red fuzzy jesus

What Is Hate?

This is a topic I have dealt with several times before and one I hope to continue to explore in more detail.  It’s certainly more than I can explore in one or even five posts so I am going to dedicate several articles to the topic in the coming weeks.  To begin, last month the Southern Poverty Law Center designated five Christian Right, anti-gay groups as official hate groups.  The SPLC has had a long history of identifying hate groups in the United States.  The list, especially the anti-gay part of it, is relatively short.  They have very strict criteria and a high (or low) bar for inclusion.  In addition to the five new inductees, the SPLC also listed several anti-gay groups to watch. 

In listing these new hate groups, the SPLC made it clear that moral/religious/theological opposition to homosexuality alone is not enough to qualify as a hate group.  Saying, for example, that homosexuality is sinful according to one’s religion does not qualify as hate.  What does get a group listed as a hate group are things like relying on bogus “studies” and manufactured “research” to negatively depict a subset of the population.  In their Intelligence Report, the SPLC describes its criteria as:

“Generally, the SPLC’s listings of these groups is based on their propagation of known falsehoods — claims about LGBT people that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities — and repeated, groundless name-calling. Viewing homosexuality as unbiblical does not qualify organizations for listing as hate groups.”

In that report, 18 Anti-Gay Groups and Their Propaganda, they cover why each group fits all or part of those criteria.  The report also links to 10 Myths about Homosexuality that are promulgated and repeated, groundlessly, over and over again on Christian Right websites.  Again, only five groups have the designation of being anti-gay hate groups.  The two groups that have garnered the most attention are the Family Research Counsel (FRC) and a “group” I have spent a lot of time covering called Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH).  Note: I put group in quotes because it’s more or less one guy, Peter LaBarbera, with a nasty website. 

Immediately after being declared a hate group for perpetuating the myth that gay men are pedophiles, AFTAH threw up a post suggesting that gay men are pedophiles.  Of course, that myth has already been discredited about a million times.  The FRC is notable because they are a large, powerful group that holds an annual “Values Voters” summit in DC with a long list of GOP luminaries.  Equally of note is the fact that Focus on the Family is not on the list because they have moderated their anti-gay rhetoric and essentially pushed James Dobson out the door last year.

Predictably, these groups have played the victim.  Almost uniformly Christian Right groups on and off the list have claimed that the SPLC is really a hate group and that they are being targeted because they oppose the so-called “homosexual agenda.”  None of these groups, however, address the real reasons they were put on the list, including using the research of discredited “psychologist” Paul Cameron (hilariously featured in Borat) or inaccurately linking homosexuality to childhood abuse.  The use of these stereotypes and fake “research” is well documented and all over their websites so it’s not like they can claim they don’t spread falsehoods.  So, all they can really do is claim that they are somehow the victims of persecution at the hands of the SPLC. 

The FRC launched a site “Stop Hating/Start Debating” with a long list of big wigs within the Christian Right movement as well as some notable politicians signing on.  Their claim, of course, is that they are just arguing their moral viewpoint and that there deserves to be a dialogue.  Of course, the Stop Hating site includes no place for comments or feedback.  In fact, most anti-gay sites, including AFTAH, offer no place for comments while gay rights organizations always have space for comments. 

In the Family Research Council Statement on Attack by Southern Poverty Law Center they claims,

“This is a deliberately timed smear campaign by the SPLC.  The Left is losing the debate over ideas and the direction of public policy so all that is left for them is character assassination.  It's a sad day in America when we can not, with integrity, have a legitimate discussion over policy issues that are being considered by Congress, legislatures, and the courts without resorting to juvenile tactics of name calling. The Left's smear campaigns of conservatives is also being driven by the clear evidence that the American public is losing patience with their radical policy agenda.”

Never mind for the moment that all signs point to greater acceptance of gay people across the board in the United States, note how the FRC says they are being smeared and attacked by leftists.  They do not answer the charges or construct a counter argument to the SLPC’s claims.  Other Christian Right groups have followed suit.

Concerned Women for America (CWFA) in their response claimed,

“A recent report by the Southern Poverty Law Center demonizes mainstream pro-family groups as "hate groups," simply because of their stand against the pro-LGBT agenda and same-sex "marriage”."

[Note how marriage is always put in quotes.]  They give a deliberate mischaracterization of the SLPC report that specifically says those are not the reasons given for being added to the list.  Again, there is no defense of using faulty research or perpetuating stereotypes.  Instead, they assume a posture of victimhood and lie about the criteria used by the SLPC.

AFTAH’s response was particularly… odd.

“Below is a useful article by Laurie Higgins of the Illinois Family Institute — on the leftist Southern Poverty Law Center’s (SPLC) preposterous smear-job against mainstream pro-family groups (including AFTAH, IFI, Family Research Council, and AFA) as “hate groups” because we oppose homosexuality and LGBT (“gay”) activism.”

It’s hard to reproduce his quotes because they are so convoluted.  The games AFTAH plays with language are astounding.  To Peter LaBarbera no one is gay.  Gay people are not fighting for legitimate rights.  Unions between gay people are not marriages.  What AFTAH does is not hate.  Etc. Etc.  So “gay” “rights” same-sex “marriage” and anti-gay “hate” are all put in quotes, making LaBarbera sometimes very difficult to read.  The article he references is worth reading if for no other reason than providing a case study in Christian Right self-delusion.  They claim they are the ones under attack.  (Note: no one has ever suggested any Christian, no matter how conservative, be fired from their jobs, denied medical care, denied a civil marriage, kicked out of the military, on and on.  That doesn’t stop these groups from claiming that gay groups are actually the ones victimizing them.)

These groups, like AFTAH, the FRC, American Family Association, and the Illinois Family Institute, have advocated that gay people be deported from the United States, quarantined, jailed, fired – especially gay teachers, and purged from political office.  That’s not some liberal smear.  That’s not a hyperbolic interpretation of their reasonable, more civil arguments.  That’s documented, over and over again, as their official positions. 

And yes, that is hate.  That’s what hate is.  Depicting an entire group as somehow “less than,” going to extreme measures to produce phony “research” to perpetuate stereotypes, and calling for draconian legal persecution in basic areas of life including the ability to have a home, earn a living, receive medical care, get married, adopt kids, and serve in the military… all of these things are hate.  And if you do them as an official group you are a hate group.  Pointing these things out – as the SPLC and other groups have done in great detail – is NOT some parallel expression of hate.  The FRC is right, there should be a dialogue about policy matters and no one is saying these groups should not advocate for laws or candidates they support.  The hope, however, is that these groups will participate in politics without using known falsehoods.  I have doubts that they’ll actually be able to. 

The case of Perry v. Schwarzenegger provides another angle on how hate groups operate.  Perry is the Prop 8 case out of California currently in federal appeals court in the 9th Circuit.  The original district court decision noted the anemic defense of Prop 8 by anti-gay “pro-marriage” groups.  At one point, the judge in that case actually expressed his concern while the case was being argued asking why the anti-gay side didn’t have more witnesses. 

Maggie Gallagher and Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage, a leading group in the campaign for Prop 8 and producer of the now infamous “coming storm” ad, refused to get on the stand and testify.  Why?  Because when you are in a courtroom being cross-examined under oath you can’t just make stuff up or you’ll face perjury charges.  The other side’s attorneys will reveal you.  It’s one thing to go on Hardball and lie or produce political campaign ads that contain nebulous, nefarious claims of a “coming storm.”  But these same groups will NOT testify ever in a court of law.  They refuse to because they know they can neither specify harm nor validate their claims.

Several times, while following the various struggles for gay rights, I have muttered to myself, “When will we fight back?”   It’s a reflexive mental exasperation after viewing some of the things these groups do.  And, I’ve pondered what I really mean by that sentiment.  Certainly there have been groups and civil rights activists for a long time fighting hard for equality.  But it’s not enough to just say gay people deserve equal treatment under the law.  It’s not enough to stress the separation of church and state or, more accurately, the freedom of conscience.  We as a movement and a people need to start pointing out the lies used against us including the fake research.  When a news shows cites this false research or treats the FRC as a legitimate group making legitimate points, we need to call them out on it.  The SLPC’s careful documentation of what counts as anti-gay hate is a huge step in the direction of really fighting back. 

I was pleased when I finally saw evidence of this on Hardball with Chris Matthews.  Matthews had on Mark Potok from the SPLC and Tony Perkins from the FRC to debate the new anti-gay hate groups list.  Not surprisingly, Perkins loosely cited research from the American College of Pediatricians as if it was real research and Matthews did nothing to call him out on it.  The American College of Pediatricians is a sham organization that produces fake “research” to support Christian Right claims.  Their name and website are deliberately designed to mimic the legitimate American Academy of Pediatrics. It’s astounding the lengths the College goes to to look like the real organization.  I pointed out this distinction in my paper Dominionism and Epistemology years ago.  One of the founders of the “College”, the notoriously anti-gay George Rekers, was involved in a scandal last year when it was discovered that he went on vacation with a young male prostitute from rentboy.com.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has thousands of professional pediatricians and child psychologists as members and represents the breadth and consensus of those fields.  The American College of Pediatricians is a sham group started by hard right activists specifically to pretend to be medical professionals while churning out bogus, biased “research” to support Christian Right claims. 

After a few days, and a lot of emails from pro-gay viewers, Matthews provided a follow-up statement on Hardball essentially apologizing for allowing Perkins to use a fake group and fake research – the very act that got FRC on the hate groups lists.  In that moment, I felt like that was substantive push back.  Headlines covering the correction said things like, “Chris Matthews BUSTS Tony Perkins' Lies About Fake Pediatricians Group” and “MSNBC’s Chris Matthews Clears Up Anti-Gay Misinformation”

If more journalists and politicians call groups like the FRC out for their crap or refuse to have groups on air that use such dishonest tactics, it will largely exclude the Christian Right from the debate.  Chris Matthews could very easily tell the FRC that he will not allow anyone to come on his show if they do something dishonest like referencing a fake group to back up their claims.

That is why these CR groups claim victimhood, as if someone is trying to silence them.  But, it’s not silencing if the standard is honesty.  What the FRC groups and others fear is a changing political and cultural landscape as well as the basic expectation that they tell the truth or rely on sound research from real academics published in peer-reviewed journals.  The problem is, there is no sound research showing gays harm kids, spread disease, are mentally ill, poison blood supplies, etc. So, if forced to be honest in their discourse their arguments are reduced to sectarian animus.

Interfaith Dialogue Must Include Atheists

Chris Stedman - Managing Director, 'State of Formation,' The Journal of Inter-Religious Dialogue

In my work as an interfaith activist, I've fought to bring an end to religious division. Lately this has increasingly meant speaking out against the rise in anti-Muslim rhetoric and violence sweeping America. As a member of the Common Ground Campaign, I'm actively working to oppose those who wish to disenfranchise the American Muslim community.

Advocating for religious people has often put me at odds with my own community. As an atheist I hear a lot of anti-religious talk from other nonreligious people, and speaking out against it has made me somewhat of an unpopular figure among some atheists. Yet it is precisely because I am an atheist, and not in spite of it, that I am motivated to do interfaith work.

Why? For one, without religious tolerance and pluralism, I wouldn't be free to call myself an atheist without fear of retribution. Not that long ago, I could not have been a public, vocal atheist at all.

Still, this expanded freedom shouldn't suggest that everything is coming up roses for atheists in America. Earlier this year, Concordia College in Moorhead, MN forbade the formation of a secular student group, claiming that the group's mission was in direct opposition with the school's identity as an institution affiliated with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA). Concordia, which currently recognizes a Catholic student group, has so far refused to reconsider their decision. As a graduate of Augsburg College, another Minnesota school affiliated with the ELCA, I was alarmed by this news. Concordia's decision received little attention and it seems that few came to the secular students' defense. Imagine if the school had declined to recognize a Muslim or Jewish student group: would others have spoken up? It seems likely that there would have been a larger response.

Atheists' identities are regularly belittled or dismissed; we often hear that there are "no atheists in the foxhole," that "atheists are parasites," and the reality remains that we still aren't eligible to hold public office in several parts of this country. Even in places where atheists can hold office, studies have shown that we are the least electable group in America. Nearly half of American parents don't want us marrying their kids. Glenn Beck constantly targets atheists, blaming us for America's problems and saying we have no substance. Yet few people outside of our community come to our defense in the face of such blatant prejudice.

Read the rest of the article...

Sam Harris Appearance on the Daily Show was Amazing

I really enjoyed watching this guest spot with Sam Harris.  Hat tip to Daddio for bringing it to my attention.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Sam Harris
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Rally to Restore Sanity

 

Conversation With Peter LaBarbera Continued

Interestingly, the conversation with Peter LaBarbera has continued over email.  I think it is an interesting conversation because rarely on the web do you get to see two informed people from opposite sides of an issue discuss back and forth. 

---------------------------------------

[Peter to me]

U wrote: << This is part of their identity that supercedes behavior. >>

This is a non-factual assertion born from your ideology, Gabriel. What does that mean: "supercedes behavior"? (I think "supersedes" is the proper spelling.) Does that mean you no longer have control over your behavior (in this particular area)? What if a non-homosexual married man with an "orientation" toward, say, promiscuity decides that said orientation of desiring sex w/ a bunch of women who are not his wife "supersedes" his behavior or ability to control it? Where does it stop? Which behaviors (I would say behavioral choices) get overridden by which "orientations"?

You're asking for special dispensation in this area that you struggle with (you would say: it's not a struggle, nor a problem), and I see no logical, philosophical, historical or spiritual (or even public-policy) reason to give it to you. To top it off, your proposed paradigm change overturns thousands of years of Judeo-Christian legal/moral/religious tradition and threatens the exercise of traditionalists' First Amend. rights. And so we oppose each other on this point, civilly I hope. Best-pl

PS. Don't quote academicians or prof. orgs to me as authoritative b/c they are notoriously biased per the 1973 APA decision that was the result more of "gay" activist bullying + politicking than "science." Can most major universities even study ex-gay change or (negative) developmental factors in the causation of homo'l ideation? Hah. Never. No way. There is precious little impartial, apolitical research on this issue b/c your side (the lgbt activists) is so good at pressuring people and enforcing, as it were, a politically correct regime on this issue. What's so curious + telling to me is how hard GLAAD et al work to smear + censor ex-gays. They protest too much. They fear the reality of change, and so do you, I fear, b/c you have so much riding on this construct of an "orientation" that "supersedes" behavior. Good night.

Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

-----------------------------------------------------

[Me replying to Peter]

You’re right.  I made a spelling error.  My point remains the same. Human sexuality runs deeper than just behavioral choices.  And by limiting whole people or whole relationships to just sex acts, you belittle those people and those relationships.  I am not suggesting that we have no control over our urges.  But, I do draw a distinction between a person wanting to cheat and a person that primarily seeks fulfillment, relationships, intimacy, and yes, sex with a member of their own sex.  However, in both cases, I think the person should be honest and not live a lie. 

In my original email I acknowledged that I agree with the concept of sexual orientation while you see sex as purely behavioral.  I acknowledge that disagreement but I don’t have much riding on the “construct of an orientation” as you suggest.  Rather or not you recognize human sexuality as deeper than behavioral is immaterial.  Even if you think that gay sex acts are immoral and mutable rather than identity based you can still respect civil equality for all. 

As I said in my original email, I understand that your religious narrative condemns sex acts between two men.  And if someone is primarily attracted to a member of their own sex you recommend that they remain abstinent for life or enter into an opposite sex relationship in order to fulfill a religious imperative.  I assert that your religious imperatives are not ample justification for unequal treatment under the law. 

I respect your right to hold those religious beliefs.  People hold all sorts of religious beliefs.  Some say it’s a sin not to wear a certain hat or get a divorce or work on a certain day of the week.  Some Mormons believe in magic underwear.  That’s fine.  I value each person’s individual religious narrative as a component of his identity.  I do not, however, think someone’s religious beliefs can be translated into unequal treatment under the law.  You advocate that people should be fired (ENDA), denied entrance into the military (DADT), or denied a marriage license because they fail to conform to your religious prescriptions, but only when it comes to this one particular sin. 

Let’s say, for the sake of argument, I agree with you.  Homosexuality is just behavior and it is immoral and displeasing to God.  I’m not asking for any special dispensation for that particular sin.  I think you should treat it like any other sin.  As Dan Savage said in a piece I posted yesterday, “All gays and lesbians want from evangelical Christians is the same deal the Jews and the yoga instructors and the atheists and the divorced and the adulterers and the rich all get: full civil equality despite the going-to-hell business.”

According to many conservative Christians, all Muslims are going to hell if they don’t turn from Islam and accept Jesus Christ.  To you, being Muslim is a sinful, chosen lifestyle.  But you do not advocate Muslims should be denied marriage licenses or fired for being Muslim.  You do not say Muslims should be kept out of the military or exempt from federal hate crimes protections.  I am not requesting special dispensation for sin.  I’m saying that even if you think being gay is a sin you treat it like other sins; condemn it from a religious perspective but still respect the right to full civil and legal equality. 

It is possible to intellectually walk and chew gum at the same time.  You can simultaneously believe something is immoral and worthy of hell while recognizing the right of a person to disagree and live according to different beliefs.  The pastor quoted in that Dan Savage post says,

“I'm what most would consider a fairly conservative Evangelical Christian pastor. And I firmly believe in the right of homosexuals to have every civic right that any other citizen of this nation enjoys. I believe that gays and lesbians should be able to marry, to pass on benefits to their partners, and so on. If they are Americans, then they should enjoy the same rights as every American, regardless of what I think of their lifestyle. But I do believe that homosexual behavior is sinful, and I do believe the Bible when Paul reaffirms the sinful nature of homosexual activity. I believe that some activities are not God-pleasing and yet can still be a "right" in our civic understanding.”

Do you see what he did there?  He condemns behavior from a religious standpoint AND recognizes a right to civil equality within our system of government.  The fact that you do not treat it like other sins and instead devote so much time and energy to demonizing suggests an animus toward people that are different from you rather than mere disapproval of behavior. 

My struggle is not with homosexuality.  My struggle is with people that cannot understand the basic distinction between private religious beliefs and legal, civil equality.  That is true wherever that conflict arises regardless of the “sin” in question. 

I am not concerned with breaking what you call “Judeo-Christian” tradition.  I believe in equal worth, dignity, and rights for all whether they conform to your notion of Judeo-Christian tradition or not.  I think appealing to this tradition is a coded way of saying you deserve special rights in society or you are somehow more authentically American because you have the correct group identity.  Furthermore, women’s suffrage, the abolition of slavery, love-based marriage, the Scientific Revolution, and many other great advances in human history were also contrary to “Judeo-Christian” tradition in their time.  Moving forward and treating people with fairness is about as American as one can get even if it does not conform to your understanding of religious tradition. 

I am not sure how to address your refusal to respect any form of academic or scientific review of your assertions.  I have heard the story of the 1973 APA meeting but I just don’t buy that as evidence that all of academia and professional associations are somehow predisposed to certain conclusions.  I work in academia and I know the processes by which research gets reviewed and published.  There is little room for bias of any sort and there certainly isn’t some vast leftwing conspiracy to silence dissent.  How would any advocacy group inject itself into the double-blind review process anyway?  The way one makes his or her career is by challenging accepted paradigms.  And, to my knowledge, GLAAD does not work in the academic sphere.   

You have to wave away all social sciences, professional organizations, legal theory, etc. etc. in order to sustain your ideas.  As I gather from your advocacy and this email exchange your main views can be summarized by saying:

1. Human sexuality is just behavioral and there is nothing deeper than behavioral choices.
2. One group’s religious beliefs are ample justification for law. 

No teacher, author, historian, political scientist, psychologist, legal theorist, or any professional outside the closed, redundant circle of religious right politics would ever accept these assertions.  And so the religious right is left to come up with their own “research” (i.e. the Family Research Council, Paul Cameron) to support its own ideology.  For you to then turn around and project this need on legitimate fields and professional organizations is itself worthy of analysis.  That goes further and deeper than the purview of this conversation.

What I will say is that you weaken your argument when you refuse to acknowledge any expertise or authority outside a small cadre of political activists and theologians.   Repeatedly losing in court or the inability to get anything published in a peer reviewed journal is a sign of the hollowness of your advocacy.  If your application of law and theology were fact based and actual, you would be eager to get it out there in the arena.  Instead you dismiss any and all judges as activists and universally declare all fields, all universities, all academic journals, and all professional organizations as colluding in some plot to silence the “truth”.  It really is hysterical. 

Dan Savage: I'm Sorry, But...

Posted by Dan Savage on Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 5:48 PM (reprinted with great respect.  Originally posted here.) 

I have no beef with evangelical Christians who support full civil equality for gays and lesbians despite believing that gay sex is a sin. Heck, I'll personally mow the lawns of evangelical Christians who refrain from actively persecuting gays and lesbians. I've said that the gay rights movement shouldn't get into arguments about theology and that people have a right to their own beliefs. I frankly don't care if someone thinks I'm going to hell after death and I'm not going to argue with him for the same reason I'm not going to argue with someone who believes that I'm going to the lost continent of Atlantis after dinner. All gays and lesbians want from evangelical Christians is the same deal the Jews and the yoga instructors and the atheists and the divorced and the adulterers and the rich all get: full civil equality despite the going-to-hell business. (And isn't hell punishment enough? Do we have to be persecuted here on earth too? It's almost as if they don't trust God to persecute us after we die. Have a little faith, people!)

So I don't have a beef with this guy...

I'm what most would consider a fairly conservative Evangelical Christian pastor. And I firmly believe in the right of homosexuals to have every civic right that any other citizen of this nation enjoys. I believe that gays and lesbians should be able to marry, to pass on benefits to their partners, and so on. If they are Americans, then they should enjoy the same rights as every American, regardless of what I think of their lifestyle. But I do believe that homosexual behavior is sinful, and I do believe the Bible when Paul reaffirms the sinful nature of homosexual activity. I believe that some activities are not God-pleasing and yet can still be a "right" in our civic understanding.

...but this evangelical Christian pastor, unlike Andrew Marin, isn't showing up at pride parades in an "I'm Sorry" t-shirt. This pastor isn't actively misrepresenting his position on homosexuality to gays and lesbians at pride festivals. This pastor is not falsely suggesting that he has repented of his past beliefs about gays and lesbians—no one looks at those "I'm Sorry" t-shirts and thinks, "Oh, that poor man feels bad about the tone of his previous statements about homosexuality!"—in the hopes that unsuspecting gays and lesbians will engage with him so he can explain that to them that homosexual lifestyle is a sin.

So perhaps I should amend this statement I made about Andrew "I'm Sorry" Marin...

When evangelicals who want to come to pride parades and want to be welcomed into our lives are ready to admit that the bible got homosexuality wrong—just like it got slavery and shellfish and figs and masturbation and burnt offerings wrong—then we can talk.

Andrew Marin's personal religious beliefs about homosexuality—which are wholly irrelevant to my life—aren't the problem. It's Marin's dishonesty and manipulativeness that infuriate. Half-naked guys would not be jumping off floats in gay pride parades and hugging Marin and his crew if their t-shirts read, "I'm Sorry—You're All Going To Hell, Your Love Is An Abomination, Your 'Activities' Are Not God-Pleasing, But I Suppose I Could've Been Nicer The Last Time I Pointed That Out."

Letter To LaBarbera 082910

Dear Peter,

I just finished listening to your interview with Ryan Sorba.  The more I listen to you and your comrades speak and read your website the clearer I become on your viewpoints and advocacy. 

As I understand, you advocate that people with a gay sexual orientation should remain abstinent or form relationships with the opposite sex regardless of attraction.  And you do not think (or do not acknowledge) that there is such a thing as a gay sexual orientation.  You don’t believe that people can be primarily attracted to members of their own sex or find fulfillment, intimacy, and companionship with members of their own sex. You think it is just a matter of behavior and that there is nothing deeper going on than just a sex act. You have every right to believe that and advocate your concept of behavioral choice.  I disagree.  And I think you lose the debate by refusing to acknowledge the concept of sexual orientation. 

I think, and sound social science and the humanities agree, that some people are primarily attracted sexually to members of their own sex.  But, it’s deeper than that.  Some people find romantic relationships with members of their own sex more fulfilling and more intimate than with the opposite sex.  This is part of their identity that supercedes behavior.  A person can be abstinent his whole life, or force himself to grin and bear a less fulfilling relationship with a wife.  But, that person is still gay regardless of his outward behavior because sexuality is a deeper component of the human experience than mere sex acts. 

Likewise, a person, according to your definition, becomes “ex-gay” when he swears off all gay sex.  Again, by limiting sexuality to just behavior, just the act itself, you are able to apply this superficial understanding of human sexuality to make a convenient classification.  You claim some people are no longer gay because they no longer engage in certain acts.  However, no one is "ex-gay" based on a real, true understanding of human sexuality and intimacy.  No one is “ex-gay” unless we accept that human sexuality is nothing more than an act, an orifice, or the sex of the two people involved.  

You are opposed to the act of gay sex from a religious standpoint.  You base this on your interpretation of religion.  Here is where we disagree.  Your religion should not be made the law of the land for everyone nor is it a justification for unequal treatment under the law.  You want it to be legal for gays to be fired from their jobs (ENDA) denied access to the military (DADT) and not given marriage licenses because they behaviorally do not conform to your religious prescriptions. 

In terms of politics and legal rights in a liberal democracy, people have a right to understand morality differently than you while you have the right to have whatever religious interpretation you choose.  You do not have the right to turn that religious prescription into a justification for unequal treatment. 

I do not hate you.  I disagree with your moral viewpoints and your efforts to enshrine your moral viewpoints in law.  If I hated you then I would not want you to have the right to advocate your views.  You have every right to advocacy.  If I thought it were permissible for you to be fired from your job, forcibly divorced from your wife, or treated differently under the law in any way because of our moral disagreement or your chosen religious identity, then that would be an act of hatred.  I do not.  However, you do advocate quite vigorously that those that do not conform to your religious teachings be treated unequally under the law.  And you use gross generalities, stereotypes, junk science (Paul Cameron) and vulgar graphic descriptions of sex in order to advocate unequal treatment.  That is hateful.

This month I will attend another wedding, a man-woman wedding, because I am happy for the couple’s commitment and love for each other.  I recognize that each is giving a life to the other.  If I called their union just a sexual behavioral arrangement or declared they were sick or evil for wanting to form such a union that would be hateful.  You label same-sex unions as just sex.  This is hateful.  By reducing two people’s loving fidelity to just sex you deny them their full humanity.  You turn whole lives into behavioral acts in order to belittle others.  That is why you are hateful.  It has nothing to do with whether you disagree with their behavior in bed.  I can disagree with many people’s various behaviors without hating them.  It is the fact that you reduce whole lives, internal identities, and relationships to mere sex acts.  That is the hateful part. 

You mention in your interview with Sorba that you proved you were not homophobic because you met with and spoke to some gay people protesting outside your event.  Homophobia is not the fear of physical presence of gays.  It’s the fear that something you see as different and inferior will be treated the same as you.  And you fear you are not sufficiently different from gay people and you need the lack of parity to reassure your sense of superiority.  This is an irrational, internalized fear.  That is why it is labeled a phobia. 

In terms of law, it doesn’t matter what your concept of god is or whether or not you believe in god at all.  It might have great meaning personally but it has no meaning legally.  Someone can believe god prohibits the consumption of certain kinds of meat.  They don’t hate meat eaters.  And they do not have the right to make meat illegal for everyone, including those that do not ascribe to their religious beliefs.  A person might believe wholeheartedly that one should remain a virgin until marriage in order to please god.  They have every right to advocate abstinence until marriage.  But they do not have the right to require abstinence by law not use the law to punish those that do not adhere to that faith teaching.  

It’s fine to view the world as a mission field and to want to convert others to your religious identity and beliefs.  It’s fine to support a religious narrative; you believe a certain story is factually true.  However, part of liberal democracy is having the right to define one’s own moral parameters and not to have that defined for you by a religious authority.  That type of thinking is pre-Enlightenment. 

In conclusion, you think any sex act between two men is morally wrong based on your religion.  And you think being gay is just sexual behavior and nothing internal about a person’s sense of self.  If a man is attracted to men sexually he should remain abstinent for life or enter into a relationship with a woman regardless of his lack of attraction to her.  You refuse to acknowledge anything deeper going on within the person but only a simple behavioral choice.  And you think there are “ex-gay” people because some people have chosen to stop behaving a certain way and have instead conformed to your religious prescriptions. 

I believe that sexuality is deeper than behavior and that relationships between two people involve more than just sex.  I also believe that regardless of one’s understanding of morality, she or he does not have the right to use the law to impose that view of morality. 

If your website and your group advocated abstinence for people with a gay sexual orientation out of compliance with scripture I could respect that.  But you would still need to acknowledge that sexuality is deeper than behavior. 

If you advocated that people make a personal choice to follow your religion and all behavior prescriptions that come with, I could respect that.  But, you make no such advocacy.  You don’t advocate that people convert to your faith or become abstinent. 

Instead, you advocate that the law punish people for not adhering to your faith.  You repeatedly assert how you are different than another type of person and that the law should punish the other for their difference.  You advocate that sexuality is just behavior and that those that do not agree be persecuted under the law.  That I cannot respect and that is, without a doubt, hateful.  That is why your group is a hate group.  It is not because you oppose certain behaviors.  I oppose many, many behaviors.  Everyone does.  But I do not want people to be treated differently under the law nor do I view those with a different internal sexuality as inherently inferior to me. 

I also don’t target any particular group or rely on crude caricatures of that group.  I don’t paint all Christians as dumb or all Catholics as diseased or all Republicans as libidinous to make my point.  But you do use selective data and convenient anecdotes to paint all gay people as sinful, crazy, evil, diseased, lost, broken, and angry.  You similarly fail to acknowledge any disease free, happy, whole, fulfilled gay people out there.  They are summarily dismissed as bad people engaging in bad behavior.  It reveals animus.  These broad stroke generalities should be rejected within serious discourse.  And by just focusing on the sex act, you refuse to recognize a whole person, which is equally hateful. 

Consider this instead.  Could you possibly claim the following:

I, and American For Truth, believe that gay sex acts are condemned by my religion and I sincerely hope every person on Earth converts to my religion and tries daily to adhere to its behavioral prescriptions.  However, I acknowledge that other people conceptualize Christianity specifically and morality in general differently and I respect the right of all people to define morality personally.  I also understand that liberal democracy is a type of governmental system that allows liberty of conscience for individuals to form their own moral conclusions.  This liberty of conscience is what protects my right to have my religious beliefs while respecting the rights of others to have theirs, and live accordingly, even if I believe they are morally wrong.  

If you really are not a hate site…  If you don’t hate anyone… If you merely oppose behavior, then such a proclamation should not be hard to make. 

As always, I would love to receive thoughtful, well-reasoned feedback from you.  If I have mischaracterized your views or advocacy please let me know.  I’m fine with disagreement, but I endeavor to better understand my opponent and the exact point of disagreement.

Take care,

Gabriel S. Hudson

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Peter replying to me]

And the more I read your missives, Gabriel, the more I see u as one of the many "gay" "fundamentalists" who confuses their feelings and opinions about homo'y w/ facts and truth. I don't even know if we can have a meaningful dialogue. Your last one was especially off base.

Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Me replying to Peter LaBarbera]

Your reply is confusing because, in my well reasoned explanation of both our views and the point of disagreement, I demonstrate an understanding of your view that homosexuality is immoral.  By your definition, homosexuality is just sex acts and those acts are condemned by your religion.

Though it is difficult to summarize the lengthy email I sent you, the main points are that you condemn behavior, sexuality is deeper than just behavior, your condemnation of behavior is based on religion, and your religion is not a valid justification for unequal treatment under the law.  I am unclear then how these assertions run contrary to facts or truth.  Have I misstated your views?

And, I don't understand why a dialogue would not be possible.  I honestly invite you to tell me where I am wrong either in my understanding or our disagreement or in the applications of law with the context of a liberal democracy.

My concern is that you are unwilling to have an equal, open dialogue with anyone that does not already agree with you.  You refuse to have comments on your website.  You took great efforts to make sure no dissenting voice was present at your "Truth Academy". You only have people on your radio show that already share your views and you never consent to interviews, panel discussions, or online dialogues with anyone. 

When two sides present their best cases under oath, your side loses in court - always.  You reliably blame liberal judges or the judicial system in general all the while claiming your argumentation is superior.  If your side held the monopoly on facts and truth, it seems like you would be anxious to delve into discourse rather than limiting all interaction to the echo-chamber of far-right social politics.  If your side was the more fact-based or the more truthful, it seems like someone from your side would be capable of being published in a peer reviewed journal or win an argument in court.  You can't, so you disparage academia, judicial review, or any evaluative arena rather than engage meaningfully in them. 

Because you take extreme measures to limit your audience and your conversation to those that already agree, dismissing all those that disagree as automatically unworthy of dialogue, it reveals the hollowness of your advocacy. 

Respectfully,
Gabriel

"Unable To Explain or Demonstrate Harm"

I have wondered lately if the importance of Perry has been overstated.  I honestly don’t think it has but time will tell.  So many good things have come from this decision that it is hard to keep track of them all.  The best of these is the mask pulled from the anti-gay marriage – and generally anti-gay – politics.  The opposition uses nebulous phrases like, the “fabric of society” and the “gathering storm.”  But, when forced under oath to testify about the supposed harm, they say nothing.  Judge Walker said he would stay his decision if the interveners could say just one example of harm.  They had to admit that they could not. 

 

This is why courts are so great.  Maggie Gallagher and the National Organization for Marriage are on a nationwide tour garnering about 20 spectators at each spot.  Their rhetoric has been dismantled.  They say there is harm.  They say it has to be stopped. But the ready-made argument is two fold; (1) can you specify what the harm is and (2) why couldn’t you say anything in court. 

 

The government of California was supposedly the defendants in the case but they refused to participate.  The only people willing to show up and defend the stupidity of Prop 8 were “religious” groups with a clear animus toward gay people.  They came up with two – just two – witnesses while the anti-8 side called in economists, political scientists, sociologists, legal experts, on and on and on.  Now, it is unlikely these interveners have standing to argue in an appeal.  Again, to argue standing they would have to explain just one little way in which they are harmed by gay people being allowed to married. 

 

It’s ridiculous.  This issue is dying. 

Tony Perkins on Face The Nation

So, Tony Perkins was destroyed yesterday on Face The Nation when he appeared opposite David Boies, who said,

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

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

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

That is perfect and what I've said for a while now.  When you're making an ad - like the "gathering storm" ad - or when you put out political materials, they can be inaccurate and fear based.  However, in a court, you can't get away with that crap.  The FRC and Co. can cry about "activist judges" when it's convenient, but their real beef is with the judicial process.  They don't like being cross examined or forced to answer questions under oath.  They would rather just imply some harm and leave it at that. 

Anyway, the video is up.  It's quite astounding to watch:

Perry et al v. Schwarzenegger et al: Initial Thoughts

Obviously, I’m thrilled with the decision because it went the right way.  But, there are additional things to point out to explain why the decision was even better than expected.  Nobody who followed the oral arguments would think Judge Walker, or any judge, would uphold Proposition 8.  But, he went further than just striking it down.

 

The reaction to the decision on the right has been shrill but stuck to a familiar canard.  Judges should not overturn the clear will of voters.  It is an indictment of judicial review rather than any real reason why California needs Proposition 8.  It is an interesting political strategy but not a valid legal one.  An attorney arguing before a judge needs to expand his or her argument beyond, “Your honor, you shouldn’t be hearing this case.”   

 

But, did they throw the case intentionally or were they subconsciously aware the case in favor of Proposition 8 was so weak.  Remember, it was the pro-Prop 8 side that fought over and over again to keep evidence from being released and to keep the hearings as secretive as possible.  They did not want the public to see the facts in the case.  Their call for the unchecked will of the majority is distorted by their efforts to conceal information from the public. 

 

They say now that they never had a chance because Judge Walker is gay.  Supposedly a gay sexual orientation robs a legal professional of his impartiality.  But, at one time during the trial, Judge Walker expressed concern that the pro-8 side had called just two witnesses and begged them to mount a stronger defense.  They didn’t.  And no prominent figure in California politics came forward to defend 8.  It was limited to far-right interest groups.  Even though Governor Schwarzenegger is the named defendant in the case, he wouldn’t come near it.  On the day the Perry decision was released he said,

 

"For the hundreds of thousands of Californians in gay and lesbian households who are managing their day-to-day lives, this decision affirms the full legal protections and safeguards I believe everyone deserves. At the same time, it provides an opportunity for all Californians to consider our history of leading the way to the future, and our growing reputation of treating all people and their relationships with equal respect and dignity.

"Today's decision is by no means California's first milestone, nor our last, on America's road to equality and freedom for all people.”

 

Then, Governor Schwarzenegger asked the judge to no stay his decision,

 

“Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger called today for the immediate restoration of same-sex marriage in California, urging the federal judge who overturned Proposition 8 to impose his ruling while the case moves through the higher courts. Allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry "is consistent with California's long history of treating all people and their relationships with equal dignity and respect," said a legal brief written on behalf of Schwarzenegger.” 

 

Oh my word!  So much for defending that terrible proposition.  The only groups willing to argue in favor of it are those that make a career out of anti-gay animus.  It further weakens their case that they cannot find a single politician or expert or anyone who isn’t already on the payroll of one of these groups.  If the harm they argue is real, one would think it would be apparent to someone outside the shrinking religious right echo chamber.

 

I am still perplexed as to what this meant.  There are possibilities:

1. Their strategy all along was to lose and then blame those awful activist judges.
2. They knew their side has weak arguments and delivering some of them in court and having them rebuked would hurt an overall political campaign against equality.
3. Deep down they know there is no harm and that their position is based on animus.  You can translate animus into fear in a political campaign (the gays are taking over your children’s schools, etc.) but you’re unlikely to scare a judge that way.  You need actual facts, precedent, and legal theory to argue a case before a judge. 

 

It may be a combination of these and things I’m not even considering.  Jeremy Hooper ran a fascinating piece on Good As You called ‘Eating Their Own’ in which one anti-gay legal strategist criticizes another for their handling of Perry.  But, as I said in my letter to Peter LaBarbera, is it a question of strategy?  Is it really that they aren’t selling the product better or is it that the product is an empty can nobody wants to buy after looking inside?

 

One thing that was so amazing about Judge Walker’s decision in Perry is that he calls the can empty.  He looked at the arguments presented by both sides and realized, clearly, that one side just had more to say.  There was more substance including sound research, documentary evidence, legal arguments, legal precedents, on and on.  The other side had a nebulous claim of pending harm that – even when pressed very hard by Judge Walker – could not be defined.  Remember the “Coming Storm” ad from NOM.  The coming storm is a metaphor for… I’m not sure.  Apparently those who made the ad are not sure either. 

 

The decision in Perry was also great because it applied strict scrutiny and suspect class status to gay citizens.  Put too simply, that means California needs to have more than just a rational basis for Proposition 8 and the specific exclusion and political targeting gay people have endured for decades must be considered when reviewing a law that targets and excludes them.  This will make it virtually impossible for the Pro-8 side to win on appeal. 

 

So, the case will almost definitely be appealed to the 9^th Circuit where I would be shocked if the decision were overturned.  Then the pro-8 side is likely to ask for it to be reviewed by all the justices on the 9^th Circuit with a similar result.  The next stop is the Supreme Court, which doesn’t have to hear the case.  They grant cert to a very small number of federal cases that request it.  But, this one will be a big one and by that time the roster of the Court might have changed.  So, either the 9^th Circuit’s decision will become the law of the land for that region or the Supreme Court will take up the issue.  Who knows what the outcome would be at that point.  However, if gay marriage was considered by the Supreme Court I would want it to be within the context of a case about Proposition 8 because, as Judge Walker pointed out, the Proposition 8 campaign was so seedy and had so much willful misinformation that the Supreme Court would have a hard time justifying reinstating it. 

 

There is another option that is extremely unlikely.  The pro-8 side might stop at the trial court level, where the fallout is limited to California.  They may even try to fight the political battle again rather than a legal one.  I don’t think this will happen but it’s possible.  If so, they can contain the damage from Prop-8 and lose the issue in a state that was likely to overturn 8 via voting next election cycle anyway. 

 

That brings me to a final point.  Part of me wishes there had been a political victory rather than a judicial one.  I think the “activist judges” crap is nonsense from the right.  But, I can remember election night watching the Presidential election get called quickly for Obama only to focus, nervously, on California’s election returns.  The final vote took days to be announced and I kept refreshing my computer as hope faded.  I want to see the rights of a minority – my minority – win in a political arena.  And it’s happening.  It will happen some more. 

 

Those that argue against “activist judges” need to be questioned on the major civil rights cases of the 20^th century.  Were those also not the purview of the courts and instead the sole domain of a panicked and bigoted public?  They should also answer larger questions about how a liberal democracy is to protect against tyranny of the majority or guarantee equal protection without courts playing such a role.  There’s a discussion to be had there and there are solid arguments against judicial review.  But they do not make those.  They cry about judicial activism but run to those same “judicial activists” to overturn majority based policy whenever some kid isn’t allowed to wear an offensive t-shirt at school or when college Christian clubs intentionally exclude some members of the student body while taking activity funding from everyone. 

 

They don’t really want to argue against judicial review.  They want to cry about gays being treated as equal to them because they don’t have much of an argument to make other than a guttural aversion to that form of difference.  And they know that doesn’t play well in courts no matter who the judge is. 

 

One thing is sure.  Times are changing.  They are changing quickly.  They are changing because animus can be stimulated for short-term political gains but is not a long-term education, political, or legal strategy.  And, though the right refuses to admit this, there are just too many parallels with previous civil rights battles.  We’ve seen this movie before and the movie always seems to go by quicker with subsequent viewings.  It’s an exciting time to be alive! 

Letter To Peter LaBarbera following the Prop. 8 decision.

This is the letter I emailed Peter LaBarbera after the decision in Perry et al, v. Schwarzenegger et al (the Prop. 8 decision) came out.  Perry was released on the eve of Peter's "Truth Academy".  LaBarbera claims the point of the academy is to train people better in countering the "lies" of the "homosexual agenda" and provide a venue to discuss issues in a way disallowed by the "Gay Thought Police" in academia.  But, one should note that the people in charge of the political campaign and judicial defense for Prop. 8 had the most training in countering the so-called agenda.  And, LaBarbera took CIA-worthy measures to screen students for his "academy" out of fear a "homosexual activist" would sneak in.  So much for free thought, but what about training?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I take a lot of solace that your “Truth Academy” is happening right after the Prop. 8 decision was announced.  You purport to teach people how to counter the “homosexual agenda”.  However, the people in charge of the Prop. 8 campaign in 2008 and the legal team established to defend it were educated people extremely skilled in their various professions.  Skilled politicians tasked with selling a message and skilled attorneys experienced at litigation went before the judge.  And still, Prop. 8 was called what it is, irrational discrimination. 

 

“It [California] has already issued 18,000 marriage licenses to same-sex couples and has not suffered any demonstrated harm as a result, see FF 64-66; moreover, California officials have chosen not to defend Proposition 8 in these proceedings.”

 

You can claim that there is harm.  However, when forced under oath to demonstrate harm it is impossible because there IS NO HARM.  The problem for your side isn’t a lack of training.  The people working to sell Prop. 8 to California voters and defend it in court have a lot of training.  The fault is a fundamental flaw in your position. 

 

You can blame “activist judges”, as I’m sure your side will do.  You never once look at your losses and blame inadequate argumentation.  You continue to lose in court over and over again and fail to realize that the argument is the problem rather than a lack of training or obstinate judges. 

 

All your side had to do was go into that courthouse and demonstrate the harm.  The National Organization for Marriage had an ad about a coming storm.  It’s a nice metaphor but if there really were some coming threat or harm that should have been easy to explain in court.  Instead, Judge Walker saw both sides present their best arguments for and against Proposition 8 and concluded:

 

“Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.”

 

Simple.  Straightforward.  Correct.

 

Proposition 8 was about discrimination and saying, without any basis, that one group of people is better than another.  Your Truth Academy can train people in messaging but the facts behind the message do not change.  It’s not a matter of training to sell something better or get better at arguing the ridiculous.  When given equal time for two sides to make their case, one side wins and the other side loses because only one side is grounded in rationality while the other relies on subjective religious interpretation that is unconvincing in court.