KAMPALA (Reuters) - Peter, 23, used to enjoy hitting Kampala's bars with his boyfriend until a draft bill dubbed "kill the gays" forced him into hiding.
"I'm so, so afraid. I just live indoors," he says, sitting in the semi-darkness of the cramped two-room dwelling where he has lived since his family and friends turned on him after the bill was introduced in 2009.
In this conservative east African country, the bill that initially proposed hanging gays has pitted veteran President Yoweri Museveni's government against two influential but opposing forces: the evangelical church and western donors.
Existing legislation already outlaws gay sex. The new legislation introduced by David Bahati, a backbench lawmaker in Museveni's ruling National Resistance Movement party, would go much further.
It would prohibit the "promotion" of gay rights and punish anyone who "funds or sponsors homosexuality" or "abets homosexuality".
Denounced as "odious" by U.S. President Barack Obama, the first draft, which threatened the death sentence for what it called "aggravated homosexuality", languished in parliament for two years, never making it to the chamber's debating floor.
Bahati re-introduced a mildly watered-down second draft in February and is confident of a "yes" vote even though the bill's progress has stalled at committee level.
The death sentence clause is gone, as is the demand Ugandans report gays to the authorities, he told Reuters.
But the damage has been done, gay rights campaigners in Uganda say. A vitriolic homophobia is rising in Ugandan society, they say, pointing to the meteoric rise of the evangelical church as a driving force.
In the most recent clampdown, Uganda said last week it was banning 38 non-governmental organizations it accused of promoting homosexuality.
Two days before the announcement, police raided a gay rights conference outside Kampala, briefly detaining activists from around east Africa.
"Things were much better before the evangelical movement," said Frank Mugisha, director of the gay rights group Sexual Minorities Uganda (SMUG). He accuses Uganda's born-again pastors of spreading propaganda, including that homosexuals are "recruiting" young children.
EVANGELICAL INFLUENCE
Mugisha and other prominent gay rights campaigners say Bahati's initial bill was introduced directly after a March 2009 conference in Kampala that hosted representatives from the U.S. "ex-gay" movement.
U.S. evangelical pastor Scott Lively, who spoke at the conference, said it focused on the "recovery from homosexuality" and warned Ugandans the gay movement sought to "homosexualise society" and undermine the institution of marriage.
Ugandan activists have filed a civil complaint against Lively in the United States, alleging he incited the persecution of gays in Uganda, violating international law.
A former lawyer who is now pastor of the Redemption Gate Missionary Society in Springfield, Massachusetts, Lively said his legal team has filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
"The narrative of their case is that my speaking against homosexuality in Uganda led to a climate of hate and fear that led the government to take actions they wouldn't otherwise have taken," he told Reuters.
"The list of things they have put in their complaint do not amount to anything close to crimes against humanity."
Lively said he received a copy of the draft anti-gay bill from an anti-gay activist in Uganda ahead of its introduction, and disagreed with language included in it.
"It was very harsh," he said, referring to the proposal to execute homosexuals.
Lively, a reformed alcoholic who sees homosexuality as a "behavioral disorder" akin to alcoholism, said he sent back alternative language urging a focus on prevention and rehabilitation.
Some of Uganda's pastors have been some of the bill's most outspoken supporters.
"Would you accept that a thief should be licensed, that a prostitute should be licensed? There is no difference between a thief, a robber, a prostitute and a homosexual," said Pastor Joseph Serwadda, who heads Kampala's 6,000 member-strong Victory Christian Centre Church.
A wave of persecution followed the introduction of Bahati's bill.
One local publication, Rolling Stone, embarked on a campaign to out Ugandan gays, publishing photos of more than two dozen of them and their names, sometimes under the banner "Hang them".
"People didn't pay much attention before. When the bill came out, they started noticing gays," said Peter, whose three-year relationship ended when his partner became afraid to be associated with him after another tabloid outed Peter's roommate.
Peter's extended family called a meeting when they got suspicious.
"My sisters, my brothers, my aunties, my uncles, my grandpas, everybody needed me to change. They asked, ‘What seduced you to do that?'," Peter said.
"(They said) if I didn't change from what I am to what they called normal, I should just get out of the family."
He withdrew from the outside world. Home alone for hours at a time, Peter reads the Bible he keeps by his bed for comfort. A wall decoration reads: "Jesus cares".
PRAYED FOR HELP
While the proposed legislation has pushed many like Peter underground, for others it had the opposite effect.
"Biggie" Ssenfuka knew she was attracted to women from the age of seven. When she read the word lesbian in a dictionary, she says she immediately recognized herself.
Raised a Christian, Ssenfuka prayed to God and fasted in a desperate bid to alter her sexuality. She burned every letter she had received from other girls and tried dating a man.
"But still I didn't change. I woke up and told myself this is life, be what you want to be and let people say what they want to say," said Ssenfuka, who sports dreadlocks and baggy, boyish jeans.
"People thought that homosexuals are these beasts ... they didn't expect people from next door," said Ssenfuka.
The 29-year-old finally came out of the closet in 2009 after the bill was introduced. "I said, now I am going to be open."
Still, activists like Ssenfuka are in the minority. The majority of gays are too afraid to go public.
Sitting in an open-air bar in Kampala on a Saturday afternoon is her girlfriend of one year, a woman with long braids who has children from a previous relationship.
Asked about her relationship with Ssenfuka, Patience was evasive. "I'm not exactly her friend," she said, and refused to elaborate.
Ssenfuka and Patience are careful not to act like a couple openly.
"It's tricky. You have to watch out, especially in public. You can't just kiss, you can't just touch and be happy," Ssenfuka said.
"BLACKMAIL"
The bill's floundering in parliament since 2009 signals Museveni is reluctant to proceed.
Stephen Tashobya, who chairs the parliamentary legal affairs committee tasked with scrutinizing the bill before a vote, said the committee had been "busy with other affairs".
"The president made general remarks sometime back, more than a year ago, (that) he didn't think that the bill was very urgent," Tashobya said.
The one-time rebel leader is widely regarded as a shrewd political operator who knows how to curry favor from Western powers, as he has by sending troops to Somalia, and when feathers ought not be ruffled.
John Nagenda, among Museveni's top advisers, told Reuters the president believed it was evil to indulge in homosexual acts.
"But on the other hand ... while he himself doesn't agree with it himself, he thinks that there must be a fair way of going about (things)," Nagenda said.
Museveni's gripe, Nagenda said, was with donors threatening to cut aid to impose moral values.
"It treats us like children," he said.
In October, British Prime Minister David Cameron threatened to cut aid to countries that did not respect gay rights. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton followed up in December.
"That is blackmailing, that is neo-colonialist and oppression. Attaching sharing of resources to a lifestyle of people is completely unacceptable," said Uganda's Minister of Ethics and Integrity Simon Lokodo.
"If you want to give (aid), you give it irrespective of our customs and cultures."
London appears to have since softened its rhetoric. The British High Commission in Kampala told Reuters in a statement that the UK government had no plans to cut aid in connection with the bill.
However, the statement also said Britain's diplomats were raising concerns over the proposed legislation "at the most senior level of the Ugandan government".
Bahati is optimistic his bill will prevail in parliament.
"There is no amount of pressure, no amount of dirty tricks, that will prevent the parliament of Uganda from protecting the children of Uganda," he said.
"We are not in the trade of values."
Friday, June 29, 2012
Friday, June 22, 2012
Hope for the American Family Association: Right Wing Bigots Can Change!
Leading Right-Wing Prop. 8 Proponent Comes Out in Support of Marriage Equality
from The Advocate:
Chalk up one for marriage equality. David Blankenhorn, the founder of the Institute for American Values and author of The Future of Marriage, announced in The New York Times that he now supports same-sex marriage, calling it “a victory for basic fairness.” It was a surprise move from the man who opposed marriage equality so much he was one of just a few witnesses to testify in favor of Proposition 8, the ballot measure that defined marriage as between a man and woman in California.
Blankenhorn wrote in an op-ed titled “How My View on Gay Marriage Changed” that he doesn’t “believe that opposite-sex and same-sex relationships are the same, but I do believe, with growing numbers of Americans, that the time for denigrating or stigmatizing same-sex relationships is over. Whatever one’s definition of marriage, legally recognizing gay and lesbian couples and their children is a victory for basic fairness.” He also argued that “most of our national elites, as well as most younger Americans, favor gay marriage. This emerging consensus may be wrong on the merits. But surely it matters.”
Evan Wolfson, founder and president of Freedom to Marry, responded to Blankenhorn's op-ed with celebration, saying, “David Blankenhorn’s announcement today reflects the shift towards understanding among the majority of people when they hear the stories and see for themselves why marriage matters to same-sex couples. As the leader of a right-of-center think tank and network that promotes conservative values, David knows that children grow up best when they are raised in families that are treated with fairness, respect, and dignity. His journey towards marriage has been a long time in the making and he is a welcome addition to the majority of Americans who support the freedom to marry.”
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
Core Values That American 'Family' Association Extremists Are Simply Incapable Of Comprehending
WHEN my son Jeff was little, he was a pain in the neck about eating. On one drive to Huntsville, Ala., he sobbed for 70 minutes (I know because I timed it) about how we were starving him to death.
We stopped at a diner and ordered him a meal, and he proceeded to eat about four bites before claiming he was full.
You might think I would lose my temper, but this had happened before, so I was prepared with a well-planned response. I reached over and started eating his food. Bite by bite, I finished everything on his plate, figuring that would teach him to mind his dinner.
Unfortunately, the plan had a different effect. Everywhere we went after that, Jeff expected me to finish his meals. It got so I would only order him meals I liked, knowing how it would go.
And at home, forget about it. I was a workaholic back then, two jobs, out of the house at dawn and not back until 8 or 9. A lot of those nights, Jeff wouldn’t eat his dinner. His mother would get so angry, but what could she do? How do you force someone to eat? The best she could do was the tried-and-true route, telling him that if he didn’t eat dinner, he wouldn’t get dessert.
I would walk into his room when I got home, and he would be lying there, wishing he had eaten dinner so he could have a snack before bed.
“You hungry?” I would whisper, and he would nod, big eyes gleaming in the light from the hall. I would sneak him something, our little secret. Sometimes we would eat it together.
When Jeff was in middle school, my wife noticed he was getting home late from school, sometimes a little dusted up. It turned out some neighborhood boys were picking on him, waiting for him along the path they all took, making his life miserable. It made me furious, probably because I felt guilty for working so much and not being around to protect him.
People didn’t make a big deal out of bullying back then the way they do now, but I had to do something. Jeff was a small, sweet child who never hurt anyone. He just wanted to take the path home and feel safe doing it, but these kids kept singling him out.
I went to see the ringleader’s father. He was a big man in town, a city planner. When I got there, he made me stand out on the porch as if I were trying to sell him something. I told him the story, and he looked agitated and said: “When I was young, this never would have happened. We had some pride. We fought our own battles.”
I told him a one-on-one fight would be fine, but it wasn’t one on one. His son was fronting a gang of bullies, taking away my son’s right to come home happy and safe.
“Five against one?” I asked him. “Is that something to be proud of?”
He grumbled and shut the door in my face.
When I was young, my uncle said to me: “You’re small and you’re Italian, so it’s going to be tough. You can either blend in or fight. Trust me, it’s better to blend.”
The first time I walked onto a Navy ship (at 17 years old and 130 pounds), someone yelled out, “Another wop?”
I smiled and said, “Yep,” and kept smiling no matter what else they said.
My uncle was right; I got along fine. I told Jeff that story, and asked him to get along the best he could.
After Jeff finished college, we would travel cross-country from New Jersey to visit him in California. A few times we would run into his best friend, Paul, whom we liked a lot.
Jeff would fly to visit us, too, and when I would take him back to the airport, I would sit with him until his flight boarded, just the two of us. Every time, I could tell there was something he wasn’t saying, something knotted in his belly.
Finally, he sat us down and said he had something to tell us. We told him that we already knew, and that we really liked Paul, and that we were happy for him. We laughed about how scared he had been to tell us, and after that it was Jeff and Paul, Paul and Jeff. We visited them; they visited us. We took vacations together.
A couple of times the subject of grandchildren came up, and they always said the same thing: they wanted to marry first, and they wanted it to be legal. Jeff wanted a family, a home, like the one he grew up in, and part of that was being married like his parents.
My wife and I went to dinner one night with another couple, some people we knew pretty well, and the subject of Jeff and Paul came up. The guy said: “I don’t believe in gay marriage. I think it’s wrong.”
That’s all he said, but I almost lost my mind. I wanted to smash my dinner plate in his face. My vision dimmed while long-buried emotions rushed back: my little son, all alone, being picked on by bullies, being told he couldn’t walk the same path home because they said so.
Why couldn’t people just treat him with respect? I’m sure this guy isn’t a bad person, and no one would consider him a creep or a bully, but I stood up and left that table and have not spoken to him since.
For our next trip with Jeff and Paul, we went to Hawaii. The boys talked my wife and me into taking a long boat ride in a little rubber dinghy. I was dubious from the start, and rightly so.
The weather turned ugly and the waves got huge, three times higher than the boat. We all thought we were going to capsize. I held my wife’s hand, drawing on the strength of our love and our years together, knowing no matter what happened it would be O.K. because we were together. Across the boat, I saw Jeff holding Paul’s hand in exactly the same way.
That night at dinner, we laughed and drank too much and toasted our narrow escape. At one point Jeff’s face was pure happiness as he looked at Paul sitting next to him. Paul wasn’t returning the look, though; his eyes were focused downward to where he was quietly, carefully finishing Jeff’s dinner.
I realized then that I was crying instead of laughing. I couldn’t explain it except to say there is nothing more overwhelming than seeing your child experience true love.
Not every day will be that happy. Paul and Jeff want to marry and have a family, yet they know there will be more bullying, more ganging up against them, in their effort to seek that. There will be more groups of people telling Jeff that he shouldn’t be allowed to marry the person he loves, that it would be wrong for the two of them to have a family together.
ONE of the worst days in my son’s life was in November 2008, when a majority of Californians voted in favor of Proposition 8, a ballot measure to change California law in a way that bans marriage for same-sex couples. None of us could believe something like that would pass in California. When it did, I wondered if Jeff and Paul would move from the place they loved and had called home for so long.
They didn’t, though. Nor did they accept the new law and try to blend in as I told Jeff to do all those years ago. Instead, they did something that’s made me as proud as I’ve ever been: they fought back.
Jeff and Paul and two women challenged the law in court, and in a landmark decision two years later, they won: Proposition 8 was declared unconstitutional by a judge in San Francisco. The proponents of Proposition 8 appealed, and Jeff and Paul won that, too.
The United States Court of Appeals recently declined to take up the case before a larger panel, which opened the door for it to head to the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, Jeff and Paul still can’t legally marry.
As this Father’s Day approached, all I could think about was how much I want my son to experience the joys of being a father, how much I want him to marry the person he loves and to raise a family.
For now, he is still waiting, and fighting. I see how much the struggle costs him, how discouraging it is that despite his strength and patience and faith in the system, the ultimate decision rests in the hands of those who have yet to act.
One day soon, though, the powers that be are going to do the right thing. I’m his father, and it’s Father’s Day, so let me believe it. One day soon they’re going to let my brave, beautiful boy walk the same path we all get to take home.
Dominick Zarrillo worked for 23 years in the tire industry. He lives in Brick, N.J.
Thursday, June 14, 2012
Bully Pulpit: American Family Association Extremism Exposed in The New Yorker
LETTER FROM TUPELO
Bully Pulpit
An evangelist talk-show host’s campaign to control the Republican Party
by Jane Mayer for The New Yorker
Tupelo, Mississippi, is best known as the birthplace of Elvis Presley, and his childhood home remains the town’s top attraction. Another local performer, however, has recently garnered national attention. For two hours every weekday, a broadcaster named Bryan Fischer hosts “Focal Point,” a popular Christian radio talk show. He is one of the country’s most vocal opponents of what he calls “the homosexual-rights movement.” As he puts it, “A rational culture that cares about its people will, in fact, discriminate against adultery, pedophilia, rape, bestiality, and, yes, homosexual behavior.” His goal is to make this view the official stance of the Republican Party.
The one-story concrete building where Fischer works is indistinguishable from neighboring offices occupied by dentists, except that its front entrance features a statue of a fetus enshrined in a heart and a shoulder-high stone tablet inscribed with the Ten Commandments. Inside, plaques bearing the words “In God We Trust” underscore that this is the national headquarters of the American Family Association, a nonprofit advocacy group. A “pro-family ministry” founded in 1977, it promotes Bible-based social conservatism and criticizes what it regards as sinful popular culture.
Like much of the religious right, the A.F.A. was losing traction until Barack Obama was elected President, in 2008. His victory galvanized the group. Its leaders saw Obama as a radical proponent of godless socialism. According to a former employee, staff members at the Tupelo office passed around an image of Obama’s face blended with that of Adolf Hitler, against a backdrop of a swastika. The former employee, who found the image disrespectful, recalls, “Things really took a turn. They were no longer civil about the opposition. The goal became to defeat Obama.” In 2009, the A.F.A. hired Fischer as its director of issue analysis and as the host of “Focal Point,” which is broadcast from a studio across the street.
The American Family Association’s radio network comprises two hundred stations in thirty-five states, and Fischer’s program reaches more than a million listeners a day. That’s a fraction of Rush Limbaugh’s audience, but as large as that of Rachel Maddow or Chris Matthews, on MSNBC. Until recently, Fischer’s rising popularity escaped notice in the mainstream media, in part because his show is broadcast primarily on stations in the Southeast and the Midwest, including small cities such as Tullahoma, Tennessee, and Piggott, Arkansas. But his program is part of a parallel media universe that provides news and commentary, on everything from science to American history, from a perspective that is far to the right of Fox News.
Fischer is a tall man with a wide mouth, a prominent nose, a tanned face, and carefully groomed hair that is as white as a cotton ball. He is proud to be at the far end of the American political spectrum. When I visited his office, I asked him if he could name anyone who had more conservative social beliefs. “Well, Thomas Jefferson,” he said. “He wanted to castrate homosexuals—I don’t want to do that.” (Jefferson’s position was actually a liberal reform: at the time, homosexuality was punishable by death.) Fischer does, however, want to change homosexuals. “We’re not animals in heat that have a biological compulsion to yield to every sexual impulse,” Fischer said. Gays, he said, can experience a “reorienting of their sexuality—it can be done. Like the saying goes, ‘I’ve never met an ex-black, but I’ve met a lot of ex-gays.’ If one person can do it, two people can do it.”
Fischer, who jokes that his “listening audience is more conservative than conservatives,” represents a powerful constituency. Rob Stein, the founder of the Democracy Alliance, a progressive fund-raising group, says that groups like the A.F.A. are part of “the largest, best-organized, most effective, and well-financed special-interest political infrastructure in America.” Julie Ingersoll, an associate professor of religious studies at the University of North Florida, says that the goal of Christian conservatives such as Fischer is to “shape every aspect of the culture in accordance with Biblical law, including politics.” Though it’s impossible to say how decisive a role this bloc will play in November, Ingersoll notes that, in the 2012 primaries, it “succeeded in pushing the Republican Party far to the right.” She adds, “The campaign that Romney’s had to run is very different from the one he ran four years ago. Who would have thought, for instance, that contraception would be an issue?” In February, Romney expressed opposition to a Senate amendment that would have permitted employers to deny insurance coverage for birth control on religious or moral grounds; after his statement was denounced by religious conservatives, he reversed himself.
Jonah Goldberg, the conservative columnist, has written that Fischer is an extremist with little influence and “doesn’t speak for any members of the Christian right I know.” Fischer’s successful campaign against Grenell, however, suggests that it is unwise to underestimate him. Patrick Mahoney, the director of the conservative Christian Defense Coalition, in Washington, D.C., told me, “Bryan is definitely ascending. His influence is growing because he says publicly, in an unfiltered way, what many evangelical leaders think privately. He’s fearless.”
Fischer’s attack against Grenell started on Friday, April 20th, with a post on Twitter. “Romney picks out & loud gay as a spokesman,” he tweeted, soon after learning of the hire. “If personnel is policy, his message to the pro-family community: drop dead.” The next Monday, Fischer opened his show—which is broadcast, he likes to say, on “the most feared radio network in America!”—by telling his listeners that he had “kicked up a dust storm in the Twitterverse.”
Fischer said that Romney was “sticking his thumb in our eye” and “signalling to the homosexual lobby . . . ‘I’m with you, I’m not with the pro-family community.’ ” He warned, “He cannot win without an enthusiastic evangelical base.” Fischer then told listeners that he had called the Republican National Committee that morning, demanding to know whether the Party considered homosexual behavior “healthy or harmful.” “We need some clarification!” he said.
In another era, Fischer’s comments might not have registered widely. But the American Family Association takes full advantage of modern communications technology, providing Fischer with an online column, making available live video streams of “Focal Point,” maintaining a Web archive of his shows, and sending e-mail news alerts to more than two million people. In the evangelical community, Stein says, “Web fires are lit every day.” And when the outrage gets hot enough it attracts the attention of major news organizations. The morning after Fischer made his comments, a producer at CNN booked him for a live debate with R. Clarke Cooper, the executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans, a group that supports gay rights.
Fischer was clearly excited by the national attention. On his next show, he said, “They went to look for somebody to talk about Governor Romney’s homosexual hire, where did they come? They came to AFR talk network!”
He began a long disquisition about homosexuals, and suggested that they were more prone to domestic violence than straight people. He then denied, as he does routinely, that H.I.V. causesAIDS,calling it a “harmless passenger virus.” It’s a theory derived from Peter Duesberg, a professor of molecular and cell biology at Berkeley, who has been widely criticized. Duesberg has been a guest on Fischer’s program. (Fischer told me, “He has a seven-hundred-page book—I read that thing through from the beginning to the end of it, and was persuaded.”)
Fischer returned to a favorite theme: that homosexual behavior is “always, always, always a matter of choice.” He told his listeners that a scientific study had shown the concordance of homosexuality between identical twins to be only six per cent. “If one of them is gay and it’s genetically caused, the other one ought to be gay one hundred per cent of the time!” he said.
Fischer cites such evidence with ease; he has impressive recall for everything from Bible quotations to academic articles. Yet he draws his information almost exclusively from like-minded sources, and ignores contrary statistics. For instance, in 2003, psychologists at the University of London performed a meta-analysis of six studies involving the concordance rate of homosexuality between identical twins, and reported a range from thirty to sixty-five per cent—far greater than the average occurrence of homosexuality in the population at large. The evidence, they concluded, strongly suggested a “heritable component.”
Fischer has similarly cited a 2001 study by Robert Spitzer, the retired Columbia psychiatrist, suggesting that homosexuals could successfully undergo “reparative” therapy. But Fischer has not mentioned that the American Psychiatric Association publicly disavowed the study at the time. Spitzer himself recently renounced the paper, and apologized for making “unproven claims.” (Fischer dismissed this, saying, “He just caved to the gay lobby.”)
To make his case that Grenell posed a national-security risk, Fischer presented a prurient scenario: “What if he’s travelling for Mitt Romney on government business?. . . He’s overseas somewhere . . . he’s got top-secret information in his hotel room, and he just can’t help himself? He’s gotta have an anonymous tryst with some homosexual?” A caller pointed out that straight people also take sexual risks. (Indeed, the recent Secret Service scandal involved male agents consorting with female prostitutes in Colombia.) Fischer was unfazed, maintaining his view that Romney’s choice of Grenell was “a very disturbing appointment.”
By the end of the week, two prominent social conservatives had joined Fischer’s campaign. Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council, suggested that Grenell’s homosexuality offered “strong evidence” that he “would lobby for foreign policy more in line with the current Administration than the last, Republican one.”
Gary Bauer, another well-known Christian conservative, denounced the hire as “a slap at the base”—not, he insisted, because Grenell was gay but, rather, because he was “an outspoken advocate of redefining normal marriage.” Bauer warned, “There is no path to victory for a Republican Presidential candidate that does not involve massive turnout by pro-family voters.”
Columnists weighed in, too. Matthew J. Franck, of the Witherspoon Institute, a conservative think tank in Princeton, New Jersey, denounced Grenell on the Web site ofNational Review, calling him “a loose cannon,” whose devotion to gay marriage was “unhinged.”
Fischer began declaring on his show that if Romney wanted to win he’d “better start listening to me!” Rather than hurting Romney, Fischer claimed, he was his “best buddy,” and just “trying to show him the way.”
Nine days after Fischer’s on-air campaign began, Grenell resigned. He released a statement blaming the “hyper-partisan discussion of personal issues.” Later, he cited hostility from extremists on both the left and the right; both types, he said, could not accept the incongruity of an openly gay conservative. But when he spoke with me about Fischer there was no mistaking his anger. “I’ve never met him, and had actually never heard of him before he offered his critique,” Grenell, who was raised as an evangelical Christian, told me. He added, “I do know that Christ saved some of his harshest words for people who claimed to be followers and judged others’ hearts.”
Fischer received the news of Grenell’s resignation while he was hosting his show. “Wow!” he said. As he read aloud a breaking bulletin from the WashingtonPost, he began repeating one of his favorite slogans: “Ladies and gentlemen, there’s our winnable war!” As congratulatory calls started rolling in, Fischer said, “I was the first one on the conservative front to raise an issue about this. This is absolutely huge, ladies and gentlemen. . . . He resigned because of pressure that was put on the Romney campaign by the pro-family community.”
Though many evangelicals applauded Grenell’s departure, other observers saw it as a pandering move by the Romney campaign—one that implicitly aligned his candidacy with intolerance. Andrew Rosenthal, the editorial-page editor of theTimes,wrote that Grenell “was hounded out of town by social conservatives.” Romney insisted that he had not forced Grenell out. “We wanted him to stay with our team,” he told Fox News. “We select people not based upon their ethnicity or sexual preference or gender but upon their capability.” He noted that top aides had asked Grenell to stay. Yet the campaign had Grenell’s resignation letter in hand for several days before it became public, and during that time Romney never attempted to speak to Grenell.
Inside the campaign, a Republican insider says, “they were so fixated on how to shut up Bryan Fischer that they missed the bigger picture.” The insider says that the campaign’s leaders, in the hope of placating “the wing nuts,” commanded Grenell to keep silent and stay out of the public eye “until it blows over.” But no one could tell Grenell how long that might take. In internal discussions, Grenell argued that the best defense was for him to do his job well. But, as theTimesreported, the campaign muzzled him, preventing him from even speaking to reporters on a foreign-policy conference call that he had helped organize. According to another source, Grenell wanted to publicly criticize Obama for boasting about the successful raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound, but was instructed to keep quiet.
TheTimesstory was embarrassing, and after it appeared Romney’s spokesman, Eric Ferhnstrom, tried to distance the campaign from Fischer, and criticized the “voices of intolerance that expressed themselves during this debate.” He also referred to a confrontation that Romney had with Fischer last fall, in Washington, at a conference for social conservatives known as the Values Voter Summit. Fischer had been scheduled to speak directly after Romney. This was awkward, because Fischer has frequently ridiculed Mormonism, which he considers to be a “different religion” from Christianity. Before yielding the podium to Fischer, Romney said, “We should remember that decency and civility are values, too,” adding, “One of the speakers who will follow me today has crossed that line, I think. Poisonous language does not advance our cause.”
When I asked Fischer about Romney’s statement at the Values Voter Summit, he said that it was hardly a significant rebuke, noting, “Most of the people in the room didn’t even know who he was talking about.” The media took little note of the remark. At any rate, virtually no one, including Fischer, believed that Grenell had left against Romney’s wishes. As Fischer put it, “Romney realized that we were speaking for lots of voters, which is why he let Grenell fall on his sword.”
The spectacle raised the question of how far Romney is willing to go to placate extreme elements in the conservative movement. Andrew Sullivan, a columnist for the Daily Beast, told me, “That an individual who openly demonizes a whole segment of the population is still immune to any serious pushback in the Romney camp is a sign of Romney’s profound weakness within his party.” Sullivan, who is gay, maintains that “there is still time for Romney to ‘Sister Souljah’ elements of the far religious right.” But, he adds, “I think he understands that he cannot lose a single one of their votes and have a chance this fall.”
The A.F.A. is a tax-exempt charitable organization, and it is supposed to remain strictly nonpartisan. Yet Fischer has spread doubts about the authenticity of Obama’s American birth certificate and Christian faith, and has claimed that the President’s aim is to “destroy capitalism.” Obama, he has said, “despises the Constitution” and “nurtures a hatred for the white man.” Fischer recently accused the Administration’s Department of Homeland Security of buying so much ammunition that it was causing a shortage. His source on this, he said, was a law-enforcement officer. “Who are they going to turn that ammunition on?” he asked his listeners. “They’re going to turn it on us!”
In 2010, such inflammatory rhetoric led the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks extremism in America, to designate the American Family Association as a hate group. Mark Potok, a senior fellow at the center, says, “It’s astounding that a twenty-million-dollar-a-year organization that claims to represent Christ allows this man to speak for them.”
Yet, during this campaign season, nearly all the Republican Presidential candidates have been guests on Fischer’s show, including Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, and Tim Pawlenty. (Fischer has not invited Romney.) Many senators and congressmen have also been interviewed by Fischer, including South Carolina’s Jim DeMint, the rising voice of the Tea Party in the Senate, and Mitch McConnell, of Kentucky, the Republican Party’s top-ranking member in the Senate. Peter Montgomery, a senior fellow at People for the American Way, a liberal group that monitors the religious right, says of these politicians, “Fischer has an audience they want, and they’re willing to associate themselves with him to reach it.”
The electoral math helps explain this calculation. More than a quarter of American voters identify themselves as evangelicals, and, according to the National Religious Broadcasters association, ninety-six per cent of them tune in to some form of Christian media each month. This constituency has, arguably, become the most reliable bloc in the Republican Party. Ralph Reed, the former executive director of the Christian Coalition, who now heads the Faith and Freedom Coalition, reports that more than half of the voters in the current Republican primaries have identified themselves as evangelicals. Michael Lindsay, an expert on evangelical politics and the president of Gordon College, outside Boston, says, “No Republican has captured the White House without evangelical votes since Watergate. They’re the most organized constituency in the Republican Party.”
Some conservatives, such as Clarke Cooper, of the Log Cabin Republicans, argue that people who are intolerant of homosexuality are out of step with the times and can be ignored. “Really, what do they contribute?” he asks. Gary Bauer, however, says, “I think the 2012 election is going to be a dead heat, another late night, like 2000 and 2004. The important thing for Romney will be not to get ninety per cent of the base—it will be to get ninety-nine per cent.” Firm resistance to same-sex marriage and abortion, Bauer argues, is essential to winning over these voters: “If the cultural issues, like traditional marriage and the sanctity of life, go, the Republican Party is dead.”
Reed notes that, as a Mormon, Romney may have to prove to Christian conservatives that he shares their values. “I won’t say that his Mormonism isn’t an issue,” Reed says. Romney, he says, must not “take evangelical voters for granted. He made significant progress this spring, but he still has work to do.”
At the very least, Lindsay suggests, “Romney has to choose a running mate who could appeal to evangelicals.” In 2008, such a calculation convinced John McCain that he had to abandon his first choice of a running mate, Joe Lieberman, and go with Sarah Palin.
Fischer’s demands center on policy. He wants the next President to advocate criminalizing all abortions—even in the case of rape victims—and making contraception available only to married couples. He wants schools to be able to teach “intelligent design” alongside what he calls the “morally and intellectually bankrupt theory of evolution.” Indeed, he believes that America will never be safe with “a President who believes that man evolved from slime.” Though Fischer frames his arguments with charged language, his religious viewpoint is hardly unusual: a recent poll showed that sixty-six per cent of Republican voters in Mississippi don’t believe in evolution.
“If I made a list of the top five hundred places I would likely be at this point in my life, Tupelo, Mississippi, would not even be on it,” Fischer told me one afternoon, while unwinding after his show. A freshly popped bag of popcorn and a soda were on his desk, which was surrounded by photographs of his family and others of him posing with famous conservatives, including Dick Cheney, Oliver North, and Dan Quayle.
Fischer described his entry into the political fight against gay marriage as almost reluctant. Invoking a speech from the movie “Hoosiers,” Fischer said that he could ignore “a guy that howls at the moon in the woods,” but could not ignore it when a guy “takes off his clothes and howls at the moon in your living room. The second guy you kind of have to deal with.” Homosexual activists, he said, “want to redefine the institution of marriage from the definition that God established at the beginning of time. We have to fight that.” He stressed that “it’s not us making this an issue—it’s the homosexual activists.”
Fischer’s political activism, however, began years before the advent of same-sex-marriage laws. In fact, his preoccupation with family dysfunction seems to have started with his own. Though Fischer loves to talk, he does not like to talk about his childhood, and spoke about it only grudgingly. He was born in Oklahoma City, in 1951, and his father, John, a descendant of German Mennonites, was a Conservative Baptist minister whose pacifism was so strict that he became a conscientious objector during the Second World War—a choice that makes Fischer uncomfortable. According to a 2003 profile in theTreasure Valley Christian News, of Boise, Idaho, Fischer “accepted Christ at the tender age of five, kneeling alongside his father.”
By the time Fischer reached the eighth grade, his father had left the ministry. Fischer told me that the family moved to Fresno, California, where his father, who loved books, went to work as a librarian at a Mennonite college; his father disliked the job, though, and moved on to become a public elementary-school teacher.
Fischer didn’t volunteer anything about his mother, but, when pressed, said, “My parents divorced when I was about twenty. It just rocked my world.” His mother, who worked as an interior decorator at a furniture store, was “chronically late,” and the bus driver on her route to work would always hold the bus for her. Eventually, he said, “my mom fell for the bus driver,” deserting him, his father, and his younger sister. “I don’t want to go into it,”
Fischer said. “But I saw the devastating impact it had on other people in my immediate family.” Asked how his father fared, Fischer turned away, then said, “He looked like an Auschwitz survivor. It was akin to that ordeal.”
Dennis Mansfield, a Christian conservative who was friends with Fischer for twenty years, said that Fischer also “had a deep-rooted disappointment in his father, for not being strong enough.” Fischer denies this, saying that he always respected his father. Fischer and Mansfield are no longer friends.
Earlier this year, Fischer became enraged on the air while discussing Newt Gingrich’s multiple infidelities and divorces. A caller argued that Gingrich was now “right with God.” Fischer demanded to know: How many infidelities would be too many? Two? Three? Four? During a commercial break, Tim Wildmon, the president of the A.F.A., texted Fischer and warned him that he might be alienating listeners. Later on the show, Fischer said, “Some of you probably feel I was a little bit hard on Newt in the first hour. . . . Understand, my reaction is coming from a really, really deep place in my heart.” He told listeners that after his parents’ divorce he “had no home to go to at Thanksgiving, no home to go to at Christmas. . . . Other people in my family, they were so shattered by this . . . the despair, bleakness, the blackness of the home that was left behind.”
Fischer’s sister, Sharon, particularly has struggled, and since 1999 she has lived off welfare and Social Security disability payments. Her situation has not tempered his view that such programs violate both the Bible and the Constitution. As he told me, “The Scriptures say, ‘If a man will not work, don’t let him eat.’ ” Fischer has not seen his sister in about a decade.
In 1969, Fischer enrolled at Stanford. He recalled it as “nothing more than a reëducation camp,” sounding much like Rick Santorum, who has called universities “indoctrination centers for the left.” At Stanford, Fischer became furious with the professor in a freshman Western Civilization course, who, he asserts, “ridiculed Christianity” and “implied you have to be a hayseed from Ohio to believe in this stuff.” Fischer said, “His effort to destroy my faith just strengthened it.”
Finding fellowship with David Roper, a chaplain at Stanford, Fischer began teaching extracurricular Bible studies on campus and attending Roper’s evangelical church, the Peninsula Bible Church, in Palo Alto. Fischer describes its attraction in terms of manliness. “It was the first time I’d been around a real muscular Christianity,” he told me. “It had a kind of strength and virility to it that would appeal to men.”
Roper, for his part, finds this description odd, saying, “I think religion is for all genders.” He and Fischer are no longer close; he says that he finds Fischer’s “political discourse unduly harsh.”
After graduation, Fischer attended Dallas Theological Seminary, which at that time was a redoubt of conservative evangelism. He read the Old Testament in ancient Hebrew, and the New Testament in Greek. He came to disapprove of modern scholarship positing that the Torah had multiple authors. Fischer hewed instead to the fundamentalist notion that the first five books of the Bible were written entirely by Moses. The Bible, he believed, was the unerring word of God.
Terry Papé, a fellow-student at Stanford, also went on to the Dallas seminary. He recalls Fischer as “very intellectual,” but “more black-and-white than I am.”
In 1978, Roper left Palo Alto for Boise, where he led a growing evangelical enterprise, Cole Community Church. He recruited both Fischer and Papé to join him after they graduated from the seminary. Fischer directed Biblical studies at Cole for thirteen years. By now, he had a wife, Debbie, and two children. “Bryan was very popular when he came to Cole,” Papé recalled. “But, over time, those relationships were strained, because of his very strong personality. When it comes to his perspective, it’s very difficult to get him to budge. He loves a good argument, but he doesn’t like being persuaded he might be wrong.”
In 1993, Fischer was crushed when Roper retired and endorsed a different successor. Roper’s and Fischer’s wives had been close friends. “I didn’t know it was going to hurt him that much,” Roper told me. “I sincerely love Bryan Fischer.” But friction had grown between the two men—and between Fischer and the congregation—over various doctrinal issues. “The central issue was gender,” Fischer told me. The church, he said, had “adopted policies that would have allowed women to exercise authority over men.” He opposed this, citing the Apostle Paul.
Dennis Mansfield, Fischer’s former friend, has lived in Boise for decades, and was then a local leader of the Christian right. He says that Fischer and Debbie were so upset when Fischer was passed over that they took their shoes off in the church’s parking lot and clapped them together like erasers. Mansfield says, “They didn’t want a speck of the place to touch their feet as they put it behind them.”
By this time, Fischer had become convinced that Christians needed to fight directly for Bible-based policies in America. In the early nineties, he protested President Bill Clinton’s decision to allow gays to serve in the military, and later successfully pressured a family that owns Hallmark stores in Idaho not to carry gay-friendly greeting cards.
In 1993, Fischer got his own pulpit when he started a new church, the Community Church of the Valley, in Boise. Mansfield became an elder there. In church, Fischer preached that it might be preferable if Americans married upon becoming sexually mature. “I’m not saying go out and get your fifteen-year-old engaged,” he said. But he argued that “we have artificially delayed the age at which people are expected to marry,” and observed, “Mary, the mother of Christ, was probably a teen-ager when she was betrothed to Joseph.” In another sermon, he preached that women were equal to men in worth but “not equal in authority.”
“Somebody’s got to have the tie-breaking vote,” he explained to me. “According to God, that’s the husband and father.”
Even for Idaho, a state dominated by Republicans, Fischer’s views were unusually conservative. But in 2001 Republican leaders appointed him the chaplain of the Idaho state senate, giving him a daily statewide platform. One woman, Jennifer Boyd, wrote an angry letter to theIdaho Statesmanto protest the decision. She accused Fischer of having excommunicated her because he deemed her divorce “unacceptable, non-Biblical, and sinful.” (Fischer told me, “My memory is fuzzy on this, but I think it was her choice to leave the church.”)
Fischer’s new job bolstered his reputation as the state’s leading promoter of hard-right social policies. The media began seeking him out regularly for commentary. Jody May-Chang, a gay-rights activist and a writer in Boise, who repeatedly clashed with Fischer, recalls, “Journalists went to him like moths to a flame. Fischer wielded a lot of power in Idaho. And he did a lot of damage to the gay community”—by arguing, for example, that having gay parents created “sexual confusion in children.” May-Chang went on, “He caused a lot of pain and suffering. He has no compassion.”
Dennis Mansfield came to a similar conclusion in 2000, when he was running for Congress. Six days before the election, his teen-age son was arrested on drug charges. Mansfield says that, although he had helped found Community Church, Fischer told him that he was unfit to be an elder there, arguing that if he couldn’t run his own house properly he couldn’t run God’s house. “It was such a painful experience,” Mansfield says. His son died after a long battle with addiction. Fischer attended the funeral. While the boy was in decline, however, Fischer spoke in the state legislature against halfway houses that Mansfield had tried to set up, arguing that property owners nearby objected. “Jesus Christ came so we could all have our property saved?” Mansfield says. “How very sad.” He adds that he noticed a pattern over the years: Fischer would “develop a closeness to a friend and then, as soon as they had a disagreement, they’d be cut adrift.” Mansfield reassessed his view of politics, concluding that “faith-based conservatives are either purposefully, or inadvertently, looking punitively at other people” rather than “lifting each other up.”
In 2005, the congregation that Fischer founded kicked him out. “It was the gender issue again,” Fischer told me. “Because of my Scriptural convictions, I wasn’t able to budge. A female friend of the wife of an elder wanted a leadership role. I felt those roles should be reserved for men. . . . When I objected, they said, ‘You’re fired.’ It was very abrupt. I didn’t know what I was going to do next. It was very painful.”
He decided to become a full-time political activist, and started his own nonprofit advocacy group, the Idaho Values Alliance, whose certificate of incorporation listed him, his wife, and his daughter. He posted columns on the group’s Web site, including one in which he wrote that “it is actually a form of child abuse not to spank a child when that’s what he needs,” noting that he and Debbie had “discovered that five swats with a wooden cooking spoon on a bare bottom had a wonderfully salutary effect.” (Recently, Fischer advised a caller that, in some instances, a child as young as six months could be spanked.) In March, 2004, he led a protest against local officials who wanted to remove a statue of the Ten Commandments from a public park. A dozen of his followers were arrested, which had been part of the plan and resulted in significant media coverage. (Fischer, however, did not put himself in a position to be arrested.) In 2006, Fischer says, he helped draft an amendment to the Idaho state constitution banning same-sex marriage. It passed, and he describes this legislative achievement as “one of the more satisfying things on my C.V.”
The next year, Fischer formally affiliated himself with the American Family Association, and his group became its Idaho chapter. The A.F.A. had been founded by Don Wildmon, a Methodist minister and a radio host in Tupelo. In the eighties, the group had forced 7-Eleven stores to stop sellingPenthouseandPlayboy;later, it persuaded Abercrombie & Fitch, the Gap, and other companies to tone down their advertising campaigns. More recently, the group has attacked Disney and Home Depot for participating in gay-pride parades.
The A.F.A. continues to widen its scope. A new division produces feature films, including the recent Christian hit “October Baby,” the ostensibly true story of an “abortion survivor” who grows up to confront her mother for trying to dispose of her. Fischer has promoted the movie heavily on his radio show. “October Baby” has grossed more than five million dollars so far, and has played to large audiences in areas with growing evangelical populations, like Florida, a key swing state. Julie Ingersoll, the University of North Florida professor, reports, “Showings were sold out at theatres near me.”
The “political action” subsidiary of the A.F.A., which can legally engage in partisan activity, has also been heavily involved in high-profile anti-gay-marriage initiatives in North Carolina and California, giving more than half a million dollars to the campaigns. And, last summer, the A.F.A. subsidiary spent six hundred thousand dollars to host a prayer rally in Texas, where Governor Rick Perry addressed some forty thousand Christian worshippers. The event was widely seen as the unofficial kickoff of his Presidential campaign. Recently, the A.F.A. subsidiary worked with wealthy evangelical businessmen in Silicon Valley to launch Champion the Vote, a program whose aim is to register five million new conservative Christian voters by this fall, and to mobilize tens of millions more in the coming years.
Advocacy groups like the A.F.A. survive largely on direct-mail contributions. During the Presidency of George W. Bush, evangelicals went from outsiders to insiders, and it was a mixed blessing for them: with Republican ascendancy in Washington came grassroots complacency, slowing fund-raising. In 2003, Wildmon and a dozen or so other top Christian conservatives met to devise ways to energize the faithful. They decided to create a new organization, the Arlington Group, whose sole focus was opposing same-sex marriage.
In 2004, Paul Weyrich, a leading figure of the Christian right, told theTimes, “Things have not gone well in the past couple of years,” but added that opposition to gay marriage “appears to be turning things around.” Fund-raising picked up, and socially conservative voters were drawn to the polls. Bush, who had received sixty-eight per cent of the evangelical vote in 2000, got seventy-eight per cent in 2004.
In Idaho, Fischer attacked homosexuality with growing fervor. In 2007, he sponsored a summit where he hosted Scott Lively, the co-author of a widely criticized book, “The Pink Swastika,” which argues that homosexuality was at the heart of Nazism. (In fact, the Nazi regime persecuted gays.) More recently, Lively has expressed support for anti-gay initiatives in Uganda. He has been a guest on Fischer’s radio show, and Fischer often promotes Lively’s theories. “Hitler himself was an active homosexual,” Fischer has said. “Hitler recruited around him homosexuals to make up his Storm Troopers. . . . Hitler discovered that he could not get straight soldiers to be savage and brutal and vicious enough.” On another occasion, Fischer declared that “homosexuality gave us Adolf Hitler, and homosexuals in the military gave us the Brown Shirts, the Nazi war machine, and six million dead Jews.”
In 2009, when Tea Party protests against Obama multiplied across the country, Fischer and the A.F.A. embraced the cause, planning and promoting events. Fischer says that he helped to organize the first Tea Party activities in Idaho, adding, “We helped kick-start the movement.” At the A.F.A., he explained, “We look at conservatism as a seamless garment. Conservatism is about limited government, it’s about family values, it’s about fiscal conservatism, it’s about strong national defense. You can’t separate those different areas.”
At first, many commentators categorized the Tea Party movement as libertarian. But several scholarly studies have confirmed that the political unrest was fuelled by a powerful fusion of religious and free-market fundamentalists. In a recent op-ed, Edward Conard, a former executive at Bain Capital who is one of Romney’s top fund-raisers, says that the alliance is, to some extent, a “marriage of convenience.” Most fiscal conservatives, he says, are social moderates, but, lacking enough votes on their own to enact a radical tax policy, they “endorse the pro-life agenda for no other reason than to bring their minority bloc of voters to power.”
On “Focal Point,” Fischer says that progressive income taxes and estate taxes violate the Eighth and Tenth Commandments, because the government “steals” and “covets” others’ wealth. The only government functions sanctioned by the Bible, he likes to say, are national defense and the administration of justice. Hospitals should not be legally required to treat the poor, even for emergencies, and the poor should turn to private charities for help. The government should also get out of the education business. And environmentalists, Fischer says, practice a false religion that values the earth over God and man.
Rachel Tabachnick, a former Southern Baptist who chronicles religious conservatism for the liberal Web site ProtectPluralism, characterizes such talk as “Ayn Rand’s free-market gospel refashioned by religious fundamentalists.” She says, “They glorify capitalism as holy. Over time, their followers really believe the Bible supports these Draconian free-market economic policies.”
Mitt Romney has played to this constituency by renouncing the kind of government-mandated health care that he established as governor of Massachusetts. More recently, he declared his support for a program that would enable parents to use public-education funds to send their children to parochial or private schools. (Fischer told me that this was a “step in the right direction,” though he wants Romney to extend his program to include homeschooling, and believes that government should “have no role in regulating the curriculum.”)
Romney has also distanced himself from earlier statements that accepted man-made global warming as a scientific fact. In 2002, Richard Cizik, a former vice-president of the National Association of Evangelicals, was ostracized by colleagues after he adopted the standard scientific opinion on global warming. He says, “Romney’s just saying to himself, ‘What do I have to do to placate these people?’ He’s not strong enough to say otherwise.”
David Brody, the chief political correspondent for the Christian Broadcasting Network and the author of a new book, “The Teavangelicals,” told me, “Neither libertarians by themselves nor evangelicals by themselves can effect change in America, but when you put them together you have a pretty combustible force.” Whereas Brody is excited by this development, Rob Stein, at the progressive Democracy Alliance, expresses alarm: “The Christian right and the Tea Party brigades have a shared visceral antipathy toward Obama and the government.” He estimates that the Christian right’s network of organizations has an aggregate annual operating budget of more than a billion dollars, and the more élite libertarian organizations have about a hundred million. He says that in 2012 these combined forces may well spend more than the Republican Party on electoral activities.
On April 10th, Rick Santorum, Fischer’s favored candidate, dropped out of the Presidential race, and the mood at the American Family Network was glum. The broadcast studio had the silent chill of an operating room. Then Fischer bounded in and sat down at a horseshoe-shaped desk. Behind him was a large image of the three crosses on Calvary. A nearby monitor would allow him to watch himself as he waved his arms, like a preacher summoning his flock. On his desk sat an iPad, a Bible, a copy of the Constitution, and computer printouts documenting the day’s outrages, culled from the Internet, which he reads in his pajamas every day, well before dawn. Although he occasionally pulls an item from Talking Points Memo or another liberal outlet, Fischer usually gathers information from conservative publications like theWall Street Journal’seditorial page, or from Web sites like World Net Daily, which insists that Obama faked his Hawaiian birth certificate.
In the nearby control room, Fischer’s producer, Jeff Reed, told me, “We have to be careful, because we’re not allowed to endorse.” He suddenly started laughing. “But everyone pushes the limits all the time.”
Fischer’s words were careful, but his message was clear: “I think a lot of evangelicals will wind up going to the polls and they will vote for Romney, because the alternative is just virtually unthinkable—that we would have four more years of a President who, I believe, despises this nation.” Many people, he suggested, would say, “With a clothespin on my nose, I’m going to punch the lever next to the ‘R.’ ” The next day, he declared outright, “Republican voters chose this man to be our candidate. . . . At the end of the day, we are all on the same team.”
Fischer warned his audience, though, that evangelicals needed to hold Romney’s “feet to the fire.” Last year, at the Values Voter Summit, Fischer laid out a partial list of demands. The next President, he said, must reject what he called “the mythical separation of church and state,” and must accept that Islam is “a religion of war and violence and death.” And, he warned, the next President must appoint judges who will overturn Roe v. Wade, eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood, and define marriage “as the union of one man and one woman.”
On May 9th, Fischer got one of his wishes. That day, Obama announced that he personally supports the concept of same-sex marriage. In response, Romney declared that he is against it. He also expressed opposition to gay civil unions, a stance that puts Romney to the right of George W. Bush. Fischer was elated. “Ladies and gentlemen, Barack Obama just stuck a fork in himself,” he told his listeners. “He’s toast in November! It’s over!”
Though national polls show that public opinion slightly favors same-sex marriage, in the two vital swing states of Ohio and Virginia the issue appears poised to hurt Obama. Fischer, meanwhile, is convinced that people don’t tell pollsters the full truth about their opposition, “because nobody wants to sound like a bigot.”
Fischer was more ebullient than ever now that Romney was moving in his direction. He said, “Never forget, as last night and today has proved abundantly: we are fighting a winnable war!”
Read morehttp://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/06/18/120618fa_fact_mayer?printable=true¤tPage=all#ixzz1xos7kEqT
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
Nearly Half of LGBT Workers Have Experienced Discrimination
Despite the misinformation campaigns of extremist groups, such as the Venango County-based American Family Association of Pennsylvania:
Senate Testimony on ENDA Provides Clear Evidence of Employment Discrimination
WASHINGTON, DC – In official testimony delivered today before the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP), Williams Institute Research Director M.V. Lee Badgett shared research of sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination in the workplace and the likely positive impact of the federal protections offered by a law like
S. 811, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2011 (ENDA). As currently drafted, ENDA would prohibit a wide range of employers (non-religious) with at least 15 employees from discriminating based on sexual orientation and gender identity in hiring and other employment decisions.
“Decades of social science research have demonstrated that employment discrimination against LGBT employees occurs across the country and evidence suggests that a federal prohibition on such conduct would reduce discrimination” said M.V. Lee Badgett.
During her testimony, Badgett referenced the decades of economic and social science research demonstrating that employment discrimination against LGBT Americans occurs in workplaces all across the country and that this discrimination harms LGBT workers. Such discrimination cuts across employment sectors, including both private sector employment and public employment in state and local governments. For example:
• According to the 2008 General Social Survey, 42% of a national random sample of LGBT people had experienced, at some point in their lives, at least one form of employment discrimination because of their sexual orientation.
• In the largest survey of transgender people to date, 78% of respondents reported experiencing at least one form of harassment or mistreatment in the workplace because of their gender identity, with 47% reporting discrimination with regards to hiring, promotion, or job retention.
• Gay and bisexual men earn from 10% to 32% less than similarly qualified heterosexual men.
Absent further federal protections, the current patchwork of local, state, and federal protections offered for LGBT workers and LGBT-inclusive corporate policies still leave millions of LGBT workers at risk of employment discrimination, as noted in a recent Williams Institute study on the legislative impact of federal legislation prohibiting LGBT workplace discrimination. Click here to view this study published in the Loyola Law Review.
Williams Institute Faculty Advisory Committee Member Kylar W. Broadus, Associate Professor of Business at Lincoln University, also testified at the hearing.
Sunday, June 10, 2012
Friday, May 25, 2012
Pa. Blacks Shift Quickly in Favor of Marriage Equality
It's becoming increasingly difficult for extremist groups, like the Venango County-based American Family Association of Pennsylvania, to use race as a wedge to divide communities, as it has cynically done for so, so long ...
From Public Policy Polling - May 23, 2012:
Raleigh, N.C. – President Obama’s announcement that he supports same-sex marriage is rapidly shifting the opinions of black voters around the country; PPP has found this already in North Carolina and nationally. Nearly all of the slight movement in Pennsylvania toward acceptance of same-sex marriage since PPP last polled on the issue in November is with black voters. Whereas only 36% of all Pennsylvanians thought gay marriage should be legal and 52% illegal last fall, now that is a 39-48 spread. That is because African Americans have moved from being against it by a strong margin (34-52) to being split, 42-41 for it.
“We’ve now found in both North Carolina and Pennsylvania that black voters have moved more toward support of gay marriage in the wake of Barack Obama’s announcement,” said Dean Debnam, President of Public Policy Polling. “The media’s been asking the wrong question- the big issue isn’t how Obama’s stance will affect his reelection hopes. It’s how Obama’s stance will move public opinion on gay marriage.”
Tom Smith has not done much for his public profile since beating a host of unknowns in the Pennsylvania Republican Senate primary almost a month ago. Now 45% of voters have an opinion on him, up from 25% in March. But whereas voters were split previously—12% favorable and 13% unfavorable—now they are decidedly negative, 16- 29. Because of that, freshman Sen. Bob Casey is able to survive his continuously tepid approval numbers (39% approve, 38% disapprove) to post a lead over Smith quite similar to that before the primary. He led 49-31 then, and 49-33 now.
There has been very little movement among Democrats, Republicans, or independents. But the silver lining for Smith is that if he improves upon his 59% of the GOP vote and brings it more towards Casey’s 76% of his own party, he is bound to tighten the race. But he will also have to cut into Casey’s nearly 20-point lead with independents.
Democrats have slight edges in three other statewide races, but with even more undecided than in the Senate contest. Kathleen Kane leads David Freed for Attorney General, 42- 33, and the Democrats in the Treasurer and Auditor General races have identical 35-34 edges over their GOP opponents.
PPP surveyed 671 Pennsylvania voters from May 17th to 20th. The margin of error for the survey is +/-3.8%. This poll was not paid for or authorized by any campaign or political organization. PPP surveys are conducted through automated telephone interviews.
From Public Policy Polling - May 23, 2012:
Raleigh, N.C. – President Obama’s announcement that he supports same-sex marriage is rapidly shifting the opinions of black voters around the country; PPP has found this already in North Carolina and nationally. Nearly all of the slight movement in Pennsylvania toward acceptance of same-sex marriage since PPP last polled on the issue in November is with black voters. Whereas only 36% of all Pennsylvanians thought gay marriage should be legal and 52% illegal last fall, now that is a 39-48 spread. That is because African Americans have moved from being against it by a strong margin (34-52) to being split, 42-41 for it.
“We’ve now found in both North Carolina and Pennsylvania that black voters have moved more toward support of gay marriage in the wake of Barack Obama’s announcement,” said Dean Debnam, President of Public Policy Polling. “The media’s been asking the wrong question- the big issue isn’t how Obama’s stance will affect his reelection hopes. It’s how Obama’s stance will move public opinion on gay marriage.”
Tom Smith has not done much for his public profile since beating a host of unknowns in the Pennsylvania Republican Senate primary almost a month ago. Now 45% of voters have an opinion on him, up from 25% in March. But whereas voters were split previously—12% favorable and 13% unfavorable—now they are decidedly negative, 16- 29. Because of that, freshman Sen. Bob Casey is able to survive his continuously tepid approval numbers (39% approve, 38% disapprove) to post a lead over Smith quite similar to that before the primary. He led 49-31 then, and 49-33 now.
There has been very little movement among Democrats, Republicans, or independents. But the silver lining for Smith is that if he improves upon his 59% of the GOP vote and brings it more towards Casey’s 76% of his own party, he is bound to tighten the race. But he will also have to cut into Casey’s nearly 20-point lead with independents.
Democrats have slight edges in three other statewide races, but with even more undecided than in the Senate contest. Kathleen Kane leads David Freed for Attorney General, 42- 33, and the Democrats in the Treasurer and Auditor General races have identical 35-34 edges over their GOP opponents.
PPP surveyed 671 Pennsylvania voters from May 17th to 20th. The margin of error for the survey is +/-3.8%. This poll was not paid for or authorized by any campaign or political organization. PPP surveys are conducted through automated telephone interviews.
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
A Glimpse of the Unfiltered Mind of the Anti-Gay Extremist
North Carolina Pastor Calls For Death of 'Queers & Homosexuals'
This sad little man, Pastor Charles L. Worley of Providence Road Baptist Church in Maiden, N.C., just happened to be caught on tape saying what "family values" activists, and all those who have been infected by anti-gay "religious" extremists, have been saying in one form or another for years, and years, and years, and years, causing unquantifiable harm to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people and their families, friends, and allies in communities across the country and around the world.
Here's the Northwestern Pennsylvania Version
Saturday, May 19, 2012
Venango County Extremists Won't Like This!
Opportunities for Extremist Groups, such as the Venango County-based American Family Association of Pennsylvania, to Foster Racial Division are Getting Narrower and Narrower
NAACP Passes Resolution in Support of Marriage Equality
Decision Affirms Opposition to Government Efforts to Codify Discrimination
(Miami, Florida - May 19, 2012) -- The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People today released a resolution supporting marriage equality. At a meeting of the 103-year old civil rights group’s board of directors, the organization voted to support marriage equality as a continuation of its historic commitment to equal protection under the law.
“The mission of the NAACP has always been to ensure the political, social and economic equality of all people,” said Roslyn M. Brock, Chairman of the Board of Directors of the NAACP. “We have and will oppose efforts to codify discrimination into law.”
“Civil marriage is a civil right and a matter of civil law. The NAACP’s support for marriage equality is deeply rooted in the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and equal protection of all people” said Benjamin Todd Jealous, President and CEO of the NAACP.
The NAACP has addressed civil rights with regard to marriage since Loving v. Virginia declared anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional in 1967. In recent years the NAACP has taken public positions against state and federal efforts to ban the rights and privileges for LGBT citizens, including strong opposition to Proposition 8 in California, the Defense of Marriage Act, and most recently, North Carolina’s Amendment 1, which changed the state constitution’s to prohibit same sex marriage.
Below is the text of the resolution passed by the NAACP board of directors:
The NAACP Constitution affirmatively states our objective to ensure the “political, educational, social and economic equality” of all people. Therefore, the NAACP has opposed and will continue to oppose any national, state, local policy or legislative initiative that seeks to codify discrimination or hatred into the law or to remove the Constitutional rights of LGBT citizens. We support marriage equality consistent with equal protection under the law provided under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Further, we strongly affirm the religious freedoms of all people as protected by the First Amendment.
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
The Right’s Righteous Frauds
By Frank Bruni for The New York Times:
Say what you will about Bristol Palin, she’s a quick study. It didn’t take her long to master the ways of her elders on the censorious right and decide that personal circumstance and past error needn’t prevent someone from claiming righteous leadership. Uncle Rush must be proud.
Soon after President Obama stated support for same-sex marriage, Bristol publicly weighed in. Because, you know, the world was on tenterhooks.
In a blog post she focused on the reference that Obama made to his daughters — and to the same-sex parents of some of the girls’ friends.
“It would’ve been helpful for him to explain to Malia and Sasha that while her friends (sic) parents are no doubt lovely people, that’s not a reason to change thousands of years of thinking about marriage,” wrote Bristol, making her heady debut as the new Dr. Spock for a nascent millennium. She added that “in general kids do better growing up in a mother/father home. Ideally, fathers help shape their kids’ worldview.”
Fathers like...Levi Johnston? It’s with him that she conceived her child — out of wedlock, at the age of 17 — and by most accounts, his relationship with her and the Palin family isn’t any warmer than Juneau in January. A mother/father home is not what he and Bristol have succeeded in creating.
What’s more, she has made sure that their son, Tripp, will at some point be treated to a worldview-shaping image of Dad as something akin to a date rapist. That’s the description of him immortalized in her memoir, one of her many efforts to monetize her surname. It recounts the loss of her virginity as a result of getting drunk and blacking out in the company of Levi, who pounced. What a gift that narrative is to Tripp, now being hauled into a TV reality show, “Bristol Palin: Life’s a Tripp,” already in production. Little children are known to thrive in such environments.
I hesitated before picking on Bristol because she’s an easy target. It’s like shooting moose from a helicopter flying low over the tundra.
But she so perfectly distills the double standards and audacity of so many of our country’s self-appointed moralists and supposed traditionalists: hypocrites whose own histories, along with any sense of shame, tumble out the window as soon as there’s a microphone to be seized or check to be cashed.
She proves that they’re not going away anytime soon — a new generation rises! — and that they haven’t been daunted by the ridicule justly heaped on Newt Gingrich during the Republican primaries, when he dared to cast himself as a religious conservative.
Certainly Rush thunders on. Last week he bellowed that Obama had decided to “lead a war” on traditional marriage. Seems to me Limbaugh started those hostilities long ago, if not with his first divorce then certainly with his second and third.
For entertainment at Wedding No. 4, to a woman 26 years younger than he is, he hired Elton John (who very questionably took the gig). Gays shouldn’t be allowed to tie the knot, but they sure can carry a tune.
More interesting than the tired, press-a-button condemnations from Bristol and Rush was Mitt Romney’s comportment. He didn’t hasten to turn same-sex marriage into a wedge issue, the way Rick Santorum urged him to, or use his commencement speech at Liberty University to fan the flames of hellfire.
He instead held back a bit, no doubt partly because his need at this particular juncture, as he recovers from the compromising and brutalizing primaries, is to pivot to the center, not cling to the right. I think Obama and his tacticians counted on as much.
And I think that the extent to which Romney continues to hold back will have enormous consequence for the Republican Party’s destiny.
Within its uppermost ranks are many champions of small government who squirm at the small-mindedness of the scowling theocrats in an increasingly uneasy coalition. These fiscal conservatives take advantage of the religious right’s political muscle but have reservations about its hectoring piety, and their own views on social issues are often moderate or somewhat liberal. Recall that Republican money played a pivotal role in the successful campaign for same-sex marriage in New York.
It came from donors who don’t want to see Romney take up an anti-gay mantle and who understand that a reputation for intolerance and bigotry imperils the future of the party, which they would like to orient away from stone throwers in glass houses. They’re Rush-fatigued. Palin-weary.
Bristol’s recent parenting advice to the Obamas extended into the realm of TV. She seemed to question whether they were watching “too many episodes of ‘Glee.’ ”
“Life’s a Tripp,” starring a single mom who once sold a family revelation to Us Weekly, will be more edifying, I’m certain. And it will showcase a woman who’s a shining testament to conventional, old-fashioned families.
Say what you will about Bristol Palin, she’s a quick study. It didn’t take her long to master the ways of her elders on the censorious right and decide that personal circumstance and past error needn’t prevent someone from claiming righteous leadership. Uncle Rush must be proud.
Soon after President Obama stated support for same-sex marriage, Bristol publicly weighed in. Because, you know, the world was on tenterhooks.
In a blog post she focused on the reference that Obama made to his daughters — and to the same-sex parents of some of the girls’ friends.
“It would’ve been helpful for him to explain to Malia and Sasha that while her friends (sic) parents are no doubt lovely people, that’s not a reason to change thousands of years of thinking about marriage,” wrote Bristol, making her heady debut as the new Dr. Spock for a nascent millennium. She added that “in general kids do better growing up in a mother/father home. Ideally, fathers help shape their kids’ worldview.”
Fathers like...Levi Johnston? It’s with him that she conceived her child — out of wedlock, at the age of 17 — and by most accounts, his relationship with her and the Palin family isn’t any warmer than Juneau in January. A mother/father home is not what he and Bristol have succeeded in creating.
What’s more, she has made sure that their son, Tripp, will at some point be treated to a worldview-shaping image of Dad as something akin to a date rapist. That’s the description of him immortalized in her memoir, one of her many efforts to monetize her surname. It recounts the loss of her virginity as a result of getting drunk and blacking out in the company of Levi, who pounced. What a gift that narrative is to Tripp, now being hauled into a TV reality show, “Bristol Palin: Life’s a Tripp,” already in production. Little children are known to thrive in such environments.
I hesitated before picking on Bristol because she’s an easy target. It’s like shooting moose from a helicopter flying low over the tundra.
But she so perfectly distills the double standards and audacity of so many of our country’s self-appointed moralists and supposed traditionalists: hypocrites whose own histories, along with any sense of shame, tumble out the window as soon as there’s a microphone to be seized or check to be cashed.
She proves that they’re not going away anytime soon — a new generation rises! — and that they haven’t been daunted by the ridicule justly heaped on Newt Gingrich during the Republican primaries, when he dared to cast himself as a religious conservative.
Certainly Rush thunders on. Last week he bellowed that Obama had decided to “lead a war” on traditional marriage. Seems to me Limbaugh started those hostilities long ago, if not with his first divorce then certainly with his second and third.
For entertainment at Wedding No. 4, to a woman 26 years younger than he is, he hired Elton John (who very questionably took the gig). Gays shouldn’t be allowed to tie the knot, but they sure can carry a tune.
More interesting than the tired, press-a-button condemnations from Bristol and Rush was Mitt Romney’s comportment. He didn’t hasten to turn same-sex marriage into a wedge issue, the way Rick Santorum urged him to, or use his commencement speech at Liberty University to fan the flames of hellfire.
He instead held back a bit, no doubt partly because his need at this particular juncture, as he recovers from the compromising and brutalizing primaries, is to pivot to the center, not cling to the right. I think Obama and his tacticians counted on as much.
And I think that the extent to which Romney continues to hold back will have enormous consequence for the Republican Party’s destiny.
Within its uppermost ranks are many champions of small government who squirm at the small-mindedness of the scowling theocrats in an increasingly uneasy coalition. These fiscal conservatives take advantage of the religious right’s political muscle but have reservations about its hectoring piety, and their own views on social issues are often moderate or somewhat liberal. Recall that Republican money played a pivotal role in the successful campaign for same-sex marriage in New York.
It came from donors who don’t want to see Romney take up an anti-gay mantle and who understand that a reputation for intolerance and bigotry imperils the future of the party, which they would like to orient away from stone throwers in glass houses. They’re Rush-fatigued. Palin-weary.
Bristol’s recent parenting advice to the Obamas extended into the realm of TV. She seemed to question whether they were watching “too many episodes of ‘Glee.’ ”
“Life’s a Tripp,” starring a single mom who once sold a family revelation to Us Weekly, will be more edifying, I’m certain. And it will showcase a woman who’s a shining testament to conventional, old-fashioned families.
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
A Message for Venango County, from North Carolina
No One Is Hurt By Marriage Equality
By Tommy Tomlinson of The Charlotte Observer:
I’ve got one week left at the paper. The vote on Amendment One is May 8, a few days after I’m gone. So let’s take a minute to talk about it now.
In case you’ve missed the debate, welcome back to Earth, and let’s get you caught up: Amendment One states that marriage between one man and one woman is the only valid domestic legal union in North Carolina. If you approve of gay marriage, you’ll be against Amendment One.
I approve of marriage equality. I’m against Amendment One.
I don’t agree with the opposition, but I understand where a lot of it comes from. Many of you feel the Bible condemns homosexuality. I hope you also understand that if we lived under all the things the Bible condemns, adulterers would be put to death, women would have to cover their heads in church, and the Panthers couldn’t play on Sundays. Among many, many, many other things.
The Bible has a lot of rules, but only ten commandments, and Jesus prunes even those to their essence in Luke chapter 10: Love the Lord with all your heart, soul, strength and mind… and love your neighbor as yourself.
Man, that “love your neighbor” part is hard.
Because what love really requires, in the end, is that you accept your neighbors for what they are. If they’re hurting you in some way, of course you can take recourse, but this is the thing about gay marriage: It hurts no one. It just bothers people. And we don’t have a right not to be bothered.
Please don’t try to argue that gay marriage undercuts the institution of marriage. If we made marriage as hard as getting a college degree, maybe. But in North Carolina, all you need for a marriage license is a willing (straight) couple and 60 bucks. When my wife and I got our marriage license in South Carolina, they gave us a little bag of soap and detergent and tissues. They figured a lot of new marrieds didn’t have much to live on.
If you truly think marriage is sacred, don’t ever spend a day in divorce court.
Here’s the thing, though: Marriage really is sacred, in the right hands. But it requires love, and common sense, and tolerance of flaws, and the constant effort to fix your own.
None of those qualities are exclusive to straight people.
That should go without saying, right? But I think the deeper truth under this gay-marriage debate is that a lot of straight people don’t know any gay people, and at some level just don’t understand that straight and gay people are 99.9 percent the same.
Some gay people should never get married, not because they shouldn’t be allowed to, but because they’d be crappy spouses. And by the same token, millions of gay couples would be loving and monogamous and all the things we want married couples to be. In fact, a lot of them are that now. They just don’t get to have the piece of paper.
It makes no sense to deny them the piece of paper.
A few weeks ago, House Speaker Thom Tillis (R-Cornelius) said something both sad and wise. He said he thought Amendment One will pass on May 8, but it’ll be overturned 20 years from now because the next generation will be more tolerant of gay marriage. Tillis wasn’t courageous enough to actually oppose the amendment – he voted to put it on the ballot – but he was brave enough to say out loud what seems obvious to me, and to anyone who looks at history.
We waste an awful lot of time fighting some of the freedoms we were founded on.
But freedom has a solid won-loss record. And no matter what happens on May 8, when our children and grandchildren look back on it all, this whole debate will make us look silly and small.
I suspect that, in God’s eyes, we already do.
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
The Bullies of Venango County
A New Report Examines the Anti-Gay Lobby’s ‘Pro-Bullying Agenda’ and it is directly applicable to the tactics used by Venango County's very own anti-gay extremist organization, the ironically-named American Family Association of Pennsylvania (whose prez, Diane Gramley, is pictured at right).
As students around the country participated Friday’s “Day of Silence” to show solidarity with bullied LGBT children and teens, anti-gay activists continued to step up their efforts to prevent schools from protecting bullied students.
A new report from People For the American Way (PFAW) details the efforts of right-wing activists and organizations to prevent school districts from implementing strong anti-bullying policies that protect LGBT and LGBT-perceived students.
“It’s no secret that anti-gay bullying is a growing problem in our schools,” said Michael Keegan, President of People For the American Way.
“Yet anti-gay activists are determined to keep parents, teachers and administrators from confronting the problem. “It’s almost unbelievable that there are organizations dedicated to opposing anti-bullying programs, but they’re out there and stronger than ever. These groups are so determined to fight every step of progress for LGBT rights that they’re willing to hurt children and teens in the process. That’s just shameful.”
The new report supplements a PFAW investigation released last year, updating it with the latest activities of the anti-anti-bullying movement, including:
- The Tennessee legislature moved forward on a “Don’t Say Gay” bill, which would prohibit teachers from discussing homosexuality.
- Anti-gay groups fought anti-bullying measures in states across the country, including Arizona, Minnesota and West Virginia.
- Prominent Religious Right groups rallied against the Day of Silence: the Family Research Council called it “a cover for the promotion of homosexuality,” the American Family Association accused it of “hijacking of the classroom for political purposes,” and Focus on the Family said it was all about “indoctrination.”
- Several anti-gay activists blamed the gay rights movement for the suicides of LGBT teens.
- Anti-gay groups attacked positive portrayals of LGBT teens in the show “Glee,” accusing the show of “radical homosexual promotion,” “deviant sexuality” and “demonic manipulation.”
Monday, April 9, 2012
Study Says: Homophobes May Secretly Be Gay Themselves
People, In A Homophobic Society, At War With Themselves
by Caroline May for The Daily Caller:
Denial can be a powerful defense mechanism. Apparently, homophobia is too — at least according to a new study from researchers from the University of Rochester, the University of Essex, England, and the University of California in Santa Barbara.
Their research concluded that the intense fear and repulsion college-age homophobes feel toward gays and lesbians is likely due to the fact that they see similarities in themselves.
“Individuals who identify as straight but in psychological tests show a strong attraction to the same sex may be threatened by gays and lesbians because homosexuals remind them of similar tendencies within themselves,” said lead author Netta Weinstein of the University of Essex, according to Science Daily.
The research, due to be published this month in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, took place in four different places in the United States and Germany, with an average of 160 college students in each location.
The researchers tested their subjects on their own sexuality and then measured the discrepancy between what the participants said about their own sexual orientation and how they reacted to timed tasks, including associating themselves with words and images they deemed as “gay” or “straight.”
Quickly associating himself or herself with a “gay” image and slowly associating with a “straight” one implied that an individual was gay.
The study also examined the participants’ upbringing and their own levels of so-called “homophobia.”
Those with discrepancies in how they defined their sexuality and how their sexuality was actually manifest in the study were more likely to be hostile to gays.
“In many cases these are people who are at war with themselves and they are turning this internal conflict outward,” said co-author Richard Ryan, professor of psychology at the University of Rochester.
The study also found that people who grew up in supportive households were more likely to be in touch with their own sexual orientations.
“In a predominantly heterosexual society, ‘know thyself’ can be a challenge for many gay individuals. But in controlling and homophobic homes, embracing a minority sexual orientation can be terrifying,” Weinstein added.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)