"I wish I could be happy, I try, I try, I try ... I just want to feel special to someone." --Jamie Hubley
On Oct. 14, Jamie Hubley, a gay 15-year-old boy, committed suicide. He struggled with depression and bullying from classmates because he was openly gay. The challenges experienced by this young man are heartbreaking and perhaps better witnessed through his own words or hearing them directly from those who knew him best.
These types of teen suicides painfully remind us that there is an anti-LGBT culture within our societies that isolate many young people from the love they deserve. It's particularly concerning that the urgency this reality warrants is consistently absent from the religious right, which was further evidenced at the Values Voter Summit in Washington this month.
As the day neared for this annual gathering of religious conservatives, my inbox began to fill with press releases, statements and emails from allies across the country. "Boycott Values Voter Summit" and "Anti-LGBT Hate Fest?"
The concern was real.
A common chill rippled through civil rights and progressive religious communities across America. Moderate voices speculated about what type of rhetoric would be cooked up and lobbed at minority communities this year. Like many Americans, I joined those who condemned the event, which was hosted by two nationally recognized hate groups. In 2010 both the Family Research Council and American Family Association joined more than 1,000 active hate groups in America, on a list that includes factions of the Ku Klux Klan, black separatist and Neo-Nazi organizations.
But there was something even more troubling about the summit: Why would Republican Party leadership -- House Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Erik Cantor -- appear in such a setting? Why would seven Republican Presidential candidates do the same? The summit promotes hostile anti-LGBT sentiment that in many ways has contributed to a culture of LGBT bullying.
I tuned in to CSPAN's coverage from my office in New York City. I watched speakers offensively degrade the LGBT community and demonize Muslims as a dangerous other; the rhetoric was sorely absent of any hope for moderation.
Bryan Fischer, of the American Family Association, declared the American President should be a man, that Muslims are not welcomed and that the LGBTQ community is a threat to American freedom.
Star Parker, a conservative activist, insinuated that the California government was "sick" for trying to combat LGBT teen bullying by helping students learn about the history of gays and lesbians in their state.
The speeches went on. The damage continued. But when all was said and done, an important point was evident: this event wasn't about Christian values -- it was about hate.
The Montgomery Alabama-based civil rights organization, the Southern Poverty Law Center, defines these "representatives" of the religious right well: "All hate groups have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics." These groups who claim to represent the religious right contribute to a deadly anti-LGBT culture.
They circulate pamphlets and propaganda that mischaracterize the LGBT community -- propaganda that has been thoroughly rejected by relevant institutions. They routinely quote junk science sourced from anti-gay "front organizations" like the "American College of Pediatricians" (ACP) to claim LGBT people are a threat. These front organizations are deeply flawed. For example, the ACP is a tiny 200-member anti-gay organization, which broke away from the 60,000-member American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). It broke away because it rejected its parent organization's support of LGBT rights. Going rogue, they now produce misleading junk science that is solely aligned with political agendas.
These hate groups also rely on similarly flawed research to claim LGBT people suffer from "mental disorders" and that they should undergo "reparative therapy." Again, relevant scientific institutions, such as the American Psychiatric Association reject such nonsense.
"In the last four decades, 'reparative' therapists have not produced any rigorous scientific research to substantiate their claims of cure," they said. "APA recommends that ethical practitioners refrain from attempts to change individuals' sexual orientation." The American Psychological Association echoes that "the discipline of psychology is concerned with the well-being of people and groups and therefore with threats to that well-being ... Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience."
Because of this scientific reality, many reparative therapists have come out of the closet to reject and repudiate the flawed practice.
Other "science" and "research" they utilize continues to be discredited, and every day its irrelevance is being more widely understood. Those outside of this extreme wing are becoming much more conscious of the damage caused by extreme factions of the religious right. Droves of young people are leaving churches that reject the gay and lesbian community. Two-thirds of Americans say there is a harmful connection between messages coming from America's houses of worship and higher rates of LGBT youth suicides. And most remarkably, Gallup found that a majority of Christians and non-Christians believe that gay and lesbian relations are "morally acceptable."
America's values are clear. Why then does the religious right continue to dominate the national conversation?
It is time for us to put this nonsense to rest.
There is a growing community of LGBT-inclusive Christians and non-Christian allies, working each day to promote welcome in faith settings and put their LGBT inclusive faith into action by taking to the streets, the polling booths and the airwaves. Just this week, more than 900 Methodists in Connecticut and New York vowed to defy their denomination's ban on gay marriage and make weddings available to all.
These inclusive Christian voices are putting the religious right on notice: while their voice of hate may be loud, our voice of love will be louder.
This post originally appeared in The New Civil Rights Movement.
Follow Joseph Ward III on Twitter: www.twitter.com/JosephWardIII
David Valdes Greenwood: It Got Better for Me... But That's Not Good Enough
Value Voters Summit - CBS News Video
Values Voter Summit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Romney Plays Both Sides at Values Voter Summit | News | The ...
Values Voter Summit Wrap-Up | Backstory Blog | Human Rights ...
I'm not a particularly demonstrative person in general, anyway. Less so than most. But I do expect to be able to hold hands once in a while without worrying who's looking, refer to my partner with pronouns like everyone else does when straights talk about their husbands or kids... Frankly, what's 'not standing out' for straights ought to be 'not standing out' for *us.*
Not like 'As long as you pretend to be straight we won't hurt you.' Gods.
Frankly, it's just not that easy to hide, sometimes. Straight people are pretty constantly (if subliminally) sizing up people as potential sex partners, and if you aren't responding the same, they may pick up on it, (or just decide you must be queer, anyway.)
The onus of the problem is not on us to pander to others' prejudices, or else be blamed for what they do about it. The problem is the people who hold the prejudices and are taught they're justified in acting on them.
If I hold hands with my wife as you would with your opposite-sex partner, there is ultimately no difference. If that makes you uncomfortable, well, I'm not going to stop because of it. That's quite simply not my problem.
It's LONG past time for the passivity of Christians who disagree with the religious right to end and for them to stand up and fight back. I hope it's finally beginning to happen, because to date there's been little more all these decades than fine sentiments with next to no real action.
The worlds deadliest disease.
You are right when you say the Bible admonishes us not to judge those outside the church. But we ARE directed to confront sin within the Church.
I hold no malice against homosexuals outside the Church, they have bigger problems than whether or not God sees homosexuality as a sin. But from within the Church, we are to hold each other accountable. I fail to see how you conclude that God's standards of what's right and wrong has changed over time? What was sin 4000 years ago is sin 2000 years ago is sin today.
“ For I am the LORD, I do not change;"
Homosexuality is considered to be normal.
Says who? Oh, only the following:
American Medical Association
American Psychiatric Association
American Psychological Association
American Counseling Association
National Association of Social Workers
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
Child Welfare League of America
American Association of School Administrators
American Federation of Teachers
National Association of School Psychologists
American Academy of Physician Assistants
National Education Association
Royal College of Physicians
Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality (SSSS)
American Association of Sex Educators, Counselors and Therapists (AASECT)
Now, if you have a similar list of organizations, with equally impressive credentials, that say homosexuality is NOT normal, then post it. Otherwise, how a bout you give it a rest already.
You can't reason with people like that because they don't operate from a logical, reasonable position to begin with.
Sure doesn't mean it's 'reverse intolerance' to tell you you're being unjust and untruthful.
When you try to justify harming us. With further harm.
Ain't the way I see 'God,' sure enough, ...claiming I must be 'faithless' as well is just one more insult you heap upon minorities you justify harming cause you say 'sin.' (Against you and the oppression you insist is 'caring...' And round and round.)
If you think all there is to the Divine is quoting books to hurt people, *you're* the one without faith.
Stop trying to use your religion as a basis for your "right" to discriminate. Your "holy book" and your religion do not confer any special rights to you. It doesn't set you above anyone else & it doesn't make you special. And it certainly doesn't make you any more qualified to deny rights to a group of people because solely on their sexual orientation.
"CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIANS" OPPOSED 1954 Decision ending SEGREGATION, OPPOSED ANTI-LYNCHING LEGISLATION, OPPOSED Civil and Voting Rights. THEY decided NOT to back tteetotaling Christian evangelical, Jimmy Carter, but fully immerse themselves in politics, actively supporting CORPORATE CHAMPION, non-church going divorcee, RONALD REAGAN.
NOW, THE TEA PARTY "CHRISTIANS" ADOPTED ATHEIST AYN RAND AS THE GODDESS OF THEIR MOVEMENT, SUPPLANTING THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS WITH THE "GOSPEL OF AYN RAND."
Lest we forget, Rand despised Christianity because true Christians were supposed to follow Jesus' example in caring for the poor, sick, and vulnerable, i.e., who she and her followers call, "looters," "moochers," and "parasites." Her psychological hero was a child-murdering serial-killer named Hickman, who's infamous motto she adopted as the theme guiding her followers: "WHAT'S GOOD FOR ME IS RIGHT." This is the "Gospel" animating the Republican/Tea Party "true believers" and "free market extremists" who applaud the notion that "IT"S YOUR FAULT" if you're unemployed or not rich.”
For more please see my article: "Crusader Christianity, Tea Party Cult, & The Left"
http://open.salon.com/blog/ronrobinson/2011/08/02/crusader_christianity_tea_party_cult_the_left_wip
Ron, even though there may be a small truth to some of what you say, most of your writings indicate more of a hatred of Christians than concern for any truth to what you say. Much of what you write is far out of context.
Ron, trust Jesus with all your heart, then write about what He has taught you.
Here's a fact. NOWHERE in the Constitution is marriage defined as being solely between a man & a woman. More specifically, the Constitution contains no definition of marriage at all.
By trying to make a law defining marriage as being solely between a man & a woman, DOMA is violating the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
The 14th Amendment, passed 70 years or so after the original Constitution, contains the "equal protection" clause, and it says that States cannot deny their citizens the equal protection of the laws. The intent of that was to stop States from imposing unreasonable legal restrictions on the freed slaves after the Civil War.
The equal protection concept became so popular in legal circles that the Supreme Court decided that it should be read into the Fifth Amendment, even though it isn't actually written there. Therefore, when the Fifth Amendment says that the government can't take away its citizens' life, liberty or property without due process of law, it also includes the idea that it cannot deny them the equal protection of the law.
This is why DOMA is unconstitutional.
From Peggy Pascoe's book "What Comes Naturally: Miscegenation Law and the Making of Race in America":
"When societies decide who can and who can't legally marry, they determine who is and isn't really a part of the family. These inclusions and exclusions take place at such an intimate level that they shape what seems natural and, in turn, what is stigmatized as unnatural."
"From the 1860s through the 1960s, the American legal system elevated the notion that interracial marriage was unnatural to commonsense status and made it the law of the land. During this period, miscegenation law channeled property, propriety, personal choice, and legitimate procreation into one very particular kind of monogamous marital pair: couples that were made of up one White man and one White woman, whose sameness of race was required by law and whose difference in sex was taken entirely for granted. The more Whites believe that interracial marriage was unnatural, the more they assumed that the marriage of one White man to one White woman was the only kind of marriage worthy of the name - and the more they saw their own marriages as the fortunate result of individual romantic preference rather than the obligatory outcome of a legal system steeped in gendered assumptions about race and heterosexuality."
Contrast this with Bryan Fischer, the host of the daily 'Focal Point' radio talk program on AFR Talk, a division of the American Family Association, and his opposition to the Prop8 ruling:
"Perhaps the most ridiculous thing about Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling in the Prop. 8 case is that he claimed to give homosexuals something they in fact already have: full marriage equality."
"What they want is not equal rights, but special rights. They want a special exemption carved out for them so that their sexually aberrant relationships can be recognized as marriages, an exemption we don't grant to folks who want to marry a son or a daughter, or a mother or a father, an uncle or an aunt, or a child."
"So when we say two homosexuals cannot marry, we're not depriving them of marital rights any more than when we say the same thing to a pedophile. A pedophile has the same right to marry that every homosexual does — the right to marry a non-relative adult member of the opposite sex."
"So when someone bloviates to you about how homosexuals don't have marriage equality, don't let them get away with it. It's time for us in the pro-family movement to stop being w**nies about this. We, not they, are the voices of justice, fairness and rationality here."
If you actually READ the decisions cited by Loving v. Virginia, you can see how that was assumed by ALL those rulings.
Amazing.
Even if you are part of a religious sect that is nasty in its abuse (there are many), you can believe in it, but you cannot abuse other citizens without breaking the law. Even if your religion has bigotry as part of it, the law doesn't forgive bad behavior that is illegal. A religious person of a particular sect is not given protection for a hate crime. We should all be glad for that.
Your discussion of abuse does not apply here. Sorry.
Maybe the *means and manner* of that disagreement, defamation included, are what people really have a problem with.
For mere 'disagreement' you sure seem to spend a lot of time attacking our existence, rights, and even character about it.
Jesus might take issue how some Christians express hate and prejudiced against others (a very valid issue), but Jesus was not weak on sin. He never winked at sin, never excused it. He took a very literal view of scriptures (just read the sermon on the mount). He confronted sin for what it was and then challenged the individual to live a new life.
No wonder people are leaving the Christian churches. The trend is hardly surprising.