New poll data on abortion

Posted on May 17, 2005 by Ampersand

Via Tapped, this PEW center poll has an interesting abortion question; rather than asking about banning or not banning, or about Roe, they asked if people opposed or favored “making it more difficult for a woman to get an abortion.” This form of the question doesn’t seem biased in any obvious way, and it directly reflects the new face of abortion rights wars – in which conservatives try to chip away at abortion availability bit by bit.

The result was that Republicans – and only Republicans – favored making it more difficult to get an abortion. Swing voters and all groups of Democrats do not favor making abortion more difficult. Overall, 55% of those surveyed opposed such efforts, while 36% favored them. So the theory that Democrats could find many new votes by being less pro-choice seems dubious. Here’s the graphic; the top three groups are different groups of Republicans, the bottom three different groups of Democrats, and the middle two represent different groups of swing voters.

There are other notable resolts. As Tapped pointed out, an overwhelming majority of Americans wants the Ten Commandments in courtrooms (22%/74%), and a majority would like to see creationism as well as evolution taught in the classroom (33%/57%).

On the other hand, liberal economic ideas are pretty mainstream. Huge majorities of the public would like to see an increase in the minimum wage (12% opposed, 86% in favor) and raising taxes to pay for health insurance for all (30% opposed, 65% in favor).

And in general, “liberals” are less left on economic issues than “disadvantaged democrats” are. On the other hand, “liberals” are – surprise surprise – the only group that favors same-sex marriage.

Posted in Abortion & reproductive rights, Economics and the like, Elections and politics, Same-Sex Marriage | 91 Comments

Monday Baby Blogging: Illegal Child Labor Edition

Posted on May 16, 2005 by Ampersand

Well, Sydney is around 19 months old now. Long past time she learned something about her proper gender role in life! And what better way to start than with housework?

First, we learned how to do the dishes….

Continue reading →

Posted in Baby & kid blogging | 14 Comments

The IWF and their skills of exposing the "evil feminist gender-switching agenda" strikes again!

Posted on May 16, 2005 by Pseudo-Adrienne

The Independent Women’s Forum (IWF) is noted for their hysterical and sometimes very incoherent ravings against feminism and shameless “groupie” pandering towards the anti-feminist/pro-Stepfordwives conservative forces in the world of politics. Their constant and absurd accusation that feminism is all about creating a “genderless-androgynous utopian society” is rich–not to mention woefully and willfully ignorant. I doubt any contemporary feminist would deny that there will always be some degree of “traditional” gender characteristics being expressed by both sexes. I really enjoy the IWF’s repeated and insidious charges against women’s only colleges who allegedly promote this “ideal” of creating a genderless-purely androgynous culture. Oh and let’s not forget the “man-hating” indoctrination too–that’s a classic. Their lastest charge against women’s only colleges; it turns girls transgender!

But I thought this was a women’s college…

A recent article in the Financial Times captured the gender confusion at Smith College:

“Signing up for a beginner’s Italian class is usually a simple enough task, but for Sebastian, a second-year student at Smith College in the US, it proved complicated. Smith has always been a school for women, which is what Sebastian was when he began a bachelor’s degree there in 2001. But since then, he has become a man. At least that is how she thinks of herself. Himself. That is how his friends think of him, too, but it isn’t necessarily how a new Italian teacher would see him. And since Italian is such a gender-specific language, Sebastian needed to let the teacher know before the semester began that there would be a new studente in class, not a studentessa.”

So the kid’s transgender-so what? Well it’s a big deal to the IWF in their pitiful attempt to equate feminism and women’s only colleges as big brainwashing facilities. I’ve seen and heard better from neanderthals.

The FT article isn’t available without an expensive (but almost worth it for this one story!) subscription, but to summarize: More and more women who attend Smith College are becoming transgender students. But you know the whole enterprise lacks seriousness — or why to they remain at a women’s college? Or maybe the whole thing is being taken too seriously…

Yes, why are you taking this seriously and what’s wrong with women wanting to attend an all-women’s college?–nothing. I don’t see the IWF railing and ridiculing men who attend all-men’s colleges like Wabash College in Indiana.

As the American Thinker notes in a wonderful article on this priceless piece:

“Smith was founded to be exclusively for women, but now is taking seriously the claims of maleness of sexually confused people with two X-chromosomes. They must be addressed as males, a class of individuals not admitted to the college. Issues of bathroom usage, and even the proper form of gender-specific languages like Italian, rile the campus. The mental gymnastics involved are formidable, and the problems endless.

“My favorite paragraph (among many hilarious examples) in the article reveals the utter self-absorption and lack of perspective of those who go off the ideological deep end:

“Just as Herbert Marcuse’s theories were important on campus in his day, gender theory is important now,” says Paisley Currah, an associate professor of political science at Brooklyn College of the City University of New York and a board member of the Transgender Law and Policy Institute.

“Earth to Professor Currah: if you want your theoretical obsessions to be taken seriously, don’t choose to compare them to those of a man who has already returned to his default position of well-deserved obscurity. Marcuse is a joke to all but a handful of feverish radicals. The comparison is apt, given that future generations will scratch their heads in amazement as to how transgender theory could ever have been taken seriously, just as they today do over the onetime popularity of Professor Marcuse’s ‘repressive tolerance’ theories, which, come to think of it, just might apply to transgenderism in a way you do not intend.”

You can’t tell how bigoted they are against Queer theory and the academia as a whole can you? Anti-feminist attacks are one thing, but bashing a field of study and it’s focal community trying to create an understanding of Queer/Gender issues and cite examples of how heterocentric/sexist our society can be is beyond sophomoric and an example of reactionary ignorance. So what’s wrong with courses discussing Queer/Gender issues and theories?–nothing. Just another incoherent cheap-shot against feminism, Queer issues, and the academia by the IWF. College is supposed to be about intellectual expansion–not a retraction to willful ignorance and narrow-thinking. And intellectual growth is what groups like the IWF fear students especially young women will experience.

Posted in Anti-feminists and their pals, Feminism, sexism, etc, Homophobic zaniness/more LGBTQ issues, Transsexual and Transgender related issues | 39 Comments

Continuing the debate over sexual attraction, gender roles and power

Posted on May 16, 2005 by Ampersand

The discussion on this thread – originally about an Ohio rape case – has gotten too long, and has drifted considerably. So I’m closing that thread and starting a new one.

The new topic appears to be questions of lust, gender roles and power. Do girls and women have more “sexual power”? Do boys and men feel more lust than girls and women do?

I’ll quote parts of recent posts by Aegis and La Lubu to start this thread off, but feel free to respond to any post on the old thread, here on this thread.

Aegis: Understanding the disadvantages that a certain social system grants in one area should not lead us to ignore the way that system also grants certain advantages in another area. Obviously, the pressure on women to be beautiful, and the pressure on men to earn money are both disadvantages. But because of that pressure on men, they often succeed in earning more money, granting them economic power (although this power require sacrifices in other areas). Those poor men, being forced into having all that financial power! Likewise, the pressure on women to be beautiful may result in them improving their beauty, and consequently gaining sexual power over males. Of course, female sexual power does not always translate into respect from males, and it often comes at a price of other types of power. […]

Surely being viewed sexually can often be a very positive experience for females! Isn’t it nice for an attractive woman to have a guy she really likes become totally smitten with her? Isn’t it nice for her to be able to wait for a guy to approach her, and then let him do most of the work when he does approach?

And some of my first experiences not being viewed as sexual were negative. I felt competely unnattractive to women until I was age 18, and this had horrible effects on my self-esteem and ability to interact with women. I also remember one time when a friend of mine who went to middle school with me told me only half-jokingly that she would like to marry me some day… just so she could sit in my big house and look at my artwork. I don’t think she would have been interested in dating me in a million years, but apparently I was good for earning money to buy a big house and adorning the walls of said house with paintings. Imagine how you would feel if a guy told you that he would like to marry you simply for your looks.

I am not saying that a guy who encounters comments like this and feels unnattractive necessarily has things as bad as a woman who gets catcalls and creepy older suitors all the time, just as I am not saying that a man never being seen as sexual in the business world has as much advantage as an attractive women who can easily attract men. Those comparisons are difficult to make.

One thing that bugs me about claims of “women’s sexual power” is that, insofar as it exists at all, it’s entirely indirect power. A woman’s so-called sexual power doesn’t mean that she gets to decide which project will be funded, who gets hired or fired, etc; at best, all it can mean is that she has the indirect “power” of influencing men who in turn get to make the actual decisions.

How much power did Monica Lewinsky actually have to determine US policy? I’d argue, virtually none. But no doubt it could be claimed by some that she had “sexual power” over Bill Clinton.

La Lubu: Aegis, being viewed sexually can be a positive experience for females. However, I would argue that most women have experienced being viewed sexually as either equally positive and negative, or more negative than positive. Why? Because we don’t get to keep being viewed sexually within its context, in other words, our perceived sexual persona is elbowing into all the nonsexual areas of our lives.

Like the professional world, for example. No matter how neutral our dress or behavior, the mere fact that we are Female, with a Female Body, brings sexuality into the equation as work. For women, this often translates into reduced opportunities at work. Potential mentors shy away from us because they don’t want to be tagged by the inevitable sexual rumors. Higher-ups don’t want to believe that women are on the job to work rather than find a husband. The Mommy Track is real. Even when we’re not mommies. How attractive we are or aren’t can translate into what work opportunities we are given, or aren’t. I once had a foreman on the job walk me around to all the journeymen already there, asking the guys if it was ok if I worked with them…he didn’t want to make anybody’s wife mad. Out of thirteen journeymen on the job, all said they’d work with me, that it was cool. But only two of them thought the whole idea of singling me out like that, for that reason, was complete bullshit. Only two other journeymen on the job thought it should have been irrelevant whether anyone’s wife got mad. The other guys thought it was nice of him to ask!

* * *

Again, don’t feel constrained to responding to only the above on this thread. Any of the posts on the old thread may be responded to here.

Posted in Feminism, sexism, etc | 304 Comments

It's all about "Biblical family values"–really?

Posted on May 16, 2005 by Pseudo-Adrienne

Since this past election there has been a plethora of ridiculous rhetoric from the Radical Christian Rightwing about “family values,” and how it justifies their bigotry towards the people of the LGBTQ Community. Worst of all, passing that bigotry on to the next generation–delaying the civil rights and liberties of the LGBTQ Community from being realized by socializing their children to demonize the group. Tomorrow is the one year anniversary of Massachusetts granting equal marriage rights to Gay and Lesbian couples. Though while the LGBTQ Community of Massachusetts can celebrate, their brothers and sisters in other not-so-tolerant states must wait for their opportunity to marry their loved ones.

The cause of the sociopolitical inequality faced by the LGBTQ Community is due to this country’s history of arch-conservative Christianity and politics being subtely intertwined. The religious wingnuts bullshit harp endlessly about the “evils of the Gay lifestyle.” What’s more ridiculous is how some of the most out-spoken belligerently homophobic religious wingnuts project the idea that homosexuality, bisexuality, and trangender/sexuality never existed before the sixties and seventies–you know, when everything in American society “went to Hell” according to them. They trace it all back to the Bible and how it promotes “family values.” Ever constant and unchangeable “family values.” Really?

Interesting little newsbyte here from the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force on the precious “family values” that the religious wingnuts claim to be constant, never changing, and a justification for bigoted discrimination.

Articles of Faith: Biblical Values for American Families

by Reverend Jay Emerson Johnson, Ph.D.

May 17 marks the first anniversary of Massachusetts offering equal marriage benefits to same-sex couples. For those of us who believe in those rights, and the more than 5,000 same-sex couples that have been married, it is a moment for reflection and celebration. Our joy, however, is mixed with a sense of loss, because 14 states have since passed measures banning legal recognition of same-sex relationships.

Religious opponents of equal marriage frequently use the Bible for justification of their stance. In March, the Southern Baptist Convention released the Nashville Declaration on Same-Sex Marriage, in which it based its opposition to equality on “the biblical teaching that God designed marriage as a lifetime union of one man and one woman.” For biblical literalists, they don’t know much about the Bible. Biblical families and American families share the word “family” in common, but not much more. But if we look beyond the radically different structure of Biblical marriage, modern families can still find timeless values in the scriptures to guide them…[…]

“Biblical family values” present just as many problems as “biblical families.” Abraham’s use of his slave, Hagar, to sire a child, and his subsequent banishment of her and the child to the wilderness (Genesis 21:14) would be considered unspeakably callous by today’s standards. Yet according to the family values of his day, Abraham was acting completely within his rights. When Jacob steals his brother Esau’s birthright, the Bible describes it not simply as an act of brotherly betrayal but as a necessary part of God’s will for God’s people (Genesis 27). Even more severe is Jephthah’s sacrifice of his own daughter to fulfill the terms of a foolish vow (Judges 11:29-40) or Onan being put to death for refusing to impregnate his late brother’s wife (Genesis 38:9). Parents who cover their children’s eyes during Desperate Housewives, might be shocked to discover what lurid tales of betrayal, rape, incest, and adultery … all transpiring within traditional biblical families … lurk between the covers of their family Bible.

I’m sure ultra-conservative families could rationalize how it was excusable for all of that to have happen in the Bible, but completely “immoral” when the rest of us do something similar.

Not every biblical family relationship is as dysfunctional as these examples. But when biblical figures act virtuously, they often do so outside the bounds of “traditional family.” The story of Ruth and Naomi is an account of same-sex devotion often read, ironically, during heterosexual marriage ceremonies (Ruth 1:16). David and Jonathan’s relationship is presented with a tenderness lacking in most biblical marriages: David admits that his love for his friend “surpassed the love of women” (2 Samuel 1:26). In the Gospels, when Jesus is asked about his own family, he replies with an answer that was as radical for his day as it is now: “Whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother” (Matthew 12:48-50).

Want to entertain yourself with a good soap opera about dysfunctional people?…Read the Bible!

The structures of biblical families are rooted in ancient cultural practices far removed from the sensibilities of Western society;…

And in more civilized and advanced times such as ours–supposedly–it isn’t sensible for us to continue to discriminate and promote bigotry based on superstitious beliefs and texts.

… the authors of the Bible would scarcely recognize the partnership of equals that marks a contemporary American marriage. But this doesn’t mean we should abandon the Bible as a guide to family values. As the mutable institution of marriage evolves with shifting cultural norms, the Bible continually calls us back to what truly matters in human relationships. St. Paul wrote about these values, calling them the “fruit of the spirit”: “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control” (Galatians 5:22). Surely these are biblical values every family would embrace. According to Paul, “love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant or rude…It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things” (1 Corinthians 13:4-7). Even when knowledge and human institutions fail, these values, Paul says, remain constant: faith, hope and love. The greatest of these three, Paul concludes, is love (1 Corinthians 13:13).

Another hypocrisy of the far Christian Rightwing, love is only “okay” in some situations and can only be expressed by some people.

Societal definitions of marriage and family will inevitably change over the course of history. It’s clear that what is important in the Bible is not a family structure based on biology or even heterosexuality, but the quality of love exhibited in the relationships. And if same-sex couples exhibit such spiritual values, they deserve the legal protection and civil recognition of marriage. If we have any intention of preserving marriage or protecting families, we must base our support on values that are unchangeable: values such as faith, hope, and love. But the greatest among these … whether the couple is same-sex or heterosexual … is love.

Remember, this is the Bible we’re discussing. You can probably argue that flying pigs exist using the Bible. Just as the most vocal homophobic religious winguts use the Bible and “family values” to promote hate. Apparently some people even in the Bible didn’t practice “family values” themselves, and some were close to being prophets and notable leaders. So when will the religious wingnuts rant and rave against them for their sinful lifestyles?! It’s all about interpretation, especially when you’re out to promote a specific agenda.

Posted in Homophobic zaniness/more LGBTQ issues, Lesbian, Gay, Bi, Trans and Queer issues | 10 Comments

Can doctors overrule patients to save the patient's life?

Posted on May 16, 2005 by Ampersand

“Alas” reader Kathleen emails:

Anyway, I wanted to send this article your way. A young Canadian cancer patient has refused a blood transfusion (she’s a Jehovah’s Witness, and her religion prohibits the procedure), but the government’s ruled that she has to undergo the treatment, as “the teenager’s constitutional right to choose medical treatment does not override the courts’ authority to protect her life and safety.”? I thought this was interesting, especially in light of the conflicts in the US over abortion and the colliding moral values of patients and doctors. There’s been a lot of discussion about when and if a doctor can refuse to provide treatment, but what if a pregnant woman has a life-threatening condition? Can she decide she’d rather die than have an abortion?

The article Kathleen points out, and the issues it brings up, are interesting. Here’s a few quotes from the article:

A 14-YEAR-OLD Canadian Jehovah’s Witness who is suffering from cancer has lost her court fight to refuse a blood transfusion which her faith forbids.

The teenager broke down in tears when the decision was announced by Justice Victor Paisley in a Toronto courtroom, before she was taken away in an ambulance under police guard.

The girl – identified only as Sarah – had reportedly fled across the country with her parents to Ontario after a judge in her home province of British Columbia ruled she could not refuse a blood transfusion if her doctors believed it was medically necessary. […]

The girl’s lawyers had argued that she was not seriously ill and that, even though she was a minor, she still had a right to refuse treatment.

Shane Brady, the family’s lawyer, said they came to Ontario only to receive a second opinion and had hoped to begin alternative therapy in the United States soon.

Mr Brady said: “She was seeking competent medical care. The young woman was devastated. This is a matter of patient choice.

“To be denied that choice and be told, ‘Look, you’ve got to go back to British Columbia to be treated by a doctor that you’ve lost trust in’ – that’s difficult for anybody to stomach.” […]

Jehovah’s Witnesses believe blood is a sacred source of life and not to be misused or tampered with under any circumstances, even life-saving.

If the girl really isn’t that sick and doesn’t really need the transfusion, then obviously she shouldn’t be forced to have it.

But what if the judge is right, and she really is that sick? My tendency is to say that the decision to die for your religion is not one a 14 year old should be allowed to make. If we don’t allow 14 year olds to drink, to have sex with grown-ups, or to get married – all based on the belief that they aren’t old enough yet to fully understand the consequences of these decisions or to make a genuinely informed choice – then we shouldn’t allow them to decide to die, either.

But even as I say that, I have to admit I’ve very unhappy with the idea of the government forcing medical treatment on anyone against their will. I’m a fence-sitter on this one.

UPDATE: Kathleen sent me a link to another article, and pointed out this quote in particular:

She had already consented to chemotherapy, surgery and even possible amputation of her leg. But in a court document, the teen says a transfusion would be a violation of her person, not unlike a rape.

“It’s no different than somebody getting sexually assaulted or raped or robbed or something. You’d feel violated because it’s not anybody else’s property, it’s you.”

She makes a good case.

Posted in Whatever | 40 Comments

A couple more Terri Schiavo links

Posted on May 13, 2005 by Ampersand

I don’t foresee myself posting much more (or, perhaps, ever) regarding Terri Schiavo in the future; most of what’s going on in the media seems to be more of Terri’s families bashing each other, and I’m just not interested.

Here are a couple of links worth reading, though.

First, an article about the medical examiner in charge of Terri Schiavo’s autopsy report, Jon Thogmartin. From the article’s description, the guy is a somewhat egotistical Star Trek fan who prides himself in his independence from outside pressures, which is probably exactly the kind of person we want for this particular task. Although the article doesn’t say, I’d bet twenty dollars that Thogmartin has read most of Robert Heinlein’s novels.

Second of all, Matt at Abstract Appeal has made a “greatest hits” page of his best (or anyway, most popular) posts about the Terri Schiavo case. Matt has consistently done better legal and factual reporting on the Schiavo case than anyone else in the blogosphere or in the media.

Posted in Terri Schiavo | 5 Comments

Alleged Rapist Bush Appointee Resigns From FDA Committee

Posted on May 13, 2005 by Ampersand

In an earlier post, I was skeptical about the impact of the new allegations against Dr. Hager – particularly the revalation that he was asked to send what he called a “minority report” regarding Plan B birth control to the FDA. I’m very happy to report that it seems I was wrong. Thanks to “Alas” reader Anne for pointing out this new twist on the story!

Dr. Hager has told reporters that he will be leaving the FDA’s Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee at the end of June. So that’s good news. So long, and please be under the next bus out of town.

But it still leaves Plan B unavailable over the counter, unfortunately.

Posted in Abortion & reproductive rights, Elections and politics | 10 Comments

More on Hager's role in rolling back women's reproductive rights

Posted on May 13, 2005 by Pseudo-Adrienne

From NARAL Pro-Choice America; “Notorious Right-Wing Activist Admits Decisive Role in Bush Administration’s Anti-Birth Control Policy–Hager admits to central role in FDA decision to overrule its scientific and medical panels to block women’s access to birth control.”

Oh it gets better….

(Washington, DC) ““ In the wake of new reports of notorious right-wing activist David Hager’s influence over the Food and Drug Administration’s decision to block women’s over-the-counter access to the morning-after pill, NARAL Pro-Choice America is renewing its call on President Bush to remove Hager from a medical advisory panel and for FDA to make documents related to this decision public…which the agency has refused to do.

The Washington Post and The Nation report that, in an October sermon, renowned arch-conservative W. David Hager claimed credit for writing a report urging the FDA to override its scientific and medical advisory panels and block over-the-counter sales of the PLAN B morning-after pill. President Bush appointed Hager to the FDA advisory panel that reviewed the PLAN B petition. He was one of only four of the panel’s 27 members to oppose over-the-counter sales of the emergency contraceptive.

In the same speech, Hager bragged that the FDA’s rejection of the petition for over-the-counter sales of the morning-after pill marked only the second time in 50 years the FDA overruled its advisory panels.

I’m sure in the same way a guy might brag about “knocking up a woman.” Well in the case of denying women access to another emergency contraceptive and being anti-contraceptives period, he can now brag about how it could be possible for a rapist to traumatize his victim a second time by forcing her body to “nourish” and house his genetic material for nine months, all against her will. And less access to contraceptives will lead to more women getting unintentionally pregnant, and more women possibly having abortions. Genius. /sarcasm>

“We’d long suspected that Hager was the driving force in the Bush Administration’s decision to block easier access to the morning-after pill. Now we have proof, and it’s time for him to go,” said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America. “Scientists, doctors and an overwhelming majority of Americans support giving women, especially survivors of sexual assault, access to the morning-after pill to prevent unintended pregnancies.

Yes well, leave it to ultra-conservatives to ignore medical science, women’s bodily integrity and right not to be an incubator (and just ignore women’s right period), and even public opinion for the sake of arrogantly adhering to their rigid anti-women’s reproductive rights agenda. And their ever constant interjection of a little theocracy into ever branch of government and its institutions.

But that’s not good enough. The FDA should approve over-the-counter access to the morning-after pill and release all the documents related to this decision. The public deserves to know how far the Bush Administration is willing to go to impose its opposition to birth control over all American women.”

NARAL Pro-Choice America plans to file another request under the Freedom of Information Act for all documents showing contact between the FDA and the White House on this matter. In February 2004, NARAL Pro-Choice submitted a similar request, but FDA refused to comply.

Allegations of Hager raping his ex-wife aside, no doubt he’s certainly done more in the ways of aiding rapists traumatizing their victims a second time with pregnancy by denying rape-victims access to another emergency contraceptive (Plan B), than ensure the reproductive rights of women. Just keep rollin’ them back. But breathe easily, women who value their reproductive rights and access to contraceptives such EC; Hager is leaving the FDA’s Advisory Panel. Breathe easily for now anyway.

Posted in Abortion & reproductive rights, Anti-Contraceptives/EC zaniness, Anti-feminists and their pals, Conservative zaniness, right-wingers, etc. | 4 Comments

Gay Watch in Religious News

Posted on May 13, 2005 by Pseudo-Adrienne

More homophobic zaniness within Vatican politics according to 365Gay.com…

(San Francisco, California) San Francisco Archbishop William J. Levada has been named as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith – the Vatican department that has led the attack against same-sex marriage and gay rights.

The Congregation led the infamous Spanish Inquisition from the 15th to the 18th century. It’s last leader, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, is now Pope Benedict.

Well gee, Levada just sounds perfect for this job then! A modern vicious Inquisition against the people of the LGBTQ Community–yep, that’s good PR on the Vatican’s part. Way to reach out to everyone else in the world.

Ratzinger was the author of the a 2003 Vatican directive to priests around the world calling for a proactive stand to stop governments from legalizing same-sex marriage and for a repeal of those those already on the books that give rights, including adoption, to gay couples. (story)

The 12 page document called on Catholic bishops and lawmakers to oppose the legalization of same-sex unions.

Under Ratzinger the Congregation also spoke out against the use of condoms to combat HIV/AIDS.

He also was responsible for ordering Sister Jeannine Gramick to stop ministering to American gays and lesbians. Gramick was a co-founder of New Ways Ministry in 1977 to provide educational programs for gay and lesbian Catholics nationwide.

It is considered unlikely that the Congregation will change much under Levada, who has headed the Archdiocese of San Francisco since 1995.

In 1977 he told a Synod of Bishops his experience with gays in San Francisco shows the LGBT community is highly organized.

“The city’s human rights commission named me as contributing to a ‘climate’ of discrimination against homosexuals because I said public recognition should not be given to so-called ‘gay marriages,'” he said.

That same year, Levada opposed a city ordinance requiring all agencies contracting with the city to provide spousal benefits to domestic partners of their employees…[…]

Yep, he’s perfect. Now how about a more positive newsbyte on the state of the LGBTQ Community’s relationship with organized religion.

(Vancouver, British Columbia) Despite pleas from many of the world’s top Anglican leaders, Bishop Michael Ingham said that the blessing of same-sex unions continues within his New Westminster Diocese.

Ingham endorsed an April 27 statement from a meeting in Windsor, Ontario, where Canada’s Anglican bishops unanimously committed themselves “neither to encourage nor to initiate the use of such rites” until a nationwide synod settles the issue. The next synod session is in 2007.

But as Ingham sees it, the bishops agreed to take “no further actions beyond those already started” and left his diocese free to continue its practice of same-sex blessings.

“No bishop was in any doubt that I did not commit myself to a moratorium on same-sex blessings,” Ingham said.

A same-sex blessings moratorium was part of a unity plea from a February meeting of 35 top world Anglican leaders…[…]

That’s somewhat positive…oh well I’ll take what I can get from organized religion and its treatment of the LGBTQ Community.

Posted in Homophobic zaniness/more LGBTQ issues, Lesbian, Gay, Bi, Trans and Queer issues | 3 Comments