Pam Spaulding's Blog, page 29

After LGBT groups' 'Drop Fox' campaign, Orbitz agrees to review ad policy on Fox News Channel

Just landed in the mailbag a bit ago:

After a three-week campaign by high-profile LGBT organizations urging Orbitz to examine numerous examples of rampant anti-LGBT bigotry on News Corp's Fox News Channel, the gay-friendly travel agency has agreed to review its advertising policy to ensure that it spends its ad dollars on networks that are consistent with its core corporate values of tolerance and non-discrimination.

According to their statement released today:

"Orbitz has heard from the LGBT community about its concerns that its advertisements appear on programs which have objectionable content."

"In the coming weeks, Orbitz will conduct a review of programming on the full range of media we buy. We will also evaluate the best practices among other companies who share our core values to see what approaches they use when evaluating media placements."

Regarding ad purchases going forward, Orbitz confirmed that its "customers will see that our actions will reflect the values that Orbitz, the brand, and company, embody."

The full statement from Orbitz can be found here.

http://www.couragecampaign.org/page/-/FINAL%20Orbitz%20statement-6-8-11.pdf

Rick Jacobs, the founder and chair of the Courage Campaign, which worked with Media Matters for America, Equality Matters, League of Conservation Voters and CREDO Action on the Drop Fox campaign, said he appreciates Orbitz taking this review and thanked them for their continuing support of equality for all Americans.

"Orbitz holds itself to high standards, which is why advertising on Fox News is so inconsistent," said Jacobs. "Their actions can set the standard for other companies that understand business is not just making a quick buck, but also building long-term loyalty through a consistent corporate ethos. As we go forward, we and our members intend to trust but verify the actions of Orbitz and other companies."

Obama's Future Win Will Come Too Late

Wednesday, Freedom to Marry released a video produced in partnership with In The Life Media telling the moving story of Cristina Alcota and Monica Ojeda, who, though legally married, face deportation or separation because the Defense of Marriage Act denies married same-sex couples immigration protections. (The video has also been released in Spanish here.)

Also Wednesday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney was asked again about the possibility of administration issuing a moratorium on deportation proceedings pertaining to noncitizen spouses of LGBT American citizens.

Carney ducked the question, offering only that the administration would like to see this issue addressed under a comprehensive immigration reform legislation. But Monica and Cristina can't wait that long. In March, Monica Alcota received an 11th hour reprieve of her scheduled deportation. But the couple is scheduled to reappear before a judge in December. Monica's case will have to be resolved long before we can reasonably expect to see a bipartisan, LGBT-inclusive, comprehensive, immigration reform bill pass the House and the Senate and land on the President's desk.

But there is another possible avenue of relief.

Cross-posted at Daily Kos.

The question of what to do with these couples has become a great source of interest of late. A court strike down of the Defense of Marriage Act as unconstitutional and the Justice Department's agreement, has many people asking, why in matter of such immense importance as the permanent separation of family, is no prosecutorial discretion being exercised?

Chris Geidner of Metro Weekly had the opportunity to follow up on an earlier question he asked of Carney on a deportation moratorium in May. At that time, Carney declined to specify if the administration was looking at exercising any discretionary power it has to help couples like Monica and Cristina.

Again, Wednesday, Carney dodged the matter.

The White House Transcript:

Q. Yes.  I’m just wondering, in June 2009 the Department of Homeland Security issued a memorandum on deporting certain widows and widowers of U.S. citizens.  At the time, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said that, “smart immigration policy balances strong enforcement practices with the common-sense practical solutions to complicated issues.”  Yet, in May, asked about requests by advocates for a moratorium on deportation of foreign partners and same-sex binational relationships, similar to the 2009 moratorium, you said the President can’t just wave a wand and change the law.  Can you explain the difference there?

MR. CARNEY:  I mean -- the President can’t just wave a wand and then change the law.  I think that was in response to a broader set of issues that some folks are understandably advocating for --

Q. No, it was specifically about the issue of --

MR. CARNEY:  And the President has called for comprehensive immigration reform for a reason, because he thinks that we need to move in a comprehensive way to get there, and -- because that kind of comprehensive approach has in the past enjoyed bipartisan support, and he believes that if we talk about it in the right way and we push for it, and folks out in the country push for it, that we can return to a situation where there will be bipartisan support for it again in the future.

It is grating to hear Carney pull out the magic wand canard when we are speaking of policy, not fairy tales. The issue of a moratorium is neither unprecedented nor is it just some fanciful idea of people who don't understand how things work. An impressive group of savvy and powerful voices have collated around the call for a moratorium.

Geidner was clearly attempting to ascertain if Carney could or would elaborate what differentiates these cases in the eyes of the Department of Homeland Security?

Carney did not grant Geidner the respect of entertaining his query seriously.

I am curious if Mr. Carney thinks the editorial board of Washington Post also thinks the administration has a magic wand? Three weeks ago the WaPo called on the admin to put a moratorium on these deportation proceedings in an Op Ed titled "Don’t penalize undocumented gay immigrants in civil unions with U.S. citizens." They wrote about Eric Holder's use of a magic wand intervention in another case, saying:

The attorney general has vacated the court decision and asked the Board of Immigration Appeals whether Mr. Dorman’s civil union makes him a “spouse” under New Jersey law and whether, absent DOMA, he would be considered a “spouse” under immigration law. Mr. Holder should erase any confusion by declaring a moratorium on removal of foreign nationals in state-recognized same-sex unions until federal courts determine DOMA’s constitutionality. He should ensure that the government is not focusing on breaking up otherwise law-abiding families.

Erasing the confusion seems prudent and practical. At this point the LGBT community is rushing from fire to fire, trying to stop the American Government from tearing our families apart. A blanket decision is called for; do our families matter or do they not?

They seem to matter the most when the community can assemble a critical mass of media attention. That doesn't seem like a pragmatic, long-term solution to help the estimated 50,000+ couples in this situation.

I'm curious if Carney believes House members believe in magic wands?

Rep. Rush Holt of New Jersey sent a letter to head of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano on March 31, it said in part:

In 2009, the Department of Homeland Security made the decision based on humanitarian grounds to put a moratorium on deportations of widows of U.S. citizen husbands who were killed during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq before they received their green cards. In light of Attorney General Holder's new guidance, I am asking you to suspend the deportation of all spouses of citizens in a same-sex marriage until a decision is reached on DOMA.

How about Senators? Do Senators believe in magic wands?

Senators Patrick Leahy, John Kerry and ten others sent a note to Attorney General Eric Holder. It read in part:

In addition, we ask the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to exercise prosecutorial discretion in commencing and prosecuting removal proceedings against married noncitizens that would otherwise be eligible to adjust their status to lawful permanent resident but for DOMA. We also call upon the Department of Justice to institute a moratorium on orders of removal issued by the immigration courts to married foreign nationals who would be otherwise eligible to adjust their status to lawful permanent resident but for DOMA.

As Monica and Cristina face another hearing in December, Carney can offer them only the hope of a bipartisan, LGBT-inclusive immigration reform legislative relief.

Comprehensive, LGBT-inclusive immigration reform won't come in time for Monica and Cristina.

[image error]

Comprehensive, LGBT-inclusive immigration reform won't come in time for Henry and Josh. Henry came within a day of deportation in May and, like Monica and Cristina, the couple faces another immigration hearing in December.

Comprehensive, LGBT-inclusive immigration reform won't come in time for Bradford and Anthony, profiled last week in the San Francisco Chronicle. Together 19 years, Anthony, an Australian citizen faces the end of his current visa on June 13, and will be vulnerable to a possible deportation order afterward. Anthony says he will not risk the legal repercussions of overstaying. Says Bradford, "It's devastating, the idea of him leaving in a couple of weeks and not being able to get back in. I don't know how I'm going to manage. My stomach is in knots." Bradford has severe health problems and depends on Anthony as as his only caregiver.

Comprehensive, LGBT-inclusive immigration reform won't come in time for David and Marco. Together six years, they wed in 2008 in California. David has been living under the threat of a deportation order since 2006. Marco has lived under the threat of losing the love of his life. Marco discusses life on indefinate hold: "We have had to make heartbreaking decisions such discontinuing the adoption process; quitting the idea of starting a business, all just because we do not know what the future is going to be."

Comprehensive, LGBT-inclusive immigration reform didn't come in time for Andy and Achim. Like many couples the damage is done. Faced with inevitable separation by the US Government, Andy said goodbye to America to live with Achim in Germany, because as Andy said, "We wanted to live our lives together WITHOUT a expiration date." Germany is ironically, home to neither man. Achim is an Austrian citizen, but a patchwork of European Union laws made it feasible for them to live there, even as they must both live far from their extended families.

Andy is just one of many LGBT Americans who has been made to choose between love and country.

Comprehensive, LGBT-inclusive immigration reform won't arrive in time to help Doug and Alex. The Cathedral City, CA couple was profiled last week by the Associated Press' Amy Taxin, in their own "last ditch" effort to stay together. It involves applying for a green card, using their status as legally married in Connecticut last year. Doug isn't hopeful, but has few options, he says, "It can't hurt (to refile). All they can do is deny it again."

The legal tactic of applying for a spousal green card was once discouraged by attorneys. But the metrics of that have changed. One man responsible for that turn is Lavi Soloway. Soloway heads up the DOMA Project and the Stop The Deportations blog. (He has suggestions for taking action here.)

Soloway is quoted in Taxin's AP article:

Lavi Soloway, an immigration attorney in Los Angeles, said he started encouraging some clients to apply last year after a federal judge in Massachusetts ruled the 1996 Act is unconstitutional because it interferes with a state's right to define marriage. Soloway saw further encouragement this year when Holder said the executive branch would no longer defend the Act as constitutional and the immigration agency temporarily held off making a decision on same sex couples' cases.

"The forum in which we're testing the issue is immigration court," said Soloway, who represents a dozen couples including Gentry and Benshimol. "It is the best possible place for this discussion to be taking place because it involves parties that have broad discretion to address just the kinds of concerns we're talking about."

Lavi also spoke in depth about the legalities surrounding these cases with Marriage News Watch last month.

Soloway references President Obama's immigration speech delivered on May 10, in El Paso, TX wherein the President said:

"Now, I know that the increase in deportations has been a source of controversy. But I want to emphasize: We are not doing this haphazardly. We are focusing our limited resources on violent offenders and people convicted of crimes -- not families, not folks who are just looking to scrape together an income. As a result, we increased the removal of criminals by 70 percent."

The people in this diary are not criminals, so the question is begged, why are the DHS's "limited resources" focusing on them?

"Haphazard" actually seems the perfect word to describe the administrations current policy on LGBT spousal immigration rights. The LGBT activist community seems to be rushing from deportation fire to deportation fire, armed our buckets full of Tweets and Facebook posts. We bring protest signs and we are lucky to have a Rolodex of sympathetic media that will amplify our cries to stop separating our families.

The President also said this:

"I don't believe the United States of America should be in the business of separating families. That's not right. That's not who we are."

The people in this post are not criminals. What they are, in every definition of the word, are families. Actually, every definition but one: legally. We as a country are still in the process of sorting out the question of whether gay people who love each other are "family" in the eyes of the law. The question is playing out contentiously in the legislative chambers and in the courts.

And while the politicians and the jurists sort it out, the executives should err on the side of compassionate caution and let these families stay intact until the question is finally settled once and for all, one way or another. The status quo on LGBT immigration is accurately described by Representative Jerry Nadler, as a system of "gratuitous cruelty."

Stop the deportations, all of them. Time to get it together, Secretary Napolitano, Attorney General Holder and President Obama, issue the moratorium.

 

Perry's prayer event will put Christianity's worst on display

crossposted on Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters

 Texas Governor Rick Perry will be holding a huge prayer event in August because apparently America is suffering a "moral crisis:"

PERRY: Right now, America is in crisis: we have been besieged by financial debt, terrorism, and a multitude of natural disasters. As a nation, we must come together and call upon Jesus to guide us through unprecedented struggles, and thank Him for the blessings of freedom we so richly enjoy.

Now the optimist in me says what heck. Prayer never hurts. And I have prayed many a minute after last year's mid-term election.

However, the cynic in me has several problems with this.

First of all is this the thousandth "moral crisis" America has been in? To hear some conservatives tell it, we are always in some sort of moral crisis. What are we - a country or a character in Biblical soap opera?

Secondly, what's the deal with Rick Perry anyway? Wasn't he all gung-ho a while back with talks about tea parties and secession?

Just when did he start waxing philosophical about God and prayer? Probably the same time folks began to figure out just how bad of an economic shape Texas is in. And I haven't even talked about the teachers' protest which recently took place.

But I am most reticent about Perry's "let's all come to Jesus" moment because he is partnering with the American Family Association.
That's the organization designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a hate group due to its penchant for demonizing and passing propaganda about lgbts, Muslims, and others who don't fit into its narrow definition of Christianity.


All of this means that Perry's event will probably be nothing more than ego boosting masquerading as piety complete with prayers that will go as follows (although not using these specific words): 

"Oh Lord God, please don't let America fall in spite of the sins of other people. Heaven forbid that we show a little introspection and ask forgiveness for our sins such as bearing false witness against the gay community or scaring people with phony claims of Sharia law taking over America or even our neglect of the poor and unemployed because these things were done for the betterment of your kingdom so they really don't count as sins."

Such is one of the prevailing public faces of Christianity in America - where God's love is measured by how much political power you acquire.

Where the Biblical verses in which Jesus told the rich man to give up his worldy goods or where Jesus talked about love are overlooked because verses castigating so-called sinners (particularly those homosexuals) are  much better reads and easier to sway crowds with, too.

Where humility and an appreciation for a higher power is replaced by an exclusive club filled with "watchmen on the walls" and "value voters" all out to claim "America for Christ" not with love but with the efficiency and unbridled distaste for ethics that rivals the legendary Vlad Tepes (the original Count Dracula) at his most debauched.

Where somehow not being able to force the inaccurate view that America is a Christian nation upon others ranks right up there with the early persecutions the Romans inflicted on Christians  - the beheadings, the flayings, the feeding to wild beasts, etc.

All  of this means that Perry's event promises to be most interesting to watch, but I will pass.

I have no desire to see a group of people nail themselves on the cross of self-righteousness.

UPDATE -  The event WILL include anti-gay themes.

WUNC-TV on PBS's 'Out in America' - 'no current plans to broadcast the program in the near future'

This is beyond disappointing. Our state-wide PBS station here in NC, WUNC-TV, decided not to run the highly-touted "Out in America" last night.

Emmy award-winning director Andrew Goldberg and PBS, in association with Oregon Public Broadcasting, today announced a new national PBS special, OUT in America. The one-hour film will make its national premiere on Wednesday, June 8 at 8:00 pm ET/PT on PBS, in conjunction with National Gay & Lesbian Pride Month.

Instead, viewers here were treated to:

6/8 8:00 pm John Sebastian Presents: Folk Rewind (My Music) UNC-TV

6/8 8:00 pm Jews and Baseball UNC-MX

6/8 8:00 pm Curious George Shipwrecked with Hundley/Chasing Rainbows UNC-KD

6/8 8:00 pm Wonders of the West Cowboy Territory UNC-EX

One area viewer, Katherine K. was astonished at the decision not to air the program and asked the Blend to publish her letter to WUNC and the station's response. She wrote:

My partner and I had planned our schedules around watching "Out in America" on PBS last night, assuming that our local UNC station would be carrying it.  We sat down with our dinner, turned on the TV, and ... nothing.  We also could not find it anywhere in future listings, although the PBS website stated that most markets would be airing it last night, or during the month of June.  (Utah being the notable exception.)

I just wrote to UNC-TV and received an immediate (canned?) response that this is a "pledge drive" program and is not scheduled anytime in the near future (see their reply below).  They advised to check back in September.

What gives?  While the NC legislature is considering the hideous anti-lgbt bills, it seems this would be a good time to serve the community by airing the program for their viewers/supporters.

The email exchange between Katherine and WUNC:

From: "katherine k."

To: viewer@unctv.org, rwatson@unctv.org, spalzewicz@unctv.org

Sent: Thursday, June 9, 2011 9:35:42 AM

Subject: Out in America

Comments/Questions/Suggestions: When will "Out in America" be broadcast on UNC-TV?  Many PBS affiliates broadcast it last night (6/8).

And this is the jaw-dropping reply:

From: Viewer viewer@unctv.org

To: katherine k.

Sent: Thu, June 9, 2011 9:39:12 AM

Subject: Re: Out in America

Dear Ms. Kent:

Thank you for your message and interest in UNC-TV. In response to your inquiry, this is a "pledge drive" program and we have no current plans to broadcast the program in the near future. Please check back with us closer to September when we finalize our September pledge drive. Your request have been noted for review by the Programming Department.

If you should have any further questions, comments, or concerns, please feel free to reply to this email or call the UNC-TV's Customer Care Department directly at 1-888-292-7070.

UNC-TV's unique programs and services provide people of all ages with enriching, life-changing television.Thank you for watching member-supported UNC-TV, North Carolina's statewide public television network.

Sincerely,

J. Malley

Customer Care Representative

1-888-292-7070    

UNC-TV

Support UNC-TV by DONATING NOW- https://secure.unctv.org/pledge/index.do

Sign-up for the UNC-TV e-guide

http://pbsmail.org/unctv/join.html?r=2day2d61mPJyE

http://www.facebook.com/unctv

http://www.twitter.com/unctv

So I guess North Carolinians are left to wonder whether the program will make WUNC's pledge drive air list. This is absurd. I guess it's time to leave some inquiries on the WUNC Facebook page.

 

Box Turtle Bulletin on 'The Sissy-Boy Experiment' - The Truth Behind George Rekers's Work

CNN's look at the disgusting ex-gay movement's toll continues tonight with the last part of 'The Sissy-Boy Experiment.' As we've mentioned before, Box Turtle Bulletin's Jim Burroway has done an in-depth investigation into George Rekers' junk science. He elaborates on CNN's coverage from last night; it goes into the scandalous fall of Rekers in the rent-boy/luggage lifting scandal as well.

In this episode, CNN tracks down George Rekers, the therapist who treated four-year-old Kirk Murphy and turned him into Rekers's poster boy for ex-gay therapy. Here we see Rekers learning about Kirk's suicide at the age of 38. He responds by saying that there is no evidence that Kirk's suicide was the result of Kirk's treatment. He also tries to exonerate himself by saying:

Two independent psychologists of me had evaluated him and said he was better adjusted after treatment. So it wasn't my opinion.

A Bright Spot in the Rust Belt: Woodside Church's Journey to Open and Affirming

Woodside Church has long been known as Flint, Michigan's liberal Christian church.  An inter-denominational church, Woodside affiliates with United Church of Christ (UCC) and American Baptist Churches USA (ABC-USA).

Late in August of 2006, Woodside made the papers in a most extraordinary way:

The oldest Baptist church in Flint MI is the first Baptist congregation in the state of Michigan to be disaffiliated from fellow Baptist congregations because of its policy regarding homosexuality. Churches in the 10 counties surrounding Flint voted 18-3 to sever [their] ties with the 275 member Woodside Church in the aging industrial city.

The "policy regarding homosexuality" that earned them the boot from their North Area ABC sister churches?  Just a few months earlier in May of 2006 Woodside's congregation had voted to join the Association of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists (AWAB).  AWAB members "have gone on record as being welcoming and affirming of all persons, without regard to sexual orientation."

The vote by its sister churches to disfellowship Woodside didn't come as a complete surprise.  Only six months before Woodside joined AWAB, the ABC-USA's General Board amended the denomination's "Identity Statement" to include this painfully homophobic section:

We affirm that God through Jesus Christ calls us to be:

A Biblical People

Who submit to the teaching of Scripture that God's design for sexual intimacy places it within the context of marriage between one man and one woman, and acknowledge that the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Biblical teaching.

How did Woodside arrive at the point of knowingly defying the American Baptist denomination, and where did they go from there?  Join me below for a conversation with Rev. Deborah Kohler, the minister who served the congregation from 1997 through 2010.




Rev. Deborah Kohler

Starting the Open and Affirming Process at Woodside Church

When I interviewed for the associate minister job in 1997, one of the things I asked the senior minister was, you all have been on the cutting edge of so many social issues, why haven't you taken on Open and Affirming?  

I already knew it was important for me when I first got there and I planted some seeds.  They weren't ready for it then.  But that's why I was so pleased that it came from the congregation, not from me.  It was initiated by some people in leadership in the congregation.  It would have been a very different process if I had tried to impose that on them.

A few years later, two or three things converged.  The first was the fact that for decades we had sponsored a Boy Scout troop.  One of our gay families with children had boys that were keenly aware that they could not be part of that Boy Scout troop.  That was the first area of discrimination that brought it to the attention of the Board of Directors.

Our discussion of that happened to coincide with the fact that the senior minister left suddenly, and so I was filling in in the interim until we discerned whether or not they would get somebody else or whether I would just continue as the only minister.

And so during that discussion with the Board I said I would do a union for anybody who asked and I don't think I need to ask the Board for permission, but at the same time I'm only here in an interim capacity and what I think you all need to think about is would that be a ministry you'd be comfortable with?  And they were like yeah, we didn't question [former Woodside minister Rev.] Franklin Elmer when he wanted to do interracial marriages and nobody thought that was a good idea.  

So that night at the Board meeting we passed three motions.  We passed a motion that any Boy Scout troop that was meeting at Woodside or was in any way connected with us would receive any boy regardless of the orientation of him or his parent or guardian.  We passed a motion that the Board supported me in my decision to do unions for same-gender couples.  And we passed motion that we would begin a study of the Open and Affirming process.

The UCC has an LGBT coalition and they have resource materials.  We got their resource materials and mapped out a process to begin to get the congregation to dialog about it and to learn about it.  One of the key steps was to have an open discussion forum where the people on the panel were long-time members who were parents of gays and lesbians and talked about their experience of being excluded at other churches and how important it was that they could come to Woodside.  

Woodside Church's main web page now prominently states "We are an Open and Affirming congregation welcoming into the full life and ministry of our church all persons, including those of every race, culture, age, gender, sexual orientation, ability and economic status. At Woodside Church, our diversity strengthens our faith. Our actions are a reflection of our Christian faith."

A lot of people said "we already accept everybody, why do we have to take an official stance?"  I would say that was the biggest element of resistance.  And the education that we needed to do that any church that considers themselves welcoming, unless you have an official stance and a rainbow out front, people who have been excluded have no way of knowing that they're really included.

We spent a little over a year, starting I think in the Summer of 1999.  We didn't actually take the vote until December of 2001, and some people were like "oh this is taking so long, let's just get it over with".

We followed a really good process and when we voted we voted 96 to 4 to become Open and Affirming.

Ongoing Challenges

Now the thing that surprised me, although I've run into more dialog about this now, is that the congregation taking an official stance is a significant step but it's really only a first step.  Almost every congregation has ongoing challenges after they take the official stance.  We had a couple of different manifestations of that.

We had a situation where we had an 18 year old member who had graduated from high school so was no longer eligible for the youth group.  But we didn't have a young adults group so we kind of in a very lose and I would say in hind sight irresponsible - I would take responsibility for this myself, personally - thought well maybe she could be like a junior adviser to our youth.  We didn't giver her any training or anything.  I just didn't want her to be left with nothing.

At a point in time our kids were at an informal gathering -- it was not an official church activity.  They just decided on their own after church one Sunday morning I think it was to go over to somebody's house.  They all went over there, they all knew each other from church.  But anyway, there was a kiss exchanged between this 18 year old and a 13 year old girl.

The mother of the 13 year old was not a member of the church and she went ballistic.  It turned into this whole huge thing.  Someone pointed out to me that everybody's worst fear is some homosexual person trying to "convert" their child.

So we worked that through, and it was a very difficult process to deal with partly because of trying to protect the confidentiality of the two people, especially the 13 year old.  It was complicated by the fact that the 18 year old was a Native American, so we didn't want to do anything that was inadvertently stereotypical toward her in her already doubly minority status.  The 13 year old within a year or less of that was in long-term in-patient treatment for alcoholism and drug addiction, so you had a kind of home schooled very sheltered 18 year old and a street savvy 13 year old.  And yet the law is, 18's an adult and 13's not.  So that took us a little while to straighten out.

Then we had a situation in the office where an employee and a volunteer had some difficulty getting along, and by the time we peeled back the layers came to find out that the employee was a deeply closeted gay man who the volunteer and his partner were trying to help come out of the closet.  The employee took it as a romantic overture and so when his overtures were rebuffed things got tense between them.

All most of us knew at the time was there was this big relationship problem.  Accusations were made.  It's like they were fighting out their personal life via church systemic issues.

Some of the people involved kept saying, if this kind of overture were made by a heterosexual employee to a heterosexual volunteer, the pathway would be clear to everybody.  In hindsight I'd say yes, there was some truth to that.  There was also more complexity to the situation.

It's hard to understand the cultural differences until you're in a situation where you're trying to be equitable and the internalized indoctrination of the society gets confronted and you figure out how to sort it out.  

But I would say that a few years after that we pretty well had it sorted out.  We have lots of gay and lesbian members, and it's like any cutting-edge movement, you're trailblazing.  You're inventing the wheel.  At the time there were some but not a lot of churches with any experience.  We were the only Christian church in Flint doing this.

It's Them or Us

The next thing that happened was, one of our gay members was a prominent figure in the community and he was interviewed by the newspaper and he said what a great positive change it had been in his life to find a church that loved him and accepted him as the gay man that he is.  When that was published, three of the local Baptist churches called the president of the area Baptist association and said it's them or us.

So then the whole movement began for us to be disfellowshipped from the Baptists.  We went through that for a year and a half.

There were several decisions that the congregation had to make.  First, do we still want to be Baptists?  We're already affiliated with the United Church of Christ, why would we want to bother?

We decided that part of the justice ministry is to stay in the system and keep standing up for what's right, so yes we did want to be Baptists.

According to church leaders, Woodside will remain a Baptist congregation, although the 275-member church might have to join with a Baptist association in a different state.

"We believe Jesus, as we know him and understand him through the gospels, teaches us to love everyone just as they are without judgment," Woodside pastor Deborah Kohler said in the story. "There is nothing they can do to keep us from being Baptists. We can find other churches to connect with."

Then we had to find one of about a half dozen regions to join.  Normally the American Baptist Churches are organized geographically.  But other churches that had been disfellowshipped had found places where they could maintain their affiliation that wasn't necessarily based on geography.  

Rochester, New York has taken in several congregations, Metro Chicago, the Seattle area, Philadelphia.  We ended up with a very good affiliation with Metro Chicago that has been terrific for the 5 years we've been participating in that.

And then we had to decide where we wanted our money to go.  Because the denominational stance is basically, "the Bible says its wrong and we don't endorse it".  And so we had to figure out ways to maintain our affiliation.  You have to give money to maintain your affiliation.  But how were we going to direct that money so it didn't support the administrative practices that we don't endorse?

All the giving of Woodside Church to the Baptists is designated to particular ministries where there's not buy-in to that official denominational statement.

In both the Baptists and the UCC, our basis of organization is what's called congregational polity.  This is unlike hierarchical denominations where you're told from the bishop or higher up what the doctrinal line is that you have to toe.  Like, say, the controversy in the Methodist Church now.  They have an official national stance and everyone from their national offices down has to endorse that stance to be part of the Methodist Church.  

In a congregational polity, the only reason for being connected in the wider church is for more effective ministry.  They realized a couple centuries ago that you can do better missions if you combine your resources.  And they realized that fellowship with people of similar beliefs is valuable.  

And so technically, the UCC and ABC-USA denominations are not hierarchical, although I would say in manifestation the American Baptists act like they're authoritarian.  We just stood up to them and said, "You can tell us you're kicking us out, but you can't kick us out.  We're Baptists as long as we say we're Baptists and we can affiliate with whoever we as a congregation choose to affiliate.  You all have something called Four Freedoms, and one of those Freedoms is the freedom of each individual and each congregation to interpret the Scriptures according to their faith-conscience.  You can't tell us -- you have no authority over us."  But ultimately they do.

So we found ministries in the ABC-USA that we can endorse.  We send money to what's called National Ministries, but not to their Global Ministries and not to their General Ministries.  We send money to a particular program called Children in Poverty.  And we send money to the region ministries in Metro Chicago.  

So we continue to be a presence at the national denominational meetings.  There are other Welcoming and Affirming Baptists, and we're in coalition with them.  We actually joined an association called AWAB, The Association of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists.  That's in addition to the UCC Coalition for LGBT Concerns.

Community Reactions

Down Low Freakout:  One Friday night per month we have Jazz Vespers.  A local musician from a conservative church who had played at our Jazz Vespers often was going to play on the night that the executive director of AWAB was arriving in town for a weekend of study and discussion.  It was in the local newspaper that our weekend of study and discussion would kick off with Jazz Vespers, and that the executive director of AWAB would be our guest at Jazz Vespers.

This guy freaked out.  He had the newspaper print that he had no affiliation with Woodside, he refused to come pray at Jazz Vespers and  made it clear that he did not endorse our position.  Although he'd been there many times and seen couples sitting together.  He knew who we were, he just had to be on the down low.  If it was publicly acknowledged he had to distance himself.

A Gay One Drop Rule?:  When I was still the minister at Woodside, people in the general public that I interacted with took a certain amount of pride that there was a church like this in their community.  It kind of felt like "well if I ever needed a church, I'd go to Woodside."

But other people would hear from their friends that we're referred to as "the gay church".  People in Woodside to this day..."bristle" is too strong of a word, but they're embarrassed that people call us "the gay church" as if that's all that we are.  

And yet at the same time we continue to take a cutting edge stance on these things, on these rights for all people.  So when the local youth theater did a reading of the play based on the Matthew Shepard incident, we had a group of people from the church who went to that because we wanted to make a presence and endorse the fact that Flint Youth Theater was bringing this into the public eye.  

We took a very strong stand against Proposition 2 (the 2004 anti-equality marriage amendment).  It passed but yeah, we were very active in that.  And nobody had to ask us, we just knew as soon as we found out.

So, there's always more work to do even though it's less volatile than it once was.  There's always undercurrent, there's always internalized homophobia that we all have.  Even gay people.  And internalized heterosexism.  

Hey, Who Doesn't Read the Bible Selectively?:  One of the most hostile colleagues in north area of the Michigan region of the American Baptist Churches said one day at a lunch with a bunch of clergy -- before they disfellowshipped us obviously -- was promoting a program at his church, the title of which was "The Truth About Dinosaurs".  And I'm like, what is the truth about dinosaurs?  His answer was, well we believe in the biblical account of Creation, and in the timetable of 6,000 years.  This man said to me that he was a biology major in college until he "wised up".  

So he doesn't believe in God calling gays and lesbians to ordination.  He believes it's a sin and that his salvation is jeopardized if he doesn't correct us in our errancy.  And yet, he's married to a woman who's ordained.  He has a rationale that I can't repeat because it doesn't make any sense as to why even though the Bible says women shouldn't be ordained, that's O.K..  But for these other things, he's going to take the Bible literally.

Everybody, everybody, everybody, whether they acknowledge it or not, everybody reads the Bible selectively.  You shake your head and say alrighty then.  You just keep standing up for what's right and trusting that when you come to the tipping point, they'll get it.  

Personal Motivations

A close family member was a closeted gay man.  He died without ever coming out of the closet.  He never knew that his family knew.  So I think that contributed, but I also grew up in a congregation that was on the cutting edge of civil rights and women's rights and very justice oriented.  I went to Lancaster Theological Seminary which is very justice oriented.  Most UCC seminaries are.  And I had been in a family that was fully accepting of gay people my whole life.  I mean, I just knew homophobia was wrong.

In 1990 or 1991 my gay cousin shot himself to death rather than die of AIDS.  A cousin on the other side of the family died of AIDS and in the process of his dying his parents were spurned from their congregation.  At a time in their lives when they needed their church most, they had to find a new church.  Those things pre-dated me coming to Woodside.

Recently the UCC area conference minister, who happens to be a lesbian, asked me "If you could go to your ideal church, what would you choose?"  I said a church that voted to be Open and Affirming long enough ago that they're settled into it.  But I'd rather go to a church that's considering voting and go through the whole process all over again -- because I know more now -- than go to a church that's not Open and Affirming and not considering it.  It's so hard to go backwards.

My first church, I couldn't say what I really believed.  Now I've been in a church where I can be genuine about what I really believe and I'm not going back to my own heterosexual closet.

Most denominations are getting better.  In the UCC, in the Lutheran and in the Episcopal churches there are more and more ordained people of a variety of orientations.  It's not just, oh you're O.K. in the pew.  Open and Affirming, Welcoming and Affirming means you're O.K. in full membership up to and including ordination as our leaders.  It's happening more and more.

GOP Clown Car occupant Rick Santorum would push the federal marriage amendment if elected prez

Send in the clowns. Don't bother they're here...

SANTORUM: Once people realize the consequence to society of changing this definition, it's not that we're against anybody. People can live the life they want to live. They can do whatever they want to do in the privacy of their home with respect to that activity. Now you're talking about changing the laws of the country. and it could have a profound impact on society, on faith, on education. Once people realize that, they say, you know what, we respect people's life to live the life they want to lead but don't change how with that definition.

Mississippi School District Sued For Allegedly Shackling Students To Poles For Hours

Definitely a WTF of the day. And it doesn't help Mississippi's rep one iota. The Southern Policy Law Center filed suit in U.S. District Court over this shite.

Civil rights advocates have filed suit against Jackson's public school district, claiming officials at one alternative school respond to minor violations by shackling children to railings and poles for hours at a time.

Critics of the Capital City Alternative School in Jackson say the allegedly excessive punishment at the schools makes such students more likely to drop out of school - and commit crimes later in life.

Rep. Barney Frank Releases Testimony in Support of Massachusetts Transgender Rights Bill

Just hit the inbox from Rep. Frank's office. I uploaded the statement to Scribd.

Congressman Barney Frank today released his testimony in favor of a Massachusetts bill which would extend legal protections which now cover gay, lesbian and bisexual individuals to also include transgender people.  The testimony was presented in writing to the Massachusetts Joint Committee on the Judiciary, which is holding a hearing on the legislation today.

In his testimony, Frank draws parallels between struggles to achieve equal rights for transgender individuals and earlier battles for gay rights.  In 1973, when Frank was closeted gay man and a state representative in the Massachusetts legislature, he introduced the first gay rights bill in Massachusetts history.  The bill was defeated that year but Frank introduced it every session until he left the legislature.  It was defeated every time.  The first gay rights bill was finally passed in Massachusetts in 1989, when Frank was already a Member of the U.S. House of Representatives.

In his testimony, Frank writes that early critics of gay rights, who predicted widespread social disruption, were proven by history to have been wrong - and that those who currently argue against similar rights for transgender people also be likely to be proven wrong.  Furthermore, he states, transgender people "seek no special privilege; they have no wish to disrupt anybody else's lives; they only want to be able to live their own with a degree of freedom from unfair restrictions or hurtful actions by others."

In the US Congress, Frank has not only been the leading advocate of equal rights for gay, lesbian and bisexual individuals, but has also worked to win those rights for transgender people.  In 2009, he was a major force behind the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act (S.909).  Also in 2009, he introduced a "fully-inclusive" Employment Non-Discrimination which would extend employment protections to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals.  After the bill failed to garner enough support to guarantee passage in 2010, Frank introduced the same legislation in 2011. The bill already has 142 cosponsors.

Frank concludes his written testimony stating that:

"I very much hope that the Commonwealth will once again show its aversion to prejudice and its compassion for people who have been its victims, and extend to people who are transgender the same legal rights that the rest of us now enjoy."

I Did the Sexiest Thing Today

Cross-posted at The Great Orange Satan

I did something so sexy, so liberating, so good for myself and my partner today, that I just had to share it with the community.

I got tested for HIV.

HIV/AIDS as we know it turns 30 this year. According to the Center for Disease Control:

CDC estimates that more than one million people are living with HIV in the United States. One in five (21%) of those people living with HIV is unaware of their infection.

Despite increases in the total number of people living with HIV in the US in recent years, the annual number of new HIV infections has remained relatively stable. However, new infections continue at far too high a level, with an estimated 56,300 Americans becoming infected with HIV each year.

More than 18,000 people with AIDS still die each year in the US. Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) are strongly affected and represent the majority of persons who have died. Through 2007, more than 576,000 people with AIDS in the US have died since the epidemic began.

These numbers are staggering. People don't know or care enough about HIV/AIDS to prevent its transmission, or the numbers wouldn't be so high. We have got to do more than just put on a condom and shut up about it.

I'd like to recommend two wonderful recent diaries at Daily Kos concerning HIV/AIDS. Psychodrew wrote about The Stigma of HIV, in which he discusses how, despite education, people still consciously and subconsciously stigmatize those with HIV/AIDS. FogCityJohn's recent diary, HIV: A Question of Priorities, discusses how HIV/AIDS no longer seems to be a priority in the professional LGBTQ community. And why the hell isn't it?

In the beginning, HIV/AIDS was considered an exclusively gay disease.  Fortunately, we've largely moved beyond such homophobic characterizations, but we gay men need to realize that HIV still has a disproportionate effect on us.  According to a Centers for Disease Control study of men who have sex with men in 21 U.S. cities, 19% of MSM are HIV+. Back in 2008, the CDC published an estimate of new HIV infections in the U.S.  The CDC's analysis showed that of the new HIV infections occurring in 2006, some 53% were the result of male-to-male sexual contact.  While HIV may no longer be an exclusively gay disease, by the look of things it's going to remain a predominantly gay one unless we, as a community, give it the attention it deserves.

Let's give HIV/AIDS some attention, and ourselves some TLC this Pride month. Come below the fold for some more facts on HIV, and how you can find a free, confidential testing center near you.
HIV disproportionately affects men who have sex with men. Since the CDC spells it out so easily, I'm just going to repost what they've reported:

* Gay, Bisexual, and Other Men Who Have Sex with Men (MSM): By risk group, gay, bisexual, and other MSM of all races remain the population most severely affected by HIV.

- MSM account for more than half (53%) of all new HIV infections in the U.S. each year, as well as nearly half (48%) of people living with HIV.

- While CDC estimates that MSM account for just 4% of the US male population aged 13 and older, the rate of new HIV diagnoses among MSM in the US is more than 44 times that of other men and more than 40 times that of women.

- White MSM account for the largest number of annual new HIV infections of any group in the US, followed closely by black MSM.

- MSM is the only risk group in the U.S. in which new HIV infections have been increasing since the early 1990s.

It's this group that has me personally concerned. I'm a bisexual woman with a bisexual male partner. Jester is a man who has had sex with men. This is not cause for shame, but it cause for concern where HIV transmission is concerned. He and I are monogamous (for now), and both, at last check, seronegative. We are fluid-bonded, meaning that since we are both confirmed HIV- and STD-free, and monogamous, that we have sex without condoms. If at some point we decide to be in a sexually open relationship, safety will be of the utmost importance. We're not going anywhere without proper protection, condoms and dental dams alike.

CDC data: Heterosexuals and Injection Drug Users: Heterosexuals and injection drug users also continue to be affected by HIV.

- Individuals infected through heterosexual contact account for 31% of annual new HIV infections and 28% of people living with HIV.

- As a group, women account for 27% of annual new HIV infections and 25% of those living with HIV.

- Injection drug users represent 12% of annual new HIV infections and 19% of those living with HIV.

Needle exchange programs have come under fire from the Obama Administration in the past. It took 26 activists protesting and getting arrested for House Democrats to buck the President in 2009 and lift the federal ban on funding for needle exchange programs that he included in the 2010 budget. Just recently, the Administration nearly banned the District of Columbia from using its own funds to pay for syringe exchange programs, but withdrew the item from the budget at the last minute. This year the Republican-controlled House tried to reinstate the ban on federal funds going to needle-exchange programs; it was removed by the Senate.

CDC data: By Race/Ethnicity

* African Americans: Among racial/ethnic groups, African Americans face the most severe burden of HIV and AIDS in the nation.- While blacks represent approximately 12% of the U.S. population, they account for almost half (46%) of people living with HIV in the US, as well as nearly half (45%) of new infections each year. HIV infections among blacks overall have been roughly stable since the early 1990s.

- At some point in their life, approximately one in 16 black men will be diagnosed with HIV, as will one in 30 black women.

- The rate of new HIV infections for black men is about six times as high as that of white men, nearly three times that of Hispanic/Latino men, and more than twice that of black women.

- The HIV incidence rate for black women is nearly 15 times as high as that of white women, and nearly four times that of Hispanic/Latino women.

* Hispanics/Latinos: Hispanics/Latinos are also disproportionately impacted.

- Hispanics/Latinos represent 15% of the population but account for an estimated 17% of people living with HIV and 17% of new infections. HIV infections among Hispanics/Latinos overall have been roughly stable since the early 1990s.- The rate of new HIV infections among Hispanic/Latino men is more than double that of white men and the rate among Hispanic/Latino women is nearly four times that of white women.

Too many of our minority communities are still living in poverty, with all the socioeconomic burdens that go with it. Lack of access to health care and education are the two major factors in the staggeringly high HIV+ rates in these communities. Lack of awareness and stigma are the other two obstacles. According to the CDC, in a recent study of MSM, over 67% of black MSM were infected with HIV and didn't know. Stigma about HIV prevents many from seeking testing. Lack of access to health care means no care even if they do test positive. HIV/AIDS foundations serving poor communities are seeing their funding cut at the state levels because of Republican-induced budget crises, and many donors can not longer afford to give at the level they once did.

We must not give up. We can't afford to keep ignoring HIV. It is not gone, it is not defeated, and it still disproportionately impacts the most vulnerable among us.

I encourage everyone to go get tested this month, whether you're straight, lesbian, gay, bisexual, or anything in between. This is Pride month, when we step up and declare that we are not afraid, not ashamed, and that we are proud to be part of the LGBTQ family. Be proud of yourself, as well. If you don't know where the nearest free testing center is, go to the CDC's National HIV and STD Testing page to locate one. You'll find where Ryan White services and needle exchanges are available, where you can get conventional blood testing, or rapid oral swab testing. There is no reason to not get tested.

Get tested. Get informed. Stay safe.

Happy Pride.