A college psychology professor's observations about public policy, mental health, sexual identity, and religious issues
Dude, it only took you a week to forget everything…
Speaks for itself, listen up.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Word Warcraft | ||||
|
||||
Jon Stewart says very near the end of the clip…
What I have a problem with is people using hyperbole to induce an irrational fear of a particular group with the goal of ultimately reducing their numbers.
In a Saturday article, the American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer told the Christian Post that he believes the Department of Housing and Urban Development should not expand discrimination rules to include sexual orientation and gender identity. His reasons: gays aren’t really discriminated against and even if they are, they can choose not be gay.
However, in a AFA column today, he adds some reasons which will make the Southern Poverty Law Center even more secure in their decision to place the AFA on their list of GLBT hate groups.
There are two more reasons why this is a perfectly bad idea. (I brought both of these up with the writer of the Christian Post article, but they did not make it into the published piece.) One, many young boys living in HUD housing are already in troubled domestic situations, many with no father presence in the home. The last thing they need is suddenly to be living next door to two males modeling a sexually abnormal lifestyle. Role models matter immensely to young boys, and they don’t need any more adults around them setting bad examples. They’ve already been exposed to enough of that.
And we know – despite the howls of protest to the contrary – that male homosexuals molest young boys at a hugely exaggerated rate. The Roman Catholic Church, for instance, did a study of its own priests who molested children, and found that 81% of the victims were boys.
The last thing in the world young males in troubled home settings need is to be put in a situation where there is a heightened chance they will be sexually molested by their next door neighbors. These HUD housing projects will become hunting grounds with easy prey for homosexual pedophiles.
Neither of these reasons has any merit. Somehow Fischer knows things that the rest of us don’t know. Conflating pedophilia with homosexuality is a categorical error made by many of the SPLC hate groups. While I can understand the impulse to keep pedophiles away from children, this concern does not apply to GLBT people who have no sexual desire for children. Fischer’s argument is ironic given the fact that ideological fellow traveler, Scott Lively, recently had a sex offender working around teens in his new coffee house.
Just about 5 years ago, Tucker Carlson hosted Jerry Falwell and Rachel Maddow (which pretty much makes it a party) on his show when the topic of the nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court came up. At the time, some conservatives were upset that Roberts had done some pro-bono legal work arguing against a Colorado law which allowed employers and landlords to exclude gays from jobs and housing. Carlson asked Rev. Falwell about Roberts’ activities but seemed surprised by Falwell’s reply:
CARLSON: Jerry Falwell, I notice you wrote a piece supporting Mr. Roberts. Are you rethinking that?
FALWELL: Oh, not at all.
You know, I—if I were an attorney, I‘d certainly fight for the right of gays or anyone else to be employed or be housed wherever they wished to be housed. I may not agree with the lifestyle. And I don‘t. But that has nothing do with the civil rights of that member of our—that part of our constituency.
John Roberts would probably have been not a very good lawyer if he had not been willing, when asked by his partners in the law firm to assist in guaranteeing the civil rights of employment and housing to any and all Americans.
CARLSON: But wait a second. I thought conservatives are always arguing against special rights for gays. And the idea is that…
FALWELL: Well, housing and employment are not special rights. I think—I think the right to live somewhere and to live where you please or to work where you please, as long as you‘re not bothering anybody else, is a basic right, not a—not a special right.
MADDOW: I think—I‘m happy to agree with you on this.
And I am also happy to agree….which I did in this Christian Post article out today about proposed rules from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, coming out in the Federal Register on Monday, which add sexual orientation and gender identity to existing regulations which bar discrimination in housing decisions
However, if you read the article, you will find that Bryan Fischer does not agree any of us.
However, some Christians are apprehensive of the proposed housing rule. Bryan Fischer, director of issue analysis for American Family Association said, “This really isn’t about housing, this is about government endorsement of homosexuality.”
He contended that “homosexuals, on average, have higher levels of education and wealth than anyone else.” By that rationale, Fischer stated that alleged discrimination against homosexuality is not the true reason for the proposed rule.
The CP reporter, Stephanie Samuels then properly notes the field research from Michigan which confirms actual discrimination.
According to research cited in the HUD proposal, a 2007 study of housing discrimination found disparate treatment based on homosexuality in 32 out of 120 fair housing tests it conducted.
The study was conducted by Michigan fair housing centers. Testers posed as gay or lesbian home seekers. “Homosexual” testers received more unfavorable treatment on issues such as whether housing was available, the amount of rent, application fees, and levels of encouragement as compared to testers posing as heterosexual home seekers.
However, research really doesn’t matter to Mr. Fischer because he has it all figured out.
Fischer contested the need for this federal legislation. He asserted that homosexuals do have the same rights as everyone but this policy and others were based on “imaginary” fears.
Even if concerns of sexuality-based discrimination were true, Fischer stated, such issues within the homosexual community did not qualify as civil rights issues.
“There is no validity to the civil rights issue. Race is immovable, but homosexuality is a choice,” asserted Fischer.
Mr. Fischer has suggested that one cannot support gays and be a conservative. If John Roberts and Jerry Falwell cannot be considered conservative then we need new terms. Or, perhaps just one for someone to the right of Roberts and Falwell.
….
Just a note about the article, when Ms. Samuels quotes me as saying, “…Christians can use the Bible to legislate those who don’t believe in it,” she probably intended to write “Christians can’t (or shouldn’t) use the Bible to legislate those who don’t believe in it.” Also, I did not say that one may “go against the Constitution” due to a compelling state interest. I did say that the limitation of personal rights may be considered if there is a compelling state interest.
I just received this statement from Erik Arneson, Communications and Policy Director for Sen Dominic Pileggi, PA Senate Majority Leader, Speaking about the case of Kermit Gosnell and the grand jury report on the atrocities alleged at the Women’s Medical Society in Philadelphis, Arneson said:
The grand jury report shows a massive systematic failure by the state agencies responsible for overseeing this facility. We intend to hold at least one public hearing to examine the problems in detail.
I hope the hearing will be sufficient to cover the “massive systemic failure” as well as any other factors that led to the scandal in Philadelphia. Given the scope of the situation, I suspect one hearing may not be enough.
The grand jury report on Kermit Gosnell’s Women’s Medical Society in Philadelphia carefully details the shocking negligence of many people. From those responsible for regulating health under two administrations to outside certifying agencies, many people knew something was wrong in West Philly and they did little or nothing. Here is a passage (pp.148-149) from the grand jury report that finds a change in policy regarding abortion clinics when Governor Tom Ridge took over from Bob Casey. In essence, the change in regulatory posture was justified by the belief that such negligence would make abortions more accessible.
Since February 2010, Department of Health officials have reinstituted regular inspections of abortion clinics – finding authority in the same statute they used earlier to justify not inspecting.
Staloski blamed the decision to abandon supposedly annual inspections of abortion clinics on DOH lawyers, who, she said, changed their legal opinions and advice to suit the policy preferences of different governors. Under Governor Robert Casey, she said, the department inspected abortion facilities annually. Yet, when Governor Tom Ridge came in, the attorneys interpreted the same regulations that had permitted annual inspections for years to no longer authorize those inspections. Then, only complaint driven inspections supposedly were authorized. Staloski said that DOH’s policy during Governor Ridge’s administration was motivated by a desire not to be “putting a barrier up to women” seeking abortions.
Brody confirmed some of what Staloski told the Grand Jury. He described a meeting of high-level government officials in 1999 at which a decision was made not to accept a recommendation to reinstitute regular inspections of abortion clinics. The reasoning, as Brody recalled, was: “there was a concern that if they did routine inspections, that they may find a lot of these facilities didn’t meet [the standards for getting patients out by stretcher or wheelchair in an emergency], and then there would be less abortion facilities, less access to women to have an abortion.”
Brody testified that he did not consider the “access issue” a legal one. The Abortion Control Act, he told the Grand Jurors, charges DOH with protecting the health and safety of women having abortions and premature infants aborted alive. To carry out this responsibility, he said, DOH should regularly inspect the facilities.
Nevertheless, the position of DOH remained the same after Edward Rendell became governor. Using the legally faulty excuse that the department lacked the authority to inspect abortion clinics, Staloski left them unmonitored, presumably with the knowledge and blessing of her bosses, Deputy Secretary Stacy Mitchell and a succession of Secretaries of Health. The department continued its do-nothing policy until 2010, when media attention surrounding the raid of the Gosnell clinic exposed the results of years of hands-off “oversight.” Now, once again, the regulations, which have never been modified, apparently allow for regular inspections. This is, and always was, the correct position. The state legislature gave DOH the duty to enforce its regulations; the authority and power to do so are implicit in that duty. The department abandoned this responsibility without explanation, and without notice to the public or the legislature.
This is a scandal which requires an investigation. The legislature in PA developed statutes which required clinics to be investigated and the law was not followed. The new chief executive in PA, Tom Corbett, is reportedly upset about this case. I hope he turns his upsetness into action.
I should also mention that I have contacted the DOH’s chief counsel in PA for comment but have not had a reply.