Genetics Primer, 2: the role of chance

As we introduced with eye color, there may be random variation in the expression of a trait. Interestingly, a current theory of handedness suggests that this is exactly what happens for right handed versus left handed. Let's call the gene for Right handedness R, and the other version of this gene r. So, following our B/b diagram, we would suggest that RR or Rr people are right handed, and rr people are left handed. This works at first because we know that there is a genetic component to handedness in families.

But when you look in detail for that kind of inheritance, it doesn't work. There are still fewer left handed people than there should be, and there are some right handed people with left handed parents. What DOES fit the data is that "rr" isn't determinate of left handedness, it simply creates a random chance of either.

So the absence of R isn't "left", it's "either left or right determined at random". And again, potentially subject to modifiers in the environment, in the genome, and so on. Thus in two identical siblings, both rr, one can be left handed and one can be right handed simply by chance. There's still a genetic component, and they are still genetically identical, even though the outcome (the phenotype, in scientific terms) differs. Cool, isn't it?

One model suggests that this sort of characteristic is determined by a molecular mechanism to skew the distribution of daughter DNA molecules. Interestingly, there is a correlation with other asymmetrical characteristics, including left-right asymmetry in the brain, and the directionality of hair whorls on the crown of our heads. What's correlated is the asymmetry, not which way it worked out: that is, counterclockwise hair whorls are equally split between right and left handed people. So the counterclockwise whorl didn't influence your handedness; what they share is that both were determined randomly.

Oh, and the counterclockwise hair whorls may be more prevalent in gay men. Does this mean that if you are counterclockwise in hair, you are gay? No, nor does it mean that all gay men have counterclockwise hair whorls. But it might suggest there is some asymmetric component to sexuality, at least in men.

So you can see even in apparently simple human traits (eye color, handedness) there is a lot of complexity in how our genes are "read" and how they interact with and influence each other. And, we are not fully determined by our genetic information. Rather, genetics provides a palette but each of us is a unique painting that is a combination of genetics, environment, and chance. So, for complicated traits like behavior, you can predict that there will be a wide range of behaviors and they will be highly variable. All of which is perfectly "normal".



To read this entire series in order, visit the Genetics Page.

Genetics Primer, 1: Variations on Mendel

If you ever took basic biology in school, you may remember the eye-color meme as an example of Mendelian genetics. Remember we have two copies of each of our genes, one from Mom, and one from Dad. The eye-color example is the one where they tell you that if you get at least one "B" gene from Mom OR Dad, you will have brown eyes (BB or Bb) but if you get the "b" version from both parents (bb) you will have blue eyes. Thus, blue eyed children can have brown eyed parents only if the parents are both carriers of the blue gene. In genetics, blue is recessive. So we all come away from this thinking that eye color is a simple Mendelian trait and is absolutely determined by the B/b versions we inherit.

BUT some people may remember that for this to work the teacher had to ignore the green eyed kids, or the hazel eyed kids. And occasionally there was a brown eyed kid who swore that both Mom and Dad have blue eyes, which the teacher skirted past very quickly (because she probably remembered that non-paternity rates in the US is as high as 10%, but that's not the only possibility). The fact is that there are multiple genes controlling eye color (hence the green and hazel eyes) and to strictly focus only on the B/b gene and the blue/brown binary is to ignore a lot of normal variation.

The simplification worked in the classroom only because variation in the other genes is more uncommon, especially in an ethnically uniform population, so teacher may have a fighting chance that a group of kids will fit the simple paradigm without having to invoke to greater complexity that actually exists. (Aside; the Mendelian inheritance is correct; it's how those genes are "read" into traits, or "phenotypes", that gets complicated.)

Even if you have blue eyes, there are variants from dull grey to brilliant blue, indicating that other factors affect the exact color formed. One complication is that there may be more than two versions of the gene (called "alleles"); not just B/b, but B1, B2, B3..... b1,b2 b3..... Even if any ONE person can have at most two versions of the gene, within the population there may be more. (I may be b1b2for example, and you may be b4b4, though we both have "blue" eyes). These different alleles are not present in equal numbers and may vary enormously in frequency; for example, in the population, b4 may be very common, and b2 may be extremely rare. And these may also change what we see in the person's traits.

Different genes can interact with each other and modify each other too. So, there may be other genes that affect only blue versus grey in the "bb" folks. And the green-eyed gene which we will call G is only visible if you have the blue eyed gene too (bb), if you have Brown (BB or Bb) then it doesn't matter what was at the green G/g site, it's masked. Just to complicate things further, you may have the gene for a particular color, but it may not be expressed for other reasons. Some of these reasons are genetic: for example, if you lack the gene to deposit thepigment in the proper place, it doesn't matter if you make the pigment. So people with BB or Bb alleles may not be brown eyed, due to other genes. And, some of these reasons are not strictly genetic, in the sense of being DNA-coded, such as epigenetic modification, variable penetrance, and variable expressivity--although they are often heritable. I'll discuss this later.

Depending on the trait (not just eye color), variation may be also be affected by the environment (for example the presence of particular chemicals in the diet), and some variation may simply occur by chance.

We tend to dislike this last explanation, because we like things to be determinate: black OR white (or blue OR brown); we don't like the idea that a random event (what the geneticists call "stochastic") can occur, and we don't like shades of gray. But chance also plays a part.

So, even for a trait as seemingly simple as eye color, we have already quite a lot of complication:

• Multiple genes
• Multiple versions of each gene (e,g, b1,b2, b3.....b(n))
• Interactions between genes
• Non-genetic changes (epigenetics, penetrance, expressivity)
• Random variation
• Environmental influence

Indeed the only deterministic thing we can say is that a bb child will not have brown eyes--- although I'm not sure even that is always true. The rest is up for grabs.

To read this entire series in order, visit the Genetics Page.

Genetics and Orientation

Is it a choice, or is it hard-wired? Apparently it does make a difference to some people. Support for GLBT rights increases when people recognize that it's not a choice, leading to the loaded argument between terms like "sexual preference" and "sexual orientation". One post I read commented wryly, "my preference is to be tall; alas, my orientation is distinctly short." Like height, sexuality is a complex trait, which is not going to be completely determined by a single gene, or even several genes, but rather the interaction of multiple genes and the environment. Indeed, no geneticist buys a genetic determinism argument for complex traits. But since it keeps coming up, it might be worth a primer in genetics to explain why. In an extended series over the next couple of weeks, I will explain some basic genetics, and then address some of the issues that come up when we apply genetics to understanding sexual orientation.

As stated in this excellent LA Times op/ed,

Moreover, the empirical evidence for the role of genetics in human sexual orientation has been quietly but steadily mounting over the last 15 years. Studies of twins -- the mainstay of quantitative human genetics -- have been conducted on large populations in three countries. The results unambiguously demonstrate that heritability plays a major role in sexual orientation and far outweighs shared environmental factors such as education or parenting.

I'm focusing here on genetics, which is my field. For other general audience discussions of the science of orientation, there's a good article in NY magazine: The science of gaydar.

As I post my Genetics series, I will add the posts to a static page (see that tab for "Genetics Page" at the top of the blog) so that the whole series will be accessible in order.

There will be no examinations, and you don't have to pay tuition. What a bargain!

Prop8 case update

There was a little news this week about the case. As a reminder:
Where we are now After the presentation of both sides of the Prop8 case, Judge Vaughn Walker postponed closing arguments till he had a chance to review the evidence and the testimony. Those arguments have not yet been scheduled.

The latest order One of the arguments being made by our side is that the bad guys were motivated by hate. To prove that, they won access to the internal documents of the Pro-PropH8 side. In an example of turnabout, the Prop-H8 side has requested access to the similar documents from our side, particularly from the ACLU and Equality CA (EQCA). This access has been granted.

Walker referred to the discovery hearing on March 16 when Prop 8 proponents argued that the “mix of information available to the voters could help determine the state interest in Proposition 8 and asserted that documents from No on 8 groups could add to the mix. Proponents also argue that the documents might speak to the political power of gays and lesbians.” He said that the Yes on 8 proponents failed to prove that the documents they seek are “highly relevant to the claims they are defending against.  Nevertheless, proponents’ showing satisfies the standard of discoverability set forth in FRCP 26, and the magistrate did not err in ordering the No on 8 groups to comply with the proponents’ subpoenas and to produce nonprivileged documents.”

The logic of this request isn't clear; after all, our side lost the election. What relevance does their campaign have? Speculation continues that this is an attempt to find evidence that GLBT have "political influence" . To which the proper response is from the previous testimony:

So imagine for a moment that I was going to write an opinion that says gays and lesbians are powerful in the political system. So I go and I survey the world and I survey the literature and I say, Well, the FBI suggests that gays and lesbians are experiencing increasing levels of violence and represent 70 percent or more of the hate-inspired murders. Could I see that and still conclude that the group is powerful? Well, conceivably, because there are other factors.

Could I look at the circumstances around the country and say, Well, in 29 states gays and lesbians could still be dismissed without cause for their identity from their source of employment, that they enjoy no protections. Could I observe that and still conclude that the group was powerful? Well, possibly.

Could I observe that even small statutory protections designed to redress previous disadvantages have been challenged at the ballot box over 150 times, and gays and lesbians lose those more than 70 percent of the time, and still conclude that the group is powerful? Presumably.

Could I look at the enactment of statutory -- excuse me, constitutional exclusion and establishment as excluded from a civil institution as a citizen that is separate -- that is treated separately from all other citizens, and conclude that the group is powerful?

I could conceivably observe one or maybe two of those things and still decide that there's other evidence to suggest that the group is powerful. To observe all of those things and to conclude that gays and lesbians have the political power to protect their basic rights in the political system would be the political science equivalent of malpractice. I -- I couldn't possibly draw that conclusion.

With regard to the current order, ACLU and EQCA continue to fight this but are unlikely to prevail.

The Fierce Advocacy FlipFlop

The SF Chronicle published a story about Obama's "about-face on same sex marriage".

Obama was running for the Illinois state Senate in Chicago in February 1996 when he answered a questionnaire from a gay-oriented newspaper, Outlines, on gay rights issues. One of his answers was, "I favor legalizing same-sex marriage, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages."

So what happened?

The Windy City Times, which later acquired Outlines, said it interviewed Obama in 2004, when he was a state legislator running for the U.S. Senate. In a January 2009 article recapping the interview, the newspaper quoted him as saying he no longer supported same-sex marriage "primarily just as a strategic issue," and not because he had changed his philosophy.

....Instead, he endorsed civil unions, a designation that did not exist in 1996.

Obama takes the same stance today - yes on equal rights and civil unions, no on same-sex marriage - but attributes the distinction to his religious convictions.

Yes, but the problem with that is that his associated denomination, the United Church of Christ, is pro-equality.

In 2005, the United Church of Christ's governing General Synod passed a resolution endorsing "equal marriage rights for couples regardless of gender." The church, with 1.1 million members, is the largest U.S. denomination to support same-sex marriage.

Is it entirely political expediency (news flash, I don't think the right wing could hate him any more than they already do)? Or is it truly that he can't abide by me being married?

Here's an example of his discomfort in an event in Florida:

Q: All right, I’m Hector and I’m a student at UT. (Applause.) And my question is, last night you talked about repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell,” and my question is what are you doing now to put in motion so that same-sex couples and homosexuals are treated as equal citizens of the United States, i.e., same-sex marriages and the thousand-plus benefits that heterosexual couples enjoy after marriage? (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT: Look, as I said last night, my belief is, is that a basic principle in our Constitution is that if you’re obeying the law, if you’re following the rules, that you should be treated the same, regardless of who you are. (Applause.) I think that principle applies to gay and lesbian couples. So at the federal level, one of the things that we’re trying to do is to make sure that partnerships are recognized for purposes of benefits so that hospital visitation, for example, is something that is permitted; that Social Security benefits or pension benefits or others, that same-sex couples are recognized in all those circumstances.

I think that we’ve got to — we actually have an opportunity of passing a law that’s been introduced in Congress right now, and my hope is this year we can get it done, just for federal employees and federal workers. A lot of companies, on their own, some of the best-run companies have adopted these same practices. I think it’s the right thing to do and it makes sense for us to take a leadership role in ensuring that people are treated the same. (Applause.)

Look, if you are — regardless of your personal opinions, the notion that somebody who’s working really hard for 30 years can’t take their death benefits and transfer them to the person that they love the most in the world and who has supported them all their lives, that just doesn’t seem fair. It doesn’t seem right. (Applause.) And I think it’s the right thing to do.

Uh-huh. Not marriage.Not the 1000+ benefits of marriage. Separate. He's awkward about it. Does that mean he really favors marriage, but for expediency feels he can't say anything? Or as an intelligent man, he knows that using religious excuses to deny civil liberties is wrong? Or that he just feels "ick"?

Regardless, it's concerning that the White House now endorses an anti-GLBT democrat for senator in Indiana to replace Bayh next fall.

Ellsworth emerged as the favored candidate of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the White House ....Handsome, telegenic and with the sort of voting record during his two terms in the House that makes him a viable statewide candidate in conservative-minded Indiana

BUT with an abyssmal record on GLBT rights:

The Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the nation's largest LGBT political organization, ranks Ellsworth as one of the ten worst Democratic Congress members when it comes to LGBT issues; he scored a meager 30 out of 100 possible points.

So, is it better to have a Democrat in congress voting against us, or a Republican? What about in the White House? What's wrong with this picture?

Why it matters: Get out, you don't belong here

Sharon ....and JoAnn.....had been life-partners for 17 years, when JoAnn’s chronic illness worsened and she was hospitalized at the University of Washington Medical Center. On September 3, 2005, JoAnn was moved to the ICU and came under the care of a contract nurse, Karen Hulley, for the night. And on that night, their lives changed forever. Despite the fact that the University and JoAnn’s doctor permitted Sharon to be by her beside constantly, Nurse Hulley, repeatedly refused Sharon access to JoAnn’s room and bedside, continually evicting her from the room. By the time Sharon regained access to her partner the next morning, JoAnn’s condition had deteriorated, and she was heavily drugged. She died within a matter of hours.

Go to the Insider Exclusive page to watch the video.

Pam's House Blend comments that powers of attorney and health care proxies aren't enough:

Sharon and JoAnn had copies of their power of attorney and health care proxy with them, and copies were attached to JoAnn's chart. And they had the cooperation and backing of JoAnn's doctor. But after hours, after the doctor had gone home and the night nurse was in charge, all respect for the law and contracts went out the window. Whenever Sharon tried to be in the room with JoAnn to comfort her as she lay dying, the nurse screamed at her "You don't belong here!", and kicked her out. So much for powers of attorney and health care proxy being a meaningful substitute for a civil marriage.

Talking to a Prop8 voter (video Sunday)

Catholics for Marriage Equality

Catholics for Marriage Equality are standing up to the hierarchy:

"As Roman Catholics, we differentiate between sacramental marriage and civil marriage. Therefore, we perceive that same-sex civil marriage poses no threat to our Church. While we respect the authority and integrity of the Church in matters of faith, our prayers and discernment have brought us to a new openness on this issue. We do not ask the Church to perform same-sex marriages. We do implore the Church to honor the States’ prerogative to authorize civil marriages for our gay and lesbian family and friends."

Studies show that the average Catholic in the pew is actually pretty supportive of GLBT rights; the vehemently anti-gay, Better-dead-than-wed views of the Institutional Church do no represent their flock.

Okay, who wants to take bets on how quickly individuals will be pointed out, dismissed from church roles, and perhaps even denied communion. It's what happened in Maine. Any takers?

Desmond Tutu on equality

Writing in the Washington Post, Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa:

My scientist and medical friends have shared with me a reality that so many gay people have confirmed, I now know it in my heart to be true. No one chooses to be gay. Sexual orientation, like skin color, is another feature of our diversity as a human family. Isn't it amazing that we are all made in God's image, and yet there is so much diversity among his people? Does God love his dark- or his light-skinned children less? The brave more than the timid? And does any of us know the mind of God so well that we can decide for him who is included, and who is excluded, from the circle of his love?

The wave of hate must stop. Politicians who profit from exploiting this hate, from fanning it, must not be tempted by this easy way to profit from fear and misunderstanding. And my fellow clerics, of all faiths, must stand up for the principles of universal dignity and fellowship. Exclusion is never the way forward on our shared paths to freedom and justice.

Read the whole thing.

Virginia, the State of Hate

As I have commented before, Virginia is a state of hate. Not sufficient is a bar to gay unions, Virginia actually has a law invalidating any private legal contracts intended to give couples any protections. (I remain deeply puzzled how this can be legal under equal protection laws.)

Now, under the rule of a new Governor and Attorney General, Virginia is going after GLBT people with even greater intent. Not satisfied with the status quo, the new Governor, Bob McDonnell, announced that he would not continue an executive order barring discrimination against GLBT state workers. Attorney General, Ken Cuccinelli,a known hater, next announced that the state universities in Virginia were not allowed to have anti-discrimination statutes nor benefits for GLBT partners. In the competitive world of higher education, this means that they have just shot themselves in the foot for recruiting and retaining of students and faculty.

You see, it's not just GLBT students and faculty who are affected, but anyone who believes in diversity and humane values. And that means a lot of straight students and faculty will see Virginia as a place incompatible with their beliefs. Academics are idealists. It's why, after our years of advanced training, we are willing to be paid relatively little to do what we do. THere's a reason we call it "liberal arts".

So Cuccinelli has just made it clear to academics and students that Virginia is an unwelcoming and backward state. And he has made it clear to people already there, that they are not welcome. The best faculty will be the ones with choices. Time for other universities to take a look and start cherry picking.

As the WaPo editorialized,

These schools have been havens for inclusive policies that often go hand-in-hand with academic freedom. It's sad and telling that as one of his earliest acts in office, the attorney general would actively reach out to enable discrimination.

Gov McDonnell today reversed himself, but only superficially, by issuing a relatively weightless executive directive in

a bid to quell a controversy over discrimination and the state's power to prevent it.

The directive appears to counter both the governor's prior order and the legal advice of Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, who recently sent public colleges a letter arguing the institutions lacked the authority to include sexual orientation in their anti-discrimination policies.....

He turned to the U.S. Constitution to argue that gays are already protected. The 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, he wrote, prevents discrimination "based on factors such as one's sexual orientation."

Problem is, of course, he used a weightier executive ORDER to rescind the coverage. This is window dressing. As I've said before, Virginia's hate is the last gasp is a dying world view. But it is vicious and venomous none-the-less.

Family values (video Sunday)

Marriages in Mexico

I love a wedding, don't you?

Two glowing brides in matching white gowns and four other same-sex couples made history in Mexico City on Thursday as they wed under Latin America's first law that explicitly approves gay marriage.....Then they sealed their union with a kiss amid cheers from family and friends gathered in the colonial-era building's courtyard, decorated with calla lilies, banners with the colors of Mexico's flag and a sign that read "Tolerance, Liberty, Equality, Solidarity."

News around the Union

First the Best News: Loving couples in Washington DC are now able to marry.



New Hampshire: townships in New Hampshire voted on marriage Tuesday--or rather, voted on voting on it. From the Blend:

News is still trickling in, but of the 50 or so towns we do have results for, the vast majority have voted for the anti-equality warrant, often by overwhelming margins.

You can spin it better:

Let's put this non-binding nonsense into context and be honest about what it meant for non-SB2 towns. It meant the deliberation of a tiny fraction of a town's voting population, the median age of which is, let's be frank, likely well above the town's average.

And then add to that the fact that these petition articles are among the last items of business. At my town meeting, we got to the anti-marriage article, iirc, around 11:30pm, over four hours into the meeting. Probably a solid third or more of the good folks who began the meeting weren't even around at that point. And those are the ones who had (or didn't need) someone to watch young kids, so, tough luck for full representation from younger families.

But still, the haters are more motivated than the friends to get out there. Sad.

Update: not as bad as we thought. Turns out that the majority of towns refused to even put this "warrant" to the vote: Passing the article in only 53 towns out 234 towns and cities means that barely 23% of New Hampshire's towns and cities voted to put discrimination in New Hampshire's constitution. In other words, 77% of towns and cities rejected institutionalized bigotry. This is a resounding failure for the anti-equality activists

Minnesota is holding hearings on marriage equality. I suspect unlikely to pass, but that they are being held is a step. From the Prop8TrialTracker Tracker:

The Minnesota Hearings with a video of the testimony
University of Minnesota Law Professor Dale Carpenter goes through all the myths that the right wing has been spreading. He simply eviscerates all of the hateful testimony of the speakers before him. He presents the facts as they, not as the right-wing tries to fear people into believing. All in all, a terrific job.

If you have several hours this weekend, take a look at the whole video. If not, check out Prof. Carpenter’s testimony. It’s moving and logical at the same time. As he said, it is time for the state to say yes to the people.

Florida:
Most states are eager to recruit movie and television productions, which bring in lots of jobs in set design, catering, security, bit parts, etc. etc. Florida is no exception. Unless, apparently, the film or TV script has any gay characters:

Movies and TV shows with gay characters could be ineligible for a "family-friendly" tax credit in Florida under a little-noticed provision tucked into a $75 million incentive package that Republican House leaders hope will attract film and entertainment jobs to the state.

The bill would prohibit productions with "nontraditional family values" from receiving a so-called family-friendly tax credit.

DOMA: The stories behind Gill

In the Federal Case Gill, Massachusetts is bringing a suit because legally married Massachusetts citizens are deprived equal rights. That means that the ca. 1400 rights given to married couples under Federal law, are denied to them.

They are same sex couples, and while their marriages are perfectly legal, at least in Massachusetts, they are lesser citizens federally.

Why does it matter?

Read their stories here.

In these stories, loving couples, widows and widowers, from all walks of life, describe how DOMA hurts their families. A new story will be added each week, so please check back ofte

Religion and racism: a clue?

The effect was strongest for religious conservatives and seminarians, although even those with more moderate views came across as more racist than religious agnostics.

Of course there are people of faith who are part of mixed-race communities, and who have been active in the civil rights movement. But they are the minority overall, and for the majority the sense of in-group vs out-group, moral vs. immoral, them vs. us, appears to be tracked by racial identity too.

From their abstract:

Religious racism partly reflects intergroup dynamics. That is, a strong religious in-group identity was associated with derogation of racial out-groups. Other races might be treated as out-groups because religion is practiced largely within race, because training in a religious in-group identity promotes general ethnocentrism, and because different others appear to be in competition for resources....The authors failed to find that racial tolerance arises from humanitarian values, consistent with the idea that religious humanitarianism is largely expressed to in-group members. Only religious agnostics were racially tolerant.

I'm going to speculate that this sort of correlation is true for any sort of group identity, whether it's a social club or a neighborhood association or a church: us vs them. But, there aren't many group identities remaining in our restless, mobile culture, and even church identity is declining.

Their abstract also says,

In addition, religious racism is tied to basic life values of social conformity and respect for tradition. In support, individuals who were religious for reasons of conformity and tradition expressed racism that declined in recent years with the decreased societal acceptance of overt racial discrimination.

Now, given that kind of observation, it's not surprising that anti-GLBT sentiment is also stronger in church groups--and it's still very socially acceptable to be anti-gay. Again, yes, we know that is not true of all church groups, but as we learned in the Prop 8 trial, numbers count-- and you can't count the UCC as equal to the Roman Catholics because there are many more RCs.

So, how do you break down the "us vs them" while keeping the good part?

Why Don’t We Practice What We Preach? A Meta-Analytic Review of Religious Racism Personality and Social Psychology Review, Vol. 14, No. 1, 126-139 (2010)

What kind of planet? (Video Sunday)

Hat-tip to Paul(A) for the link

Hypocrite alert

In California, State Sen Roy Ashburn, who has a history of opposing gay rights (even opposing domestic partnerships, let alone marriage), was arrested for DUI.

Ashburn, a father of four, is a Republican Senator representing parts of Kern, Tulare and San Bernardino Counties with a history of opposing gay rights.....Ashburn served six years as a state Assemblyman before being elected to the State Senate. According to Project Vote Smart, Ashburn's voting record shows he has voted against every gay rights measure in the State Senate since taking office including Recognizing Out-Of-State Same-Sex Marriages", Harvey Milk Day and Expanding Anti-Discrimination Laws.

He was driving a state car, too. But the best part? He was

arrested for allegedly driving drunk after leaving Faces, a gay nightclub in midtown Sacramento, early Wednesday morning.....

A male passenger, who was not identified as a lawmaker, was also in the car but was not detained.

Yup, that staunch supporter of family values and opponent of icky queers picked someone up at a gay bar.

Why, it's Larry Craig all over again.

What is it with these pathetic closeted gay Republican men? Why are they so vitriolicly anti-gay?

My theory is that they are so deeply invested in living in the closet that they are fiercely resentful of the healthy, happy men who are living open lives. They are so deeply mired in their lie, their entire careers depend upon it, that they can't bear the thought that it is no longer necessary. And they have so deeply internalized that it's wrong, that they are self-loathing self-flagellates. Of course, as is inevitable when you unnaturally suppress normal sexuality (yes, I'm looking at YOU, "celibate" priests) this leads to unfortunate and inappropriate outbursts.

Like toe-tapping in the airport restroom.

Or cruising local gay bars in your State-owned vehicle.

Update Ashburn has admitted he is gay, and votes against GLBT rights because his constituents are bigots want him to.

News from the UK: Civil partnerships in church

The United Kingdom provides "civil partnerships" that provide most of the rights of marriage, save the name. And one other thing: they are not allowed to be held in churches.

In part, this reflects the fact that the Church of England (CoE, cousin of our Episcopal Church) is an established church: that is, a state religion. And the CofE hasn't really grappled with the gay issue, preferring to keep its numerous homos deep in the closet. (The problem with the Americans isn't that they ordained a gay bishop. It's that they ordained an HONEST gay bishop. But I digress....)

Because it is Established, the CofE has voting rights in the House of Lords, where the Bishops have been vigorously voting against bills that block anti-gay discriminatory hiring. And it is thanks to those bishops that Civil Partnerships cannot by law be conducted in a church.

The latest is a spirited argument (conducted as so many good British arguments are, in the letters to the Times) pointing out that several faith groups have no problem with effectively marrying gay people, and the current prohibition inhibits THEIR religious freedom.This was signed by members of many different faiths, including a number of CoE bishops.

Sir, The Civil Partnership Act 2004 prohibits civil partnerships from being registered in any religious premises in Great Britain. Three faith communities — Liberal Judaism, the Quakers, and the Unitarians — have considered this restriction prayerfully and decided in conscience that they wish to register civil partnerships on their premises. An amendment to the Equality Bill, to allow this, was debated in the House of Lords on January 25. It was opposed by the Bishops of Winchester and Chichester on the grounds that, if passed, it would put unacceptable pressure on the Church of England. The former said that “churches of all sorts really should not reduce or fudge, let alone deny, the distinction” between marriage and civil partnership.

This is viewed as an intolerable imposition on the religious practices of the minority religions.

An excellent argument is made in the blog NextLeft,

[T]here is no such thing as 'religion' - there are, rather, religious viewpoints, plural and frequently conflicting. So when the state bases its laws on the precepts of a religious viewpoint, it thereby, inevitably, takes sides between different religious viewpoints. It plays favourites between citizens with different religious (or anti-religious) beliefs.

The demand for a secular state - a state which does not act from specifically religious considerations - is a demand that the state stop playing favourites like this. It is a demand for the equality of all believers - and non-believers - in the eyes of the state. And, frankly, if you don't believe in that basic principle of civic equality then you have no right to call yourself a democrat.

....the Anglican bishops revealed that they are not democrats. They do not believe in the equality of all believers - and non-believers - in the eyes of the state. They do want the state to play favourites. They want the state to exempt them from uniform laws that oppress their religious liberty (not necessarily an unreasonable demand) - but they also want the state to impose a uniform law that accords with their religious views even though this will oppress the religious liberty of others.

In many ways, this is similar to the arguments we are having here over the role of religion in Prop8. The difference is that technically, we do not have an established church in this country. But, we do have large religious groups that by force of number attempt and succeed in establishing their religious viewpoint on the society at large, and succeed therefore in preventing the free practise of faith by those who do not oppose marriage equality--including the Quakers, the MCC, the UCC, the UUs....and in some places, the Episcopalians.

Writing in the Guardian, the retired Bp of Oxford says,

Some Church of England bishops, who were hardly enthusiastic about civil partnerships in the first place, fear that if this is allowed it would blur the distinction them and marriage. But this is a fundamental issue of religious freedom. On what grounds can any body claim religious freedom for itself but deny it to others? The bishops may or may not approve of what Quakers, Liberal Jews and Unitarians want, but that is beside the point. What these bodies want would harm no one, and it accords with their deepest religious convictions. Religious freedom is indivisible.

Would that the CofE, the Roman Catholics, or the Mormons understand this: their freedom does not, and cannot, depend on denying freedom to someone else.


It is fascinating to see this play out. Because of the outcry, the Anglican bishops are making a move to relax the ban.

And the wide provision of legal protections is having an effect in the UK:

Fewer than a third of the population believe homosexuality is wrong, compared with two thirds in 1980s, according to the latest survey of British Social Attitudes.....

Almost two thirds (61 per cent) want gay couples to be able to marry, just like the rest of the population, not just have civil partnerships, while 68 per cent of the public back “full equal rights” for gay men and lesbians, suggesting that the Church, which opposes the ordination of gay priests, is out of touch with public opinion.

More about the British situation here.

UpdateThe House of Lords has passed the bill allowing civil partnerships to be held in churches. Reported in the London Times:

The move will result in an amendment to the Equalities Bill which would allow, though not compel, religious organisations to host civil partnerships. Religious language would also be permitted within the ceremonies.

Catholic Charities -- not so charitable?

As they threatened previously, Catholic Charities is now closing down its foster care and adoption business in Washington, DC, lest they be forced to put children in same sex households (marriage equality becomes the law in the district starting tomorrow). Apparently, however, this is the only activity they will close-- although previously they had threatened to cut off the whole operation.

However, today it was revealed that they will cut benefits for staff

Catholic Charities will continue to honor the health plan coverage that current employees have as of March 1, 2010. As of March 2, a new plan will be in effect that will cover new employees and requests for benefit changes by current employees. The new plan will provide the same level of coverage for employees and their dependents that you now have, with one exception: spouses not in the plan as of March 1 will not be eligible for coverage in the future. If your spouse currently has coverage in our Plan, he/she may continue to be covered by the health benefit plan, even if you later add a dependent or decide to change your option level (e.g., change from low option to high option).

We sincerely regret that we have to make this change, but it is necessary to allow Catholic Charities to continue to provide essential services to the clients we serve in partnership with the District of Columbia while remaining consistent with the tenets of our religious faith.

Are you clear about this? They will continue to cover anyone who currently has spousal benefits. Including people who are divorced and remarried. But No Fags.

Which is ironic, because apparently they have a lot of gay employees.

Orzechowski said many of the people who work for Catholic Charities and receive its services are from the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community, but giving same-sex spousal benefits to staff members or placing adoptive children with gay couples would violate Church tenets.

I wonder how those employees feel now.

Was this the only option? No.

The church faced two options with the approval of the new law, said Robert Tuttle, a George Washington University professor who studies the relationship between church and state. One choice was to expand the definition of domestic partner, as the Archdiocese in San Francisco did years ago, to include a parent, sibling or someone else in the household.

The second choice was to do what the Washington Archdiocese has done: eliminate benefits for all spouses.

Because this is much more dramatic, and pisses off the straights against those Selfish Gays. There is a a certain whiff of --shall we say, inconsistency? --- in the sorrowful crocodile tears of the poor, oppressed Roman Catholic institution, forced to harm the children because of those Selfish Homos. The Lead frames it more considerately than I would:

Another question perhaps worth raising: when is a "religious objection" not really a religious objection, but a political one? Catholic teaching does not recognize re-marriage after divorce without an annulment. Like same-sex couples, the heterosexual couples involved in such relationships are engaging in sex outside of what the church recognizes marriage. Yet the church willingly provides services and benefits to those couples. Why? There is no hierarchy of sinfulness in Catholic theology regarding sex outside of marriage. So why treat gay and lesbian couples differently that twice or thrice married heterosexual couples?

The church is entitled to object to same-sex marriage on whatever grounds it chooses. The rest of us are entitled to point out that the double standard it has constructed on this issue has no basis in its own theology.

Another black eye to Catholic Charities comes in the experience of two gay Iraqis, granted asylum in the US because being gay in Iraq can lead to rather gruesome forms of execution. Seems Catholic Charities is under contact with the US Government to provide such refugees with food and housing. Their story came out at the The 22nd National Conference on LGBT Equality: Creating Change.

One of the men explained, in halting English, that they had been placed in the most dangerous part of Houston in a community of homophobic Iraqis.  Because of their immigration status they cannot yet obtain work.

Catholic Charities barely meets their needs and points out to them that “families” deserve more services – and give them no other options.  Calls to the Houston LGBT Center had not been understood.  These men were so frightened and upset by being placed in a hostile environment with no recourse.

At this point in the session, many people had their hands up for questions.  The first to be called on happened to be the executive director of the Houston LGBT Center who had not known of their plight but offered to help immediately......I asked about the possibility of approaching Dignity (the LGBT Catholic organization) for assistance – but Bruce Knotts explained that since the Catholic Church does not recognize Dignity then it would not work with them.....

No thanks to Catholic charities. Here is the problem with faith based groups providing government services: they cannot be trusted to provide those services to those outside of their faith. They cannot be trusted to treat people of whom they disapprove with equal respect and decency. I'm sure they have fulfilled the bare minimum of their contractual requirements to feed and house these Iraqi refugees. But leaving these men isolated and hopeless in a strange land with the bare minimum can hardly be justified in humane terms, let alone "Christian" ones. God help any gay refugees who fall into the clutches of the uncharitable Catholic Charities.

I'm sure that they do some good work. I'm sure that there are many truly good souls working for them. But the same is true of many other charities, who do not discriminate. Supporting the work of a group who does discriminate is, in my opinion, a tacit approval of their bias.

Just Love: Conference opposing Ex-gay industry

We recently talked about being "born gay". It is therefore perhaps not surprising that the "ex-gay" movement, which is founded on the idea that it's "just a choice" is at the lead in opposing GLBT rights in this country. The so-called "ex-gay" organizations are criticized by mainstream medical professionals for the harm they do GLBT people. The supporters of this discredited movement are linked to the Uganda bill that would criminalize homosexuality up-to-and-including the death penalty. They claim to be driven by religion, but are viewed with dismay by many religious people.

The "ex-gay" movement is flexing its political muscle. It's not limited to religion any more. Its involvement in Uganda, the calls to criminalize homosexuality in this country , are all linked. Therefore anyone interested in GLBT rights in the secular sphere has to be aware of and fight back against these groups, not dismiss them as fringe religion.

On Saturday March 6, there is a conference opposing the so-called "Ex-gay" movement. The JUST LOVE conference, will be held at St Paul's Episcopal Cathedral, San Diego (which is a leader in local advocacy for GLBT rights). The conference will bring together leaders in medicine, law, faith groups, and advocacy to expose the ex-gay movement and raise awareness of its activities in the USA, as well as its role in the Uganda "kill the gays" bill. Speakers include Michael Bussee (survivor, writes at Beyond Ex-gay); Wayne Besen (Founder of Truth Wins Out, a non-profit that defends the GLBT community against anti-gay misinformation and the “ex-gay” industry) ,and Jim Burroway (from the Box Turtle Bulletin who exposed the link between ex-gay movement and Uganda).

There will be afternoon workshops for legal professionals, media coverage, allies in the faith community, and support/recovery issues for victims of the ex-gay movement.

This conference is FREE. More information here.

Draft program here.

Facebook pagehere.

The conference corresponds with an opposing conference promoting the "Ex-gay" abuse, also in San Diego. There will be protests against the emotional spiritual and physical violence done in the name of the "Ex-gay" movement. Check out this post from blogger MIke Tidmus for more background!

Education is the key to defend our community against the haters.