Tennessee Legislature Allows Two Anti-Gay Education Bills To Die

Tennessee has been a toxic place on issues of sex and gender recently, with the University of Tennessee recently caving to Fox News’ complaints and cutting funding for students’ “Sex Week” programming. This week there was some good news, however, because two anti-gay pieces of legislation died in committee.

The first was the odious “Don’t Say Gay” bill, which was originally designed to censor school officials and teachers from discussing homosexuality in grades K-8. Versions introduced this year included requirements that school counselors out LGBT students to their families or prevent counselors from providing mental health services whatsoever. The bill did not receive a second when it was moved in the House Education Subcommittee and subsequently died. State Rep. John Ragan (R), who sponsored the bill because “it was about school safety,” has promised to reintroduce it next year.

Another bill targeted institutions of higher education, threatening to cut support for campus police if universities required student groups to abide by “all-comers” nondiscrimination policies. The intention behind such measures, like one recently passed in Virginia, is to allow Christian groups to discriminate against gay students. Tennessee Attorney General Robert Cooper (D) called the bill unconstitutional and Gov. Bill Haslam (R) said he saw no reason to have the bill considered. Last year, he vetoed a similar bill targeting university nondiscrimination statements. The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Mark Pody (R), took the bill “off notice,” killing it, but his apparent vendetta against Vanderbilt University’s “all-comers” policy suggests this isn’t the last of his efforts.

The death of these two bills is a nice reprieve for Tennessee’s LGBT community, but it seems neither of these fights is permanently over.

View the original article here

Carly Rae Jepsen Is Praying The Boy Scouts Abandon Their Anti-Gay Policy

Recently, “Call Me Maybe” singer Carly Rae Jepsen joined rock band Train in dropping out of the Boy Scouts of America’s National Scout Jamboree, citing the organization’s policy banning gay Scouts and Scout leaders. In an interview with MTV, she explained that the decision was not hard to make, adding that she’s praying it helps convince the BSA to make the right decision:

JEPSEN: I mean, it was sort of one of those things that I kind of have my opinions about, and everyone’s entitled to their own, but it wasn’t necessarily something that I felt comfortable backing once I learned more about it. And that being said here’s hoping they make the right decision and I’m praying that moves like this will help.

Watch it:

Jepsen’s comments come as BSA begins surveying its members about the possibility of allowing gay scouts. The questions include scenarios about gay Scouts tenting with straight Scouts, lesbians serving as den leaders when a troop’s church sponsor opposes homosexuality, and prohibiting would-be Eagle Scouts from receiving their badge just because they’re gay. Both those who want the Scouts to continue discriminating and those who don’t agree on one thing: As the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” study proved, no amount of opinion will change what the right course of action is.

(HT: Pink News.)

View the original article here

Top Anti-Gay Attorney Insults Chief Justice Roberts And Justice Thomas’ Decisions To Adopt Children

The "second-best option" for the Roberts children

When President Bush announced his decision to nominate future-Chief Justice John Roberts to the Supreme Court, his wife Jane stood nearby holding the hands of two beautiful children — Jack and Josie Roberts. Both of these children were born in Ireland, and later adopted by the future Chief Justice and his wife. Justice Clarence Thomas also has an adopted son, his grandnephew Mark Martin, Jr., who Thomas adopted when Martin was six.

So it is a bit hard to understand why a top anti-gay advocate decided to insult adoptive parents in general — and Chief Justice Roberts in particular — as the justices are preparing to hear two cases that will decide whether same-sex couples will enjoy the same right to marry as all other Americans. According to John Eastman, a law professor and chair of the anti-gay National Organization for Marriage, Roberts and Thomas’ adopted children are only growing up in the “second-best” environment:

The justices also are not immune to considering how they might be affected by the course one side or the other is advocating in a dispute before them. . . . [Johns Hopkins Sociology Professor Andrew] Cherlin, who does not follow the high court especially closely, wondered whether the gay marriage cases might take on a similar dynamic. “If justices consider their own family lives in these cases, it may change the way they rule,” he said.

Gay marriage opponents said they are not worried about the votes of Roberts and Thomas.

“You’re looking at what is the best course society wide to get you the optimal result in the widest variety of cases. That often is not open to people in individual cases. Certainly adoption in families headed, like Chief Roberts’ family is, by a heterosexual couple, is by far the second-best option,” said John Eastman, chairman of the National Organization for Marriage. Eastman also teaches law at Chapman University law school in Orange, Calif.

There is nothing “second-best” about the family environment Roberts and Thomas have provided to their adopted children. While many critical things can be said about Justice Thomas — and we have said a lot of them — his decision to adopt his grandnephew is admirable and speaks well of Thomas’ capacity for personal sacrifice:

Neither Thomas nor his wife nor several Savannah sources contacted for this story would discuss the circumstances behind Thomas’ taking custody of Mark. But others say that the situation, while not dire, called for a responsible person to step in quickly. Mark Sr., Thomas’ nephew, had been in prison on cocaine trafficking charges. And Mark Jr.’s mother, Susan, was struggling with her own problems, raising four children, including young Mark Jr., on her own. Thomas believed that the boy would face lifelong trouble if he were not removed from his environment soon, and the parents agreed. “He was paying back his own grandfather by taking care of Mark,” says one friend.

The Roberts’ adoption story is rooted less in family tragedy and more in their devout faith. John and Jane Roberts married late in life — Jane was 42. The Chief Justice and his wife chose not to seek medical treatment that would have enhanced Jane’s ability to conceive because “Catholic doctrine prohibits most forms of fertility treatment,” and instead chose to adopt two children. As with Thomas, there are many critical things that can be said about the Chief Justice, but he is by all accounts very kind in his personal interactions and he and his wife provided their adopted son and daughter with a household where they could thrive. Roberts deserves praise for adopting children, and he certainly does not deserve the aspersions cast upon adopted parents by Professor Eastman.

Eastman is also not the first attorney involved in the marriage cases to suggest adoptive parents are somehow a second-best opinion for children. In his brief on behalf of the House Republicans defending the Defense of Marriage Act, conservative superlawyer Paul Clement claimed that “[b]iological parents have a genetic stake in the success of their children that no one else does.”

View the original article here

120,000 Petition Signatories Urge National Geographic Channel To Denounce Boy Scouts Anti-Gay Policy

Today, GLAAD delivered 120,000 Change.org petition signatures to the National Geographic Channel urging the television network to denounce the anti-gay policy of the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) before tonight’s premiere of Are You Tougher Than A Boy Scout? Gay Eagle Scout Will Oliver helped deliver the petitions and pointed out that National Geographic has a nondiscrimination policy that protects sexual orientation, so it’s hypocritical to not call out the Boy Scouts:

OLIVER: By failing to acknowledge the Boy Scouts’ discriminatory policy, National Geographic Channel is turning a cold shoulder to gay and allied viewers. Silence implies apathy towards all the Scouts and leaders who have been forced to hide who they are. Over 120,000 people have spoken — not to demand that the show be canceled — but to ask that National Geographic Channel reaffirm its core belief in non-discrimination.

According to the BSA’s internal documents, the partnership with National Geographic is part of a plan to make Scouting look “cool” with youth. Oliver believes that Scouting is cool, but is urging the the network to air the following disclaimer before the show airs:

The current membership policy of the Boy Scouts of America goes against the policy of National Geographic Channel and the National Geographic Society. National Geographic Channel is an equal opportunity employer and does not support discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Oliver and GLAAD are meeting with NatGeo executives today, and hopefully a disclaimer like this airs with the show:

View the original article here

Canadian Supreme Court Upholds Hate Speech Laws Against Anti-Gay Activist

William Whatcott

The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that the nation’s laws against hate speech do, in fact, restrict anti-gay rhetoric, regardless of whether it reflects religious beliefs or not. The case dealt with William Whatcott of Saskatchewan, who regularly protests in public spaces with signs that say things like “Keep Homosexuality out of Saskatoon’s Public Schools!” and “Sodomites in our Public Schools.” According to the Court’s unanimous decision, Whatcott’s religious beliefs do not entitle him to spread messages that are harmful and marginalizing to a whole group of people:

Framing speech as arising in a moral context or within a public policy debate does not cleanse it of its harmful effect.  Finding that certain expression falls within political speech does not close off the enquiry into whether the expression constitutes hate speech.  Hate speech may often arise as a part of a larger public discourse but it is speech of a restrictive and exclusionary kind.  Political expression contributes to our democracy by encouraging the exchange of opposing views.  Hate speech is antithetical to this objective in that it shuts down dialogue by making it difficult or impossible for members of the vulnerable group to respond, thereby stifling discourse.  Speech that has the effect of shutting down public debate cannot dodge prohibition on the basis that it promotes debate.  Section 14 of the Code provides an appropriate means by which to protect almost the entirety of political discourse as a vital part of freedom of expression.  It extricates only an extreme and marginal type of expression which contributes little to the values underlying freedom of expression and whose restriction is therefore easier to justify.

A prohibition is not overbroad for capturing expression targeting sexual behaviour.  Courts have recognized a strong connection between sexual orientation and sexual conduct and where the conduct targeted by speech is a crucial aspect of the identity of a vulnerable group, attacks on this conduct stand as proxy for attacks on the group itself.  If expression targeting certain sexual behaviour is framed in such a way as to expose persons of an identifiable sexual orientation to what is objectively viewed as detestation and vilification, it cannot be said that such speech only targets the behaviour.  It quite clearly targets the vulnerable group.

Canada’s laws differ from the U.S.’s in terms of what limitations can be placed on free speech, so a similar law would not likely be upheld back in the States. But the Court’s ruling is notable for the sensible way it addresses sexual orientation, ensuring that attacking the behavior unique to a group of people is the same as attacking the people themselves.

Conservatives regularly try to discount the very existence of gay people by reducing their identities to merely their sexual behavior. This distinction is artificial and specifically designed to negate the full life experiences of LGBT people and their families.

View the original article here

European Court Rules Religion Does Not Justify Anti-Gay Discrimination

Lilian Ladele, who refused to officiate same-sex civil partnership ceremonies.

The European Court of Human Rights has ruled against two British Christians who claimed their religious beliefs entitled them to discriminate against gays and lesbians. In one case, Lilian Ladele was a city registrar who refused to officiate civil partnership ceremonies between same-sex couples as part of her duties. In another, Gary McFarlane was a counselor for a confidential sex therapy and relationship counseling organization who refused to provide support for same-sex couples. In both cases they were removed from their positions, so both brought complaints that their religious beliefs had been violated.

In its ruling against them, the Court argued that their beliefs did not justify the discrimination against same-sex couples:

The Court considered that the most important factor to be taken into account was that the policies of the applicants’ employers – to promote equal opportunities and to require employees to act in a way which did not discriminate against others – had the legitimate aim of securing the rights of others, such as same-sex couples, which were also protected under the [European Convention on Human Rights]. In particular, in previous cases the Court had held that differences in treatment based on sexual orientation required particularly serious justification and that same-sex couples were in a relevantly similar situation to different-sex couples as regards their need for legal recognition and protection of their relationship.

The authorities therefore had wide discretion when it came to striking a balance between the employer’s right to secure the rights of others and the applicants’ right to manifest their religion. The Court decided that the right balance had been struck.

This judgment represents a significant blow to conservatives’ argument that their religious beliefs entitle them to discriminate against the LGBT community. Indeed, they are entitled to hold their anti-LGBT beliefs, but not to infringe on others’ rights.

View the original article here

Hate Group Spokesman Called Out For Anti-Gay Positions On Live TV

For reasons that remain unclear, cable news networks continue to provide airtime to the Family Research Council, neglecting to recognize that it has been designated as a hate group for its anti-gay views, let alone the fact that it hardly represents mainstream Christianity. Today was no exception, as FRC’s Peter Sprigg was invited on CNN to join the chorus of conservative objections that Pastor Louie Giglio will no longer be participating in President Obama’s Inauguration because of his anti-gay views. Sprigg attempted to claim that Christians are the victims, but fortunately, Truth Wins Out’s Wayne Besen was there to set the record straight:

SPRIGG: The world we live in, unfortunately, is increasingly marked by the enforcement of intolerance in the name of tolerance, exclusion in the name of inclusion, and forced uniformity in the name of diversity. It’s contradictory, it’s downright Orwellian, and yet people actually make these statements, unbelievably, with a straight face. [...]

BESEN: Peter, I find it ironic that you’re embracing diversity. I mean you called for the imprisonment of gay people and said we should export homosexuals out of the United States and suddenly you’re for tolerance? I’m a little confused here.

SPRIGG: [silent laughter] Well this is about Pastor Giglio and President Obama, it’s not about me.

Watch it:

Jeremy Hooper is right to celebrate this as a victory for GLAAD’s Commentator Accountability Project, which seeks to expose the anti-LGBT records of conservative spokespeople whose positions are typically not given proper context by the news outlets that interview them. Sprigg’s presence on CNN is the quintessential example of this whitewashing, because as Besen pointed out, his positions are seemingly even more anti-LGBT than Pastor Giglio’s. Sprigg has proven time and time again that he does not even have the most basic understanding of sexuality but does have a significant antipathy toward the very existence of gays and lesbians. He has no authority to speak about LGBT issues, and CNN should learn from this interview not to provide a pedestal for his bigoted point of view again.

View the original article here

California Boy Scouts Chapter Challenges National Organization’s Anti-Gay Ban

Though 18-year-old Ryan Andresen had completed all of the necessary requirements for his Eagle Scout badge, but his Scoutmaster refused to sign his application for the award because he was gay in violation of the Boy Scouts of America’s (BSA) policies. Andresen and his family took his story to the media, garnering over 460,000 signatures on a Change.org petition and an honorary recognition from the California State Assembly. The Andresens circumvented the hierarchy, and now the Mt. Diablo-Silverado Council is set to challenge the national policy on Ryan’s behalf.

Bonnie Hazarabedian chaired the review board that signed off on Ryan’s application and forwarded its recommendation to national headquarters last week. She believes he deserves the award because the anti-gay policy is “something out of the Dark Ages”:

HAZARABEDIAN: I don’t think sexual orientation should enter into why a Scout is a Scout, or whether they are Eagle material. We felt without a doubt he deserved that rank.

Though the BSA has not replied to questions about his application, spokesman Deron Smith said in October that Andresen’s membership with the organization had been revoked. The Andresens are celebrating the recognition of his accomplishments, but it’s still up to the BSA to determine Ryan’s fate.

View the original article here