Today is the National Day of Silence, which calls to attention the bullying and harassment in schools directed at gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgenders by encouraging students to remain silent all day (unless called upon to speak in class). The event, with over 6,000 middle and high school students planning to participate, is sponsored by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) and is dedicated to Lawrence King, a California 8th-grader who was shot and killed in class last February by a classmate due to his sexual orientation.

On Monday, the Alliance Defense Fund will be holding its opposing Day of Truth to “counter the promotion of the homosexual agenda and express an opposing viewpoint from a Christian perspective.” Students are encouraged to wear t-shirts or hand out cards with the group’s message.

Both events come at the heels of a recent court ruling that allows an Illinois high school student to wear a t-shirt that reads, “Be Happy, Not Gay.” The Alliance Defense Fund represented the student and stated:

“Christian students shouldn’t be discriminated against for expressing their beliefs,” said ADF Senior Counsel Nate Kellum. “Public school officials cannot censor a message expressing one viewpoint on homosexual behavior and then at the same time allow messages that express another viewpoint. The court’s ruling is a victory for all students seeking to protect their First Amendment rights on a school campus.”

The ACLU submitted an amicus brief in the case, recognizing the student’s fundamental First Amendment right to free speech, but emphasized that other students have the right to freedom from discrimination on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation.

While I staunchly believe that students have every right to express their beliefs, I’m saddened that such negative speech takes place in schools. When will students learn to be tolerant of differences among us?

Yesterday, Mike Huckabee admitted that he wants to change the U.S. Constitution to make it comply with his biblical god beliefs. For years now, politicians whose motives were clearly theocratic, have hidden behind supposedly secular rationales for their attempts to change the U.S. Constitution. Just look at the “secular” arguments for traditional (i.e. Biblical) marriage to be imposed on all civil marriages:

· Studies show children fare better with male/female parents (reliable studies actually show that the gender of parents makes no difference in their children’s well-being)

· Civil marriage rights are given solely for the purpose of biological procreation (in reality, couples who can’t or won’t procreate get civil marriage benefits anyway; and adopting parents are also permitted to marry, but only if they are a female and a male – unless they are in Massachusetts)

· Appropriate gender roles require that a marriage include a bread-winning male and a nurturing submissive female (don’t even get me started on this one!)

Now we know, thanks to Huckabee, that the real reason was, the Bible told them so … and even if you don’t share their belief, you must live under laws comporting with their belief.

Here at the Secular Coalition for America, we couldn’t help wondering what other laws would need to change to comport with Huckabee’s biblical god-beliefs:

· Would birth control be prohibited? This would require a change to the Constitution since the U.S. Supreme Court decided such laws were unconstitutional.

· What about spilling one’s seed? Would masturbation be prohibited … and if it were, who would be tasked with enforcing the law? (Given his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, Justice Antonin Scalia would welcome such a law.)

· Would blasphemy require a death sentence? And if so, what words would be considered blasphemous? Would only Huckabee’s specific god be included in the prohibition against taking the lord’s name in vain, or would Yaweh, Allah, Thor, and the Great Plate of Spaghetti in the Sky (all hail his noodly appendage!) be included?

Suffice to say, Governor Huckabee gives us much to ponder.

No good deed goes unpunished, as is illustrated once again with yesterday’s rebuke of San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders by East County Republicans for recently reversing his position on gay marriage. The mayor, a moderate Republican who had long been against gay marriage but for civil unions, last week held an emotional press conference in which he recanted his previous position and pledged to sign a bill passed by the San Diego City Council in support of same-sex marriage. While holding back tears, Sanders explained that,

I just could not bring myself to tell an entire group of people in our community they were less important, less worthy or less deserving of the rights and responsibilities of marriage than anyone else simply because of their sexual orientation.

Mayor Sanders should be lauded, not criticized, for his amazing show of integrity. The reversal is politically very risky—San Diego is a generally conservative city and Sanders faces re-election in which he’s challenged from the right. But, as Sanders acknowledged, his daughter and one of his staffers is gay, and, “In the end, I couldn’t look any of them in the face and tell them that their relationships, their very lives, were any less meaningful than the marriage I share with my wife, Rana.”

Politicians and pundits have argued against Sanders’ position by pointing out that the majority of San Diegans are against gay marriage and thus Sanders is ignoring the will of the people. But politicians don’t just have the responsibility to serve by following popular sentiment; they also have the responsibility to protect minority rights, no matter how unpopular such measures may be. If the right to marry is up to a majority vote then it’s not really a “right” at all. Can you imagine many heterosexual couples tolerating the government deciding they were undeserving of marriage and they’d just have to be content with a civil union instead? Certainly not. In fact, that marriage means so very much to people is exactly why gay marriage is such a big issue in the first place, and also points to the whole Jim Crow-esque feeling of civil unions.

Thus, no matter how politically unpopular supporting gay marriage might be, it’s the right thing to do. I only wish that there were more politicians like Jerry Sanders across the U.S. willing to take a political hit for what they know in their hearts to be just (Ahem, Dick Cheney?). Here’s hoping his courageous move will inspire others to follow suit.

The latest events in the gay marriage controversy occurred on September 18th when Maryland’s Court of Appeals upheld a 34-year-old state law defining marriage as the union of husband and wife, rejecting an attempt by 19 gay men and lesbians to win the right to marry. The judges in a 4-3 decision acknowledged that LGBT people have been targets of discrimination, but held that the prohibition on same-sex marriage promotes the state’s interest in heterosexual marriage as a means of having and protecting children. However the judges gave advocates another tactic to pursue. Judge Glenn T. Harrell Jr. writing for the majority said this:

Our opinion should by no means be read to imply that the General Assembly may not grant and recognize for homosexual persons civil unions or the right to marry a person of the same sex.

I didn’t know the state had an interest in promoting procreation. (Maybe we should have a Day of Conception like they do in Russia.) Nor do I see how gay marriage infringes on the state’s interest in protecting children. So how do Humanists view this issue?

Another story relating to the gay marriage issue appeared in the New York Times: “Group Loses Tax Break Over Gay Union Issue.” The Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, a Methodist organization in New Jersey is losing it’s tax exemption for a Boardwalk Pavilion it owns after the group rejected the requests of two lesbian couples to have their civil union ceremonies at the Pavilion. Lisa Jackson, the state commissioner on environmental protection, said this:

When people hear the words “open space,” we want them to think not just of open air and land, but that it is open to all people. And when the public subsidizes it with tax breaks, it goes with the expectation that it is not going to be parsed out, whether it be by activity or any particular beliefs.

Read the rest of this entry &raquo

A recent Henry Payne cartoon depicts a news editor shouting to his troops “I want that family-values hypocrite senator’s head on a platter…unless he’s a democrat in which case stay out of his private life!” I bet Bill Clinton and Gary Hart wish that were true.

Outing Republicans as closeted gays, philanderers, and drug users has become modern sport for hypocrisy hounds and general muckrakers. It’s almost replaced outing celebrities as closeted gays, philanderers, and drug users. Unfortunately, it very definitely has pushed aside some other real news and seriously altered the public discourse.

I mean, why are so few people asking, Why are undercover cops hanging out in restrooms instead of looking for terrorists? Did word come down that we are done looking for terrorists and I missed it? How about solving real crimes like burglaries and murders? And while everyone is busy being disgusted and disappointed with Senator Larry Craig (R-ID), why don’t we issue the same level of vitriol at the war in Iraq, or Alberto Gonzales’s failure to seemingly endorse rather than expose the criminal behavior emanating from the White House. Are we not disgusted by that?

Humanists would do well to focus their energy on trying to change the discourse of media spin and restore some reason to the general debate. Is the issue that Senator Craig is a possibly a homosexual or that when he was caught breaking the law, he tried to hide it from his constituency and even his family? Are police officers in public restrooms engaging in a form of entrapment or is it a necessary and legal means of protecting the community? These are the real questions of the Larry Craig scandal and the ones that should be getting the most air time.

As titillating as it is for progressives to watch Republicans implode, is there a way to find something there that brings people into reasonable and rational discussion about Humanist issues such as justice, quality of life, and bringing our abilities to the greater good of humanity? If there is, how do we influence the discussion? If not, how do we move the discussion in new directions?

The latest email from the Institute for Humanist Studies draws attention to an August 18th article in the Chicago Sun Times on the controversy surrounding The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act (HR 1592), also called the Matthew Shepard Act, which still awaits a Senate vote.

Bishop Harry Jackson, a pastor from Beltsville, MD, and one of more than 30 other black ministers around the country who signed a full-page ad published in the July 11 issue of USA Today protesting the Matthew Shepard Act, had this to say:

“I don’t think somebody else’s lifestyle preference should be made equal to my struggle as a black man. [But] my primary argument with this bill is religious liberty.”

So how do we balance this trade between First Amendment rights and the need to protect individuals and society from hate crimes? Which is more important to Humanists? Moreover, is it fair to equate sexual (or as I prefer “affectional”) preference with race, religion, gender, or physical ability? I think so but not because the struggle of a member of the LGBT community is the same as that of a person of color, a Jewish person, a woman, or a person with a disability. Rather, to unfairly discriminate against, or in this case to attack or injure, anyone because of their membership in a group that you fear or dislike is wrong.

Let me be clear, not all clergy are against The Matthew Shepard Act. In fact some have put up a website in support of it. It is a complex and controversial issue. The U.S. Department of Justice under Janet Reno created A Policymaker’s Guide to Hate Crimes to address this issue in 1997. It’s 77 pages long and the issues have only become more complicated since then.

The Matthew Shepard Act provides funds for expanding coverage of federal hate crimes legislation and for fighting hate crimes, and specifically says it cannot usurp constitutional law–that would include the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech. I personally think, given the precedents I’m aware of (R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, Minn. and Wisconsin v. Mitchell explained in the above document), if the the Matthew Shepard Act is passed what we will end up with will allow for added penalties for crimes committed that include a bias rather than outlawing speech. However I’m not a lawyer. If people know of other aspects of this law that would change the above precedents I would really like to know about it.

Isn’t it time to put an end to prejudice on the books?

When the dust settled and the Logo candidate forum on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender issues was over, the press (as well as the LGBT community) focused most of its attention on Governor Bill Richardson’s response to Melissa Ethridge’s question regarding whether he thinks sexual orientation is a choice or is biological. I don’t think the answer to that question should determine whether a minority group receives equal treatment. After all, nontheists (as well as members of theistic religions) can certainly choose their belief systems.

But for me, the most important part of the forum was hearing Senator John Edwards admit that he should not have claimed that it was his religious beliefs which led to his opposition to gay marriage, because he shouldn’t impose his religion on civil law. He stated that he believes strongly in separation of church and state. He then went on to explain that he would still oppose same-sex marriage and would instead work for strong civil unions with exactly the same rights as marriage. [Despite the obvious “separate but equal” logic in this position, he joins Obama, Clinton, and Richards in embracing civil unions instead as a matter of pure political expediency. Richards was more honest about this rationale than the others, though they hinted at it.]

Neither the Secular Coalition for America nor the American Humanist Association makes political endorsements and I am not personally endorsing any candidate or party. I am always thrilled to hear, especially during recent campaigns, any candidate reiterate the importance of church/state separation. It is especially heartening to hear this from Edwards, a candidate who made a disturbing comment questioning the right to “freedom from religion” earlier this year.

Maybe you’re a person of a particular religious faith that sees homosexuality as a “mortal sin.” So should you be forced to attend a parade that goes against your religious or philosophical beliefs?

Well, a group of firefighters in San Diego were recently forced to participate in a Gay Pride Parade, despite religious objections:

The firefighters claim parade attendees made obscene gestures, uttered inappropriate remarks and displayed lewd behavior that made them uncomfortable. They also demanded a work environment without discrimination and harassment.

“While I was sitting there waiting for the parade to start, I felt that I was forced against my will to be at the Gay Pride Parade and forced to see men in tight shorts dancing provocatively and other men kissing and hugging wearing sexually suggestive material on T-shirts with writing ‘Girth and Mirth,’ ‘Suit Up Before You Dive In,’ according to the complaint.

“I was forced into a situation that would compromise what I hold true and what I believe in, my reputation, my character, my integrity, my morals, and my religion,” the complaint says.

I’m siding with the firefighters on this one; no one should be forced to attend a rally or parade that they don’t agree with. Your work should provide the opportunity to opt out of such activity due to religious reasons. Hey, I’d complain if a company I worked for made me attend a Catholic Pride event. Why should this be any different?

Note: Special thanks to Rob for passing along this article!

Last week non-religious doctors were lauded for helping the poor. Now comes another case of religion impeding certain doctors from helping certain patients. The Humanist Network News ran a story yesterday about doctors asserting their “right to decline.” More doctors, based on their religious beliefs, are refusing to perform abortions, prescribe the morning-after pill, perform artificial insemination, or even prescribe Viagra.

States are stronger in supporting doctors’ rights not to perform certain services than you might expect. Forty-six states permit the right to refuse to provide abortions, 17 states permit refusal to perform sterilization (vasectomy or tubal ligation), and 13 states permit refusal to provide contraceptives. Do doctors give up the right to act according to their conscience when they decide to become doctors? Can patients simply go to other doctors or is the embarrassment they suffer when being refused service or being lectured by a doctor too traumatic for patients?

The reason this is in the news again is the case before the California State Supreme Court. Guadalupe Benitez was refused a medical procedure, artificial insemination, because she was a lesbian patient even though the two doctors charged in the case readily provide artificial insemination to heterosexual patients. Other Californians say they were denied artificial insemination or other procedures because of their doctors’ objection to single parenthood.

The doctors in this case want to be able to chose who they will perform services for instead of as in the above issues, choosing what procedures they will or won’t do.

Kenneth Pedroza, the doctors’ attorney, counters that an “all-or-nothing” rule will drive physicians out of certain specialties. But this begs the question, what good is the world’s best heart surgeon to you if he won’t operate on gays and you happen to be gay? Why shouldn’t a doctor be forced at least to choose a specialty based on his religious convictions if he is then going to invoke those convictions to say what procedures he will and will not perform?

See Elaine Friedman, More Doctors Refuse Service Based on Religion and
Freedom of Religion or Discrimination?

Today, homosexual couples in Oregon can register for domestic partnership, giving them the same legal rights as heterosexual couples in the state. While I believe that homosexuals are entitled to the same rights in every facet of life as everyone else (they are people, aren’t they?), this whole business of domestic partnership reeks of ’separate but equal’ treatment.

When we allow those ‘different’ from us similar access to services though under different circumstances, it is not equal treatment at all. Think back to when African-Americans had to drink from different water fountains throughout America. It was the same water, right? Yes, but access was restricted for “colored” folks to “white” water fountains. So then why can homosexuals not have access to the same marriage as heterosexuals?

The Jim Crow laws were officially overturned in 1954 with the Brown v. Board of Education decision. I would like to see a legal challenge mounted against these ’separate but equal’ domestic partnership laws on the legal precedent of the cases that desegregated America. As Humanists, we can’t sit idly by and be content with this segregationist legal logic being currently applied by the most liberal states in America.

For Sven Bocklandt of the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA the immediate work may be on the gay gene but the real work is bigger than that:

Quote:

“Who cares about gay men or lesbian women? Sexual selection defines evolution and creation—such a major ­player in determining society—and we have no idea how it works. This is much larger than the gay gene; it’s about all sexual ­reproduction.”

His work started when he met Dean Hamer. Hamer had just published a study that claimed not only to have finally proved that male homosexuality was at least partially genetic but also to have pinpointed the stretch of chromosome where one of the genes involved resided. There he discovered a shared genetic marker, a patch of DNA called Xq28.

Hamer’s study is still controversial in part because for a long period NIH grant proposals that included words like “gay,” “condom,” or even “sexuality” were turned down, making it difficult to further explore and test in this area.

Whether or not a gay gene, a set of gay genes, or some other biological mechanism is ever found, one thing is clear: The environment a child grows up in has nothing to do with what makes most gay men gay. Two of the most convincing studies have proved conclusively that sexual orientation in men has a genetic cause.

Other tests are ongoing and maybe we might see some answers in the next few years. This may cause ethical concerns, and activists are on the alert for embryo testing and cures for homsexuality or abortions for homosexual babies. Still, if Geffen is right this could help us better understand how sexual reproduction and homosexuality fits into evolutionary biology.

See “The Real Story on Gay Genes: Homing in on the science of homosexuality—and sexuality itself” by Michael Abrams.