Obama in NC today, won't mention huge anti-gay ballot initiative taking place in two weeks

Well that isn't very nice. As Joe notes over at AMERICAblog Gay:

Today, President Obama will be at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill to give a speech on student loan interest rates, which will double in July if Congress doesn't act. That's not the big issue in North Carolina right now. North Carolinians are currently voting on the viciously anti-gay Amendment 1, which will ban marriage equality and more in the state. Early voting began on April 19th for the May 8th election. Much of the opposition is coming from students. The President's campaign issued a statement a couple weeks ago, which stated Obama's opposition to Amendment 1.

It's not just not helpful. It sends a terrible message, having the President in the state, and NOT talking about the biggest issue in the state. It makes it look as if he's afraid to talk about the issue. And it sends the message to voters, especially certain constituencies deeply aligned with the President, that he just might not care how they vote on the issue.

I get that the White House wants to stay on message and talk about the economy rather than gay stuff.  Okay.  Then don't go to North Carolina two weeks before a crucial anti-gay vote.  To go anyway, and ignore a massive civil (and human) rights violation in the making, is somewhat ugly, to say the least.  It's also asking for political trouble with a constituency that knows how to make it.

TV Ads begin in campaign against NC's anti-gay Amendment 1

On May 8th, voters in North Carolina will decide the fate of Amendment One, a viciously anti-gay measure put on the ballot by the GOP nut jobs in the legislature. It's so poorly written that it will have an impact beyond same-sex couples. We've been writing about this campaign extensively at AMERICAblog Gay.

Actually, North Carolinians are already going to the polls. Early voting began last Thursday.

There's a broad, very active coalition of over 100 organizations, including the NAACP, fighting the amendment. And, here's been a groundswell of opposition to Amendment One, from unlikely sources. The CEO of Duke Energy, a fortune 500 company, blasted it -- as did the former GOP mayor of Charlotte, Richard Vinroot, who did a video against Amendment One with a former Democratic mayor of Charlotte, Harvey Gantt.

Last night, the campaign to defeat Amendment One held a conference call to discuss its t.v. ads, which began airing today.  On the call to discuss the ads and the strategy for the next two weeks were the media consultants, Mark Amour and Chad Griffin (who will soon be President of HRC), producer Dustin Lance Black and the pollster, Josh Ulibarri from Lake Research. Our side did some pretty intense research to figure out the messages that moved voters. And, these ads, according to testing, worked. One other thing, Dustin Lance Black said, with which I agree, is that before major donors go the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte and spend $100,000 on VIP parties and functions, they need to donate to defeat discrimination in NC now. After all, even President Obama is against Amendment One. 

Here are the ads from Protect All NC Families:

And:

The other side start airing its ads today, too. They are using the same consultant, Frank Schubert, from Prop. 8 and the Maine marriage campaign. So, we're expecting the usual lies (in fact, the leader of the anti-marriage side in Maine, who works for the Catholic Bishop, basically admitted his campaign lied in 2009, "We use a lot of hyperbole and I think that's always dangerous.")

The campaign against Amendment one is Protect All NC Families and the website is here. Already, the campaign has raised $600,000 online -- far more than expected. Thanks to everyone who made that happen. And, you can still donate to buy more air time here. 

The campaign is also running an aggressive field program, focusing on get-out-the-vote. And, there are lots of other allies doing their own outreach via radio and mail. More from North Carolinian Pam Spaulding on some of the grassroots efforts here.

If you family or friends there, urge them to vote early AGAINST Amendment One. And, if you live there, vote now.

Romney spokesman made sexist and homophobic remarks about Mrs. Obama, Hillary Clinton

Would you expect anything less from the Republican nominee?

Interesting that we haven't heard boo from Mitt or Ann Romney.  You'll recall two weeks ago they were more than happy to talk non-stop about how they felt Democratic consultant Hilary Rosen had shown disrespect to women.  But when the Romney campaign's own spokesman - and mind you, Hilary Rosen doesn't even work for the Obama campaign, this guy does work for Romney - is found to have tried to cover up a series of sexist and homophobic comments about First Lady Michelle Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, and the wife of Romney's remaining serious (well, somewhat serious) opponent in the GOP primary, you don't hear boo from Mr. or Mrs. Romney.

Wonder why that is?  Maybe Mitt and Ann Romney don't care about women at all. We'll find out if they keep this spokesman on staff.

White House LGBT Exec Order debacle: One week later, still mired in controversy

A week ago, the White House announced that the President wouldn't be signing the LGBT non-discrimination Executive Order. We just cross-posted at AMERICAblog Gay, but wanted to give everyone the update. Because, the fallout continues. I have to imagine that the political geniuses on the campaign and at the White House figured that this would slide by. After all, we're now smack in the middle of the campaign. Their opponent, Mitt Romney, has been burnishing his anti-gay credentials, including an endorsement from the race-baiters at NOM. Surely, they must have calculated, this will be a mere bump in the road.

Wrong -- like so many calculations made by Team Obama, especially when it comes to the LGBT community.

In Roll Call, "The newspaper of Capitol Hill Since 1955" (sub. req.), Rep. Jared Polis took a whack at the White House:

“Without a Congress that’s willing to pass [the Employment Non-Discrimination Act], I wish the president was a little more aggressive to pursue nondiscrimination,” openly gay Rep. Jared Polis said in a brief interview Monday.

The Colorado Democrat, a leader in the LGBT Equality Caucus, said Obama made a strategic misstep last week when he announced he wanted Congress to move on enacting a nondiscrimination policy for all workers rather than issue an
executive order that could protect employees working for federal contractors. With a Republican-led House and a Congress now focused on the elections, the chances of passing a gay-rights-oriented bill this year are dim at best. And the prospects could remain equally grim if Democrats fail to win back control of the House in November.

“I was disappointed they haven’t reached out yet,” Polis said, noting that he had not spoken with anyone in the administration sincelast week’s announcement. “They certainly have a lot of explaining to do in the LGBT community.”

They're not explaining it well at all.

Watch this exchange between White House Press Secretary Jay Carney and the Washington Blade's Chris Johnson.

Okay. So, now, they want to do ENDA legislatively - and it's like DADT? The only thing like DADT is the way Carney is obfuscating, just like Gibbs did when he got DADT questions.

Speaking of DADT, Metro Weekly's Chris Geidner has an analysis pointing out four reasons why the contractor executive order is not like DADT:

Asked if the administration misjudged the response from Obama's supporters to the decision not to pursue the executive order, Carney defended the decision as "the right approach."

He said, "The president believes that, in this case, the right approach is to try and build support for ENDA. I think that a good example, again, is to look at the approach that was taken by this administration in dealing with his commitment to repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' and working with Congress and working with the Pentagon to make sure that that came to pass. There was criticism at the time that we weren't taking the right approach. In the end, I think, it has been shown to have been the right approach and to have been an effective approach in building support and ensuring that in its implementation ... that the implementation itself has been extremely effective."

There are four major distinctions between what happened surrounding DADT repeal and what is going on with the administration's actions to advance LGBT workplace protections, distinctions thus far ignored by the White House.

Geidner's four distinctions, all backed up with supporting info., are:

First, the control of Congress was in the Democrats' hands in the 111th Congress.

Second, although a formal moratorium on DADT discharges was not put in place prior to DADT repeal, the administration did take interim steps to lessen discrimination while awaiting legislative action on the repeal.

Third, unlike with DADT repeal, the relevant agencies appear to be fully on board with the executive action being sought here.

Fourth, unlike the DADT discharge change, the additional effects of the proposed executive order being sought by advocates with regards to workplace discrimination have impact beyond that which would be achieved by ENDA.

Kinda demolishes the White House arguments.

Yesterday, Mike Signorile wrote a great post over at Huffington, providing some context for what the White House decision means politically and for the LGBT movement:

The problem for the campaign is that the White House itself brought this issue to everyone's attention by calling the meeting of LGBT activists, inspiring reports of a "rift" with gays where there previously wasn't one, and it's not going to go away anytime soon, as activists now have the support of LGBT people across the country who are suddenly focusing in on this issue.

One thing that's being asked is how gay leaders allowed this to happen. Paul Yandura, a gay former Clinton aide, says the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF) gave the administration a pass, with HRC sitting on its polling on the issue when it should have released it publicly months ago, and NGLTF not even sending out a press release right after the meeting to criticize the president.

A larger problem is that HRC endorsed the president a year ago, and all the group appears to have gotten in return was his presence as a speaker at their annual dinner. That helps them sell lots of tickets, but doesn't do much in attaining tangible rights. Had HRC not endorsed Obama until now, they could have told the White House, "This is what we want for our endorsement."

The gay groups worried about losing access not only do a disservice to the LGBT movement in this regard, but by not publicly making it clear that refusing to sign the order will be a bigger headache for the president than that imagined during any "panic," they badly serve the president, as well.

This should never have been a controversy. The White House needs to fix it -- fast.

Criticism mounts over Obama punt on gay Exec Order. NYT calls it "cynical hedge"

It didn't have to be like this.

The White House could have done the right thing and issued the LGBT non-discrimination executive order for federal contractors. But, somehow, the geniuses that run the place decided against it. Not sure why, but no doubt, it was another inane political calculation on their part. Now, it's a big story.

Today, an editorial in the NYT takes the President to task:

Many federal contractors already have antidiscrimination policies. With Congress gridlocked over the issue, Mr. Obama had the chance to immediately extend protections against anti-gay employment bias to the rest of the employees of federal contractors without imposing a significant new burden on business. Yet the White House said no such executive order “will be issued at this time.”

It is unclear why Mr. Obama declined to do the right thing here. He has taken actions against discrimination, like repealing the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy against openly gay service members. And he has voiced opposition to proposed state constitutional amendments in North Carolina and Minnesota to bar same-sex marriage. His hesitation to ban gay bias by government contractors, like his continued failure to actually endorse the freedom to marry, feels like a cynical hedge. It’s hard to see the political sense in it, and it is certainly unhelpful to the cause of full gay equality under the law.

I think this White House makes political calculations based on what their opponents will do (see, for example, this NYT article on how FOX News sets the agenda for the FDA.) The President's political strategists don't factor in what their allies will do in response to negative news. That's because most progressives just sit back and take it. We don't. You'd think they'd know that by now.

John linked to Peter Wallsten's article in today's Washington Post. The first two paragraphs are an indicator of what's to come:

Gay rights activists vowed Thursday to step up political pressure on the White House over President Obama’s refusal to sign a nondiscrimination executive order, with some decrying the decision as an attempt to avoid controversy before the November election.

One prominent liberal donor said he would spend $100,000 to fund a “We Can’t Wait” campaign targeting Obama, a takeoff on the president’s own slogan for his efforts to use administrative actions as end runs around what he has termed an obstructionist Congress. The donor’s money will be used to fly victims of discrimination at federal contractors to Washington to confront Obama and his aides and gin up public attention.

It shouldn't have to be like this. But, it is.

Also, today, at the Washington Post, a column by Joe Davidson, titled: Why Did Obama Refuse Executive Order?

Why indeed?

And, anyone buying the White House "we want to pass ENDA" line needs to read, White House Whopper on ENDA Executive Order, by Jillian Weiss. In response to Jay Carney's claim that the White House is "aggressively pursuing passage of ENDA." Jillian wrote:

What?! Someone's pants are on fire, and they're not mine.

Here's why she wrote that:

On ENDA, the White House never weighed in, despite the fact that there only a few votes needed to pass it, and, in fact, declared they wouldn't, as it wasn't their place to do so.

This is a shell game -- watch the pea under the shell and see if you can figure out where it is this time. The Democrats have successfully played a shell game with LGBT rights for quite a long time.

In my 2010 meeting with Melody Barnes, the Assistant to the President and Director of the White House Domestic Policy Council, this is what happened:

She also noted he has mentioned ENDA, and that he believes it should be integrated into the agenda. He has articulated his support and will continue to. "We are not a barrier," she said. But, she continued, "we look to the Senate leadership; they know what we support and if the President were to push issues it would be a long list. It's up to them."

The White House doesn't have a valid policy reason for why they're not doing this executive order, which means politics is at play. And, it means they're more worried about the reaction from the professional homophobe community than what the LGBT community thinks. Disturbing to think that's how these decisions are made by the Obama team.

Carney gets pummeled over LGBT Executive Order at WH briefing

Rarely do LGBT-related issues get this much time at a White House briefing, but the White House decision yesterday to punt on issuing an executive order establishing LGBT non-discrimination for federal contractors is garnering a lot of attention. We cross-posted this at AMERICAblog Gay and also wrote about the decision, which The Washington Post called a "stinging setback," here and here.

Whoever made the decision to say no to the executive order made a bad decision. During today's press briefing, Sam Stein tweeted:

some sharp questions for carney on why obama will sign other executive orders but not one outlawing LGBT discrimination for fed contracters

And, there were many sharp questions. Watch the video courtesy of Igor Volsky:

If the White House thought they had contained this issue, they were wrong. It's not going away. And, that excuse about wanting to pass ENDA instead, well, it's just not credible.

And, just to confirm that it's not going to go away, we got this via press release;

Within hours of the White House announcement, the “We Can’t Wait!” campaign received a $100,000 cash infusion from liberal donor Jonathan Lewis, the son of major Democratic philanthropist Peter Lewis.

Quotes from Jonathan Lewis:

“This isn't a broken promise President Obama can blame on Congress. He has not been able to provide a single valid reason for why he is now refusing to sign the executive order protecting LGBT workers. It has become increasingly clear that this decision is based on cowardice rather than principled leadership."

“Over the past several years the LGBT advocacy groups have jumped through hoops for this administration, conducting extensive research and polling -- more than has been done for any similar executive order -- and now the only impediment is President Obama."

“This is nothing short of craven election-year politics, a game Obama told us he would not play.”

Jonathan Lewis and his father, Peter, are major contributors to progressive causes. And, by major, I mean they give millions.

How is it that Team Obama has made another bad political calculation when it comes to the LGBT community? Have they learned nothing? This was another serious miscalculation.

Although, some are happy about the White House decision:

The loudest voices against nondiscrimination laws such as these have been from social conservatives. Ashley Horne of CitizenLink, an affiliate of Focus on the Family, welcomed the White House decision.

"We see this decision as one that recognizes that sexual orientation nondiscrimination policies are not necessary," she said in a statement. "Rather, they are often used to silence free speech, particularly the speech of people of faith."

I'm sure Focus on the Family will rally behind Obama's reelection now. Surely, that crowd will be hosting fundraisers, doing Get-out-the-vote and supporting Obama. Surely.

BTW, the White House did send a press release today titled, "We Can’t Wait: Protecting Taxpayer Dollars from Wasteful Payment Errors and Fraud." So wasteful payments can't wait, but non-discrimination can.

Prominent psychiatrist retracts study saying "ex-gay" therapy works

For three and a half years, I underwent therapy to change my sexual orientation, from gay to straight, with Joseph Nicolosi, co-founder and former president of the National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH). I've written a piece for The American Prospect magazine that tells the story of the ex-gay movement over the last 20 years, as well as recounting my own experiences in therapy (spoiler alert: it failed miserably). I encourage AMERICAblog readers to check it out, but there is one key piece of information I wanted to share.

Robert Spitzer—the guy who led the charge to declassify homosexuality as a mental illness in 1973—published a controversial study in 2001 saying that some gay people could change their sexual orientation. The study continues to be cited by proponents of "ex-gay therapy" (the notion that you can pray away the gay) as the chief piece of evidence that such therapy works; the fact that he is not a flack for the ex-gay movement and is an atheist made it hard to say he was biased. But when I met Spitzer in March, he asked me to retract the study:

Spitzer was drawn to the topic of ex-gay therapy because it was controversial—“I was always attracted to controversy”—but was troubled by how the study was received. He did not want to suggest that gay people should pursue ex-gay therapy. His goal was to determine whether the counterfactual—the claim that no one had ever changed his or her sexual orientation through therapy—was true.

I asked about the criticisms leveled at him. “In retrospect, I have to admit I think the critiques are largely correct,” he said. “The findings can be considered evidence for what those who have undergone ex-gay therapy say about it, but nothing more.” He said he spoke with the editor of the Archives of Sexual Behavior about writing a retraction, but the editor declined. (Repeated attempts to contact the journal went unanswered.) …

Spitzer was growing tired and asked how many more questions I had. Nothing, I responded, unless you have something to add.

He did. Would I print a retraction of his 2001 study, “so I don’t have to worry about it anymore”?

It's quite a stunning reversal, and I got the sense that this had troubled Spitzer for some years.

While I share the criticisms many psychiatrists and gay-rights supporters levied at the 2001 study, it strikes me that Spitzer's decision to pursue it evinces an admirable characteristic.  When we spoke, Spitzer told me it's important to question "whether everything you've been taught is wrong." In the early '70s, there was a near consensus in the psychiatric community that homosexuality was a mental disorder—and a pretty bad one at that. Interactions with gay-rights activists made Spitzer doubt the conventional wisdom in the same way that encounters with ex-gay activists made him question whether change therapy worked (and led him to pursue the 2001 study). In the latter case, the result was more harmful than good, but the drive to think independently—even when there is enormous social pressure to hew to the party line—seems the defining mark of a true intellectual. Of course every strength is also a weakness, but were it not for Spitzer's capacity for self-doubt, my husband and I might be sitting in a psychiatric ward instead of happily married.

On a broader note, this has been a story I've wanted to tell since I first became a writer. The experience of researching and writing it, however, was difficult. It's one thing, to paraphrase Joan Didion, for a writer to sell other people out; it's another to give away embarrassing details about yourself and your past (which, in the service of truth, I had to). Reaching into my painful adolescence was a bit dislocating. It cut loose a lot of memories from therapy, of being an insecure teenager—a time I'm sure many would prefer to forget.

But, at the risk of being aggrandizing, I think the way my story ends is edifying. I'm convinced that we never really "get over" traumatic experiences—whether it's a parent or spouse's death, a car accident, or childhood abuse; they remain part of the story we tell ourselves about who we are.

I'm an atheist, but whenever I think about trauma, I'm reminded of a passage in one of Christian writer C.S. Lewis' books (I can't remember which). He compares the human condition to a symphony; the fall of Adam and Eve, he says, is like a wrong note that threatens to spoil the entire composition. But the divine composer comes to the rescue by turning the errant note into the start of a new melody.

With trauma, one must indeed turn the errant note into the start of a new and better symphony.

Gay-immigrant-loving GOP sheriff hits Obama on immigration. Hypocrisy much?

Arizona's disgraced GOP Sheriff Paul Babeu has hit President Obama on his immigration policies in a new campaign ad released this week. The irony is not lost on those of us who also remember that this is the same border hawk who was exposed as being in a relationship with a male undocumented immigrant earlier this year.

Read more about Babeu's ad here.

Should a white guy lead the Black Student Union?

It happened in Northern Virginia at an elite high school.  And it wasn't a joke, or done to be funny.  The guy was a longtime, and active, member of the Black Student Union, and finally ran for president.

It's an interesting question, and it's something we've debated in the gay community as well.  Is it ever okay to pick a straight person to run a gay organization.

In principle, I've never had a problem with the notion of a straight person running a gay group.  Yeah, it's different.  And yes one could argue that they wouldn't 100% understand what it means to be gay, but I'm not entirely sure that they couldn't learn.  And there is something to be said for the advantages a straight person would have explaining gay rights to other straight people, or a white person would have explaining the plight of African-Americans to a white audience.

And let's not under-appreciate the devotion it takes for a white high school kid (even in an elite high school) to choose to run for the president of a black student group (of which he was already a member).

I'm also curious "who" voted for him - meaning, were the only people eligible to vote current members of the Black Student Union, if so, then that gives him more legitimacy.  Also, more generally, can you really limit the membership and/or leadership of an organization to one race, one sexual orientation, etc?

And while that might sound discriminatory to someone not a member of the group in question, I know for gay stuff I get the notion of keeping it "gay" once in a while.   The whole idea behind gay softball leagues and gay bars, for that matter, is to have somewhere safe and reaffirming for your own community, a community in which you grow up not always feeling very safe or affirmed.  If a gay softball league were 99% straight, it wouldn't be much of a gay softball league.  If gay cruises were 99% straight then they would really be gay cruises.

Then again, this is the argument the Irish Catholics use to keep gay Irish Catholic groups out of the St. Patrick's Day parades.

What do you think?

Romney donated $10k to organization that wanted to incite race war

I think Mr. Mitt has some explaining to do.

Secret docs show lead anti- "gay marriage" group wanted to "fan" race war

Ben Smith at Buzzfeed sums up the secret documents that he calls "explosive":

Final line I'm amazed NOM put on paper: Goal of "fanning the hostility" btw blacks and gays

This is seriously f'd up.

A "confidential" internal document of the lead anti-"gay marriage" group, the National Organization for Marriage" (NOM), shows that the organization was not simply content at taking civil rights away from gay couples, they wanted to start a political race war between black, Latino and white Democrats, and they admitted it in writing. They outright admitted that "the" top goal of the anti-"gay marriage" movement is "fanning the hostility" between blacks and white gays, and between Latinos.

Here are their own words:

"The strategic goal of this project is to drive a wedge between gays and blacks - two key democratic constituencies. We aim to find, equip, energize and connect African American spokespeople for marriage; to develop a media campaign around their objections to gay marriage as a civil right; and to provoke the gay marriage base into responding by denouncing these spokesmen and women as bigots. No politician wants to take up and push an issue that splits the base of the party. Fanning the hostility raised in the wake of Prop 8 is key..."

That last line is referring to a blow up in the gay community following Prop 8 when an exit poll showed that an overwhelming majority of African-Americans voted in favor of the anti-gay amendment. In other words, the religious right wants to fan the flames of racial hatred between blacks and whites.

They write of the black community, and Latinos, as if they're mere puppets for the religious right to manipulate. They continue:

"Consider pushing a marriage amendment in Washington, D.C."

What they mean is, DC is a majority black and Democratic town with a large gay community. They want to start a race war in the nation's capital.

This line was also particularly crude:

"Find attractive young black Democrats to challenge white gay marriage advocates electorally."

Again, it's all about promoting a race war between blacks and whites in order to hurt gays and the Democratic party, to hell with what it does to the black community, the civil rights movement, or the future of this country.

None of this is a surprise. What is surprising is that they would put talk of fanning a race war in writing.

Here's a second document, below, and Joe has a third over at AMERICAblog Gay. We'll have much more on this tomorrow.

20100716 Doc 128b NOM Depo - Exhibit 2 - NOM Depo Exhibit 12 Nat'l Strategy for Winning 12-15-09

North Carolina anti-gay amendment may defund domestic violence programs

Donate to help defeat Amendment One.  Join today's Money-Bomb to fight the anti-gay amendment in North Carolina being voted on in just six weeks.

The religious right is trying to pass a state constitutional amendment in North Carolina on May 8th that would not just ban marriage equality for gay couples, it would also ban civil unions and domestic partnerships for all couples, gay and straight, and would even make it more difficult, if not impossible, for the state to help unmarried women who are victims of domestic violence.

Rather than simply banning "gay marriage," the amendment seems to ban any legal recognition of any domestic legal union other than a married one.  That means that domestic violence won't exist unless the couple is married, otherwise it's not "domestic" if the law simply considers them as "shacking up."  And that means state programs that help victims of domestic violence might be required to turn away unmarried women, and that courts may not be able to help those single women either.  Nor the police.

But the amendment goes further than that.  How do you litigate partner survivorship rights, hospital visitation, and adoption if the courts are forced by the state constitution to ignore any relationship that isn't marriage?

And don't think for a minute that this is hypothetical.  Ohio and Virginia both had problems with domestic violence programs following the passage of similar amendments in those states.

For those reasons, and more, AMERICAblog has joined today's Money-Bomb to raise money for the campaign to defeat anti-gay Amendment One in North Carolina.  The gay blogs have already raised over $12,000.  Please click the image above, or here, and give to the campaign.  Thanks.

PS from Joe: We're doing a live chat with the NC campaign manager, Jeremy Kennedy, right now at AMERICAblog Gay. Come over and join in -- after you donate.

Is "white pride" inherently racist?

Sure feels like it.

There's a growing college group, Youth for Western Civilization, that, rather than being proud of Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome, or the Renaissance, likes to focus instead on "white pride" and "straight pride."  In my opinion, yeah, that's kind of racist.  The group argues, hey, there's Black Pride and Gay Pride, why don't they get their "pride" too.  It strikes me as a racist question, but at the same time, it's an interesting one that deserves an answer.

Why is Black Pride and Gay Pride okay whereas the other ones clearly set off our alarm bells?  To some degree, you'd have to ask a black person what they're "proud" of, and then think as to whether there's a similar "white" counterpart that doesn't come off sounding white supremacist.  Part of the problem is that I'm not convinced that American, for example, has a "white community."  We have white people.  They often live in the same community as other white people, but we don't define our community as "white."  We might attend the same church and define our community by our faith, we might define our community by our ethnic background - and be proud of both of those.  But I've never really thought of myself as a member of a white "community," nor been proud of it.

For example, I'm a member of the gay community and the Greek community.  I'm proud of my membership in both.  I define myself by my membership in both.  But I just don't think of being white the same way.  Clearly these guys do.

Having said that, gays certainly perceive the existence of a "straight community," even though straight people may not fully realize they're part of a specific community for being straight.  And I suspect that African-Americans recognize the existence of a "white community" even though most white people don't see themselves as a community simply for being white.

It's a complicated issue.  And I don't like saying that something is bigoted simply because it's feels that way.  But it does.

Thoughts?

Catholic church reportedly castrated boys who reported priest sex abuse

Just when you think the Catholic church abuse stories couldn't get any worse, something else is reported. Like castrating a young boy for having the temerity to report that his priest abused him.  In this case, a politician even participated in the coverup according to the report. DutchNews:

At least one boy under the age of 16 was castrated to 'help' his homosexual feelings while in Catholic church care in the 1950s, the NRC reported on Saturday.

But there are indications at least 10 other boys were also castrated, the paper said. The claims were not included in the Deetman report on sexual abuse within the Catholic church published at the end of last year.

The paper says the one confirmed case concerned a boy - Henk Heithuis - who reported being sexually abused by priests to the police in 1956. After giving evidence, he was placed in a Catholic-run psychiatric institution where he was then castrated because of his 'homosexual behaviour'.

As Joe noted the other day, the Catholic church is still attacking their own victims (quoting the NYT):

Turning the tables on an advocacy group that has long supported victims of pedophile priests, lawyers for the Roman Catholic Church and priests accused of sexual abuse in two Missouri cases have gone to court to compel the group to disclose more than two decades of e-mails that could include correspondence with victims, lawyers, whistle-blowers, witnesses, the police, prosecutors and journalists.

The group, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, known as SNAP, is neither a plaintiff nor a defendant in the litigation. But the group has been subpoenaed five times in recent months in Kansas City and St. Louis, and its national director, David Clohessy, was questioned by a battery of lawyers for more than six hours this year. A judge in Kansas City ruled that the network must comply because it “almost certainly” had information relevant to the case.

The network and its allies say the legal action is part of a campaign by the church to cripple an organization that has been the most visible defender of victims, and a relentless adversary, for more than two decades. “If there is one group that the higher-ups, the bishops, would like to see silenced,” said Marci A. Hamilton, a law professor at Yeshiva University and an advocate for victims of clergy sex crimes, “it definitely would be SNAP. And that’s what they’re going after. They’re trying to find a way to silence SNAP.”

So just to be clear, the Catholic church won't pay for the pill, but they will pay for forced castration of boys who have been raped by Catholic priests. Any questions?

Rutgers undergrad found guilty of bias-related cyberspying that led gay roomie to suicide

It's a horrible story that appears to be reaching a surprisingly just conclusion.

If GOP super-lawyer Paul Clement isn’t such a bad guy, why does he keep defending bad guys?

GOP super lawyer Paul Clement needs a hug.

Everyone is being mean to him.  And he's not a bad guy, really.  Sure he's making millions defending the anti-gay DOMA law, the anti-Latino Arizona immigration law, and the anti-black South Carolina voter ID law.  By why define a lawyer by the cases he picks, Clement argues.  The law is about all sides getting a robust defense in court, he says.

Then why is it that Paul Clement keeps choosing to defend the bad guys?

Today we learn that Clement will be arguing the constitutionality of health care reform before the Supreme Court.  Guess which side he's taking.

It would be interesting to ask Attorney General Eric Holder, the White House, and Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan - all of whom rose to Clement's defense when he was criticized for taking the DOMA case - why their upstanding friend keeps choosing cases that hurt people.