General: July 2005 Archives

Speaking at a conference of Exodus International, the largest religious group promoting the idea that gays can can change their sexual orientation, Rev. Jerry Falwell endorsed forcing gay kids into counseling designed to change their sexual orientation.

Falwell compared allowing a child to identify as gay with allowing children to play on the interstate and dismissed psychologists’ claims that consent is fundamental to a healthy counseling relationship and that parents should not force their gay kids into therapy. [...]

Concerns about safety and professionalism at Love in Action
were raised after a 16-year-old Tennessee teen blogged that his parents were forcing him into an unconventional program intended to turn him straight. (source)

You know, I try to be “tolerant” of everyone, despite our differences. But it’s becoming increasingly clear to me that some people don’t really give a damn about doing that.

“Reparative therapy” is an act of violence when performed against gay kids against their will. This bastard (Falwell) is simply adding to the argument that he has absolutely no love or concern over gay kids and would rather see them dead (by their own hands or the result of “reparative therapy”) rather than simply being themselves and trying to find happiness in this world of ours.

He will wrap all of that up into his nice little package and call it “Christian love”, or some other bullshit label. My message to Rev. Falwell and his ilk is to take their message of love and... go to Hell, where they belong. Leave kids alone and if you really want to show them support and love, try listening to what they are trying to say to you.

A top aide to one of the U.S. Senate’s leading antigay members has told a Washington blog that he is gay and stands by his boss, Pennsylvania Republican Rick Santorum.

Robert Traynham serves Santorum as the main spokesman and deputy chief of staff for the Senate Republican Conference, which Santorum chairs. After receiving tips from readers of his Web log, BlogActive, Michael Rogers called Traynham and asked him if he is “out to the senator.” In a tape Rogers provided to Advocate.com, Traynham responded, “I am.” Asked whether the senator’s constituents know he’s openly gay, Traynham said, “I’m not sure that’s really relevant.”

In a statement released exclusively to Advocate.com, Santorum said, “Robert Traynham has worked for me for eight years; the last four as a member of my leadership staff as deputy chief of staff for the Senate Republican Conference. He recently returned to my personal office and is now communications director for me. He is widely respected and admired on Capitol Hill, both among the press corps and among the congressional staff, as a communications professional. Not only is Mr. Traynham an exemplary staffer, but he is also a trusted friend and confidant to me and my family. Mr. Traynham is a valued member of my staff, and I regret that this effort on behalf of people who oppose me has made him a target of bigotry in their eyes.”

The senator added, “It is entirely unacceptable that my staff’s personal lives are considered fair game by partisans looking for arguments to bolster my opponent’s campaign. Mr. Traynham continues to have my full support and confidence as well as my prayers as he navigates this rude and mean-spirited invasion of his personal life.” (source)

It is entirely unacceptable that my staff’s personal lives are considered fair game by partisans looking for arguments to bolster my opponent’s campaign.

Perhaps. But it is entirely acceptable to expose a hypocrite and a fraud for what he is. And that is exactly what Robert Traynham is; a gay man working for and helping the cause of the likes of Senator Santorum ultimately at the cost of our community. It’s like Ernst Röhm, a gay man, who served Hitler - helping to exterminated over two million homosexuals during the holocaust. It’s disgraceful.

Other Writings on this...
Cognitive Disonnance Overload

The father of a gay teenager who wrote in a Web log that he was being sent against his will to a camp run by a group called “Love in Action International” to “cure” him of his homosexuality is defending his actions.

In an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network Joe Stark says he did the right thing when he sent his 16 year old son Zach to the camp near Memphis, Tennessee.

“We felt very good about Zach coming here because… to let him see for himself the destructive lifestyle, what he has to face in the future, and to give him some options that society doesn’t give him today,” Stark told CBN. “Knowing that your son... statistics say that by the age of 30 he could either have AIDS or be dead.” (source)

I wonder if they will ever know the psychological damage that has been done to their son? How will he deal with this? Will he withdraw from life? Will he try to be celibate throughout his life? Will he marry a woman and try to be straight? Will he end up being a criminal because he is so angry he has no way to deal with that anger?

If this were done to me, I think it would destroy my relationship with my parents for life - trust was destroyed). If I were Zach, I would probably bide my time and try to keep a low profile (no boyfriend, no nothing), until I was 18. Then, I’d do everything in my power to cut them lose. Who needs their crap?

Related Entry
June 16, 2005 - How We Treat Gay Kids
July 19, 2005 - Teen about to leave gay ‘conversion’ camp

Other Links
Antigay Father Outs ‘Zach’
Zach Vs. Pat

A conservative legislator in Topeka, Kan., wants to review policies allowing gays and lesbians to adopt children in foster care, an issue gay-rights advocates feared eventually would arise after voters approved a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.

State representative Steve Huebert, a Valley Center Republican, told the Lawrence Journal-World he is pursuing the issue on behalf of a constituent worried that her granddaughter might be adopted by a lesbian and raised by a lesbian couple. (source)

And they say the gay community has an agenda.

The city of Green Bay and seven other local bodies will fight a lawsuit seeking health benefits for partners of gay state employees, saying they will be forced to provide similar perks if the lawsuit succeeds.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit in April on behalf of six state workers, claiming state government’s refusal to provide health insurance to their gay partners violates the equal protection clause of the Wisconsin constitution.

Earl Van Den Heuvel (pictured left), a member of the Green Bay City Council, which voted Tuesday night to fight the lawsuit, said the case could force all Wisconsin cities to provide benefits to partners of gay employees and open up a floodgate of lawsuits from others seeking benefits.

“As a government, we just can’t afford it,”, he said. “The biggest cost our city has is health benefits.” (source)

Well, that argument really doesn’t hold water does it? If the city of Green Bay is looking to save money by denying health benefits, it should start with all married couples - no benefits for anyone who is not a direct employee of the city. That means no spouses. Think of all the money they would save!

That is what would be fair, and if they did it universally, no one (gay or straight) would be able to complain or file a lawsuit against them. But this has nothing to do with fairness, does it?

Maine passed a law making it illegal to discriminate against gay people in house, employment, accommodations, credit, etc. This is the third time similar bills have become law. Twice before, the voters of Maine has repealed the laws by voter referendum.

Maine Won’t Discriminate plans to spend a lot of time explaining to voters that the law they likely will vote on in November -- pending state validation of 50,519 signatures submitted by the Christian Civic League of Maine and its supporters -- has nothing to do with gay marriage. [...]

Twice before, voters have rejected similar measures by slim margins. The civic league and the grassroots coalition announced last week they had the signatures needed to put the issue out to a citizen vote again. (source)

“What we’re going to focus on is what this bill is actually about, basic and fundamental protections,” said Ted O’Meara, a former director of the state Republican Party. “It’s very simple. It’s very straightforward.”

While the law makes it very clear that it is only concerned with discrimination, and not marriage, the message folks receive from people who have their own agenda (religious groups who want gays to have no protections what so ever), is that that this is a “slippery slope” and that if you make it illegal to fire someone for being gay, it won’t be long before those people will be asking for marriage equality.

That may happen, but that is a different issue all together. This law is only talking about basic protections. So if the citizens of Maine repeal the law, what they are really saying to the gay citizens of Maine, along with the gay tourists who go to Maine to spend their vacation money, is that we will take your money, but we still reserve the right to fire you, evict you, turn down your request for a loan... just for being gay, and for no other reason.

I love Maine. I do. It is a beautiful state. Kent and I have been to Moosehead Lake and have enjoyed it’s awesome beauty. We make it a point to go to the Ogunquit area once or twice a year. I would miss going.

But, what Maine offers to me if they repeal this law is really something impossible for me to reconcile. How can I continue to go there when I know that people, just like me, will be discriminated against in this fashion, and my tourist dollars will be supporting that machine?

I can’t do that. If Maine ever chooses to offer marriage to it’s gay citizens or not is for them to decide. I believe they should, but that is of course, my personal opinion.

Not hiring someone for a job for being gay is another issue entirely, and that does affect me. I don’t have to be a citizen of Maine to voice my opinion on this. If they repeal this bill, I will have to seek other areas for our vacations - some place that feels that, whoever you are, you are entitled to simple, basic fairness.

I suppose we would settle for Massachusetts. It allows full marriage for gay couples and does not discriminate. The rest of our state’s neighbors are not as progressive. Or, we could vacation in Canada. The danger is, we might just want to stay.