Archive for September, 2012


September 30, 2012

by Dean Hansen

For ten thousand years we wait,
with veal cutlet dithyramb,
with bloodied hair and sputum,
in war’s thirst, in cripple’s madness,
in severed limb and ripped socket,
in howling, drooling, unrecoverable despair
and pain, with bone cackling weariness.

Crunched, spindled, mutilated, we wait;
burning away to ash, tethered
in brevity’s brush fire,
famished, unclothed, squeaking we wait,
mortal and terrified
for God to tell us something.

Windows closed, doors jammed,
rusted brass, the burden of slavery’s heft,
and dispossession’s engine, crawling on our bellies
in urine, we wait; in mud and crushed rock
we wait; the twinge of stick weapon and flint ax,
boar food, screeching talons, yelping
like dogs beneath Roman garrisons,
storm troupers and bleak dust, trampling
under drum beats, swastika’s, tank treads
and black boots; falling to crossbows, caissons,
battle-axes, broadswords, wheel ruts and
sweltering heat; waiting on a voice like
transient glass, slurring like a rusted nail through
the farce of whip and memory, continuance
and hunger, crumbling teeth and cruel nature.

Through the cancer ward of hot grease we wait, mewling
through tumors and rank pus; through worms, torn sinews,
madness, rot, flies, stink, betrayal, calumny and death,
we hear his voice. And he says:

Good News!  I love you.

… and would you be willing to do a little  honest suffering to give faith support to the invisibility thing?  You know…to weed out the undesirables who don’t understand what they can see?


September 30, 2012

Digital art by Dean Hansen

by Dean Hansen

I don’t like Paul, I don’t like Greek,
Or people who with forked tongue speak,
I don’t like good news mixed with bad,
Or gibberish that makes me mad.

I don’t like freedom couched in shame,
Or Gods who threaten, warn or blame,
I don’t like being told I’m rotten,
In a language dead, but not forgotten.

I don’t like mercy mixed with wrath,
or thin and narrow joy-filled paths,
I don’t like violence, blood and gore,
Or plastic saints who scream for more.

I don’t like fiction labeled truth,
or eye for eye and tooth for tooth,
I don’t like giddy, drooling clowns,
Whose dogma weighs a thousand pounds.

I don’t like sweet talk bearing chains,
from muscle heads who have no brains,
I don’t like cripples bearing gifts,
Or drowning martyr’s sinking ships.

I don’t like hate disguised as love,
With fire raining from above,
Or gnashing teeth or beating breasts,
Or endless torments without rest.

So take this church you wish to save,
The one that looks just like a grave,
That’s crowded thick with age and rust,
Of endless lies and broken trust.

Abandon fear and stand up tall,
You are the building, you are the hall,
You are the arches, brick and stone
No architecture but the bone.

No place to be that isn’t you,
Contrived of secrets blazing,
No sacred, silent place apart,
Just you and me:  Amazing.

John Corvino Explains Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Gay Marriage

September 28, 2012

John Corvino, Chair of the Philosophy Department at Wayne State University (Detroit), has recently published on YouTube a ten-part video series on same-sex marriage. Each video is succinct (about 3 minutes), entertaining, and informative. Corvino is an accomplished speaker, and you will want to hear what he has to say. It is the best half-hour presentation on this topic that you will find anywhere.

 Here they are:

The Definition of Marriage

Are People Who Oppose Gay Marriage Bigots?

Is Homosexuality Unnatural?

Is Gay Marriage a Threat to Religious Freedom?

Do Children Need a Mother and Father?

Is Gay Marriage a Threat to Traditional Marriage?

Why Marriage? (Why not Civil Unions?)

If Gay Marriage, Why Not Polygamy?

Debunking the Regnerus Study.

What’s Morally Wrong with Homosexuality?

University Unitarian Church (Seattle) Supports Marriage Equality

September 24, 2012

Approve Referendum 74 in Washington State

September 12, 2012

10 Questions to Help Determine if Your Religious Liberty Is Being Threatened

September 11, 2012
The Rev. Emily C. Heath has devised a simple quiz that will let you know if you’re being oppressed. I have already found it to be a powerful tool for sorting out conflicting claims about violations of religious liberty, which has become one of the hot topics on Roman Catholic web- and blog-sites in this country. You will find the quiz on Huffington Post. Here are three of the questions that I particularly liked:

1. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to marry the person I love legally, even though my religious community blesses my marriage.
B) Some states refuse to enforce my own particular religious beliefs on marriage on those two guys in line down at the courthouse.

2. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am being forced to use birth control.
B) I am unable to force others to not use birth control.

3. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) Being a member of my faith means that I can be bullied without legal recourse.
B) I am no longer allowed to use my faith to bully gay kids with impunity.

Is There a Scientific Consensus on Same-Sex Parenting? You bet there is!

September 9, 2012

by Doughlas Remy

Rick Fitzgibbons of NARTH (National Association of Research and Therapy of Homosexuality)

Rick Fitzgibbons, who supplies the theoconservative website with a steady stream of anti-gay propaganda, begins a recent article about gay adoptions with these words:

The science shows that children are best served when raised by their biological mothers and fathers.

And it is on this completely false premise that he builds his shaky scaffolding of arguments against same-sex parenting. I was appalled that not a single commenter thought to challenge him on this. Fitzgibbons knows perfectly well that his claim is untrue, and yet he keeps advancing it.

How do I know he’s wrong? Here’s how:

Remember California’s Proposition 8 (overturning same-sex marriage in California) and Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling against it in 2010? His decision was reviewed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed it earlier this year while continuing a stay on the ruling pending further appeals.

What does this have to do with Fitzgibbons’ premise? For the answer, just view the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals update on case 10-16696 (“Proposition 8”). Then take a look at the hundreds of organizations that have filed or joined amicus briefs for and against Judge Walker’s ruling. You will notice that every major health and social care association in this country has joined the brief supporting California’s same-sex marriage law and urging the court to uphold Judge Walker’s decision. (See list below.)

The only health care organization appealing on behalf of Prop 8 is a right-wing splinter organization called the American College of Pediatricians, with an estimated membership of 60 to 200. It broke away from the American Academy of Pediatrics, which has a membership of 60,000. The ACP has a purely ideological agenda and screens its members for their views on reproductive choice and same-sex parenting.

Here is the statement on the amicus brief joined by the health and social care organizations that I will list below:

There is no scientific basis for concluding that gay and lesbian parents are any less fit or capable than heterosexual parents, or that their children are any less psychologically healthy and well adjusted. The children of same-sex couples will benefit if their parents are allowed to marry.

Here is the list:

American Psychological Association

California Psychological Association

American Medical Association

American Psychiatric Association

National Association of Social Workers

National Association of Social Workers, CA Chapter

American Sociological Association

American Academy of Pediatrics, CA

American Academy of Pediatrics

American Psychoanalytic Association

American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy

American Anthropological Association

What could be more conclusive? Claims that same-sex parenting is bad for children are based on junk science or no science at all. They are in fact outright lies and belong in the same trash bin as former tobacco-industry claims about smoking and fossil-fuels-industry claims about global warming. They are generally funded by right-wing organizations that have no scruples about misrepresenting scientific findings.

Ten Red Flags on the Mark Regnerus Study

September 7, 2012

by Frank Lozera and Doughlas Remy

Mark Regnerus, Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Texas, Austin

In June of this year, the journal Social Science Research (henceforth: SSR) published a study by associate professor of sociology Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas. The study, titled “How Different Are the Adult Children of Parents Who Have Same-Sex Relationships?,” purports to show that the children raised by same-sex couples have poorer outcomes than those raised by mixed-orientation parents. The study has been widely denounced for conflicts of interest in the review process and for its flawed methodology. Among professional organizations calling for its recall are the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Psychoanalytic Association. The American Sociological is poised to join them. Additionally, over 200 Ph.D.s and M.D.s signed a letter to the SSR complaining about the study.

The study has been widely touted by conservative media in an apparent attempt to garner support for anti-same-sex-marriage initiatives appearing on fall ballots. Appearing as it did in June, just as the 2012 presidential campaigns were ramping up, it has had a huge impact on the national debate about same-sex marriage.

Amy Davidson, writing for The New Yorker, has this to say about the Regnerus study:

Attacking the methodology of a study whose conclusions you don’t like can be a lazy default reaction. But, in this case, the way it was conducted is so breathtakingly sloppy that it is useful only as an illustration of how you can play fast and loose with statistics.

The study’s methodological problems are indeed so glaring that they should have been red-flagged by qualified peer-reviewers. Instead, an internal SSR audit revealed a shoddy review process and egregious conflicts of interest at every step leading to the study’s publication.

Author Scott Rose of The New Civil Rights Movement has produced a prodigious amount of research on the Regnerus study and is my source for most of what follows. My account is an effort to organize the available information into a list of “red-flags” grouped under two headings: (1) Conflicts of Interest and (2) Methodological Flaws.

Conflicts of Interest

Red Flag #1: Robert P. George commissioned Mark Regnerus to conduct the study, which was to determine whether gay or lesbian parenting had any adverse effects on children. Regnerus received $785,000, which he says came “in part” from the Witherspoon Institute’s Family, Marriage, and Democracy program and from the Bradley Foundation. Regnerus reveals neither the amounts contributed by these organizations nor the source of any additional funding.

Robert P. George, author of The Manhattan Declaration and founder of the National Organization for Marriage

Red flag #2: Robert P. George (see Red Flag #1) is a senior fellow of the Witherspoon Institute and a board member of the Bradley Foundation. He is also founder of the National Organization for Marriage (this country’s largest advocacy group opposed to same-sex marriage), board member of the Family Research Council (certified as an anti-gay hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center), and author of the Manhattan Declaration, a theoconservative document advocating civil disobedient resistance to any legislation promoting same-sex marriage.

Red flag #3: W. Bradford Wilcox, director of the Witherspoon program that provided funding for the Regnerus study, is among Mark Regnerus’s long-time personal friends and professional associates.

Red flag #4: Wilcox is also on the editorial board of SSR, which published the Regnerus study.

Red flag #5: SSR’s editorial board decided to publish the Regnerus study on a “rush schedule” (41 days from submission, compared to months for most publications). Why the rush? The most likely explanation is that the 2012 election season was ramping up and various state initiatives regarding same-sex marriage were to be on the ballots. An audit of the study supports this conclusion (see below).

In prioritizing this study, the journal violated its own peer review policy and settled for peer reviewers who possessed no expertise in same-sex parenting or LGBT issues. Three of them were known to be antipathetic toward LGBT causes, including same-sex marriage. SSR’s own auditor (Professor Darren P. Sherket, an SSR editorial board member) admitted that there was “an unseemly rush to publication … that was justified based on the attention that these studies would generate. The published [peer-review] responses were milquetoast critiques by scholars with ties to Regnerus and/or the Witherspoon Institute.”

W. Bradford Wilcox, editorial board member of Social Science Research and program director at the Witherspoon Institute

Red flag #6: Bradford Wilcox, program director at the Witherspoon Institute, member of the journal’s editorial board, personal friend of Regnerus, and paid Regnerus study consultant, was one of the peer reviewers for the study. This was an egregious violation of the American Sociological Association’s (ASA) Code of Ethics.

Red flag #7: According to Sherket, at least two of the peer reviewers had been paid consultants for the study design.

Red flag #8: Mark Regnerus violated the American Sociological Association’s Code of Ethics by recruiting Robert Oscar Lopez to write an essay—published on Witherspoon’s online publication Public Discourse-–drawing conclusions from the study. W. Bradford Wilcox is an editorial board member for that publication.

Methodological Flaws

Red flag #9: Regnerus did not control the variables in his test group (children of gay and lesbian parents) and his comparison group (children of heterosexual parents).

The alleged purpose of the study was to answer the question, “Do the children of gay and lesbian parents look comparable to those of their heterosexual counterparts?” Regnerus claims that his study proves a correlation between gay parenting and sub-standard child outcomes.

Regnerus should have eliminated any factors that might cloud the issue. If his comparison group contained only children of continuously married heterosexual parents, his test group should have contained only children of continuously “partnered” same-sex couples.

Instead, Regnerus selected children of continuously married parents for his comparison group, and children mainly from failed mixed-orientation marriages for his test group. This introduction of a third factor into the test group (but not into the comparison group) should have disqualified the study.

Because of this asymmetry, the study can only be said to show that children raised in broken homes do less well that those raised in intact homes. But, of course, this is not Regnerus’s own stated conclusion.

All respondents, who at the time of the study were adults between ages 18 and 39, were asked the following question:

From when you were born until age 18 (or until you left home to be on your own), did either of your parents ever have a romantic relationship with someone of the same sex?

If the answer was “yes,” the respondent was considered to have been the child of a gay or lesbian parent, whether or not the child had been raised by a same-sex couple. The “romantic relationship” of the question could have been nothing more than an infatuation or a one-night stand. A child of Larry Craig could have qualified as a respondent, though Craig was never part of a same-sex couple.

In other words, the actual parenting of that child might have been done by an opposite-sex couple. Nevertheless, Regnerus places the child into the category of “children raised by gay or lesbian parents.”

Tom Bartlett, writing for The Chronicle of Higher Education, says, “In reality, only two respondents lived with a lesbian couple for their entire childhoods, and most did not live with lesbian or gay parents for long periods, if at all.”

Of the 253 respondents in the test group, 42% reported living with a gay father and his partner for at least four months, but only two percent of those reported doing so for at least three years.

Red flag #10: All the respondents were born between 1971 and 1994, a period when same-sex marriage was illegal in the U.S., there were no domestic partnership laws, and millions of gays and lesbians were trying to cope with closet issues, many of them marrying (straight partners) in a desperate effort to assimilate. Not surprisingly, many of those marriages failed. Their children’s later behavior may have been a result of family upheaval.


Shortly after the study’s publication, over 200 Ph.D.s and M.D.s signed a letter to SSR complaining about it. Their conclusion: “There are substantial concerns about the merits of this paper, and these concerns should have been identified through a thorough and rigorous peer review process.”

Darren Sherkat, editorial board member at Social Science Research and auditor of the Regnerus study

After receiving the above letter of complaint, James Wright, SSR’s editor-in-chief, assigned Darren Sherkat (SSR editorial board member) to perform an audit of the publication process. The audit, which has already been made public, will be published in SSR’s November issue.

In the audit, Sherkat found that the Regnerus study was not scientifically valid and that the peer review had failed because of “both ideology and inattention.” He wrote that the peer-review process “failed to identify significant, disqualifying problems.” [emphasis mine] He added that SSR’s owners were more interested in the “impact factor” than in publishing reliable research: “…rigorous independent evaluation [of the Regnerus study] would have made Social Science Research a less popular but better journal.”

In a subsequent e-mail to Scott Rose, Sherkat wrote: “How did this study get through peer review? The peers are right-wing Christianists!”

Elsewhere, Sherkat described the study as “bullshit.”

“There should be reflection about a conservative scholar garnering a very large grant from exceptionally conservative foundations,” Sherkat writes in the audit, “to make incendiary arguments about the worthiness of LGBT parents—and putting this out in time to politicize it before the 2012 United States presidential election.”


Regnerus’s study doesn’t document the failure of same-sex parenting. Instead, it shows the harmful effects of closeting and the devastations wrought upon children by social opprobrium. The overwhelming majority of the children in the test group were raised by mixed-orientation parents, not same-orientation ones.

A society that uses stigmatization and discrimination to force its same-sex-oriented young people into marriages with opposite-sex-oriented individuals should not be surprised when those marriage fall apart, damaging children in the process. If we are to learn anything from Regnerus’s study, it is that children benefit from being raised in stable households. Not only does same-sex marriage offer such stability; it also  helps to stabilize “straight” marriages by siphoning off closeted gays and lesbians who might otherwise stay in the straight-marriage pool.

What could be more sensible?