You remember James Loney.  He was a Christian aid worker who was held hostage in Iraq by insurgents and freed by Coalition forces.  He is from Canada.  And he's gay.  A fact his family and partner kept quiet for fear for his safety while imprisoned. 

So he's freed by the troops and returned to Canada where his partner can end what could only be hellacious agony born in solitude without the "comfort" other spouses can seek from public support. 

And he finds that his summer camp program has been de-funded by the Canadian Knights of Columbus b/c the curriculum might promote homosexuality to kids according to Loney.

The good Knights deny this was their agenda.  

In an interview with the Toronto Star KC official Jack Clancey said Loney's allegations were "out of left field."

"We closed down that leadership camp because we needed to review the way we were going and the curriculum that we were teaching," Clancey told the Star

But of course.  The timing, and the fact that the Knights support anti-gay marriage amendments EVERYWHERE has nothing to do with it.  Its just business. 

Just Catholic bigotry as usual.

However, some in the LGBTQ community aren't that thrilled with Loney.  Particularly as he was engaged in "missionary" work in the first place.  From the UK-Ireland edition of gay.com comes this perspective:

While Loney has obviously suffered trauma at the hands of his kidnappers, it's not hard to question his presence in Iraq, preaching Christianity on behalf of an unashamedly homophobic organization.

Aside from putting his own life at risk, Loney undoubtedly endangered the lives of beleaguered US soldiers, already overworked with insurgencies and bomb threats.

It?s also highly unlikely that war-torn Iraqi citizens are in need of God-bothering missionaries attempting to convert them as gore and missiles rain from the sky.

Loney seems to have learned little form the experience as he?s considering the possibility of joining a Christian Peacemakers Team project in Colombia or the Palestinian territory next year.

He acknowledged his experience in Iraq could make it a lot more difficult, but seems oblivious to the inherent selfishness of such an act.

Big shout out to Sister Patricia McCann of Oakland who outed her Roman Catholic self as a believer that:

Building family depends on good, loving, generous, mature, self-giving and stable adults who are able and willing to parent. God makes those in a variety of patterns.

Amen, Sister Patricia.  You tell those who are glued to their pulpits in righteous indignation that they should get out in the world and actualy work with families before them jump to their hateful little conclusions. 

The well-being of children and young people is threatened by a family context of violence and dissension, by parental alcohol and drug abuse, by narcissistic behavior in adults, by parental neglect or lack of interest in their activities. I've seen young people, both rich and poor, raised by loving and devoted parents, grandparents, stepparents, foster parents, gay parents, single parents and adoptive parents who thrive and grow into mature adulthood because of loving and stable homes. And I've seen youths raised by adults who, through their own limitations, handicap children psychologically and morally for life.

Another PG luminary, columnist Reg Henry weigh in with his thoughts on how fortunate Pennsylvanias are that legislators are tackling real issues like gay marriage.

But how exactly will gays threaten traditional marriage? That is a good question, but only in the sense that no one has a good answer.

In ignoring the question, we need to heed our most prominent moral leaders, i.e., our politicians. Just because they are shifty characters you wouldn't lend a dollar to unless it was attached to a string, doesn't mean they can't thunder like Old Testament prophets.

Now that's deserves another cup of coffee ...

In response to the Post-Gazette's two-thirds hearted opposition to the so-called Marriage Protection Amendment, two of the amendment's sponsors took the time to whine about the PG's mischaracterization of their bill.  You've heard it all before, but since the PG has been parsimonious in covering this issue of late, I'll take a stab at it.

State Senator Bob Regola (R-Hempfield) and State Senator Scott Boyd (R-Lancaster) have seen a future filled with married homos and it scares the living hell out of them:

No one can legitimately claim that Pennsylvania's Defense of Marriage Act will not be challenged in court. The testimony of gay-marriage advocates in Harrisburg confirms it is not a matter of if, but when. Prominent individuals from the ACLU and other organizations believe same-sex marriage should be legalized. Knowing there is little chance of accomplishing that goal legislatively, using the court to achieve this legislative agenda becomes an attractive tool.

They take to task stout-hearted fellows like Dan Frankel who have been pointing out that this legislation might actually hurt tens of thousands of unmarried heterosexuals, but Bob and Scott assure us that won't happen -- their crusade against homos won't have collateral damage.  Doesn't that sound familiar? 

And they call out those tricky legislators who took the political route to compromise the full degree of hate and fear that was embedded in the original bill.

Opponents are aware of this and have repeatedly tried to dilute the amendment in both the state House and Senate. A vote to weaken the Pennsylvania Marriage Protection Amendment by allowing civil unions is a vote that will kill the effort to protect marriage in this legislative session.

You are either for the original amendment or you hate freedom.   Something like that. 

These guys suck.