The March On Washington

by Wayne Besen:

Fresh off its wing nut wingding on the National Mall, the far-out fringe held its "Values Voter" summit in Washington last week. The highlight was jilted former Miss California, Carrie Prejean, starting a brand new religion - "MEvangelical Christianity". In her remarkably self-centered, narcissistic speech, she cast herself as a martyr on a mission and repeatedly had to remind the audience that she wasn't as stuck up as she appeared on stage.

Prejean's introspective idolatry was almost outdone by Michael Schwartz, the chief of staff for Sen. Tom Coburn. For those who do not remember, Coburn is the Oklahoma Republican who once criticized the movie Schindler's List for its nudity. Thank God for our watchdog, Senator Coburn, or lusting after malnourished and gaunt holocaust victims might have caught on.

With a mentor like Coburn, it was only natural for Schwartz to become an expert on pornography, and we were fortunate to have him share his wisdom at a Values Voter discussion on "The New Masculinity".

On the cusp of insulting gay people, Schwartz told the rabid right crowd that he was about to get "politically incorrect." Why bother with a disclaimer, as if gay bashing is actually controversial at such rallies? If he really wanted to shock the crowd, he would have introduced "Schwartz' List" - naming all the social conservatives caught in tawdry sex scandals. But, alas he only had an hour, clearly not enough time for this endeavor.

Schwartz called pornography a "blight" and a "disease".

Although he failed to point out it disproportionally afflicts Republicans, with "Red States" having the highest rates of pornography subscriptions.

The porno politico then agreed with an "ex-gay" friend of his that said, "'All pornography is homosexual pornography because all pornography turns your sexual drive inwards.' Now think about that. And if you, if you tell an 11-year-old boy about that, do you think he's going to want to go out and get a copy of Playboy? I'm pretty sure he'll lose interest. That's the last thing he wants.' You know, that's a, that's a good comment. It's a good point and it's a good thing to teach young people."

So, straight porn will turn you gay and holocaust nudity is erotic. Just plain, homespun common sense.

Now that the loons have finally left DC, there is the question of whether the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community should march on Washington. The main event is scheduled for October 11th and it is highly anticipated by a new breed of Internet-age activists.

There is, however, opposition from many local GLBT organizations and movement activists who believe that resources spent in Washington would be put to better use fighting battles in the states.

I am highly sympathetic to statewide leaders who have performed heroic work, even though they lack crucial resources. And they are correct that the GLBT movement needs to continue fighting and educating at the local level. This will not only bring us victory in the states, but will change the facts on the ground in congressional districts, increasing the chance Congress will vote for equality.

Still, I agree with Equality Across America organizer Cleve Jones and long-time activist David Mixner that now is the time to go to Washington. No matter how much state organizers would prefer we march on state capitols, it is not the same. A rally in sleepy towns like Tallahassee or Albany changes your afternoon plans, while a trip to DC changes your life.

Detractors of the big march say that not enough organizing has been done to lobby members of Congress. But, what exactly would these citizen-lobbyists say that has not already been said by Human Rights Campaign lobbyists 1,000 times before? Besides, those who come to DC can always lobby the Representative in their district when they return home.

The march is really about inspiring a new generation. One of the highlights of my young activism career was attending the 1993 March on Washington. It moved me to a lifetime of advocacy and I believe that today's youth deserve the same opportunity I got to come to DC and be counted.


Let's not be jaded and forget how mesmerizing it was to step on the lawn and witness a sea of homosexuals and their allies campaigning for equal rights. I think those who oppose the march should close their eyes and relive the experience.

This march will likely be smaller than those in the past due to the economic recession. It will likely not spur an overnight legislative victory. But, it will invigorate and initiate a fire inside thousands of activists that will burn long after the last candle is blown out on the National Mall. And, as a bonus, compared to the crazies who marched last week, a gay pride march will finally seem positively boring.

Erie Pride Weekend - July 25 & 26

Erie Gay Pride is coming this weekend!


On Saturday, folks will be assembling at the Zone Dance Club, 133 W 18th St, Erie PA at noon, and the March will be stepping off at 1 PM, which will proceed across 18th Street to State Street, and then down State Street to Perry Square.


The Rally will be starting between 1:30 and 2 PM and there will be performers and speakers, including headliner Tom Goss.

On Sunday at 11 AM, there will be a Diversity service at Community United Church, 1011 W 38th St, Erie PA and then a GLBT Day at Waldameer Park and Waterworld at 1 PM. Waldameer is near the entrance to Presque Isle State Park. Meet at Rainbow Gardens.

For more info, go to Erie Gay Pride.

Anti-Gay Discrimination Has No Place in America

Rubbish In The Guise Of Research

from Truth Wins Out:

In a brazen effort to preempt an American Psychological Association report on human sexuality, scheduled for release in August, an anti-gay organization unveiled its own report, which amounts to rubbish in the guise of research.


The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality's (NARTH) "new" study, "What the Research Shows: NARTH's Response to the American Psychological Association's Claims on Homosexuality", is so embarrassingly slipshod that no scientist would take it seriously.

But, the goal, of course, is not to impress researchers who would cackle at the kookiness. The real aim, according to Dr. Jack Drescher, a renowned psychiatrist and author, is to confuse the public and gullible media into believing the APA and NARTH are equally credentialed scientific bodies engaged in a legitimate dispute over homosexuality.

The truth, however, is that NARTH is a fringe group held in ill repute by anyone who has even a rudimentary knowledge of science. The organization is best known for encouraging male clients to drink Gatorade and call friends "dude" to increase masculinity.

The first clue that this study was utter trash was the fact that NARTH and Focus on the Family referred to it as "new". Indeed, not one iota of fresh research took place. Not one moment was spent in the lab, nor were any subjects recruited to broaden the base of knowledge on the etiology of sexual orientation.

The study was basically a compilation of everything negative ever written about gay people, no matter how invalid, idiotic or biased the conclusion. NARTH essentially blasted sh** out of a cannon, hoping at least some would stick to the wall.

The second clue to the inanity of this report was that NARTH's Scientific Advisory Board guided it. The last time this assemblage of reprobates appeared in the news, it was after one of their members (Gerald Schoenwolf) seemed to endorse slavery, while another (Joseph Berger) opined that gender variant children should be "ridiculed" by their peers.


The third clue was when NARTH claimed that its work appeared in the peer-reviewed "Journal of Human Sexuality." They conveniently fail to mention that this is their own journal - staffed by other like-minded quacks. This is the equivalent of me offering a glowing review of my last book on my own personal website, while pretending it was an independent overview.

The fourth clue was that NARTH refused to rely on modern research. Instead, they elected to incorporate discredited and outdated century-old studies, where gay subjects were often recruited from prisons or mental hospitals. It is no coincidence that NARTH used work from the horse and buggy era, as no research in more than thirty years has supported their views on homosexuality.

Could you imagine how people would be howling if an organization used 125 year old studies on African Americans, climate change or even medicine? The idea is as shocking as it is laughable.

Most absurd, NARTH invoked the Stonewall uprising that ushered in the modern gay rights movement, on the event's 40thanniversary, to highlight the alleged oppression of "ex-gays." According to the group's website:

"Those who have received help from reorientation therapists have collectively stood up to be counted-as once did their openly gay counterparts in the 1970s. The first time a formal demonstration against the American Psychiatric Association was protested against-not by pro-gay activists, but by a group of people reporting that they had substantially changed their sexual orientation, and that change is possible for others-was on May 22, 1994, in Philadelphia. A similar demonstration occurred...at the 2006 American Psychological Association Convention in New Orleans."

Interestingly, NARTH writes this passage as if it is a casual observer witnessing an organic uprising. What NARTH conveniently fails to point out is that the group engineered and staged these protests as a public relations gimmick. I was at the so-called "protest" in New Orleans. The demonstrators were all professional "ex-gay" activists or members of NARTH - including the group's president Joseph Nicolosi and his son.

So, let's put this "study" in perspective.


NARTH is repackaging 125-year old research as new and unveiling its "findings" in its own publication, while trying to claim that it survived peer review. The group is also pretending to document a spontaneous popular uprising that they had actually staged. They are hoping to pull off this publicity stunt by creating an online echo chamber, with Christian news outlets mindlessly repeating their obvious lies.

NARTH is not interested in science. Its real motivation is bigotry that can be best evidenced by a quote made by the group's late co-founder Dr. Socarides: "Homosexuality is...a purple menace that is threatening the proper design of gender distinctions in society."

If it quacks like a duck, it may just be quacks ducking out on reality.

Our Struggle Is Local

Why the Gay Rights Movement Has No National Leader

By Jeremy W. Peters for the NY Times:

Every so often, the American social order is reshuffled. And that upheaval is typically accompanied by a prominent face.


Frederick Douglass became the face of the black abolitionist movement. A century later, Martin Luther King Jr. played that role in the civil rights movement. Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem became the spokeswomen for the modern women’s movement.

Yet the gay rights movement, which is about to enter its fifth decade, has never had a such a leader despite making remarkable strides in a relatively short period of time.

Gay people have no national standard-bearer, no go-to sound-byte machine for the media. So when President Obama last week extended benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees, there was no alpha gay leader to respond with the movement’s official voice, though some activists criticized the president for not going far enough.

Until 1973, homosexuality was classified as a mental illness by the American Psychiatric Association. Today, same-sex couples can marry in six states. How did a group that has been so successful over the last generation in countering cultural prejudice and winning civil rights make it so far without an obvious leader?

One explanation is that gay and lesbian activists learned early on that they could get along just fine without one. Even in the movement’s earliest days following the violent uprising at the Stonewall Inn in Greenwich Village 40 years ago this week, no singular leader emerged. Some historians believe this is in part because it was — and still is — difficult for the average American to empathize with the struggles of gay people.

“The gay movement has always had a problem of achieving a dignity or a moral imperative that the black civil rights movement had, or the women’s rights movement claimed,” said Dudley Clendinen, who co-wrote the book “Out for Good: The Struggle to Build a Gay Rights Movement in America” and now teaches writing at Johns Hopkins University. “Because this movement is fundamentally about the right to be sexual, it’s hard for the larger public to see that as a moral issue,” he said.

By contrast, the moral authority that leaders like Dr. King, Ms. Friedan and Ms. Steinem could claim — and the fact that Americans did not look at them and imagine their sex lives — made it easier to build respectability with the public.

Another reason for the absence of a nationally prominent gay leader is the highly local nature of the movement. Unlike the civil rights and the feminist movements, the gay movement lacked a galvanizing national issue.

In the 1950s and 1960s, black activists pushed for the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act and asserted their rights in the courts in cases like Brown v. Board of Education. Feminists campaigned for the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1970s.

“Betty and her group wanted to do it from a more top-down approach,” said Daniel Horowitz, a professor of American studies at Smith College who wrote a biography of Ms. Friedan. “You go to Washington and you lobby members of Congress. In fact, she talked explicitly about the N.A.A.C.P. as her model, and the N.A.A.C.P. had achieved its goals primarily through Supreme Court cases.”

Many gay activists pursued a different approach, focusing on issues pertinent to their local communities. Though he has achieved celebrity status of late, Harvey Milk was a mere San Francisco city supervisor, without much in the way of a national profile, when he was assassinated in 1978.

City councils and state legislatures are where domestic partnership laws and legislation extending anti-discrimination protections to gays and lesbians originated. In 1982, Wisconsin became the first state to outlaw discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. And of the six states that now allow same-sex marriage, three — Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont — legalized the practice through a vote by the state legislature, without prodding by a court.

“The issues of gay rights are mainly state issues, so the focus for activism is going to be on the local level,” said David Eisenbach, a lecturer in history at Columbia University and the author of “Gay Power: An American Revolution.”

The shifting legal and political environment that has confronted the movement over the years has also made it difficult for a singular leader to emerge.

After the Stonewall uprising 40 years ago, the goal was to persuade society to stop treating gays and lesbians like social deviants.

That movement for equality was later overshadowed by efforts to combat AIDS in the 1980s and early 1990s. And AIDS itself is a reason leaders were hard to come by. “AIDS wiped out a whole generation,” Mr. Eisenbach said. “What you have is a vacuum. And that still has not been filled.”


As the AIDS crisis was contained, gay activists shifted their focus in the late 1990s and early 2000s to laws about discrimination, hate crimes and domestic partnerships. Successes on those issues were due in large part to gay rights groups that rose up at the local level and learned to work with local lawmakers.

Until 2003, few even contemplated that gay couples would be able to marry. Then Massachusetts’ highest court ruled that gay couples had that right under the state’s Constitution, ushering in a whole new phase of the movement. Activists on the state and local levels were already well in place and found themselves positioned to wage the campaigns for same-sex marriage — as the recent successes in the Northeast have shown.

“They see dispersal as a great thing, that it’s better not to have a concentration or too much attention overinvested in one individual,” said David J. Garrow, a Pulitzer Prize-winning historian who has written about the civil rights and women’s rights movements.“The speed and breadth of change has been just breathtaking,” he added. “But it’s happened without a Martin Luther King.”

Happy Father's Day !

Emmy & Sundance Grand Jury Prize Nominated, one-hour documentary exploring the personal, cultural, and political impact of gay men who are making a decision that is at once traditional and revolutionary: to raise children themselves.

For more information, please visit www.DaddyandPapa.com

Pride and Prejudice

John Berry, the highest-ranking openly LGBT official in the Obama administration, delivered a stirring and poignant appeal to Justice Department employees at their Pride celebration.

It’s good to be here at the Department of Justice. I deeply appreciate the work you do and thank you for your service to our country. Thank you, Mr. Attorney General, for your leadership in continuing this wonderful tradition of celebrating Gay Pride. And thank you, Chris Hook, for the kind introduction. It’s an honor to be with you all today.


I’m so glad that you’re honoring Dr. Frank Kameny today. In 1957, two years before I was born, Dr. Kameny, a veteran and Ph.D. astronomer from Harvard, was fired from his civil service job solely for his sexual orientation. In one letter to him, an agency official wrote that the Government “does not hire homosexuals and will not permit their employment...” He went on to say that “the homosexual is automatically a security risk” and that he “frequently becomes a disruptive personnel factor within any organization.”

With the fervent passion of a true patriot, Frank did not resign himself to his fate or quietly endure his wrong. He fought back. After 20 years, he achieved the goal he sought: The repudiation of the Government’s policy of formal and unfounded discrimination.

That same spirit burned in the hearts of patrons of the Stonewall bar on a warm July night 40 years ago. Laws against homosexuality were often selectively enforced by police -- not to protect and defend, but to terrorize and abuse an unpopular minority. On one such raid to arrest gay and transgender patrons of the Stonewall bar, that same spark of liberty that burned so brightly in Frank Kameny’s chest burst to bonfire life in New York City.

Saying “no” to abuse, “no” to harassment, “no” to basic violations of human dignity -- proud Americans stood up, fought back, and gave birth to the national movement for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights.

That movement’s agenda and goal is simple: All Americans should be free to work where their skills enable them; free to share equally in every right as well as every responsibility and burden of citizenship; and free to love and pursue happiness no more and no less than our fellow Americans.

This struggle follows the great American tradition of taking on difficult battles with the same full depth of commitment and passion of those who fought for liberty and against the injustices of their day. Who can forget the courage of Washington, Jefferson, and Franklin, when many of their neighbors and countrymen saw their pursuit of liberty as treason and would have cheered their hanging?

We need no public poll to tell us how half the country, desperately defending the shackles of slavery, used Scripture, courts, secession, and war to declare African-Americans as chattel and 3/5ths of a person.

Whether it was securing a woman’s right to vote or ending “separate but equal” -- make no mistake -- Susan B. Anthony and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. were not unanimously acclaimed and embraced by all their country. Thankfully, they were embraced by enough hearts, with enough passion, that together they could stand their ground with courage and hope, carrying the day for right, for justice, and for liberty.

Today, our country is once again divided -- and pray as I do for a middle ground, finding it is often elusive when liberty is at stake.

The tree of liberty grows but in one direction -- by adding rings. It is that miraculous quality that has produced the proud sheltering and living tree whose branches have withstood the lightning strike of secession and the gale force winds of fascism and communism.

The rings of that tree are nourished by honesty and truth, warmed by love and justice, and rooted in respect and dignity. It is my belief that Frank Kameny’s fight to hold a job he did well and the passionate fight for dignity and respect that began at Stonewall were not isolated events. They were in fact the formation of a new ring of life on the American tree of liberty.

How privileged are we, in this generation, to stand upon their shoulders and carry forth their fight? We must not rest until our ring is secure. We shall be clear in our ends; we shall be honest and open; we shall work where our abilities allow; we shall continue to serve our country with bravery and distinction; we shall love who our hearts desire. And with the help of a President who supports our cause, the aid of courageous fellow country men and women who love liberty; and with God’s grace -- We Shall Prevail.

I would like to end on a personal note. I come from a family with a proud tradition of service. My father enlisted in the Marines before Pearl Harbor and served at Guadalcanal, and my uncle, for whom I am named, was killed in battle in the Pacific.

In the year before he died, my father told me that he didn’t know what all the fuss about gays in the Military was about. He said “we didn’t call 'em gays -- but they were there and they died as bravely as everyone else.” I know he was right. A good friend of mine was a Colonel who honorably served in the Middle East. His sacrifice and risk of life was no less dear than anyone. I ask America, where do you stand -- with his honorable service or with those who would make him lie to do so?


My family has never known divorce. My first partner of 10 years died after a protracted and grueling battle with AIDS that reduced a 6-foot-2 190-pound athlete to 90 pounds at death. I was his primary caregiver -- and I held him in my arms as he died. I would have gladly traded my life for his that night, just as I would do so now for my current partner of 12 years if ever need be. Were we married? No, but I dare anyone to say we were not in love. I was blessed by two supportive families and dear friends who honored our relationship. If I hadn’t been -- I shudder to think -- because no power on earth could have kept me from his side.

Again, I ask: Where do you stand? Honoring love as precious and true wherever you find it, or with those who would demean or deny it?

I urge you. Stand where you can be proud. Stand with service and truth. Stand with love. Stand for liberty and justice for all.

God Bless you and God Bless America.

Please Support Equality with a Phone Call on Thursday Night

Friends,

Representative Babette Josephs of Philadelphia will be on Pennsylvania Cable Network’s call-in program Thursday night at 7pm to discuss House Bill 300, legislation that would outlaw discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered Pennsylvanians in employment, housing, and public accommodation.


Rep. Josephs is one of our greatest champions for LGBT equality at the General Assembly. What she needs from you tomorrow night is your support! The other guest will be Randy Wenger from the Pennsylvania Family Institute, an anti-gay organization that advocates against LGBT civil rights at the state capitol.

The phone number to call in to support HB 300 is 1-877-726-5001. If you don’t have cable, you can watch the program online at http://www.pcntv.com/streaming/streaming.html.

Talking points are available at our website:

http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/PHRAtalkpts.pdf
http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/TPsBusinessHB300.pdf
http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/ReligionAndHB300.pdf
http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/GenderID101HB300.pdf

You know how people say, “when push comes to shove”? Well, now is that time on HB 300. We need you to get loud. Because freedom can’t protect itself….

Yours in liberty,

Andy Hoover
Legislative Director
ACLU of Pennsylvania
Don't mourn. Organize.

Good News: Sen. Daylin Leach to Introduce Bill Providing For Full, Equal Marriage Rights to Pennsylvania's Same-Sex Couples

Take Action Below: It's Time Venango County Joins the Movement for Fairness and Equality for All.

HARRISBURG, May 27, 2009 – Sen. Daylin Leach, D-Delaware/Montgomery, today announced plans to introduce a bill that would offer full and equal marriage rights to same-sex couples in Pennsylvania. Under the new legislation, Pennsylvania would also recognize same-sex marriages conducted in other states.

Leach noted that after the recent passing of same-sex marriage legislation in New Hampshire and Maine, and the rapidly expanding list of states considering the approval of same-sex marriage, it is time for Pennsylvania to act.

“In the past few weeks, several states have legalized same-sex marriage, and many will soon follow suit,” Leach said. “There has never been a more propitious time for Pennsylvania to embrace equality and enshrine the civil right of all Pennsylvanians to marry.”

While the bill would not require religious institutions to perform any marriage ceremonies or recognize any marriages that they do not wish to sanction, Leach said his legislation would dissolve all of the barriers to building families that gay and lesbian couples currently face, both at the state and federal level.

“The alternative to legalizing same-sex marriage is retaining our current, archaic protocol which treats an entire group of citizens as second-class,” Leach said. “This protocol denies the reality of same-sex families, many of whom have children. It provides no vehicle by which society can encourage gay couples to do what it encourages straight couples to do: namely to form permanent, monogamous and committed life-long partnerships.”

Leach’s bill is currently circulating for co-sponsorship.

Please contact our local State Senator Mary Jo White to let her know we support this bill and expect her to become a co-sponsor.

Capitol Address
286 Capitol Building, Senate Box 203041
Harrisburg, PA 17120
Phone: 717-787-8724
TTYD: 800-364-1581
Fax: 717-772-1589
Email: mwhite@pasen.gov

District Address
1140 Liberty Street
Franklin, PA 16323-1140
Phone: 814-432-4345

Nationwide Parties/Protests Planned: The California Supreme Court to Deliver Its Prop. 8 Verdict on Tuesday

Those battling for equality have devised new outlets for activism which have amped up the pressure for action at every level.

The California Supreme Court will deliver its verdict on Tuesday morning at 10am PT on whether or not to throw out Prop. 8, a Constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in the state. Brian Devine has the best legal description of this anywhere, which you can read here. The Court isn't really looking at the law itself, but whether a change of this type violates the limited ability of the people to amend the Constitution through an initiative; in other words, whether Prop. 8 was an amendment, which is legal through the initiative process that was used, or a revision, which requires a more deliberative process.

Based on the oral arguments, most people believe that the Court will not overturn Prop. 8, but may allow the 18,000 marriages that were consummated when same-sex marriage in the state was legal to remain that way. But the Court could surprise.

The initiative battle and particularly the aftermath of Prop. 8 have sparked a tremendous amount of activism in the state and nationally. Regardless of the outcome, the group at Day of Decision will hold nationwide events praising or protesting the Court ruling. On Saturday, 70 civil rights and progressive groups are sponsoring Meet In The Middle For Equality, a large gathering in Fresno, CA.

Lucas O'Connor remarks:

All of which adds up to yes, Prop 8 has proven to be one of the best organizing points in recent decades for the state of California. It's been a perfect storm of tactical and technological innovation from facebook and text messaging plus orgs like Courage Campaign and CREDO meeting resurgent activist energy and experience coming from the issue and the '08 presidential campaign legacy.

Like with the Dallas Principles, those battling for equality have devised new outlets for activism which have amped up the pressure for action at every level.

300,000 people have signed the pledge to repeal Prop. 8. Grassroots groups have sprung up out of nowhere, with more coming on line every day. There is no equal to the activism and organizing this has set off.

If I have any faith left in the ability for California to manage its seemingly intractable governmental problems, it's because I see this effort that has been launched in the name of rights and equality, and dream that it can be scaled up into a larger progressive movement that expands the fight for justice. Such an organizing effort has never even really been tried in the nation's largest state, and if successful could spread like wildfire across the country.

Distortions Aside, Clergy Support Gay Rights in Surprising Numbers

By Peter Montgomery for Religion Dispatches:

In a recent ad by the National Organization for Marriage, a scary storm of homosexuality threatens to rain gays into people’s lives and churches. That campaign, widely mocked by Stephen Colbert and numerous others, was just the most recent example of the Religious Right’s ongoing effort to portray the gay rights movement as an enemy of religious liberty and faith itself.


Progressive religious leaders have been working hard to make it clear that religion and religious people are not only on the “anti” side of the gay rights movement. Now there’s new evidence for widespread support among Christian leaders for public policies that protect the rights and lives of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, and for their full inclusion in the life of the church.

An in-depth analysis of Mainline Protestant clergy shows large majorities of support for anti-discrimination laws, hate crimes legislation, and the right of gay couples to adopt children. Even same-sex marriage, so often portrayed by Religious Right leaders as an attack on the church, draws support from nearly half of Mainline Protestant clergy when it is clarified that no church would be forced to bless same-sex couples.

Those findings are drawn from recently-released findings from the Clergy Voices Survey conducted last year by Public Religion Research. Researchers identified 1,000 senior clergy from each of the seven largest Mainline Protestant denominations and sent them in-depth questionnaires by mail (the response rate was over 40 percent). The survey’s 60-plus questions covering LGBT issues provide the most extensive look ever at clergy beliefs about homosexuality, interpretations of scripture, and the inclusion of LGBT people in the life of the church—including ordination.

The PRR analysis holds mostly good news for equality advocates providing yet another tool for challenging assertions by anti-gay activists and public officials that, for example, hate crimes laws are a designed as a prelude to dragging preachers from their pulpits.

Among the most dramatic findings is the striking diversity of opinion within Mainline clergy who, in general, hold much more diverse political views than white evangelicals; Mainline Protestants are one of the only major religious groupings who are truly swing voters. (White Catholics being the other).

Some of the divisions break down pretty dramatically across denominational lines, with clergy from the United Church of Christ and Episcopal Church at the equality-affirming end of the spectrum, and clergy from the American Baptist Churches, USA and the United Methodist Church at the more conservative end, both theologically and politically.

With facts support doubles

But it’s also interesting to look at factors that cut across the denominations. The authors of the analysis, Public Religion Research’s Robert P. Jones and Daniel Cox, also looked at a set of questions, including things such as the inerrancy of scripture and the sinfulness of homosexuality, to evaluate Mainline clergy along traditionalist/orthodox and modernist theological orientations. And, based on questions about sexuality, public policy, and the role of LGBT people in the church, they divide Mainline clergy into three major groupings.

Roughly equal proportions fall into a strongly gay-supportive base—who generally do not see homosexuality as a sin and are very supportive of pro-equality policies and full inclusion of gays in church leadership (29 percent)—and an opposing base holding the opposite view (30 percent). A plurality of respondents (41 percent) fall into what they call the Uncertain Middle.


That large middle group is ambivalent or uncertain about the nature of homosexuality, but is also generally supportive of equality-affirming public policies—much closer on policy issues to the supportive base than to the opposition. In some ways, clergy in the Uncertain Middle model an approach to the public policy issues that gay-rights advocates need to bring more fully into the policy arena: the majority of these clergy believe that having religious questions or concerns about the nature or sinfulness of homosexuality does not require one to oppose equality in the legal realm. This is the separation of church and state in action; with churches deciding questions about leadership and ordination, and policy decisions being made on constitutional principles like equality under the law.

This kind of clergy voice could be especially compelling to those people of faith who find themselves in an uncertain middle, perhaps struggling with what they have been taught about scripture, and wondering how much credence to give the arguments that religious liberty and legal equality are somehow irreconcilable.

This potential is evidenced by one of the most striking findings in the survey, which deals with support for same-sex marriage among clergy in the Uncertain Middle—which, remember, is a 41 percent plurality of the overall group. When asked whether they support marriage for same-sex couples, civil unions but not marriage, or no legal recognition at all, only 26 percent of clergy in the uncertain middle initially choose marriage equality. But when asked a follow-up question about whether they would support allowing gays to legally marry if the law guarantees that no church would be forced to marry any couple, that support jumps a remarkable 23 percentage points, to 49 percent. That is a powerful and potentially very useful fact.

But perhaps the most hopeful results for gay-rights advocates is the fact that almost half of the Mainline clergy report that their own views on gay and lesbian issues have become more liberal over the past ten years, with only 14 percent saying they have become more conservative.

Peter Montgomery, an Advisory Council member of ReligionDispatches, was until recently Vice President for Communications at People For the American Way and People For the American Way Foundation. Peter is now a spokesperson on a range of issues, including religion and politics, gay rights, and free speech.

Before joining People For in 1994, Peter Montgomery was associate director of grassroots lobbying for Common Cause where he worked on grassroots lobbying campaigns, volunteer recruitment, and media relations strategy. He wrote for Common Cause Magazine, an award-winning journal featuring investigative reporting about the federal government, where his work was honored by Project Censored.

Where's Our 'Fierce Advocate'?

This article about President Obama from the Washington Post demands that we ask similar questions about leadership here in Venango County.

Where are the local allies who will publicly stand with GLBT residents and help advocate for change,who will say that it is no longer acceptable that GLBT people live in the shadows, in the fear and isolation of the closet, because of the ignorance, bigotry and discrimination of a vocal minority with misplaced values ??

Where are our 'fierce advocates' ?

By Richard Socarides

In December, while trying to quiet the furor over his invitation of Rick Warren to take part in his inauguration, Barack Obama reminded us that he had been a "consistent" and "fierce advocate of equality for gay and lesbian Americans." But at the end of its first 100 days, his administration has been neither.

What makes this especially disappointing is that it comes during a crisis-driven "change moment" in our country's history that not only cries out for leadership but presents a particularly good climate for making substantial progress on gay equality.

As an adviser on gay rights to President Bill Clinton during his second term, I know how hard it is to achieve real progress. We learned that lesson acutely during Clinton's abortive first-term attempt to allow gays to serve in the military, an outcome for which he is still paying a steep legacy price.

But recent victories on gay marriage, a youth-driven paradigm shift in public opinion and the election of our first African American president make this a uniquely opportune moment to act.

I understand that the president has his hands full saving the economy. But across a broad spectrum of issues -- including women's rights, stem cell research and relations with Cuba -- the Obama administration has shown a willingness to exploit this change moment to bring about dramatic reform.

So why not on gay rights? Where is our New Deal?

It is the memory of 1993's gays-in-the-military debacle (and a desire never to repeat it) that has both the president's advisers and policy advocates holding back, waiting for some magical "right time" to move boldly.

This is a bad strategy. President Obama will never have more political capital than he has now, and there will never be a better political environment to capitalize on. People are distracted by the economy and war, and they are unlikely to get stirred up by the right-wing rhetoric that has doomed efforts in the past.

And people are willing to try new approaches. The court ruling legalizing gay marriage in Iowa represents a real opening, an opportunity to get "undecideds" to take another look not only at gay marriage but at gay rights in general. As Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin remarked, many Americans may be asking themselves, "If the [Iowa] Supreme Court said this, maybe I have to think anew."

Here is what Obama should do to seize this opportunity:


First, he should start talking about gay rights again, the way he did during the campaign. What made Clinton such a transformational figure of inclusion was his constant willingness to talk to and about gay people. When he said, "I have a vision and you are a part of it," you could feel his sincerity.

As president, Obama barely mentions gay and lesbian Americans. During his first 100 days, he has done so only while defending his selection of inauguration speakers. He was silent after the announcement of the Iowa decision -- one of the most important gay civil rights victories ever.

Second, he should move swiftly, as he promised during the campaign, to help secure passage of the bill now moving through Congress imposing new federal penalties for anti-gay hate crimes, as well as legislation allowing gays to serve in the military. Ten years have passed since Matthew Shepard was killed. We have endured 15 years of "don't ask, don't tell" discrimination. We have waited long enough.

Third, he should appoint a high-ranking, respected, openly gay policy advocate to oversee government efforts toward lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender equality. Give this person access to policymakers, similar to what has been done on urban policy and for people with disabilities. This is especially important because, unlike Clinton, who had gay friends such as David Mixner, Roberta Achtenberg and Bob Hattoy around to nudge him, Obama has no high-profile gay senior aides with a history in the gay rights movement.

Finally, Obama should champion comprehensive, omnibus federal gay civil rights legislation, similar to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, outlawing discrimination based on sexual orientation and granting a basic umbrella of protections in employment, education, housing and the like (rather than the existing piecemeal approach to legislation). Such a bill should also provide for federal recognition of both civil unions and marriages as they are authorized by specific states.

Obama is in a good position, and the time is ripe for a new approach. Taking these steps might spare the country the trauma of devolving into a pervasive and divisive debate over gay marriage, which, after all, is not the only issue of concern to gay and lesbian Americans.

Gay voters who supported Barack Obama remain positive about him, and most are prepared to be patient. It's still early on gay rights for the Obama administration -- but now is the time to act boldly.

The writer, a lawyer in New York, served on the White House staff from 1993 to 1999, including three years as special assistant to President Bill Clinton.