Repudiation: Tax Dollars for Discrimination

Yesterday, 23 Marcy 2012, Rob Schwarzwalder of the Family Research Council (FRC) wrote an article, Another Obama Administration Attack on Marriage, Religious Liberty.  The article complains that World Vision, a religious charity that is hired by the government to help overseas, is being coerced to hire homosexuals.

Now, World Vision and other international Christian ministries are once again being pressured to jettison a key biblical teaching – only this time, on marriage.  According to Christianity Today, the U.S. Agency for International Development has issued “a new federal policy that ‘strongly encourages’ all contractors to develop anti-discrimination policies covering employees’ sexual orientation.”

 According to World Vision Senior Vice-President Kent Hill, “all World Vision U.S.employees must sign a statement of faith and agree to a standard of conduct that limits sexuality to ‘a God-ordained covenant between a man and a woman’.”

The encouragement is from an executive policy for USAID, United States Agency for International Development, that contractors for USAID not discriminate.  The language is specific:  "contractors and recipients are not required to implement the same comprehensive nondiscrimination policies required by the Agency for its own employment practices."  The Washington Blade has the full memo.

Mr. Schwarzwalder even quotes the Obama administration verifying that there is no attack on religious liberty.

The Obama Administration was quick to deny any potential discrimination: According to USAID spokesman Drew Bailey, “The LGBT anti-discrimination policy is not binding … Nothing in the policy precludes our continuing strong partnerships with religious organizations or otherwise affects contracting or grant decisions. We have strong, productive relationships with many faith-based organizations, and [they] will not be adversely affected by this policy.”

Of course, that does not stop Mr. Schwarzwalder from assuming that encouragement is about to become requirement.

Let us pray that this tacit attack on religious liberty will not impede the ability of Christian groups to partner with Washington in providing aid to those so in need.  And let us act, by contacting the Obama Administration and our elected federal representatives to express to them that this potentially massive violation of our “first freedom” – freedom of religion – will be stopped.

The latest policy directive, released 12 March 2012, has nothing about sexual orientation or marriage equality.  Twenty-four pages without a hint of requirement that World Vision and other religious contractors of USAID stop discriminating.

In a more just environment, my tax dollars would not be going to organizations that discriminate against the LGBTQ Community.  If a religion to which I do not adhere or belong wants to discriminate with its own money, my objections should be dismissed as an outside annoyance.  But this is about money that comes from the government, from all of us.

The United States government should stop paying any contractor that discriminates based on the same criteria as government employment.

Praise: Outserve

I served in the United States Navy before Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT).  Despite that horrible law not existing yet, one did not ask or tell because to be known as gay in the military was to receive either a dishonorable or a medical discharge.  There was nothing like OutServe.

OutServe is the association of actively-serving LGBT military personnel that launched on July 26, 2010. With more than 4,500 members and 45+ chapters worldwide, it is the one of the largest LGBT employee resource groups in the world. OutServe works to support a professional network of LGBT military personnel and create an environment of respect in the military with regard to sexual orientation and gender identity.

It should be no surprise that the hate groups are upset that LGBT soldiers and sailors are now allowed to serve and they are upset that a support network like OutServe exists.  Right Side News offered up such a complaint from the Family Research Council in an article today.

image from Right Side News

For the homosexuals in OutServe, the basic goal is OutCry. Since the overthrow of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," the organization of "actively serving LGBT personnel" has planted 42 chapters on military bases--all with the common goal of tearing down the Defense Department's (and by extension, society's) marriage policies from within. "We're about to become the largest [lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender employee resource group] in the world," the group's co-director told the Washington Times.

To be clear, the goal is equality.  That does not mean tearing down marriage policies, but expanding and thus strengthening marriage policies.  Allowing LGBT military personnel the same rights as heterosexual military personnel, including the sense of security that comes from knowing that your partner is your legal spouse, will enhance our nation's security.

In the last six months, Lt. Josh Seefried says the association's membership has more than doubled, as 4,200 homosexual soldiers, sailors, and airmen join the agenda to radicalize our military with more sexual distractions. So far, their demands include everything from allowing cross-dressers and transsexuals to serve openly to marriage benefits for same-sex couples. As a sign of just how much things have changed since the end of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," the Defense Department is opening up one of its three special recreation centers to OutServe for its annual conference in October. The resort and its waterfalls, pools, and gardens, which were meant to reward our fighting force and their families, will now be the setting for a group that's plotting to destroy what moral traditions our military has left.

No, no, and no.  Removing DADT also removed sexual distractions.  No longer are straight soldiers wondering about whether there are secret gays in the unit and no longer are gay sailors worried that they might be found out.  The sexual tension of the game of secrecy is gone.

The demand is for equality, plain and simple.  Those who are LGBTQ want nothing that straights don't have and nothing beyond that.  Ultimately, we want to be left alone to be able to live without worrying about bigots like the FRC trying to keep us in a lower caste.

That homosexuals have a different definition of what is moral than the narrow bigotry of the FRC does not mean destruction of morality.  Those who serve seek to maintain military traditions that are nondiscriminatory.  This is not very different than what happened with racial integration of the military.  Only discriminatory traditions were left behind and the military was stronger for it.  To the last part, I would suggest that General Colin Powell, later Secretary of State under President George W. Bush, is an excellent example of honoring tradition.  Interestingly, General Powell also favored dropping DADT.

It is true that OutServe will hold its 2012 annual conference at Shades of Green.  Last month OutServe announced, "OutServe, the association of actively-serving LGBT U.S. military personnel and one of the largest LGBT employee resource groups in the world, announced that its Second Annual OutServe International Leadership Conference will take place October 25-28, 2012 at the military’s Shades of Green Resort in Orlando, FL."

Until then, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder is happy to run point for OutServe from the Department of Justice, where he and his team are actively working to rip the federal marriage law to shreds. In typical Obama administration fashion, Holder waited until a sleepy Friday afternoon before forwarding a letter to Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) that announced his Department would not be defending the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in a challenge over same-sex military benefits. Almost a year to the day that President Obama first refused to fight for DOMA, Holder turned down his fifth straight case on the law.

"As I explained in my letter of February 23, 2011, the President and I have concluded that classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a heightened standard of congressional scrutiny under equal protection principles, and that Section 3 of DOMA fails such scrutiny... I have accordingly determined that [the military's Title 38]... violate[s] the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment... I will instruct Department attorneys not to defend those provisions... in McLaughlin and to inform the district court of the Department's view that like Section 3 of DOMA, 38 U.S.C... cannot be constitutionally applied to same-sex couples..."

I am grateful that President Obama and Attorney General Holder are not wasting my tax dollars defense of a law that is obviously unconstitutional.  I wrote about the Attorney General's decision last month.  It was almost half a year ago when I wrote about why Speaker Boehner is wrong to defend DOMA.

Attorney General Holder's words, quoted above, make sense.

Of course, it's not Holder's place to decide which laws are or are not constitutional. But unfortunately for our troops, this administration has never been one to play by the rules-or abide by its job description. Meanwhile, the fringe activists cheered the DOJ's rebellion. We are "delighted," said one, "that, for the first time, [Holder] has said that separate definitions that apply to military veterans are unconstitutional." Well, the Attorney General may have said so, but the courts haven't. And unless the White House has found some way to bypass them too, the matter is far from settled.

The courts are determining the constitutionality of DOMA.  It appears, at least according to the 9th District Courts, that DOMA has no rational basis and is unconstitutional.  It will take time for equality to be the law of the land for the LGBTQ Community.  In the interim, the bigots, like FRC and other Southern Poverty Law Center designated hate groups, will continue to raise money to fight off an imagined enemy.  While we are waiting for the Supreme Court to remove an unnecessary caste system from our country, we are safer and more secure without DADT and with OutServe advocating for our troops.

Repudiation: PFOX Student Brochure

In early February, the group that calls itself Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX) distributed about eight thousand flyers to Montgomery County Maryland high school students.  Here's the local ABC coverage



Last week Peter Sprigg, who serves on the board of PFOX and writes for the Family Research Council (FRC), a hate group as determined by the Southern Poverty Law Center, wrote an op-ed for the Washington Times defending this hateful and lie-filled propaganda.

The controversy arose not because of its relatively innocuous content, but because of its source: an organization called Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays, or PFOX. The flier states, “Every year, thousands of people with unwanted same-sex attractions make the personal decision to leave a gay identity,” and asserts that such people should be able to “seek help and information on overcoming their feelings.”

No, the controversy arose because of content that is anything but innocuous.  Let's go through the flyer and correct the lies.  The full flyer can be found at the PFOX website.

Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX) promotes diversity for the ex-gay community.
Ex-gays demonstrate that those with unwanted same-sex attractions can seek help and
information on overcoming their feelings. All individuals deserve the right to self-determination
and happiness based on their own needs, and not the needs of others. PFOX supports tolerance.

The premise of people being ex-gay is flawed.  A person is straight, bisexual, gay, or perhaps asexual.  What one does sexually is healthy when it is aligned with their sexual orientation.  PFOX is encouraging young people to disregard their sexual orientation in favor of what PFOX considers normal.  The American Psychiatric Association published a brochure, Let's Talk Facts About Sexual Orientation which says:

The desire to change sexual orientation often is driven more by social stigma or religious concerns than by medical or mental health concerns. Some homosexual people are able to change their sexual behavior (albeit with great difficulty). A change in behavior, however, is only one aspect of homosexuality and does not imply that sexual orientation has changed, particularly if desire remains.

Back to the PFOX propaganda.

Who are ex-gays?

Every year thousands of people with unwanted same-sex attractions make the personal decision to leave a gay identity through non-judgemental environments or their own initiative. Their decision is one only they can make. However, there are those in society who refuse to respect an individual's right to self-determination. Consequently, formerly gay men and women are discriminated against simply because they dare to exist. Ex-gays and their supporters are denied equal access and support, forcing them to remain silent for fear of negative reactions and disapproval.

Let's be clear.  Someone who says that they are "ex-gay" is not going to be denied employment, housing, the services of businesses, a pay raise, or anything else for saying that they are formerly gay.  The only negative reactions that they are likely to encounter are when they endeavor to influence others to turn their backs on their natural sexual orientation.  It is only in response to evangelistic behavior that PFOX is ostracized.

But aren't some people born "gay"?

According to mainstream psychological associations, there are no replicated scientific studies to support that a person can be born "gay." No "gay gene" or gay center of the brain has been found. No medical test exists to determine if a person is homosexual. Sexual orientation is based on feelings and is a matter of self-affirmation and public declaration. Some teens are labeled "gay" or other names or other names even though they do not have same-sex attractions. Appearance is not a reliable means to know what another person feels. No one should be labeled based on the perception of others. Name calling is wrong because the victim may begin to believe what others tell them about themselves, which may be completely false labeling and cause gender confusion.

Back to the Let's Talk Facts brochure.

The causes of sexual orientation and homosexuality are unknown. Studies have suggested both genetic and nongenetic factors. Sexual attraction (whether gay or straight), in fact, might have several origins including genetic factors for some people, environmental factors for others, or some combinations of these factors for yet others. Most mental health professionals believe that sexual orientation is determined for most people early in life, or even before birth, and therefore is not chosen. No particular pattern or style of parenting has been shown to cause homosexuality.

So, it is true that there is no gay gene, but that does not mean that one isn't born gay (a word that does not need quotation marks around it).  Sexual orientation is not simply a set of feelings that are easily mutable and is not based upon public declaration.  That human sexuality is more complicated than can be explained by a single gene or synaptic cluster does not remove genetic factors.

PFOX is correct that appearance is not a valid indicator of sexuality.  Homosexuals, unless they are deliberately dressing for display, look like everyone else.  Most gays don't lisp and many people who do lisp are straight.

PFOX is wrong about why name calling is wrong.  It isn't just about whether someone begins to believe what is used as taunts, although that is one problem.  Name calling is wrong because it is intended to belittle and denigrate who a person is.  The truth, or lack thereof, of the taunt is not the point.  The point is to damage the self-esteem of the victim.  That is always wrong.

"Gender confusion" is not caused by name calling.  The correct term is transgender, which broadly refers to someone born with the wrong set of sexual organs.  The American Psychological Association has a great deal of information in Answers to your Questions About Transgender People, Gender Identity, and Gender Expression.  Here is a small section on how one knows if one is transgender.

Transgender people experience their transgender identity in a variety of ways and may become aware of their transgender identity at any age. Some can trace their transgender identities and feelings back to their earliest memories. They may have vague feelings of “not fitting in” with people of their assigned sex or specific wishes to be something other than their assigned sex. Others become aware of their transgender identities or begin to explore and experience gender-nonconforming attitudes and behaviors during adolescence or much later in life. Some embrace their transgender feelings, while others struggle with feelings of shame or confusion. Those who transition later in life may have struggled to fit in adequately as their assigned sex only to later face dissatisfaction with their lives. Some transgender people, transsexuals in particular, experience intense dissatisfaction with their sex assigned at birth, physical sex characteristics, or the gender role associated with that sex. These individuals often seek gender-affirming treatments.

Back to the PFOX propaganda.

If only one part of you has gay feelings, should your whole life be gay identified?

Many people would agree that just because one part of you feels a certain way, it doesn't mean your entire identity is that way. Having feelings of same-sex attraction may make you feel different. We all feel the need to fit in and be accepted. But no one should identify themselves based on sexual feelings alone. There is more to your identity than your sexual attractions. Thousands of ex-gay men and women had those very same feelings when they were in school. Get smart! Explore the origins of your same-sex attraction. Why do I have these feelings? Where do they come from? The decision of a prom date, a car, or whether to super-size those fries can be based on a feeling, but important decisions should not be made on feelings alone. In order to make an educated decision, you have to be informed! Sexuality develops over time. It isn't necessary to label yourself today.

As can be seen from the brochures of the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association, one's feelings are a reflection of who one is.  The purpose of PFOX is to encourage people to deny who they are.  Of course we are all more than our sexuality, but that is a crucial part of our identity as adolescents and as adults.

Telling teens to deny their feelings and deny their identity, implying that their feelings are less worthy than those of heterosexuals, is part of what leads to depression and teen suicides.  The American Academy of Pediatrics has studied the effects of the social environment on teen suicide.  PFOX is encouraging an environment that makes suicide more likely for LGBTQ youth.

When Peter Sprigg writes in his op-ed, "It is undeniable that some people experience same-sex attractions as unwanted" the part that he leaves off is that his organizations are creating the environment that makes people want to be rid of their natural feelings.  Mr. Sprigg complains, "The county curriculum on sexual orientation fails to even acknowledge that ex-homosexuals exist."  Ex-homosexuals do not exist.  One is gay, straight, or bi.  If one is gay and refrains from sexuality with others of the same gender, it does not change the fact that one is gay.  High school students, with the onset of adolescence, are just figuring out who they are; it is entirely inappropriate to be saddling them with guilt and encouraging them to deny feelings that are so new.

Mr. Sprigg and PFOX are wrong and their pamphlet is dangerous.

Repudiation: ProLifeCon

A short history of legal action around the medical condition of Terri Schiavo

In 2005, following an extended legal battle in the state of Florida, then Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, himself a surgeon specializing in heart transplants, and his fellow Republicans endeavored to extend the life of Terri Schiavo.   The problem was that Ms. Schiavo was in a persistant vegetative state (PVS).  Three years after that diagnosis, after repeated efforts with various treatments, Michael Schiavo asked the hospital to stop resuscitating his wife.  Ms. Schiavo's parents objected and sued.

For details of Ms. Schiavo's medical condition, see the New England Journal of Medicine.  The bottom line is that she was PVS.  Her brain, following too long without oxygen, had atrophied.  Her body functioned in that her heart was still beating and her lungs worked, but she could neither drink nor eat.  In other words, the body was alive but the brain was dead.  If you believe in a soul that is separate from corporal existence, that soul had already rejoined God.

But that did not stop Senator Frist from pushing for legislation, signed later by President Bush, that would move the Schiavo case from Florida state courts to federal courts.  This despite having run the gamut of the Florida appellate system, Mr. Schiavo never losing the right to make end of life decisions for his PVS wife.  Based on a memo from Florida Senator Mel Martinez, many speculated that this was not about real morality but about positioning the Republican Party for the 2008 election cycle.

Dr. Frist gave a speech against terminating the life of Ms. Schiavo on the floor of the Senate.  He was accused of having done a long-distance diagnosis of her condition.  USA Today discussed this along with other points.

Frist, R-Tenn., said in the full Senate that he supported what he called "an opportunity to save Mrs. Schiavo's life." A heart surgeon, Frist had viewed video ordered by a court and taken by a board-certified neurologist who had concluded she was not in a persistent vegetative state.

So, while Dr. Frist did not conduct the diagnosis himself, he was supporting a long-distance diagnosis that reached the opposite conclusion of the the team of doctors caring for Ms. Schiavo.  Still dubious, but not quite as horrible as the allegation that he was diagnosing long distance in a field in which he did not specialize.

Later, Sen. Frist opined on the case (still from the USA Today article).

Asked on NBC's Meet the Press if he had any regrets regarding the Schiavo case, Frist said: "Well, I'll tell you what I learned from it, which is obvious. The American people don't want you involved in these decisions."

So, the government should not be second guessing doctors and state courts.

ProLifeCon

On Monday 23 January 2012, as part of the protest events around the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Family Research Council (FRC), mostly known for the anti-equality stand on homosexuals, is hosting ProLifeCon, a rally of pro-life activists.  FRC boasts that one of those featured will be Collin Raye, a singer and the spokesman for the Terri Schaivo Life & Hope Network.

It is bizarre that the Terri Schaivo Life & Hope Network exists in complete denial of Ms. Schiavo's PVS condition.  Now the FRC, who regularly lie about homosexuality in pursuit of continuing the denial of equality to the LGBTQ Community, welcome those who lie about a past medical condition to protest a Supreme Court decision that helps keep abortion rates low.

Protesting Roe v Wade is counterproductive to those who want fewer abortions, but it does raise a lot of money for the organizations coordinating the protests.  The Washington Post ran an opinion piece on 17 January.

The annual carnival in Washington around the Jan. 22 anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision (Happy 39th, Roe!) has become more farcical with each repetition. As technology and state-policy changes make the landmark case less important, anniversary observances have devolved into fact-free spectacles that have less to do with abortion than with raising money for advocacy groups on both sides.

I don't mind if religions choose to preach almost anything in their sanctuaries.  They are welcome to call me a terrible person and damn me to hell if they so choose.  I do object to their endeavor to inflict their belief system on the rest of us.

Let's face it, a zygote and an early embryo are each alive in the same sense that Ms. Schiavo was in her PVS.  The flesh is alive, but no one is home.  In the first two, the spirit has not yet been breathed into the body.

Then the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.  Genesis 2 : 7.

In the latter case, the spirit had departed years before the body was allowed to stop.  If someone objects to an abortion, they should not have an abortion.  If someone does not want their spouses body to stop breathing despite being in a PVS, they should be allowed to pay for continued care.  But the laws should not be suited to just that particular religious view of life.