This gem, from Chuck Colson, director of the misnamed Loudoun-based Prison Fellowship Ministries, is from another breathless email about the Matthew Shepard Act.
For the bill’s supporters, it is not enough to walk down the street in complete safety. (link) , (link) Nor is it enough to be able to work and live wherever you please. (link), (link)
I just have one question. How preposterous do these lies have to become before the liars start bursting into flames?
Is this the trainwreck Maggie Gallagher said was coming?
According to the Boston Globe, a man named Stephen Dunne “claims he failed the Massachusetts bar exam because he refused to answer a question about gay marriage [and] has filed a federal lawsuit, saying the test violated his rights and that his religious beliefs were targeted.”
Mr. Dunne was denied a license to practice law after scoring just below the 270 passing grade, apparently all because of a single question. He is seeking $9.75 million in damages.
Although civil marriage is an area of civil law, Mr. Dunne is offended by the requirement that he know about it.
He said the bar exam is not the place for questions about same-sex marriage.
David Yas, the editor of Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, pronounced this idea “idiotic.”
“Knowing the law has nothing to do with agreeing with the law,” he said. Yas said if Dunne really believed the question was improper, he should “answer the question correctly, get your law degree and use it to argue for what you believe in.”
If this is not the definition of “special rights,” I don’t know what is. I really just don’t know what else to say.
From the Why Didn’t I Think of That Department.
Per request, a place to comment on our third year in the Leesburg 4th of July Parade. We are very pleased to report that Equality Loudoun won Best Float in the “Most Creative – 15 & over” category. Woot! Thank you, volunteers, and thank you, Leesburg! See more pictures here.
And what was so creative about it, you may ask? Our working theory is that actual reference to the Declaration of Independence is a very creative approach to the holiday these days. 
As I was just asked by one of our participants, what’s so patriotic about a rolling advertisement for a retail store shouting to the crowd “40% off”?
The presence of commercial promotions as part of the parade could be a legitimate gripe for parade purists. After all, some people object to the political campaigning that has become a fixture at these events – and that, at least, pertains to the democratic process.
Curiously, though, we have a serial complainer who doesn’t care about any of that, probably because she is too fixated on the GLBT community to notice it. In yet another drive-by post attacking Equality Loudoun, local Focus on the Family** writer Barbara Curtis accuses us of being “inappropriate” and (somewhat comically, considering that we are talking about a PARADE) of “calling attention to ourselves.” 
Among other things, she complains about a sign from two years ago that said “I love my two Daddies,” and claims that we “whined” about being “ill-received” in some letters to the editor in some previous year.
I submitted the following comment correcting some of her misrepresentations, and followed up with a note the next day, pointing out that it’s considered dishonorable to “make remarks about another person by name and then refuse to post a polite reply from that person.” My hope was that, as a member of the local community that we both live in, she would do the right thing. She has let me know, via email, that she has no intention of posting my comment.
Hi Barbara,
You’re talking about Equality Loudoun again? I admit, that’s a little surprising. Actually, we have pictures on our website from the 2005, 2006 and 2007 Leesburg parades, so you can always do fact-checking and not have to rely on your memory.
In 2006 there was a measure on the ballot that our organization was working to defeat, so our float was more focused on protecting our Bill of Rights. I did receive one letter from a gentleman who very politely objected to that kind of political content in the parade. He was also careful to point out that he equally objected to the float in favor of the amendment, as well as to all the candidates for public office who used the parade as a campaign venue – and told them so. I can certainly understand where he’s coming from. The reality, though, like it or not, is that political campaigning in 4th of July parades has become a tradition that’s probably here to stay.
Your memory may also be playing tricks on you regarding the letters you mention. Those are also posted on our website, but none are from myself or Jonathan. They are by some of the straight friends from the churches and other civic groups that walked with Equality Loudoun, and described the positive reaction from the crowd. For example, this one from the Leesburg Today says in part:
“As we proceeded down the streets people were watching and reading. It was so heartening to see people rise to their feet and hear thunderous clapping and shouts of “Yeah, that’s right,” “Way to go,” and “Thank you.”
I cried.
I miss the old parades with the fire trucks and marching bands. Over the years I’ve watched the parades become more political with cars plastered with candidate’s signs. And it is nothing more than advertising. But, the float like the one Equality Loudoun put together, with its patriotic slogan “With Liberty and Justice for ALL,” was thoughtfully put together in keeping with the theme of the day and hopefully reminded people of the struggle that is still going on in this country for some people.”
It’s ok, I know that things can start to blur and run together over the years. If you’ve never been to the Leesburg parade before, it’s really a classic small town event. The standard for entries is always a patriotic theme, and we’re proud to have won Best Float in the “Most Creative” category this year. The organizers have told me each year how much they value our participation. Please stop by and enjoy the pictures – denuk has it right, but a picture is worth 1000 words, as they say.
Best,
David
**The behavior that Barbara is engaging in – misrepresenting our message, lying about our reception – and then refusing to allow any public dialogue or correction – is standard operating procedure for Focus (more on that later). They, like other instruments of the AGI, rely on their ability to make things up about our community and then insulate their audience from the information that would expose their fabrications.
Unlike Barbara, we don’t need to censor comments on our blog; we don’t have any misrepresentations to hide. We are ready and willing to have this conversation.
Today in the Richmond Times-Dispatch, guest columnists Dyana Mason (executive director of Equality Virginia) and Rick Sincere (president of Gays and Lesbians for Individual Liberty, and also an EV member) present pro and con arguments, respectively, regarding the Matthew Shepard Act currently before the Senate.
Here is the Rick Sincere column. He makes some philosophical arguments that will be familiar to regular readers of our comments. The Dyana Mason column is excerpted below. Because I happen to think she’s right, that’s why.
Richmond Times-Dispatch
July 7, 2007
By Dyana MasonIn 2000 a man walked into a gay bar in Roanoke and opened fire, wounding six people and killing one. He was angry for the lifelong teasing he had received because of his last name, Gay.
In 2002, two men attacked students entering a meeting of a gay student organization at Virginia Commonwealth University because, as reported by the Richmond Police chief, they had a dislike for “individuals who engage in alternative lifestyles . . . .”
In 2005, an 18-year old man was attacked and savagely beaten at a party in Suffolk because he was gay.
In 2006, a young man leaving a bar in Richmond was beaten, nearly to death, by assailants using anti-gay slurs.
These are just four examples of hate violence based on the victim’s real or perceived sexual orientation in Virginia. But there have been many, many more instances of violence against gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Virginians. Most of them never make it into the daily papers, and many are never reported to the police or counted by the FBI in their hate crimes statistics.
A hate crime is not like any other crime. While a random act of violence against any individual is always a tragic event, violent crimes based on prejudice have a much stronger impact because they have the power to terrorize an entire community. When victims are targeted because of who they are, the intention is to “send a message” to others in that same group, intimidating and disenfranchising entire communities.
Ah, nostalgia. This post, from immediately after last year’s passage of the Virginia so-called “marriage amendment,” generated the following comment from occasional reader Sophrosyne (she of the relentless posting of gauzy heterosexual wedding photos):
If the tide was turning your direction, why do the same-sex marriage activists in Massachusetts have to work to block a constitutionally prescribed vote that would bring the definition of marriage to the people (as opposed to some unelected judge)? Surely Massachusetts is “blue” enough to be on the cutting edge of this growing tide you claim exists?
As we predicted at the time, the window for leveraging “gay marriage” as a wedge issue has been shut (although, sadly for our now defaced Bill of Rights, not by Virginia). From an editorial in yesterday’s Washington Post:
WHEN THE high court of Massachusetts ruled in 2003 that the commonwealth’s constitution gave same-sex couples the right to marry, detractors railed against “activist judges” who were “imposing” their will on the people. Only the people, through their elected representatives, should decide something so fundamental, they said. Thus began an effort to amend Massachusetts’s constitution by referendum to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Four years and about 10,000 same-sex marriages later, here’s what the people have said: never mind.
Meanwhile, according to this Time article, “After winning constitutional amendments in 11 states to ban gay marriage in 2004, conservatives put gay adoption in their crosshairs last year–and misfired in every state they targeted.”
Shamefully, a Focus on the Family spokesman is quoted in the article as saying “I don’t see any shortage of heterosexual parents willing to adopt,” when in fact there are as many as 120,000 children in the U.S., many of them special needs children, waiting to be adopted.
After Congress ordered states in 1997 to move faster to find more families willing to take in these kids, “child-welfare organizations banded together to get legislatures to allow any qualified parent to adopt, irrespective of sexual orientation,” says Rob Woronoff, gay and lesbian program director at the Child Welfare League of America in Washington.
The reality, regardless of the anti-gay zealots with their fingers stuck in their ears, is that same sex couples are providing secure, loving homes to children who would otherwise be in foster care. There is simply no argument to be made against this that doesn’t place the best interests of the child far, far behind the desire to prevent GLBT families from assimilating into our communities. In fact, for those who are making the argument that their special right to have their viewpoint protected from marginalization, the sky is falling. They would do anything, including harming children, to prevent it. The simple moral authority of this fact is stunning.
“Being able to give our children that kind of legal, two-parent security,” says [Hollie] Seeley, 36, a medevac nurse, “means more than being able to marry.”
Instead of sending a private e-mail response to Jeryl Parade and Martin Casey (Loudoun Easterner Publisher and Editor respectively), I thought it more appropriate to publicly acknowledge and thank them for meeting a group of citizens concerned about “that controversial ad” which appeared in various Loudoun County papers in June.
Jeryl and Martin met with a group of these concerned citizens July 3rd, comprised of local religious leaders, Equality Loudoun representatives, and state GLBT representatives. The purpose of this meeting was not to browbeat the Easterner into any kind of agenda; instead, it was an open discussion about the sensibilities of community, factual representation of a very important issue that affects people’s lives and safety, and the differences between opinion and responsibility to readership. We can not, and should not, try to limit nor discourage a local paper from serving any segment of the community or it’s ability to generate revenue, but it is a duty of each one of us to hold accountable those that are in a position of influence in the community, where that influence exceeds the boundaries of integrity and fact.
While the recent editorial by Martin makes it clear as to the Easterner’s thoughts of the proposed hate crimes bill and the content of “that controversial ad,” Jeryl’s statement to us of future sensitivity makes it clear as to their continued commitment to the integrity of the Loudoun Easterner.
This simple act of open and respectful dialogue has demonstrated the Loudoun Easterner’s standing as a true community paper, concerned about and willing to engage it’s readership, and willing to take a stand about what is right and just.
I will also add that, at the time of this post, the Loudoun Easterner is the only paper concerned enough about the impact of the deceitful ad to the community at large to take action.
Russell Muños, Vice President, Equality Loudoun
Let the conversation begin
Pastor Jay Ahlemann of “The Church of the Valley” has treated us to another expensive, full page ad, this one with even more words in even tinier print. Clearly stung by the outraged response to his last ad, Ahlemann starts out by briefly acknowledging his “failure to properly document” his gross misrepresentations…and then fails to provide the promised “additional information.” The bulk of this new ad is devoted to a long, defiant commentary on the pastor’s motivations, theology, local politics, and some sort of longstanding personal feud.
We have learned, directly from Pastor Ahlemann, that he paid for these ads himself. If that is the case, I can only conclude that Ahlemann has been made a willing tool of groups like the American Family Association, because he can be counted on to repeat whatever outrageous lies they suggest to him. Whatever the personal reasons that are driving him, he is making himself available as a conduit to both national AGI propaganda mills and to local candidates who campaign by using the GLBT community as a wedge issue.
For example, in this ad Ahlemann repeats the lie told by Senate candidate Patricia Phillips, a lie that she has been directly confronted with but has not yet retracted. The language is lifted almost word for word from the Phillips campaign mailer:
“This pastor” refers to Ahlemann’s apparent nemesis Arlie Whitlow of The Community Church, location of the recent Republican convention. Ahlemann reportedly had nasty confrontations with both Whitlow and the family of incumbent Sheriff Steve Simpson, who lost the Republican nomination to Ahlemann’s son. What we are seeing is a picture of an individual so far outside the mainstream, and so alienating, that he can’t even get along with another far right anti-gay pastor.
This will interest IRS geeks:
Ahlemann may have a different understanding of politics if he believes that his actions – urging readers to call their Senators about specific legislation, presenting church “awards” to candidates for public office, and distributing Republican delegate forms at a church service – are about Biblical morality and not politics.
And this statement is sure to raise some eyebrows: “The gospel of Jesus Christ has ALWAYS been offensive.” This may well be true, but offensive to whom? Not to people who are targeted and dehumanized by religious authorities, but to those people who claim that authority for themselves, and who make idols of arcane phrases and old cultural traditions that have been shown to contradict reality. In another time, Pastor Ahlemann might have been placing the equivalent of these full page ads, “standing alone” in demanding that Galileo be put to death for heresy – but as it turns out, the Christian faith somehow survived Galileo being right. The same will be true with regard to the reality of sexual orientation and gender identity.
We are very open to having a conversation about Pharisees (who were all about “a movement for Righteousness,” after all), “naming what real sins are,” and why it would be that, in some churches, continuing to bear false witness is not one of them.