You remember James Loney.  He was a Christian aid worker who was held hostage in Iraq by insurgents and freed by Coalition forces.  He is from Canada.  And he's gay.  A fact his family and partner kept quiet for fear for his safety while imprisoned. 

So he's freed by the troops and returned to Canada where his partner can end what could only be hellacious agony born in solitude without the "comfort" other spouses can seek from public support. 

And he finds that his summer camp program has been de-funded by the Canadian Knights of Columbus b/c the curriculum might promote homosexuality to kids according to Loney.

The good Knights deny this was their agenda.  

In an interview with the Toronto Star KC official Jack Clancey said Loney's allegations were "out of left field."

"We closed down that leadership camp because we needed to review the way we were going and the curriculum that we were teaching," Clancey told the Star

But of course.  The timing, and the fact that the Knights support anti-gay marriage amendments EVERYWHERE has nothing to do with it.  Its just business. 

Just Catholic bigotry as usual.

However, some in the LGBTQ community aren't that thrilled with Loney.  Particularly as he was engaged in "missionary" work in the first place.  From the UK-Ireland edition of gay.com comes this perspective:

While Loney has obviously suffered trauma at the hands of his kidnappers, it's not hard to question his presence in Iraq, preaching Christianity on behalf of an unashamedly homophobic organization.

Aside from putting his own life at risk, Loney undoubtedly endangered the lives of beleaguered US soldiers, already overworked with insurgencies and bomb threats.

It?s also highly unlikely that war-torn Iraqi citizens are in need of God-bothering missionaries attempting to convert them as gore and missiles rain from the sky.

Loney seems to have learned little form the experience as he?s considering the possibility of joining a Christian Peacemakers Team project in Colombia or the Palestinian territory next year.

He acknowledged his experience in Iraq could make it a lot more difficult, but seems oblivious to the inherent selfishness of such an act.

Big shout out to Sister Patricia McCann of Oakland who outed her Roman Catholic self as a believer that:

Building family depends on good, loving, generous, mature, self-giving and stable adults who are able and willing to parent. God makes those in a variety of patterns.

Amen, Sister Patricia.  You tell those who are glued to their pulpits in righteous indignation that they should get out in the world and actualy work with families before them jump to their hateful little conclusions. 

The well-being of children and young people is threatened by a family context of violence and dissension, by parental alcohol and drug abuse, by narcissistic behavior in adults, by parental neglect or lack of interest in their activities. I've seen young people, both rich and poor, raised by loving and devoted parents, grandparents, stepparents, foster parents, gay parents, single parents and adoptive parents who thrive and grow into mature adulthood because of loving and stable homes. And I've seen youths raised by adults who, through their own limitations, handicap children psychologically and morally for life.

Another PG luminary, columnist Reg Henry weigh in with his thoughts on how fortunate Pennsylvanias are that legislators are tackling real issues like gay marriage.

But how exactly will gays threaten traditional marriage? That is a good question, but only in the sense that no one has a good answer.

In ignoring the question, we need to heed our most prominent moral leaders, i.e., our politicians. Just because they are shifty characters you wouldn't lend a dollar to unless it was attached to a string, doesn't mean they can't thunder like Old Testament prophets.

Now that's deserves another cup of coffee ...

In response to the Post-Gazette's two-thirds hearted opposition to the so-called Marriage Protection Amendment, two of the amendment's sponsors took the time to whine about the PG's mischaracterization of their bill.  You've heard it all before, but since the PG has been parsimonious in covering this issue of late, I'll take a stab at it.

State Senator Bob Regola (R-Hempfield) and State Senator Scott Boyd (R-Lancaster) have seen a future filled with married homos and it scares the living hell out of them:

No one can legitimately claim that Pennsylvania's Defense of Marriage Act will not be challenged in court. The testimony of gay-marriage advocates in Harrisburg confirms it is not a matter of if, but when. Prominent individuals from the ACLU and other organizations believe same-sex marriage should be legalized. Knowing there is little chance of accomplishing that goal legislatively, using the court to achieve this legislative agenda becomes an attractive tool.

They take to task stout-hearted fellows like Dan Frankel who have been pointing out that this legislation might actually hurt tens of thousands of unmarried heterosexuals, but Bob and Scott assure us that won't happen -- their crusade against homos won't have collateral damage.  Doesn't that sound familiar? 

And they call out those tricky legislators who took the political route to compromise the full degree of hate and fear that was embedded in the original bill.

Opponents are aware of this and have repeatedly tried to dilute the amendment in both the state House and Senate. A vote to weaken the Pennsylvania Marriage Protection Amendment by allowing civil unions is a vote that will kill the effort to protect marriage in this legislative session.

You are either for the original amendment or you hate freedom.   Something like that. 

These guys suck.

Sue beat me to the punch on this one, too. I'm not as dedicated a blogger as she is. Recetnly she wrote an article talking about how a "queer" woman made a comment to the effect that she didn't recognize/acknowledge Sue & I at Steel Queer N' At  because she didn't think I/Sue would be at that type of event. Or words to that affect.

I should have questioned her about what she meant. 'Cause sister, I have the street cred to go anywhere that I want to go. Yes, I'm white. Yes, I'm middle class (barely) and yes, I have a law degree. But I have paid my dues in spades. I toiled as a young female lawyer making $7-8 dollars an hour for a man who made that in a minute. But it was the only job out there and I wanted to practice law. I've been poor. I've had to scrimp to make ends meet--to pay bills, etc. So this notion that if you're not dirt poor you don't qualify as "queer" is bullsh*t. With a capital B.

I also have the street cred because I have been an outlaw and nonconformist my whole life. From the time I can remember, I didn't like dresses, pink, frills or any of the things "normal" little girls liked. To this day, when I pass the woman's section in any store, my reaction to the clothes on display is one of utter disinterest. I have worn short hair for quite awhile along with men's/boy's clothing. Sure, I've worn women's clothing--still do. But I have never fit the image of a woman in this society. And I've been mistaken for a man or a boy countless times. I've been queer before queer was a word.

So don't stereotype me. You haven't earned the right. You haven't paid your dues. And to top it off, this particular person then made a comment about her--boyfriend. What a f**king joke. I've been a lesbian since forever. And I've paid a price for it. So don't look down your nose at me and sneer.

I read my partner's post about Pride Day--the fact that some of the local politicos didn't show up. Bob O'Connor and Dan Onorato really don't have too much of an excuse because their positions are probably relatively safe. But I agree, Bob Casey should have made an appearance, albeit even if it was short.

Now don't get me wrong, I think it's imperative that we vote for Casey. We may think he is "Santorum lite" and the fact that he didn't attend Pride Fest doesn't help alleviate that impression. But Ricky Santorum is much, much worse for our community. And the Democrats have to take back the house and senate if the Bush madeness overtaking our country is going to be stopped.

But here is where Sue and I diverge. The Republicans have been able to use guilt by gay association, and have been able to make us a punching bag for so long for one simple reason. We don't vote. We can't be bothered to get off our asses and take 5-10 minutes to vote. The apathy among gay people is huge and the Republicans--like my friend Bob's favorite target Karl "no shit sticks to me" Rove know it. Rove can use us as the proverbial boogey man under the bed because we allow it. Nobody stands up and fights him. And the Republicans know we're not a force to be reckoned with. Hell, we're too busy fighting each other for God sake!

Respect from politicans is to be earned. Not demanded. Not taken for granted. Earned. Earned by voting and exercising good citizenship. If we voted and became a political force to be reckoned with, neither Karl Rove nor Ricky Santorum could use us as punching bags.

So to all you queers who are bummed that Casey won, get over it, vote and show him that you're a force to be reckoned with. Maybe next time he'll make sure he attends Pride Fest.

The Senate may vote on the anti-gay marriage amendment on Wednesday.  Here's what the AFA is seeking ... notice that they've not asked for either prayer or fasting ... so much for God's will ... 

ACTION NEEDED: 

1.)  Call your State Senator ASAP and ask him or her to support

 the original language of H.B. 2381 and to reject the Earll

Amendment.  Click here for contact information.   If you do not

know who your State Senator is, please enter your county or

nine-digit zip code in the upper right hand corner of that page

or call Commonwealth Directory Assistance at 717.787.2121. 

Please do not assume that your Senator will support the

Marriage Protection Amendment!  Contact them!

 

2.)  Feel free to forward this alert to other concerned

 Pennsylvanians.  If this alert is being forwarded to you by

a friend, please feel free to sign up by sending an e-mail

 to info@afaofpa.org

 

3.)  Please consider supporting the ongoing work of the

American Family Association of Pennsylvania.  Make

 an online donation.

 

In His service,

 

Diane Gramley

President

American Family Association of PA

Thanks to Ehrrin for sharing these with the Correspondents.  Click on the photo to see the whole slide show ....

You gotta love Mike Seate, columnist for the Tribune-Review.  No matter how carefully he crafts his essentially pro-homo thoughts, he always gets a little jab in there -- just enough to remind us that he is a heterosexual middle class male after all.  For the most part, they are benign and usually amusing.  But I digress ...

Yesterday, Seate took a stab at the gay marriage amendmen furor.  His conclusion?  Gay marriage happens everywhere but the courts and pretty soon state governments will recognize that. 

And that homosexuals are scapegoats right now. 

A point that the wise and wondrous Post-Gazette editorial board glossed over in their passive missive yesterday.

It's an interesting coincidence that as we pass 39 years of legally sanctioned interracial marriage, the Pennsylvania state legislature has been busy approving an amendment that would ban gay marriage.

From Pittsburgh to Philadelphia, there are gay and lesbian couples who've adopted children, cohabited like legally married couples and even enjoyed health benefits from progressive employers. They continue living their lives as married couples even while our lawmakers play to bigoted voters by passing meaningless anti-gay marriage laws.

And he connects gay civil rights with the larger struggle for civil rights (here's the little sparky jab):

Though several lawmakers throughout the union staged public tantrums about having to legalize interracial marriages back in 1967, their fears of a ruined, lawless society never materialized. By the 1990 U.S. Census, one in 33 Americans identified themselves as being of mixed race heritage. By 1995, that number had risen to one in 26.

Better yet, interracial marriage has produced people as stunningly beautiful as Paula Abdul and Shakira, which even the most ardent segregationist has to agree is a positive development.

Ah, Mike.  Your not so bad for a breeder yourself.

From Monday's Post-Gazette comes this rather unimpressive denouncement of the still breathing Pennsylvania legislation on gay marriage (amend the constitution, hurt the homos and the heteros, you remember).

Today is the day we are supposed to see some action in the Senate on the revised bill which would still make gay marriage unconstitutional, but not civil unions.  This bill should reach the floor as early as today.  If it passes, it has to return to the House for passage in its amended form.  The homo-haters and hate-panderers are up in arms at the watered down language of the legislation so what will happen is anyone's guess.

The only solace is that is all has to happen by the end of next week or it goes kapoot (how do you spell kapoot by the way?). 

I'm glad the PG opposes the amendment.  And I'm glad they point out how this could hurt many heterosexual couples b/c frankly that's our best shot at avoiding passage.  Hurting homsexual families doesn't seem to be a concern for our homegrown Democrats so we need to pull out all the possible cards. 

But this editorial reads like a carefully crafted compromise rather than a thoughtful articulation:

This whole amendment is objectionable. That the civil union language was in there at the start proves the lie at the heart of its supporters' claims: This isn't about protecting the sanctity of traditional marriage (if it were, it would ban divorce, the real culprit). It is about writing a note of prejudice into the state constitution.

Objectionable?  A note of prejudice?  Was Tony Norman off this day -- who the heck uses phrases like "note of prejudice" over an amendment that would overtly constitutionalize second class status for an entire group of people?  About the violation of our civil rights?  About the fact that we've been here before and it wasn't so good that time around? 

The PG wimped out on this issue.  You'll note they stopped printing letters to the editor on this issue.  Perhaps readers are getting bored?  But isn't that the damn point ---

It has been a tumultuous week in Columbus Ohio where the Episcopal Church legislative body wrestled with questions that threatened the very unity of the church, a part of the worldwide Anglican Communion (PG).

The church shocked the world with the 2003 election of New Hampshire Bishop Gene Robinson, an openly gay man.  In response, a commision established by the Archbishop of Canterbury issued a report calling for a moratorium on electing gay bishops. 

This Episcopal Church gathering carefully crafted a response expressing regret for not being more careful with the appointment and failing to recognize the impact it would have.  It does express regret for appointing a gay man. 

The gathering also rocked the boat with the election of Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori as Presiding Bishop. 

The conservative forces within the Anglican Church, including Pittsburgh's own Bishop Duncan, are not pleased.

The Rev. Canon David C. Anderson, president of the conservative American Anglican Communion, said the actions thus far at the convention, including the House of Deputies' vote on the "Expression of Regret," had not altered his opinion that the Episcopal Church was headed in the wrong direction.

"It was not Windsor Report-compliant to begin with," he said of the vote. "So they rearranged the deck chairs on the Titanic."

And there remains other legislation dealing with the election of gay bishops and the authorization of same-sex unions that must still be voted on before the convention ends late tomorrow.