The Rev. Lonnie W. Latham, former senior pastor of the South Tulsa Baptist Church and former member of the Southern Baptist Convention Executive Committee, is a vocal opponent of marriage equality, and one of those cheap, oily yappers about the “sinful and destructive lifestyle” of GLBT people. At least he was until January, when he invited an undercover police officer to a hotel for oral sex.
Now he is outraged – absolutely OUTRAGED – at the charge filed against him.
His attorney, Mack Martin, filed a motion to have the misdemeanor lewdness charge thrown out, saying the Supreme Court ruled in the 2003 decision Lawrence v. Texas that it was not illegal for consenting adults to engage in private homosexual acts.
“Now, my client’s being prosecuted basically for having offered to engage in such an act, which basically makes it a crime to ask someone to do something that’s legal,” Martin said.
For the Right Reverend Latham’s edification, that would be the Lawrence v. Texas decision that was made possible by people living with integrity, people who, unlike himself, were not ashamed of who they were created to be. For added irony, it turns out that the ACLU is speaking up for this guy, too.
Yeah, I think we should recognize that people like this are broken and hate themselves because they’ve been chewed up and spat out by false religious doctrine. However, for some reason I’m having trouble coming up with much empathy this time. I’ll leave that to Soulforce:
It’s unconscionable that so many, like Rev. Latham, have never been told the truth that they can live with dignity and express their God-given sexuality in ways that are open, honest, loving, and life-affirming. Trapped by Southern Baptist misinformation, many people of faith think their only option is to live a dark and secretive double-life. The SBC needs to be held accountable for causing this kind of needless suffering.
The 2007 GA session marked the first time that positive, pro-active bills outweighed legislative attacks on our community. Interestingly, the defeat of most of the positive legislation reveals the weak, flabby underbelly of the anti-gay lobby, created by their own arrogant overreaching. Most of the positive bills were eliminated, not by recorded vote, but through parliamentary maneuvers designed to prevent any testimony or debate that could reach the ears of constituents. 
Analogous to marriage, except for the benefits
Debra Stroud and Joseph Stroud were married. Then they weren’t anymore, and the contract they agreed to required Joseph to pay Debra $4,000 per month, with the payments to end in the event of Debra’s remarriage or “cohabitation with any person … in a situation analogous to marriage.”
Then Debra “began living with another woman in a sexual relationship that also included joint child-rearing and household duties” – which sounds an awful lot like a marriage. Joseph thought so too, and sued to have his financial obligation terminated. The judge who heard the case disagreed with Joseph and agreed with the “Family Foundation”; he ruled that a partnership between two women could never be considered analogous to marriage.
So far so good (if you like that sort of thing). But Joseph wasn’t buying it. He appealed, and the the state Court of Appeals ruled Thursday that he was right all along: Debra and Robyn, who have exchanged rings, do have a relationship analogous to marriage.
Continue reading →