Elaine Donnelly: Fehrenbach At Fault For False Accusations

Fair warning, this is a long one. Sorry, couldn’t be helped.

Remember three weeks ago when it was revealed that Air Force Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach’s Don’t Ask Don’t Tell firing process was started because he defended himself against false rape allegations? I was surprised at the time that DADT champion Elaine Donnelly was so silent about it. Surely there was a way to twist that aspect to make it work for her, right? Right!

Ms. Donnelly has published an article at HumanEvents.com, which also publishes articles from Pat Buchanan and other Right Wing nutjobs. Predictably, Ms. Donnelly blames Lt. Col. Fehrenbach for his outing.

Fehrenbach asserted that the encounter was consensual and was cleared of the rape charge, but his admission of homosexual conduct triggered discharge proceedings. Under the 1993 law, persons who engage in homosexual conduct at any time, on- or off-base, are not eligible for military service.

…which is exactly why DADT is an unbelievably moronic law.

The fact remains that despite provisions of the UCMJ (Article 131), which impose higher standards for “officers and gentlemen,” Fehrenbach showed very poor judgment.

I looked up UCMJ Article 131, and it’s about perjury, not higher standards. I’m assuming Ms. Donnelly, the supposed military expert, meant to reference UCMJ Article 134, which I’ve copied below for her reference:

Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.

This is the “catch all” article of the code, meant to keep the rules lawyers at bay. Assuming I’m right that Ms. Donnelly meant to reference this article, her argument is that homosexuality aside, by entering into a private sexual relationship, Lt. Col. Fehrenbach necessarily brought discredit upon the Armed Forces.

The argument is stupid. If Ms. Donnelly intends to round up all military personnel who have had a sexual relationship while in the service, she’d better have a plan for all those empty military bases around the world.

Air Force disciplinary records are not available, but his lawyers, provided by the activist Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, apparently did not challenge the Boise police report.

SLDN lawyer Emily Hecht told the Idaho Statesman, “Because of the criminal allegation, Victor confirmed the fact he was gay. That’s all the Air Force needed. Had his accuser been a woman, he’d have gone back to work with no further issue.” (Dozens of former naval aviators whose careers were ruined by the 1991 Tailhook scandal, even without evidence of misconduct, certainly would disagree.)

Is Ms. Donnelly actually suggesting that servicemen falsely accused of rape are routinely drummed out of the service? If so, why isn’t that her crusade, and if not, of what relevance are false allegations from an 18 year old scandal?

Other than to draw a false connection between Lt. Col. Fehrenbach’s consensual relationship and sexual assault, I mean.

Consider what would happen if a military officer posted nude photographs of himself and used Craigslist to obtain sex from an unknown woman who subsequently accused him of rape. Even if assault never happened, under the UCMJ, that man’s career would be over. Fehrenbach and his allies are demanding special treatment just because his conduct was homosexual rather than heterosexual.

Look at that beautiful straw man Ms. Donnelly built for us! Isn’t it pretty?

The newspaper report that both Ms. Donnelly and I used for reference contains this paragraph:

The Air Force Office of Special Investigations subsequently found no violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. AFOSI concluded that Fehrenbach and Shaner had consensual sex, and that Shaner was an “unreliable source of information.”

So, you know, so much for that theory.

The Fehrenbach story and others like it presage the type of demoralizing turmoil that the armed forces would have to face if Congress repeals the 1993 law. False allegations of rape are very bad; truthful ones are even worse. The armed services work hard to encourage discipline and mature behavior, but adding male/male and female/female sexual tension and incidents to those that already occur would weaken military culture and encourage more indiscipline, not less.

Just in case you somehow missed it, in this paragraph Ms. Donnelly suggested that letting gays serve openly would lead to gays raping straight servicemembers. Because you know how The Homosexuals are. They just can’t wait to rape straight folks!

Lt. Col. Fehrenbach is not a “victim” of anything but his own poor judgment. His admitted misconduct supports retention of current law, not its repeal.

Ms. Donnelly wraps up her article with a classic blame-the-victim strategy, offensive beyond just the expected OMG HE A FAG level. It’s offensive to men and women who, like Lt. Col. Fehrenbach, are falsely accused of rape and are told “Well, you shouldn’t have had sex.” and it’s offensive to men and women who are raped and are told “Well, you shouldn’t have worn that short skirt,” or “You shouldn’t have been out late at night.” Blame lies with the perpetrator, regardless of circumstance.

You know, Elaine Donnelly wouldn’t bother me so much if people in power didn’t accept her as a military expert and hang on her every word. That’s just so frustrating.

Shame, Selfishness, and the Religious Right

One of yesterday’s lectionary passages was Mark 8:34-38 (NLT).

³⁴Then, calling the crowd to join his (Jesus’) disciples, he said, “If any of you wants to be my follower, you must turn from your selfish ways, take up your cross, and follow me. ³⁵If you try to hang on to your life, you will lose it. But if you give up your life for my sake and for the sake of the Good News, you will save it. ³⁶And what do you benefit if you gain the whole world but lose your own soul [or yourself]? ³⁷Is anything worth more than your soul? ³⁸If anyone is ashamed of me and my message in these adulterous and sinful days, the Son of Man will be ashamed of that person when he returns in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.”

While my preacher started a wonderful sermon based on this passage, my mind wandered a bit. I began thinking about shame and the place that it once had in my life, just as many in religious communities had taught me it should. When I started coming out two years ago, I realized that in the process of making that teaching work, the element of shame had grown until it wasn’t just aimed inward.

It had become shame of Jesus.

I was ashamed of a god who would create such a cruel set of circumstances. Prayers to become straight didn’t work, so I was ashamed of a god who would taunt me in such a way. Later prayers to just turn off the romantic and sexual aspects of my psyche didn’t work, and I was ashamed of a god who would leave me alone to suffer.

Only when I started to come out that I realized how confusing that shame really was. I had to get “knit me together in my mother’s womb” (Ps. 139:13) and “His deeds are perfect” (Deut. 32:4) and “I have come to you for protection” (Ps. 31:1) to work with “if only you would destroy the wicked!” (Ps. 139:19) while believing myself to be “detestable” (Lev. 18:22).

Above all of my self-shame was the shame of Jesus because he had the power to fix it and he didn’t. He wouldn’t.

That is what the Religious Right teaches, the only way I’ve ever found to make their theology fit with my reality. In place of God’s love and acceptance, they offer a god of fear and rejection, and they do it because that’s easier than having to consider how that message manifests in the lives of others.

To put it further into the context of this scripture, their message is selfish and bears witness to their own shame of Jesus and His message.

Of course, condemning us ruffles fewer feathers than getting their own house in order, so I don’t expect that to change. The important part now is getting the truly shameless message across to as many people as we can.

We interrupt this blog for an important news bulletin…

Busy day. Busy week. A lot of heavy stuff going on that I can’t talk about in a public forum. Still, I felt obligated to bring you a post today. Since I don’t have time to get into the heavy political stuff, here’s a new picture that made my knees buckle and my eyes bug out. (via Boy Culture, via the latest Rolling Stone)

Gives new meaning to the term "OMG"

Dear Mr. Patrick Harris,

I swear to Mike, if something ever happens (Mike forbid) between you and David, you had better call me.

Yours forever in a totally cool kind of way,

♥♥♥ Me ♥♥♥

Bishop Gene Robinson Interviewed at Democracy Now!

Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson appeared on Democracy Now yesterday. It’s a fabulous interview (as most with Bishop Robinson are) that Democracy Now has made available in video. (Begins around 49:00)

In case the video doesn’t work, here are a few clips from the rush transcript. On the impact of his 2003 appointment on the Episcopal Church:

I think in the last six years the Episcopal Church has questioned whether or not its actions might have been precipitous, and it listened very intently to the feedback from around the Communion. But then, last month, at its general convention in Anaheim, the Episcopal Church, after considering that for six years, said, “No, you know, our canons have served us well, the rules by which we govern the Church. They served us well in the election in New Hampshire, and we’re going to abide by those. And we are not going to discriminate against anyone because of their sexual orientation.” I think it was a way of saying the Episcopal Church means to be a church in which all of God’s children are included, and I’m very proud of that.

On the impact of his appointment and the Episcopal Church’s recent pro-LGBT action on the Church Universal:

The fact of the matter is, we all know that we have faithful Christian gay and lesbian people in all of our denominations, no matter where they stand on this issue. The question is, are we going to affirm them the way that I believe God affirms them, affirms us? And I believe the Episcopal Church has stated quite clearly, yes, we are. And I think other denominations are looking to see, you know, are we going to come apart over this issue? No, we’re not going to come apart. Are we going to be stronger because of it? Yes, we are. And I believe you’ll see other denominations, just as we saw the Lutherans do a few weeks after our convention, following suit.

On his youth and coming out:

I grew up in a time when “gay” was not a word that you used to describe homosexual people. You only spoke about them in quiet whispers, if at all. There were no positive gay models. This is before Ellen, before Will & Grace. And it was almost like committing suicide to understand yourself to be a homosexual person. It’s hard to remember how the world has changed so much in these last twenty years. […]

I felt that coming out was a call from God. I think God wants our insides and our outsides to agree. That’s what integrity is about. And so, although I thought it was the end of my life as an ordained person in the Church, I felt called by God to do this. And little did I know that, twenty years later, I would be a bishop of the Church and telling my story as a witness to what God can do in one’s life.

On his un-televised invocation at President Obama’s inauguration celebration:

What I can tell you is that I got apologies from the highest-level executives at HBO. I got apologies from the highest levels of the inauguration committee. I think it just happened. And that was no time to pick a fight with anyone. I was honored to be there. I was honored that the new president invited me. And I said what I had to say. Lots of people saw it on YouTube, even if they didn’t see it on HBO. I prayed the prayer to God and for God, not for HBO. And I think this new president deserves all of our support, as well as our appropriate critique. And so, I remain a fan of his and a supporter of this administration.

Worship Service Canceled Because of Gay Marriage

For 24 years, the churches in Oakfield, New York came together for a Sunday morning ecumenical worship service during the annual “Labor Daze” festival.

That all came to an end this year. In May 2009, Rev. Larry Eastlack of Oakfield United Methodist Church wrote a letter to the editor in favor of civil marriage equality. In early August, the pastors in charge of the service demanded that Rev. Eastlack recant his views or be excluded from the service. A month after Rev. Eastlack removed himself from the committee, they scrapped the worship service for fear of protesters.

From The Batavian:

The brigade against his views is led by fundamentalist pastors at Oakfield Community Bible Church, led by Bill Smith, and Mark Perkins, who leads the Oakfield Alabama Baptist Church. They’ve been coordinating the Community Worship Service for the past several years and wanted to exclude [Rev. Larry] Eastlack from the Community Worship Service this year specifically because of his now publically (sic) known views on gay marriage.

They asked to sit down with the reverend and Perkins said they, including Eastlack’s associate Dave Phelps, discussed their views cordially and the meeting ended with Eastlack’s decision not to participate if that meant creating more strife.

A letter prepared Aug. 10 by Perkins and Smith — which amounts to an ultimatum to disavow gay marriage or else be shunned — was given to Eastlack afterward “almost as an afterthought,” said Perkins to emphasize the amiable tone at the meeting’s conclusion.

The letter rejects the notion of gay marriage as a civil rights issue and the idea that homosexuality is determined genetically. It cites Scripture on the issue and urges Eastlack to change his stance, with this caveat:

“…our Elders have stated that having you take part (in the Sept. 6 service) would send a message to our community and respective congregations that 1. We are in agreement with your stance or 2. We are willing to pretend that unity exists.”

The mayor finds the whole thing ugly.

“My personal feeling is that it just saddens me down to my soul,” Pastecki said.

That mayor’s a smart man.

I haven’t been able to find the text of the August 10th ultimatum yet, but I did find Rev. Eastlack’s letter to the editor. Prepare to clutch your pearls, girls:

When Miss California, of the Miss USA Pageant, said she believed that marriage should be reserved for one man and one woman, she ignited strong opposition and support. Later she said, “As a Christian, I’d rather be biblically correct than politically correct,” as if Christians have no other option.

So far, same-sex marriage has been legalized in six states, with New York considering similar legislation. Most evangelical leaders are encouraging their congregations to oppose the Marriage Equality Act because they believe it is incompatible with biblical teachings.

Well, I believe it is possible to stay true to your religious convictions and still support legislation that would allow homosexuals to enjoy all the rights and responsibilities that come with matrimony. It is possible to spiritually oppose same-sex marriage without using the law to impose those views on others who believe differently. If evangelical Christians want all Americans to respect and protect their rights, it is imperative that they also respect and defend the legitimate rights of those with differing beliefs. As a pastor, I am encouraged when any couple in a loving and committed relationship desires to exchange vows that would publicly and contractually bind two loves as one.

This should not be a controversial viewpoint! It’s a positively middle-of-the-road, rational, constitutional understanding of the issue. It seems to me that Smith and Perkins need to re-read the third sentence in the last paragraph. Here, I’ll repost it:

If evangelical Christians want all Americans to respect and protect their rights, it is imperative that they also respect and defend the legitimate rights of those with differing beliefs.

My thanks to Rev. Larry Eastlack, for making his view public and for sticking to his convictions under pressure. We need more like him.

I swear I didn’t write this…

…but they could be talking about me.

Once again The Onion is spot on.

Censored Derek Webb Album Released

Click to purchase uncensored

Artist Derek Webb’s “controversial” album Stockholm Syndrome is now available at record stores, including amazon.com and itunes.

Keep in mind that this release is the censored version demanded by the record company. The only way to get the full album with all 14 songs is through Derek Webb himself or on vinyl (yes, vinyl), now also for sale at amazon.com and these independent record stores around the country.

Not sure you want to buy the album? They’ve got the entire uncensored album streaming at derekwebb.com. Give it a listen before you buy it! I wasn’t sure about Stockholm Syndrome when I got it, but now it’s on regular playback. People have even caught me in the hallways at work pop and locking to “Black Eye”.

If you remember my post from two months ago, Webb’s record company decided not to include the song “What Matters More” because of his using the S-word (shit) and his anti-anti-gay (not a typo) lyrics.

I have to wonder though, did Derek Webb sneak in some other potentially controversial lyrics? Here are some lyrics from the final song on the album, “American Flag Umbrella”.

And please take your hands off my brother
Please take your laws off my lover
The agents of law
Should always be blind and on time
Till there’s freedom for everyone

And where are your American brothers
American before they were named
They’re a huddling mass
No oceans to cross for our shores
Where there’s fortune for everyone

Oppression is always oppression
No matter the reasons or means
For skin or for sex
By stares or by fists, it’s the same
There’s blinders on everyone

Remember that most of the lyrics for Stockholm Syndrome were written within a few months of Prop 8’s passage in California. Maybe I’m wrong, but I see a not-so-subtle message.

Please consider buying the uncensored version (vinyl) of the album to show artists that supporting LGBT people isn’t the risk it used to be.