Box Turtle Bulletin
News and commentary about the anti-gay lobby“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
News and commentary about the anti-gay lobbyJune 3rd, 2008
What we reported yesterday is now official. California’s Secretary of State Debra Bowen has annouunced that the proposed anti-marriage constitutional amendment has enough valid signatures to appear on the November ballot.
Latest Posts
Featured Reports
In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.
When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.
In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.
On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.
Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"
At last, the truth can now be told.
Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!
And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.
Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.
Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.
Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.
The FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.
“Google” is a trademark of Google Inc.
© Box Turtle Bulletin. All Rights Reserved.
Posts 
Posts via daily email:
cooner
June 3rd, 2008
Can someone here knowledgeable in law clear this up … Is it true that a California voter initiative can AMEND THE CONSTITUTION with a mere simple majority vote?
That seems really weird … It seems like most other states set the bar to amend the constitution higher, either by some sort of supermajority (60%, 2/3rds, etc.) or use some method of allowing a cooling-off and consideration period, like requiring votes for two consecutive years.
Then again, California often seems to be different, sometimes in a good way, sometimes bad.
werdna
June 3rd, 2008
The number of signatures required to qualify an initiative which amends the constitution is a bit higher than for one which merely creates a statute, but a simple majority is all that’s required for either kind of initiative to pass.
Yes, it’s kind of nuts. Living most of my life in California I was constantly amazed at the kind of stuff that we were constantly asked to vote on. I’m with Patt Morrison on this one.
Timothy Kincaid
June 3rd, 2008
Cooner,
To amend the constitution it requires signatures of 8% of the last gubernatorial voters and a majority vote. But to REVISE the constitution it requires another process altogether.
There is some argument that removing the restrictions that all persons are equal under the law is not an amendment but is rather a revision. I don’t know if that argument will be heard or considered.
cooner
June 4th, 2008
Thanks, guys. And good luck this fall. We hope to move back to California, maybe sooner that we thought, but I doubt I’ll be back in time for the election this fall.
Todd
June 4th, 2008
I have a question I hope someone can help answer as I am not a legal scholar by any means.
While we need to fight having discrimination added to the California constitution, the court decision in favor of equality including the name marriage and making sexual orientation a suspect classification that if the amendment passes the court decision would still stand but need to be interpreted differently. That is , since it determined that the State could not discriminate in calling the institutions “marriage” amd “Domestic partnerships”, woudl the amendment if it passes, force the State to only recognize Domestic Partnerships for all couple leaving Marriage only a religious institution. I need to re-read the court’s decision, but it seems that the wording left it open to State recognized marriage for all or marriage for none and went with marriage for all for the sake of simplicity.
The amendment won’t change the courts ruling only limit marriage to a man and a woman so I was just wondering…
Leave A Comment