May 3, 2008

Radical Religious Right: Noisome and Noisy As Ever, But Mostly Smoke and Mirrors

The Christian Right is neither.This post is the result of my running across two seemingly unrelated stories today — one about the resounding defeat of a right-wing bid to overturn Wells Fargo’s anti-discrimination protections via a shareholder vote, and the other, “California Supreme Court to Hear Case of Lambda Legal Lesbian Client Denied Infertility Treatment by Christian Fundamentalist Doctors.”

Obviously, both are typical examples of the way radical right-wingers use their “deeply held religious beliefs” as an excuse to punish gay and lesbian people for daring to suggest that we’re anywhere as good as they are, by having (or demanding) — gasp! — the very same rights!

But there’s much more to it than that. There are four points to the core dump that follows:

1. While a woman’s right to choose has nothing whatsoever to do with LGBT equality on a practical level… actually, it does. The stakes (freedom over your own life, and protection against somebody else making life decisions for you) are the same. The tactics of the freedom-deniers (bullying, intimidation, and legislative action, by any means) are the same.

2. The anti-choice brigades and the anti-gay brigades are composed of the same people, with the same ties to the same convoluted network of radical right-wing religionists; they just operate under different front organizations as their hate-filled agenda requires. But it’s always the same agenda.

3. As large, widespread, and well-funded as the Radical Right may be, it’s not as big or scary when reduced to the sum of its parts. I’ll explain that at the end of this piece — just hang in there, because you’ll want to read it: The news is good. Very good.

4. The radical religionists are losing the culture wars — but they’re not through with us yet, and none of us can allow complacency. Just because they’re not trying to strip you of your rights today, don’t assume you’ll be safe from their attacks tomorrow. Never forget the words of Martin Niemoller.

That said…

There’s nothing wrong with the idea of investing your money in companies whose practices you agree with, and withholding your investments from companies with which you disagree. In fact, I encourage it. I practice it myself.

What’s wrong is attempting to force other people to do as you do.

But that’s what the Radical Religious Right is all about: forcing you to do as they do (or at least profess to do), instead of living their lives as they see fit, and leaving you alone to live your life as you see fit.

Their reasons are legion. Some of radical righties are trying to increase their scorecard of “souls saved” so they get a better spot in Heaven. Some claim “the Bible says” they’ve been charged with the mission to “witness” (read: annoy non-believers to pieces) for Jesus. Some of them are undoubtedly closet ‘mos who think they can repress their own true nature by repressing everybody else’s true nature.

Whatever. The reasons (and if you’re interested in the reasons, you couldn’t find a better explanation than Chris Hedges’ American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War On America) don’t really matter right now. In the end, it’s all — and only — about conversion through coercion. (Tip of the hat to Wayne Besen for inspiring that phrase.) They try to do it in many different ways, none of which is ever successful in the long run (and seldom in the short run, either), for the simple reason that the world (yes, even the puritan United States) has left them, and their Inquisition-era mindset, far behind.

The radical religionists are a dying breed, and they know it — which is why they’re getting more aggressive in their futile efforts to drag us all back into a Levitical lifestyle (which might not be such a bad thing, if they had to face stoning in the streets for patronizing Red Lobster, sticking a ham sandwich in their kid’s lunch bag, and wearing cotton-polyester blends — the last being, of course, a crime in any era).

If they’d just live their lives as they think their wrathful, jealous God wants them to, and leave the rest of us alone, we wouldn’t care how they expressed their fear-based worship (as long as no animals were sacrificed or otherwise harmed).

But that’s not good enough for them. In trying to force the secular, reality-based world to conform to their suffocating, restrictive ways, they are doing harm — a lot of harm — and in their twisted quest to create a “culture of life,” they are in fact propagating a culture of death.

I said just that on the occasion of the passing of Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, who, among other atrocities, outright lied about the effectiveness of condoms in preventing the spread of HIV. It’s an atrocity because that kind of radical, right-wing activism kills people. Literally.

The same is true of attempts to prevent the use of contraceptives, eliminate reproductive rights (can you say “back alley abortions”?), halt stem cell research (funny how righties like Arlen Specter and Nancy Reagan suddenly go all pro-stem cell when they’re the ones directly impacted by cancer, or Alzheimer’s disease), and even gay-straight student alliances and diversity programs. (You teach a gay kid to hate himself for who he is, and you may very well create a suicide victim; you teach a gay kid he’s as good and worthy as you are, and you’re helping to build a healthy, happy, productive citizen. You teach a straight — or questioning — kid that being gay is bad, and you’ve just increased the chances that your new little hater is going to go kick some gay ass in the playground — at best — or, at worst, murder the next Matthew Shepard, the next Sakia Gunn, the next Gwen Araujo.)

And, yes, that goes for same-sex marriage as well: If my relationship with my partner is not recognized outside our home state, and I get sick or injured away from home, it’s entirely possible that the one person I want making my medical decisions will not be allowed to. (Not that the anti-gay brigades would care if I died — I’m certain they would prefer I did.)

I always tell the righties that the solution is simple: If you’re against abortion, don’t have one. If you’re against gay marriage, don’t marry one of us.

But, of course, they refuse (no doubt deliberately, as reason would stand in the way of their singleminded goal to inflict their beliefs on your life and mine) to make the connection between their life-diminishing, often life-ending crusade.

Which brings us to this story from 365gay.com, and a right-wing outfit we’d never heard of before now, “Pro Vita Advisors” — “pro vita” being Latin for “pro-life,” which is, predictably, the antithesis of the anti-life, anti-freedom, anti-American agenda these radicals actually promote:

Shareholders Reject Bid To Strip Gay Protections At Wells Fargo

(San Francisco, California) A motion by a Wells Fargo shareholder to remove protections for LGBT workers from the company’s non-discrimination policy was defeated this week at its annual meeting. …

The motion called for the company to “to formulate an equal employment policy …that does not make reference to any matters related to sexual interests, activities or orientation.”

It said that homosexuality has been “condemned by the major traditions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam for a thousand years or more”.

The motion was crafted by Pro Vita Advisors, a group that helps promote conservative values.

The motion said that “While the legal institution of marriage between a man and a woman should be protected, the sexual interests of, inclinations and activities of all employees should be a private matter, not a corporate concern.”

The proposal was easily defeated. …

Conservative groups have attacked Wells Fargo for the past three years over its “pro-gay policies”.

In 2005 Focus on the Family withdrew its funds from Wells Fargo. …

Similar shareholder challenges to non-discrimination policies that include gays have been fought and lost at Ford Motor Company.

If you want a good laugh, read the anti-gay resolution proposed to Wells Fargo shareholders (which is the same in tone as most Pro-Vita proposals), “”to formulate an equal employment policy … that does not make reference to any matters related to sexual interests, activities or orientation.” Here are the biggest knee-slappers:

Whereas, our company seeks to hire the most qualified person and has never had a policy discriminating against any person, or groups of persons, for any reason.

Whereas, it would be inappropriate and possibly illegal to ask a job applicant or employee about their sexual interests, inclinations and activities.

Whereas, it is similarly inappropriate and legally problematic for employees to discuss personal sexual matters while on the job.

Whereas, unlike the issues of race, age, gender and certain physical disabilities, it would be impossible to discern a person’s sexual orientation from their appearance.

Whereas, unless an employee chooses to talk about their sexual interests or activities while working, the issue of sexual orientation is, essentially, moot.

Whereas, domestic partner benefit policies pay employee benefits based on the employee engaging in unmarried, homosexual relations. These relations have been condemned by the major traditions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam for a thousand years or more.

Whereas, the Armed Forces of the United States is one of the largest and most diverse organizations in the world. They protect the security of us all while adhering to a “don’t ask, don’t tell policy” regarding sexual interests.

Whereas, marriage between heterosexuals has been protected and encouraged by a wide range of societies, cultures and faiths for ages.

Statement: While the legal institution of marriage between a man and a woman should be protected, the sexual interests of, inclinations and activities of all employees should be a private matter, not a corporate concern.

Pro Vita Advisors helped write and present this resolution. Contact: Thomas Strobhar, Pro Vita Advisors, 937-226-1337.

Asks Jason at Good As You:

And what exactly does the traditions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have to do with Banking? I notice they don’t bring up Buddhism, Wicca, or Atheism. …

[W]hat does the Armed Forces have to do with Banking? And how cute they, they re-wrote DADT, it’s just about keeping soldiers from talking about sexual interests. As if that were possible. …

“Statement: While the legal institution of marriage between a man and a woman should be protected, the sexual interests of, inclinations and activities of all employees should be a private matter, not a corporate concern.”

Oh, here they’re trying to divorce marriage and sex. As if marriage doesn’t have anything to do with sex, it’s just those nasty, pervy, homos that are trying to get recognition of their sexual interests. Yes, babies are just found under cabbage leaves. If, in fact, the sexual interests of, inclinations and activities of all employees should be a private matter, not a corporate concern, there’s no need to have any spousal benefits at all, as that has as much to do with “sexual interests” as DP.

Seriously, though, how stupid is this “Pro Vita Advisors” outfit, anyway, thinking they can suck Wells Fargo (a citadel of diversity which should be a model for every corporation in the world), headquartered in San Francisco (duh! I said San Francisco!) since 1852 back into the Dark Ages?

“How stupid” is up for debate; one thing’s for sure: “Pro Vita Advisors” is a nasty, tenacious little bunch. Over the past few years, they’ve attempted to strongarm AT&T, NCR (as Good As You correctly summarizes Pro Vita’s goal: “Pro Vita Advisors: Denying health care is our moral obligation”), and, of course, Ford Motor Company (a longtime target of the gay-hating American Family Association, whose top dog, Donald Wildmon, just plain lied when he announced in March that the AFA’s two-year boycott of Ford had come to a successful end; perhaps the AFA is still stinging after coming to grips with the fact that its nine-year Disney boycott was a resounding failure).

So, who are these life-denying whackjobs? Most visible, and vocal, is Pro Vita president Thomas C. Strobhar — who, unsurprisingly, is also the chairman, founder, and/or other executive of the following organizations:

Strobhar Financial: “Financial investing for people who put their morals first.”

National Association of Christian Financial Consultants, “a group of investment professionals committed to investment and financial planning disciplines centered upon biblical principles.”

Pro-Life Action League:

Chicago-based Joseph Scheidler founded the Pro-Life Action League in 1980 after being ousted from other pro-life groups for his resistance to compromise. A master of public relations and a former journalism professor, Scheidler knew how to draw mainstream media attention. In 1985, he published a provocative tract, Closed: 99 Ways to Stop Abortion, in which he suggested that civil disobedience, harassment, and militant direct action were justified interventions where abortion was concerned. Scheidler argued that because the act of abortion was murder, it must be prevented at all costs.

Perhaps more important, Scheidler influenced other confrontational pro-lifers like the founder of Operation Rescue, Randall Terry, and his successor, Flip Benham. …

Pam Chamberlain and Jean Hardisty
Reproducing Patriarchy: Reproductive Rights Under Siege
The Public Eye Magazine

[I]n Delaware, Joseph Scheidler and three other large men illegally entered a clinic, trapping the clinic administrator inside. The men put the phones on hold — effectively cutting her off from the outside world — and told her they were there to “case the place.” This was shortly after several clinics had been bombed. In another incident, Scheidler went to Pensacola and met with John Burt and Joan Andrews. Together, they discussed and planned an event to take place at the Ladies Center. The next day, while Scheidler was outside doing “P.R.” (he did not want to get arrested), Burt, Andrews and two others burst into the clinic, shoved the administrator to the floor and slammed an escort up against a wall. Then they went upstairs to wreck equipment. Still more evidence of force and violence came as the jury heard from a doctor who had been stalked, her house surrounded, and her life threatened. She was also physically assaulted by Monica Miller and Matt Trewhella. The jury also heard evidence of scores of blockades, which deprived people of access to the clinics, and where people were assaulted for daring to try to enter. One woman, who was going to see her doctor for postoperative surgery (surgery that in no way was related to abortion and that had been done to try and save her reproductive organs), was hit over the head with a picketer’s sign.

Sara Love, Esq.
Antiabortionists convicted in Chicago
Freedom Writer, May/June 1998

Life Decisions International:

LDI calls itself “a fully independent organization” (swearing it is “not allied with any political party”) that appears devoted solely to destroying Planned Parenthood (as witnessed by the organization’s Web URL alone: “fightpp.org”).

Dating to the 1980s — when it began with anti-abortion protests at women’s health care clinics — the campaign against Planned Parenthood is now waged on many other fronts as well: legislative attacks on government funding, organized boycotts of sponsors, challenges to corporate supporters and vocal opposition to sex-education programs. While dozens of groups spread and magnify opposition to the 84-year-old Planned Parenthood, two national organizations — Life Decisions International, and STOPP International — provide full-time leadership.

With an annual budget of approximately $110,000, Douglas R. Scott, Life Decisions’ president, and his staff of three, research and publish “The Boycott List” of companies — usually about 50 or 60 in number — that donate to Planned Parenthood. Approximately 10,000 copies of the $15.75 list are distributed twice a year, including to 33 anti-abortion organizations that endorse it, ranging from Human Life International to Concerned Women for America, Christian Coalition, Family Research Council, American Family Association and Traditional Values Coalition. …

According to a March press release, current boycott targets include Adobe Systems, Bank of America, Johnson and Johnson, Kenneth Cole, Levi Strauss, Nationwide Insurance, Prudential, Unilever, Wachovia, Whole Foods and Walt Disney. Walt Disney is listed because its theme park gave a donation to Planned Parenthood of Greater Orlando to prevent teen pregnancy, according to a Life Decisions newsletter.

Life Decisions — which Scott describes as being based in northern Virginia — also introduces resolutions at annual meetings of corporate shareholders designed to end corporate donations to Planned Parenthood. Thomas Strohbar, Life Decisions board chair and the head of Pro Vita Advisors, an anti-choice investment firm in Dayton, Ohio, spearheads this effort, which he claims is going well. …

Privately Scott says it’s more about rallying anti-abortion forces than the money. “Planned Parenthood has nearly $300 million dollars in savings in reserve, so they’re not lacking in money; they just don’t like a public black eye,” said Scott.

Some companies, instead of bowing to Life Decisions, buck the pressure. The March-April issue of Life Decisions’ bimonthly newsletter, “The Caleb Report,” contains the text of a phone message attributed to a Richmond, Va., businessman who apparently didn’t appreciate being warned that his company’s name will go on the boycott list. “I will not be threatened by scumbags like you. I will not stop supporting Planned Parenthood,” the message said.

Karen Pearl, interim president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America in New York, confirms that some companies are resisting the Life Decisions pressure. “One corporation heard about another corporation turning us down and was so outraged that they, in turn, donated what we had asked the other corporation for,” Pearl said.

Nationally, Pearl says, Planned Parenthood retains a high level of public support. …

Cynthia L. Cooper
Family Planners Stand Up To Right-Wing Boycott
Women’s eNews, July 18, 2005

On its Web site (www.fightpp.org), LDI attempts — undoubtedly for the benefit of those of us who have dug beneath the surface to trace the organization’s violent anti-abortion roots — to pre-empt the question, “What Is LDI’s Policy On Violence?”

LDI leaders wholeheartedly embrace a policy that condemns the use of violence as a means of achieving their goals:
While LDI steadfastly upholds the free exercise of constitutional rights, its leaders unequivocally condemn acts of violence committed in the name of the Pro-Life Movement. Violence is morally reprehensible and contradicts the fundamental premise that every human life is precious and deserving of respect. In line with this policy, LDI will accept only those words and deeds that are life-affirming and God-honoring in dealing with the abortion holocaust and related evils. No amount of justification will change the truth; violence is wrong–in and out the womb. This policy is a deeply held conviction and will not be ignored, weakened or altered for any reason whatsoever.

Any person who disagrees with this policy is invited to withhold financial support from LDI.

Predictably, however, LDI often wanders far afield from its stated goal, and plays the Christian-martyr card, apparently just for (eh-heh!) the hell of it. Chastising and attempting to smear celebrities seems to be a favorite pastime of LDI’s. For example:

Charlie Sheen denounced for obscene song

Actor Charlie Sheen gave a rendition of a traditional Christmas song that changed the lyrics to an affront to Christians, says head of Life Decisions International.

“CBS Television has crossed the line in a big way,” said Douglas R. Scott, Jr., president of Life Decisions International (LDI). “In an affront to all of Christendom, the network allowed actor Charlie Sheen to change the lyrics of ‘Joy to the World’ into a song that could be called ‘Joy to Fornication.’”

On December 11, 2006, the CBS program “Two and a Half Men” opened with Sheen lighting candles and singing a song to the tune of “Joy to the World”:

Joy to the world
I’m getting laid
I’m getting laid tonight. …

“‘Joy to the World’ is a song about the birth of Jesus Christ. Yet CBS has allowed a song about the most precious, sacred and significant moment in history to be turned into a song about having sex outside of marriage,” Scott said. “Is there any line that anti-Christian people in the media will not cross? This is something one would expect from more well-known ungodly networks such as MTV.” …

Sheen is the son of actor Martin Sheen, a Catholic, whose name appears on LDI’s list of celebrities that support legal abortion. Charlie Sheen has a troubled history: he was once associated with the celebrated Heidi Fleiss, who ran a prostitution ring in Hollywood. He once accidentally shot an erstwhile girlfriend and later was rumored to have a cocaine addiction. However, Sheen announced in 1996 that he had become a born-again Christian.

Friendly Atheist recounts another example, from January, 2007:

Life Decisions International, a pro-life group that apparently enjoys sticking its head into events that have nothing to do with abortion whatsoever, is angry with Conan O’Brien. What has he done?

The show airing Wednesday night featured Conan introducing “new characters” to the show (characters who never actually appear after the one episode).

One of the characters was a “homophobic country western singer.” He was introduced by Conan, who said, “Our last new character’s heart is in the right place, even if he’s a complete idiot.”

The man came on stage with a guitar and sang the following lyrics:

Oh I love you Jesus
But only as a friend.
You touched my heart but I hope
That’s where the touchin’ ends. …

Here’s Douglas R. Scott, Jr., president of Life Decisions International, commenting on this sketch:

The idea that anyone would think about the Son of God in this way is simply appalling… The inferences that permeate the song are utterly disgusting… We wonder if O’Brien’s description of the character as a “complete idiot” is based on the man’s “homophobic” beliefs or if it is because of the inference that Jesus could be sexually interested in seeing the man naked… I don’t know if the man is a complete idiot, but I do suspect that the writer of the segment is a complete bigot.

It’s obvious to anyone who saw the sketch that the singer was referred to as an idiot because he was purposely saying something offensive. It’s called a joke. …

Mind you, Conan himself is Roman Catholic. …

Citizen Action Now:

From the Citizen Action Now Web site (http://citizenactionnow.com/) — which, amazingly, admits its tactics are “designed to create havoc at corporations who openly support homosexual groups or policies”:

Today we are at grave risk. We have seen the introduction of homosexual marriages, homosexual civil unions, homosexual adoptions, homosexual domestic partner benefits and the persecution of those who oppose these new “rights.” Large organizations funded with millions of dollars have sprung up to promote the so called Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgenedered [sic] (GLBT) agenda. Tomorrow, there is the real possibility of criminalization of those who dare speak against these perverse changes.

Citizen Action Now was created to challenge GLBT groups on all fronts, but will concentrate on areas currently being ignored by other pro-family groups, such as, corporations. The brainchild of the Alan Keyes organization, Declaration Alliance, Citizen Action Now will fight for an America free from the manipulation of homosexual groups. These groups have long realized that by changing the way America does business, they will eventually change America. Once they have instituted “domestic partner” benefits at most major American corporations, once they have included mandatory sensitivity training concerning the most bizarre sexual practices, once they have established “gay” sex clubs in the schools—

“Gay sex clubs”?

—the sooner they will be able to achieve their ultimate goal of complete acceptance of homosexual lifestyles. While we sympathize with individuals consumed with homosexual desires, we can not let our sympathy distract us from defending traditional standards of moral purity against an onslaught of “homosexual rights” shrilly demanded by groups brought together by their shared sexual interests. These “rights,” which include the right to marry, adopt and publicly act out strange sexual mental maladies threaten an America built on values cherished by Muslims, Christians and Jews.

Citizen Action Now is headed by Thomas Strobhar who honed his skills in the pro-life movement successfully fighting corporations which gave money to Planned Parenthood. Thomas had a singular effect on such corporate giants as American Express, AT&T, Berkshire Hathaway, General Mills, Target Stores and many others. All told, over 115 companies have stopped contributing to Planned Parenthood, in part, because of Thomas’ efforts. …

Citizen Action Now, drawing on Thomas Strobhar’s business and financial background, is committed to minimizing cost and maximizing output. Already, on a minimal budget—

Remember that phrase, “on a minimal budget.” It’ll have more meaning later.

—Citizen Action Now, has lead petition drives confronting the pro-homosexual management of Allstate Insurance and Walgreens pharmacy. In just a short period of time shareholder resolutions confronting the homosexual agenda at American Express, Bank of America, Citigroup, IBM, Merrill Lynch and others have been filed. All were done at little expense, but designed to create havoc at corporations who openly support homosexual groups or policies. …

Citizen Action Now is committed to helping individuals and groups challenge the homosexual agenda in America through actions that work. We have been bequeathed cultural and religious values centuries old and now are at risk of seeing these values trashed and those who defend them silenced. That is why this organization was formed. We can wait no longer. We must act now. Any delay will require ten times the work just to return things to the status quo.

In other words, the usual hysterical rhetoric.

So, just how deep do Pro Vita’s right-wing roots go? Citizen Action Now alone is connected to:

• The AGN Financial Network (an “affiliate” of rabidly anti-gay Ken Hutcherson’s Antioch Bible Church, which shares its anti-gay “outreach” in Latvia with “Latvian megachurch preacher Alexey Ledyaev, who was at the Seattle homobigot’s side at the 2006 conference of the Watchmen on the Walls, along with Scott Lively, former director of the California tentacle of the American Family Association and the anti-gay Oregon Citizens Alliance (OCA)” and pastor of Abiding Truth Ministries “[a.k.a. Defend the Family] … author of The Pink Swastika: Homosexuals and the Nazi Party, and Holocaust revisionist”), on whose advisory board Strobhar sits, along with Wildmon, the Southern Baptist Convention’s Richard Land; Herb Lusk, anti-gay, anti-equality, Bush-loving pastor of Greater Exodus Baptist Church, who’s sucked up “more than $1 million in grants under the president’s faith-based initiative” and whom Bush appointed to the Presidential HIV/AIDS Advisory Council, and Rabbi Daniel Lapin, and whose supporters include Nixon’s “evil genius” and “hatchet man,” ex-con Chuck Colson (who was pardoned by Jeb Bush) and perennially purse-lipped Gary L. Bauer of the Family Research Council

Muslim-baiting, Clinton-hating, litigation-happy Ron Brown conspiracy theorist Larry Klayman (who in 1998 sued his own mother) formerly of the rabidly right-wing Judicial Watch (financed in part by Richard Mellon Scaife, and helped along by radical-righty mass-email mogul Richard Viguerie), which Klayman left (and then sued the organization he himself had founded). Klayman is (or was) a member of the secretive Council for National Policy, the organization (founded by Left Behind co-author and Moral Majority co-founder Tim LaHaye, who is married to Beverly Haye, founder of the “anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-feminism and anti-sex education” Concerned Women for America, of which Robert Knight’s Culture and Family Institute is a spin-off, and on whose board sits Matt Barber, of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, founded by Folsom Street Fair-obsessed ex-Family Research Council head Pete LaBarbera) that marries the Radical Religious Right to the Republican Party…

…and that’s just for starters.

“So,” asks Chris at Cynical-C Blog, “is the pro-life movement about saving unborn babies or about controlling people’s sex lives?”

The answer is: the latter, with a caveat. It’s always been about controlling people, period. They just make it sound like our lives revolve around sex. (”I love how they try to dumb it down to ‘homosexual relations,’” says Jason at Good As You, “attempting to suggest it’s just about sex.”)

And then there’s “Pharmacists For Life International,” founded by Pro Vita advisor Bogomir M. Kuhar, an Ohio pharmacist:

The founder of the group is Bogomir (M.) Kuhar, a pro-lifer so radical that he’s anti-birth control. Kuhar has calculated that many millions of lives are “terminated” each year by people who use contraceptives. …

Kuhar appears to have been involved in pro-life Catholic movement since at least the late eighties. …

Pharmacists for Life
Riffle, April 4, 2005

But Bogomir Kuhar is nothing compared to Pharmacists for Life president Karen Brauer, who can only be described as a real piece of work. And not in a good way.

Brauer and Pharmacists for Life are at the forefront of a growing movement aimed at giving pharmacists the right to refuse to fill prescriptions if filling them would be inconsistent with their moral or ethical beliefs. Thus far, the fight has primarily revolved around birth control prescriptions.

On February 10, the Associated Press reported:

Last year, Mississippi lawmakers passed a bill that allows all types of health care workers and facilities to refuse performing virtually any service they object to on moral or religious grounds. Anti-abortion organizations and a group called Pharmacists for Life are urging pharmacists to refuse to distribute emergency contraceptives.

…A February 7, 2005, National Law Journal article illustrates that while the bulk of attention has been given to pharmacists who refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control pills, the potential exists for pharmacists to refuse to dispense a wide range of essential, prescribed medicine if advocates of the so-called “conscience clause” for pharmacists are successful; the article noted that in 2004, “a Dallas pharmacist refused to fill a mother’s prescription for her son’s Ritalin.”

Though “conscience clause” advocates prefer to focus on birth control pills — and the media reports that cover the controversy do likewise — their position that pharmacists need not fill prescriptions they disagree with has far-reaching implications. By the same rationale, a pharmacist who believes, as the Rev. Jerry Falwell once claimed, that AIDS is “God’s punishment for homosexuals” could refuse to fill a prescription for an AIDS patient. Pharmacists could refuse to fill prescriptions for heart medicine for the elderly, antidepressants for a suicidal patient — anything. …

Pharmacists for Life president Karen Brauer was fired by a Kmart pharmacy in Ohio for refusing to fill birth control prescriptions. As Brauer acknowledged during an April 16, 2001, appearance on Fox News’ The O’Reilly Factor, Brauer didn’t merely refuse to fill a patient’s prescription, she lied to the patient, as well…

Presumably, the mere act of lying to a patient would have been reason enough for Brauer to be fired; at the least, it seems to be a direct violation of the American Pharmacists Association’s “Principles of Practice for Pharmaceutical Care,” which state: “Interaction between the pharmacist and the patient must occur to assure that a relationship based upon caring, trust, open communication, cooperation, and mutual decision making is established and maintained.” …

Pharmacists for Life’s web page contains numerous controversial statements that have thus far escaped the notice of the media outlets that have given the group attention. PFL’s “Frequently asked questions” section states “Pharmacists are under no obligation, even if written in the positive law, to violate the Divine Law.” This suggestion that pharmacists are not bound by the laws of the United States so long as they think God disagrees with those laws is but the tip of the iceberg. Other examples, taken from the group’s recent comments on the Terri Schiavo case…

Who are Karen Brauer and “Pharmacists for Life”?
Media Matters, March 30, 2005

Like Life Decisions International, Pharmacists for Life International reaches far beyond its stated goal (which is bad enough); PFLI is getting mixed up in every issue it deems “godless”:

While most of Pharmacists for Life and Brauer’s public comments relate to pharmacists refusing to dispense birth control medication, their efforts — and their effects — are not limited to issues of reproductive rights; Brauer said during her O’Reilly Factor appearance that she refused to fill prescriptions for diet pills “due to the abuse potential in the area in which I was working.”

And a caption on a photo accompanying a February 2 Santa Fe New Mexican article suggests that Pharmacists for Life’s agenda may go well beyond pharmacies. The caption reads:

GRAPHIC: 1. Sen. Bill Sharer, left, R-Farmington, meets Tuesday with supporters of his bill defining marriage in New Mexico as only between a man and a woman. Meeting with Sharer are representatives of the Pharmacists for Life and Life League of New Mexico, Abran Gabaldon, former Sen. Tom Benavides of Albuquerque and Manuel Rodriguez.

The good news is that pharmacists who refuse to follow the law — secular law, that is, and not whatever “divine law” they’ve dreamed up out of their own bigoted little imaginations — have created an effective backlash, leading several states to take action:

In Illinois, Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D) … issued an executive rule clarifying his view of state law: Any pharmacy that sells contraceptives must promptly fill a woman’s prescription for them.

Four states, including California and New Jersey, are considering laws that would require pharmacists to fill prescriptions despite any religious or moral objections, unless they could find an alternative that doesn’t inconvenience the patient.

Culture war hits local pharmacy
Christian Science Monitor, April 8, 2005

Unfortunately, some radical rightists in elected office have often opted to side with pharmacists endangering the lives of their customers:

Thirteen states are considering giving pharmacists the kind of conscience-clause outs that doctors have, allowing them to refuse to fill some prescriptions that go against their personal beliefs. (Four already have such laws on the books.)

In a related issue, Colorado Gov. Bill Owens (R) exercised a rare veto this week, for a bill that would have required all hospitals — including Catholic ones — to inform rape victims about the availability of emergency contraceptives. Among other concerns, he questioned the constitutionality of forcing religious institutions to engage in speech counter to their principles.

(Bill Owens? Oh, yeah, now there’s a real above-board, “family values” Christian. Not.)

Nevertheless:

Public opinion tends to come down in favor of the patient. In a November New York Times poll, just 16 percent of respondents said they believed a pharmacist should be able to refuse to dispense birth-control pills for religious reasons. Among white evangelical Christians, that number grew to just 24 percent.

But many of these “Christian” pharmacists don’t want to stop at merely refusing to fill a prescription:

We intervene and stop prescriptions and make doctors change prescriptions,” says Karen Brauer, a pharmacist in Lawrenceburg, Ind.

By now, as DrugMonkey says at Your Pharmacist May Hate You, you might have thought…

…that this Pharmacists for Life outfit must be some big, powerful organization with a giant headquarters somewhere on K street, ready to deploy an army of lobbyists over to the halls of government power to get things done. Or you would think that they’d at least have an office. Think again. According to the group’s 2003 IRS filing (most recent available) they raised and spent less than $30,000 and had no paid employees. … Even though that’s not a lot of money as far as these advocacy groups go, I would think they would have at least been able to afford a copy of Microsoft Frontpage and/or someone who knows how to use the web-page building program to make a page that isn’t…um…hideously fucking ugly, but evidently not, as you can see here…

Adds Riffle:

The Pharmacists for Life group, though they claim to represent “over 1600+ pharmacists, and many hundreds of lay supporters, in the USA, Canada and worldwide,” seems to be run out Powell, Ohio, probably in the Kuhars’ home.

The contact phone (740.881.5520) and post office box for PIL is the same as the vitamin-selling business that the Kuhar’s have at kuhar.com (known as Life Enterprises, though sometimes identified as Pro-Life Enterprises). Presumably the Marcia Kuhar listed there is Bogomir’s wife.

She’s also used the same PO Box and phone number as her contacts listed on the Central Ohio Association of Occupational Health Nurses, Inc., also known as COAOHN.

With this single phone number being used as Marcia’s contact number, PFL’s contact number, and the businesses’ contact number, PFL is probably running out of their house, which also houses their business. … [T]hey’re tiny and represent a very small number of religiously hyper=zealous pharmacists who do not want women to receive birth control.

Which leads me to the “good news” I promised you near the beginning of this post: There’s every reason to believe that the shakiness of Pharmacists for Life’s underpinning is not an anomaly — no matter how well-connected its adherents may be.

The regular bathroom-reading material in our house includes my better half’s subscription to Mother Jones. In a stroke of serendipity, while I was contemplating a way to tie everything I’d written above into the idea that maybe, just maybe, the Radical Religious Right wasn’t so big and powerful as it claimed, I noticed the current issue of MJ happened to be turned open to the feature, “The Myth of the Moral Majority” — which challenges the accepted notion that the American Radical Religious Right is, or ever was, as massive or as powerful as it makes itself out to be.

That article (which isn’t online yet) confirms exactly what I had been wondering, but for which I had no confirmation by way of hard facts.

What if, asks MJ, the numbers — “that nearly 80 percent of Americans are Christian, and 40 percent attend church weekly” — “and everything we’ve assumed they tell us about the power of the religious right — are wildly wrong?”

When newspaper reporter and author of The Fall of the Evangelical Nation: The Surprising Crisis Inside the Church Christine Wicker…

…started looking into the numbers on church attendance, she found that researchers could vouch for only 18 percent of Americans being regular churchgoers — less than half the accepted figure. That led her to wonder about the already widely reported claim that 25 percent of Americans are evangelicals; could the real number also be less than half that? …

…Wicker discovered that the numbers the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) releases for public consumption tell a much different story than the ones it uses internally. The organization claims 16 million members, but as one reverend cracks, “the FBI couldn’t find half of [them] if they had to.” A 2006 SBC report states that only 11 million of its members live in the same area as their home church anymore; that number includes those who have been double- or even triple-counted elsewhere. …

With more digging, Wicker came across a 2007 SBC report that found only 5.4 million adults attended services regularly enough to be considered church members. …

Factoring all this in, Wicker calculated that there are fewer than 4 million devoted Southern Baptists. Her math seems to be backed up by collection-plate totals: If the church truly has 16 million members, then they contributed a miserly $3.50 each to a nationwide fundraising campaign last year.

And it’s not just the Southern Baptists who appear to be playing number games. The National Association of Evangelicals, an umbrella group that does not include the SBC, claimed 30 million members on its website. When Wicker contacted the association for comment, the figure changed to 4.5 million. No one there could — or would — explain the sudden 85 percent drop in believers. …

The emperor’s-new-clothes flimsiness of these widely accepted exaggerated numbers says much about the cold calculation of far-right religious leaders. … “The idea that evangelicals are taking over America is one of the greatest publicity scams in history,” Wicker concludes, “a perfect coup accomplished by savvy politicos and religous leaders, who understand media weaknesses and exploit them brilliantly.” …

Whether they viewed it as a new political reality, megatrend, or a bogeyman, the media embraced the idea of a reenergized, monolithic Christianity and faithfully chronicled something that didn’t exist. …

Could it be that the seeming, teeming legions of evangelicals hell bent on destroying our chances of equality really aren’t all that and a chalice-o’-wafers?

The further we pull back the curtain, the more clearly the shape behind it comes into focus. The Great and Powerful Oz is a fraud.

Not that we should ever underestimate the enemy; they’ve proven themselves quite brilliant frauds. But the more they are exposed, the weaker they become.

And that, my friends, for those of us who want to be left to live our lives in peace — and freedom — is very good news indeed.

Further reading::

NOW v. Scheidler Timeline: The Complete Story (1984-2002)
NOW

NOW v. Scheidler in the Courts
NOW

Giving Until It Hurts: Pampered chefs revolt against population control.
Thomas Strobhar masquerades as a mere “president of an investment firm” for this thinly-veiled victory dance over pushing around Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway.
Wall Street Journal, August 1, 2003

Why does Alan Keyes hate his lesbian daughter?
John Aravosis publishes the text of a message from Larry Klayman touting his association with Alan Keyes to eliminating the “radical homosexual” threat.
AMERICAblog, December 19, 2004

The NAACP and the Virgin Mary
Strobhar’s blatant racism is on full display as he uses the Virgin Mary as an excuse to ridicule NAACP president Kwesei Mfume.
January 22, 2005

Charles C. Boycott and America’s Christian Right
Mel Seesholtz, Counterbias.com, June 6, 2005

Religious Right Discovers Investment Activism; Bible Thumpers Boycott “Cultural Polluters”
Cynthia L. Cooper, CorpWatch, August 3, 2005

Antigay Conservatives Threaten Major Corporations
GFN, December 7, 2005

Bigot Pastor: Pump-and-Dump Microsoft
“I think it would be a wonderful idea for Bigot Reverend Hutcherson to try this. I really hope he goes ahead with this plan… …because pump-and-dump is illegal.”
A Stitch in Haste, January 25, 2006

Concerned Women for America: A Case Study
Steven Gardiner, Coalition for Human Dignity, August 28, 2006

Abortion foes’ new rallying point: Conservatives take on contraception
Judith Graham, Chicago Tribune, September 24, 2006

Conservative pastor urges buying Microsoft stock to fight its gay rights efforts (Ken Hutcherson)
Andrea James, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, January 8, 2008

The Success of AFA’s Ford Boycott Is a Disney-esque Fairy Tale
PajamasMedia, February 1, 2008

Posted by: Sapphocrat

Comment on this story

 |   |  Category: AFA, Americans For Truth, Business/Economy, Christianity, Concerned Women, FRC, FRI/Paul Cameron, Health & Wellness, Homophobia, Marriage Equality, Peter LaBarbera, Radical Religious Right, Religion & Spirituality, Republicans






April 23, 2008

I wonder what St. Peter had to say when Cardinal Trujillo arrived?

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

Comment on this story

 |   |  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 13, 2008

David and Beecher: A Memoir of Love, Madness & Anti-Gay Hate

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

Comment on this story

 |   |  Category: Guest Articles, Homophobia, Marriage Equality, Mental Health, Radical Religious Right, Religion & Spirituality






March 31, 2008

Normally, we’d feel sorry for Robert and Ralph…

…and we do — but at the same time, we don’t. Find out why after you read this:

Gay couple loses benefits with move

What they didn’t know before moving to Idaho could fill a house, and in many ways it does.

The kitchen table holds stacks of legal papers. Medication bottles litter a nearby countertop. The two-story home Robert Ryan, 42, shares with his partner, Ralph Martinelli, 53, overlooks a quaint suburb west of Boise, a rural landscape of ruddy hills that doesn’t seem quite as welcoming as it once did.

A 2,400-mile move west once seemed like a chance at a fresh start, has instead it has delivered some hard lessons, especially about moving from a state that recognizes same-sex unions to one of the 21 states that don’t.

The couple was stunned when Ryan was dropped from the company insurance plan the two shared in New Jersey, where they were able to register as domestic partners. Idaho does not formally recognize same-sex couples.

“It didn’t even dawn on us that this would have an impact,” Ryan said. …

[Ryan] was dropped from the policy last October, shortly after the Konica Minolta company found the couple had moved to Idaho, where they couldn’t register as domestic partners. In 2006, 63 percent of Idaho voters approved a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of of a man and a woman, effectively outlawing same-sex unions.

Martinelli is still covered by a COBRA policy through the company. Ryan now pays $650 a month for a separate COBRA insurance policy that will expire in March 2009.

“It’s ridiculous,” Ryan said. “It’d be like a married couple being forced to get remarried every time they moved.” …

“We fell in love with the area, we love Idaho,” Martinelli said. “But here it is 2008 and people are still being discriminated against.”

FFS, what did you expect, guys? I’m sorry it didn’t “dawn on you” before you moved from the Near-Queer-Paradise of New Jersey to the most gay-hating state this side of Virginia, but, frankly, it’s your own darn fault you failed to inform yourselves of the repercussions first.

There’s something called the Internet, guys — and it would have taken you all of two seconds to Google gay + rights + idaho, and find out… Welll, let’s see what happens when we Google gay + rights + idaho:

Idaho Gay Rights - The Fight for Gay Rights in Idaho
Idaho already bans gay marriage. What other restrictions is Idaho trying to pass against gays and lesbians?
lesbianlife.about.com/od/lesbianactivism/a/IdahoGayRts.htm - 22k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

First hit. Gee, that was real hard to find.

Coldhearted? Nope. Just ticked off at yet another example of fellow gay people who don’t even know what rights they don’t have — and don’t care until they’re the ones smacked by the Big Anti-Gay Stick.

How do I know Ryan and Martinelli don’t care about LGBT equality (or didn’t, at least until now)? Because they were obviously unaware of the gaping chasm of inequality among states. Because they obviously never even paid attention to the freaking mainstream media for the past eight years, when state after state after state (what’s it up to now, 22 states? 26? 28?) caved in to the Radical Religious Right’s campaign of hate against us and banned marriage equality based on whether both partners had the same genitalia.

How can you even be gay without knowing this stuff?

In-your-face radio host Karel (with whom I agree about 50% of the time — but when I do agree with him, I agree 100%) summed it up best in his post-2004 election broadcast, when he slapped the entire gay “community” upside its collective head for letting our nonexistent rights slip away, because too many of us just don’t damn care:

Yesterday — November 2, 2004 — 11 states, almost one fifth of the electorate, voted on state constitutional amendments to ban same-sex marriage. All received overwhelming approval. …

As I read the optimistic outlook of it all by Evan Woflson, executive director of Freedom to Marry posted on this Web site, I have to say, Are you serious? You sound like a gay party doll as much as Ann Coulter is a Republican party doll. Victory trumps loss, lose it forward, bring about generational change… Oh, it all sounds good on paper, but the fact is, we’re big losers, and [Matt] Foreman was right: Our side does not have the time, the resources, or the infrastructure to beat back the zealots.

And why don’t we? Because not enough of us care about it, because not enough of us want it, that’s why. Don’t give me all this disempowered, disenfranchised, battered, low-self-esteem don’t-blame-us psychobabble. If we all wanted same-sex marriage or federally recognized civil unions, we’d have them. Because trust me, as a collective, we’ve got nothing but time and more resources at our disposal than our nongay counterparts, and if we connected ourselves to something more than online meeting places, we’d have quite an infrastructure.

But we simply don’t want it. …

Most of you don’t even know what states voted yesterday to outlaw marriage equality (they were Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Utah) but can tell me when the next circuit party, fund-raiser, or group meeting is, or what’s in the deleted scene from Collin Farrell’s new bioflick, Alexander. Many of you may not even know what your workplace’s or state’s stance on domestic partnership is, what benefits may or may not be granted to you or your partner. Many more couples haven’t even filled out the agreements. Not surprising, since 50% of you don’t have wills and 100% of you are going to die.

I’m just as guilty. It took Andrew and me 10 years to fill ours out. Who knew he’d die a little over a year later — 10th anniversary present and all.

Yeah, I know: Not everybody can be clued in, up to the minute, on every twist and turn in the fight for LGBT equality — but you’d think two responsible, middle-aged gay men whose very survival depends on legal recognition of their relationship (Ryan, you’ll see if you read the article, was covered under Martinelli’s insurance “for medication to treat his depression, anxiety and the childhood asthma that resurfaced from severe smoke inhalation” in the 9/11 attacks) would have at least enough motivation to find out how the wave of anti-gay legislation in this puritan country affects them.

What is it going to take to force all LGBT Americans to start caring about their rights — before they find themselves utterly and totally screwed by their own ignorance?

Posted by: Sapphocrat

Comment on this story

 |   |  Category: Idaho, Insurance, Marriage Equality, New Jersey






March 27, 2008

So, Mike Gravel is running as a Libertarian? Things are going to get interesting again!

I wanted to update you on my latest plans before news gets out. Today, I am announcing my plan to join the Libertarian Party, because the Democratic Party no longer represents my vision for our great country. I wanted my supporters to get this news first, because you have been the ones who have kept my campaign alive since I first declared my candidacy on April 17, 2006.

Mike Gravel
Gravel ‘08

Well, now, this changes things. Since I just found out about it — and since he doesn’t even have the Libertarian nomination yet — it’s far too early for me to make any immediate decisions.

I do, however, have a few thoughts:

1. If the Libertarian Party has half an ounce of sense, Mike Gravel will be its nominee, if on no other basis than Q factor + all those juicy crossover votes from Democrats who feel hung out to dry by being forced to choose between Obama and Clinton (and who are still pissed off that their first, or second, or even fifth choice dropped out before their state primary).

Now, hear tell there’s something like 15 other people competing for the Libertarian nod — which sounds like a lot of competition, until you realize you have absolutely no idea who any of these candidates are. (I certainly can’t name any without Googling, can you?)

In the early debates and who-knows-how-many interviews, Mike Gravel has done half the work for the Libs already. He won me over (after Kucinich, Gravel was neck-and-neck with Richardson as my number-two choice until Richardson made that lousy maricon remark).

2. Where the Libs will balk is on Gravel’s polar-opposite positions to some key issues, such as universal healthcare (Gravel supports it, the Libs don’t). In reality, Mike Gravel is the perfect Green Party candidate — but let’s face it, folks: the Greens just aren’t ready for prime time. (Hey, I’m a Greenie at heart, and even I can see that.) Moving into the Lib camp was a wise move for Gravel, financially and in terms of credibility.

3. The Obamacans are going to go insane. Yellow-dog Democrats won’t be too pleased, either, but the Obamacans are going to go absolutely insane when they realize how many votes from former Kucinich supporters, Edwards supporters, and newly-resurrected Gravel supporters will be siphoned off from their Heavenly Messiah Obama. And they will be siphoned off, big-time.

3. Of course Gravel won’t win the general election — and in truth, he will end up being a major spoiler to the “presumptive” nominee, Lord Barry Most High.

Will this result in President McCain? Frankly, I believe Candidate Obama will result in President McCain.

Of Obama and Clinton, I believe only Clinton stands a chance of beating McCain in the GE (and the latest Rasmussen poll agrees).

And I don’t believe Clinton is going to get the nomination.

4. I have problems with Gravel on two issues: the flat tax (in short, it really is unfair to the working poor) and Social Security (his plan for which sounds a little too close to privatization for my comfort — although on the surface I do rather like the idea of leaving surplus SSA funds to heirs, as long as he’s able to compensate for the loss).

Otherwise, I agree with Mike Gravel on every other issue. Everything. All of them.

5. One thing’s for sure: With Mike back in the race, it is not going to be politics as usual.

And thank God for that…

Posted by: Sapphocrat

Comment on this story

 |   |  Category: Barack Obama, Dennis Kucinich, Election 2008, Green Party, Hillary Clinton, Insurance, John McCain, Libertarian Party, Mike Gravel, Videos