Boy Scouts Reconsider

Boy Scouts is considering lifting the ban on gay members! The nationwide ban will be removed, allowing individual units to choose their own policy. I'm so excited for my BSA friends!
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/29/us/boy-scouts-consider-lifting-ban-on-gay-leaders.html?pagewanted=1&tntemail1=y&_r=0&emc=tnt
This is even more exciting because Boy Scouts has to make this decision on their own--the Supreme Court ruled that they had the right to ban gay members. It's the same law that makes it possible for private schools to be all-male or all-female--and considering how many women felt empowered by attending an all-female college, I feel duty-bound to uphold the law allowing private organizations to make discriminative calls. That means the only thing to do is persuade leaders to change their minds in cases like this one, where the discrimination does more harm than good. After all, I've never met a boy (there may be some) who really, really wanted to attend a college that happened to be all-female.

News and Politics

I know I've been absent for a couple months, but I've been racking up the news articles to send you. Warning: NYTimes.com only lets you view ten free articles a month, so think carefully before clicking the links. I can get around that by getting them sent to me in my inbox, but even I can't view my bookmarks.
 So, Biden's big announcement in favor of same-sex marriage. I'm sure you've heard about this. Drove the White House a little crazy, rushing to make sure everyone knew this was Biden's personal opinion and not the official stance, and forcing Obama to say something one way or the other. I feel for the big man--he got voters from both sides by walking the line, and this doesn't help his cause. Quite frankly, I'm worried about what will happen if Mitt Romney gets in office. It really feels like he sets his stance based on what he thinks the public wants to hear, and changes it accordingly. What is the problem with Obama? I hope this is the article that talks about this--I keep getting a message that says I've read my free articles for the month before I can even read enough to see if it's the one I want. Basically, Romney's telling us Obama lost the country jobs--well, in his first few months of taking office, before his policies could take effect. And now he's trying to get us to return to the same policies that got us into this mess. Who really believes two terms are enough to dig the country out of its hole? Who thinks that a man who won't take a stance of his own and says what he thinks you want to hear will make a good president?  (Apparently, a lot of people.) And Romney won't support same-sex marriage--he says so himself, although he also apparently has friends who are gay. Yes, ObamaCare may be in line with socialist ideals. But guess what? So is public education. It doesn't make him evil. We're so close to getting many of our rights, despite some waffling in the White House--Obama Won't Order Ban on Gay Bias by Employers--some of the original top supporters of DOMA are trying to get it revoked, and the public mind is changing all the time. Don't let the country take two steps back for every step forward. Pull out your common sense. Leave the states vs federal debate and the abortion debate for another day. Debate them in your own time, please do. Work to change people's minds for the things you really care about. But the whole country's going to suffer if you elect Mitt Romney. Re-elect Obama. Pass it on.

In other news:
Homophobic? Maybe You're Gay
All you have to do is watch Glee to know some of the most vehement anti-gays out there are in the closet and scared to death. A good reason to turn the other cheek and be kind to those who hate your guts.
Methodists Vote Against Homosexuality Rule Change
Basically, the Methodists have it written down that homosexuality is incompatible with their teachings, and they decided not to rewrite it.
Harming the Troops
Military Chaplains officially can't marry same-sex couples, even in states where it's legal. I think. Legalese confuses the heck out of me. I shall never be a politician.
Malawi President Wants to Repeal Nation's Antigay Laws
Malawi, a country in Africa, currently has laws prohibiting homosexual acts, but its president wants to repeal them if she can.
And:
Rutgers Webcam-Spying Defendant Sentenced to 30 Days
This is the kid who spied on his roommate having gay sex using a webcam, and posted about it on Twitter, leading to the young man's suicide.

Marriage legality

I was reading the New York Times today, and came across this article. It's about the fight for gay marriage and the new donor pool it has. The really interesting thing, though, was that I recognized the name of the Republican lawyer, Theodore B. Olsen. I came across him while writing my research paper. He stood out for writing about why conservatives ought to support gay marriage, something I think needs to be a central point in changing minds. You can't change many minds just by saying 'this is right' and 'your way is unconstitutional', you need to add a 'this is why you should want this' to the mix. People are selfish, and often won't do anything unless it benefits them or their values in some way. Anti-gay people know that refusing to pass ENDA and similar laws (not marriage--by legal definition, we have exactly the same right as straight people: to marry the opposite sex*) is pretty unconstitutional. They probably know they haven't got any decent arguments. But the whole idea of gay marriage and gayness at all hits their gag reflex. Plain and simple, they don't like it. So they throw everything they've got, like money and religion, against it. We need to make them like it. We need to tell them why they should want equality for all.
Here's Olsen's article.

*This confuses a lot of people. If you're one of them, I'll put it in black and white.
Susan is straight. She has the legal right to marry a man, whether or not she loves him. She couldn't marry a woman for whatever crazy reason. She doesn't have the right.
Annie is gay. She also has the legal right to marry a man, even if she doesn't love him. She couldn't marry a woman even if she does love her. She doesn't have the right.
There's no actual legal difference. Gay and straight (and bi) women alike have the right to marry a man, not a woman. Gay and straight (and bi) men alike have the right to marry a woman, not a man.
Straights don't actually get any special privileges--they're just lucky enough to have the people they're attracted to/people they're capable of loving in the same category as people they're legally allowed to marry, while gay people aren't.
This is not to say I support this. Yes, I think the federal legal definition of marriage should be changed. Point is, this is how things stand. We can't really shout 'equal rights' on this because we have them. What we're asking for is more rights--the right to marry any legal adult human being we please. It'll extend to straight people as well, who don't have that right either, although they generally don't want to marry someone of the same sex, so no one sees them as missing out.

And meanwhile, on the Supreme Court...

I received an email from Rick Jacobs and the Courage Campaign just now. It was about GLBT people being potentially banned from serving on the Supreme Court. This is ridiculous. Here are some quotes included in the email.

"[A] gay judge's sexual preference will, without any question whatsoever, 'interfere with their job.' It's not possible for it to be otherwise... We simply should not elevate to the highest court in the land people who are known for engaging in sexually abnormal behavior which would technically make them felons in a quarter of the states over which they will have jurisdiction." -- Bryan Fischer, American Family Association

"We can assure you that we recognize that homosexual behavior is a sin and does not reflect God's created intent and desire for humanity. Further, we at Focus do affirm that character and moral rectitude should be key considerations in appointing members of the judiciary, especially in the case of the highest court in the land." --Focus on the Family
(The email's punctuation and emphasis, my inserted credit to the second quote)

I signed the Courage Campaign's petition to keep sexual orientation from being a consideration in appointees to the Supreme Court. They offered me the chance to send an email urging my family and friends to do the same. And I copied and pasted that email here.

Have you heard that right-wing groups like Focus on the Family and the American Family Association are insisting that gays and lesbians should be disqualified from serving on the Supreme Court?

It's outrageous. With a Supreme Court vacancy opening up after the retirement of Justice John Paul Stevens, I just signed a letter to President Obama insisting that sexual orientation should NOT be a factor in selecting his Supreme Court nominee.

Will you join me? It only takes a minute to sign:

http://www.couragecampaign.org/NotAFactor

The religious right is firing up their massive lobbying machine and we need as many people to combat their outrageous attacks on LGBT people.

Thanks!