Friday Gay Blogging

Students at Smith College protested a speech by ex-gay activist Ryan Sorba -- loudly enough to shut him down. From Good As You:

Now, some say drowning out the opposition is contrary to free speech, especially on a locale like a college campus. And we do see that point. But then again, the students who ended Sorba's speech were simply joining forces to challenge what they perceive as hateful, divisive speech, the likes of which truly affects them, their friends, their loved ones, and their communities. So we also totally see that by banding together to silence what they perceive to be hurtful noise, the students are simply demonstrating that the vast majority of them have collectively cast anti-gay speech in an unacceptable role (the same way they have with less "accepted" biases like racism and misogyny). And this protest was just the culmination of their own free expression.

I'm with Hooper on this one, and left a comment to that effect. In fact, there's quite an interesting discussion in the comments, hinging on the concept of "free speech," which, as I noted in one of my own comments, is where the right-wing whining about criticism of their lies and distortions always starts: "my free speech rights are being violated because people are criticizing me for saying what I think." My position is simply this: no, you're rights are not being violated -- no one stopped you from saying anything. You said nasty, hateful things and people are quite justifiably outraged about it. Consequently, you're not popular. Deal with it.

It seems that high school principals sometimes take too much on themselves, because of, strangely enough, their "beliefs." There's been quite a reaction to another principal once again outing a student. From Good As You:

The ACLU is coming down on Memphis, Tennessee's Hollis F. Price Middle College High and its principal, Daphne Beasley, for (allegedly) violating the privacy of two male students by publicly identifying them as gay. The claims, which sound more like they should be a plot on "Gossip Girl" than an actual public school situation, involve grown adults making hearsay assumptions (the boys' revealed relationship was all based on conjecture), employing anti-gay harassment (the principal told one of the moms she didn't like gay people), forcing the estrangement of the two students (they were told to avoid each other in the halls), and, of course, inappropriately disclosing private information (SHE OUTED THEM! ).

Joe.My.God has more details:

n September of 2007, the principal at Hollis F. Price Middle College High told teachers she wanted the names of all student couples, “hetero and homo,” because she wanted to monitor them personally to prevent students from engaging in public displays of affection.

The two students now represented by the ACLU, Andrew and Nicholas (who have asked that their last names not be revealed), were two A students who had been seeing each other for a short time and were attempting to keep their relationship quiet and private. The principal heard about them through another student, then wrote their names on a list she posted next to her desk, in full view of anyone who entered her office.

First of all, what's with preventing public displays of affection? I mean, if they're not screwing in the hallways, what's her problem? When I was in high school, you met your girlfriend (well, when I was in high school, it was downright dangerous to have a boyfriend) between classes, walked together, sometimes even holding hands or in the standard-issue "teenager clinch," and no one thought anything about it -- except "They're going together." And this is a problem exactly how? (Of course, considering the way the world is these days, maybe they are screwing in the halls, which is not something I'd want to watch.)

And there has been fall-out. From Timothy Kincaid, quoting Memphis Eyewitness News:

One of the young men, Nicholas, an 11th grader who just made the Dean’s List, spoke with Eyewitness News Everywhere.

“It was actually frightening,” he says, “to see a list with my name on it where not just other teachers could see but students as well.”

Nicholas says his teachers and other students treat him differently as a result of Principal Beasley’s decision and that he and Andrew have both had to deal with verbal assaults. Nicholas was also not allowed to go on a trip to New Orleans to help rebuild homes because, as one of his teacher’s explained, he would “embarrass” the school by engaging in gay affection.

“I really feel that my personal privacy was invaded,” Nicholas says. “I mean, Principal Beasley called my mother and outed me to my mother!”

Given that the principal is completely out of line (and here's my fervent wish that the book be thrown at her), what about the automatic assumption on the part of a teacher that Nicholas would "embarrass the school" by engaging in inappropriate behavior when he has been a model of decorum? What's with these people?

(And it's interesting to note that the comments after the Memphis Eyewitness News story are almost all supportive of the students and highly critical of the principal.)

The Methodists came close to breaking a barrier. Under consideration at this years conference was a resolution that would have materially changed the church's relationship with gays:

The Ledger reports on the proposal

The church’s current policy declares, “The United Methodist Church does not condone the practice of homosexuality and considers this practice incompatible with Christian teaching.” A legislative committee has proposed a sweeping change to that policy, taking a neutral stance, calling “all members of our community of faith to commitment, integrity and fidelity in their sexual relationships.”

The proposal also acknowledges the strong disagreements within the church and asks “the Church, United Methodist and others, and the world, to refrain from judgment regarding homosexual persons and practices until the Spirit leads us to new insight.”.

[. . .]

The Rev. Troy Plummer, executive director of Reconciling Ministries Network, a gay-rights advocacy group, said Tuesday he is "carefully optimistic" about the proposal. He noted that it thoroughly rewrites the policy, reflecting on the nature of sexuality and the profound disagreements about the issue.

"I'm hopeful the delegates would see that as a statement of truth. I feel a different spirit here," he said.

Sadly, it didn't pass, and that seems to be largely the work of African and Asian delegates. Timothy Kincaid:

I believe that the vote of the Methodist Convention illustrates a problem that exists and will continue to grow within international religious movements.

I think it likely that had the delegates all been from within the United States, there would have been significant change to the policy. While there may not have been a change in policy on marriages or civil unions, the declarations about immorality and the proud exclusions of gay persons would have disappeared.

But conservative elements within the American church ally with Africans and play upon cultural biases to force their views on their fellow American Methodists. And while they play on African homophobia, they do nothing to address the murder and violence against homosexual persons on the African continent. Rather than condemn brutality, they reject the message of Christ so as to entrench their political alliances and continue their assured success in the politics of their church.

We've been witnessing the efforts of Bishop Peter Akinola to tear the Anglican Church apart over this issue, and I suspect that Kincaid is right: it's a function there, as here, of a reach for political power.

Andy Towle points out a an irony in the proceedings:

Here's how the vote went: "Approved, 517-416, keeping the statement that the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching. Rejected, 574-298, a measure that would have changed the church's definition of marriage to include same-sex unions. Approved, 544-365, a resolution opposing homophobia and discrimination against lesbians or gays."

What's most sad about this is that over a third voted against a resolution opposing homophobia. Any guesses where they were from?

Human Rights Campaign has managed not to endorse an openly gay candidate for the U.S. Senate. Howie Klein had a few words to say on that:

But it was a Senate race they chose to ignore that is the most shocking and disappointing element of their announcement today. North Carolina has two extreme right wing senators, Elizabeth Dole and Richard Burr, each of whom can always be counted on to do whatever they can to make the lives of gay men and women less palatable and less safe. One, Elizabeth Dole, is up for re-election in November. There are two Democrats in a neck and neck primary battle to take her on, Republican-lite Establishment-backed Kay Hagan and grassroots progressive Jim Neal. Frankly, I don't know where Hagan stands on gay issues. I do know where Neal stands-- 100% with the gay community, of which he is an upfront member. Yes, one of the first times that an uncloseted gay man is running for the U.S. Senate-- in a race he can win-- and HRC is... abstaining.

The HRC's endorsements as a whole are disappointing, to say the least. "Pathetic" might be closer. (That, by the way, is one of the more polite sections of Klein's commentary.) Joe.My.God also weighed in, with statements from DailyKos and Dan Savage, as well as a list of the senatorial candidates endorsed by HRC -- an uneven group, to say the least. (Andrew Sullivan also took notice, but turned it into an anti-Clinton rant -- big surprise there.) Savage's comment was succinct -- pithy even:

Why won’t HRC endorse Neal? Well, when the DNC says jump, HRC leaps into low-earth orbit.

Pam Spaulding has posted the audio of David Smith's appearance on Michelangelo Signorile's radio show. Smith is VP of Programs for HRC, trying desperately to defend the group's endorsements.

Y'know, everytime I start to think HRC may have something on the ball, it pulls a stunt like this. (Spaulding, by the way, has been on top of Neal's run from the beginning, and has posted lots of juicy information on the DNC's maneuvering to keep an openly gay man out of the race.)

DADT is going, there's no two ways about it: nobody likes the policy, except Elaine Donnelley. I've commented on her before -- she's one of the eminently unhinged, as well as fundamentally, sneakily dishonest. Timothy Kincaid has some info on her current campaign:

But while Donnelly actively campaigns to reduce equal opportunities for women in the Military Service, you’d never know that from her new anti-gay campaign. On her new website established “build an online army” to fight against “gay activists”, there’s no reference to Donnelly’s hostility towards “Pentagon feminists” or any other anti-woman policies she espouses.

Instead, Donnelly states her purpose as “Support for Military Men and Women“ [emphasis mine] . . . .

And like so many anti-gays, Elaine Donnelly has given up even the slightest shred of integrity she may have ever held. To Donnelly truth is subjective and honesty inconvenient.

I can't hardly add anything to that.

That's almost it for this week. I have a couple of comments on posts I've run across recently, one from Joe Brummer and one from Dan Blatt, but I need to think about those a bit more. So, there will again be a Saturday edition this week.

TTFN