A long-overdue Bent Alaska update — October 2013

Alaska Hate Crimes Bill: Jim Minnery v. reality…again

Jim Minnery is freaking out again.

I know, it doesn’t take much. In the past year, the head of the Alaska Family Council (which works against both Alaskans and families) has taken on topics ranging from Planned Parenthood to public education to the Girl Scouts of America. But nothing seems to get his soul patch flaring like “the gay.”

His latest manufactured controversy, sent out today through his “Alaska Family Action Alert” email blast, surrounds Alaska Senate Bill 11; a piece of legislation aimed at adding sexual orientation and gender identity to our state’s existing hate crimes policy, sponsored by Democratic Senators Bettye Davis, Hollis French, and Johnny Ellis. Tomorrow afternoon, the Senate Judiciary Committee will take on the topic, so naturally Minnery is encouraging his network to flood the committee members’ inboxes and answering machines, and, as per usual, is supplying them with talking points that must have been grown in a special, air tight lab, where there was no possible exposure to that pesky pollutant we call reality.

Let’s take a look at what our state Senators have no doubt been hearing, ad nauseum, these past few days:

Claim 1: SB11 Is Unnecessary. All violent crimes are hate crimes and it’s already against the law to commit a violent attack against another person or his/her property. However, “hate crimes” take the law one step further, adding a separate penalty for the thoughts that allegedly motivated the action.

All violent crimes are hateful. But that is entirely different from each individual offense qualifying as a “hate crime,” defined – at the federal level – in the Hate Crimes Statistics Act as “crimes that manifest evidence of prejudice based on race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, including where appropriate the crimes of murder, non-negligent manslaughter; forcible rape; aggravated assault, simple assault, intimidation; arson; and destruction, damage or vandalism of property.”

The plain truth is that most violent crimes are ambivalent, in respect to the victims. The “step further” that Minnery is so offended by only applied, in 2009, to just under .005% of all violent crimes in the United States, being that they were carried out in reaction to specific characteristics of the individual they were inflicted upon. Within that sliver of a percentage point, 18.5% resulted from sexual orientation bias. Meaning that people targeted people for being gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, or even straight.

Does Jim Minnery and the Alaska Family Council believe that this is an acceptable number? That we shouldn’t single out individuals that enact violent crimes against people specifically because of their gender identity or sexual  orientation? This is not a free speech issue, as he is attempting to frame it. This is an “acting violently” issue.

Or maybe he’s just feeling all soap-boxy because he already has his protection. The 19.7 percent of hate crimes in 2009 which resulted from religious bias – 1.5% higher than sexual orientation and gender identity offenses – are already protected.

(Someone wants to have their sky cake and eat it too.)

Claim 2: SB11 Would make people unequal under the law. A person who assaults a homosexual will be given a harsher penalty than if that same assault was perpetrated on, for example, an elderly person. This creates a two-tiered justice system with second-class victims. All human life should be valued the same regardless of a person’s race, religion, national origin, etc.

This goes back to the paper thin “special rights” argument that permeated the Assembly Chambers in the Loussac Library during the Summer of Hate surrounding AO-64. Minnery is essentially lobbying for a “fair tax” judicial approach; one uniform prescription for all violent crimes. But, just as stealing a can of soda from a grocery store is different from stealing a delivery truck carrying palettes of soda cans, so is the case with a random violent act versus one motivated by personal prejudice.

As explained by former Supreme Court Justice William Renquist, in the unanimous 1993 decision regarding Wisconsin v. Mitchell, penalty-enhancement hate crime laws exist because hate crimes  are ”thought to inflict greater individual and societal harm…. bias-motivated crimes are more likely to provoke retaliatory crimes, inflict distinct emotional harms on their victims, and incite community unrest.”

What the Alaska Family Council works tirelessly to fail to understand is that random acts of violence are just that: random. And, because of that, they are largely isolated. How does one exact revenge randomly? Mostly, they don’t. There is no explicit direction for the anger to go. Whereas, with hate crimes, we tend to see a really, really bad snowball effect; “the Other.” The manufactured message that wires us with a need to protect ourselves from that other person with those other beliefs with that other skin tone or that other accent, and all these attributes that differ in nature from what we recognize as familiar are inherently nefarious in nature. We should not find common ground, but instead lock the door.

Unfortunately, “the Other” is how the Alaska Family Council frames virtually every debate it puts forth, and it works against a civil society rather than towards one.

Claim 3: SB11 Paves the way for religious persecution. Virtually everywhere “hate crimes” laws have passed, arrests for speech have followed. In Sweden, Canada and Great Britain “hate crimes” laws have been used to prosecute Christians speaking their disapproval of homosexual behavior, posing a serious threat to religious liberty and free speech.

So, what’s behind the bumper sticker allegation that “hate crimes” legislation universally leads to an assault on free speech? Minnery warns that the current legislation on the table will “muzzle” Christians, and cites Sweden, Canada, and Great Britain as evidence of that; invoking the ubiquitous far-right “We’re America, not Europe!” mantra.

Key differences, however, separate the condition of free speech in those countries from the US, actually agreeing with their point, but not in a way that they would necessarily endorse.

Britain is in flux; it’s constitution is based on the precedent of law; there is no backbone document akin to our founding documents. Thus, there are neither initial restrictions or protections regarding free speech and expression. The UK is fairly obviously used, by Minnery, not in substance, but in rhetoric; following the same exhaustive dialog we heard in the health care debate which framed European countries (which Canada found itself interwoven into, because of their relationship to the crown, I guess?) very much as “the Other”.

On one hand, there is America. On the other, there is everyone else. And they have the Muslims.

Canada, in contrast, has “Hate Propaganda” laws, which prohibit the expression of hatred for certain protected groups. That is a far cry from what Minnery is arguing against; the action of anger against certain protected groups, including religious groups.

In fairness, Minnery, and his ilk, have chronic problems with linking words with their consequences.

Sweden, in 2002, approved a constitutional amendment that sought to protect groups from “unfavorable speech,” winning them my personal award-of-the-century for “Ambiguous to a Fault.” In the United States, we’ve kept up a passionate argument for 235 years over what “general welfare of the public” means. And Sweden somehow thought that “unfavorable speech” would suffice, criminalizing not only actual threats of violence, but also “expressed disdain.”

Honestly, “unfavorable speech with expressed disdain” sounds like how NPR would describe the crap that comes out of Dr. Laura’s face. Not exactly a rock solid foundation for the basis of law.

The truth is that Sweden doesn’t have freedom of speech like we are afforded (at least as it pertains to this issue). Their idea of free expression is not even in the same ballpark.

Specifically, in the case of Sweden, Minnery warns readers about Pastor Ake Green, who was arrested for delivering a clearly anti-gay sermon in 2003. And if you live in Alaska and occasionally go outdoors or turn on a television, you’ve heard it before: Genesis, Deuteronomy, cancer on society, abnormal, perverse, will lead to disaster and the spread of aids, blah blah blah. It’s been carbon copied and put on display across America one hundred times over, including in Jim Minnery’s emails, Jerry Prevo’s weekly tangents, and Dan Fagan’s radio show (now only available in scarred memories). Last I checked, we haven’t made any arrests. Nor should we. The Westboro Baptist Church (I linked their Wiki page, because I’m not throwing any traffic their way if I can help it) gets to bounce around the map like deranged gummy bears with inarticulate chips on their shoulders. By the same token, our own reality deficient, eccentric characters should be afforded the same rights.

That doesn’t mean we should accept the message as credible; it’s laughable. But they should get to scream down the same vacant hallway that houses Sarah Palin’s presidential aspirations.

Back in the real world where Jim Minnery’s emails can’t hurt you, Green was acquitted by the Swedish Supreme Court, which cited Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, stressing the international right to freedom of expression (anyone want to guess what nation Europe got that idea from?).

More smoke and mirrors to justify an irrational adversity to equal protection under the law from the Alaska Family Council, which again I will point out has nothing to do with working towards the betterment of Alaska or her families.

The good news is that Jim Minnery and the openly closed-minded organization that pays him a lot of money to concoct controversies “in His name!” is not ultimately responsible for making sure SB11 passes. He is only in charge of orchestrating an online and telephonic misrepresentation of Alaska.

About an hour ago, I was talking to a friend of mine – himself a full catalog of standing up against adversity – who reminded me that, at the end of the day, we are all confronted with a simple, albeit blunt, choice: Be a friend or be a dick. Either we make tough choices to stand up and fight for community, or we allow ourselves and those we care about to get screwed, bullied, and ignored; left to fend for themselves. Or we can stand up and say a lot more than “It gets better.”

We can demand that it does.

Friday, at 1:30pm, the Senate Judiciary Committee will address SB11. They’re going to hear from the Alaska Family Council. I implore you to do your part in ensuring that they also hear from the Rational Alaska Community, and I ask you to speak up in defense of our community; our Alaska.

The committee includes Senators Hollis French, Bill Wielechowski, Joe Paskvan, Lesil McGuire, and John Coghill.

Clicky clicky. And kindly pass the word.

Homosexuality isn’t so immoral after all!

by Heather Aronno | Originally posted on The Alaska Commons

For those who were not able to attend the “Is Homosexuality Immoral?” lecture by Dr. John Corvino, you missed a good time. Hosted by UAA Student Life & Leadership’s Student Activities department, the lecture consisted of a break down of the standard arguments against homosexuality: the Bible says it’s wrong, it’s unnatural, it’s gross, etc… It was also incredibly entertaining. Corvino has a talent for keeping the pace quick and light, addressing the main arguments up front so that he can get to his favorite part, the audience questions.

Let’s backtrack a little to before the lecture. After my post on Monday (which Bent Alaska and Progressive Alaska were kind enough to re-post), I had a fun time bringing up the topic in my classes. The general reaction from students was that they 1) thought that the speaker was a conservative bigot until I straightened them out, 2) had no problem with LGBT people and didn’t see what the big deal was about, or 3) got a miffed look on their face when I brought the topic up at all. It was especially interesting, as this also marked the week that the UA Board of Regents was finally going to consider adding “sexual orientation” to UA’s non-discrimination policy. Many students didn’t know that LGBT students and faculty weren’t already protected by the policy. I felt informative, but in a depressing kind of way.

Fast forward back to Thursday night. John and I were approached by a few students outside of the Wendy Williamson Auditorium. They were handing out those little chick tracts comics. You know the ones. The hero of the story dabbles in the occult and ends up in Hell. Or the hero tries marijuana and ends up in Hell. Or the hero considers evolution and…well, you get the picture. I politely declined, and put the one that John took into the recycling bin.

[Fun Fact: Putting those little comics into Wiccan-themed books at the bookstore is not viewed as helpful. It makes the customers who buy the Wiccan books very angry, and they take it out on the store employees. Then the employees think hateful thoughts about the people who put the comics into the Wiccan books in the first place.]

But after that little moment, there was nothing but positivity leading up to, during, and after the lecture. Even the Bible Study group that attended was polite and, for the most part, asked good questions.

Afterward, I was able to speak to a few students about their impressions of the lecture:

“I thought it was really good. I’ve got to say going into it, I knew nothing more than the question on the billboard, so I had no idea about the speaker himself. I didn’t know he was a philosophy professor. And I thought… I love logic so the way that he phrased his arguments was done really well and made a lot of sense. I don’t know, it’s one of those things, I don’t think I personally learned anything new, because it just reaffirmed my beliefs already. It just felt good to have that logic behind it all.” Joe – English Major

“I really enjoyed the lecture, just because Dr. Corvino was able to break down every argument against homosexuality. It put it in perspective.” Rosalyn – Russian Language and International Studies Majors

“I thought Dr. John Corvino was very thorough in his explanation of why homosexuality is not immoral. My feelings on the issue are that it is a completely normal sexual behavior. As an evangelical Christian, I do not find anything within the Bible that tells me that it is immoral. In fact, I find that in the scripture of Jesus, and especially as Christians, we need to support equality for all human beings. So what he said fit into my religious faith.” Ceezar – Political Science Major

“It was very good. I’m not a religious man. I’m a very devout atheist. [chuckle] My personal thought is that he made very compelling arguments and I’ve been on board with him through this whole thing, so it’s not like I had any lingering discomforts or anything. He was very articulate. He wasn’t very pathos-based, which was good. He kept things very simple and understandable, and made it so he could reach out to every [person in the] audience without sounding judgmental, which is good in our modern culture. I personally enjoyed this and was glad I attended.” Lucien – UAA Student

As we walked out of the auditorium, I thought about the students who were huddled outside, handing comics to people. I wish that they would have allowed themselves to attend the lecture, because I think they would have gained something from it. Even if it was just taking a moment to see things from another person’s perspective. I’m sure that they believed strongly that they were doing the right thing, but they just plain missed the point.

Lucien, one of the students quoted above, is actually a blogger as well. And so I’ll end my post with a quote from his review, but I recommend you following this link over to his blog and reading the rest of his post.

Corvino did make a point early on that the fact that people believe that this debate is over is kind of unsettling. He said that we are at a very odd place in the war for equality for the LGBT community. There is a consensus growing among the general public that the war is over. But the sad truth is that the war is still very much alive and is not getting the attention that is used to. Corvino said that there is a difference in the public’s perception of the war because the bulk of it hasn’t been really taught to kids all that much. This came up during the discussion. While we are taught all about the leaders of the African-American movement for equality, leader of the LGBT community’s battle for equality have gone mostly unnoticed in history classes. People like Harvey Milk aren’t taught about in classes.

Thanks to those that helped get Dr. Corvino up here. Thanks to Dr. Corvino for coming to UAA and helping us find better ways to articulate our viewpoint. And thanks to the UA Board of Regents who voted to change the non-discrimination policy to include sexual orientation! (Read more over at Bent Alaska.)

Other reactions to Dr. John Corvino’s “Is Homosexuality Moral?” lecture

• 17 Feb 2011. “The Morality of Homosexuality: A Lecture with John Corvino” by Lucien Maverick (Lucien Maverick’s Blog).
• 18 Feb 2011. “‘Is Homosexuality Moral?’ Recap”by Matt Caprioli (The Northern Light).

About John Corvino

Dr. John Corvino, a.k.a. “The Gay Moralist,” lectured on the topic “Is Homosexuality Immoral?” at the Wendy Williamson Auditorium, University of Alaska Anchorage (UAA), on Thursday, 17 Feb 2011. His visit coincided with the decision by the University of Alaska Board of Regents to add “sexual orientation” to the nondiscrimination policy for the statewide University of Alaska system.

Dr. Corvino is a writer, speaker, and philosophy professor. For over 15 years he has been traveling the country speaking on gay rights. Combining philosophy, sensitivity, and humor he has challenged all sides of the debate about homosexuality and morality.  Dr. Corvino’s writings, videos from his presentations, and a full DVD of his lecture “What’s Morally Wrong With Homosexuality?” are available on his website.

Photos by Melissa S. (Mel) Green

Is Homosexuality Immoral?

Editor’s note: We’re pleased to welcome Heather and John Aronno of the Alaska Commons as contributors to Bent Alaska. From the summer of 2009, when Heather and John regularly blogged about the Anchorage equal rights ordinance, to the present, they have been two of our best friends and allies in the Alaska LGBTA blogosphere. Please make them welcome!

Is Homosexuality Immoral?

by Heather Aronno | published originally at the Alaska Commons

There’s a lecture title worthy of a few head turns. When I first saw the poster, I felt a little, nauseous pit form in my stomach. I thought, “is UAA actually bringing in an anti-gay speaker?” Fortunately, I paused long enough to read the description before I flew off the handle.

With a combination of humor, sensitivity, & intellectual rigor, Corvino examines the most common arguments against homosexual conduct.

Whatever your sexual orientation, moral perspective, or religious conviction, this program will invite you to rethink some of the “easy assumptions” that often characterize the debate over homosexuality.

A visit to the UAA Student Life & Leadership website provided a little more information: “Dr. John Corvino, a.k.a. “The Gay Moralist,” is a writer, speaker, and philosophy professor. For over 15 years he has been traveling the country speaking on gay rights.  Combining philosophy, sensitivity, and humor he has challenged all sides of the debate about homosexuality and morality.”

During my first year at UAA, I was pleased to learn that many departments and student organizations coordinate a series of events every February called “Healthy Sexuality Week.” And being that Alaska now rates ninth in the country for its rates of gonorrhea, it’s probably a good idea to focus on healthy sexuality. As part of the events for every year that I’ve attended there has been a notable speaker, come to help make up for our lack of comprehensive sex education. For the past two years, columnist and personal hero Dan Savage has been our guest of honor. (Some of you may remember when the Anchorage Press carried Dan’s Savage Love column. Do you miss it? Send the Anchorage Press an email and let ‘em know.)

This year, Dan gets a break and Dr. John Corvino will be taking the stage. I asked a few UAA students for their opinions on the lecture and its subject matter:

“Homosexuality isn’t really immoral or a threat to marriage. Divorce is probably a bigger threat to marriage than homosexuality.” Eric – Business Management Major

“I have no problem with it. I have friends that are gay. I might potentially take part in [the lecture], depending on what they end up talking about. I don’t mind that kind of discussion. That actually sounds pretty interesting.”  Mike – Psychology and German Major

“To me, it doesn’t matter because I see them just as another human being, who has a different opinion than my opinion. It doesn’t affect me at all.” Simon – Undergraduate

“I’m not really biased. It’s a good topic to get people talking about it, because most people are shy in this day and age. It’s not that they don’t have an opinion, they’re just scared to voice it. At least he’s opening up the question for discussion. If I don’t have class at the same time, I might attend.” George – Management Information Systems Major

“I don’t have a problem with homosexuality. I have family members who are [gay]. I have friends who are. It doesn’t bother me at all.”  Tim – Electrical Engineering, Computer Systems Engineering, and Mathematics Major

“He looks pretty cute. Too bad he’s gay.” Heidi – International Studies Major

Now, that’s just a small sample of UAA students who happened to be in the Student Union when I was asking questions. I didn’t have anyone who spoke against homosexuality that I chose not to include; all of the students I spoke to indicated they had no issue with people being gay. (Except for Heidi. Ah well, she’s not the only girl stuck pining after an attractive gay man. I’ve had a crush on Neal Patrick Harris for years.) But for every student who is comfortable talking about their gay friends, family members, selves, there are other students who may very well benefit from hearing a different perspective on the morality/immorality of homosexuality. I encourage them to attend.

I’m looking forward to Dr. Corvino’s lecture. I hope some of you will be able to join me.

* * *

“Is Homosexuality Immoral?” with Dr. John Corvino

Presented by UAA Student Activities.  American Sign Language interpretation will be provided for this lecture.

• Date & time: Thursday, February 17, 7:30-9:30 PM; doors open at 6:30 PM
• Location: UAA Wendy Williamson Auditorium
• Cost of admission: This event is free to everyone.
• Info: Dr. John Corvino, a.k.a. “The Gay Moralist,” is a writer, speaker, and philosophy professor. For over 15 years he has been traveling the country speaking on gay rights.  Combining philosophy, sensitivity, and humor he has challenged all sides of the debate about homosexuality and morality. Dr. Corvino holds a Ph.D in philosophy from the University of Texas at Austin and is currently Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Wayne State. He has written over 100 articles and opinion pieces, wich have appeared in regional and nationally at the online Independent Gay Forum and in numerous academic journals and anthologies.
• Further information: UAA Student Activities, or this event’s Facebook page

Chuck O’Connell 1942–2011

The Anchorage LGBT community joins other friends and family members in mourning the loss of our friend and ally Chuck O’Connell, who died unexpectedly early last Thursday morning.

Celebrating our Allies on Ally Week, Oct 19-23

On Ally Week, straight students pledge to support their gay friends by speaking out against anti-LGBT bullying and harassment. In Alaska, we are fortunate to have many allies, both teens and adults, who speak out for us throughout the year.

In honor of Ally Week, Bent Alaska is celebrating our allies and the alliances that enrich our lives.

Students created Ally Week to build upon the good work of Gay-Straight Alliances across the country. Whether you belong to a GSA or not, Ally Week is the perfect time for you and your friends to sign the Ally Pledge:

“I believe all students, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity/expression deserve to feel safe and supported.

That means I pledge to:

• Not use anti-LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) language or slurs.
• Intervene, if I safely can, in situations where students are being harassed.
• Support efforts to end bullying and harassment.”

School is not the only place where LGBT people face harassment, and the GSA’s are not our only organized group of allies. Four chapters of PFLAG (Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays) also speak out for LGBT Alaskans.

In addition to these organized ally groups at school, at home and in the community, LGBT Alaskans have many individual allies at work and play, in the church and the government. Our allies in Anchorage stood against bigotry this summer, testified for equality, reported the fight for our rights, and took action in support of diversity.

Today’s Ally Week post is a video slideshow about the True Diversity Dinner, an Anchorage event that celebrated our political allies. Thanks to the wonderful allies who created and participated in this event, and to ally Janson for the video: