Subscribe to Breaking News
Loading ...The book Palin wanted banned
Rev. Howard Bess is not gay. He was not raised by gay parents and does not have gay children. Bess did not grow up with a gay family next door and his best friend was not gay. Rev. Bess might not have had a horse in the GLBT rights race, but that did not stop him from becoming a trailblazer for the issue in the American Baptist church and Christian faith at large.
Rev. Bess has recently enjoyed some time in the spotlight thanks to vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin’s attempt to ban his book, Pastor, I Am Gay, from the Wasilla Public Library.The book, published in 1995, was received somewhat coldly in Alaska’s Mat-Su Valley, home to Rev. Bess and the soon to be Mayor of Wasilla Palin.
In fact, for a long time, the only places you could buy the book in Mat-Su were a barber shop and beauty salon. The book was also available at the Wasilla Public Library, a “problem” Palin infamously sought to solve. Wasilla’s librarian stood up to Mayor Palin’s rash and uninformed demands. The librarian was then fired by Palin only to be reinstated after the community objected loudly to the dismissal.
Rev. Bess’ book was just one of at least three books that then-Mayor Palin tried to yank off the shelf.
There has been some confusion regarding exactly what titles Palin sought to ban, but Rev. Bess has been told that Pastor, I Am Gay was among them, and he would be “flabbergasted” to hear otherwise. Pastor, I Am Gay had been openly ridiculed by the pastor of Palin’s church and Rev. Bess was fired from the newspaper column he had written for seven years. The fundamentalist outcry against Bess in Mat-Su was loud and local bookstores were afraid to carry the book. Sarah Palin and her church friends thought the book was obscene and that the public needed to be protected from its contents.
Pastor, I Am Gay is not an obscene book by any stretch.
It is the open and honest story of how Rev. Bess came to the conclusion that GLBT folk are just as blessed as everyone else and deserve to be fully included in the life and traditions of the church.
Rev. Bess admits his ignorance of issues regarding sexuality for much of his life. He discusses the first time a parishioner came out to him and details the personal introspection and experiences that brought him to his current understanding of the gay community and its place in this world.
Finding a copy of Pastor, I Am Gay today can be a chore. Most of the major booksellers are out-of-stock and the popular used book service list astronomical prices. Fireside Books in Palmer, Alaska still had copies as of press time.
Rev. Bess is happy to talk about Pastor, I Am Gay, but he matter-of-factly states that “the book has run its course.” Rev. Bess is most concerned that people learn about the beliefs of Sarah Palin and that her election would be “bad, bad news for the gay population.”
Bess describes Palin as a religious duelist, someone who sees everything as good vs. evil. Bess says that Palin and the churches she attends are “as anti-gay as they come.” He even described Palin, to Salon.com, as “…Jerry Falwell with a pretty face.”
Reverend Bess has been a crusader for GLBT equality in Alaska and his warnings should be heeded. Rev. Bess knows Sarah Palin and has struggled against her on behalf of more than one progressive cause. He has also fought against Palin for the rights of Mat-Su woman to have access to an abortion provider. Rev. Bess knows the GLBT community and its struggles. He has served as a regional director on PFLAG’s national board and has led the pro-gay fight in the American Baptist Church.
Rev. Bess has struggled for years to promoted gay equality and worries that the election of Sarah Palin could erode much of the work he has done. Bess has also expressed frustration and confusion toward members of the GLBT community who continue to support the McCain/Palin ticket. He states he was astounded by the Log Cabin Republican’s endorsement of the pair and that they obviously have little understanding of Sarah Palin and her beliefs.
Bess summarized his feelings towards Sarah Palin while talking to Salon.com, “this person’s election would be a disaster for the country and the world.”
Thank you to the other posters who’ve participated in this discussion. You’ve supplied some good links that will come in handy.
Wayne, enjoy your ignorance. You work so very hard for it.
“Summary: The Associated Press reported that Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin “opposes gay marriage — constitutionally banned in Alaska before her time — but exercised a veto that essentially granted benefits to gay state employees and their partners.” However, the AP did not note that Palin stated that she vetoed the bill because the Alaska attorney general had advised her that it was unconstitutional, not because she believed same-sex partners of public employees should receive benefits.”
—————
I’ll go out on a limb and trust your “summary” even though you don’t provide a link. But even by this account the facts still stand. Palin’s veto effectively allowed gay couples who were state employees to receive benefits. She agreed that to deny gay couples those benefits would be unconstitutional. The AP story adds additional information but it does not change the fact. If Palin was a rabid homophobe as so many of you make her out to be, she was well within her power to use her veto to block those benefits, but BY CHOICE she decided otherwise. Now, as to the book banning allegations, can we have a source that verifies that Palin tried to ban any of these books, or that these are anything but baseless allegations?
Wayne knows full well that when I stated she had “no real choice” was to state that her efforts would prove entirely fruitless and she would ultimately NOT have succeeded and therefore, wisely, decided not to go foward with a gesture doomed to failure. She had NO intention or desire to “confer” anything toward GLBT people whatsoever. A search of her very own statements on that matter make is crtystal clear to anyone (who isn’t willfully ignorant) of her intentions. So Wayne, you can stop mincing words, you know full well the reality of the situation and no matter how you choose to spin it, it won’t change anything. The indisputable FACT is clear beyond a doubt, Sarah Palin had NO desire whatsoever for GLBT people to benefit in any way at all from her veto. You can retort all you want, I’m sure it’s quite clear to most everyone on this site why she did what she did and that FACT I’m sure is quite the “inconvenient truth” for you. Deal with it.
“The fact is, Palin BY HER OWN CHOICE vetoed it.”
Take your meds, Wayne.
Like you said, you can repeat a lie as many times as you want, but that doesn’t make it true. See the many VERIFIED sources below, and then keep in mind that you shouldn’t be bearing false witness. Mrs. Palin wouldn’t like that.
Typical. Cheney is anti-gay, but OK “privately” with his lesbian daughter and her partner. Tolerance of GLBT is not based on ones spiritual beliefs, but on the basic principle of: accept me for who I am and NOT how you want me to be.
If Wayne wants an AP source, the following headline fom Media Matters might be of interest to him…
“AP falsely suggests Palin supports benefits for same-sex partners of state employees”
“Summary: The Associated Press reported that Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin “opposes gay marriage — constitutionally banned in Alaska before her time — but exercised a veto that essentially granted benefits to gay state employees and their partners.” However, the AP did not note that Palin stated that she vetoed the bill because the Alaska attorney general had advised her that it was unconstitutional, not because she believed same-sex partners of public employees should receive benefits.”
From the article:
“The Department of Law advised me that this bill, HB4001, is unconstitutional given the recent Court order of December 19th, mandating same-sex benefits,” said Governor Sarah Palin. “With that in mind, signing this bill would be in direct violation of my oath of office.”
More:
“A January 1, 2007, Juneau Empire article reported that Palin vetoed the bill despite “her opposition to equal benefits for gay and lesbian government employees.”
As a candidate for governor, Palin reportedly supported efforts to prohibit state benefits for same-sex couples.”
Yet MORE:
“the Anchorage Daily News reported on August 6, 2006, that Palin believes “[e]lected officials can’t defy the court when it comes to how rights are applied, she said, but she would support a ballot question that would deny benefits to homosexual couples.”
aitch tee tee peeh://mediamatters.org/items/200808290025
Sourcing is so easy, but Wayne will only accept his version of events, so why bother?
Wayne, are you unable to type or use Google? The article was posted on Yahoo but it was Copyright 2008 Associated Press. Yahoo, so far as I know, does not write it’s own content for news stories. Yahoo develops their own “lifestyle” articles but relies on Reuters, AP, and other news services for their news content. There is a difference between honestly asking for source material and being willfully obstinate and refusing to even examine it after it has been supplied.
Actually, regarding her veto, the FACT is that Palin only vetoed the measure because she has no real choice.
—
That is simply not true. There is no court in the land that can force a Governor to use or not use their veto power. Palin could have allowed to law to pass, and gay couples would have been denied benefits and would have had to sue the state to see if they could attain benefits. The fact is, Palin BY HER OWN CHOICE vetoed it. And the gay couples were allowed benefits. No court has the power to force a Governor to veto. You can repeat a lie as many times as you want, but that doesn’t make it true.
“There is no court in the land that can force a Governor to veto. PERIOD.”
Wayne, the State Supreme Court told her not treating gay state employees equally to heterosexual state employees would be UN-Constitutional. This is the exact same thing the California state supreme court did with gay marriage, btw.
You charge US with not providing links, so here’s a quote from one…
“Palin’s bill signing comes one day after the Alaska Supreme Court reinforced its ruling on same-sex health benefits, ordering compliance by the state on Jan. 1.”
http://www.ktuu.com/Global/story.asp?S=5843150
The court “reinforced ITS ruling” that ORDERED compliance. That you believe Palin WANTED to comply is delusional (see reference below to the signing statement she made). IF you bother to read further on the provided link, you will ‘discover’ that Palin then wanted to ask “whether voters want[ed] a chance to overrule the court in the form of a constitutional amendment”. (SO gay-friendly, that.) In other words, if they CHANGED the Constitution, it would THEN be ‘constitutional’ to deny gay civil servants equal treatment before the law.
ANOTHER direct quote from the article:
“We believe we have no more judicial options to pursue. So we may disagree with the foundation there, the rationale behind the ruling, but our responsibility is to proceed forward with the law and abide by the constitution,” said Gov. Palin.”
IOW, she would have pursued other options to deny equal treatment if there had been any, she disagreed with both the foundation AND the rationale behind the court ruling and reluctantly would abide by the law. SOOOOO very ‘pro-gay’, eh?
You also said, “Palin used her first veto to block a law designed to disenfranchise gay couples who were state employees. That is a FACT. ONE THAT CAN AND HAS BEEN VERIFIED.”
Yes it is veifiable – I verified it, and I also found yet ANOTHER direct quote regarding her position on it:
“Please know that this veto does not signal any change or modification to my disagreement with the action and order by the Alaskan Supreme Court,” Palin wrote in her signing statement on her veto of HB 4001.”
Source: http://www.bentalaska.com/2008/09/alaskans-together-on-palins-lgbt-record.html
Thanks for both the challenge AND your eagerness to be proved wrong. Itwas so easy to do so. Got any more myths you want debunked?
If you’re such a Palin apologist, perhaps you could tell us, if Palin is SO ‘pro-equality’, why she doesn’t actively seek equal treatment for ALL gay Alaska (or all gay US) citizens, not just state employees?
Hmm. Let me try. Here’s an article called “Sarah Palin’s Book Banning, and Why It Matters.” It cites the same NYT article I mentioned and other sources.
http://bx.businessweek.com/2008-election/john-k-wilson-sarah-palins-book-banning-and-why-it-matters/4483670514759287720-5ff6c0cfcafefc6313c07636a373b669/
Actually, regarding her veto, the FACT is that Palin only vetoed the measure because she has no real choice. She didn’t “confer” anything on anyone, as Wayne is so fond of stating, because that would imply that she actually wanted her veto to have that effect. She most definitely did NOT WANT that to be the case and has stated so on several occassions. For her to continue when all court options had been exhausted would have found her veto unconstitutional and she so she was advised to not go down that route. So lets make this clear so that even Wayne can understand it – SARAH PALIN DID NOT INTEND HER VETO TO BENEFIT GLBT PEOPLE IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM – IT HAD THAT UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE BECAUSE THE SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA HAD ALREADY DECIDED THE MATTER AND SHE HAD NO CHOICE BUT TO VETO IT OR FIND HER VETO UNCONSTITUTIONAL. (Hope you enjoyed the CAPS Wayne).
That Palin’s church sought to ban Bass’s book from stores can be found in an article called, ” Palin church targeted “Pastor, I Am Gay” book” which was posted on Yahoo.
———-
Forgive me, but Yahoo? Can you provide a link from a reputable news source? ABC, CBS, NBC, AP, etc.? And maybe a source that verifies action and not just accusation?
Wayne, I responded with links but that post did not go through. Perhaps this site blocks links to prevent spamming. I don’t know.
—–
Really? That’s strange I posted a link earlier from Andrew Sullivan that show Palin actual record on Gay rights. Let’s try it again and see what happens:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/08/palin-on-gay-ri.html
Wayne, I responded with links but that post did not go through. Perhaps this site blocks links to prevent spamming. I don’t know.
That Palin’s church sought to ban Bass’s book from stores can be found in an article called, ” Palin church targeted “Pastor, I Am Gay” book” which was posted on Yahoo.
An account, in the librarian’s own words, of the book banning conflict can be found at a website called canarypapers. Here is the pertinent quote. If you Google the search terms “canarypapers book banning” it will be the first link.
““ I told her (Palin) clearly, I will fight anyone who tries to dictate what books can go on the library shelves…. This is different than a normal book-selection procedure or a book-challenge policy,” Emmons stressed. “She was asking me how I would deal with her saying a book can’t be in the library…. She asked me if I would object to censorship, and I replied ‘Yup’. And I told her it would not be just me. This was a constitutional question, and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) would get involved, too.”
The information on Palin’s participation in the effort to have “Daddy’s Roommate” banned when she was on the Wasilla City Council can be found on pg. 3 of the New York Times article “Once Elected, Palin Hired Friends and Lashed Foes.”
Is it that Palin tried to ban this book from her local library…she wants a democracy, but democracies flourish only when all books and points of view are allowed, even if they make you have the dry heaves! People have a right to think, see and read what they want even if that may offend some.
This book, however distasteful to Palin, is a lesson in democracy for her whether or not she wants that lesson. Book banning does not belong in a democracy.
A government that is fearless and has a thick hide, could care less about a book, it must govern and has no time to waste on such minor things as to what book a person can read.