Gays Step Up Efforts to Reverse Gay-as-Godless Stereotype
A groundbreaking survey about the faith lives of gay Americans that the Barna Group put out last week got surprisingly little attention. In my latest God & Country column for U.S. News Weekly, I tied the Barna survey’s fascinating portrait of gay religious life to the gay rights movement’s recent efforts to ratchet up outreach and messaging. Much of the work is aimed at reversing the gay-as-Godless stereotype.
Here’s the top:
Though he was raised in the United Methodist Church, Harry Knox knew he couldn’t become a minister in his denomination because it doesn’t ordain openly gay members. He enrolled in a seminary of the more liberal United Church of Christ but was eventually denied ordination anyway. “My whole career as an activist is an accidental ministry,” says Knox, 48, who now works at the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest gay rights group. “I would rather be a local pastor.”
Instead, since 2005, Knox has built HRC’s “religion and faith program,” which works to combat the stereotype of the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender community as antireligious. “For far too long, LGBT organizations did not put religious allies at the forefront of our efforts,” Knox says. “That’s a mistake we’re making less often now.”
Those religious allies may be more plentiful than most Americans think. A Barna Group survey out last week shows that most gay Americans lead pretty robust faith lives. While 72 percent of straight American adults describe their faith as “very important” in their lives, so do 60 percent of gays and lesbians. Almost as many, 58 percent, say they’ve made a personal and ongoing commitment to Jesus Christ.
And though they are much less likely than straights to share the beliefs of born-again Christians—which comes as no surprise, since most churches in the born-again tradition condemn homosexuality—the Barna survey found that 27 percent of gays do hold those beliefs. “Many in the Christian community assume there’s this significant gap between heterosexuals and homosexuals in terms of faith beliefs and activities,” says George Barna, the country’s top pollster on religious issues, who supervised the survey. “While there are statistically significant differences, it’s the narrow size of the gap that’s most surprising.”
The poll unleashed a torrent of hate mail, mostly from believers furious with Barna’s conclusion: that many gays are Bible-believing Christians. But more and more gay rights organizations are joining HRC in stepping up efforts to highlight the faith beliefs of many gay Americans, largely through religious outreach programs. And some religious traditions and denominations are taking steps to welcome gay and lesbian members.
Gay rights activists say that the 2004 election, when voters in 11 states passed gay marriage bans that were heavily promoted through churches, was a wake-up call. To help counter the image of the gay marriage battle as a fight between gays and religious Americans, HRC, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, and other national gay rights groups quickly hired religious outreach staff.
Read the full story here.
See Gays Step Up Efforts to Reverse Gay-as-Godless Stereotype
U.S. News & World Report
* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
 |
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/07/gays-step-up-…
DOJ Will Not Appeal Veteran’s VictoryIn Transgender Discrimination Case
Signals Commitment By Obama Administration To Protect Transgender Workers From Discrimination
WASHINGTON, DC – The U.S. Department of Justice decided not to appeal a federal court ruling awarding transgender veteran Diane Schroer the maximum compensation for the discrimination she suffered after being refused a job with the Library of Congress. The deadline for seeking an appeal was June 30. The American Civil Liberties Union has represented Schroer in her case.
The Obama administration’s decision whether to appeal the final ruling in the case has been closely watched in part because the Bush administration defended the case so vigorously, arguing that transgender Americans are not protected by any existing federal laws. The decision not to appeal the verdict is consistent with the Obama administration’s campaign promises to protect transgender workers against discrimination and his administration’s recent order taking steps to bar gender identity discrimination in federal employment.
“I am grateful that the court took the time to examine the case in detail and come to a fair and unbiased decision. In that same light, I am gratified that the current administration saw this for what it was, a case of sex discrimination focused against transgender people, and recognized that it must end in this country,” said Schroer, an Army Special Forces veteran with 25 years service. “The important signal that the administration’s decision sends to all LGBT individuals gives me renewed hope and restores some of my shaken faith in what our country stands for.”
On April 29, 2009, a federal court awarded Schroer maximum damages of $491,190 for back pay, other financial losses and emotional pain and suffering after finding the Library illegally discriminated against Schroer because of her sex. At trial, Schroer testified that she had applied for a position with the Library of Congress as the senior terrorism research analyst and was offered the job. Prior to starting work, she took her future boss to lunch to explain that she was in the process of transitioning and wished to start work presenting as female. The following day, Schroer received a call from her future boss rescinding the offer, telling her that she wasn’t a “good fit” for the Library of Congress.
“We are pleased and relieved that the Obama administration has decided to bring an end not only to years of hard-fought litigation but also to a painful chapter of Ms. Schroer’s extraordinary life,” said Sharon McGowan, a staff attorney with the ACLU LGBT Project. “The administration’s decision not to challenge this important civil rights ruling is a welcome sign that it intends to live up to its commitment to help end transgender discrimination in the workplace.”
The ACLU filed the lawsuit against the Library of Congress on June 2, 2005, charging that the library unlawfully refused to hire Schroer in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits sex discrimination in the workplace. In an earlier ruling in this case, the court issued a groundbreaking opinion that discriminating against someone who transitions from living as one gender to another is sex discrimination under federal law. In reaching this decision, the court compared the discrimination faced by Schroer to religious-based discrimination, saying, “Imagine that an employee is fired because she converts from Christianity to Judaism. Imagine too that her employer testified that he harbors no bias toward either Christians or Jews but only ‘converts.’ That would be a clear case of discrimination ‘because of religion.’ No court would take seriously the notion that ‘converts’ are not covered by the statute.” The court also ruled that the library was guilty of sex stereotyping against Schroer because of its view that she failed to live up to traditional notions of what is male or female.
“This case put employers on notice that discrimination against transgender individuals is like any other form of discrimination – counterproductive and against our principles as a nation,” added Schroer. “But this case alone won’t end the rampant discrimination that transgender people face throughout the country. That’s why we need Congress to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act that was introduced last week.”
In addition to McGowan, the legal team consisted of Ken Choe, Senior Staff Attorney for the ACLU LGBT Project, James Esseks, Litigation Director for the ACLU LGBT Project and Arthur Spitzer, Legal Director of the ACLU of the Nation’s Capital.
A copy of the decision, the complaint, a video, a bio and photographs of Diane Schroer are available at: http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/transgender/24969res20050602.html
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/07/doj-will-not-…
LOS ANGELES: All Saints, Pasadena, clergy opt out of civil marriages until gay couples can legally wed
Clergy at All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena, California, are opting out of performing civil marriages until gay couples can legally wed–and are encouraging other clergy to do likewise, according to the Rev. Ed Bacon, rector.
“At the heart of Jesus’s moral vision and All Saints’ historic mission is respecting the dignity of every human being,” Bacon said in a June 3 press release announcing the decision, which is effective immediately.
“The California Supreme Court in its recent opinion has ruled that those of same-gender affections are second-class citizens,” Bacon added. “Denying fundamental rights to a certain classification of humanity is blatant discrimination with which our governing board, the other clergy of All Saints, and I will not participate. We invite other clergy and congregations to join us in this stand for marriage equality.”
Bacon referred to the May 26 state Supreme Court ruling that upheld the controversial Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment providing that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid in California.” Their decision sparked nationwide rallies by both advocates and opponents of the measure.
The Rev. Susan Russell, an associate at the Pasadena congregation known for its social activism and progressive politics, said on June 4 that clergy are meeting with couples whose nuptials were already planned “to explain the new policy and hold pastoral conversations about the impact on them.
“We only do member weddings, so folks married here at All Saints typically share our values of inclusion and would be on board, we think, with making arrangements to have the civil part of their marriage take place external to All Saints clergy,” said Russell, who is president of Integrity USA, an advocacy group for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Episcopalians.
But she added that: “We will continue to serve and marry them civilly if that’s what the couple prefers for whatever reason because that was the contract going in.”
All Saints vestry, at its June 2 meeting, had unanimously passed a resolution declaring that “the sacramental right of marriage is available to all couples, but that the clergy of All Saints Church will not sign civil marriage certificates so long as the right to marry is denied to same-sex couples.”
The vestry’s decision acknowledged “our active participation in the discriminatory system of civil marriage is inconsistent with Jesus’s call to strive for justice and peace among all people and respect the dignity of every human being.” The resolution states “civil marriage in the State of California is, as a result of Proposition 8 and the Court’s decision, a constitutionally-mandated instrument of discrimination, which furthers injustice and denies same-sex couples the fundamental dignities to which each human being is entitled,” Bacon said. Russell said there was little discussion in the vestry meeting. “It was just a no-brainer that of course we want to take steps that keep us from being complicit in state-sponsored discrimination.
“I keep thinking I couldn’t be prouder to work at All Saints church than I already am and then our leadership keeps taking steps that make me even prouder,” Russell said. “It was it is such a part of the DNA of All Saints Church to stand with those in need of solidarity. This stand is so deeply rooted in our baptismal covenant, it gives us such a strong theological place to stand. It feels like very firm foundation, indeed.”
The Rev. Neil Thomas of the Metropolitan Community Church (MCC) in Los Angeles, a petitioner in the Proposition 8 case, said the 40-year-old 500-member congregation likewise is observing a moratorium on signing civil weddings.
“We will not sign the paperwork” for civil marriages, said Thomas, whose ministry is primarily, but not exclusively, to the LGBT community. He is also the president of California Faith for Equality, a progressive interfaith movement of about 6,000 clergy, which submitted an amicus brief advocating that the California Supreme Court overturn Proposition 8.
– The Rev. Pat McCaughan is Episcopal Life Media correspondent for Provinces VII and VIII and the House of Bishops. She is based in Los Angeles.
* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/06/los-angeles-a…
McDonald’s Agrees To Training and Settlement After Staff Called Gay Customers “Faggots,” Super-Size Training For Management Offered After Kentucky Incident
LOUISVILLE, KY – Nine months after an employee at a McDonald’s restaurant in downtown Louisville called a group of gay customers a series of anti-gay slurs, the American Civil Liberties Union announced today that McDonald’s has agreed to a cash settlement and diversity training for management at 30 of its Louisville-area restaurants.
Ryan Marlatt, Teddy Eggers, and three other friends had stopped for lunch at a McDonald’s restaurant on East Market Street on July 26, 2008 while visiting Louisville for the weekend. While they waited for their food to be prepared, an employee behind the counter referred to them as “faggots” to another employee. When Marlatt and Eggers objected to the slur and asked to speak with a manager, the employee who had called them “faggots” started arguing with them, repeatedly calling them “faggots” in front of other customers and calling one of them a “cocksucker” and “bitch.”
“The reason we made such a big deal out of this to begin with was because we didn’t want it happening to anyone else, so I’m very glad McDonald’s management is going to be having these trainings,” said Eggers of Indianapolis, Indiana. “We were hurt and upset, but at least we’re adults and can handle being called names. We hated thinking that this kind of harassment might also happen to someone young and vulnerable who would really take it to heart.”
The supervisor on duty refused to refund the group’s purchase, so Marlatt attempted several times in the following weeks to contact both the general manager of the McDonald’s and the corporate offices, with no results. Louisville law prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, so the ACLU filed a complaint in September on behalf of Marlatt and Eggers with the Louisville Human Relations Commission. In October, representatives of a variety of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender groups as well as other civil rights organizations protested at the downtown Louisville McDonald’s where the incident took place.
Although Marlatt and Eggers only asked for $28, McDonald’s offered them $2000 each on its own, which they accepted, Sun said. The Louisville Human Relations Commission has been thoroughly investigating Eggers and Marlatt’s complaint since it was filed last September and helped negotiate the settlement between the parties.
“We’re really grateful to the Louisville Metro Human Relations Commission for its investigation, as well as to our friends at the Fairness Campaign, and commonGround at the University of Louisville, for keeping the pressure on McDonald’s to do the right thing,” said Michael Aldridge, Executive Director of the ACLU of Kentucky. “While we’re fortunate to have a law banning sexual orientation discrimination in Louisville, this goes to show that it’s still important to speak out and do something about it when your rights are violated.”
“McDonald’s could have saved itself a lot of embarrassment if they’d just done the right thing from the start and done something about this, but it’s great that so many people stood up for us and came forward to say treating people the way we were treated is wrong,” said Marlatt. “We just hope the trainings keep McDonald’s from letting this happen to any of their customers from now on.”
When their Louisville Human Relations Commission complaint was filed, Marlatt and Eggers asked for a refund of the money they spent on the McDonald’s meal, and asked that one employee – the cashier who objected to the other employee’s name-calling – be commended. “She was the only employee in the whole place who tried to help us,” said Eggers. “I hope she hears about this and knows how much we appreciated her sticking up for us.”
“While we wish Ryan, Teddy, and their friends hadn’t had to go through this whole experience to begin with, we’re glad that at least McDonald’s is taking steps to prevent anything like this from happening again in the future,” said Christine Sun, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Project who is representing Marlatt and Eggers. “Businesses should treat all of their customers with respect regardless of their sexual orientation.”
A video of Marlatt and Eggers telling the story of what happened to them as well as their complaint to the Human Relations Commission can be found at http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/discrim/36781res20080916.html.
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/05/mcdonalds-agr…
The gay condom debate
To wear or not to wear? The condom debate among gay men, especially in Washington, D.C., where HIV cases are alarmingly high, is especially important.
Gay men do not need condoms for their primary use - birth control - but still need them to protect against sexually transmitted diseases and HIV.
An estimated one in 20 adults in D.C. is affected with HIV and 37 percent of cases affect sexually active gay men, according to the Whitman-Walker Clinic, which provides HIV testing.
While some gay men do not use condoms because it “feels better” or “feels more natural,” other gay men in the D.C. community are speaking out and promoting safe sex.
Michael Komo, president of GW’s Allied in Pride, is taking steps forward in promoting condom use among gay men.
“There is no reason for two people who are sexually active with one another to not use condoms,” Komo said. “We need to do everything as a community in order to promote safe sex.”
While he promotes condom use, Komo also suggests sexually active gay men get tested for HIV every six months.
“My philosophy is that it is better to be safe than sorry. I have done everything in my power to promote sex safe,” said Komo. “I am a huge advocate for using protection. I think that there will always be a debate, whether it be among gay men or straight partners, about whether or not to use a condom during sex.”
GW’s Allied in Pride office provides free condoms.
“We want people to protect themselves if they are having sex,” Komo said. “There is no reason for people to not be safe. (Condoms) take very little effort to use. We always have and always will advocate for practicing safe sex.”
The George Washington University The GW Hatchet* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/04/gay-condom-de…
