Senseless

The Great Global Kiss

Yesterday was the International Day Against Homophobia (IDAHO). There were events around the world to honor the day. The Amsterdam daily Parool has picked a kiss at the Homomonument at the Westermarkt as its photo of the day.



Photo acknowledgment: Elmer van der Marel for Parool, May 18, 2010

International Day Against Homophobia '09

It's tomorrow!

From the House of Le May

Yeah. This is the sixth annual event with this year's theme being "Homosexuality knows no borders." (Maybe that's why I have often been told I've overstepped my bounds?)

So, what are we supposed to do?

The proposed goal for the 2009 Campaign is to make the general population and, more specifically, ethno-cultural communities of all backgrounds more aware of gay and lesbian issues, and sexual diversity. Ethno-cultural communities occupy an increasingly significant place in our societies. What’s more, contributions by these communities are invaluable to our country.

Got it? Do it!

Dutch threaten Eurosong boycott over gay rights

NRC/international


'They probably won't make it to the finals, but the Dutch entry for the Eurovision Song Contest - The Toppers - are raising hell over Russia's gay rights record.

'Singer Gordon of the trio The Toppers will boycott Saturday night's Eurovision song contest in Moscow if violence is used against a gay rights march planned for that day. Gordon told a reporter from NOS Dutch public radio: "If people of my kind are being discriminated against in such a way, I have nothing to expect from this Russia, and I will be on the first plane home."

'Russian gay activist groups are seizing the opportunity of the Eurovision song contest - which is hugely popular in the gay community - to organise a march for gay rights. Public demonstrations in support of gays and lesbians are illegal in Russia and the police often crack down on them with violence, or stand by when neo-Nazis attack demonstrators.

OUT OF STATE ANTI-GAY GROUP ROBOCALLING IN VERMONT

From GREEN MOUNTAIN DAILY

The Princeton New Jersey based "National Organization for Marriage" - a national religious right group that works against LGBT rights across the country - is currently running robocalls in the state on the marriage equality bill.

While there is a compelling case out there that this organization is either a Mormon Church front group, or is at least largely supported by the LDS Church, they got started in California (where they were very active in the California Prop 8 fight) with money from the Catholic Knights of Columbus. In any event, it is - once again - a group with a religious agenda that they feel everyone should be legally bound to, no matter what state they live in.
------------
Footnote: Shay Totten/Blurt received one of the calls:

I didn't record the call because I answered the phone and just listened to the recording. I'm surprised for a couple of reasons. First, my state rep was one of the original sponsors of the legislation (Democratic Rep. Mark Larson), and second I'm a journalist. Thirdly, it not only had my rep's name, but his number, too.

This leads me to believe that the call list was probably not a political list, but one that contains most, if not all, households. And this has to be expensive.

Not sure that having an out-of-state group lobbying for their cause is going to help the in-state opponents of same-sex marriage. They are also behind an e-mail campaign to Vermont lawmakers. I've placed calls and emails to the organization to get more details about their efforts in Vermont and will post any responses I receive. They claim to have an ad running as part of their Northeast Action Plan to stamp out same-sex marriage efforts in New England. I haven't heard one yet in Vermont.

Several readers who alerted me to the calls they received had this same question: The ad specifically mentions that lawmakers should support Gov. Douglas. Did he give his blessing to this group to use his name? Probably not. His name also appeared on a rather hate-filled rant that landed on people's fax machines this week from a Utah-based group America Forever. This group also robo-faxed Vermont businesses before a public hearing on same-sex marriage last month.

THE MYTH OF GAY AFFLUENCE

Thanks to Toujoursdan for highlighting findings in a report (PDF) about LGBT poverty from the Williams Institute of the UCLA Law School:

After adjusting for a range of family characteristics that help explain poverty, gay and lesbian couple families are significantly more likely to be poor than are heterosexual married couple families.

+ Notably, lesbian couples and their families are much more likely to be poor than heterosexual couples and their families.

+ Children in gay and lesbian couple households have poverty rates twice those of children in heterosexual married couple households.

+ Within the LGB population, several groups are much more likely to be poor than others. African American people in same-sex couples and same-sex couples who live in rural areas are much more likely to be poor than white or urban same-sex couples.

+ While a small percentage of all families receive government cash supports intended for poor and low-income families, we find that gay and lesbian individuals and couples are more likely to receive these supports than are heterosexuals.

Thanks also to Counterlight

I've always felt that "affluent gays" was a big canard, up there with "rich Jews." The rich Palm Springs circuit party crowd is a very visible, but tiny minority of the LGBT population. Most well paid LGBT professionals are in medicine and technology. High tech companies are usually very gay friendly because that's where a lot of their talent comes from. Most other gay men, especially the young, are in famously low wage jobs provided by retail, hospitality, restaurants, and arts and entertainment. And this has always been true.

Lesbians face a double whammy of the wage discrimination against women built into the economy, and homophobic prejudice.

Those who face the worst employment discrimination are transexuals. So many once turned to prostitution because there was no other work. Some businesses and professions are beginning to open up very slowly and reluctantly, but it is still incredibly difficult for them.

Proponents and opponents of Vermont's gay marriage bill have used the economy in their arguments. The Lake Champlain Regional Chamber of Commerce and the Vermont Businesses for Social Responsibility have both supported its passage. Governor Jim Douglas and opponents of the bill have scolded Vermont lawmakers for even considering it (read: wasting precious time and money). Dissing LBGTs as non-persons without proper rights - as Douglas has done with a terrific force - and saying the economy should receive priority just doesn't cut it. Loving and caring Vermont LBGT families are having just as hard a time surviving in Vermont as their hetero counterparts. Also, as toujoursdan notes in a comment over at Counterlight, the religious right have used the myth of gay affluence to argue that LGBTs don't need civil rights protections or marriage equality. The opponents - especially the anti-government folks - may attempt to use the UCLA report as ammo against the bill, that Vermont doesn't need that added burden or responsibility to help "them." With blinders on, the opponents fail to realise that, as the report points out, they would be continuing systemic homophobia and class discrimination in our cities and towns, and it's not a good thing to live in state that disregards fundamental human rights of Vermonters to such basic needs as healthcare, housing, education, social security and dignified work.

Very relatedly, connecting equal marriage rights to struggles of all Vermont families, a new advertisement from Vermont Freedom to Marry:



Cross-posted at Antemedius.

VERMONT: SAME SEX MARRIAGE BILL GOES TO SENATE

Blurt

The same-sex marriage bill is headed to the Vermont Senate. The Senate Judiciary Committee voted unanimously today — 5 to 0 — to advance the bill out of committee.

Vermont Freedom to Marry is urging supporters to call their senators, and be present when the Senate debates and votes on the bill. That's expected to happen on Monday at 3 p.m.

Will Gov. Douglas veto the bill, it passes the House and Senate? I heard him say today on Vermont Edition that he did not support it. He made that idiotic argument that discounts the civil rights of all - including LBGT folk - as being less important than what he thinks Vermonters really care about: jobs and the economy.

TIMES ARGUS: HATE DRIVEN MEDIA ADVOCACY

Green Mountain Daily:-- The Times Argus' toxic and divisive poll is a reminder to our legislative leaders that the responsibility to enact priorities carries with it the responsibility to publicly advocate for those priorities.
...

The Times Argus' "poll" ** is nothing more than a direct, in-your-face, jab at gays and lesbians specifically, and the majority of Vermonters, in general, who value equal protection of the law.

The TA's behavior has the effect of pitting Vermonter directly against Vermonter. The poll's not-too-subtle message to its readers is "Your interests are necessarily mutually exclusive from the priorities of other Vermonters' interests when it comes to legislative priorities."

This is just plain untrue. It is toxic thinking. It creates a false, media generated, and media perpetuated conflict of priorities where none exists.

Is the TA afraid too much consensus is building around equal marriage rights? Seriously, what is the inspiration for this?

Here is the problem. When a newspaper asks:

Do you think same-sex marriage should be a top priority for the Legislature?

What it is really telling its readers is "are the issues that are important to gays and lesbians more important than the issues that affect you?"

If that's the questions they are really asking, then want to know what the real answer to that question is? The answer is Bullshit! It's bullshit because the implication is false. The conflict is non-existent.

If the Times Argus really wants to play those games, what's stopping them from pulling out all the stops and pitting the rest of "us" (whoever "we" happen to be) against each other and against our neighbors? Let's see the TA put up a poll that pits children against farmers or the elderly against working people. Why only imply to your readers that it stops with marriage rights? Certainly there are other groups that can fight to trump each other?

ROBINSON ERASED FROM HBO INAUGURAL PROGRAM

UPDATE... via THE LEAD: Obama makes it right
------
I'm not remotely interested in all the parties, feel-good television, MSM analysis of this weeks inauguration. But I had a feeling deep down that something like this would happen.

There was that ruckus about right-wing conservative homophobe evangelist Rick Warren's invitation to say the invocation at Tuesday's presidential inauguration. So, the Obama folks invited Bishop Gene Robinson of New Hampshire - the first openly gay bishop in the Episcopal Church - to "do" the opening prayer at the Obama celebfest on Sunday. HBO carried it on TV, but Robinson's part was nixed, never shown live or on the later rebroadcast.
THE LEAD has what you missed:

It is hard to know what is more surprising: that HBO passed over the invocation in both the live and rebroadcast versions or that it was posted on YouTube by Sarah Pulliam of Christianity Today.

The blog, AFTERELTON got on HBO's ass to find out what really happened: a developing story; HBO says it's not responsible for the slight, but clearly a better explanation is needed.

But given that most Americans could not attend the concert, instead having to watch it on television, the decision to not broadcast the prayer is being seen by many in the GLBT community as a slight.

The exclusion of Robinson, even if unintentional, does not reflect well on the Obama administration's ability thus far to think through these sorts of nuances.

think through these sorts of nuances

You'd think with all their super marketing & planning from the campaign to victory to this week they would not have botched it, but they did indeed: purpose driven?

Meanwhile, the massacre has been paused. As people in Washington celebrate, Gazans are sorting through the rubble in search of their family members.

WILL THE REAL RICK WARREN PLEASE STAND UP?

From THE LEAD

Will the real Rick Warren please stand up?

Who is Rick Warren? What is his purpose?

In this internet age it's hard to tailor your message to your audience. Everyone has ears. And even if you don't intend for a message to be public your audience may find it convenient to make it public. (And who's to say you didn't mean it be public rather than belatedly regretting your words?)

Who is the real Rick Warren? [yes, there's more]

BISHOP GENE ROBINSON INVITED TO TAKE PART IN INAUGURAL EVENT

The Bishop of New Hampshire, the Rt Rev'd V. Gene Robinson, the first openly gay bishop in the Episcopal Church, has been invited to take part in the first main event of the inauguration - at the Lincoln Memorial - on 18 January. Personally - if clergy are to be invited to any of this party - I would have preferred Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori replace Rick Warren. She's a woman, a progressive and speaks with a strong prophetic voice for people on the fringes, which I think the new president should hear. I suspect that the invitation for Mr Warren has caused such a ruckus, that the inaugural events planners have thrown the LBGT Obama voters a bone and have included Bishop Robinson so they will quit whining and continue to vote for Democrats. See further explanatory stories in the Independent and Episcopal News Services. There are many links to other reports here.

WHAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN

RECLUSIVE LEFTIST

Yet another insult to women: Obama chooses a sexist pastor for his Inaugural
---
Rick Warren is a male supremacist. He’s a man who picks and chooses his Bible verses to buttress his preferred beliefs. Selecting him, of all people, to deliver the Inaugural invocation is yet another insult to the millions of women who voted for Obama, trusting — despite the sexism of the campaign — that Barack Obama would prove to be a champion of equality.

It’s not as if we have a shortage of Christian ministers in this country. Obama could have chosen a progressive, like Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, thus sending a powerful message of religious faith twinned with social justice.

I thought Bishop Jefferts Schori would have been a far better choice, too.

Thanks to Godless Liberal Homo for the link to the Reclusive Leftist post.

BENNY: HOMOPHOBE OF THE YEAR

Rick Warren's nut-job pronouncements of this year are most likely due to spiked grape juice, but what's in Bishop of Rome's communion wafers?

From REUTERS

Pope Benedict said on Monday that saving humanity from homosexual or transsexual behavior was just as important as saving the rainforest from destruction.

"(The Church) should also protect man from the destruction of himself. A sort of ecology of man is needed," the pontiff said in a holiday address to the Curia, the Vatican's central administration.

"The tropical forests do deserve our protection. But man, as a creature, does not deserve any less."

The Catholic Church teaches that while homosexuality is not sinful, homosexual acts are. It opposes gay marriage and, in October, a leading Vatican official called homosexuality "a deviation, an irregularity, a wound."

The pope said humanity needed to "listen to the language of creation" to understand the intended roles of man and woman. He compared behavior beyond traditional heterosexual relations as "a destruction of God's work."

He also defended the Church's right to "speak of human nature as man and woman, and ask that this order of creation be respected."

I wonder how Akinola and the GAFCONistas will react. The Lead has more comments.

THE SELECTION OF RICK WARREN

THE LEAD carries a letter from John B Chane, the Episcopal Bishop of Washington, on Obama's choice of Rick Warren to say the invocation prayer at the inauguration.

I am profoundly disappointed by President-elect Barack Obama’s decision to invite Pastor Rick Warren of Saddleback Church to offer the invocation at his inauguration. The president-elect has bestowed a great honor on a man whose recent comments suggest he is both homophobic, xenophobic, and willing to use the machinery of the state to enforce his prejudices—even going so far as to support the assassination of foreign leaders.

In his home state of California, Mr. Warren’s campaigned aggressively to deny gay and lesbian couples equal rights under the law, relying on arguments that are both morally offensive and theologically crude. Christian leaders differ passionately with one another over the morality of same-sex relationships, but only the most extreme liken the loving, lifelong partnerships of their fellow citizens to incest and pedophilia, as Mr. Warren has done. The president-elect’s willingness to associate himself with a man who espouses these views as a means of reaching out to religious conservatives suggests a willingness to use the aspirations of gay and lesbian Americans as bargaining chips, and I find this deeply troubling.

Mr. Warren has been rightly praised for his efforts to deepen the engagement of evangelical Christians with impoverished Africans. He has been justifiably lauded for putting the AIDS epidemic and global warming on the political agenda of the Christian right. Yet extravagant compassion toward some of God’s people does not justify the repression of others. Jesus came to save all of humankind, and as Archbishop Desmond Tutu has pointed out, “All means all.” But rather than embrace the wisdom of Archbishop Tutu, Mr. Warren has allied himself with men such as Archbishop Henry Orombi of Uganda who seek to “purify” the Anglican Communion, of which my Church is a member, by driving out gay and lesbian Christians and their supporters.

In choosing Mr. Warren, the president-elect has sent a distressing message internationally as well. In a recent television interview, Mr. Warren voiced his support for the assassination of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. These bizarre and regrettable remarks come at a time when much of the Muslim world already fears a Christian crusade against Islamic countries. Imagine our justifiable outrage if an Iranian cleric who advocated the assassination of President Bush had been selected to offer prayers when Ahmadinejad was sworn in.

I have worked with former Iranian President Mohammed Khatami to improve the relationship between our two countries as hawkish members of the Bush administration pushed for another war. He has spoken at the National Cathedral, which will host the president-elect’s inaugural prayer service, and I have visited with him several times in Iran and elsewhere. Iranian clerics are intensely interested in the religious attitudes of America’s leaders. In choosing Mr. Warren to offer the invocation at his inauguration, the president-elect has sent the chilling, and, I feel certain, unintended message that he is comfortable with Christians who can justify lethal violence against Muslims.

Obama's advisors have mainstreamed Warren as a moderate to woo the right wing evangelicals and bigots. Bishop Chane labels Warren as a moderate, but clearly his examples show that he's an extremist. As a queer man, it's a slap in the face. But I wonder if the Democratic Party pimpin' Human Rights Campaigners who supported Barack Obama are having second thoughts and will wake up.

UPDATE: With thanks to Richard at American Leftist, here's progressive blogger Jane Hamsher of firedoglake battling it out with Rick Sanchez on CNN:

HOMOPHOBIC INCIDENCES GROWING IN THE NETHERLANDS

RADIO NETHERLANDS WORLDWIDE --

According to reports in the Dutch media, many attacks on gay and lesbians are carried out by young immigrants. But the recent report shows that only 15 percent of the perpetrators are non-native. René van Soeren of the Dutch organisation for gays and lesbians, COC, says he is not surprised by these findings.

The COC is getting signals from its own community that - in the Netherlands' bigger cities in particular - these crimes are indeed very often committed by people from an immigrant background. But in the rural part of the country, which is the larger part, they're mostly perpetrated by native people, Mr Van Soeren says.... more

RICK WARREN, MODERATE?

Jim Naughton in THE LEAD

Homophobia remains socially acceptable. You can consort with anti-gay bigots and still have snazzy friends.

PANDERING TO BIGOTS

Savitri Hensman has written an op-ed in the Guardian [11 August 2008]

As the Lambeth conference in Canterbury was drawing to a close, Michael Causer died. He was not an Anglican bishop, but an 18-year-old hairdresser, a popular lad described by his family as "definitely a 'people's person'. Our world will never be the same without him." He was the victim of a homophobic attack.
.....
Every decade or so, the Lambeth conference has urged bishops to champion human rights for all and enter into dialogue with the gay and lesbian community. But this has been widely ignored: blessing same-sex couples is apparently a far greater offence than allying with repressive governments to hunt them down.
....
On the Sunday when the conference ended, speakers at the International Aids Conference in Mexico highlighted the deadly impact of homophobia. Discrimination against men who have sex with men must end, the secretary general of the United Nations urged. "We need to engage them, we need to take care of them, we should not forget about them," said the director general of the World Health Organisation.

Meanwhile, at the Lambeth conference, the Archbishop of Canterbury appealed for a "covenant of faith" that would "promise to our fellow human beings the generosity God has shown us", and suggested "a Pastoral Forum to support minorities". But to him, those needing greater generosity and pastoral care were mainly Christians with strong objections to same-sex partnerships. While he is a humane man, his priorities seem strange. If Anglicans are to remain relevant, and a force for good, bishops need to listen more carefully to people like Michael Causer's family.

(Thanks to Episcopal Café for the heads-up.)

'A MUCH LARGER DISCOURSE OF HATE'

MARK VERNON

Sudan is at war: should Gene Robinson resign?

I've not been down to Canterbury, to get a hands on feel for the Lambeth Conference. Beneath the headlines, there are no doubt many humane and humbling encounters being experienced by participants. But the headlines do seem to be taking a nosedive.

Yesterday, the Archbishop of Sudan called for his fellow American and openly gay bishop, Gene Robinson, to resign. He spoke of the difficulty gay bishops and blessings causes him in his war torn country. 'We are called infidel by the Islamic world,' he said. 'Immediately it gives them the way out to tell the other people, these people are evil and they can even harm our people more.'

This is no doubt a serious charge. That recognised, it clearly isn't the case that Robinson is the cause of strife in Sudan. Rather, his name has become a slogan within a much larger discourse of hate. If Robinson did resign, you can bet your bottom dollar there are other sticks that Muslims in that place would pick up to beat the 'infidel'.

Moreover, homophobia kills many too. As a reminder of this, Robinson is at Canterbury, if not at Lambeth, accompanied by body guards and wearing a bulletproof vest.

In short, two evils do not make a good: ostracising a gay bishop to tackle religious violence is not a recipe for peace. Difficult though it is, the only hope must be to keep firmly focused on what you believe to be true - or, as one would hope a Christian should say, on what you believe to be godly. Violence is not godly. Homophobia is not godly. Gene Robinson should stay.

And this uncharitable behaviour doesn't help, either.

It's All Because (The Gays Are Getting Married)

This one's for the folks over at Vermont Renewal.



(H/T to MadPriest & episcopalooza)

Being Christian: the long answer

Via Culture Choc (merci beaucoup!), a blog that I've discovered just north-of-the-border. The article from the Chicago Free Press points to some challenges I've had as a gay & leftist-green Christian, too, lately - explaining my faith to secular lefties, queer friends, and alternative-spirituality-seekers (Wiccans, earth worshippers, aroma therapy freaks - all good people!) It's a thoughtful article (and funny, too); I can totally relate to the writer's thoughts, so have a read :-). -

Being Christian

by Jennifer Vanasco

First published in the Chicago Free Press, May 23, 2007

We were having Margaritas, and my friend Luke paused in the middle of a tirade against evangelicals.

“Oh, wait,” he said. “Um, are you religious?”

I hate this question.

Because “Are you religious?” implies a yes-or-no answer: yes, you’re religious; no, you’re not.

I’m not comfortable in either category, so I’m never sure what to say. Do I give them the long answer? Or do I mutter “No,” which is shorthand for “I’m not evangelical or born again,” which means: “I’m not the kind of Christian you’re worried about.”

I don’t even know, honestly, about calling myself Christian. I go to church, but I think a lot of my brothers and sisters in the pews would likely be suspicious of my suspicions about dogma.

On the one hand, I went to seminary for a short time and take Christianity very seriously. On the other, I wrestle with the fundamental tenets that make Christianity what it is and not something else: the resurrection of the body; the idea that one Middle Eastern man saves every one from sin and he himself is God; the virginity of Mary; a personal God who keeps his ear open to each of our problems.

Back in the early days of Christianity, all of these things were up for grabs. I would have been comfortable being Christian then (well, philosophically comfortable. That whole martyrdom thing is another story).

Yet there is another side of Christianity. The idea that God is love. The conviction that one should practice radical compassion. The very challenging notion that we should treat others the way we would like to be treated. The sentiment that individuality should never rise above working for and with the group.

This is very difficult stuff. But this is what connects me to the belief system that is Christianity. Because Buddhism, though a completely different religion on a dogmatic level, has some similar underlying beliefs, I tell people I am Christian-Buddhist, so I don’t scare them away.

I first started doing this about a dozen years ago, when I was visiting New Orleans. I still wore a cross then, so often that I would forget that it rested against my collarbone. I was being hosted by a friend, but when she took me to the lesbian bar in town, I noticed that her friends were shooting me odd looks.

“What is it?” I asked my friend finally.

She shifted feet. “They think you’re here to convert them,” she said. “That you’re not really a lesbian.”

I put the cross in my pocket.

In the minds of this pack of lesbians, Christianity equaled gay hate. In the mind of my friend Luke, who is straight, Christianity equals a shutting down of conversation.

I hate the evangelicals for that.

This, of course, is very un-Christian of me. But the Religious Right has taken something beautiful and tough and twisted it into something ugly and easy.

The most vocal segment of the Christian church at the moment has two heads: the Pope, who takes every chance he gets to try to kick out of the Catholic Church anyone who disagrees with him so as to ensure it’s “purity”; and evangelical Christianity, led by people like the late Jerry Falwell, who looked on the Civil Rights movement with disdain, called Bishop Desmond Tutu a fraud, and said that 9/11 was caused by “the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians.”

As Luke pointed out, instead of approaching ideas that are new to them with compassion and curiosity, these figureheads of the Right instead try to kick these ideas—and people—out of the way by declaring that God doesn’t like it.

As if God’s likes and dislikes were as easy to discern as flavors of ice cream.

All of this means that my closet Christianity helps no one (well, except maybe my dating life). What the world needs is more diversity in Christianity, not less. Christians need to know that being Christian isn’t an automatic Get Out of Jail Free card when it comes to intolerance; gays, lesbians and others on the left need to know that “Christian” doesn’t equal “enemy.”

So Luke asked me if I were religious.

“Yeah,” I said. “I am.” And I gave him the long answer.

Jennifer Vanasco writes a weekly column. Her contact info and website can be found here.