Please note-

*Please note- Your browser preferences must be set to 'allow 3rd party cookies' in order to comment in our diaries.

Tuesday, March 15, 2011

NYC Activists Staging Major Fundraiser For Torie Osborn.

By David Mixner -

The names read like a who's who of the LGBT movement with Kate Clinton, Urvashi Vaid, Larry Kramer, Sean Strub, Eve Ensler, Sally Fisher and so many others coming together to raise funds for the legendary Torie Osborn. She is running for a seat in the California Assembly in 2012. The event will be held at the home of John Berendt that over looks Times Square. Put March 23rd from 6PM to 8PM on your calendar and support this incredible woman.You can understand why so many of us are excited about attending the event by watching the video from Torie.  She is an amazingly principled and extraordinary person. You can make your reservation or contribution by clicking here. See you there!



for more from David visit Live from Hell's Kitchen.

=end=

Monday, March 14, 2011

Norris launches presidential bid

By MARY MINIHAN -

Independent senator David Norris has formally launched his bid to become president of Ireland.
Mr Norris said he would be a "deeply serious" president if elected to the position.
"But that doesn't mean there's going to be no fun," he added.

He said the challenge for the next president would be to restore self-confidence to the people of Ireland. "They are hurting".

Mr Norris also said the next president would have to reach out to communities "devastated by suicide". He added: "No longer can we ignore those who struggle with mental health issues".

The strength to overcome the current crisis would not come from government but from the people, he added. "It gives me great heart to see the determination of our people still burning bright."

Asked if Ireland was ready for an openly gay president, Mr Norris said: "I don't see myself as a gay president, I see myself as a president who happens to be gay."

He added: "I think the Irish people are a little bit bored with my sexuality". He said the Irish people knew him and his values and knew he had lived a decent and good life.

The launch took place in the Science Gallery in Dublin. Mr Norris said if elected he would put a portion of his salary aside for a fund that would make the presidency more accessible. "This is the people's money," he said.

Asked about how his campaign would be funded, Mr Norris said he was the main - "if not the only" - contributor at present, although the campaign was starting to receive donations. He said he knew people were "stressed financially" and would welcome support in whatever form.

He said he was exploring all avenues to secure a nomination and had written to the cathaoirleach of local authorities requesting an opportunity to address their meetings.

He had also engaged with political parties and Independent Oireachtas members. He is committed to running as an Independent.
Candidates need the support of four local authorities or 20 Oireachtas members to stand. The Oireachtas committee on the Constitution report of 1998 on the presidency recommended a candidate could be nominated by 10,000 citizens.
This year is likely to see the first contested election for 14 years.
A presidential election was set for October 2004 but when the nominations closed, the only candidate was the incumbent, President Mary McAleese, who was returned unopposed.

=end=

Congressional Democrats to Introduce DOMA Repeal Bill

Jerrold Nadler

Jerrold Nadler
By Killian Melloy -

A number of Congressional Democrats have announced that they will re-introduce the Respect for Marriage Act, a bill that would repeal the anti-gay "Defense of Marriage" Act, on March 16.

"The 15-year-old DOMA singles out legally married gay and lesbian couples for discriminatory treatment under federal law, selectively denying them critical federal responsibilities and rights, including programs like Social Security that are intended to ensure the stability and security of American families," a March 14 press release from the offices of Reps. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Barney Frank (D-MA), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Jared Polis (D-CO), David Cicilline (D-RI), and John Conyers (D-MI) said.

DOMA was signed in 1996 by then-president Bill Clinton. It has since been found unconstitutional in federal court. The Obama Administration has also determined that the law is unconstitutional, and has announced that it will no longer defend the law in court.

That announcement has precipitated criticism from anti-gay organizations and politicians. GOP Congressional leader John Boehner has said that the House of Representatives will defend the anti-gay law.

"A five-member House panel on [March 9] voted 3-2 along party lines to direct the House counsel to come up with a legal defense for the 1996 law," reported the Associated Press on March 10. "Boehner said the law’s constitutionality should be decided by a court, not by the president. Meanwhile, House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, who voted against the directive, says the defense will be lengthy and expensive."

Under the provisions of DOMA, states may ignore marriages granted in other jurisdictions. Section 3 of the law defines marriage as a legal union of one man and one woman.

The Obama Administration effectively declared that DOMA violates the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection clause. The Obama Administration also said that court cases involving gays and lesbians should be held to a standard of review consistent with the existence of GLBTs as a legitimate minority group. Such a standard of review requires compelling evidence to justify anti-gay laws and policies, which has not been the case previously.

GLBT equality advocates see DOMA as a bulwark against full legal and social equality for gays and their families, because the law reaches into so many areas of family life. Under DOMA, immigration reforms that would give gays the same rights to sponsor a life partner from another country could be blocked. Moreover, because DOMA is a federal law the denies recognition to same-sex married couples, even those states where family parity is legal can only offer couples state-level protections: Social Security benefits for same-sex spouses, federal pensions, and tax protections are beyond the reach of non-heterosexual partners under current law.

DOMA also imposes a situation that has allowed a patchwork, and highly variable, legal situation to prevail. Married couples that leave any of the five states where marriage equality is legal risk having their familial rights and protections watered down, or even being rendered legal strangers, simply by crossing state lines. Similar dangers regarding parental rights also exist for families traveling with children.

Anti-gay social conservatives say that gay and lesbian families should be denied legal recognition in order to "preserve" heterosexual unions, which, they argue, would somehow be harmed if marriage equality were granted to same-sex couples. Moreover, social conservatives warn that religious individuals would find their rights of free expression and worship abrogated if gay weddings became commonplace.

Constitutional Interpretation and Controversy

The decision not to defend DOMA in federal court has reignited a debate that pits social conservatives against fiscal conservatives, against a backdrop of political action against gays and lesbians even though last year’s GOP electoral sweep was powered by voter anxiety around economic issues.

"The Respect for Marriage Act would repeal DOMA, and comes in response to a call from President Obama for Congressional action on the issue," the March 14 release continued. "As the President has stated: ’I stand by my long-standing commitment to work with Congress to repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act. It’s discriminatory, it interferes with states’ rights, and it’s time we overturned it.’ "

"Last week, on the heels of the President’s decision not to defend DOMA in court, House Republican Leadership announced that it will defend DOMA in court, making passage of the Respect for Marriage Act more critical than ever," the release added.

The members of Congress who plan to re-introduce the measure will present a media conference on March 16 at The House Triangle, on the SE side of the U.S. Capitol, the release said. In addition to the six legislators who will re-introduce the bill, Edith Windsor--lead plaintiff in Windsor v. United States, a case being hear in the 2nd Circuit Federal Court--and Nancy Gill and Marcelle Letourneau--lead plaintiffs in another federal suit against DOMA, Gill et al. v. Office of Personnel Management et al., being heard in the 1st Circuit Federal Court--will also be in attendance, as will representatives from a number of GLBT equality organizations.

Windsor was the life partner of Thea Spyer for 44 years. The couple had married in Canada in 2007. When Spyer died three years ago after a decades-long bout with multiple sclerosis, Windsor--who had cared for Speyer during her illness--faced steep taxes on the house that the couple had shared, according to the ACLU website.

"Under federal tax law, a spouse who dies can leave her assets, including the family home, to the other spouse without incurring estate taxes," text at the ACLU site notes. "Because of... DOMA, the federal government refuses to treat married same-sex couples, like Edie and Thea, the same way as other married couples."

Gill et al. v. Office of Personnel Management et al. brought a ruling from federal judge Joseph Tauro that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional. The case is currently in the appeals process.

If passed into law, the bill would protect marriage--all marriages--by granting federal-level recognition to families, gay or straight, who had been married in any jurisdiction.

EDGE reported on Dec. 11, 2009, that some family equality advocates do not support the bill because it applies only to married couples, and only five states currently allow for marriage equality.

The proposed law would do nothing for families who are only recognized as domestic partners or as having a civil union, or--as is the case in the most anti-gay states--whose relationship is denied any legal recognition at all. It would, however, make the federal rights and protections of married couples portable, allowing them to retain federal recognition of their civil marriage even if they relocate to a state that forbids marriage equality.

"I don’t think we should begin the conversation about when it’s going to happen" the executive director of Freedom to Marry, Evan Wolfson, said at the time. "I think we should begin the conversation with how do we build support and make it happen."

Added Wolfson, "There are two ways to talk about our movement. One is to talk about what it’s really about, to actually make the case for inclusion and fairness and freedom, to talk about why marriage matters.

"The other is to spend all our time talking about the chess game or the political horse race, and we spend too much time on the latter and not enough time doing the former." Wolfson added that supporters needed to contact their representatives in the House and in the Senate and urge them to "sign on to the bill."

"Especially as a number of states have gay marriage, and the sky doesn’t fall in, and nobody comes in and busts up regular marriages--other than what’s busting up anyway--I think the issue will recede in the sense that people will lose their sense of the novelty," Nadler said at the time.

The March 14 press release called the Respect for Marriage Act a piece of "[k]ey civil rights legislation" that "already has 105 original co-sponsors in the House of Representatives." The release said that Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) would introduce a similar bill in the Senate.


Kilian Melloy reviews media, conducts interviews, and writes commentary for EDGEBoston, where he also serves as Assistant Arts Editor.

=end=

New Marriage Campaign Presses Obama

Hollywood celebrities, NFL stars, Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, and civil rights leaders are urging President Obama to support marriage equality in the new Say "I Do" campaign from Freedom To Marry.

Letter

The President
The White House
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

In February, you made a powerful statement about the law.

Invoking guarantees enshrined in the Constitution, you and the Attorney General determined that federal discrimination against gay and lesbian couples in marriage is unconstitutional. Thank you for taking a principled stance and an important step toward equal protection under the law for all Americans.

Today we ask you to take the next step and join the majority of Americans who support allowing loving and committed gay and lesbian couples to legally marry.

Mr. President, marriage matters. In law, in love, in life, marriage says “we are family” in a way that nothing else does. Marriage is the coming together of two lives, marked by a public promise of love and responsibility in front of friends and family. And marriage brings not only public respect and personal significance, but also a safety net of legal protections, rights, and responsibilities for which there is no substitute.

Like so many Americans, you have spoken of your personal journey toward support for the freedom to marry. You have talked about the gay and lesbian people in your life, their commitment to each other and care for their kids, and their families that aren’t so different from any other family.

We ask you now for your leadership on ending the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage, an exclusion that harms millions of Americans each day. Whether to end discrimination in marriage is a question America has faced before, and faces again today. With so many Americans talking it through in heartfelt conversations, it is a question that calls for clarity from the President.

You can offer hope to millions of young gay and lesbian Americans who are facing discrimination. You can tell them that their future is bright, that they, too, will be able to grow up and marry the person that they love, that the pursuit of happiness truly belongs to all of us. You can put government on the side of those seeking to care for their loved ones, instead of those standing in their way. You can affirm that for all of us, gay or non-gay, love is love and commitment counts – and that we Americans should treat others as we all want to be treated.

Mr. President, the time to end exclusion from marriage is now. We ask you to complete your journey and join us and the majority of Americans who support the freedom to marry.

Sincerely,
Brendon Ayanbadejo
Julian Bond
Helen Fabela Chavez
Ellen & Portia DeGeneres
Jack Dorsey
Melissa Etheridge
Scott Fujita
David Geffen
Anne Hathaway
Chris Hughes & Sean Eldridge
Tony Kushner & Mark Harris
Jane Lynch & Lara Embry
Eric McCormack
Rev. Peter Morales
Mya
Sean Parker
Mark Pincus
Frank Selvaggi & Bill Shea
Martin Sheen
Rev. William Sinkford
Lily Tomlin & Jane Wagner
Zach Wahls
Rufus Wainwright
Evan Wolfson
Bob & Suzanne Wright
=end=

Gay Ads Still Playing it Safe: 3/14/11 This Week in Prop 8

Anti-gay forces in Maryland set marriage back another year.

That setback is softened by advances in New York, Colorado, and Washington, plus a new ad for equality launches in Rhode Island, but is it too soft?



=end=

Football Association accepts gay rights charter

By Jessica Geen -


The Football Association and other sports bodies have signed a government charter for gay rights.
The charter calls on sports to stamp out homophobia and transphobia and ensure everyone is welcome.
Other signatories include the Lawn Tennis Association, the England and Wales Cricket Board, the Rugby Football League, the Rugby Football Union and the Olympics organising committee.
Alex Horne, general secretary of the FA, said: “The FA and its stakeholders have worked hard over the years in providing football for all and ensuring that football stadia are open to everyone and are both family and LGB and T friendly.
“We’ve seen real progress over the last 20 years when it comes to tackling racism and that’s something football should be proud of. We remain committed to our long-term goal of removing all forms of discrimination, such as homophobia, out of the game.”
Equalities minister Lynne Featherstone urged other sports groups and individuals to sign the charter.
She said: “Sport should be about what you can do, not who you are. But too many lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people feel that the sports field is not somewhere they can be themselves, and that prejudice and discrimination will mean their sexuality is always talked about more than their ability with a ball, bat or racket.
“Homophobia and transphobia has no place in sport and I’m delighted that so many sporting bodies are backing our campaign to stamp it out at all levels, from local parks to Olympic stadiums.”
This month, Swedish footballer Anton Hysen, the son of former Liverpool player Glenn Hysen, announced he is gay.
The UK has had just one openly gay top-level footballer. Justin Fashanu, who killed himself in 1998, suffered taunts and bullying over his sexuality.
Last year, the FA cancelled the premiere of an anti-homophobia video it had produced. Officials said they had more to do on the film, although they said it would be shown to match stewards as a training and education tool.
Other sports are better represented. England cricketer Steven Davies and Welsh rugby star Gareth Thomas are openly gay.

=end=

Maryland: Learning the Lessons

Maryland 

By David Mixner -


When it came time to vote in the Maryland Assembly we just didn't have the votes. In order not to suffer a public defeat and keep the legislation alive it was referred back to committee. The likelihood of marriage equality legislation surfacing again in Maryland is almost nil until at least 2012. Again, common wisdom appears to have played games with our expectations. The State Senate was supposed to be our challenge and with intense work we passed this body with ease. The Assembly was supposed to be easy and it is here we fell on the sword.
As with every case, the anti-marriage equality National Organization of Marriage (NOM) sweeps into yet one more state with substantial resources and apparently halts us once again in our legislature efforts. We even lost one of our prime sponsors from Prince George's county who received massive calls at the last minute from African-American ministers. In Montgomery county a young first term Democratic State Assemblyman Sam Arora who was elected with our money and a firm pledge to vote for marriage equality, totally betrayed us. If there is any justice, the LGBT community in the DC metro area should do everything in its power to defeat this spineless, unprincipled liar in the next election.
In any case, the issue would have gone to referendum if the vote had passed marriage equality. There is still reasonable doubt in my mind that we are ready for such a vote. Maybe it is time for a gathering of some of our best political minds to review the strategies in different states and see what we are doing right and where we need to change. We have our conferences for our major donors (OutGiving) and one for our grassroots activists (Creating Change). Why not convene our best and brightest political minds?
Time for one of our sympathetic foundations to host a small gathering of our best political minds. People who have won on this issue before, others who have won campaigns and some of our successful elected officials. Equality Maryland has my admiration and respect but it is the national community that needs to pause and reflect. We have won these ballot measures in the past and we should be ready to win them in the future.

for more from David visit Live from Hell's Kitchen.

=end=

The new smell of success

By Jonathan Turner - 

SX News

And so another year of Australia’s largest gay and lesbian cultural festival comes to a close. Here, SX reader Jonathan Turner offers his reflection on the 2011 Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras experience


According to ‘Say Something’, Kabi's [of Ethel Yarwood Enterprises] clever sloganeering concept that made up this year's Mardi Gras, "the prize for conformity is making everyone happy, except for yourself", and, "in the future, everyone will be famous for 15Mb". John Lennon once said that the Beatles were more famous than Jesus, and he got into a heap of trouble for that. Well, with the closure of the 34rd Sydney Gay & Lesbian Mardi Gras Festival, we are now officially older than Jesus, since we are reliably told that he died when he was only 33.
Another wonderful Mardi Gras season has come and gone like the promenade of an exuberant, noisy mate in shoes two sizes too small. Listen: every year certain people whinge and complain – usually the same snide people who contribute nothing but spite. But as with each Mardi Gras, there are incredible highlights – some expected, many entirely random.
So in a bid to even up the score and for no real reason at all, here are some of my favourite bits from the 2011 Mardi Gras.
At Fair Day, there was a genial bloke wandering around dressed up as a base-camp Captain Bligh, while two self-proclaimed straight flatmates kissed each other smack on the lips for photographer John McRae. Tellingly, they froze in the pose for quite some time, well, in any case for a lot longer than was entirely necessary. Joyce Maynge was perfectly manic in her ramshackle show – Tattered Tights to Bright Lights – at The Supper Club in the Oxford Hotel (it included prize-winning Mayngey meat trays, ‘From The Paddock to the Plate’). Lily Tomlin's daffy humour and observational comedy was all the more clever because it steered clear of punch-lines, and William Yang mixed performance with photography and unabashed personal history on both the stage of the Belvoir Street Theatre and on the walls of Stills Gallery. Then there were Lucas Grogan's tongue-in-cheek bark paintings, showing naughty scenes mythologizing drunken Saturday nights at the gay clubs, exhibited in the new Iain Dawson Gallery in Paddington. And with those boats bobbing right behind the deejay booth, no-one can ever knock the view at the Harbour ’11 With 100% Added Daywash, especially the guy in full Native American costume, unsuccessfully doing a rain-dance up on the rocks at sunset.
We viewed the Parade from our annual Memorial Fruit Stand, a platform nailed together on Flinders Street with the help of my handy mate Lachlan (and this year featuring a disco ball and a cordon-rope from Bunnings manned by two black "security" guards). With guests visiting from Italy, Bali, Berlin, Trinidad, Jordan, Chicago, Nigeria, Amsterdam, Laos and even Redfern, we threw streamers at our marching friends and saw the Muslims Against Homophobia dancing to Bosphorus pop music with their neighbouring participants in the Jewish GLBT group, Dayenu’s float, an example of inspirational integration if ever there was one. (Last week, a halal butcher working at The Golden Horn in Marrickville surreally wished me a happy Mardi Gras, when I drove over to his shop to buy goat chops for a barbecue).
The thing that made me happiest, though, was one of those brilliantly unscripted, unbeatable Mardi Gras moments. After the all-night party dancing to Yinon Yahel, Kate Monroe and the crew, we were sitting with early morning coffees, wearing sunglasses on Oxford Street. We watched as the post-party buses dropped off the last of the dishevelled revellers from the Entertainment Quarter. From nowhere, this snazzy girl with two cute smiling blokes on a happy planet all of their own making, meandered up to the bus stop. As each passenger got out, one of the guys greeted them by saying: "Hi – we think Oxford Street is a bit whiffy this morning". In the true spirit of Mardi Gras, and of their own volition, they'd first gone to the chemist and then taken it upon themselves to improve the odour of Darlinghurst. In a dizzy voice, Ms Snazzy then said, "I'm Miss N.R.G. – the New Rexona Girl", and offered a generous spray of underarm deodorant to all willing participants. Everyone obediently held up their arms to expose their armpits and grinned. Pffftt and scream! Pure spontaneous aerosol genius. The new smell of success.

Rome-based writer Jonathan Turner is a veteran of many Mardi Gras seasons, having curated several exhibitions as part of the Mardi Gras Festival at some of Sydney’s most important galleries. He also worked as guest-editor for the Mardi Gras issues of Blue, produced the 1995 Mardi Gras poster and won a prize in 2001 for his controversial, anti-bullying St Trinian's Woodwork Class float. In 2009, Turner organised Matthew Mitcham’s Chief-of-Parade float in the Mardi Gras Parade, as well as an exhibition by 15 international artists based on images of the Olympic gold medal-winning diver. 


=end=

US state department official resigns after calling Bradley Manning’s treatment “stupid”

By James Park -


US state department spokesman PJ Crowley has tendered his resignation after he called the treatment of Bradley Manning, the solider accused of leaking secret cables to Wikileaks as “stupid.”
Private Manning, whose Facebook profile lists him as being gay, is being held in solitary confiement on suicide watch at the Quantico marine base in Virginia. He is kept shackled at all times.
Mr Crowley made the remarks at an event held at MIT- the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
When asked about Wikileaks and the “torturing [of] a prisoner in a military brig,” he said: “I spent 26 years in the air force.
“What is happening to Manning is ridiculous, counterproductive and stupid, and I don’t know why the DoD [Department of Defense] is doing it. Nevertheless, Manning is in the right place.”
Mr Manning resigned after the comments were made public in a blog by the BBC’s Philippa Thomas who was in the audience. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said she accepted Mr Crowley’s resignation “with regret”. She said that he had always been “motivated by a deep devotion to public policy and public diplomacy”.
A report by Amnesty International said that Private Manning has been held for “for 23 hours a day in a sparsely furnished solitary cell and deprived of a pillow, sheets, and personal possessions since July 2010″. He is forced to undress on a daily basis and is said to be in an almost permanent state of undress in order to prevent him from committing suicide.

=end=

Sunday, March 13, 2011

Maryland Marriage Equality: Snatching Defeat From the Jaws of Victory

It's become a depressingly familiar scenario. After years of hard work, the LGBT community's on the verge of victory in a state on Marriage Equality, and the National Organization for Marriage rides in on a load of cash from their notoriously unspecified donors and plays on religious fears and bigotry to poison the well and block any further progress on our rights.

Then there's the almost unbearable round of un-christian-like gloating from the usual suspects - NOM, the FRC, and the GOP, about how christianity won out again and the will of the people has been done.

Iy happened again in Maryland this week, when what many thought would be easy passage for the bill in the Assembly turned into a grueling two week spectacle, as our "friends" decided political expedience and church loyalty were more important than equal rights.

We heard the usual excuses:
1) It has nothing to do with bigotry - I just believe marriage is between a man and a woman: implicit in this belief is the idea that gay and lesbian couples are not good enough for marriage - that allowing them to marry would somehow taint the institution. A favorite variation of this is the "redefining marriage". Marriage has been redefined for the better many times, from making women equals instead of property to allowing interracial couples to marry. So again, there's an unstated assumption that this particular "redefinition" has negative consequences - again, wrapped up in a deep-seated fear of gays and lesbians.

2) Gay rights are not civil rights: I grew up with a strong admiration from the black civil rights movement - for the mostly peaceful way it was carried out, and for Martin Luther King and all that he accomplished. I see the gay rights movement as following in those footsteps - a repressed population fighting for its rights against the larger society - and think we can learn many lessons from one another. Instead, we're derided for using the term "civil rights" as it the African American Community had a trademark on the term. I understand that this is a sensitive area, and that we should stop saying things like "Gay is the New Black" - Black is still here, and Black is the New Black. I get that we need to make the effort to build bridges between the two communities. But to hear that someone is voting to block marriage equality because they are offended by us calling it a civil right? That's just petty.

3) Allowing gays and lesbians to marry will destroy religious freedoms: Only if those religious freedoms include bigotry against gays and lesbians using federal dollars, and quite possibly not even then - look at Fred Phelps and Westboro Baptist Church. If that kind of nasty, bigoted hate speech is ok by the US Constitution, imagine what you'd have to say to get yourself in trouble?

4) Why not just accept civil unions - after all, they give all the same rights: Actually, in many cases, they don't. And even when they do, at the state level, they're blocked from Federal recognition (just like gay marriages) by the Defense of Marriage Act. In addition, the states which have implemented civil unions have found that many people see them as lesser than marriage, and stories of gay and lesbian couples being denied hospital visitation rights and other rights commonly granted to married couples are common. Just as drinking at a separate fountain was found to be discriminatory, even if the water tasted the same, so do civil unions implicitly confer second class citizenship upon the LGBT community.

5) It's the "will of the people": Actually, it's not. Recent polling in Maryland showed 50% support for marriage equality, with only 41% opposed. It's the will of a small group of religious people, supported by organizations who make their livings demonizing gays and lesbians for profit.

I get that the GOP is against us. They've made no bones about it, and even the "gay" organizations on the right side of the aisle generally seem more interested in the usual GOP priorities than in gay rights.

But it kills me every time the Democrats stab us in the back. Here's what two African American delegates in Maryland had to says about their decisions to vote against us:

Del. Cheryl Glenn, an African-American Democrat from Baltimore, said, "The black churches have never asked us for anything, and they are asking us now, 'Don't do this.'"

Del. Jay Walker, a black Democrat from Prince George's, told lawmakers his constituents and the churches in his district were united in their belief that marriage should remain as it is. "I cannot vote against my base," he said, invoking a term usually used in political -- not policy -- discussions.


We're part of your base. Every political district in America has gays and lesbians and our friends and families. And we're the ones, as a result of your actions, who have to go another year (or three or five) unable to secure basic rights for our own families, while your other constituents walk away from this fight with nothing changed, back to their day-to-day lives.

But let's not put all the blame on the African American Community. Yes, some black churches are at the forefront of the call to block marriage equality in Maryland, just as they were in DC and California. But look at Sam Arora, a white democrat who ran his campaign on marriage equality, who was a co-sponsor of the bill until two weeks ago, who accepted thousands of dollars from our community to finance his campaign. Then, without warning, he turned his back on us, citing previously unexpressed deeply held religious beliefs, and removing his name from the bill.

And let's not forget the Mormon and Catholic churches, which in recent years have joined forces to keep the LGBT community down, whenever and however they can.

In all, ten democrats buckled to religious pressure and threatened to kill the bill. Instead, it was sent back to committee and we were promised another try next year. A presidential election year. When, historically, no one wants to stick out their necks for gay rights. Indeed, some are saying we may now have to wait until after 2014, when Maryland legislators are up for re-election.

The anti gay folks have their own party, the GOP, who almost invariably stands in lock-step against us. Is it too much to ask that our own party stand up for the rights of their own constituents, and not constantly turn around and stab us in the backs in the name of political expediency and religious pressure?

Our gay and lesbian friends in Maryland must surely think so. 

=end=

My gay son: the face of (Roman Catholic) church's lack of respect

By Brian Cahill -

I am a Catholic who voted against Proposition 8 in 2008 and contributed $1,000 to the No on 8 Campaign, a Catholic who is sustained by regular Mass, scripture and prayer. I am also the father of a gay son, from whom I was slow to learn how painful, debilitating and denigrating are the constant legal and social reminders that he and those like him are not fully accepted members of the human community.

In their statement supporting Prop. 8, the California Catholic Bishops declared that marriage is "intrinsic to stable, flourishing and hospitable societies." Ironically, this is one of the compelling reasons gay and lesbian couples wish to be joined in civil marriages. They are seeking a structure and context for their love, commitment, fidelity and mutual support.
Many believe that the ideal for children is to be raised by a mother and a father, yet we know what the divorce rate is among heterosexual couples. We know there are 75,000 children in the California foster care system, a quarter of them waiting to be adopted. We know that these children have been victimized by the inability, neglect or abuse of their heterosexual parents. These mothers and fathers are living proof that sexual orientation is not a reliable indicator of good parenting.
Our bishops are clear that gays and lesbians must be respected and not disparaged, and I know they mean it. The archbishop of San Francisco, regardless of his position on Prop. 8, means it. His first response to specific issues regarding gays and lesbians is always pastoral.
But when gays and lesbians are referred to in a 2003 Vatican teaching as "objectively disordered," it is difficult for them to feel respected. When gay and lesbian couples are willing to assume full, loving parental responsibility for abused and neglected children who would otherwise languish in the foster care system, and church teaching characterizes them as "doing great violence to children" by raising them in same-sex households, it is difficult for those parents to feel respected. And if gays and lesbians were to read some of the bloggers on conservative Catholic websites, they might have difficulty distinguishing the comments of thoughtful conservative Catholics from those of irrational, homophobic extremists, and they would definitely not feel respected.
Prior to the passage of Prop. 8, the California Supreme Court ruled that as a matter of constitutional law, gays and lesbians have a right to form a family relationship. From the court's perspective, a family relationship is much more than a domestic partnership. It is about marriage.
In August 2010, the federal District Court ruled that laws defining marriage as heterosexual are unconstitutional and unjust. Even if the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals allows the resumption of same sex-marriages, this issue will continue through the courts.
The issue of same-sex marriage will also be on the ballot again. The proponents of Prop. 8 have said that the voters' wishes should be respected. They should be careful what they wish for. In 2000, they won with 61 percent of the vote. In 2008, they won with 53 percent of the vote. In 2012, we will see how well they respect the voters' wishes.
I know that my son and his partner are made in the image and likeness of God. They are not perfect, but they are brilliant, creative, personable and moral. They are certainly not objectively disordered. I know, as do many fathers, mothers, grandparents, sisters, brothers, friends, neighbors, co-workers and fellow parishioners of gay and lesbian individuals and couples, that the relationship, the love, the friendship, the personal association, the proximity, put a human face on this issue and let us see that in the context of the human spirit, none of us are different and none of us should be anything less than fully accepted members of our human community.

Brian Cahill is the former executive director of Catholic Charities in San Francisco.

=end=

Mormon church has a fractured history with gays

By Michelle Beaver -


Walnut Creek's Carol Lynn Pearson had high hopes when she married. Raised in the Mormon church, Pearson thought her marriage would bring children, happiness and love. Gut-wrenching sadness was not what she imagined.

She knew during her engagement that her fiance was attracted to men, but she thought he would change. Four children and 12 years later, she admitted defeat. Pearson and her husband divorced, and even though the couple remained good friends until his death in 1984, their family was torn apart.
The relationship between the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its homosexual members is fractured, complex and rarely discussed. The ongoing legal battle over Proposition 8, the ban on same-sex marriage, is forcing the wedge deeper and magnifying the gay-rights controversies in the church.

Pearson, now 71, believes in her religion, but also believes in full acceptance of gays. She says misunderstanding and secrecy in the church have exacerbated relations, especially in Latter-day Saints families that have gay members.

Often, gay Mormons try to become straight in hopes of remaining in the church, but with limited success, says Ben Jarvis, an urban planner from San Mateo who now lives in Los Angeles, and who grew up in the church. Like most Mormons, he's proud of his background. What makes him less common is that he's gay.
"Mormonism isn't just a religion, it's a culture; it's my family, it's my roots, it's my identity," says Jarvis, 42. He traces his family back seven generations to the beginning of Mormonism. He says he is Mormon but not LDS -- and there is a big distinction between the two.

While both are the same religion, some people use "Mormon" to describe the culture and background, and "LDS" to describe active church membership. Jarvis quit the church in early adulthood because he could not reconcile it with his homosexuality.

"The church has no power to tell me that I can't be Mormon or that I have to give up my pioneer background," Jarvis says. "I went on a mission and did all the Mormon rites of passage."

Gay members are part of the Mormon church, but there is a critical distinction that determines how they're treated. Celibate gays are allowed almost every right as straight Mormons, whereas sexually active gays have few rights, are viewed harshly and can be excommunicated. Gay sex acts are viewed by the church as an abomination, but gays can repent for them.
The consequences for homosexual acts largely depend on the bishop and stake president in a particular area ("stake" is an organizational term used to describe a cluster of LDS churches, individually called "wards"). A permissive bishop and stake president are more tolerant.

"As the church has aligned itself with the Republicans and the hard right, it's become impossible to be gay, even celibate, and truly be part of the church," Jarvis says.

The church doesn't use the term gay or homosexual. Instead, most Mormons feel that everyone is born straight and that some suffer from "same-sex attraction," or SSA. The church goes to great efforts to dissuade people from SSA.

LDS beliefs and practices are challenging for gay and transgender members, said Richley Crapo, a straight Mormon and anthropology professor at Utah State University.

In a paper called "Latter-day Saint Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgendered Spirituality," Crapo writes that there is pressure to remain closeted.
"This results in considerable social isolation and personal cognitive dissonance," Crapo adds. "Although some gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender members adapt to these problems and remain engaged in the LDS church, the most common outcome for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender persons is eventually either disaffiliation with the church without maintaining a personal spirituality or, less commonly, finding a new, friendlier denomination."

Staying in the LDS church requires self oppression, as there is "tremendous pressure" to become straight in the church, says Steve Curtis, a 30-year-old business analyst who lives in Dublin. He was an active Mormon but gave up the church when he could not balance his religion and homosexuality.

"The pressure is built into the culture and the lessons taught at all levels of the church," Curtis says. "(Homosexuality) is called a sin, it is unnatural, an abomination and a host of other condescending expletives."

Some gays, however, feel the LDS church does have a place for them. A 42-year-old San Leandro man who was a sexually active homosexual until 13 years ago converted to Mormonism 11 years ago and said the church gave him the strength to abandon homosexual acts forever. He asked that his name not be published to protect his privacy within the church.
The former mortgage loan officer is on disability due to AIDS-related illness and goes to church every Sunday. His roommate is his former boyfriend, who also asked that his name be withheld. They are no longer intimate, and the loan officer calls his roommate his "brother in the gospel of Jesus Christ." Both attend the Oakland LDS temple frequently. Strict ordinances must be followed to worship in the temple, and they say they are upholding those standards.

The San Leandro man says he was inspired to join the LDS Church through seeing the "peace and unconditional love" his ex-boyfriend received there.

"I am a Mormon 100 percent," he says. "I no longer struggle with SSA. (My roommate) and I "... never want to defile our bodies again. I abhor that lifestyle."

He said loves the LDS church, but sees flaws.

"The Mormon church is very homophobic to this day everywhere within the church," he says. "Some places are better than others, but I have faced discrimination from my own ward by the young married couples in the church. There is a tremendous amount of ignorance when it comes to SSA or having gays in church. I do not label myself as gay or with SSA. I am child of God, period."

He says most Mormons he knows treat gays with respect and relations are getting better. He also says he has an "awesome" bishop and stake president who support him. And while he wants the church to be kind to gay people, he does not mince words when speaking of proponents of same-sex marriage.

"(Homosexuals) already have federal and state rights (that are) equal to marriage, yet they want to rape our word of marriage with their stains of immorality," he says. "God will not be mocked."

There is passion on both sides of the conversation. In October of 2010, the Human Rights Campaign sent the church a petition of 150,000 signatures calling for the church to denounce statements about homosexuality that the HRC found insulting (such as calling it 'impure and unnatural') and for church groups to stop trying to make gay people straight. A church spokesperson responded the same month saying that while any sexual activity outside of marriage is "wrong," that should "never, ever be used as justification for unkindness."

The LDS statement continued, "Further, while the Church is strongly on the record as opposing same-sex marriage, it has openly supported other rights for gays and lesbians such as protections in housing or employment."

And two months later, the church invited leading gay activists to its Christmas concert. Several attended. The church has become more open in another way:

Some church leaders used to pressure gay people to marry heterosexually, but that has changed. Gays receive support if they want to become straight, but if they can't, they're asked to remain single and celibate. Many question whether preventing the highest honor of being Mormon -- being sealed in marriage -- is discrimination.

Not so, according to Elder Dallin Oaks, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and Elder Lance Wickman, a member of the Seventy (most adult male members of the church are called elder, but being an apostle or a member of the Seventy are elite LDS roles).
The church does not allow its decision makers to be interviewed about their views on homosexuality. Instead, church spokeswoman Kim Farah points reporters to an online interview with Oaks and Wickman.

In the interview, Oaks says, "It is sometimes said that God could not discriminate against individuals in this circumstance (marriage). But life is full of physical infirmities that some might see as discriminations -- total paralysis or serious mental impairment being two that are relevant to marriage. If we believe in God and believe in his mercy and his justice, it won't do to say that these are discriminations, because God wouldn't discriminate."

Wickman adds, "There's really no question that there is an anguish associated with the inability to marry in this life. We feel for someone that has that anguish. I feel for somebody that has that anguish. But it's not limited to someone who has same-gender attraction."

The elders say celibate gays (including those who used to be sexually active but who have repented) can hold almost every position in the church, except for bishop, which requires marriage.
Oaks and Wickman say parents should be loving to homosexual children, but also caution that "fornication, adultery, and homosexual and lesbian behavior is sinful. Those who persist in such practices or influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline."

On bringing a partner home to visit, Oaks says that's an individual decision. "I can imagine that in most circumstances the parents would say, 'Please don't do that. Don't put us into that position.' Surely if there are children in the home who would be influenced by this example, the answer would likely be that," Oaks says.

"I can also imagine some circumstances in which it might be possible to say, 'Yes, come, but don't expect to stay overnight,' " he adds. —‰'Don't expect to be a lengthy house guest. Don't expect us to take you out and introduce you to our friends, or to deal with you in a public situation that would imply our approval of your 'partnership.' "

Such behavior is homophobic, according to James Kent, a gay San Francisco man who was raised Mormon. Kent believes the church is among the most homophobic of all Christian religions, but says there are pockets that are more accepting. Kent went on a church mission to Japan, held several church callings and pretended to be straight until he turned 30 in 1988.

He was attending church in Fremont when a friend suggested he attend a San Francisco meeting for gay people who have Mormon roots.

"I can still remember walking up those stairs, opening the door, and seeing 31 gay and lesbian people with LDS backgrounds," Kent says. "I discovered for the first time in my life that I was not alone -- that there were other people like me."

Walnut Creek's Pearson says misunderstanding between the church and gays leads to family and church divisions. Pearson has written several books about homosexuality and the church, and started a site called www.propositionhealing, which spurs dialogue between gays and church leaders. She hosts dinner discussion groups with Bay Area current and former Mormons, and suggests that divergent groups break bread together and talk.
This work is essential, she believes, especially as the Proposition 8 controversy continues through the courts and in the hearts and minds of Bay Area residents.
Mormons and Marriage
Marriage is central to Mormonism. There are three levels to the heaven in which Mormons believe, and to make it to the highest level, one must be married.
Perhaps the most sacred church ordinance is the temple marriage, a "sealing" between a man and a woman that is believed to be eternal, according to Richley Crapo, a Utah State University professor.
There is no place for homosexuality in Mormon marriages, and no place for noncelibate homosexuals in the top level of Mormon heaven, unless that person has repented accordingly in the afterlife.
God has final judgment as to which kingdom people can rest in, said church spokeswoman Kim Farah.
"There is no level of heaven to which a faithful member of the Church cannot attain," she said. "No blessing is withheld for those keeping the commandments of God."

ABOUT THE SERIES
This is the first of a two-part series on gays and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 

=end=

Lesbians to attend talks at Parliament (South Africa)

MinIster of Justice & Constitutional Development Jeff Radebe
By Sunday Argus -

MinIster of Justice and Constitutional Development Jeff Radebe has invited lesbian rights group Luleki Sizwe for a discussion on action against “corrective” rape.
The discussion is scheduled to take place at Parliament tomorrow, although Radebe has not confirmed his attendance.
So-called corrective rape, a crime apparently meant to “cure” lesbian women or “turn them straight”, has been on the increase throughout Africa and, to a lesser extent, other parts of the world.
Last year Luleki Sizwe launched an international petition against corrective rape and in 100 days gathered more than 170 000 signatures from 163 countries.
The organisation hopes tomorrow’s meeting will push the ministry to commission research and develop and implement a national action plan to stop violence against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersexual people.
Ndumie Funda, founder of Luleki Sizwe, said action against corrective rape was long overdue. “We have shown that we can mobilise tens of thousands of people in South Africa and around the world, and the ministry now knows that they can no longer ignore our long fight against corrective rape.”
The campaign is backed by Change.org and at least a dozen other women’s rights organisations. Change.org CEO Ben Rattray said this was only the start of the campaign to put an end to gender-based violence.
“We now hope the ministry sees the potential in working together with a wide range of local activists and community groups to take tangible action on corrective rape.” A public rally will be held outside Parliament before the meeting at 10am.

=end=

Israeli rabbis launch initiative to marry gay men to lesbian women

Rabbi Areleh Harel
Rabbi Areleh Harel.
By Yair Ettinger -

Rabbis from the religious Zionist community have launched an initiative to marry gay men to lesbian women - with some surprising successes.
So far, 11 marriages have been performed. Haaretz conducted an email interview with one such couple, Etti and Roni (not their real names ).
Etti and Roni, both religious, were married five years ago. Though they were honest with each other about their sexual orientations from their first meeting, to the outside world, they portray themselves as a normal heterosexual couple. Today, they have two children, and are thrilled with the results.
"It's incredible," they wrote. "Six years ago, we didn't think we would ever be this happy. We thought everything was black, that we'd lost our chance of a normal life. But today, things are good for us. There are gaps, but that's true in every case. And we fill them with the great love we give to and receive from our children, and also enjoy the simple human love we give each other, such as any two people can give and receive."
All the matches were arranged by Rabbi Areleh Harel of the West Bank settlement of Shilo. He teaches at a yeshiva in Elon Moreh and has a name in religious circles as the go-to rabbi for homosexuals.
Harel said all his couples receive close support from a team of psychologists, marriage counselors and social workers. They also consult frequently with rabbis, including Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein of the Har Etzion Yeshiva, Chief Rabbi of Ramat Gan Yaakov Ariel, and especially Rabbi Menachem Burstein, head of the Puah Institute, which specializes in halakhic solutions to fertility problems.
His 12th couple has just announced their engagement, Harel said, and he has a list of another 30 gays and 20 lesbians seeking matches. They don't deny their sexual identity, he stressed, but "they want to establish a home, whether for the sake of becoming parents or for the social recognition. A family isn't just sex and love. It's an instrumental partnership, though not just a technical one."
As a result, he and his colleagues have now decided to institutionalize the venture, including working with a well-known religious matchmaking organization.
Gay-lesbian marriages have long been practiced among the ultra-Orthodox, but the current initiative is different in that it stems not from an effort to sweep the issue under the carpet, but from a growing acknowledgment of homosexuality, prompted in part by four organizations for religious homosexuals: Havruta, Bat Kol, Hod and Kamocha.
Harel explained that while secular homosexuals see gay marriage as the solution, religious homosexuals are often unwilling to violate the halakhic prohibition on homosexual sex, and are thus seeking other solutions.
"Most of the couples agree not to have relationships with members of their own sex, but if there are 'lapses' once every few years, they don't see this as a betrayal," he said. "Generally, it's between them and their Creator."
He said each couple decides for itself how its marriage should work, and he is not involved in that decision. Rather, he deals mainly with halakhic issues like artificial insemination.
Roni, 35, owns a business; Etti, 30, is a paramedic. Roni tried conversion therapy to change his sexual orientation, with no success. He said he also had relationships with various other men, "until I decided this isn't for me; I want a family and children."
Etti said her family still doesn't know she's a lesbian. She had one "serious" lesbian relationship, but "realized it was more important to me to raise children and live in a normal family."
Both said that upholding the religious prohibition on homosexual sex was "very important" to them, as was their desire for "more or less normal parenthood," and both factors had influenced their decision.
Harel introduced them, and as the first of his gay-lesbian couples, they term themselves "guinea pigs." They are careful to keep up normal appearances before the children and the outside world, even sleeping in the same room, though they don't sleep together. Their children were born through artificial insemination.
"Most of the time, it's good for us together, like business partners. Of course we have quarrels and tensions, but who doesn't? ... Like good friends, we have a great deal of mutual respect and a great deal of platonic love."
It isn't like that for everyone, of course. Two of the couples Harel married are now in the process of divorce. And he said he is very worried about whether the children of these experimental marriages will end up suffering.
Nor does everyone approve. While Havruta has not officially taken a stand on these marriages, its spokesman, Daniel Yunes, said he personally opposes the idea.
"If you accept the definition of a family as partnership and trust and love ... then this doesn't provide an answer," he said, adding that his organization also believes being open about one's sexual identity ultimately leads to more happiness than living a lie.
But Roni and Etti feel they've benefited greatly, gaining "two wonderful children" and also "a good social life."
And what have they lost? "Nothing, because in any case we wouldn't have had spousal relationships, because it's [halakhically] forbidden. Yes, there are difficult moments of crisis. But they're nothing in comparison to the majority of the time, when it's good."

=end=

Christian foster couple want ‘political intervention’ in gay equality laws

By Jessica Geen -

A Christian couple who were barred from fostering because of their views on homosexuality are seeking a ‘political intervention’ in gay equality laws.
Eunice and Owen Johns, of Derby, have been advised by their lawyer Paul Diamond not to appeal the High Court decision because judges are having to interpret “bad law”.
Instead, they and Mr Diamond are seeking a review of equality laws and will begin lobbying MPs and ministers to support their cause.
The Johns were told by Derby council in 2007 that their application to become foster parents would not be approved because they had admitted they would tell children that homosexuality is unacceptable.
Last month, High Court judges Lord Justice Munby and Mr Justice Beeston upheld the council’s decision and ruled that that the Johns’ views could harm foster children.
They also dismissed Mr Diamond’s claims as “a travesty of reality”.
Mr Diamond said in a Christian Legal Centre statement: “The courts are so set against religious freedom for Christians that an appeal is likely to only make matters worse.
“In recent years, there has been a combination of bad laws and a number of poor judicial appointments by the previous government.
“Where there are excellent judges they are restricted by bad laws. Unfortunately, there are also judges making law based on personal predilections. Parliament must remedy this situation as a matter of urgency.”
He added: “The British people have reversed silly laws in the past; the time is ripe for a review of the equality laws. It is time for the ‘Big Society’ to become a reality and to re-strengthen the communitarian institutions such as the church and other such bodies that can build this.
“Finally, the absurd ‘human rights’ agenda needs to be re-visited including the Human Rights Act.”
Mr Diamond and the Johns are to ask MPs to sign an ‘Equalities and Conscience Petition’ which calls on prime minister David Cameron to ensure that laws allow Christians to act on their consciences.
This week, Mr Cameron backed the High Court’s decision on the couple, saying: “This matter was decided by a court in the appropriate way and I think we should rest with the judgment that was made.
The prime minister said that he was a churchgoer but added: “I think Christians should be tolerant and welcoming and broad minded.”

=end=

Religion News: Presbyterian Church close to accepting LGBT ministers

More Presbyterian churches than ever
support accepting LGBT ministers.
For the first time ever, voters in the Presbyterian Church (USA) who favor dropping exclusionary policies against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender are in the lead in a nationwide vote.
In 2010, the national body approved an amendment that would allow LGBT candidates for ordination to be evaluated on their spiritual call to ministry and their abilities. The amendment then went to the 173 regional presbyteries across the country for a vote on whether or not to ratify the amendment.

Approval requires a 50 percent majority of the presbyteries, and the count now stands at 48 approving and 34 disapproving. This is the highest level of support in the last 14 years that an amendment to remove exclusionary provisions was approved by the national voting body.

Nine presbyteries, including Alabama, Georgia and Oklahoma, have changed their vote to support full inclusion since they last voted in 2009. If the 50 percent approval rate is reached, Presbyterians would join the millions of members in Lutheran, Episcopal and United Church of Christ denominations that now allow LGBT people to serve in leadership.
“A growing number of Presbyterians do not want to be part of a Church that discriminates or teaches that God loves only certain kinds of people. They want to be part of a Church and world that reflects God's heart," said Michael Adee, Executive Director of More Light Presbyterians.
More Light Presbyterians is a national grassroots organization working to end discrimination and achieve equality for LGBT people and their families in the Presbyterian Church (USA) and the world. For more information, visit www.mlp.org.


=end=

Boston Cardinal pushed to release list, document cited

By JAY LINDSAY -

A watchdog group is pushing Cardinal Sean O'Malley to release a promised list of suspected pedophile priests in Boston, highlighting a church document that indicates the list could include up to 40 names that haven't been made public.
The number appears in the minutes of an Archdiocesan Pastoral Council meeting held exactly a year ago Friday. The document records a discussion about the list, as well as questions by council members and answers by archdiocesan officials, including:
Question: "How many names will be on the list of credibly accused priests?"
Answer: "155 names will appear, of which 40 may be new names."
Anne Barrett Doyle of BishopAccountability.org, which collects and posts information about the clergy sex abuse scandal that rocked the Catholic Church, said that number of unnamed priests is "staggering" and accused O'Malley of purposely stalling the list's release.
She said a delay can prevent civil suits against the archdiocese because a case's statute of limitations expires, and fading memories make it tougher to prove culpability among church officials. Meanwhile, victims are denied public acknowledgement of their abusers' crimes, Doyle said.
"The suffering (that the archdiocese's) silence is inflicting on victims is not consistent with Cardinal O'Malley's frequent statements about compassion for victims," Doyle said.
Kelly Lynch, a spokeswoman for the archdiocese, said the archdiocese is still vetting the plans to disclose additional information about accused clergy, and the names referred to in the council minutes may not be on the final list.
She added that each of the 40 previously unnamed priests referred to in the meeting's minutes is deceased.
Lynch also said the archdiocese immediately tells law enforcement about any past or present sex abuse accusation against any priest, even if it doesn't publicly release the name.
Church policy is to release clergy names if they are removed from active ministry or if they are convicted of sex abuse in a criminal or church process.
In the last two days, groups including BishopAccountability, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP) and the Voice of the Faithful lay Catholic group have called on O'Malley to release the list.
Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley's office said it plans to meet "in the near future" with representatives of BishopAccountability.org, which has asked it to get involved.
The pressure to release the list of accused priests comes two years after a March 2009 letter from O'Malley to an advisory committee, in which he said the archdiocese was considering improving its policy on releasing information about accused clergy.
In the meeting minutes from March 2010, the Rev. John Connolly, Special Assistant to the Cardinal, said the archdiocese was working to compile the list, and that 27 other U.S. dioceses have already released such lists.
"Hopefully, it will also promote pastoral healing and the rebuilding of trust in the Church of Boston," the minutes read.
But in the document, church officials said several groups needed to be consulted first, including victims, accused priests and their families. The church has also frequently cited concerns about due process for accused priests.
Stephen Clifford, who says he was molested by a priest while growing up in Wellesley, said the longer the church waits, the more credibility it loses.
Clifford, 43, of Natick, said he was molested by a priest at about age 13 after the priest persuaded him to go to his room to listen to a record. The priest has not been named in a criminal matter or civil suit, but Clifford worries he might just be one of his many victims. He said releasing the names could lead others to come forward to get help and possibly rid him of a "lingering guilt" that the abuse was somehow his fault.
"I think every victim, especially a child victim, has that guilt. Like what did I do to cause this?" he said. "I think it would help just put that away. Like this wasn't my fault, he was doing it to other people, too."
But Clifford added that's a "double-edged sword."
"On the one hand, I'd know that it wasn't just me, and on the other hand I have guilt about the fact I that didn't do anything. ... I didn't do anything to stop him, and I wish I'd had the courage to do that," he said.

=end=

21 Pa. priests suspended before penance period

Cardinal Justin Rigali, Archbishop of Philadelphia
Cardinal Justin Rigali, Archbishop 
of Philadelph
By Joann Loviglio -


More than eight years after U.S. Roman Catholic bishops vowed swift action to keep potential abusers from young people, the Philadelphia archdiocese has suspended 21 priests named as child molestation suspects in a scathing grand jury report.

The suspensions came on Tuesday, the eve of Lent, the Christian period for penance leading up to Easter. The priests, whose names haven’t been released, have been removed from ministry while their cases are reviewed, Cardinal Justin Rigali said.

"These have been difficult weeks since the release of the grand jury report," Rigali said in a statement. "Difficult most of all for victims of sexual abuse but also for all Catholics and for everyone in our community."

The two-year grand jury investigation into priest abuse in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia resulted in charges against two priests, a former priest and a Catholic school teacher who are accused of raping boys. And in an unprecedented move in the United States, a former high-ranking church official was accused of transferring problem priests to new parishes without warning anyone of prior sex abuse complaints.

Since 2002, when the national abuse crisis erupted in the Archdiocese of Boston, American dioceses have barred hundreds of accused clergy members from public church work or removed them permanently from the priesthood. The allegations against the Pennsylvania priests stand out because they come years after the U.S. bishops reformed their national child protection policies.

The grand jury last month named 37 priests who remained in active ministry despite credible allegations of sexual abuse. After the release of the report, the second such investigation in the city in six years, Rigali vowed to take its calls for further reforms seriously.

Besides the 21 priests placed on leave Tuesday, three others named by the grand jury were suspended a week after the report’s release in February. There were five other priests who would have been suspended: one who was already on leave, two who haven’t been in active ministry and two who no longer are priests in the archdiocese but are now members of another religious order that wasn’t identified.

The cardinal said the archdiocese "has notified the superiors of their religious orders and the bishops of the dioceses where they are residing."

The remaining eight priests of the 37 in the report were not being put on leave because the latest examination of their cases "found no further investigation is warranted," Rigali said.

"I know that for many people their trust in the church has been shaken," Rigali stated. "I pray that the efforts of the archdiocese to address these cases of concern and to re-evaluate our way of handling allegations will help rebuild that trust."

In 2005, a grand jury said that there was evidence of abuse by at least 63 priests and that church officials had transferred offenders to other parishes and dioceses. While the archdiocese then formed a panel to handle abuse complaints, the 2011 grand jury found it mostly worked to protect the church, not the victims. Rigali responded by retaining former city child-abuse prosecutor Gina Maisto Smith to re-examine complaints made against the active-duty priests that internal church investigators previously said they could not substantiate.

District Attorney Seth Williams called Rigali’s actions "as commendable as they are unprecedented."

"We appreciate that the Archdiocese has acknowledged the value of the report and seen fit to take some of the steps called for by the grand jury," Williams said in a statement.

Peter Isely, of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, said Rigali should have suspended the priests much sooner.

"There’s a simple reason that dozens of credibly accused child molesters have recklessly been kept in unsuspecting parishes for years instead of being promptly suspended," he said. "It’s because Rigali and his top aides want it that way."

He said Rigali and his aides want to protect "themselves, their secrets and their staff instead of their flock."

=end=

Abusive priests live unmonitored

Rowland Heights, CA resident Chitira Zuno
comments on her neighbor, retired priest
Stephen Hernandez
By GILLIAN FLACCUS and JOHN MONE -
VENTURA, Calif. – Carl Sutphin was a problem priest who left ministry in the Roman Catholic church just before being charged nearly a decade ago with 14 counts of molestation for sexually abusing six children.
He was never convicted of the charges, and he now lives in a doublewide mobile home in a quiet neighborhood within two miles of a youth sports complex, a library, two day care centers and at least two elementary schools. Sutphin admits he molested children as a priest, but his name doesn't show up in a sex offender database because the charges were dismissed because too much time had elapsed.
"I don't remember the numbers. I won't say I deny it. I do not deny it, no," Sutphin, who has been accused of abuse by 18 people, told The Associated Press. "The church could have acted quicker, I think, and sometimes reports were not made right away. In my case, some of the cases didn't come forward until 15 or 20 years later. ... So the church didn't do anything about it, they couldn't do anything about it."
Sutphin is one of dozens of former and current priests and religious brothers accused of childhood sexual abuse in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles who now live unmonitored by civil authorities in communities across the state and nation. For many, the statute of limitations had expired by the time the abuse was reported, making it impossible for prosecutors to land convictions and subject the priests to sex offender databases and monitoring.
Plaintiffs' attorneys have worked with private investigators since October to compile a list of the priests' addresses, the most comprehensive accounting of the whereabouts of the 233 clergy accused of abuse in civil lawsuits in the Los Angeles archdiocese. They hope to use it Thursday to persuade a judge to recommend the release of all church files for every priest or religious brother ever accused of sexual abuse in the sweeping litigation.
Those confidential files are at the center of a heated dispute between the church and plaintiffs' lawyers since the nation's largest archdiocese reached a record-breaking $660 million settlement nearly four years ago. Plaintiffs want the files — which could include internal correspondence, previous complaints and therapy records — released, saying it's a matter of public safety. The church is pushing for a more limited release of information.
The list of addresses, obtained by The Associated Press, contains nearly 50 former priests who live unmonitored in California, and another 15 in cities and towns from Maryland to Texas to Montana. More than 80 more cannot be located despite an exhaustive search by plaintiffs' attorneys. Four are believed to have fled to Mexico or South America. About 80 are dead.
Lead plaintiff lawyer Raymond Boucher says it's the only time anyone has put together a list of priest addresses in any other diocese or archdiocese nationwide. Lawyers hope to eventually make the names and locations of abusive priests available to the public, similar to Megan's Law databases that exist nationwide.
"Many of these priests would be in prison but for the fact that the archdiocese essentially created immunity for them by hiding them and keeping the secrets. It's essential that these documents come out because we know one thing: there is no cure for priests or anybody that sexually abuses a child," said Boucher.
"Many of them are within a mile of multiple schools, day care centers and parks and they are a time bomb waiting to go off. The only way the public can ever protect itself is to have a full, complete knowledge about them."
Tod Tamberg, the spokesman for the archdiocese, referred questions to archdiocese attorney Michael Hennigan.
The church is willing to release a significant number of documents from priest files and has already made public the names of priests who were credibly accused or whose names were listed in civil lawsuits, Hennigan said. The archdiocese believes, however, that many of the priests whose addresses appear on the list were wrongfully accused. The archdiocese included those clergy in the $660 million payout without admitting wrongdoing, simply to settle the claims, Hennigan said.
The allegations of sexual abuse have ruined those priests' reputations, he said.
"These are people who have been accused, these are not people who have been convicted," said Hennigan. "We have great sympathy for victims of childhood sexual abuse ... but to suggest that there's a compelling interest in producing these documents wholesale is a stretch. Many of these people deny it and many of these people credibly deny it. It haunts them."
The archdiocese in 2004 released the names of more than 200 accused priests — including Sutphin's — in a report to parishioners. The list did not include the men's whereabouts.
About 30 of the individual priests, including Sutphin, are also fighting the release of files.
They argue that the settlement, which contained provisions for the release of documents, was an agreement between the archdiocese and the plaintiffs without their consent. Most of the priests themselves are not named as parties to the lawsuits and obtaining their records violates the Fourth Amendment, the protection against unreasonable search and seizure, said Donald Steier, their attorney.
"Even though people don't like these guys, the rules still apply," he said. "It's easy to evaporate their rights but when you evaporate their rights, you erode all of our rights. Everybody needs to play by the same set of rules."
Many of the priests named in sex abuse lawsuits have been defrocked, removed from ministry or placed on leave by the church since being accused. Most appear to have rebuilt their lives outside the church and live quietly and anonymously, unnoticed in their new neighborhoods, which span 37 California cities from Berkeley to Oxnard to Oceanside.
In Gardena, for example, a former priest who pleaded no contest in 1987 to misdemeanors of soliciting lewd acts and battery now manages a mobile home park wedged in a gritty industrial stretch 15 miles south of Los Angeles. He lives in a double-wide trailer with a statue of Jesus on the porch, not far from a sign advising drivers to watch for children at play.
The former priest, Gerald Fessard, saw his conviction expunged after he completed three years' probation, according to news reports. He was accused by eight people overall, according to the archdiocese. He is not listed on the state's Megan's Law website.
Fessard, 64, declined to comment to the AP when contacted outside his home Sunday.
His neighbor, Celia Fuhr, said Fessard collects rent from residents and maintains the trailer park, but largely keeps to himself and dotes on his cats.
"I don't know nothing about him," Fuhr said, upon learning of Fessard's past. "Oh my God. Oh no, don't tell me that."
Less than an hour's drive away, in the working-class city of Rowland Heights, retired priest Stephen Hernandez lives in a large two-story house across the street from a family with a 6-year-old child and within two miles of three playgrounds and four elementary schools.
The 77-year-old Hernandez was arrested seven years ago and charged with molesting a 14-year-old boy while serving as a counselor at a Los Angeles area juvenile hall. The clergyman had faced up to 10 years in prison if convicted of all charges, but eventually pleaded no contest to a misdemeanor and was sentenced to probation.
He is not listed on the state's Megan's Law website. He declined to comment to The Associated Press when contacted at his home Saturday.
Chitira and Delfino Zuno have lived across the street from Hernandez for years and said they were surprised to learn the elderly priest they call Father Steve has a criminal past.
Still, the couple said they supported him and weren't concerned for the safety of their grandson, who's lived with them since he was an infant. Hernandez is ill and never crosses the street to their home, said Chitira Zuno.
"He's right now old, sick. He only needs compassion," said Zuno, who described herself as a devout Catholic who hosts a religious program on public access TV.
"A priest is a priest. If we can think about faith, we can see that we are all human and we can all do mistakes. I know some priests that have been accused and maybe he's done a mistake once in his life and this is going to be after him all his life."
That's a reaction that is difficult for some alleged victims to accept, including one man whose allegations against Sutphin led to the charges against him that were eventually dismissed because of a 2003 Supreme Court ruling involving the statute of limitations. The man and his brother also sued the archdiocese and received a settlement. The Associated Press does not identify victims of sexual abuse.
The 44-year-old told the AP that Sutphin molested first his brother and then him while they spent the night at the priest's mother's house in Ventura before a planned fishing trip. The priest took the man's sibling into another room first and then returned for him and began tickling him and trying to undress him, he recalled. The priest also questioned him about his genitals.
Sutphin gave up after a struggle, but the memory has scarred the man for life and created tension between the brothers, who never fully discussed what happened 35 years ago.
"The guy's a predator. I feel sorry for whoever has to live around him," he said. "Where do we draw the fine line in the sand? Is there a little kid that's seven years old living across the street from him and next thing you know, is he going to want to take him out fishing? Do people really know what this guy's all about?"

=end=

Town Of Davenport, Iowa Descends Into Hell Following Gay Marriage Ceremony (Satire!)

Davenport moments after allowing the couple to publicly affirm their love for each other.
FORMER DAVENPORT, IA—Immediately following the performance of a same-sex marriage ceremony Sunday afternoon at Holy Christ Almighty Lutheran Church on Lincoln Avenue, the city of Davenport, IA and all 99,685 of its residents were reportedly smitten into oblivion by the merciless wrath of God and flung into the deepest bowels of eternal hell.
According to state authorities, the nightmarish incident occurred approximately five seconds after a local pastor pronounced homosexual men Brian Palmer, 39, and Greg DeHaan, 43, married in the eyes of God, at which point a tremor registering 8.5 on the Richter scale ripped the earth asunder and Davenport's inhabitants were swallowed by a widening chasm, where they found themselves eviscerated on the fiery spears of 10 million shrieking demons.
"They tried to warn us and we didn't listen—Lord, why did we not listen?" said Rev. Kenneth Hanson, the clergyman who performed the unholy marriage, moments before being dragged into a bottomless pit, flayed alive, and devoured by Satan, the Great Deceiver. "All I wanted to do was provide basic civil rights and legal recognition to Brian and Greg, two people who love each other and have been together for 15 years. But I was wrong. Oh, so wrong!"
"Children of God throughout the nation!" Hanson cried out as he plummeted into the infernal void. "Do not make the same mistake we here in Iowa have made! Save yourselves before it is too late!"
Witnesses reporting from the scene immediately preceding the destruction of Davenport recounted a number of horrific sights, including demonic wraiths clothed in smoke and ash flying through the city's streets; homosexuals and heterosexuals alike being torn limb from limb by goat-legged imps, the skeletons of live dogs leaping from the creatures' bodies to feast upon small children; and a great wall of fire that spread from the altar where the small, private wedding ceremony was conducted in west Davenport and consumed all.
In the wake of the disaster, many friends, relatives, and fellow Iowans said they blamed Brian and Greg most of all, for having given in to Satan's obvious machinations despite the numerous warnings presented to them.
"Why did Brian and Greg insist upon this public, legally binding avowal of their love?" sobbed a relative who now lives in Minnesota and wished to remain anonymous due to fear of reprisals by the Forces of Righteousness. "Why couldn't they have just kept living as second-class citizens, without the tax incentives and insurance flexibility offered to married couples?"
As friends and family of the longtime couple endured the agony of hot lances pierced through their eyes and a cloud of sulfurous gas enveloped the city, Iowans expressed great remorse for ignoring God's design and allowing the union of Brian and Greg to occur.
"We should have seen this coming when that Plague of Locusts appeared in central Scott County last month after they applied for the marriage license," said a terrified Marsha Ternus, former chief justice of the Iowa State Supreme Court, who was ousted last November for her support of an earlier ruling declaring the state's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. "It was such a clear omen, yet we were too blind to see. We have brought the Vengeance of the Lord down upon the people of Davenport with our hubristic refusal to obey what is written in holy scripture. May God have mercy on our souls."
The event, which is being called a clear and irrefutable message from God as to his position on gay marriage, came as a shock to many around the nation who believed that allowing gays and lesbians to marry was the right thing to do and therefore could not invoke the displeasure of the Almighty Lord.
Meanwhile, as citizens prayed furiously for the Lord's forgiveness, officials said they were working around the clock to drain local rivers and lakes of the blood and entrails of sinners, and will soon plug up the gaping, smoldering hole where Davenport once stood and from whence the stench of roasting flesh and the cackle of Satan himself continues to emanate.
Following the immolation of Davenport, LGBT communities across the country immediately issued statements acknowledging their culpability for the catastrophe, admitting that homosexuality was a sinful lifestyle deserving of wrathful punishment. In surveys, 100 percent of homosexuals polled said that, given the clear evidence of God's Will shown by the tragic events, the best course of action would be to abandon the notion of gay rights altogether and beg the Lord's forgiveness.
"I thought antigay activism was cruel and bigoted before, but now I can see that, yes, my sexual orientation is truly an abomination in the Eyes of God," said lesbian activist and organizer Professor Julia Cafritz of Houston, responding to early reports of God's actions in the Midwest. "My very existence is an affront to all that is good and true in this country. I'm sorry, America. I'm so, so terribly sorry."
At press time, officials said the overall strength of the traditional American family had increased by 47 percent following the eternal damnation of Davenport, while pure, hardworking Christians everywhere would continue to be assured a place in heaven.


=end=