The Employment Non-Discrimination Act, first introduced in 1994, would prohibit job discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. But LGBT people have never been able to achieve the enactment of the bill, known by the acronym of “ENDA”. Last year, the Administration’s highest ranking gay official, Office of Personnel Management Director John Berry, indicated that ENDA was highest priority on the LGBT civil rights agenda.

“If we can get ENDA enacted and signed into law, it is only a matter of time before all the rest happens,” he said. “It is the keystone that holds up the whole bunch, and so we need to focus our energies and attention there.”

Hearings were held last Fall in the House and in the Senate to demonstrate the need for the bill, and testimony was heard on the severe unemployment, underemployment and harassment experienced by LGBT workers. Witnesses testified to the scientific studies demonstrating this. But nothing has happened.

A vote was promised numerous times last year, but nothing happened. A House committee delayed mark-up of the bill in late November and it has not been rescheduled. The House committee says it is ready to move on the bill, but Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said that she would not move controversial bills.

Please call Speaker Pelosi at 202-225-4965, and politely ask that the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, HR 3017, be moved to a vote. Please be polite, but firm. They need to hear our voices because you can bet they are hearing from those who oppose it loud and clear.

According to a research letter published in the March 18 edition of the New England Journal of Medicine, Drs. Brian L. Engelston, Roland L. Dunbrack, Jr., and Michael J. Hall recently encountered some study proposals which explicitly excluded people in same-sex relationships. They decided to try to understand how common that exclusion is and what effects it may have in the body of research. They began by performing exploratory searches of the ClinicalTrials.gov database (which contains information on more than 80,000 studies) to identify the types of studies gay men and women were more likely to be excluded. This is what they found:

We found that when we performed searches using the terms “couples,” “erectile dysfunction,” and “hypoactive” (related to hypoactive sexual disorder), we identified 243 studies, of which 37 (15%) had explicit exclusionary language (Table 1). In these 243 studies, the results of Fisher’s exact tests indicated that industry-sponsored trials, multiregion trials (according to census definitions), and phase 3 trials were the most likely to exclude lesbians and gay men (P<0.05). Other variables, such as the year the study opened, whether the study is open to those over 65 years of age, and whether the study accepts healthy volunteers, were not associated with exclusionary criteria.

The researchers found that such exclusions weren’t uniform across the board. For example, when they used the search term “asthma” to examine 1019 studies, they found that none of them excluded lesbians or gay men.

It’s unclear what effect the exclusion of gays and lesbians from these three specific study areas would have. Studies identified using the search term “Couples”, for example, bring up 142 results covering a wide range of topics, including breast cancer and post-traumatic stress disorder. The search term “Erectile Dysfunction” brought up studies in prostate cancer and arterial disease. If a particular study intended to observe the effects that specific relationship dynamics might might have on, for example, breast cancer survivorship, it’s concievable that the researchers may wish to try to isolate that study’s results from possible differences such dynamics which may exist between heterosexual and same-sex couples. But on the other hand, it would be useful to know whether relationship characteristics of lesbian couples have the same effect on breast cancer survivorship as relationship characteristics of heterosexual couples.

Unfortunately, this brief research letter does not explore the impact these exclusions may have in our medical knowledge. It only identifies a potential problem, and not its scope or impact. The researchers limited their search to studies from which lesbians and gay men were excluded, and those from which they were not excluded. We don’t know if there were any studies in the database which focused exclusively on same-sex couples by excluding heterosexual couples. Nor do they quantify the number of studies which used relationship status or characteristics as an independent variable. These would be useful data points, but that information could only come from a larger, more extensive (and expensive) study.

But for the majority of medical studies, it is unlikely that these exclusions have much of a rational basis to begin with. One clinical trial of a drug to treat attention deficit–hyperactivity disorder required that participants be “in a reciprocal relationship with a person of the opposite sex,” the team found. It’s hard to imagine what kind of a justification would support excluding gays and lesbians from such a trial.

Egleston pointed out to the Associated Press that when researchers apply for federal grants for their work, they must explain why their study excludes participants based on gender, race or ethnicity. But no explanation for exclusion based on sexual orientation is needed. Furthermore:

Exclusion can become self-perpetuating: Researchers designing a study often “cut and paste” participation criteria from earlier trials on a similar subject. “It becomes the way it’s done,” and any bias gets repeated, Egleston said.

Our results indicate that exclusion of lesbians and gay men from clinical trials in the United States is not uncommon, particularly in studies with sexual function as an end point. It is likely that most gay and lesbian patients are unaware that their sexual orientation is being used as a screening factor for participation in clinical trials. Researchers should be held to careful scientific reasoning when they develop exclusion criteria that are based on sexual orientation.

Letters to the editor are not peer-reviewed.

And San Diego City Council candidate Lorie Zapf has just found that out. Hartline is sharing some of their communications with the press. (Union-Tribune)

Hartline said he distributed the e-mail to media outlets this week because Zapf was not living up to his anti-gay standards.

It all started in 2006 when Zapf supported a candidate for City Council who endorsed the mayor who was known to be tolerant of gay people. Although she had attended church with him at Mission Valley, this was enough to lead Hartline to suspect Zapf’s anti-gay credentials. Or as Hartline tells it (in the third person):

It was because Hartline and Zapf knew each other at MVCF that Hartline began to email Zapf regarding her obviously hypocritical involvement with the campaigns of Judy Riddle, a member of the cult Mormon Church, and pro-homosexual San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders. Hartline could not understand at the time how Zapf could be involved in promoting Mormon candidates when MVCF had taught her that Mormonism is a cult. Equally perplexing for Hartline was the idea that Zapf was so involved with Jerry Sanders after the years Sanders had marched in San Diego’s pornographic gay pride parades.

Initially, Zapf attempted to manipulate Hartline in emails, telling Hartline that she was firmly in his camp on the homosexual issue. As Hartline responded with emails showing Zapf was compromising, she began to take a sinister turn, emailing Hartline’s pastors in an attempt to shut Hartline down. It appears by her responses in the recent Union Tribune article, that the sinister Zapf is once again replacing the “Aunt Bee” Lorie Zapf.

Hartline’s view of “compromising” is probably a bit different than yours. Zapf was pretty clear where she stood: (City Beat)

“I absolutely want to keep homosexuals out of public office and not be allowed to influence our schools, textbooks, altering marriage, children, and on and on”
…
“I like that you are trying to keep homosexuals and homosexual activists out of public office because we both know what the long term agenda is.”
…
“I do believe homosexuality is a sin. I have three homosexual first cousins. I love them all and would ‘be seen’ in a photo with them. I believe they all live in sin and frankly all are very unhappy people and had horrible childhoods as well.”

But hating the gay isn’t enough for Hartline. You have to be fire-breathing, take no prisoners, crazy-ass in your hating of the gay. But crazy-ass homophobia doesn’t sell with in San Diego. Yes, this is a Republican city, but it likes its Republicans to be either gay supportive or gay themselves.

So Zapf is now clarifying. She says that she didn’t mean gay people, per se, just gay activists (ya know, the gay folk who aren’t closeted, delusional, ex-gay, or like Roy Ashburn).

And she’s a victim. It was just taken out of context.

“This is what keeps good people from running for office,” she said. “Everyone’s got something. It’s going to be a little sentence plucked out, taken out of context … and then used against me to try to destroy me and my family.”

Zapf said voters should note that Hartline’s anger stems from her support of gays.

“The irony is that James Hartline, of all people, who is so rabidly anti-gay, is trying to hurt me because I’m not,” she said. “He doesn’t think I’m anti-gay enough. I’m not at all.”

Oh, I dunno, Lorie. I think you’re plenty anti-gay.

Even if you would ‘be seen’ in a photo with me.

The methodology appears to be fairly decent, though the margin of error is a bit large.

Lake Research Partners and American Viewpoint designed and administered this survey, which was conducted by phone using professional interviewers. The survey reached a total of 510 veterans of Operation Iraqi Freedom (Iraq) and/or Operation Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan). The survey was conducted February 8-23, 2010. Telephone numbers for the sample were generated randomly from a military sample and a radius sample drawn from military bases in the United States. The margin of error for the total sample is +/- 4.4 percentage points.

But I do have some concerns about the demographic breakdown. As best I can tell, it does not appear to be representative of the military as a whole. It appears to over-represent white, male, and more highly educated personnel than what I’ve been able to identify as reflective of those serving. Nevertheless, it adds to the conversation.

This sample was:

45% Republican (or leaning) v. 20% Democrat (or leaning)
19% High school education, with 44% college graduate or post graduate
79% married
36% evangelical Christian
69% white, 16% black
58% think there were gay people in their most recent unit

Of this sample,

• 60% agree and 29% disagree with “Being gay or lesbian has little bearing on a service member’s ability to perform their duties.” This may be skewed by two lead up questions asking about race and gender having bearing.
• 73% are comfortable (37% very) and 23% are uncomfortable (7% very) “in the presence of gays and lesbians?”
• 34% favor (24% very); 36% oppose (29% very); and 30% aren’t sure about “allowing openly gay men and lesbian women to serve in the military”
• When asked to “describe your personal opinion if gay and lesbian people were allowed to serve openly in the military”, 73% said it would be acceptable (though 31% wouldn’t like it) and 25% said it would be unacceptable.

They also measured by age and found that “younger veterans lean toward favoring allowing gay men and lesbian women to serve openly while older veterans lean toward opposing the change, but there is little intensity in either direction.”

While I am not sure that this accurately reflects the views of our military, it does add to the growing recognition that soldiers care a lot less about the sexual orientation of their fellows than do Senators or Pentagon officials.

A majority of bishops and dioceses of the Episcopal Church have approved the election of the church’s second openly gay bishop, the Rev. Mary D. Glasspool, a decision likely to increase the tension with fellow Anglican churches around the world that do not approve of homosexuality.

Congratulations Bishop Glasspool

With newly reported cases in the growing scandal in Germany, along with bizarre developments in Brazil, the ten people dedicated to inspecting cases and paying settlements are beginning to feel overwhelmed. (NY Times)

In a rare interview, by telephone on Tuesday, Monsignor Scicluna acknowledged the concern. Asked if he wanted reinforcements, he said with a laugh: “I would hope we have less work. That’s my hope. Not more people, less work.”

He added that if the number of cases averaged 300 a year, “We can continue doing our job well with 10 people. The problem is: Are these numbers going to settle?”
…
Despite the small number of people in the Vatican working on such cases, he stressed that his office was the last step in a long process for the cases, after they have been investigated by “hundreds of canon lawyers” in dioceses worldwide.

“It’s not that these people are doing every case from A to Z, otherwise we’d really be bonkers,” he said.

The investigative arm is bonkers, but the PR division must be going crazy. Because the Brazilian scandal was televised (AP).

The case came to light after the SBT network aired a video purportedly showing an 82-year-old priest having sex with a 19-year-old altar boy who worked for him for four years. Other young men appeared on the report saying that they, too, had been abused by Monsignor Luiz Marques Barbosa.

ick

In February, the CityPaper looked into some of Motley’s business practices with the city and found them to be curious. It seems that Barry was lining Motley’s pockets with city money and that Motley was responding by providing personal favors to Barry including the loan of a Mercedes.

He “personally received at least $54,000 from [fiscal 2009] earmark grant recipients”—earmarks all requested by Barry.
…
Under the terms of a settlement agreement with federal prosecutors in his long-running federal tax-fraud case, Barry has to fully report his income and spending to authorities on a monthly basis in order to determine how much of his income is seized in order to pay back taxes. If Barry were to include payments on a luxury vehicle, they could demand an adjustment to Barry’s repayment schedule.

The article continues with several other instances in which Motley’s behavior either crossed or skirted the line of legality. In fact, an investigation into improprieties in Barry’s earmarks found that Motley had forged documents and engaged in self-dealing in addition to using educational funds set up for poor children to pay for political “councils” which in turn paid him. All of which suggests that not only is Anthony Motley a political ally of Marion Barry, but he appears to share both Barry’s personal taste for power and privilege and his questionable ethics.

None of which matters to the National Organization for Marriage. There is no scoundrel too shady or wactivist too hateful to be endorsed, supported, and funded by NOM. All that matters is that Motley shares NOM’s opposition to marriage equality.

As of last June, Motley was not yet on board with NOM’s agenda. At that time he was singing a different song. (WaPo)

Motley said in an interview that there are divisions in the city that he wants to eliminate: geography and race but also one between ministers and the gay and lesbian community.

Motley said he pulled together a meeting between the two groups to talk about the legalization of gay marriage. Motley, who said he has supported domestic partnerships and other gay issues in the past, said he has not decided whether he supports legalizing same-sex nuptials. “I’m evolving on that,” he said. “I have not gotten to the point that I can say definitively.”

But since NOM has a check-book (and no accountability), Motley has now evolved a position and decided that he really likes divisions after all.

So it is no surprise that NOM is funding Motley. (MetroWeekly)

Motley has accepted two campaign contributions from NOM, and another from the Committee to Elect Delano Hunter. Hunter is running for a seat to represent Ward 5. He has also been supported by NOM.

”Obviously we’re interested in electing candidates that will support traditional marriage and allowing voters of D.C. the right to have their say on the issue,” Brian Brown, executive director of NOM, says. ”Rev. Motley does.”

Sadly, is is also no surprise that NOM seems to have broken the law to do so.

According to the D.C. Office of Campaign Finance (OCF), candidates seeking election for a City Council At-Large seat may accept no more than $1,000 from one organization or individual. But Motley’s campaign contribution listings on OCF’s official web site, shows that it accepted $950 from ”The National Organization for Marriage, PPC,” on January 29, and another $950 from ”The National Organization for Marriage, Inc.” on February 1.

Brown says the two contributions were a mistake and that only one should have been made.

Perhaps it was just a reporting error. Perhaps it was a mistake and NOM accidentally gave more than they intended. Perhaps it’s all innocent.

But why is it that every time National Organization for Marriage becomes involved in a campaign, there are questionable practices or laws ignored or broken?

Speaking in favor of excluding gay Americans from serving their country will be Jack Sheehan. (ArmyTimes)

Retired Marine Corps Gen. John “Jack” Sheehan, appearing at the invitation of the committee’s Republican staff, has never publicly addressed the issue of gays in the military; by expressing opposition to repeal of the ban, he will join forces with Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway, who told the committee Feb. 25 hearing that he wants to “keep the law such that it is.”

Sheehan will be giving us the DADT perspective of old men who retired before it came into being.

Sheehan reached the top rungs of the military during his 35 years of service. Commissioned in 1962, he is a combat veteran of the Vietnam War and 1991’s Desert Storm and a recipient of the Silver Star and two Purple Hearts. He capped his career as Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic and commander of U.S. Atlantic Command — now U.S. Joint Forces Command.

Following his 1997 retirement, Sheehan joined Bechtel International, an international engineering, construction and project management company, as a senior vice president.

Speaking in opposition to the ban will be two people whom the Military lost due to its policy.

Former Air Force Maj. Mike Almy and former Navy Lt. j.g. Jenny Kopfstein both lost their careers over the ban on gays and will testify in favor of repeal.

Almy’s story is particularly compelling because he says he was “outed” by an improper search of his belongings after rotating out of Iraq.

“The search was conducted without ever once consulting with a lawyer,” Almy told MSNBC talk show host Rachel Maddow on March 3. “My private e-mails were forwarded to my commander, who called me into his office and demanded that I give him an explanation. I refused.

“ ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ failed me despite the fact that I lived up to the premises of this law and never disclosed my private life,” Almy said. “Never once in my 13-year career did I make a statement to the military that violated ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ ”
…
Kopfstein graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1999 and, during her first deployment as a surface warfare officer aboard the Japan-based cruiser Shiloh, told her commanding officer that she was a lesbian. It was not an effort to get out of the military; as she told the Washington Post in 2005, “I didn’t want to have to lie about myself.”

Her commanding officer requested an investigation but nothing happened for a year, and Kopfstein underwent a second six-month deployment on Shiloh in support of the war in Afghanistan.

According to SLDN, Kopfstein’s discharge board was convened 19 months after her initial admission. Both her former and current commanding officers testified on her behalf, but she lost her commission.

However, Monserrate’s ouster was at least in part due to internal Democratic Party annoyance with him. He had aligned himself with a handful of other Senators and sought to use the tiny party majority as a bargaining point to advance his own personal power and profile. This coup attempt resulted in months of deadlock and confusion with the leadership changing hands at least twice, the doors of the Senate being locked to one faction, and other nonsense. So when it came time for the Party to rally behind a member in need and to overlook his “accident”, he found few willing.

Adding to the discontent was his vote against marriage equality. When Hiram Monserrate ran for the Senate, he portrayed himself as an ally of the gay community and a certain vote for marriage. But instead, he was one of eight Democrats who voted for discrimination and for reserving special rights and privileges for heterosexuals.

And it was on this vote that Monserrate ran a campaign to be re-elected to the seat from which he had just been removed. He was endorsed by, the Queens Hispanic Clergy Association, a collection of pastors and other religious leaders whose sole focus was on opposing gay equality. (YourNabe.com)

The Rev. Ricardo Reyes of El Elyon Christian Church in Corona said he represented 612 churches in Queens that oppose same-sex marriage and praised Monserrate for his record of supporting community groups.

“I have seen a generation sunk down by the gay community,” Reyes said. “If we vote for a gay marriage situation … we are sending our children to practice something against the Bible.”

The other candidate in the race was Jose Peralta. While Peralt received the support and endorsement of the Party structure and the unions, much of his financial and grassroots support came from gay individuals and groups who sought to punish Monserrate for his vote and for his newly-adopted anti-gay activism.

While Peralta ran on the scandal, Monserrate and his Queens Hispanic Clergy Association tried to make this a referendum on marriage. Surely, the people of the 13th Senate District in Queens would rather have a man who “accidentally” harmed his girlfriend – who has forgiven him – than the scourge of gay marriage! Right?

No. Yesterday, Jose Peralta became the new Senator-elect. It wasn’t close. (Newsday)

With 81 percent of the precincts reporting, Assemb. Jose Peralta (D-Corona) beat Hiram Monserrate with 66 percent of the vote. Monserrate had 27 percent.

The voters took a look at Monserrate, and Queens chose gay marriage.

The Ugandan government has its hands full on several fronts all of the sudden. Earlier this month, there was the tragic landslide in Bududa district, which has resulted in at least 300 deaths. President Yoweri Museveni’s government has come under harsh criticism for its slow response to the tragedy. Then on Monday night of this week, two Makerere University students were shot and killed by security guards at a university dormitory. Local police quickly moved to arrest the shooter and disarm the rest of the guards, but that hasn’t gone very far to quell massive demonstrations which have engulfed the campus of Uganda’s largest university. Both students were Kenyans, which adds an international element to the shootings. Kenya has formally protested the killings.

Map of Uganda, with the Buganda kingdom shown in green (Click to enlarge).

As bad as all of that is, it may prove to be a minor distraction compared to the dangerous developments that are now unfolding in the traditional kingdom of Buganda. Uganda is divided into several such traditional kingdoms, with the kingdom of Buganda being nominally headed by a traditional king (known as a Kabaka) and his cabinet. Their positions have cultural significance, but under Uganda’s constitution they hold no political power. Nevertheless, the Kabaka, Ronald Muwenda Mutebi II, is widely revered and respected among the Baganda. Tensions between the Kabaka and Museveni have been building ever since the Ugandan government blocked the Kabaka from visiting the disputed Kayunga district just outside of Kampala last September. Several days of intense rioting broke out, and the government shut down several radio stations operated by or sympathetic to the Kabaka. Dozens were reportedly killed, and more than 400 arrested and detained by police.

The Kasubi Tombs

Those tensions are about to flare again.

The Kasubi Tombs are the royal tombs for four previous Kabakas. The royal enclosure at Kasubi hill was first built in 1881, and was built in the traditional Baganda style with wood frame and thatched roof. The tombs were declared a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 2001, and they remain an important spiritual and political site for the Baganda people.

Last night, the historic Tombs went up in flames, in what is widely believed to be an arson fire. According to Uganda’s Daily Monitor:

Kasubi Tombs burning (Joseph Kiggundu / Daily Monitor)

Hundreds of Kingdom subjects, some prostrating, crying and screaming, gathered in front of the embers. The grass-thatched hut was completely destroyed within minutes, leaving the skeletal brick wall. The burial grounds, revered by the Baganda, are 128 years old.

Witnesses said the blaze started around 8:30pm. One woman, Lydia Nabambulide, said she heard “a loud explosion” behind the tombs, just before the fire began. She said: “I saw a white box wrapped in something like bark cloth and it looked strange.”

A white numberless pickup truck reportedly emerged from the tombs shortly after the fire broke out, Mr Andrew Jjuko said, quoting Boda Boda [motorcycle taxi] men who were at the scene.

The Kabaka has already made a visit to the ruined tombs, as has President Museveni, but not before soldiers fired live rounds into a crowd of hundreds who had gathered at the tombs to grieve and block the President’s visit. Two are dead, with the more five injured being treated at Kampala’s main hospital. [Update: Uganda's The Independent puts the death toll at five.]

Anne Mugisha puts this tragedy into context:

The mind of a Muganda might grasp the idea of an exiled king, even a king denied the right of passage through his own kingdom — they were well prepared for such incidents by the history of tension between their kingdom and central government.  Nothing has prepared the Baganda for an attack on this significant symbol of their culture.  African cultures show great respect for the dead and all burial grounds are sacred.  Kasubi tombs was that much more sacred because it is a burial ground for the kings.  This attack will be understood by many as an attempt to destroy their culture.

…And so if someone torched Kasubi tombs last night, who will stop them from torching the palace at Bulange?  Have they not already torched the King’s own school in Buddo?  How many arsonists have been brought to trial since this wave of arson hit the country.  Who is answerable for these fiery crimes?  If someone torched Kasubi last night they also torched the spirit of Buganda and an invisible line has been crossed by Uganda as a nation.  We have entered a dark, fiery, and smoky place that feels my heart with fear for the Kingdom and the country as a whole.

Meanwhile, this morning’s Daily Monitor reports that rioting at Makerere University continues unabated.