AF Sgt. Jené Newsome

The Rapid City Police Department says Newsome, an aircraft armament system craftsman who spent nine years in the Air Force, was not cooperative when they showed up at her home in November with an arrest warrant for her partner, who was wanted on theft charges in Fairbanks, Alaska.

Newsome was at work at the base at the time and refused to immediately come home and assist the officers in finding her partner, whom she married in Iowa — where gay marriage is legal — in October.

Police officers, who said they spotted the marriage license on the kitchen table through a window of Newsome’s home, alerted the base, police Chief Steve Allender said in a statement sent to the AP. The license was relevant to the investigation because it showed both the relationship and residency of the two women, he said.

“It’s an emotional issue and it’s unfortunate that Newsome lost her job, but I disagree with the notion that our department might be expected to ignore the license, or not document the license, or withhold it from the Air Force once we did know about it,” Allender said Saturday. “It was a part of the case, part of the report and the Air Force was privileged to the information.”

He said his department does not seek to expose gay military personnel or investigate the sexuality of Rapid City residents.

Allender said the department was finishing its internal investigation and has determined the officers acted appropriately. They have not been placed on leave during the investigation.

Newsome’s partner is currently out on bail on one felony and three misdemeanor counts of theft stemming from an incident last year, court officials in Fairbanks said. More information was not immediately available, and Newsome said she didn’t know the status of the case and didn’t provide more details about it.

In the complaint filed last month with the department, ACLU South Dakota said police had no legal reason to tell the military Newsome was a lesbian and that officers knew if they did, it would jeopardize her military career.

Newsome, who was discharged in January, said she didn’t know where the marriage license was in her home when police came to her house on Nov. 20 and claims the officers were retaliating because she wouldn’t help with her partner’s arrest.

“This information was intentionally turned over because of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ and to out Jené so that she would lose her military status,” said Robert Doody, executive director of ACLU South Dakota. The ACLU is focusing its complaint on the police department, not the military, and Newsome said she and her attorney have not yet decided on whether to file a lawsuit.

“The ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ piece is important and critical to this, but also it’s a police misconduct case,” Doody said.

Because of DOMA, the federal government does not recognize marriage between two people of the same gender. Even if it’s SOP to inform the Air Force when a servicemember’s spouse is charged with a crime (which I’m told is the case), the US Armed Services only recognize the federal definition of marriage, not the Iowa definition.

Therefore, for the purposes of the federal government, Sgt. Newsome has no spouse.

The local police department was not bound to notify anyone of Sgt. Newsome’s non-spouse, and in fact violated her privacy by vindictively submitting evidence that they found by peeking through her window for a witch hunt because they were mad at her.

Here’s a link to the Rapid City Police Department’s Twitter account. You know, in case you want to tell them what you think.

(cc) Matt Algren for Asterisk, 2010. | Post a comment
Some links enhanced with Apture when viewed on the blog.
(It's totally worth the click, I promise.)

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

Click here to view the embedded video.

Toward the end of the interview, Mr. Olson had a request for the community:

This case is an education, and it’s an opportunity for the American people to learn things that they’ve avoided thinking about. … What I would encourage people to do is to read the transcript of this trial, listen to what we’ve had to say, and make sure that the words that David and I are uttering and the message that we’re sending out gets distributed as widely as possible, because we’re not only trying to persuade the courts, we’re trying to help educate and persuade the American people.

As it happens, while they were taping this interview, I was catching up on MarriageTrial.com’s reenactment of the trial using the official court transcripts. It’s really turned into a fantastic production with some fairly big names from Hollywood taking part. In researching the cast, a dozen cast members stood out to me.

• Plaintiff Sandy Stier played by Tess Harper
  • Oscar-nominated for her role in Crimes of the Heart and recent SAG award winner for No Country for Old Men.
• Dr. Letitia Peplau, Professor of Psychology University of California played by Adrienne Barbeau
  • Nominated for a Tony Award for her portrayal of Rizzo in the original Broadway production of Grease. Known to The Gays as Bea Arthur’s daughter on Maude. Known to The Straights for her 1978 poster.
• Gregory M. Herek, Professor of Psychology University of California, Davis played by Scott Lowell
  • Best known for his turn as Ted on Queer as Folk. (I sobbed when I found out he was straight.)
• Dr. Ilan Meyer, Professor of Sociomedical Sciences Columbia University played by Arye Gross
  • You might remember him for his role on Ellen as her roommate Adam. The show became stunningly unfunny when he left.
• San Fransisco City Attorney Danny Chou played by Peter James Smith
  • Best known for his supporting role on The West Wing.
• ProtectMarriage.com attorney and all around creepy lying nutjob Andrew Pugno played by Brian Poth
  • Spent three years playing supporting character Tyler Jensen on CSI: Miami.
• Defendant-Intervenor attorney Nicole Moss is played by Judith Hoag
  • Currently appearing as Cindy on HBO’s Big Love.
• William Tam attorney Terry Thompson played by Tuc Watkins
  • Recently left the role of David Vickers on One Life to Live. Continues to appear as Bob Hunter on Desperate Housewives.
• Defendant Intervenor and Prop 8 author Hak-Shing William Tam played by Gedde Watanabe
  • Best known for his roles as Long Duk Dong in Sixteen Candles and the voice of Ling in Mulan.
• Lead plaintiff’s attorney David Boies played by Jack Laufer
  • You might recognize him from his recurring part on Showtime’s Huff.
• California Dep. Attorney General Tamar Pachter played by Susyn Duris
  • Not nearly as seasoned as the others on this list, but I noticed that she was lead in a play several years ago in a town close to mine, presumably with actor-types I used to know in that town. Cool.
• David Blankenhorn, Founder & President, Institute for American Values played by Gregory Itzin
  • Fantastic character actor probably best known these days for his Emmy-nominated role of President Charles Logan on 24.

The reenactment isn’t quite completed, but the opening days and closing days of the trial are completed and online. Gedde Watanabe, Scott Lowell, and Ayres Gross’s parts aren’t up yet.

If you have to watch just a part (this thing is longer than North and South, for crying out loud), check out the last day. Greg Itzin captured the frustrating combative witness that we heard so much about from people in the courtroom. He was so maddening, in fact, that I had to shut it off and walk away in the middle.

Here’s the beginning of the final day, with a link to MarriageTrial.com’s youtube channel below.

(cc) Matt Algren for Asterisk, 2010. | Post a comment
Some links enhanced with Apture when viewed on the blog.
(It's totally worth the click, I promise.)

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

Jeremy Ames and Taka Ariga kiss after applying for a marriage license

Ombudsman Andrew Alexander quoted several of the complaints in his response (see previous post). You can visit the Post to read the rest of them, but today I want to focus on this particular line from Ann Witty of Woodbridge, Virginia.

“I am 65 years old and I realize that the world is changing rapidly – much more rapidly than I would like it to,” she e-mailed.

I stared at the quote for a long time and finally realized that Ms. Witty’s comment reminded me of a quote from Martin Luther King’s book of sermons called Strength to Love. In the sermon “A tough mind and a tender heart” (page 15), King had this to say (emphasis added):

The softminded man always fears change. He feels security in the status quo, and he has an almost morbid fear of the new. For him, the greatest pain is the pain of a new idea. An elderly segregationist in the South is reported to have said, “I have come to see now that desegregation is inevitable. But I pray God that it will not take place until after I die.” The softminded person always wants to freeze the moment and hold life in the gripping yoke of sameness.

Ms. Witty expresses this the same sentiment. She knows it’s coming, but she doesn’t want to be here when it comes. This frame of mind is as sad as it is timeless, as timeless as it is frustrating. And while we may understand it, we also understand that we can never permit the injustice it demands.

Lest we forget our own responsibility and Dr. King’s call for the oppressed, I’ll close with these words from a later sermon entitled “Loving your enemies” (page 56):

Time is cluttered with the wreckage of communities which surrendered to hatred and violence. For the salvation of our nation and the salvation of mankind, we must follow another way. This does not mean that we abandon our righteous efforts. With every ounce of our energy we must continue to rid this nation of the incubus of segregation. But we shall not in the process relinquish our privilege and our obligation to love. While abhorring segregation, we shall love the segregationist. This is the only way to create the beloved community.

To our most bitter opponents we say: “We shall match your capacity to inflict suffering by our capacity to endure suffering. We shall meet your physical force with soul force. Do to us what you will, and we shall continue to love you. We cannot in all good conscience obey your unjust laws, because non-cooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good. Throw us in jail, and we shall still love you. Send your hooded perpetrators of violence into our community at the midnight hour and beat us and leave us half dead, and we shall still love you. But be ye assured that we will wear you down by our capacity to suffer. One day we shall win freedom, but not only for ourselves. We shall so appeal to your heart and conscience that we shall win you in the process, and our victory will be a double victory.”

(cc) Matt Algren for Asterisk, 2010. | Post a comment
Some links enhanced with Apture when viewed on the blog.
(It's totally worth the click, I promise.)

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

(Note: You may recognize Rev. Darlene Garner from my post on the American Prayer Hour featuring a gay Ugandan.)

Unfortunately, the reporter’s closing “no protesters” line wasn’t quite accurate. The Washington Post reports that around 10:00 federal security marshalls removed a quasi-christian protester.

U.S. security marshals escorted one woman out of D.C. Superior Court Tuesday morning after she began yelling “God wouldn’t recognize” same-sex marriages. The woman had been standing in line with same-sex couples who were waiting to pick up their marriage licenses.

Meanwhile, the Washington Post has been hit with reader protests about a picture of two men kissing on the front page of last Thursday’s newspaper. Brace yourself; the photo is all too shocking. Ladies, avert your eyes lest your genteel spirits be brought low.

Jeremy Ames and Taka Ariga kiss after applying for a marriage license

That picture caused a bunch of people to cancel their Washington Post subscription. Seriously.

Ombudsman Andrew Alexander answered the howls of protest admirably today:

Did the Post go too far? Of course not. The photo deserved to be in newspaper and on its Web site, and it warranted front-page display.

News photos capture reality. And the prominent display reflects the historic significance of what was occurring. The recent D.C. Council decision to approve same-sex marriage was the culmination of a decades-long gay rights fight for equality. Same-sex marriage is now legal in the District. The photo of Ames and Ariga kissing simply showed joy that would be exhibited by any couple planning to wed – especially a couple who previously had been denied the legal right to marry.

There was a time, after court-ordered integration, when readers complained about front-page photos of blacks mixing with whites. Today, photo images of same-sex couples capture the same reality of societal change.

Congratulations to the newly wed. May you find joy in your unions and peace in your homes.

And thanks to the Washington Post Ombudsman Andrew Alexander for getting it and standing up to voices of prejudice.

(cc) Matt Algren for Asterisk, 2010. | Post a comment
Some links enhanced with Apture when viewed on the blog.
(It's totally worth the click, I promise.)

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

So I figured, why not see how far she takes this Biblical literalist point of view. Turns out, not far.

For example, here’s what she says about praying for youth and beauty, from a series of interviews Miss Beverly Hills did with Dr. Steve Burres of BuyingBeautyTV.com.

Dr. Burres: Has your Mom thought about doing procedures?

Miss Beverly Hills: [...] My Mom, actually, she is gorgeous and she’s 50 and everywhere we go everyone says “That’s your sister.” When she was 45 she thought about it, um, she’s 51 now, but she actually…I don’t know if you know, like, if you know any spiritual–anything about Jesus or anything [...] She would sit in God’s presence, like, invite God and like, she would come out brand new, like look brand new! Like, she looks so young, and she says it’s all because of that.

Dr. Burres: Because she prays. Or does she pray to look young?

Miss Beverly Hills: Both. God [unintelligible]. And it works, and she’s gorgeous.

Of course, there’s no mention of Proverbs 31:30 (“Charm is deceptive, and beauty does not last”), or 1 Samuel 16:7 (“People judge by outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.”), or Matthew 16:23 (“You are seeing things merely from a human point of view, not from God’s.”).

But enough about her mother. Let’s look at how Miss Beverly Hills is dressed.

It's just so wrong.

In short, it’s too short. And cut too low. And the fit is kind of tight. And it’s red. And that’s a fancy necklace she’s wearing. And I think she colors her hair. Has she never read 1 Timothy 2:9 (“And I want women to be modest in their appearance. They should wear decent and appropriate clothing and not draw attention to themselves”)?

Let me be clear: I don’t have a problem with what Miss Beverly Hills is wearing, at least not from a scriptural standpoint. And I don’t have too much of a problem with her mother wanting to look pretty and/or younger.

But if she wants to quote Biblical passages out of their historical and cultural context, she should get herself in order first.

(cc) Matt Algren for Asterisk, 2010. | Post a comment
Some links enhanced with Apture when viewed on the blog.
(It's totally worth the click, I promise.)

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

Last year it was Carrie Prejean, and it looks like Miss Beverly Hills Lauren Ashley is this year’s model.

They photoshopped the shit out of her face

From FOX’s Pop Tarts:

“The Bible says that marriage is between a man and a woman. In Leviticus it says, ‘If man lies with mankind as he would lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death and their blood shall be upon them.’ The Bible is pretty black and white,” Ashley told Pop Tarts.

“I feel like God himself created mankind and he loves everyone, and he has the best for everyone. If he says that having sex with someone of your same gender is going to bring death upon you, that’s a pretty stern warning, and he knows more than we do about life.”

In the 2007 documentary For The Bible Tells Me So, Rev. Dr. Laurence C. Keene (Disciples of Christ) says, “There’s nothing wrong with a fifth-grade understanding of God — as long as you’re in the fifth grade.”

I don’t want to be mean, but has anybody checked Ms. Ashley’s school records?

(cc) Matt Algren for Asterisk, 2010. | Post a comment
Some links enhanced with Apture when viewed on the blog.
(It's totally worth the click, I promise.)

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

Rep. Elliott displays a two-pronged attack plan: 1) Gross ‘em out and 2) lie through your teeth. Where did she learn them? Though the tactics certainly aren’t unknown in anti-gay circles, they’re best displayed by two rabid anti-gay foes.

In September 2009, a group of far-Right Wing fanatics converged in St. Louis for a two-day “How to Take America Back” conference. Organized by a veritable Who’s Who of anti-gay crusaders, the conference included a workshop called “How to Counter the Homosexual Extremist Movement.” The workshop was hosted by two anti-gay luminaries with very specific skills.

The first instructor was Matt Barber. Barber has a bunch of made up titles with Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University, deals primarily in the Ick Factor. Right Wing Watch had this to say about the workshop:

There was some small disagreement about how much people should rely on religious arguments in the public sphere, with Matt Barber urging people to focus on the “ick” factor around gay sex and on claims that homosexuality is a health threat, which he called the movement’s “Achilles heel.”

The goal here is to divert from a civil and philosophical discussion of ideas to an irrational one of embarrassment and propriety. And it’s not the only time Barber’s tried to gross people out. Several years ago he famously referred to gay marriage as “one man violently cramming his penis into another man’s lower intestine and calling it ‘love.’

Barber’s co-instructor at September’s anti-gay workshop was none other than Brian Camenker, head of SPLC-certified hate group Mass Resistance.

Cameker’s weapon of choice is the outrageous “Think of the Children!” lie. He’s the driving force behind the oft-repeated but long-disproven Kevin Jennings charges, and the David Parker/Mad Dad lie.

Let’s take another look at Rep. Elliott’s performance, because I’d bet money that she was in that workshop in September. (The entire hearing is embedded below in four parts. Note that the old man on Elliott’s right and the woman with the deadpan expression on her left are decidedly against the amendment.)

Rep. Elliott had some trouble out of the gate with the Ick part. First of all, “wiggling it around in excrement”? I think her husband might benefit from some remedial courses. Secondly, her transition from “Grossly specific” to “It could happen to you!” was downright clumsy. She needs to practice that more. (Also interesting was her insinuation that anal sex = rape with the question “Would you let that be done to you?”)

As for the outrageous lie, this afternoon Rep. Elliott released a statement admitting what the Nashua, NH school board and the rest of us already knew: Nancy Elliott was lying. There was no gay porn in 5th grade classes. From today’s prepared statement to the Judiciary Committee:

This statement made in the Judiciary Committee had caused some controversy so I went back to my source for the statement to verify the information that I had received. I found that I could not confirm the accuracy of the information.

I am presenting this letter at the first committee meeting of Judiciary since last Tuesday. I do so at the earliest opportunity in order to make clear I am withdrawing what I said regarding the Nashua schools.

I would like to apologize to Judiciary Committee, the Nashua public schools and its employees and the speaker as well as anyone else affected by what I said.

Apology or no, Rep. Elliott’s mission was successful. As we know from Brian Camenker’s exploits, getting the lie on record is what counts. If Rep. Elliott’s amendment passes and is presented for a popular vote, people predisposed to believe her lie will do one of two things. They’ll either forget that she retracted her statement (notice how she was as carefully non-specific in her apology as she was specific in her lie), or if they remember, they’ll fear that it might happen.

Barber and Camenker must be proud. I wonder if they’ll send her a certificate.

(cc) Matt Algren for Asterisk, 2010. | Post a comment
Some links enhanced with Apture when viewed on the blog.
(It's totally worth the click, I promise.)

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

Sometimes, though, we need to re-teach the rest of America the inherent hypocrisy of civil marriage laws. This week saw two new educational attempts.

Our first stop in incredulity is the campaign from Brian Feldman. He promised to marry any woman who showed up at the Orange County, FL Courthouse Marriage License Office last Monday. Three strangers showed up, and he chose Hannah Miller for his bride with a simple game of Spin the (Water) Bottle, which you can see in the below video.

The wedding between two virtual strangers took place this afternoon. Neither Feldman nor Miller has any apparent romantic affection for the other. There is no expectation of sexual intercourse, let alone children. Lifetime commitment is out of the question.

I do wonder if Feldman will apply for coverage on Miller’s health insurance plan. That would be an interesting test.

Then there’s the wedding of Kitty Lambert and Ed [Unknown]. Two days ago, Kitty went to the Buffalo, NY City Hall and applied for a marriage license with her long-time partner Cheryl. The couple has five children and twelve grandchildren.

When the city worker refused their request for a marriage license, Kitty turned around and asked the group of supporters if any man would volunteer to marry her. Ed raised his hand, and about ten seconds after learning each other’s first name, a government worker granted their marriage license.

Lambert and [Unknown] don’t plan to go through with the marriage, saying that they’ll wait until they can marry the person they choose.

For two strangers with under $100 and no desire for real commitment, the government allows marriage as long as they have different genitals, even if the government knows the marriage is a lie. (That’s good, by the way.)

Lesbian or gay couples with decades-long relationships and complete families? That’s when the government cries foul.

(cc) Matt Algren for Asterisk, 2010. | Post a comment
Some links enhanced with Apture when viewed on the blog.
(It's totally worth the click, I promise.)

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

As I see it, the real problem is that millions of people will be tuned in on Sunday not knowing that Tim Tebow is lending his credibility (such as it is) to Focus on the Family (FoF), a dangerous, homophobic organization built on a doctrine of prejudice and fear.

Here is a short, incomplete list of positions that Tim Tebow supports through his association with FoF and by extension FoF’s sister organization Family Research Council (FRC). (FoF and FRC were split in 1992 solely for tax reasons.)

• In February 2009, FoF official affiliate Family Policy Council of West Virginia ran a commercial that said that same sex marriage was “attacking” marriage while showing a heterosexual family in crosshairs.
• In March 2009, FRC President Tony Perkins said that the United States should sign an anti-gay rights statement offered in the United Nations, thereby joining with GWB’s “Axis of Evil”.
• In May 2009, FoF founder James Dobson claimed that the Matthew Shepard Act (now Law) protects pedophiles because the law doesn’t define “sexual orientation”. Of course, current law already defines the term, so there was no need for a new definition. This was explained in committee before an amendment ordering definition was rejected as unnecessary.
• In July 2009, FoF celebrated the “findings” in a “study” by NARTH that said that Ex-Gay treatments are “beneficial”, a statement that every credible source rejects outright.
• In September 2009, FoF organized a rally in support of Maine’s anti-gay civil rights campaign. They were so frightened of having their words on the record, they barred the press from the event.
• Not only that, they refused tickets to people who didn’t fall in lock-step with their agenda.
• In February 2010, five days before the Tebow commercial was set to air, FRC Senior Vice President for Policy and Government Affairs Peter Sprigg told Chris Matthews’ audience that gays should be thrown in jail. Two years earlier, Sprigg told a reporter that he wanted gays “exported”.
• In February 2010, three days before the Tebow commercial was set to air, FRC Senior Vice President for Policy and Government Affairs Peter Sprigg unambiguously advocated kidnapping if a non-custodial parent doesn’t like the judge’s order.

These positions and more (I’ve barely scratched the surface) are supported by Heisman Trophy-winning Florida Gators quarterback Tim Tebow through his association with FoF. And don’t give me any guff on the harshness; we’d say the same thing if he did a commercial for any other supremacist group.

Hopefully next time Tebow’s on the field he’ll put Matthew 23:23-28 under his eyes. He (and they) could use the reminder.

P.S. Another reason I’m in favor of CBS running the commercial: That’s $2.8 million they won’t have to spread more vitriol against the LGBT community.

(cc) Matt Algren for Asterisk, 2010. | Post a comment
Some links enhanced with Apture when viewed on the blog.
(It's totally worth the click, I promise.)

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council (a sister company to Focus on the Family) was on Hardball with Chris Matthews tonight alongside SLDN’s Aubrey Sarvis to talk about DADT. This video should be set to the last thirty seconds of the segment when Sprigg let the cat out of the bag. See transcript below.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Matthews: Do you think we should outlaw gay behavior?

Sprigg: Well, I think certainly it’s defensible.

Matthews: No, I’m just asking you, should we outlaw gay behavior?

Sprigg: I think that the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v Texas, which overturned the sodomy laws in this country, was wrongly decided. I think there would be a place for criminal sanctions against homosexual behavior.

Matthews: So we should outlaw gay behavior.

Sprigg: Yes. [laughs]

Keep in mind that a year ago, Peter Sprigg said that gays should face more taxes than straight people, and a year before that he went on television to suggest that gays be rounded up and “exported”.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Make no mistake: Peter Sprigg is one of the few anti-gay leaders who actually speaks his mind, and the rest of them are thinking exactly what he says. I shudder to think what he keeps to himself.

Incidentally, I hope someone thinks to enter this video into evidence in Perry v Schwarzenegger, the Prop 8 trial. If ever we had evidence of anti-gay animus being whipped up, this is it.

(Hat tip to Alvin McEwen.)

(cc) Matt Algren for Asterisk, 2010. | Post a comment
Some links enhanced with Apture when viewed on the blog.
(It's totally worth the click, I promise.)

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh