A 61-year-old official at the Irving, Texas headquarters of the Boy Scouts of America pled guilty Wednesday to a felony charge of possessing and distributing child pornography. According to the Associated Press, Douglas Sovereign Smith Jr. was caught with several hundred images on two computers at his home in the Fort Worth suburb of Colleyville. Federal agents, part of an international sting operation, traced the contraband from a German pedophile who had downloaded pictures from Smith. Smith, scheduled to be sentenced July 12, faces 5 to 20 years in prison, and up to $250,000 in fines. Presumably, he made a deal with prosecutors for a comparatively light punishment.

Smith worked for the Scouts for nearly 40 years, rising to the post of National Program Director. In the course of his work, the newswire reports, he ran a Youth Protection Task Force that sought to protect children from sexual abuse.

An Internet search turns up an exchange of letters to the editor between Smith and former Eagle Scout Bruce Collins, who had written to the Corporate Legal Times to bemoan the politicization of the Scouts and recall the days when, to coin a phrase, the organization was a uniter, not a divider. “Just as national politics have been dichotomized into blue and red states, so, too, has Scouting been set apart,” wrote Collins. “As a former Boy Scout, an Eagle Scout to this day, and a citizen, I am not happy about it. I can see no a good outcome on the horizon.”

Smith wrote back to say that the Scouts had not changed, but the times had. “Some intolerant elements in our society want to force scouting to abandon its values and to become fundamentally different,” said Smith. “They want scouting to forego its constitutional rights, affirmed in 2000 by the Supreme Court… and adopt fundamentally different values from the ones that helped shape the character of Mr. Collins and 106 million other young men over the past 94 years.” Smith goes on to advise Collins to communicate his displeasure “to those directing their discriminatory assault against his beloved Boy Scouts, the ACLU.”

In an internal letter dated November 2002, also available online, Smith announced the launch of his sexual abuse prevention program. “ The Boy Scouts of America is a leader in the field of youth protection,” he wrote. “On February 1, 2003, we will again be expanding our offering of programs designed to protect youth. A youth protection training course, ‘Youth Protection Guidelines for Adult Leaders and Parents,’ will be available on the Internet for volunteers, parents, and other individuals within your council area. This course will make youth protection training and resources easily accessible to all leaders. We are confident your council will find the Youth Protection Training Web site helpful in providing the most wholesome possible environment for young people.”

Smith was forced to retire in late February after his superiors learned of the pornography investigation. On Tuesday, Scouts spokesman Greg Shields said the Boy Scouts of America were “shocked and dismayed” by the revelations. “We work very hard to provide a good organization, and we are proud of our hard working employees,” Shields said. “But unfortunately, child pornography is a societal problem. To the best of our recollection, this has never happened before.”

Smith’s lawyer, Jack Strickland, told the Associated Press that his client was upset. “He’s not taking this well,” said Strickland. “I’ve got to tell you, this is a good man and I would hate to see the entirety of his life and the good things he’s done defined by one incident.”

Speaking to the Dallas Business Journal, Bret Helmer, the assistant United States attorney for the Northern District of Texas in Fort Worth, said Smith’s porn collection included 520 images of boys under the age of 18, most under the age of 12, in sexual explicit contexts.

Ugly Repercussions from Gay Marriage Bans
Gay advocates are alarmed over an Ohio court decision last Friday; a ruling that Ohio’s domestic violence laws no longer cover unmarried couples under the constitutional amendment on marriage passed by voters last November. According to the logic of Judge Stuart Friedman, the language that now prevents the state from assigning the rights and benefits of marriage to unmarried couples not only outlaws gay marriage, it also means that unmarried straight couples can’t charge each other under the domestic violence statutes. Friedman therefore reduced the charges against a battering boyfriend from a felony count to a misdemeanor assault.

The authors of the anti-gay amendment were not chagrined by the decision, telling the press that the domestic violence laws should simply be clarified to apply to any couple, and the problem—if one exists—would then go away. Indeed, just a couple of days earlier, another Ohio judge had ruled that the domestic violence laws were not affected by the amendment, and that the violent paramour in his case would face the full charges.

But GLBT activists say the unintended consequences of the proliferating anti-marriage constitutional amendments know no limits, and could in theory tear down the fragile infrastructure that now provides a modicum of protection to same-sex couples. Recently, the Michigan Attorney General issued an opinion telling the town of Kalamazoo that its domestic partner program ran afoul of his state’s new constitutional amendment. The American Civil Liberties Union is suing the state for clarification.

And in Utah, a proposal to institute university partner benefits seems to be going nowhere, thanks mainly to the Beehive State’s brand new amendment. “Utah State University,” said legal counsel Craig Simper at a recent faculty forum, “does not want to be the test case, and does not intend to be the test case” that would establish the scope of the gay marriage ban.

(In Wisconsin, where a similar benefits plan is being pushed by Governor Jim Doyle and others, lawmakers debating the state university budget cite financial reasons for opposing the program. But since a million dollars is a drop in the university system cash bucket, it is more likely that the legislature is simply heading in another philosophical direction, poised to advance a constitutional ban on marriage and civil unions that would go to voters in 2006.)
The bottom line is that the confusion over marriage, civil unions, and the public and private rights of same-sex couples will continue as long as the underlying fight rages over gay couple’s rights in America. Those who oppose gay rights in general will attempt to pass vague and expansive language, and if successful, they will argue that any and all benefits are now precluded. Gay advocates, in turn, will fight for marriage equality, and fill the barricades in defense of any and all existing rights. Those in the middle will go back and forth, much like these two Ohio judges, until the deeper questions are resolved.

In a final key example of this continuing tension, a California appellate court heard arguments Friday, as the far right “Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund” continued to press its case against the state’s domestic partner laws. Most GLBT Americans have been watching the progress of the California freedom to marry case that sailed over an initial hurdle a few weeks ago with a lower court victory in favor of same-sex marriage rights. But meanwhile, the challenge to the domestic partner law is just as important in its own way, although perhaps not as sexy.

California’s domestic partner law has evolved since its creation in the mid-nineties, and as of last January, registered partners enjoy virtually all the rights of marriage within the state’s power to award. Conservative groups challenged the latest version of the partner law, which passed in 2003. The opponents claimed that the partner statute effectively contravenes the state law against recognizing same-sex marriages, itself passed by voters in March, 2000 as Proposition 22. A lower court ruled against the Prop 22 defenders, noting that the voter initiative concerned “traditional marriage,” not a state partner registry. But will the appellate court agree? Legal sources in California hope so, but stress that the case is not a slam-dunk for the GLBT community.

As Maine Goes…
Once again, Maine’s legislature has passed a gay rights bill, voting to amend the Maine Human Rights Act to add sexual orientation by a vote of 25-10 in the senate, and 88-62 in house. Lawmakers also rejected a companion measure that would have required a public vote to ratify the law. The narrower margin, (23-13 in the senate and 76-74 in the house), reflected the tough debate over whether minority rights should be subject to a majority vote.
On one hand, the answer was no, as the final result reflects. On the other hand, Maine voters have twice faced the question of gay rights at the polls, and twice, to the surprise of observers, the voters have said no. Now, even though the legislature has pushed this bill over the top once more, many expect the Christian Civil League to begin a petition drive that could lead the state to another divisive ballot battle.

Would the state vote to keep discrimination on the books yet again? With Maine it seems to be impossible to predict. In the frigid special election of February1998, analysts believed that only the most conservative voters cared enough to put on their coats and scarves and clomp through the snow to vote. The legislature then sent another gay rights bill to the Presidential ballot of 2000, assuming—as polls suggested—that the wider electorate would back their gay and lesbian friends and neighbors. Not so. Activists and allies were stunned as the “no” voters outdrew their counterparts by a fraction of a percentage point.

According to the Portland Press Herald, Michael Heath of the Christian Civic League said his group will announce on Thursday whether they will proceed with a petition drive as they did in 1998. Heath’s forces would need to gather 50,000 names to send the question to the November, 2005 electorate. Meanwhile, the gay rights bill faces the formality of a final vote, and the signature of gay-friendly Governor John Baldacci.

Oooooo. Nice Rack Pack, Guy
Hey, Moms and Dads! Those of you who are out there reading my GLBT newspaper, that is. I just found a marvelous new resource for parents of teenagers called the “Dare to Dig Deeper Rack Pack,” recommended by Focus on the Family.

Personally, I was intrigued by the mysterious and vaguely seductive concept of a “rack pack.” As I read on, I learned that:  “Teens crave truth–and now you can provide it in pocket-sized portions of hard-hitting content.” (So that’s it!) “Dig Deeper Rack Pack subjects include sex vs. love, pornography, the media’s influence, absolute truth, eating disorders, Wicca and homosexuality.”

It’s not surprising to find Wicca and homosexuality snuggled up together on the Christian right’s hit list, along with pornography and the like. But why are we lumped together without a comma as if “Wicca-and-homosexuality” was a unified idea? I just did a little online research on the subject, and learned that, in fact, teens who question their sexuality may indeed be drawn to Wicca! Further, according to my sources at Christian Web site, onmission.com, “witchcraft is not harmless fun,” and parents should be alert for warning signs that a child may be involved in Wicca and who knows what.

The six signs include: withdrawal from the family; talking with Wiccans online; wearing Wiccan garb including neutral shades of clothing, “silver jewelry like necklaces and earrings with occult symbols like pentagrams or goats’ heads,” or “tattoos with mystical symbols;” reading Wiccan books like A Complete Idiots Guide to Wicca and Witchcraft; using new language; and finally, evincing a sudden interest in alternative issues such as radical environmentalism or radical feminism.

Parents should also be concerned if their teen begins drinking the blood of small animals, vanishing from the dinner table in an inexplicable puff of smoke, or singing Frank Sinatra songs to their same-sex friends.

Hit it, Jimmy: Those fingers in my hair. That sly come hither stare…that strips my conscience bare. It’s witchcraft.

Death Takes a Double Shift
Push over, Mr. Pope! Watch out, Prince Rainier! Take a number, Terri! The old man with the scythe has been spotted stalking the halls of a Virginia hospital where none other than Jerry Falwell was sent back for treatment on Monday night. Reverend Falwell is suffering from respiratory problems, maybe another round of the pneumonia that hospitalized him for two weeks about a month ago. The faux-avuncular fundamentalist Christian was put on a respirator and evaluated as “critical” by the staff of the Lynchburg General Hospital.

“Critical condition” is not the death rattle that it used to be, however. Falwell was also described as “clinically stable,” and as “alert and responding to questions.” He spent the last week in seeming good health, attending women’s basketball games and giving the Easter sermon at the Thomas Road Baptist Church.

Falwell is only 71. I thought he was older, didn’t you? Well, he bugs me whatever his age or health status. I have just spent five minutes self-censoring myself from making snide comments at Falwell’s expense in these, perhaps his penultimate days. Among my deleted musings was one about a feeding tube that might sustain the man for another two decades. But never mind!

The Tom and Bill show
Did you read, by the way, that Tom DeLay denied life support to his own father after the man fell out of a tram of some sort and was pronounced brain dead? Well, his family made the decision, but it was fine with the Hammer. “There was no point to even really talking about it,” DeLay’s mother told the LA Times. “Tom knew, we all knew, his father wouldn’t have wanted to live that way.” Fast-forward 17 years and Tom Tom’s tune has changed. “We have to do everything in our power to save Terri Schiavo and anyone else who may be in this position,” he told a closed-door meeting of Family Research Council honchos.

According to a tape obtained and released by Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, DeLay and his buddy Bill Frist spoon-fed their audience a smooth porridge of morality mush. “The work you do makes our country a beacon of liberty, a beacon of freedom for the world,” pandered Frist by speakerphone. The Senate Majority Leader said he and others will be calculating the right timing for a new Senate vote on the federal anti-marriage amendment. “We know we are right. We want to win. We want to protect marriage once and for all, and we will do it.”

Meanwhile, DeLay called poor Schiavo a God-given gift that helps “elevate the visibility of what is going on in America.” In a truly bizarre remark, he affected astonishment that America “would be so barbaric as to pull a feeding tube out of a person that is lucid and starve them to death for two weeks.”
We’ve heard Schiavo’s condition underplayed by the far right as “disabled,” or “brain damaged.” But no one until now has called the woman “lucid.” What’s next? Maybe DeLay will produce a note in shaky, but legible, handwriting: “Dear Congressman DeLay, God bless you for helping me. I’m so thirsty. I know you are trying. Please hurry, TS.”

The woman has no activity whatsoever from the brain stem up! She cannot think, recognize, understand, or suffer. She does not hunger or thirst. That’s what “brain dead” means. That said, there is a key argument on the “other side” if you will, that I don’t quite get. Why, if her parents are willing to oversee her remaining vegetative years, does she have to be removed from this tube? Why not just divorce her and let her parents delude themselves by visiting their “somewhat disabled” daughter.  “Oh hi, Irma! Yes, we just got back from the center. Terri’s doing fine. She looks great. She said to tell you hey!”
Would Terri herself really care?

Was the Wendy’s Chili Finger from a Lesbian?
Let’s talk about the fingertip that was found in the bowl of Wendy’s chili in San Jose. Even my mother had already heard about it this morning at breakfast (we stuck with coffee), so you’ve probably encountered the story as well. But for those of you who may be less aware of your surroundings, the Associated Press reports that a woman bit into an actual human finger on Tuesday night, and left the restaurant vomiting and distraught. Police were called, and employees all had to display their fingers. The 1 ½ inch finger segment was cooked, and probably came from the processing plant. It had a long manicured fingernail, and belonged to a woman, although strangely, there have been no reports of injuries at any of the processing plants that supply the fast food chain.

And no, we don’t know the sexual orientation of the woman with the lost finger, but she might be gay. Who knows?

I love the part where the staff has to show their hands. What were the police thinking? I can see one of the officers approach a suspicious woman working the drive-in window, fresh blood staining her uniform.

“OK, Miss. Why the gloves?”

“I’m, um, I’m just cold officer. My hands are cold.”

“Take ‘em off, honey. Let’s see your fingers.”

Reluctantly, the young woman removes her glove. Sure enough, one of her fingers has been severed and blood is coagulating at the site of the injury.

“Hey Benny! I think we got our culprit!”

Bon appetit!