Changing Attitudes Toward 'Curing' Gays?

Read the LA Times Story

From the Los Angeles Times
New ground in debate on 'curing' gays
Christian ministries who see homosexuality as a treatable disorder are starting to think that choice may not be a factor.
By Stephanie Simon
Times Staff Writer

June 18, 2007

Alan Chambers directs Exodus International, widely described as the nation's largest ex-gay ministry. But when he addresses the group's Freedom Conference at Concordia University in Irvine this month, Chambers won't celebrate successful "ex-gays."

Truth is, he's not sure he's ever met one.

With years of therapy, Chambers says, he has mostly conquered his own attraction to men; he's a husband and a father, and he identifies as straight. But lately, he's come to resent the term "ex-gay": It's too neat, implying a clean break with the past, when he still struggles at times with homosexual temptation. "By no means would we ever say change can be sudden or complete," Chambers said.

His personal denunciation of the term "ex-gay" — his organization has yet to follow suit — is just one example of shifting ground in the polarizing debate on homosexuality.

Despite the fundamental gulf that divides them, gay-rights activists and those who see homosexuality as a sinful disorder are starting to reach agreement on some practical points.

Chambers and other Exodus leaders talk deliberately about a possible biological basis for homosexuality, in part to explain that no one can turn a switch and flip from gay to straight, no matter how hard they pray.

A leading conservative theologian outside the ex-gay movement recently echoed the view that homosexuality may not be a choice, but a matter of DNA. To the shock and anger of many of his constituents, the Rev. R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, wrote that "we should not be surprised" to find a genetic basis for sexual orientation.

That's heretical to many conservative Christians. But it's a view increasingly embraced by the public at large; a Gallup Poll last month found that 42% of adults believe sexual orientation is present at birth. (Three decades ago, when Gallup first asked the question, just 13% held that view.)

Mohler's willingness to discuss the issue was welcomed by Dr. Jack Drescher, a New York psychiatrist who advocates for gay rights and has been a vocal critic of the ex-gay movement. "I saw it as a sign of openness," Drescher said.

"Something's happening. And I think it's very positive," agreed Michael Bussee, who founded Exodus in 1976, only to fall in love with another man — a fellow ex-gay counselor.

Now a licensed family therapist in Riverside, Bussee regularly speaks out against ex-gay therapies and is scheduled to address the Ex-Gay Survivor's Conference at UC Irvine at the end of the month.

But Bussee put aside his protest agenda recently to endorse new guidelines to sexual identity therapy, co-written by two professors at conservative Christian colleges.

He and other gay activists — along with major mental-health associations — still reject therapy aimed at "liberating" or "curing" gays. But Bussee is willing to acknowledge potential in therapy that does not promise change but instead offers patients help in managing their desires and modifying their behavior to match their religious values — even if that means a life of celibacy.

"It's about helping clients accept that they have these same-sex attractions and then allowing them the space, free from bias, to choose how they want to act," said Lee Beckstead, a gay psychologist in Salt Lake City who uses this approach.

The guidelines for this type of therapy — written by Warren Throckmorton of Grove City College and Mark Yarhouse of Regent University — have been endorsed by representatives on both the left and right. The list includes the provost of a conservative evangelical college and the psychiatrist whose gay-rights advocacy in the 1970s got homosexuality removed from the official medical list of mental disorders.

"What appeals to me is that it moves away from the total polarization" common in the field, said Dr. Robert Spitzer, the psychiatrist.

"For many years, mental-health professionals have taken the view that since homosexuality is not a mental disorder, any attempt to change sexual orientation is unwise," said Spitzer, a Columbia University professor.

Some therapies are widely considered dangerous, and some rely on discredited psychological theories. "But for healthcare professionals to tell someone they don't have the right to make an effort to bring their actions into harmony with their values is hubris," Spitzer said.

Activists on both sides caution that the rapprochement only goes so far.

Critics of Exodus note the group still sponsors speakers who attribute homosexuality to bad parenting and assert that gays and lesbians live short, unhappy lives.

And though Chambers has disavowed the term "ex-gay," his group's ads give the distinct impression that it's possible to leave homosexuality completely behind.

The Irvine conference, for instance, is being promoted with radio spots that talk of "sudden, radical and complete" transformation. (Chambers apologized for those ads in a recent interview, saying they were meant to urge church leaders to radically change the way they treat gays and lesbians, not to imply that conference-goers would magically transform their orientation.)

The American Psychological Assn. set up a task force this spring to revise the group's policy on sexual orientation therapy. The current policy is a decade old and fairly vague; it states that homosexuality is not a disorder and that therapists can't make false claims about their treatments.

The new policy, due early next year, must help psychologists uphold two ethical principles as they work with patients unhappy about their sexuality: "Respect for the autonomy and dignity of the patient, and a duty to do no harm," said Clinton Anderson, the association's director for lesbian, gay and bisexual concerns. "It's a balancing act."

stephanie.simon@latimes.com

Peter Akinola, Archbishop in Nigeria Continues Defiance Toward ECUSA-

Despite requests by our Presiding Bishop and the Archbishop of Canterbury, Peter Akinola plods along, disrupting our churches ...

Anglican church turmoil over gay issues deepens
By Michael Conlon

An African archbishop's defiant intervention in the U.S. Episcopal Church has sent new shock waves through a global Anglican church already badly divided and facing possible schism over gay issues.

Archbishop Peter Akinola of Nigeria kept up his high profile attack this week, saying the leadership of the U.S. branch of the Worldwide Anglican Communion was
"insulting and condescending" to the church at large.

"The decisions, actions, defiance and continuing intransigence of the Episcopal Church are at the heart of our crisis," he told Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury and titular leader of the 77-million-member global church.

"They are determined to pursue their own unbiblical agenda and exacerbate our current divisions," he said in a letter to Williams, who had asked him to stay out of the United States and not participate in a ceremony last Saturday in Virginia.

Akinola ignored the plea from Williams and an earlier one from the presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church, Katharine Jefferts Schori. He carried out the ceremony in which Bishop Martyn Minns, an Episcopalian, was installed as head of a new Nigerian-based church branch designed as a refuge for orthodox American believers.

The 2.4 million-member Episcopal Church has been splintered since 2003, when it consecrated Gene Robinson of New Hampshire as the first openly gay bishop in more than 450 years of Anglican church history.

Some congregations have already placed themselves under the jurisdiction of conservative bishops in Africa and elsewhere. The Episcopal Church has said that only 45 out of more than 7,400 congregations have voted to break away.

Akinola is a defender of traditional Christianity and a leader of the Anglican Communion's "Global South," churches in Africa, Asia and Latin America that now account for half of the world's Anglican church membership.

NO STRONG CENTRAL AUTHORITY

Akinola's action "seems to lay out a claim that he has a better sense than the Archbishop of Canterbury, and that's a bold claim," said Mark Sisk, the Episcopal Bishop of New York.
Last week's events are more than just another tremor on an existing fault line, Sisk said in an interview, and what may be very significant is that the Archbishop of Canterbury tried to stop Akinola.

His is "a new public voice in this and welcome from my prospective," Sisk said.
Williams earlier agreed to come to the United States in September to meet with the Episcopal bishops when they again meet to wrestle with such issues as gay bishops and the blessing of same-sex unions -- both of which are opposed by the Anglican church at large.

Unlike the Roman Catholic Church, Anglicans are organized more as a federation of national churches without hierarchical lines of authority. It would be hard to say that Akinola's action is unprecedented, added the Rev. Ian Douglas, professor of world mission and global Christianity at the Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge, Mass.

Over the years, he said, bishops have often taken "personal initiative" trying to balance "the relation between their own church and their roles and responsibilities, interests and concerns in the wider Anglican Communion," he told Reuters.

"That's not an easy negotiation," he added. "We're trying to hold together two realities that just by definition have tension -- the local and the global."
There is no "strong central agency that has the authority and the power to compel anything across the Communion. ... We are neither as centralized as the Roman Catholic Church nor as de-centralized" as some others, he added.

The conservative American Anglican Council called last week's development "a high point in North American Anglicanism."

"The energy and zeal of the Church of Nigeria have come to the U.S. ... and we pray that the result will be a re-strengthening of the historic, biblical Anglican faith in this nation after decades of accelerating moral and theological decline in the Episcopal Church," said Canon David Anderson, a leader of the group.
Copyright © 2007 Reuters Limited.

2 Former Youth Officials Arrested

Now, don't you know if you or I, or any two just regular faggots had been 'abusing' these boys, _WE_ would have been hauled away, arrested, held up to scorn by police, and certainly not just allowed to 'resign quietly' as these guys were. And the real kicker: some of the kids there in this pornographic made for Hollywood 'reform school' were there because of sexual offenses. And in case you were thinking Texas is the exception ... well .... how about sexual abuse of inmates is more the norm all over the United States! Because the faggots in this instance _were part of the corrupt system of justice in the United States_ their sins have been mostly overlooked by the same police who would persecute you and me!

PAT


2 former youth prison officials arrested
By ALICIA A. CALDWELL, Associated Press Writer

The former principal and assistant superintendent of a state juvenile prison were indicted Tuesday on charges that they sexually abused teenage inmates in their care.

The charges are the most serious to emerge from the youth prison scandal that erupted after news accounts revealed a 2005 report by the Texas Rangers alleging rampant sexual abuse at the remote facility languished without any action.

Ray E. Brookins, former assistant superintendent at the Texas Youth Commission's West Texas State School, was indicted on two counts of improper relationship with a student and two counts of improper sexual activity with a person in custody.

Former Principal John Paul Hernandez was indicted on one count of sexual assault, nine counts of improper sexual activity with a person in custody and nine counts of improper relationship between a student and educator.

Improper relationship with a student is a second-degree felony punishable by up to 20 years in prison.

Hernandez was arrested at his parents' home in Fort Stockton and Brookins was arrested at his Austin residence. Bail was set at $600,000 for Hernandez and $100,000 for Brookins. The Ward County clerk had no records of attorneys for either men. Hernandez has denied the allegations and Brookins has not been reached for comment.

The indictments were issued more than two years after a lengthy Rangers report detailing abuse allegations at the school was handed to a local prosecutor who has since come under fire for not acting on the allegations. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott has taken over the case.

Since the scandal broke in February, the Texas Legislature has pushed for a complete overhaul of the Texas Youth Commission. The executive director and the board resigned. The agency was put into receivership and a conservator was appointed to overhaul commission.

Former inmates and their parents have brought other allegations of sexual and physical abuse in facilities around the state. The commission also pledged to release more than 550 inmates who have served their minimum sentence and stayed out of trouble while in jail.

Brookins and Hernandez were accused of sexually abusing six inmates ages 16 to 19.

According to the indictments obtained by The Associated Press, Hernandez is accused of giving oral sex to two teen inmates on the same day in May 2004. Hernandez is accused of having oral sex or fondling several inmates over the course of 10 months from May 2004, to Feb. 23, 2005, the same day Texas Ranger Brian Burzysnki launched his investigation.

Brookins was also accused of having oral sex with inmates and molesting them. He was charged with abuses from two days in October 2004.

Brookins and Hernandez were allowed to quietly quit their jobs amid the Ranger investigation in early 2005.

Also on Tuesday, a former teacher at the school filed a petition to oust the local prosecutor, Randall W. Reynolds, on grounds of incompetence and official misconduct. According to an Associated Press analysis of state court filings, he declined to prosecute most cases about the school that were sent to his office in 2005 and 2006.

Reynolds, who recused himself after media began covering the scandal, filed his own petition Tuesday to remove a county attorney who is among his critics. Reynolds issued a news release saying he found it ironic that the state attorney general's office had apparently assigned five to 10 attorneys and staff to the grand jury investigation, while he, "as a part-time country DA," was criticized "for not doing it all in the time the media deemed appropriate."

Copyright © 2007 The Associated Press.

What Did You do in Your Bedroom Last Night?

Let's be honest: This is about sex

By Lauren R. Stanley

McClatchy-Tribune News Service

(MCT)

So what did you do in your bedroom last night?

For all the wrong reasons, that question seems to be at the heart of the disputes that are threatening to tear apart not just the Episcopal Church of the United States, but also the worldwide Anglican Communion, of which the Episcopal Church is a part.

Anglican leaders from around the world met last week in Tanzania, and their final communique signals a huge, continuing fight over, yes, sadly, what people are doing in their bedrooms.

Of course, the communique certainly doesn't ask that question; its focus is on power and authority and who can tell whom what and, most confusing of all, claims about respecting traditions and defending orthodoxy.

Many of us in the Communion are confused, and we want to ask two questions of our leaders:

Exactly WHICH tradition are you defending?

Exactly WHICH orthodoxy do you wish to uphold?

The more conservative Anglican leaders claim that homosexuality is sinful, specifically anathemized in the Bible, and that anyone who engages in homosexual activity is a sinner of such great import that he or she can not be either a priest or a bishop of the Church. This, these leaders say, is so important that it is worth breaking up the centuries-old Anglican Communion.

But which doctrine, which principle that forms the basis of our belief in and understanding of God, is challenged by sexual orientation? The Church has no doctrine on sexuality because we do not know God through God's sexual orientation or God's sexual activity. So to make sexuality a primary reason for breaking up the Episcopal Church in this country, or the worldwide Communion, makes no sense to many of us; for us, sexuality is NOT a doctrinal issue, it is a CULTURAL issue. And if sexuality is not a doctrinal issue, it cannot represent orthodoxy, so what is being defended?

Some congregations and dioceses in the United States have said that the argument over sexuality is so important that they no longer wish to be under the authority of bishops in this country with whom they disagree on this issue. Those congregations and dioceses have asked for, and in some cases received, different leadership from outside the United States.

Those actions also are confusing. It has been the recognized tradition throughout Christianity since the 4th century that bishops are limited by their own geographical boundaries. This limit was so important in the early Church that bishops at first the Council of Nicea (325 AD) and then the Council of Constantinople (381 AD) said that "bishops are not to go beyond their diocese to churches lying outside their bounds, nor bring confusion on the churches; ... and let not bishops go beyond their diocese for ordination or any other ecclesiastical ministrations, unless they be invited." That last part, about invitation, is important, because it has been understood since those two Councils that the invitations could come ONLY from the area bishop, and not from any other leaders.

Again, many of us are confused: If the communique truly represents tradition and orthodoxy, how is it that both tradition and orthodoxy can be overturned so easily? Respect for geographic boundaries is one of the oldest tenets of the Church; overturning it now seems arbitrary at best.

Then there is the issue of communion, of the Lord's Supper, which Anglicans call Eucharist, meaning "thanksgiving."

One-fifth of the primates, the provincial leaders, present at the Tanzania meetings refused to share in the Eucharist with American Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, claiming that to do so "would be a violation of Scriptural teaching and the traditional Anglican understanding."

In refusing to share the bread and wine together in the service, those seven primates actually BROKE traditional Anglican understanding, which says that the efficacy, the effectiveness, of the sacrament does not depend on either the person administering it or the person receiving it. That understanding began with Augustine of Hippo in the 4th century and was refined by Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century. The former wrote that the sacrament does not depend on the righteousness of the person distributing it. The latter wrote that the sacrament "is not wrought by the righteousness of either the celebrant or the recipient, but by the power of God."

Which is why so many of us are confused. By refusing to take communion together, the primates overturned centuries of tradition as well as doctrine.

Leaving many of us to ask, again: What is being defended here?

And finally, many in the American church are wondering about the ultimatum that has been issued by the primates, an ultimatum that basically orders American bishops to reject gays and lesbians, as well as orders congregations and dioceses in dispute over property issues to end all litigation.

The confusion here has nothing to do with the sexuality dispute. Our confusion is over those geographic boundaries, the ones that have been so important to the historic Church for 16 centuries (well preceding the founding of the Anglican Communion). When bishops from other dioceses and provinces tell bishops here that the latter must do what the former says, it breaks all traditions, all doctrines and all orthodoxy.

The ultimatum also presents the American Church with a huge problem: By demanding that American bishops make these decisions, the primates ignore the fact that the American Church is governed NOT by the bishops but by the General Convention, which is made up of laity, deacons, priests AND bishops. The latter cannot decide unilaterally for the rest of the Church. For the primates to ignore this fact is to ignore, once again, the Councils of Nicea and Constantinople, which proclaimed that "it is evident that the synod of every province will administer the affairs of that particular province."

This is why so many of us are confused: Everything we have been taught over the centuries about tradition and orthodoxy and doctrine is being overturned by this worldwide dispute. We no longer know WHICH tradition to follow, WHICH orthodoxy to defend, WHICH doctrine to believe. Our international leaders are offering us conflicting instructions, and we in the pews are left to figure it out on our own.

That this dispute within the Anglican Communion is huge and of great importance is obvious. The issue of sexuality looms large over all that we do, and there is severe disagreement on what God wants us to do, because sexuality, with all its permutations, goes to the very heart of who we are as human beings.

But if we are going to argue over it, could we at least be honest and admit that the real question here is not about the orthodoxy of the faith, it is not about the tradition of the faith, it is not about the doctrines of the faith?

Could we at least admit that this is, indeed, a cultural dispute? This is about some people who believe there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, and some who believe that it is a sin. This is about who will lead a Communion that for centuries was dominated by Westerners, who tend to be seen as liberal, and non-Westerners, who tend to be seen as conservative. This is about territory, history, culture and personal beliefs.

It is not, in the eyes of many of us, both in the United States and overseas, a dispute about God or our faith.

When spiritual leaders get together and focus almost exclusively on issues of sexuality, practically ignoring the needs of the millions in this world who are starving spiritually, physically and emotionally, it is obvious to the rest of us that our leaders really only have one question in mind:

What exactly did you do in your bedroom last night?

Copyright 2007, McClatchy-Tribune News Service

Is Rehab Replacing Jesus as America's Favorite Vehicle for Instant Forgiveness?

A note from Ms. Betty Bowers, America's Most Fabulous Christian

Is Rehab Replacing Jesus as America's Favorite Vehicle for Instantaneous Forgiveness?

This hasn't been a particularly good week for crazy people and their malodorous fluids, has it? First, Astronaut Lisa Nowak is found diapered in her own filth trying to end a life. Next, Space Cadet Anna Nicole Smith is found covered in her own vomit after ending her own.

According to the 4,598 breathlessly urgent news reports last night, Anna Nicole's nurse found her employer unconscious. How she was able to tell is anyone's guess. Truly, it makes one despair for the state of health care in this country when a 39 year-old traveling with her own private nurse can't get a simple heroin dosage right. But we shouldn't be too quick to impugn the no doubt frazzled nurse's skills. After all, it must have taken a trained eye to discern that Anna was actually unconscious instead of just giving another cataleptic interview to Entertainment Tonight.

Between a baby-talking Anna in Hollywood and a diaper-wearing astronaut in Orlando , Florida has, once again, shown its knack for taking an unfair share of the available crazy. As my dear Sister-in-Christ Mrs. Patsy Ramsey, formerly of Boulder, CO., once authoritatively opined:

"A smart killer will take that extra effort to dress up and run a brush through her hair, lest someone recognize the handwriting on the ransom note and she winds up stuck with an unflattering mug shot on SmokingGun.com. That's the type of heat of passion that can make you regret the whole thing."

I realize that lady astronauts don't tend to dress any snappier than lady golf pros, but Lisa Nowak (verily the Capt. Alex Forrest of NASA) inexplicably completed her stalker/killer ensemble with a very-hard-to-pull-off pair of government-issued diapers. Frankly, I would never have confronted a younger rival with such an unseemly panty line!

As Laura "Pickles" Bush remarked to me at breakfast this morning:

"The killing? Now, that I can understand. Trust me. But the not stopping five minutes for a poop and a ciggy? Why, that's a big ole batch of bug-eyed crazy!"

I find myself reveling in the novelty of agreeing with our First Lady. While the bathrooms at Texaco stations tend to look like something you might encounter upstairs at one of Whitney Houston's repossessed homes, you'd nevertheless think a woman used to peeing in zero gravity would be adroit enough to navigate her lower lady parts to hover without actually docking with the filthy cigarette-burned, yellowed-plastic of a public toilet seat. Instead of even trying such acrobatics, familiar to any Christian lady who has ever used facilities available to strangers, she wore diapers all the way from Houston to Orlando . Frankly, outside of Iraq , it's difficult to imagine a more unnecessary, stinking mess!

After all, if Lisa Nowak had simply sprung for the drugs, cash and constant media attention it apparently takes to engage the resourceful services of Howard K. Stern, her rival would now be slumped over a steering wheel in the cheap parking at Orlando Airport . And Lisa would have been sitting pretty in her lovely home in Texas instead of sitting soggy in a jail cell in Florida .

In fact, I told President Bush this morning:

"Instead of sending tens of thousands of new troops to Iraq to kill time -- and, well, them -- until you are out of office, why not just send Howard K. Stern, the Dr. Kevorkian of the Bar Association? Just tell Howard that he stands to inherit every mullah's moolah and Muqtada al-Sadr's will be found on a sidewalk with a needle up his arm by weekend. Besides, what better way to put a perky spin on a losing war than have Mary Hart giddily reporting on Howard's latest victim each day from Baghdad ?"

Helpful Howard probably needs a new purpose in life anyway -- especially since he is the only person left in his circle of friends who still has one. After all, he can't be feeling too secure right now. He must be rather cognizant of the Ed McMahon Rule of Celebrity: Parasites are at risk once the host dies. And I'm sure Howard will be no exception. Yes, he might be able to assuage his grief in that quintessentially 21st century American way -- by selling video of his loved one's dead body to the tabloids -- but with Anna Nicole gone, he must feel like a ship without a rudder. Or, rather, a pimp without a whore. At least he can take comfort in the wholly coincidental convenience of having the only witness to what Howard did moments before Anna Nicole's son died now gone. But how long before even the fawning Mark Steines finally asks: Who was supplying these dead people with their narcotics?

The thing that strikes both Jesus and me about this whole sad mess is this: Why are all the people who don't need rehab taking up spaces that Anna Nicole Smith could have used?

Frankly, I'm beginning to think that there is no room left in rehab for people who actually need it. Mark Foley. Isaiah Washington . Miss USA , Tara Conner. The Mayor of San Francisco . With press releases replacing Catholic confessional booths as America 's most painless form of pardon, everyone who gets caught doing something embarrassing makes a perfunctory pilgrimage to a rehab facility. These are really just lushly landscaped, deluxe resorts for celebrities who've found yet one more excuse to gather and talk about themselves. How long before "Rehab!" is the standard reply to the question: "You've just won the Super Bowl, what are you going to do now?"

Television's smarmy entertainment hosts nod hosannas when celebrities and politicians use a quick stay at rehab as a cheap, insincere ploy for secular absolution, but don't even suggest an involuntary trip to rehab when a drugged-out celebrity they want to retain access to nods off in the middle of an interview.

E! and the producers of the voyeuristically enabling "The Anna Nicole Show" knew Anna Nicole had a drug problem. But it made for good television to watch her slur her words and be so out of it she hired Bobby Trendy to festoon her bedroom with tufted pink satin until it looked like the inside of Barbie's coffin. Similarly, Fox currently knows that Paula Abdul gobbles down enough OxyContins before each broadcast to make Rush Limbaugh twitch with covetous envy. But a messy Paula makes for more entertaining American Idol than an overweight geek atonally caterwauling Barry Manilow. And judging from the coverage last night, a dead Anna Nicole is a bigger ratings winner than even the almost-dead one.

Here is an idea: Why don't culpability-avoiding public figures like Isaiah Washington skip the expensively scripted pantomimes of penance and rehabilitation to clear up space for people who really need it? Like Paula Abdul. Or Britney Spears. And the next new surrogate for Anna Nicole Smith that US Weekly, et al, creates and destroys.

Oh, and save a spot for Reverend Ted Haggard. After the quickest rehab on record, he's supposedly now "completely heterosexual." But, between us, I fear he is only a lingering handshake away from a meth-fueled relapse and a weekend in a sling.

Your Christian Friend,

Betty Bowers

Police Officer Rapes Transgendered Person, Gets 24 Year Prison Sentence

[Note: It is always good to see a police officer go to prison ... and I do not have a bit of sympathy for this man ... consider how often police officers have framed innocent homosexuals in the past, and threatened them by announcing that 'when you get to prison we will make sure all the other inmates know about you and how you are and what you are ... well, now turn about is fair play, in my opinion, and I trust that when the man gets out of prison in maybe 12 to 15 years, he will be forced to be on the sex offenders registry for the rest of his life, like 'sex offenders' he and other officers have arrested and hassled in the past. PAT]


Ex-cop's plea for probation denied

Guillermo Contreras
San Antonio (Texas) Express-News

The 12 minutes former San Antonio police officer Dean Gutierrez spent with a transsexual will cost him more than 24 years in prison, a federal judge decided Friday.

U.S. District Judge Xavier Rodriguez sentenced Gutierrez to 24 years and four months for the aggravated sexual abuse of Gabriel Bernal, 23, formerly referred to as "Starlight."

Gutierrez, who turns 47 today, begged and pleaded for probation while his attorneys painted him as a good family man and officer whose actions on June 10, 2005 were out of character.

"He (served as a police officer) responsibly, but for the 12 minutes of the 25 million minutes that he's lived," said Eddie Garcia, one of his lawyers. "He's not only a good officer, but a good man."

In a lengthy and emotional statement, Gutierrez said he comes from a churchgoing household and asked for a chance at redemption.

Dressed in a white jail top and white-and-black striped pants, Gutierrez told the judge he lost his mother when he was 10 but helped raise his four siblings with the guidance and faith in God. Gutierrez said his conviction made his life, marriage and family suffer.

He also said he served his country during six years in the Marines and had an unblemished record during his 16 years with the police force. He said he now does not leave his jail cell because he is terrorized by inmates who have threatened him.

"If you send me to any prison, anywhere, I will not survive," Gutierrez said, tears streaming down his face. "I plead to you, please release me. ... I'm asking for just one chance. ... Please consider probation — 20, 30, 40 years. I'll do that."

His statement never directly mentioned remorse for the victim, who urged the judge Friday to give the officer a life sentence.

"When I cried and begged him to stop and told him I had HIV, he kept going. He didn't care," Bernal, who lives as a woman, told the judge. "You should have no pity for him because he had no pity for me."

At trial in August, federal jurors convicted Gutierrez of willfully violating the civil rights of Bernal resulting in bodily injury, and also found that the conduct involved aggravated sexual abuse.

According to testimony, Gutierrez forced Bernal into his squad car at Zarzamora and Laredo streets, and took Bernal to a dark, secluded area. Bernal said the officer then struck her in the face with his hand and on the leg with his police baton as he raped her.

Gutierrez did not testify at his trial. But his lawyers claimed in closing arguments that Gutierrez admitted having consensual oral sex with Bernal, but denied sodomizing her.

The judge noted Gutierrez has not been remorseful in the eyes of the judicial system. Letters mailed to the judge by Gutierrez's supporters, the judge said, show Gutierrez asked his church for forgiveness for his "moral transgressions," but denied that he committed a crime.

The judge told the audience, which consisted largely of Gutierrez's family and friends, that the evidence showed Gutierrez broke the law.

Federal sentencing guidelines — which are based on a point-scoring system — recommended Gutierrez's punishment at life in prison.

The judge, however, found that some of the calculations appeared to count double against Gutierrez for the same activity, and Rodriguez determined that the applicable guideline range was 292 months to 365 months instead. The judge then opted to sentence Gutierrez to 292 months.

Gutierrez's lawyers said they plan to appeal the conviction and sentence.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
gcontreras@express-news.net

Meet Your Meat: A Look at Modern Day 'Factory Farms'

Today I have a video for you which is, frankly, one of the most horrible I have ever seen. It shows in graphic detail how today's Factory Farm in the USA operates. See if you can watch it all without being dismayed and frightened by the situation the animals are in. When you spend your money at McDonalds for example, you are supporting this kind of activity. Now, let's get on with
Meet Your Meat