Making ones way through the quagmire

Well, it certainly is a week for issues that have no clear answers.

Firstly, lets see.  Well the ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran Church in America) has (since abolishing it's anti-gay policies) begun an attempt at healing.  Now, I reiterate, that I'm not sure this is the way to go about mending the ties between religious institutions and the gay community.  I'm not professing to have any answers to a problem that is as old, deep, and complicated as that, but I'm not sure if asking a religious institution to completely change it's outlook (and thus sort of give up some of it's identity) is the right way to go about it.  Especially when we [the gay community] can't seem to practice what we preach when we talk about acceptance and tolerance.  One simply needs to visit a gay bar and watch some of the patrons to see an example of this.  (Oh, and don't try to argue because we all know it happens).  Can you imagine the backlash that would happen were the gay community asked to give up something the we consider community defining?

Then there's the Boy Scouts.  This article goes on to say that the reason they lost the appeal and were not allowed to lease some land for camping purposes was due to the fact that they are considered a "religious organization".  As an Eagle Scout, I have to say that I'm supportive of the organization as a whole.  As a gay man, I disagree with their discriminatory policies.  All that being said, I can't figure out a good answer to the problem, mostly for the reasons described above.  But of course, I have a question.  What is to stop anyone from creating a similar organization, with similar goals and activities, that would not have a policy of discrimination? 

In what I think is a victory for the secular world as a statement that they will not stand for religious hatred and bigotry to be spewed in a public forum, this article gave me hope.  While I agree that there is freedom of religion in this country (to a degree, see the religious right for more details) I also think that it is the responsibility of religious institutions and leaders to present their views in a manner that is in line with what they are preaching.  Also to have the proper permits and such in order to be able to spread their messages in a public forum.  They should also have the decency to acknowledge when they are being disruptive. 

However, I will say that much like the previous two issues, this one is an issues that extends into freedom of speech and freedom of religion.  Again, I will say that the mixture of church and state in any form, whether it's an issue of protecting religious freedom or allowing religion to dictate political policy, is a complicated issue with no clear answers.

There's a problem with reporting, or more importantly the issue of headlines.  I clicked on the link to this story because the headline read that the teens were charged in the murder of a gay principal.  If you'll read the blurb on Advocate you'll notice that the blurb does mention that they met him on a sex chat.  But nowhere in the blurb is it mentioned that the principal is gay.  I also skimmed the story that is found on the Washington Post website and there's no mention that the man was gay that I could see.  Simply that they met him off a phone sex line.  Now, my question is, what sort of journalistic integrity does it take (or not take) to say that a man was gay, put it in a headline, and not support the fact that you're saying the man was gay.  If the only reason that you posit that he is gay is that he was on a phone sex line, well there's lots of those for heteros too.  I'm challenging Advocate to retract that story and issue an apology, or give evidence that the man was indeed homosexual, and thereby attempt to keep their journalistic integrity.

I've thought for a long time that the law is not up to speed with what technology is capable of.  This story which is just another in a long list of social networking sites leading the horrible murders, really makes me wonder about a couple things.  Firstly, I think it's interesting to note that the social networking sites that lead to this (the many that there are) are all created to get people to have anonymous sex.  Which just goes to show you that there's really only one thing that the average person really wants.  Secondly, the law is vastly behind in being able to deal with issues that have to do with technology.  Cyber bullying which leads to suicide of [pre]teens is very prevalent and someone needs to be held responsible.  But the only way to do that is to stretch existing laws to cover it.  Perhaps there needs to be laws that cover crimes that happen purely in the virtual realm.

Speaking of issues regarding law, this story brings to light something I think we should all attempt to remember when dealing with crimes.  The fact that it was made a hate crime and therefore a felony was not that they were actually shooting at gay men (although I'm sure they were) but that they were targeting guys who looked like they were gay (by American standards of homosexuality/masculinity) and that is the reason that it was upgraded to a hate crime.  Because of intent.  I also think that they should have the book thrown at them because shooting anybody (whether it's with BBs or not) shouldn't be tolerated, and if your intent is to harass people based on your perception of their orientation (or anything else for that matter) you need to have the book thrown at you. (In my opinion)

Well that's it for this weeks quagmire presentation.  Next week, we'll see.  Oh, last weeks Savage Love had a link to the Savage Love Merchandise.  Since I really like Dan, I figured I'd give him shameless plugs on stuff.

Happy week!