Friday Gay Blogging

Timothy Kincaid has a post on the consequences of inhabiting closed systems. He quotes a theology professor on the compassion in denying gays their rights:

Yet, is it a rightly applied compassion that affirms a lifestyle that too often compromises the physical and emotional well being of fellow human beings? The data seems to indicate that homosexual practice for both couples and individuals leads to a greatly reduced life expectancy (as much as three decades, and not just due to AIDS). Among homosexual men, for instance, there exists a much higher risk of rectal cancer and rectal trauma (which causes a much higher risk of a wide range of diseases). Is it compassionate to affirm such a lifestyle?

Kincaid concludes that the man is sincere and honest in his concerns (they have been in correspondence), but one thing occurs to me that Kincaid doesn't really explore: this theologian is relying on evidence provided by those in his movement who are not honest, but why is he content to explore no further? He is a professor of theology, and surely the idea of intellectual inquiry is not a foreign one, and yet he doesn't seem to have investigated any findings outside of the AFA/FoF/FRI circuit. Does he perhaps think that legitimate sources are somehow less reliable? Or does he just not want to look past his prejudices?

Kincaid points out that "Dire Consequences" theology is built upon logic that will be its undoing:

But we know that there is no known reduced life expectancy at all. And we know that rectal cancer only impacts one thirtieth of one percent of gay men. So what does this say to the theologian?

He assumes that evidence that negates their conclusions will prove their undoing, if not persuading them, and least making their message laughable. I think Kincaid may underestimate the ability of people to ignore reality when it conflicts with what they "know."

There will be some interesting court cases from the recent decision by the Coquille tribe of Oregon to recognize same sex marriage.

Because the Coquille is federally recognized, a marriage “occurring within the tribe would actually be federally recognized,” Gilley said. And that would violate the Defense of Marriage Act, a federal law that says the federal government “may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose.”

As a result, the marriage between the Brantings - who share the same last name after changing it to reflect their commitment - could become a test case if challenged by the federal government. Gilley said it could test the boundaries of tribal independence nationwide. .

“This could be a test of sovereignty,” he said.

It's going to test a lot more than sovereignty.

From Jeremy Hooper at Good As You, choice bit: Americans more and more think churches should stay out of politics.

The greatest increases since 2004 in the view that churches and other houses of worship should not express themselves on political matters have occurred among less educated Republicans and people who say that social issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage will be important to their vote. For example, among people who rate gay marriage as a top voting issue, the percentage saying that churches should stay out of politics soared from 25% in 2004 to 50% currently; there was little change over this period on this question among people who do not view same-sex marriage as a very important issue.

From Queerty, this heads up on what our friends in Washington are doing with ENDA. From the Gay City story:

A little-discussed provision of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) would allow employers to give health insurance coverage and other benefits to married opposite-sex couples and deny those same benefits to the partners of their gay and lesbian employees who are legally married in Massachusetts and California. . . .

ENDA, which bans job discrimination based on sexual orientation, now says an employer cannot be required "to treat a couple who are not married in the same manner as the covered entity treats a married couple for purposes of employee benefits."

To define "married" and "marry," ENDA cites the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which bars federal recognition of same-sex marriages and allows states to not honor them. Because the new bill, to an extent, mirrored the earlier language, gay and lesbian groups agreed to it, though not necessarily happily.

Basically, the federal ENDA in this form would negate civil unions and domestic partnership provisions at the state and local level. I'm generally sympathetic to the efforts of Frank and Baldwin to get something through Congress that supports equal rights for gays, but I think this is going a little far. It would be much better -- and probably muzzle the rabid right to a certain extent -- if the language left that issue up to the states.

As it stands, this is infuriating.

Dessert this morning courtesy of Queerty.