JIM LEHRER: Now, the joint gender training issue that has emerged from the army’s sex scandal. Margaret Warner takes up the debate.
MARGARET WARNER: In recent years all the military services, except the Marine Corps, have eliminated separate training for male and female recruits, but the rape trial of army drill Sgt. Delmar Simpson, which ended yesterday in 18 convictions and scores of allegations against other instructors, have reignited debate about the wisdom of gender integrated training. We get two views on the issue now. Andrea Hollen was the first female graduate of West Point in 1980. She served in the army until 1992, when she retired with the rank of major. She is now a software consultant in Denver. Elaine Donnelly is president of the Center for Military Readiness, a public policy group on military personnel issues. A longtime Republican activist in Michigan, she was named by President Bush to the Presidential Commission on Women in the Armed Forces in 1992. Welcome, both of you. Elaine Donnelly, what does the case involving Sgt. Simpson say about whether men and women should train together in the military?
ELAINE DONNELLY, Center for Military Readiness: Well, it sounds like perhaps justice was done. There were some victims at Aberdeen; however, the larger question is: Should we have coed basic training? …
April 23, 2008
Oh, no, I’m not being flippant about a death — I really do wonder what St. Peter had to say to Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, the Vatican’s poster boy for a Dark-Ages mentality on same-sex marriage, stem cell research, and a woman’s right to choose, and who, most (in)famously, outright lied when he said condoms don’t do anything to prevent the spread of HIV. (The World Health Organization set everybody straight — so to speak — on that note, reiterating that condoms are 90% effective, and failure was usually due to improper installation.)
Not, mind you, that I really believe in the whole St. Peter/Pearly Gates thing; I don’t. But I’m a happy little agnostic quite content with the idea that wherever we end up, it’s of our own making: If you expect to see St. Peter, or some Pearly Gates, then you will.
But I digress, as usual.
Serendipity flowing freely this week, it was ironic, but rather satisfying in a mean, Schadenfreude kind of way, to hear that the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform (chaired by one of our few remaining heroes in the Democratic Party, Henry Waxman [D-Calif.]) is holding a hearing today to re-open the issue of whether or not abstinence-only programs work.
The reality is: They don’t. But as long as Radical Righteous Religionists exist — and as long as they maintain their stranglehold on our government — the reality of the situation needs to be hammered into many thick skulls before the U.S. gives up this killer (and I do mean killer) notion that if you withhold contraceptives and fact-based sex education, people will stop getting STDs, and stop having abortions.
What needs to stop is handing over taxpayer dollars to “faith-based” institutions that do nothing to decrease the spread of STDs or unwanted pregnancies, and in fact only serve to exacerbate the situation(s).
Sometimes it seems the only way to a new Age of Englightenment is to outlive the troglodytes who think they can pray the AIDS away. And so it is with an uncomfortable mixture of both sadness and relief that we mark the passing of Cardinal Trujillo: There was a man who stood no hope of being enlightened and reborn into a healthy, helpful, reality-based way of thinking, and now he’s gone. That’s the sad part. The relief (which troubles me to admit to) comes with the knowledge that there is one less powerful person on this planet standing in the way of countless millions being equipped with the knowledge and tools they need to save their own lives, and the lives of many others.
I’ll leave you with that thought, and with the ACLU’s writeup on today’s abstinence-only hearing — so my “faith-based” readers might understand that I’m not some sort of heartless ghoul celebrating the death of an “enemy.”
You see, Cardinal Trujillo called every struggle for control over our own lives and our own bodies, from same-sex marriage to euthanasia, a “culture of death,” when the truth is that lying about condoms and stem cell research and all the rest kills people. It is the Cardinal Trujillos of this world who propagate a “culture of death.”
Evidence Once Again Shows Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Programs Don’t Work
WASHINGTON, DC — April 23 — The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform will hold a hearing today titled “Domestic Abstinence-Only Programs: Assessing the Evidence.” The ACLU applauds Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) for bringing new attention to this deeply troubling policy and the committee’s willingness to examine the public health policy implications of abstinence-only programs. We look forward to the testimony of scientists, clinicians, researchers and youth activists who will report on the failures of abstinence-only education programs.
Their testimony is supported by research which has repeatedly shown that, at best, abstinence-only programs do not delay sexual initiation and, at worst, may actually cause harm by providing young people with dangerously inadequate and inaccurate information. A troubling recent report found teens in Florida, a state that relies on abstinence-only programs, who believed drinking a can of Mt. Dew would prevent unintended pregnancy, or drinking a capful of bleach would prevent HIV/AIDS.
In addition to the clear and compelling public health concerns of abstinence-only programs, the ACLU has submitted a statement to the committee addressing the civil liberties concerns raised by these programs. Abstinence-only programs censor information, reinforce gender stereotypes, provide inaccurate and misleading information, promote religion, serve a narrow ideological agenda, stigmatize lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth, and jeopardize the well-being of young people.
“The evidence leads to only one conclusion: abstinence-only programs represent a failed policy,” said Vania Leveille, legislative counsel at the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. “They are driven by ideology and politics, rather than by science or good public health policy, and our young people are suffering as a result. Most troubling, they represent a purposeful campaign to mislead, distort, stifle and censor, and are part of a disturbing trend to politicize science. The ACLU urges congressional action to bring this failed policy to an end.”
Since 1996, the U.S. government has poured more than a billion dollars into abstinence-only education programs so ineffective and dangerous that seventeen states have refused funding. At a time when the administration emphasizes accountability in funding only programs with demonstrated success, the continued funding of unproven abstinence-only programs is unacceptable.
The ACLU’s statement to the committee is available here
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Permalink
|
Trackback
|
Category:
Catholicism,
Democrats,
HIV/AIDS,
Health & Wellness,
Homophobia,
Marriage Equality,
Press Releases,
Radical Religious Right,
Religion & Spirituality,
Science & Technology,
U.S. Congress,
Women,
Youth
April 21, 2008
LONDON — April 21 — Saudi Arabia’s male guardianship of women and policies of sex segregation stop women from enjoying their basic rights, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. Saudi women often must obtain permission from a guardian (a father, husband, or even a son) to work, travel, study, marry, or even access health care.
In a 50-page report, “Perpetual Minors: Human Rights Abuses Stemming from Male Guardianship and Sex Segregation in Saudi Arabia,” Human Rights Watch draws on more than 100 interviews with Saudi women to document the effects of these discriminatory policies on woman’s most basic rights.
“The Saudi government sacrifices basic human rights to maintain male control over women,” said Farida Deif, women’s rights researcher for the Middle East at Human Rights Watch. “Saudi women won’t make any progress until the government ends the abuses that stem from these misguided policies.”
The authorities essentially treat adult women like legal minors who are not entitled to authority over their lives and well-being. Saudi women are similarly denied the legal right to make even trivial decisions for their children. Women cannot open bank accounts for children, enroll them in school, obtain school files, or travel with their children without written permission from the child’s father.
Saudi women are prevented from accessing government agencies that have not established female sections unless they have a male representative. The need to establish separate office spaces for women is a disincentive to hiring female employees, and female students are often relegated to unequal facilities with unequal academic opportunities.
Male guardianship over adult women also contributes to their risk of confronting family violence, making it difficult for survivors of violence to avail themselves of protection or redress. Social workers, physicians, and lawyers told Human Rights Watch about the near impossibility of removing guardianship even from male guardians who are abusive.
And even where permission from a male guardian is not mandatory or stipulated under government guidelines, some officials will ask for it. Despite national regulations to the contrary, some hospitals require a guardian’s permission to allow women to be admitted, agree to medical procedures for themselves or their children, or be discharged.
Officials do not always follow limitations on the power of guardians imposed recently by the government. Despite an Interior Ministry decision allowing women over 45 to travel without permission, airport officials continue to ask all women for written proof their guardian has allowed them to travel. Travel restrictions can also be humiliating for many women.
Fatma A., a 40-year-old Saudi woman living in Riyadh, cannot board a plane without written permission from her son, her legal guardian. “My son is 23 years old and has to come all the way from the Eastern Province to give me permission to leave the country,” she told Human Rights Watch.
A Saudi woman’s access to justice is also severely constrained. Women continue to have trouble filing a court case or even being heard in court without a legal guardian. Women are required to wear a full-face veil (niqab) in court and be accompanied by a male relative able to verify their identity. Saudi Arabia has established no minimum age of criminal responsibility for girls, while the authorities generally decree puberty as the threshold for treating children as adults.
“It’s astonishing that the Saudi government denies adult women the right to make decisions for themselves but holds them criminally responsible for their actions at puberty,” said Deif. “For Saudi women, reaching adulthood brings no rights, only responsibilities.”
By failing to eliminate these discriminatory practices, the Saudi government is failing in its commitment to guarantee women and girls their rights to education, employment, freedom of movement, health, and equality in marriage. In doing so, the Saudi government ignores not only international law but even elements of the Islamic legal tradition that support equality and full legal capacity for women.
Human Rights Watch calls on Saudi Arabia to take immediate action to address the human rights abuses resulting from male guardianship policies. The Saudi government should abide by its international obligations and dismantle this grossly discriminatory system. The king should establish an oversight mechanism to ensure that government agencies no longer request permission from a guardian to allow adult women to work, travel, study, marry, receive health care, or access any public service. The authorities should establish female sections or other accommodations in every government office and courtroom in order to ensure women have equal access to every level of government.
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Permalink
|
Trackback
|
Category:
Press Releases,
Saudi Arabia,
Women
April 13, 2008
by David Alexander Nahmod
Addendeum, April 16, 2008: I will repeat what I have written to everyone who has commented on this story:
The reason we published David’s story is that it is representative of a much larger issue affecting the LGBT community as a whole: the wall between straight and gay — and the question of whether or not this story, or any like it, would have occurred, or turned out differently, if the couple had been heterosexual. That’s not for me to judge — but the question is worth putting out there, just to make people think about that larger issue.
Additionally: If you have a concern about any of the specifics of this article, you should contact David directly — his email address is at the end of the article.
At the same time, if you send a comment on this story, and do not provide a valid email address, your comment will simply be forwarded to David, and that will be the end of our communication with you.
As it says at the top of the LavenderLiberal.com Terms of Service and Privacy Policy:
You won’t hold us (that’s the royal “us”) accountable if you find something you don’t agree with, or don’t like, or something that doesn’t work the way it’s supposed to.
And as it says in the very last line:
If you don’t agree with all of the above, then please go somewhere else.
From Sapph: There are countless stories from the frontlines of the neverending “culture wars” that, for one reason or another, will never be told; David Nahmod’s is, tragically, representative of millions you will never hear.
Bear in mind that this is not just one man’s story; it is a clarion call for all of us:
For the body is not one member, but many.
And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.
— 1 Corinthians 12:14, 26
We salute David for his courage and tenacity in getting his and Beecher’s story out there — and we’ll keep you, as David keeps us, updated.
For the past three years, my former partner, Beecher Goodwin, has lived with Kathryn Rock and Stephen Polich. Kathryn and Stephen are a straight conservative couple in Surprise, Arizona.
Kathryn Rock is the reason Beecher and I are no longer together. Starting in 2001, when she lived up the street from us in Hoboken, New Jersey, she plotted to destroy our relationship. She bragged about this. Her new husband, Stephen, whom I’ve never met or spoken too, was only too happy to assist her. Beecher’s own siblings, Harold and Laura Goodwin, both born-again Christians who say they don’t want him to be gay, also took part in this. His cousin, Donna Cifaldi, became the final participant.
What these people, who claim to “love” Beecher, did to get us out of each other’s lives, what they turned Beecher into, is unimaginably evil.
My relationship with Beecher was always a little “edgy.” Beecher is a severe manic depressive, while I’ve battled a minor case of the same affliction. Beecher is also dyslexic, and borderline illiterate. He suffers memory losses. He’s on SSI. He was easy prey for a sociopath like Kathryn Rock.
Beecher and I met in August, 1999. One year later, we moved in together. Though our afflictions created problems, we were relatively happy. We took care of each other. We were a comfort to each other. People who knew us then thought we were charming together.
Things began to change in late 2001, when he met Kathryn Rock. Almost instantly, she was his best friend, above all others. Soon after, Beecher and I began to fight constantly. Suddenly, we were always angry. We became uncomfortable around each other. In 2003, we moved to San Francisco and completely stopped having sex. I loved him with all my heart, yet I couldn’t bare the thought of touching him anymore. At the time, I had no idea what was causing this. Because in spite of all the problems we still claimed to love each other deeply. I suspect we still do.
When Beecher left, in February, 2005, we were barely speaking, and glad to be rid of each other. Kathryn Rock was now living in Arizona with her new husband Stephen. They came to San Francisco to get him, to “rescue” him from me.
Soon after, I had occasion to speak to Rene, Kathryn’s landlord back in Hoboken, and to Mrs. Luttrell, Kathryn’s former mother-in-law. Both of them told me that Rock had been plotting our breakup for years.
“Oh, David, Kathy does not like you,” said Rene. “She said she was going to get you and get Beecher away from you.”
What Mrs. Luttrell had to say was even more disturbing. “I met Beecher at Kathy and Will’s house in New Jersey,” she recalled. “That Beecher, he’d believe anything anyone told him. Is he a retard? That’s what Kathy told us about him.”
Mrs. Luttrell told me that she personally witnessed Kathryn Rock planting negative thoughts about me into Beecher’s head, using standard tried and true brainwashing techniques. Several therapists have since told me that this is a relatively easy thing to do to a person suffering from mental illness, as Beecher is.
Mrs. Luttrell went on to tell me about how Kathryn caused similar problems for several members of their family. It turned out that Kathryn moved in with Stephen Polich only four days after splitting up with Will Luttrell. Kathryn lied to Will about the new relationship — she wanted Will to continue sending her palimony.
What shocked me even more is when I found out that Kathryn had admitted to Beecher’ sister, Laura Goodwin, that she was deliberately causing trouble between us. Six months before we broke up, Kathryn told Laura: “I’m going to get Beecher out of there no matter what I have to do.” Laura remained silent…
That Laura could allow this to be done to her own brother’s relationship defies all laws of logic and decency. But by her own admission, Laura Goodwin is a Christian who thinks homosexuality is wrong.
During our final year together, Beecher suffered from severe headaches and anxiety attacks. The pain he was in was excruciating. Toward the end, he told me he needed to leave “so the headaches will stop.” As soon as he moved into the Polich/Rock household, the headaches indeed stopped. I now realize that Kathryn’s brainwashing were the cause of those attacks. Kathryn Rock hurt Beecher on purpose so she could pretend to “rescue” him from me. Beecher’s own sister supported this.
In spite of all the evil and ugliness that Kathryn Rock instigated, I was, at one point, ready to let it go. I spoke to him on the phone a few times, and he seemed happy there. I hadn’t seen him happy in years. More than anything, I wanted him to be happy. I decided to let him go and forget him.
Then a letter from his life insurance company showed up in my mailbox. I forwarded it to the address in Surprise.
Kathryn Rock returned the letter to me, in a hand-addressed envelope with her return address label on it. (I still have this.)
I called his sister Laura, mistaken in my belief that she’d want him to get his mail.
In May, 2006, I received an ugly piece of hate mail; I still have it. Beecher claimed he was living in a Spanish villa with his wealthy new lover. I needed to get over him, he said. I needed to stop harassing his family about getting back together with him. He clearly did not know about the mail I had for him.
I wonder if Beecher fully understood everything that was in that ridiculous letter. He can barely read and write. He cannot operate a computer, yet the letter was computer generated. When I finally spoke to him, nearly a year later, he admitted that Kathryn Rock wrote that letter “for him.”
I asked him what it said. He wasn’t sure.
During that year, Beecher got more mail at my address. When I emailed Stephen Polich and asked him to step aside so I could forward the mail, Stephen responded with abuse and taunts. He actually told me not to send the mail, claiming to speak for Beecher. He also told me he would not deliver messages I had for Beecher from people other than myself. Stephen now claims he said no such things, but I still have his original emails on file.
I called Harold Goodwin, Beecher’s brother, and told him about the mail. “I’m not going to do anything about it,” was the response. This was followed by a lecture about Jesus, during which Harold told me that it was wrong for Beecher to be gay.
I called Beecher’s cousin, Donna Cifaldi, who claims to not be homophobic. I had actually met Donna once, and I though we had gotten along well.
I told Donna what was going on. “Can I send the mail to you, so you can send them to him? So he’ll get his mail. So it’ll be over.”
In an email that I still have, Donna refused to forward the mail. She accused me of holding the mail “hostage” as a ploy to get back together with him.
Finally, after a year of this insanity, my friend Joe wrote Beecher a letter and asked for a return call. Neither of us had a number for him. Beecher called him, and Joe told him about the mail.
Joe called me. “That guy is being brainwashed.” Joe said. “He went on and on about things that happened between you years ago. He kept repeating himself over and over. He’s being told that you’re harassing his family.”
It was April, 2007. I had stopped contacting his family nine months earlier. But according to Joe, Beecher thought I was still calling them, because that’s what he was told. Joe described Beecher as being in a “rage.”
“Did he know about the mail?” I asked.
“No,” said Joe. “It was clear that I was the first one to tell him about this.”
Two days later, I got a handwritten note from Beecher, which I still have. After chastising me for “bothering” his family, he wrote, “Yes I do need to get my mail.” Confirmed was what I already knew: none of these bastards were speaking for Beecher. They spoke only for themselves.
There was more evil to come. In late August, 2007, Beecher called and asked if I still had a vase he’d left here. I did. Would I send it to his son Sean?
“I don’t know where Sean lives these days,” I said.
“Send it to my ex-wife’s house. He’ll get it.”
I was happy to comply. Sean and Scott are good kids. They had nothing to do with all the ugliness that had gone on. I sent the vase, and sent a check for the financially strapped Scott.
On October 15, 2007, I got a very sweet thank-you card from Beecher, which I still have. He thanked me for sending his boys these items.
A few days later, I was served with a restraining order, also signed by Beecher — on October 15, 2007. He signed the Order of Protection on the same day he sent that card! What’s wrong with this picture?
On December 3, 2007, I attended a hearing at the Hassayampa Justice Court in Surprise, Arizona, Case #CC2007 2031 68000, Judge Chris Mueller presiding. At the hearing, a confused Beecher fought tears when it was revealed that he did not know that the Order he signed said I was a physical threat to him and his children. The Order was “prepared for him,” he said.
Kathryn Rock sat in the back row of the Court, smirking. Judge Mueller threw the order out. Beecher now says that Judge Mueller is “an asshole” who refused to listen to him.
All these lies, all this hate, was instigated by straight conservatives to destroy a gay relationship they disapproved of. Beecher’s disabilities, and, to a lesser extent, my milder form of manic depression, were the tools they used to get what they wanted.
Rev. Gerry Brague, pastor of Chalice Christian Church in San Carlos, California, tells me that their actions go against the teachings of Scripture.
If you asked Beecher today what he thought of me, he’d express disgust. “I want nothing to do with David,” he says.
But twice in the last year, Beecher called me around 4:00 a.m. and left me sexually graphic voicemails. He has no memory of doing this, yet I still have both voicemails archived in my phone.
I suspect that these voicemails are Beecher’s true self struggling to get out from beneath the brainwashing. They stand as a disturbing testament to the emotional harm done to him by Kathryn Rock and Stephen Polich.
Rock and Polich don’t care. Neither do Harold and Laura Goodwin or Donna Cifaldi. They all got what they wanted. Beecher, aged 51, still lives with Kathryn Rock and Stephen Polich. He is older than they, yet he lives as though he were one of their children.
This horror story is all true. I have the documents on file to prove it. What happened to me and Beecher, what was deliberately done to us, stands as a stunning example of why we need gay marriage. Marriage equality would offer gay couples legal protections from predators like Rock and Polich.
More importantly, we need to protect the mentally ill in our community, and we’re not doing that.
For me, this matter will end when the actions of Kathryn Rock and Stephen Polich become a national news story. What they did, using another person’s mental illness as a control device, needs to be criminalized.
I love you, Beecher.
David Alexander Nahmod is a freelance writer in San Francisco. He contributes regularly to four gay publications: The Bay Area Reporter, (San Francisco) ON Magazine (San Jose, CA), Express Gay News (Florida), and The Washington Blade (Washington, D.C.). He also writes DVD reviews for Videoscope, Scary Monsters and Penny Blood Magazines.
He has begun work on his first book, which will detail the entire David and Beecher story.
Email him at: DavidBeecher1956@webtv.net
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Permalink
|
Trackback
|
Category:
Guest Articles,
Homophobia,
Marriage Equality,
Mental Health,
Radical Religious Right,
Religion & Spirituality
