The Gay Fray

On Faith, Politics, and Doing the Right Thing

Faithless

We have a phrase: Giving over to bullies.

Andrew Brown reports for The Guardian:

African Christians will be killed if the Church of England accepts gay marriage, the archbishop of Canterbury has suggested. Speaking on an LBC phone in, Justin Welby said he had stood by a mass grave in Nigeria of 330 Christians who had been massacred by neighbours who had justified the atrocity by saying: "If we leave a Christian community here we will all be made to become homosexual and so we will kill all the Christians."

"I have stood by gravesides in Africa of a group of Christians who had been attacked because of something that had happened in America. We have to listen to that. We have to be aware of the fact," Welby said. If the Church of England celebrated gay marriages, he added, "the impact of that on Christians far from here, in South Sudan, Pakistan, Nigeria and other places would be absolutely catastrophic. Everything we say here goes round the world."

This reasoning has until now been kept private, although both Welby and his predecessor, Rowan Williams, anguished about it in private.​

While the Archbishop is perfectly willing to reject homophobia from the safety of England, it would seem that he has abandoned his faith in God.

The underlying argument is that if the Church of England does the right thing, satellite communities in Africa face possible retribution. We need not ask that Christians emulate the megalomaniac Apostolic Fathers who prayed for their own murders, but the thing is that God has Its own plan, and if doing the right thing means some people will be upset, that is part of the plan, too.

The Archbishop appears to have no faith in God's Will or Purpose, and all Africans—not just homosexuals—will suffer for that lack.

My proposition for the Archbishop:

Since some would inevitably use Christ's gift to harm, kill, and suppress people, perhaps He should have honored God by not doing the right thing, saving His own life, and leaving humanity to Sin.​

To walk in the footsteps of Christ is not supposed to be easy.
____________________

Notes:

Brown, Andrew. "African Christians will be killed if C of E accepts gay marriage, says Justin Welby". The Guardian. April 4, 2014. TheGuardian.com. April 5, 2014. http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...s-church-of-england-gay-marriage-justin-welby

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The Paperwork is Finished.

Today in Ohio
Henry ruling breathtaking juristic craftsmanship

So, yeah. That's why His Honor was taking his time.

No, really, today's ruling in Henry vs. Himes is astounding.

I am nearly speechless.

Okay, this is just the first page:

Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Declaratory Judgment and Permanent Injunction

On December 23, 2013, this Court ruled in no uncertain terms that:

“Article 15, Section 11, of the Ohio Constitution, and Ohio Revised Code Section 3101.01(C) [Ohio's “marriage recognition bans”], violate rights secured by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in that same-sex couples married in jurisdictions where same-sex marriage is lawful, who seek to have their out-of-state marriage recognized and accepted as legal in Ohio, are denied their fundamental right to marriage recognition without due process of law; and are denied their fundamental right to equal protection of the laws when Ohio does recognize comparable heterosexual marriages from other jurisdictions, even if obtained to circumvent Ohio law.”​

Obergefell v. Wymyslo, 962 F. Supp. 2d 968, 997 (S.D.Ohio 2013).

The Obergefell ruling was constrained by the limited relief requested by the Plaintiffs in that case, but the analysis was nevertheless universal and unmitigated, and it directly compels the Court's conclusion today. The record before the Court, which includes the judicially-noticed record in Obergefell, is staggeringly devoid of any legitimate justification for the State's ongoing arbitrary discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and, therefore, Ohio's marriage recognition bans are facially unconstitutional and unenforceable under any circumstances.[sup]1[/sup]
____________________

[sup]1[/sup] The Court's Order today does NOT require Ohio to authorize the performance of same-sex marriage in Ohio. Today's ruling merely requires Ohio to recognize valid same-sex marriages lawfully performed in states which do authorize such marriages.​

For traditionalist advocates, that's about as kind as it gets. The rest is a delicately-crafted thrashing, a lecture on just how over the issue actually is.

But there is genuine satisfaction: Judge Timothy S. Black, United States District Court Southern District of Ohio, settled Full Faith and Credit today, the Fourteenth of April, 2014 CE. What started in Utah in December, 2013, in Kitchen v. Herbert, has come full circle.

The paperwork is done.

Thank you, America, and congratulations.

And congratulations, Ohio. This is a win for the nation.
____________________

Notes:

Black, Timothy S. "Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Declaratory Judgment and Permanent Injunction". Henry, et al. v. Himes, et al.. United States District Court Southern District of Ohio (W.D.). April 14, 2014. Dispatch.com. April 14, 2014. http://www.dispatch.com/content/dow...judge_ruling_on_same-sex_marriage_in_Ohio.pdf

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That's great, it really is, as a step along the way. Still, Ohio doesn't authorise same-sex marriage, so that will require another step.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Agreed. Fortunately couples can now fly to California, get married, and return - and have their marriage be recognized.

 

Yeah, that's really good.

 

Bureaucratic Details

Well, these things take time. The show has been over since December; the house lights just went up. Next up is simply a matter of sorting through the bureaucratic details.

 

¿Gethsemane?

Mayhaps, but one of the hardest things in faith is to simply trust God's reasons for doing things.

To the other, Archbishop Justin's faithlessness is of a slightly different variety than we usually see in the headlines. To wit, while there are differences of magnitude and concentration—i.e., the difference between using a ballot box or a bomb—we frequently see such faithlessness in an attempt to seize or achieve state power for the religion.

The Archbishop, though? And his predecessor?

It's just not something you want happening on your watch.

And, yes, the thought of murderous retribution is ugly.

But people are already getting hurt, and here's the thing:

• If you start, what progress can you claim at "a hundred days", or "a year", or "after ten years"?

• To the other, if you don't start, what progress can you claim, ever?​

The Archbishop buckled before aesthetics; he owes God a little bit of faith, that while there will be murderous retribution for the changing church policy, God has His reasons, and will appropriately accommodate the sacrificial martyrs in some of the many rooms of that greatest House.

This is one of the times faith is supposed to bring comfort. But that comfort is only available to people who actually have that faith.

Remember, even Christ was faithless at the end.

 

I always liked Henry. Nice, well-adjusted person. Don't like the wife? Off with her head. Church getting in the way? Start a new one. Way to go.

He also founded the Royal Navy which turned out to be a Good Thing. Now if only he'd had a son we might have avoided the Scots, Dutch and German monarchs....

 

Your best monarch was Elizabeth I by far!

 

Well, she took care of the Spanish, for sure, but there was no heir: if only she'd dropped a son I might agree with you. Look what we ended up with!

 

The Conundrum

The Conundrum
We're always happy when one "evolves", as such, but why wait?

It's a conundrum.

Julie Pace of Associated Press sketches the story:

The lawyer who argued before the Supreme Court in favor of upholding California's ban on gay marriage learned while he was handling the case that one of his children is gay and now is helping her plan her wedding with another woman.

Attorney Charles Cooper says his view of same-sex marriage is evolving after having argued in court that gay unions could undermine marriages between a man and a woman.

The revelation is an unexpected footnote in the years-long debate over Proposition 8, the California measure struck down by the Supreme Court last year. It is also offers a glimpse, through the eyes of one family, of the country's rapidly shifting opinions of gay marriage, with most public polls now showing majorities in favor of allowing the unions.

Cooper learned that his stepdaughter Ashley was gay as the Proposition 8 case wound its way through appellate court, according to a forthcoming book about the lengthy legal battle. And with the Supreme Court ruling now behind him, Cooper cast his personal opinion on gay marriage as an evolving process.

"My views evolve on issues of this kind the same way as other people's do, and how I view this down the road may not be the way I view it now, or how I viewed it ten years ago," Cooper said in journalist Jo Becker's book "Forcing the Spring: Inside the Fight for Marriage Equality."​

And this is the thing. There are some on my side of the aisle who will say, "Gosh, thanks, but it's still all about you, isn't it?" And, to the one, it's a fair question. To the other, it's one that needs to be addressed differently.

Dick Cheney? Rob Portman?

Right. This was the whole point of National Coming Out Day. The growing visibility of NCOD over the last quarter-century, largely driven by the increased volume of conservatives looking for a social wedge issue, has quite literally driven home the proximity of The Gay in our communities.

But after so many years of people coming 'round when they realize they must otherwise aim their vitriol at people they purport to love, one really would hope the point would start to register that we need not wait until its "one of ours" before undertaking that "evolution".

To the other, neither does one wish to interrupt Mr. Cooper's evolutionary process.

It's a conundrum.
____________________

Notes:

Pace, Julie. "Prop 8 Lawyer's Views On Gay Marriage Evolving". Associated Press. April 17, 2014. HuffingtonPost.com. April 18, 2014. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/17/charles-cooper-prop-8_n_5167857.html

 

I know Sci frowns on reproducing large amounts of someone else's articles, but hey - let's go whole hog here... [An oldie but goodie...]

The Republican Hypocrites Hall of Fame
A Field Guide to Conservative Closet Cases—Plus, Who's Next?!
by DAVID SCHMADER

Considering the seemingly inexhaustible stream of anti-gay politicians subsequently revealed to be secretly gay, having an anti-gay voting record is now as much of a "gay tell" as having a roomful of Judy Garland memorabilia. For better or worse, conservative closet cases are a permanent fixture of the gay community, but do you know your cross-dressing congressmen from your washroom-haunting senators? Here's a guide to get you up to speed.

Larry Craig
CV: Former Republican senator from Idaho. Supported the Federal Marriage Amendment restricting marriage to one man and one woman. Supported Idaho's proposed ban on same-sex marriage.

Marital Status: Married to a woman with three children from a former marriage, granting Craig a wife and kids without his ever having to stick his thing in there.

Faggy Facts: In June 2007, Craig was arrested for lewd conduct after propositioning an undercover policeman in a bathroom at the Minneapolis–St. Paul International Airport by tapping his foot in a bathroom stall. After the arrest, he said he wasn't trying to proposition the undercover officer, he just had a "wide stance." Nevertheless, he pled guilty to disorderly conduct. A few weeks later, he changed his mind and tried to reverse his plea. The judge wasn't having it.

Suggested Manhunt Ad Text: "Man who is not and has never been a homosexual seeks same for anonymous cocksucking."

Bob Allen
CV: Former Republican state representative for Florida. Consistently voted against gay rights in the Florida legislature. Supported Florida's ban on same-sex adoption.

Marital Status: Married with children.

Faggy Facts: Resigned in 2007 after being arrested for offering an undercover policeman $20 for the pleasure of sucking his cock in a men's room; later said he simply handed the large, scary black man a 20-dollar bill to "avoid becoming a statistic."

Suggested Manhunt Ad Text: "Totally closeted homosexual and partially closeted racist seeks hot black cock, preferably served in a room that smells like pee."

George Rekers
CV: Psychologist and Baptist minister. Founding member of the virulently anti-gay Family Research Council; passionate supporter of NARTH, the quack organization hyping "conversion therapy" for gays; highly paid "expert witness" to the evils of same-sex couples being allowed to adopt.

Marital Status: Married with children.

Faggy Facts: Photographed in May 2010 returning from a European vacation with a young male prostitute, whom Rekers insisted he'd hired not for sex but to help him lift his luggage. The prostitute subsequently told the media how Rekers likes to be "rubbed down there," specifying light anal tickling.

Suggested Manhunt Ad Text: "Established older gentleman seeks undemanding comb-over fetishists for eternal love and light anal tickling."

Richard Curtis
CV: Former member of the Washington State House of Representatives. Voted against including LGBT folks in the state's discrimination statutes. Voted against domestic-partnership rights for same-sex couple.

Marital Status: Married with children.

Faggy Facts: Resigned in 2007 after the Spokane Spokesman-Review reported on his motel-room tryst with a gay male prostitute, whom Curtis met in an adult bookstore, which Curtis visited while wearing women's apparel.

Suggested Manhunt Ad Text: "Butch cross-dressing bear seeks hot twink to behold my shame."

Roy Ashburn
CV: Republican state senator from California. Voted against every gay-rights measure placed before him in the state senate.

Marital Status: Divorced with children.

Faggy Facts: Busted in March 2010 for DUI after driving away from a Sacramento gay bar with a male companion; seized the opportunity to renounce the closet and come out as gay. Continues to serve his constituents.

Suggested Manhunt Ad Text: "Freshly liberated Daddy seeks sexy fun and maybe more? Designated drivers a plus."

Ed Schrock
CV: Former Republican congressman from Virginia. Cosponsored the Federal Marriage Amendment. Opposed any and all antidiscrimination rights for GLBT people, including discrimination in employment. Opposed ending "don't ask, don't tell."

Marital Status: Married with child.

Faggy Facts: Aborted his 2004 campaign for a third congressional term after being caught on tape soliciting sex on a gay-sex phone line.

Suggested Manhunt Ad Text: "Closeted fiftysomething Luddite seeks discreet man-on-man action at your place."

WHO'S NEXT?

Lindsey Graham
CV: Republican senator from South Carolina and former air force colonel. Voted for both the Defense of Marriage Act and the Federal Marriage Amendment.

Marital Status: Unmarried.

Faggy Facts: Graham weathers constant proclamations of his hidden-in-plain-sight gayness from everyone from gay activists to far-right wingnuts, never admitting a thing. Plus, his name is Lindsey.

Suggested Manhunt Ad Text: "Discreet older fellow seeks special man with tender fist."

Patrick Mchenry
CV: Republican congressman from North Carolina. Aggressively supports a constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage. Sponsored a resolution honoring the life and service of Jesse Helms. Proposed legislation to put Ronald Reagan on the $50 bill.

Marital Status: Married to a woman.

Faggy Facts: Incessantly denies the lifelong homosexual activity routinely ascribed to him; bought a house with a male companion; threw a fit when a guard in Iraq denied him access to a military gym.

Suggested Manhunt Ad Text: "Doughy submissive seeks hot buff military types for you-know-what

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

."

Charlie Crist
CV: Republican governor of Florida. Supported Florida's proposed ban on gay marriage. Endorsed Florida's ban on adoption by same-sex couples.

Marital Status: Married to second wife.

Faggy Facts: Many men are happy to talk about the gay sex they've had with Charlie Crist, sometimes on film, as seen in the 2009 film Outrage; for his 2011 Senate run, Crist plans to run as a formerly Republican independent (a baby step out of the closet?).

Suggested Manhunt Ad Text: "Fit silver fox with awesome tan and big weird teeth seeks limber twink for drilling. Discretion a must. (And, no, I'm not Charlie Crist!)"

Aaron Schock
CV: Freakishly young Republican congressman from Illinois; first member of Congress born in the 1980s. Voted against amending hate-crime laws to include GLBT folks.

Marital Status: Single, with no reports of any girlfriends ever.

Faggy Facts: Wore white pants with a teal belt and a pink-checked shirt to a White House picnic; later took to Twitter to say he burned the belt, inadvertently displaying a flamboyancy to rival Johnny Weir. The only person on this list that anyone would purposely watch do porn.

Suggested Manhunt Ad Text: "Distressingly hot GOP gay seeks same. No fatties." ​

Great fun, eh?

 

Everything's Fabulous With David Schmader

Well, it is Schmader.

I actually think the staff at The Stranger is waiting to stick the proverbial fork in the Gay Fray. I'm quite confident in my assessment that Kitchen was the end of it, but as our traditionalist neighbors haven't figured out it's over, I don't know, I guess it makes sense that Savage and friends are playing along.

Meanwhile, one of my favorites from The Stranger and the Gay Fray:

Sitting up in bed, Terry leaning into me, I start to feel something unexpected for Curtis: pity. No, not pity. Sympathy. I hopped on an airplane this morning intending to run around an easily mocked city so that I could mock the latest GOP elected official exposed as a hypocrite. And why not? It has been tremendously gratifying to be a gay person in this country over the last 18 months. After the horrors of 2004—when gays and lesbians were attacked on daily basis by Karl Rove and George W. Bush—it has been thrilling to watch a party united, it seems, only by its loathing of gay people, weather the storms of Ted Haggard, Bob Allen, Larry Craig, and now, Richard Curtis.

Some people credit the Republicans losing control of Congress in 2006 to the Haggard scandal. I don't know if that's true. But GOP sex scandals have unnerved and alienated the Republican base and shredded the party's claim to moral superiority. GOP no longer stands for Grand Old Party. It's Gross Old Perverts now.

But I find myself feeling bad for Curtis. What a sad and solitary figure. He couldn't risk staying at the same hotel with the rest of the GOP colleagues, lest they spot him coming and going with young thugs. So he slunk off to the soulless Davenport Tower alone, before slipping into the Hollywood Erotic Boutique alone, before heading to the Northern Quest Casino alone, before heading back to his hotel to have sex with a man whose name he didn't know—a man who thought he was a freak.

I don't think Curtis is a freak—not on account of his kinks, anyway. Curtis is a very kinky girl—but guess what? I am, too. (After writing Savage Love for 16 years, I'm convinced that abnormal is the norm, and that we're all kinksters and freaks to greater or lesser extents.) I would like to go into greater detail about my own kinks to balance the detail I'm giving on Curtis's, but 12 years ago when I met my boyfriend I promised to keep his sex life private. But I can say this: Thinking back on all the sexual adventures I've had with my boyfriend over the years, I realize how close they've brought us, how central they are to our bond, to our sense of well-being and satisfaction, to our love for each other.

Then I think of Richard Curtis hiding his kinks, lying to his wife, sneaking around Spokane, realizing his fantasies with the likes of Cody Castagna, and I'm even more grateful for what Terry and I have, for what we're able to do and be for each other.

How sad for Richard Curtis that he's never had someone with whom he could truly share himself—lingerie, stethoscopes, rope, items that can not be identified, his full name, and all.

(Savage)​

I mean, to the one, it was a tawdry scandal. To the other, look at how much went into that tawdry scandal.

This is what the closet does to people.
____________________

Notes:

Savage, Dan. "Straight Acting". The Stranger. November 5, 2007. TheStranger.com. April 18, 2014. http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=433857

 

Totally, completely, absolutely on board with this. The things I have seen and done... Wow.

What some would call depravity seems the norm to me and I'm as far to the hetero side of the scale that you can get. Anyone that says chickies are sweet, innocent and pure hasn't met the hundreds of girls that I've had the pleasure of carnally encountering. "Kink" is an understatement. I always wished that I leaned more to the homosexual end of the scale - Supreme entity knows, I would have had twice the fun...

 

Instead of calling it abnormal,kinky or freaky, why don't we just call it creative?

 

How about just "Fun"? Feels good, hurts no one (aside from the fundamentalists that want their snouts in my bedroom). Why not?

 

Something About "Ouch"

Well, my basic rules are no children, animals, or dead things, but in addition it would take quite a bit to convince me to take part in the sort of sadomasochism that leaves scars. Nonetheless, if consenting adults want to whip each other to bleeding ... yeah, that's up to them. So, yeah, I would have to add that it hurts no one aside from a consenting partner who wants to be hurt; and even that has limits.

Additionally, well, we should probably go with creative, because not all creativity turns out to be fun. Er ... right. You probably don't want to click that link. Six years later, that one still gives me shivers.

 

Inertia

Inertia
Marriage equality almost isn't news, these days

It really is becoming so commonplace that one almost wonders at the news value. Of course, one can reasonably point to the scoreboard and remind that, despite the game being over, some just aren't ready to clear the field. The wave of judicial decisions overturning marriage discrimination laws has been steady and consistent. Starting with Utah in December, 2013, Oklahoma followed in January; February saw federal courts strike heterosupremacism in Kentucky, Virginia, and Texas; March brought Illinois and Michigan into the fold; April witnessed Ohio's reservation of marriage to mixed-sex couples rejected; the last week, however, has been a virtual cascade, with discriminatory marriage laws losing in Arkansas, Idaho, Oregon, and Pennsylvania.

Meanwhile, as various decisions are currently stayed pending appeal, it is also worth noting that Tennessee, in Tanco v. Haslam, saw a preliminary injunction forcing the state to recognize out-of-state marriages.

Emma Margolin of msnbc tries to keep track of the scoreboard:

In the last 11 months, marriage equality has come to five states, bringing the total number to 18, plus the District of Columbia. Federal judges have also struck down same-sex marriage bans in Idaho, Oklahoma, Virginia, Michigan, Texas, and Utah, though their decisions are on hold for the appeals process.

Just three states – North Dakota, South Dakota, and Montana – currently have no marriage equality lawsuits pending in either state or federal court. Civil rights groups, however, say it won’t be long before there isn’t a ban left untouched by a legal battle.

In the aftermath of last year’s Supreme Court decision, which left the authority to determine marriage laws with the states, some gay rights advocates feared that the high court’s action could galvanize the opposition and slow efforts for national acceptance. In fact, the opposite has happened, with marriage bans collapsing like dominoes across the nation – from the Deep South, to the Midwest, and stretching across the coasts – thanks in large part to the Supreme Court’s legal reasoning.

Since June, no ban on same-sex nuptials has survived in state or federal court.​

In Pennslyvania, the Honorable John E. Jones III summarized his order thus: "We are a better people than what these laws represent, and it is time to discard them into the ash heap of history."
____________________

Notes:

Margolin, Emma. "Judge strikes down Pennsylvania gay marriage ban". msnbc. May 20, 2014. msnbc.com. May 20, 2014. http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/pennsylvania-strikes-down-gay-marriage-ban

Jones III, John E. "Memorandum Opinion". Whitewood v. Wolf. United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. May 20, 2014. Scribd.com. May 20, 2014. http://www.scribd.com/doc/225260457/1-13-cv-01861-Pennsylvania-Decision