced this generation of spoken-word and performance artists.

"I like the idea that letters dance. ...I need some visual stimulation, so that reading becomes not just a passive act...but demands rigorous participation. The spelling result from the way I talk or the way the character talks, or the way I heard something said," Shange wrote in Claudia Tate's Black Women Writers at Work.

Perry directorial style in For Colored Girls captures Shange's poetic style in each of his characters, with of course a few of his own cinematic flourishes. But none where there was room for Madea to surprisingly appear.

While many may view For Colored Girls as a melodramatic mess of black women's misery, the play is about women's empowerment.

The film is about teaching and illustrating to women how to have decision-making power of their own, access to information and resources for making proper decisions, having a range of options from which they can make good choices, having the ability to exercise their assertiveness, and having positive thinking of one's ability to make changes in their lives as empowered women.

For Colored Girls is not only for colored girls because it offers a pathway to self-growth, finding our authentic power, and discovering the divine in one's self.

In the closing scene of the film one of the women says, "i found god in myself & i loved her/i loved her fiercely."

Aren't we all looking for that woman?

Concise Guide to Gay Marriage Lawsuits

Earlier this week, the ACLU filed a lawsuit in New York alleging that the Defense of Marriage Act [DOMA] violated the Constitution’s equal protection clause. The number of gay marriage lawsuits has been adding up, so it’s worth reviewing them all. Here’s what you need to know.
Perry v. Schwarzenegger

Overview: The lawsuit to overturn Proposition 8. It’s also the most well-known out of all the lawsuits challenging gay marriage bans. At the most basic level, the lawsuit is a federal challenge to a state marriage ban. The suit alleges that marriage is a constitutional right, and that the government doesn’t have a good enough reason (rational basis is the legal term) for denying that right to same sex couples.

The couples filing the lawsuit are Joe and Bob. Also notable are their attorneys, Joe and Bob, who were on opposite sides of the Bush-Gore election court battle in 2000.

Location: California.

Status: The case went to trial, and Judge Walker decided against the gay marriage ban based on both the equal protection and due process clauses of the Constitution. The case has been appealed the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where a 3 panel judge will issue an opinion.

Outlook: Uncertain. No matter what the Ninth Circuit does, the case will likely be appealed to the Supreme Court. That process will take years. In the meantime, judicial orders will likely be stayed pending appeal, meaning that they have no effect while the case is still being resolved.

Massachusetts v. Department of Health and Human Services

Overview: Unlike the other lawsuits, this lawsuit was not filed on behalf of particular people, but on behalf of the state itself. The Massachusetts government alleges that Congress didn’t have the authority to regulate marriage and pass the Defense of Marriage Act, the law prohibiting the federal government from recognizing gay marriages. In other words, it violates the Tenth Amendment, which says that unless the Constitution grants the federal government a specific power, the power is left to the states. Regulating marriage is one of these powers, Massachusetts alleged.

Location: Massachusetts

Status: Judge Louis Tauro ruled against the government back in August and declared DOMA unconstitutional for violating the Tenth Amendment. The judge said that the federal government cannot decide who gets to be married—instead, states do.

The case has been appealed to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. The decision is stayed pending the appeal.

Outlook: I like this case because it uses traditional conservative arguments (state rights) to support what is traditionally a liberal cause (gay marriage). On the other hand, it’s tough to say that the federal government shouldn’t be involved in marriage. The federal government has always been involved in marriage through the Internal Revenue Code (tax laws) and even the Social Security Act. Massachusetts will have to show why the government can define marriages through the tax code, but not through DOMA.

Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management

Overview: This case is about the financial benefits to being married. There’s multiple plaintiffs, but Joanne Pedersen is the main one. She’s legally married to her same sex spouse, but can’t put her on her health plan because of DOMA. The other plaintiffs, also legally married, can’t get Social Security benefits or benefits under the Family and Medical Leave Act for their same sex spouses.

Location: Connecticut.

Status: This case was just filed this week.

Outlook: Pretty good. The lawsuit was based on Gill v. OPM, a Massachusetts, case in which the federal judge said that DOMA was unconstitutional because it violated the 10th Amendment (see below). In this case, the lawsuit alleges that DOMA violated the due process clause (found in the 5th and 14th amendments). Still, the attorneys for Pedersen modeled the case after Gill—so it’s basically the same laws with near the same facts. They might add the 10th Amendment argument later.

Gill v. Office of Personnel Management

Overview: This case is about whether Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. It was filed on behalf of same sex legally married couples who were denied federal benefits because of DOMA. In short, their state said they were married, but the federal government said they weren’t.

Still, this case does not ask the federal government to recognize a same-sex right to marry. Instead, it says that the government should get out of the business of defining marriage. It involves same sex couples who are already married, not who want to get married.

Location: Massachusetts

Status: Judge Louis Tauro, the same judge from Massachusetts v. Department of Health and Human Services (see above), ruled against the government and declared DOMA unconstitutional for violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. In short, the judge said that the government didn’t have a good enough (or rational basis) reason for discriminating against same sex couples. The case is on appeal to the First Circuit Court of Appeals.

Outlook: Like most of these cases, this one will probably end up in the Supreme Court. The case involves constitutional principles like equal protection and state rights, which are issues the Supreme Court tends to handle.

Windsor v. U.S

Overview: This is the case filed just this week by the ACLU. The plaintiff, Edie Windsor, had to pay $350,000 in estate taxes upon the death of her same-sex spouse, Thea Spyer. If she were married to an opposite sex spouse, she wouldn’t have to pay any of it. As the lawsuit says, if “Thea” were “Theo,” the estate could have passed to Edie tax-free.

Location: New York (they were married in Canada, but New York recognizes same sex marriages performed elsewhere)

Status: The case was filed just this week.

Outlook: What’s unique about this case is that it’s based on discrimination through the Internal Revenue Code. It reminds me what Kelly Erb, also known as the taxgirl, said a few months ago, that a proper and potentially winnable DOMA challenge requires a good set of facts. I’m not sure this is the right set of facts, here’s what the case has going for it:

There’s a lot of money involved ($350,000)You couldn’t as for a better plaintiff. Edie lost her same sex spouse after decades battle with multiple sclerosis and then a serious heart condition.The facts are media worthy—news outlets will pick up on the sympathetic plaintiff and in the simplicity of the discrimination (If “Thea” were “Theo”…).The remedy is financial. They want a check back from the government for the estate tax.

Still, like every other case here, don’t expect much until the Supreme Court touches it, which won’t happen for years.

[Cross-posted at the Gay Law Report, where I discuss LGBT laws and related news.]

Ken "I'd Rip Off His Arm" Hutcherson plays the victim diva

Really now.  Can anyone take this guy seriously?  Ken Hutcherson sent out this prayer request email today.  He's on his way to Chicago to "not be gay" together with Peter LaBarbara, the not-gay man who likes to do "field work" at gay BDSM conferences and post pictures on the internet of men having sex with men.  

(emphasis added)

ANTIOCH BIBLE CHURCH

PRAYER WARRIOR

12 November 2010

On my way to Chicago to speak tomorrow night at the annual banquet for Americans for Truth About Homosexuality.  Please pray for safe travel and especially for protection there as the homosexual activists have planned to greet us with a protest.

Thank you so much for your prayers.

Pastor Hutch

This is from Ken Hutcherson the "Prayer Warrior"; Ken Hutcherson who constantly mentions his brief NFL career (that ended in 1977); Ken Hutcherson who promised to single-handedly bring down Microsoft because they supported LGBT-equality legislation; Ken Hutcherson who said this about what he calls "soft" and "effeminate" men:

If I was in a drugstore and some guy opened the door for me, I'd rip his arm off and beat him with the wet end.

Hutch is always so butch.  Why is he all of a sudden such the nellie drama queen?  Maybe the anticipation of seeing Peter again brings that out in him.  Comin' home to papa.  A special video for Peter and Hutch is below the fold.

Lt Dan Choi Plays Hardball with Chris Matthew: "It doesn't matter what they SAY."

Chris Matthews invited Lt. Dan Choi on Hardball last night to ask him to speculate on the unknowable motives of what drives politicians to oppose repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Results were fiery.

Cross-Posted at Daily Kos.
The responsibility for this segment going poorly is entirely a result of Chris Matthews' complete failure as a host. (Surprise!) He begins by framing the segment with two false premises, which are laughable, particularly in this context. He starts by saying "Politicians tend to try to be ahead of the curve."

I would say no. Politicians at their bravest tend to embrace positions no sooner than when public polling hits 51%. The system in general encourages followers not leaders.

Furthermore, Matthews displays a very fundamental misunderstanding of LGBT issues in politics to frame this particular segment in such way. It is the rare, rare politician that is ahead of the curve on gay issues. Very rare. Extremely rare. So double no. We have much, much empirical data that shows that politicians are consistently behind the curve on LGBT issues. For example, a sizable percentage of the country believes that LGBT Americans already enjoy the protection from discrimination in employment. And yet, Congress can't bring themselves pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

This is an especially ironically clueless premise from a man who condescendingly tells Choi later in the segment: "Let me tell you how the country works.." Yes, Chris, because you understand how the country works for gay people, I'm sure.

Anyway, another fundamental mistake that Chris Matthews makes stems completely from his own failings as a host to research and understand his guest. He seems to assume that Lt. Dan Choi is interested in playing armchair political strategist. If he wanted to play "Hey, let's handicap the Senate and speculate on their motives" games, he picked the wrong man, and given Dan's history, there's no reason to believe he should be such a person.

It's an easy mistake to make, it's a very popular game. People like to think of themselves as being the person who has the perfect talking point, or can point their finger at the heart of a problem and eradicate it with just the right strategy. I'm sure most of his invited guests engage with glee.

But that isn't what Choi is interested in. This isn't where Dan has been (he's been at war). It isn't what he's done. It isn't who Choi has ever presented himself to be, or what he aspires to be. He isn't a gay Rham Emmnanuel running around with a clipboard, making whip counts and distributing sticks and carrots as necessary to get to a magic number.

No. Choi is well aware while we waste time

bickering about silly games politicians are playing with LGBT rights, our youth are killing themselves. He has his eyes on the much greater issue of how our homophobic society validates bullying and perpetuates gay youth homelessness. I have no doubt he would gladly engaged with great passion and eloquence on the topic of how "Don't ask, don't tell" validates societal attitudes that perpetuate these problems. But that doesn't interest Matthews.

Despite Matthews' repeated attempts to draw him into his segment agenda, Dan refuses to allow himself to be distracted into playing partisan games with the equal rights of Americans. He won't play the "GOP is bad, why aren't they as good as the Democrats, how can we make them do the right thing?" game Matthews wants to play.

Dan lays the injustice at feet of leadership as a whole. It is up to leadership to address these Constitutional violations. The Constitution recognizes no party system. The parties have always served as a way to simplify politics into a team sport. And engaging in team sports mentality has not helped gays moved forward since that strategy was firmly adopted in the late 1970s. And it certainly has not helped in the last two years.

Dan doesn't taken the bait, but Matthews doesn't take the cue, he circles back, determined to adhere to his segment agenda (2:35):

"You're going in your direction, go in my direction, why is it a problem getting it through the Congress?... Why can't the Congress go with the American people on this issue politically? What's holding them up? Why are no Republicans aboard this thing?"

This is when the fireworks really start.

"I don't need to understand why a particular politician votes a certain way, I just need to know that currently under the law, I'm not allowed to tell the truth and I'm not an equal citizen. I come back from war in Iraq and I'm treated as a second-class citizen. And people take polls about whether I am popular or not. And I think that's an insult, and that's what I'm focused on, that might not be your direction, but I think it's very clear."

But, still, Matthews won't let it go, he's determined to make Choi speculate on the unknowable motives of others:

"Why wouldn't a politician obey the will of the people, it would be in their self-interest to do it?"

Choi won't validate the framing that LGBT rights are subject to the whims of the will of the people:

"It doesn't matter what they say to me."

And he's right. Remember Rachel Maddow's brilliant "Let's order a pizza" skit where she demonstrated the folly of engaging in negotiations with someone who in obstinately not negotiating in good faith? The excuses are merely cover for their ultimate disagreement with the goal. But they can't say that aloud when the public disagrees with them on the goal. And, of course, there is no negotiating with bigotry.

Ironically, a man who actually DOES have DC lobbying experience and IS interested in whip-counting and political strategizing is present: Servicemembers United's Executive Director Alex Nicholson. Oddly, Matthews pays him meager attention directing most of his questions to Choi.

Nicholson does engage in such speculation, saying:

"I think we're really lost part of principle of civilian control of the military."

A good observation. Which has been true for decades. Now whether Congress and the President are going to choose this issue; these people, the gays, at this time; in two wars to finally draw a line in the sand with the Pentagon and the MIC.... well, what do you think?



Ironically, Matthews puts his finger on exactly the problem himself, "they wanted the report, now they want hearings, they're trying to run out the clock." Is he looking for Choi to agree with him? Is he looking for validation from Choi?

Choi is focused on action, not words, he says:

"It doesn't matter whether a mission is difficult, it doesn't matter whether it's considered difficult or hard, it's a matter of doing the right thing."

Matthews asks Choi what members of the Senate would say to him if he got them in a room? [It's ironic to note Matthews' voice inflection betrays his skepticism that Dan will ever be in a room with Senators. Has it finally dawned on him, Dan will never be in a room with Senators, precisely because he refuses to play partisan games our leaders are engaged in on LGBT rights?]:

"It's doesn't matter what they say to me."

Damn right. Their excuses don't matter when they defend and act to continue an inexcusable policy.

By the way, have you called a Senator today?

Breaking: SCOTUS rules DADT stays in place; the discharges will continue

Via SCOTUSBlog:

The Supreme Court, without noting any dissent, agreed on Friday to leave the military's "don't ask/don't tell" policy in full effect while its constitutionality is under review in a lower court. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy referred the issue to the full Court. Justice Elena Kagan took no part in the order.

As a result of the order, the policy will remain in effect at least through mid-March, unless Congress in the meantime voted to repeal it legislatively - an unlikely prospect, according to most observers. The Ninth Circuit Court is reviewing a federal judge's decision to strike down the policy and to impose a worldwide ban on its enforcement. The Circuit Court's briefing schedule, however, will not be completed until late February or early March, and a hearing and decision would come after that.

The order Friday technically denied a request (application 10A465) to lift a Circuit Court stay of the judge's decision - in order words, the Justices were asked to allow District Judge Virginia A. Phillips' ruling to go into effect pending the appeal in the Circuit Court and, perhaps ultimately, in the Supreme Court. Because the Justices' order was a complete denial, it meant that they had turned aside not only a plea to block the policy in full, but also an alternative request at least to stop the Pentagon from ordering any discharges under the policy during the appeal.

Reactions:

Servicemembers United:

"It is unfortunate that an unconstitutional law that is causing substantial harm to military readiness and to tens of thousands of troops is allowed to remain in effect for even one more day," said Alexander Nicholson, Executive Director of Servicemembers United and the only named veteran plaintiff in the case. "This just underscores the need to continue to put pressure on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to allow the defense authorization bill to come back up and take its first procedural step before the Senate's Thanksgiving recess. Servicemembers United, Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, Stonewall Democrats, and the Log Cabin Republicans have all strongly and consistently called on Senator Reid to do just that. It is now time for other organizations, as well as the White House, to publicly do the same."

Log Cabin:

"Log Cabin Republicans are disappointed that the Supreme Court decided to maintain the status quo with regards to 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' but we are not surprised," said R. Clarke Cooper, Executive Director of Log Cabin Republicans.  "We are committed to pursuing every avenue in the fight against this failed and unconstitutional policy.  Log Cabin will continue working to secure the votes needed for legislative repeal, and if necessary, we look forward to seeing President Obama's attorneys in court next year to prove, once again, that 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' doesn't work."

"We are disappointed by the Court's ruling to deny our application to vacate the stay by the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit," said Dan Woods, White & Case partner who is representing Log Cabin Republicans.  "With the likelihood of Congress repealing 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' fading with each passing day, judicial relief continues to be perhaps the most viable avenue for ending this unconstitutional policy.  We and Log Cabin Republicans will continue to fight on to protect the constitutional rights of all Americans who want to serve in our military without regard to their sexual orientation.  Our next step will be to ask the Ninth Circuit to expedite the government's appeal from Judge Phillips's judgment and injunction."

SLDN:

Statement by Army veteran and Servicemembers Legal Defense Network Executive Director Aubrey Sarvis:

"We are disappointed by the Supreme Court decision, but not surprised. Today's announcement underscores the need for Senate action to repeal 'Don't Ask' in the lame-duck session."