Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“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…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

Benkof Loses Last Gay Newspaper

Timothy Kincaid

June 26th, 2008

UPDATE :

June 30, 2008 – David Benkof’s personal anti-gay blogsite, Gays Defend Marriage, has now removed references to his “Fabulous Observant” column and no longer refers to Benkof as a columnist for gay newspapers.

ORIGINAL ARTICLE:

benkof.jpgAnti-gay activist David Benkof has been writing articles in mainstream newspapers posing as a columnist for the gay press. No doubt he, and the opinion editors, believe that this gives his op-eds more credibility. Until we began to look into his claims, his bio stated:

David Benkof is a columnist for several gay newspapers around the country and blogs at gaysdefendmarriage.com. Write to him by e-mail at davidbenkof@aol.com

In our report David Benkof: Behind the Mask, we exposed this deception along with his self-description on his anti-marriage website:

David Benkof’s “Fabulously Observant” column offering readers of LGBT newspapers traditionally religious and conservative perspectives on gay and lesbian issues debuted at the beginning of May. Currently, two publications subscribe – the Dallas Voice and Q-Notes (North Carolina). Other publications in Florida, Ohio, and Oklahoma have purchased at least one installment.

I’m particularly excited that in publications like Q Notes, my column will run alongside those written by people like Wayne Besen, who I’m told despise me and everything I stand for. We’re a wide and diverse community, and everyone’s voice should be heard.

As we stated in our report, when we contacted Q Notes we were told by Matt Comer, the Editor, that Benkof had been dropped due to his “recent extreme misrepresentation” and had been instructed to remove any reference to Q Notes from his site.

Now we have been told that the Dallas Voice, Benkof’s last contracted gay outlet, has discontinued his column. In an e-mail to Wayne Besen, separately confirmed to us, Editor Tammye Nash said that the Dallas Voice will not be publishing any more of Mr. Benkof’s columns. She had based her original willingness to carry Benkof on work performed when he wrote for Q Syndicate but his more recent anti-gay work had changed her mind.

In his latest anti-gay article, published by the San Francisco Chronicle, Benkof does not reference gay newspapers. His bio states:

David Benkof blogs at GaysDefendMarriage.com. To comment, e-mail DavidBenkof@aol.com.

However, those going to his site still find the statement that Benkof is “a columnist for the Dallas Voice and several other LGBT newspapers”, and that:

David Benkof’s “Fabulously Observant” column offering readers of LGBT newspapers traditionally religious and conservative perspectives on gay and lesbian issues debuted at the beginning of May. Currently, the column runs in the Dallas Voice at least once a month. Other publications in Florida, Washington state, Ohio, and Oklahoma have purchased at least one installment.

I’m particularly excited that in some publications, my column will run alongside those written by people like Wayne Besen, who I’m told despise me and everything I stand for. We’re a wide and diverse community, and everyone’s voice should be heard.

See Also:
David Benkof: Behind the Mask
Benkof’s Continuing Parade of Lies and Deception
David Benkof’s One Man Anti-Gay Campaign of Lies and Deception

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0 | TRACKBACK URL

Timothy Kincaid
June 26th, 2008 | LINK

It is worth noting that David Benkof’s latest article contains statements that are not honest or accurate. For example, Benkof says:

The Partners Task Force site, buddybuddy.com, does contain a few friendly words about monogamy, mostly from heterosexual, married allies of the cause. But the site defines monogamy as being married to one person at a time, no matter how many sexual partners one has. When two gay men say they are monogamous, the vast majority of people assume they don’t sleep around. From now on, I suggest, gays who say they are monogamous need to be asked if they mean monogamous using the usual connotation, or the little-known gay definition of having only one spouse.

But that is simply not true. Benkof is referencing an article on the site from 2002 entitled Keeping A Sexually Open Relationship Intact which sought to give advice to persons in relationships that were sexually open. It did not suggest that this is an ideal realtionship or even the most common relationship. And the section that Benkof references in turn references a 1989 survey:

Our National Survey of Lesbian & Gay Couples shows us that female respondents heavily favored exclusive sexual relationships. Exclusivity was also the preferred mode for male couples, however, the men made far more exceptions.

For comprehension purposes, our survey used the term “monogamy.” While the term is widely used to describe a “sexually closed relationship,” it properly means “individuals who only marry one person” (as opposed to “polygamy”), which does not describe sexual agreements.

In other words, the site was clarifying that while “monogamy” has a technical definition of “marriage to one person”, in their 1989 survey they used the more commonly understood meaning of “sexual exclusivity”. This is precisely the opposite of what Benkof claims.

And the 1989 survey they were referencing found that while 26% of respondants reported that their relationship was based on “monogamy with some exceptions” a full 63% reported “monogamy” (no exceptions). Again, this is very much in conflict with Benkof’s assertion that gays are people who think that philandering is compatible with the institution of marriage.

Jason D
June 26th, 2008 | LINK

3 Things that do NOT have one, singular, universally accepted definition

Marriage
The Gay Definition of Monogamy
The Gay Lifestyle

I love when people like DB use the tortured definition of one group of gays, and suggests it is the definition of all gays.

By that logic, Hannibal Lector is the definition of a white man. Fred Phelps is the definition of a Christian. Scott Peterson is the definition of a hetero husband. Lorena Bobbit is the definition of a hetero wife. And, of course, the late Tammy Faye is a perfect example of how ALL women put on their eye makeup.

werdna
June 26th, 2008 | LINK

Timothy-
Just to clarify: in that study it was 63% of men who were in monogamous (meaning sexually exclusive) relationships, the number for women was 91%!

Timothy Kincaid
June 26th, 2008 | LINK

Yes. Thanks werdna.

Priya Lynn
June 26th, 2008 | LINK

Well done Timothy.

MirrorMan
June 26th, 2008 | LINK

Is it just me, or do others get the sense of a house of cards falling apart?

Gary
June 26th, 2008 | LINK

Washington State? Huh? Where?

He must be counting his letter to the editor, cause after his debacle swiftboating Sen. Murray in the Seattle P.I. No reputable publication up here in the northwest will touch him.

David Benkof
June 26th, 2008 | LINK

I will remove the Dallas Voice from my Web site once my column no longer appears there. They commissioned six pieces and so far ran only two. I am negotiating with the publisher what to do with the remaining four, and it is not yet clear whether they will run none, some, or all of them. The Washington state paper was the Stonewall News Northwest which wrote me asking permission to use a column, which I granted. I don’t get that publication so I don’t know for sure when or if it ran.

Your glee in getting my column dropped from gay newspapers is frankly stupid. Did you seriously think I was going to recruit more than a few gay press readers to support man-woman marriage? Now I’m able to spend more time writing for publications like the San Francisco Chronicle (today’s my second marriage column there), the LA Daily News (also two so far), the New York Post, and both major newspapers in Philadelphia. If you don’t think I’ll make a bigger impact on the marriage debate writing 2-3 times a week in such publications than in five gay publications once a month, you’re seriously confused. Not to mention I’m in talks with a major book publisher and will need all the time I can get if I’m hired to write a book – getting my gay-press column dropped could be the best thing that’s happened to me.

As for the gay press, one of the other large NGNG papers has invited me to write a series of short opinion pieces; I won’t reveal which until it starts so you don’t pressure them not to do it.

MirrorMan
June 26th, 2008 | LINK

Yes, David. You have had two pieces published in The Chronicle. One was today, the other January 18th of 2004. At that rate of publication, I guess we can expect another visit in 2012. That, and you are getting torn apart in the comments section. I haven’t checked the other publications, and I am not going to bother. I am pretty sure that wherever your work appears, there will be enough clear-headed people to denounce you for the charlatan that you appear to be.

Evan
June 26th, 2008 | LINK

“That, and you are getting torn apart in the comments section.”

Haha, I noticed that.

Gary
June 26th, 2008 | LINK

Interesting, because I just spoke with Fred Flink, the publisher of Stonewall News Northwest in Spokane. Who says he’s never heard of you, has never published a column by you and doesn’t solicit columnists anyway.

Liar.

Timothy Kincaid
June 26th, 2008 | LINK

As on other threads which highlight the sharp differences between the claims of Mr. Benkof and reality, let’s keep our focus on facts not personality.

Please don’t be drawn into trading personal barbs with Mr. Benkof.

Statements of fact, especially when substantiated, are far better tools for revealing Mr. Benkof’s goals, methods, and patterns of deceit.

Gary
June 26th, 2008 | LINK

sorry that’s Fred Swink not Flink.

Regan DuCasse
June 26th, 2008 | LINK

Mr. Benkof…your columns of course, are fodder for a lot more than the marriage issue.
Let me say this, what’s the point in doing it at all?
Why are you criticizing that gay people marry for ANY reason? But that you bring up such references, considering the stakes does say something about rotten motives.
Segregationists used low marriage rates, and high out of wedlock birth rates (a sad stat that hasn’t changed for the better) to illustrate that blacks were morally reprobate, non monogamous, sexually irresponsible and immature. UNFIT TO MARRY. States like LA, MS, AL and GA tried to implement marriage bans on any blacks who’d lived together or had children without marriage.

Jim Crow in fact, was motivated more by sexuality than color. But color was an easier way to achieve separation.

I can point to one Percy Green a black man and editor of a paper in Jackson, Mississippi who supported segregation. His position was mostly that blacks were more supportive of one another if they were not integrated with whites.
But considering the stakes, and the fact that he was paid by segregationist organizations to say it, I might even think Mr. Green was blackmailed or intimidated in some other way.

I wouldn’t be going much of a stretch if unmarried status was a way of identifying gay people in ways that color and gender cannot as a means of depriving citizens of their rights and ability to function fully as such.
And minority status of gays is commisserate with that of blacks back in the day.

The stakes for many reasons other than that are extremely high Mr. Benkof. They are life threatening in some places, professionally risky in others…gay children will not have the same support or opportunity as their straight peers.
Something like what black children had to deal with.
That’s what happens when your orientation, like dark skin…is used for discrimination disguised as moral reform.
Heterosexuality is no indicator of character or virtue any more than skin color is.

What you do Mr. Benkof is abet an already distinct legacy we’ve seen before.
Not allowing the tools that support full personhood as a minority in a hostile field. Not allowing the means to SHOW what WOULD happen if and when given the same opportunity as others can have without any challenge ONLY because they don’t happen to be homosexual, or a minority…not only in the country…but in the entire world.

No way I could have made this short, Mr. Benkof…but as a black woman, married to a white man and fully empathizing with how OTHER minorities have been defamed, especially about sexuality…you are a disturbing human being.
Truly.

Gary
June 26th, 2008 | LINK

Bravo Regan DuCasse.

rusty
June 26th, 2008 | LINK

David,
again, you continue your rants, and as you admittedat your blog made a lesbian cry and she (a friend) won’t talk to you. . .you continue to cross the line of civility, being mean, dismissive and demeaning. Your ‘GaysDefendMarriage’ should not be relfective of a Plural group. If you wanted to enter in productive discourse to look at cooperative, collective work supporting GLBT folk, you should have started off without your divisive, arrogant tone.
Based on the writings of others you shift away from any true criticism.

Blessed are the peace makers. . .for such a devout Jew, again you are not making friends, playing nice, and your disrepectful attitude is truly awful.

you make think you are winning on the playground, but it won’t be long before you are just playing by yourself.

David Benkof
June 26th, 2008 | LINK

So I’m getting torn apart in the comments section of the gayest city in the country. Try publishing a pro-gay-marriage article in the Orange County Register.

I don’t remember the name of the person from Stonewall who contacted me- it was publisher@stonewallnews.net or something like that. Because I agreed to let them run it for free, I saw no reason to keep the E-mail, since I would never have to collect from him. He did praise the column, however. Maybe you spoke to the editor, not the publisher? But I’m not lying.

Regan-

I remember you. You’ve written me before. I blogged about you in my “Will marriage change?” post. Thanks for getting back in touch. I find it shocking that you would question my trying to get the laws to reflect my values about marriage, when that’s precisely what you’re doing. And since the law has always been my way, the burden of proof is on you to show why marriage laws should change, not on me to show why they should stay the same. But if you want to see the many, many good reasons marriage should stay between a man and a woman, visit GaysDefendMarriage.com.

Rusty-

You have now misrepresented me three times. I made a lesbian cry many years ago for advocating traditional Judaism’s opinion on gay issues. I had a friend drop me like three days ago. The two incidents have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Believe it or not, I know more than one lesbian.

And I bet even people on the other side would rather see new posts from you, rather than the same thing cut and pasted three times.

Gary
June 26th, 2008 | LINK

Stonewall News Northwest is a small publication out of Spokane WA (close to the Idaho border), technically Washington State but hardly a gay mecca.

Fred Swink, Publisher and Editor in Chief has never heard of David Benkof or David Bianco, has never solicited his work.

How convenient for you to have seen “no reason to keep the E-mail”.

Regardless, your website still states: “Other publications in Florida, Washington state, Ohio, and Oklahoma have purchased at least one installment.”

By your own admission that’s not true because you say you “agreed to let them run it for free”.

BobVB
June 26th, 2008 | LINK

Actually could he be referring to this ‘guest columnist’ op-ed piece in the Seattle Post Intelligencer?

You mean the paper PAYS the guest columnists of this caliber?

Glad I cancelled my subscription…

BobVB
June 26th, 2008 | LINK

Didn’t take here is the link… http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/363878_califgays21.html

Gary
June 26th, 2008 | LINK

No, that’s the article he got in hot water over for misrepresenting our beloved Senator Ed Murray who responded here: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/364362_ltrs26.html

Gary
June 26th, 2008 | LINK

also, BobVB I remember the comment section on that original piece to be classic. . .of course benks jumped right in.

Tom Chatt
June 26th, 2008 | LINK

David Benkof comments:
So I’m getting torn apart in the comments section of the gayest city in the country. Try publishing a pro-gay-marriage article in the Orange County Register.

David, no need to try publishing a pro-gay-marriage article in the Orange County Register. The editors themselves have already done so twice in the last couple of months.

David Benkof
June 27th, 2008 | LINK

Tom-

Is there a comment section? Has everyone agreed with them or, as one might expect, have the residents of that conservative county disagreed with a liberal opinion, just as the most progressive city in America had many readers disagree with me?

werdna
June 27th, 2008 | LINK

There is a comments section at the OCR and if Benkof had bothered to look before he asked his question he would’ve noticed that they seem to be running strongly in favor of the editors’ pro same-sex marriage stance.

Jason D
June 27th, 2008 | LINK

“I find it shocking that you would question my trying to get the laws to reflect my values about marriage, when that’s precisely what you’re doing.”

What’s shocking is that what you want hurts an entire class of people, what Regan, and I, and many others want is fair to gays and straights.

It’s funny that you think we have to prove we deserve a civil right, when the constitution of this country says the exact opposite. What’s more is how we have proven, time and again, how being denied access to this civil right has hurt our community, socially, financially, and even legally.

If it’s so important that the government support your faith (congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion – I guess that part of the first amendment is optional to you) then where is your column on banning the sale of pork? Where is your column on the banning of cheeseburgers? Where is your column on stopping all business functions between sunset on friday and sunset on saturday?

Bob RRR
June 27th, 2008 | LINK

David B., you said, “if you want to see the many, many good reasons marriage should stay between a man and a woman, visit GaysDefendMarriage.com.”

Sorry, I cannot find a good one. All of your arguments pointed to something else, not gay marriages. You have to describe a clear example and case that hurt by gay marriages by showing us a scientific-based pattern. All your cases points to a case that has nothing to do with gayness. After all I read and explore any reasons why we should ban gay marriages, I have not seen any clear, reasonable proof for banning gay marriage all my life, even from some respectable, credible, powerful leaders such as a pope or rabbi.

Most of your arguments should either be related to “ban vs allow all marriages.” Anything related to gayness will not get you anywhere.

Evan
June 27th, 2008 | LINK

“There is a comments section at the OCR and if Benkof had bothered to look before he asked his question he would’ve noticed that they seem to be running strongly in favor of the editors’ pro same-sex marriage stance.”

You beat me to it. Haha. Orange County is Republican, but it’s not as much the religious kind as it is simply the kind that doesn’t want to pay taxes.

MirrorMan
June 27th, 2008 | LINK

David wrote: “As for the gay press, one of the other large NGNG papers has invited me to write a series of short opinion pieces; I won’t reveal which until it starts so you don’t pressure them not to do it.”

That’s a load of crap, Benkof, and you, and anyone else even remotely aware of how newspapers operate, knows it. Opinion pieces are sought after by papers to provide balance and to spark discussion by presenting alternative views. That much is true. However, just as any paper would not allow an Op-Ed piece from the Ku Klux Klan on immigration or racial policy; respectable papers would not allow an Op-Ed piece from a less than reputable source. You can’t pressure papers to not run pieces that fit their guidelines. If that were the case, Dinesh D’Souza would never be printed again. The difference is that although Mr. D’Souza writes extremely provocative and charged pieces, his credentials are unimpeachable. You might think he is a whack job (I do), but you can’t fault his fact-checking or research. You, on the other hand, do not have such a high regard for facts or research. If we were to alert any publication to your dubious history, they wouldn’t run your crap because of anything we have said, but rather because of what you have done, which in this case is misrepresent the facts, cherry-pick your quotes, and paraphrase articles to reinforce your position when in fact they run counter to them. Anyone who does any research knows this. That is why you are, indeed, getting shredded at The Chronicle and everywhere else you show up. I have one word to describe you, and that word is ‘Hack’.

Popsiclestand
June 27th, 2008 | LINK

Wow, David! Way to take Regan’s very well written critique of you, your cause and its comparison to segregation and break it down into an issue of her values versus yours. Then, to top it all off, you ask her to prove why gay people are equal citizens just like straight people and deserve the right to enter into civil contracts with one another just like their straight counterparts. What the heck is there to prove in that, David? That’s like someone asking you to prove why they shouldn’t punch you in the face. Lol.

I really do hope you continue to get published. The larger the platform, the bigger fool you make of yourself. Any person who has any knowledge of our country’s laws, its history, and a little dash of common sense — even if they held a view opposing gay marriage — would see through your BS.

Again, just wow.

Timothy Kincaid
June 27th, 2008 | LINK

Benkof’s Misstatement of the Morning:

Today David Benkof is declaring gays and lebians “have no idea what marriage is”. It’s the usual vacuous ranting, this time claiming as evidence that only gays and Moonies have mass weddings.

His examples’s of mass weddings are:

1. Commitment ceremonies performed at the 1993 and 2000 Marches on Washington. Of course, these were not marriages, mass or otherwise.

2. Mass weddings held in San Francisco in 2004. Benkof makes this claim without providing any evidence that a single mass wedding occurred.

3. “a mass wedding, concert, and fundraiser for a group of parents of gays and lesbians scheduled for Balboa Park in San Diego this October.”

According to an email from the organizers of this event, Bob & Dave Cozzoinger, “Couples will individually say their ‘I DO’s’ before licences are signed and recorded”. The term “mass wedding” was a poor word choice and is being eliminated from their promotion of the event.

Total number of mass weddings that Benkof documented: zero.

Regan DuCasse
June 27th, 2008 | LINK

David B.
I don’t think you understand that there is quite a lot of irrational demand that gay people prove what no one can, are presented with conundrums and Catch 22 standards, and outright expectations of the impossible.
Gay men and lesbians are still argued with over whether or not being gay is a choice, as if that is on what a person’s freedoms should rest, and as if genetic or natural characteristics has ever saved a citizen from brutal bigotry.
The point is David, there isn’t enough proof that will satisfy anyone committed to denying gays and lesbians their very PERSONHOOD.
As you well know, this isn’t about marriage alone.
There is virtually no one excluded from marrying based on a characteristic they have. And homosexuality is familiar, and has irrefutable endurance regardless of what people try to do.
And every suggestion as to why gay people deserve to be, also includes heterosexual sexuality as well.
There are no ‘many reasons’ that you posted at the site you mentioned that JUSTIFIED continuing discrimination.
I see chronic rationalization, but not JUSTIFICATION for what you assert. There is a huge difference, the definition of which you should understand.
You can rationalize until kingdom come, but justifying marriage discrimination, no.

So, if you believe the burden of proof is on gay people…then WHAT would that be? What KIND of proof do you think is required and WHERE would it come from?

In a court of public opinion, Mr. Benkof…you can throw out all kinds of theories, hyothesis and suggestions and try and pass them off as facts.
In a court of law, however…you have to work with the evidence you HAVE. It cannot be manufactured, stolen, distorted or destroyed before it reaches the proper forum for it’s adjudication.

In the court of law, gay people can bring the evidence that they are given undue, unfair and tremendously difficult burdens beyond what heterosexuals do FOR THE SAME BEHAVIORS.

It’s not radical to tend to who you’re in a romantic relationship with. It’s not radical to want to marry them after one year to twenty. It’s not radical to adopt children, some who are already successfully raised young adults. It’s not radical to serve your country openly and honestly and it’s not radical to want to marry, even to prove that you deserve it after already enduring the undue burden of NOT being married for a long time.

The intents and purposes of marriage are for ADULTS.
ADULTS that have taken on the responsibilities of marriage and children, shouldn’t have to prove they should be married when it’s a GIVEN they should if they weren’t gay.

What possible Constitutional JUSTIFICATION is there to KEEP adults FROM their familial duty?
Especially since no laws can be made to PREVENT them from abandoning them at will?
Not since slavery have adults with children not had the option by law to marry. And with that unmarried status, came vulnerability to being separated, children and property taken away by the whims of anyone.
This is the only status that gay people have shared with the slave legacy.
And many have experienced the very scenarios I mentioned of helplessness in supporting and protecting THEIR situation.

It’s not about who deserves to marry, but about our notion of marriage being so life and love affirming in and of itself, that a murderer incarcerated for life can have it, a person who is dying can have it, someone who is elderly can, childless or who has messed up many marriages already can try again as many times as possible.

Marriage traditions have changed to be MORE egalitarian, especially where gender is concerned. And marriage between gay couples is more affirming of THAT tradition.

The two, non related, non married consenting adult tradition STILL stands. Marriage won’t change so much, just the COUPLE who can marry.

HOW marriage fares is up to the individuals who are married, not who isn’t and never could be.

Gary
June 27th, 2008 | LINK

I posted this over at Waynes site, but thought it might be worth repeating here.

In an email response from benks latest victim:(Partners Task Force for Gay & Lesbian Couples/buddybuddy.com).

Part of which says:

“The only other person to send us information about Benkof’s attack piece was Benkof, himself. He said he wanted to be fair — and if we changed our policies, he would make mention of it on his blog.”

They’ve sent their own response to the SF Chron, which one would hope they’ll print.

TJ McFisty
June 27th, 2008 | LINK

I was absolutely infuriated this morning when I read that post of his.

First thing this morning, I had had a minor spat with my partner on the phone that my colleague overheard, and his words when I was finished: “Now, tell me how you two can’t get married because that sounds just like it to me.”

And then I read an article by a non-married ex-gay bisexual telling me that I don’t understand what marriage is because it’s really a wedding that should be private but yet we’re celebrating them as a circus or a fundraiser or en masse.

I think I know the difference between a wedding, which I haven’t had and would like, to a unrecognized (8 year) marriage that I’m seen as being in by peers and colleagues.

Argh!

MirrorMan
June 27th, 2008 | LINK

Regan DuCasse, can I borrow and post your latest response? With attribution, of course. You have so squarely nailed that one!

David Benkof
June 27th, 2008 | LINK

JasonD-

My response is in my blog post called “Burden of Marriage Proof.”

As to my religion, it has to do with the concept of Noahide laws (google it). The prohibition on civil same-sex marriage is a Noahide law. Everything else you list is not. Quite the opposite with Shabbat – non-Jews are actually forbidden to observe Shabbat, so of course we wouldn’t try to force them to.

Bob RRR-

If you visited GaysDefendMarriage.com and saw no good reasons to keep marriage between a man and a woman, then I totaly respect your decision to vote no on the CMPA. All I ask is that you respect my support for it.

MirrorMan-

Thank you for calling me by my name. I do not have a contract with the important gay newspaper I’m referring to (though I do have E-mails confirming what I say). If it comes to pass, you’ll know I was telling the truth. If it doesn’t, give me your E-mail address and I’ll send you E-mails proving I was right – as long as you’re willing to publicly admit you were wrong and I’m not quite the liar and fraud you accused me of being.

Popsiclestand-

Thanks for your good wishes. I happen to think that my side of this debate (except for Maggie Gallagher, Dennis Prager, and me) does a lousy job of advocating our position. We keep saying idiotic things like “I can’t marry my sister” and “Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve” that turn undecided people off. If you think I actually do a worse job than those nincompoops fine, but I think it’s almost impossible to do a worse job than them.

Timothy-

I am thrilled that my comments are convincing the Balboa Park organizers to rename their event. As I wrote in my blog post, there have been some improvements in this area recently, although just like the one Timothy mentions, they are related more to PR than to a basic understanding of what marriage is.

Regan-

I agree that gays are persons.

I’m curious, if I did bring up a rational reason to justify keeping marriage-between a man and a woman, but to continue giving domestic partners all the rights of married couples, would you switch sides and support the CMPA? If not, why are we even debating?

As for what kind of proof is required to change the definition of marriage, that’s really up to you. Since you’re the one who wants to make the change, you should really come up with your arguments on your own. But because you’ve been so friendly (and compared to the rest of this blog you’ve been extremely friendly) I thought I’d give you some hints:

1) Show that lesbian and gay relationships operate like male-female relationships in every relevant way, including fidelity, parenting, and mutual growth.

2) Show that the ways LGBT people think about marriage are equivalent to the ways the rest of society thinks about marriage, and thus the concept of marriage won’t change.

3) Show – perhaps by supporting new legislation or constitutional amendments – that just as no gay or lesbian person was ever punished by the government for behaving consistently with his or her belief that marriage knows no gender, that under “marriage equality” traditionally religious people will be able to continue doing their jobs and running their businesses without fearing that the government (as in Massachusetts and potentially soon in California) will take away their assets, their livelihood, or even their freedom.

I have more, but hey – you’re the one seeking the change. It’s not my job to tell you how to advocate for a radical social agenda that I don’t even agree with.

One good way to accomplish all of the above, especially #1 and #2, given how radical the change you propose is, is to try civil unions for a generation or so, and see how they turn out. If civil unions prove that marriage does more good for society than harm, you’ll have a great case to make for same-sex marriage.

You mention there is no Constitutional justification to restrict gay marriage. I find the argument interesting, and would like to find out from the experts whose job it is to tell us what the Constitution does and does not mean – the Supreme Court of the United States. Unfortunately, groups like Lambda Legal have shut down the lawsuits of same-sex couples spending their own money pursuing a federal right to same-sex marriage. If the CMPA passes, I will support a federal lawsuit to declare it unconstitutional. Will you? If so, I would enjoy being on the same side as you for once.

I know you want marriage to be more egalitarian, and you are correct that same-sex marriage will make marriage more egalitarian. However, I don’t agree with egalitarian marriage. Like most Orthodox Jews, I plan to marry a woman who agrees with me that each of us has clear gender roles. I will be the primary breadwinner, and she will be the primary nurturer. Of course, I’m happy to help with the laundry and the dishes, but our marriage will not be egalitarian. Since you argued that SSM is good because it makes marriage more egalitarian, isn’t it legitimate for people like me who don’t want marriage to be more egalitarian, to fight to protect man-woman marriage?

Gary-

Can you send me their entire response? Because if they did change their Web site, I think it’s terrific and I look forward to announcing it at GaysDefendMarriage.com. It is also proof that in a decade of advocating for non-monogamy to thousands and thousands of Web user, I am the only LGBT person who was ever upset enough by what they said to actually complain. Once again, with few exceptions, gay and lesbian people have no idea what marriage is.

Timothy Kincaid
June 27th, 2008 | LINK

For the sake of accuracy it should be stated that I received the email from the organizers of the San Diego event on Wednesday, two days before Benkof posted his latest musings about mass marriages. Although Benkof takes credit, it is highly unlikely that Benkof played any part in “convincing the Balboa Park organizers to rename their event”.

Timothy Kincaid
June 27th, 2008 | LINK

Regan,

Though it may be tempting to debate with David Benkof, let me advise against it. Benkof has stated that the only argument that he finds to be cogent would be one that would convince him that G-d did not write the Torah.

As neither you nor I nor anyone breathing can make that argument, any effort to try and provide “proof” for your position would only serve to put you on the defensive.

Gary
June 27th, 2008 | LINK

TJ McFisty:
Bianco has no shame. I was incensed by his most recent post (refuted nicely by Timothy). Complete fantasyland. Someone seems to be grasping for a straw? Moonies? . .geeeze.

Regan DuCasse:
Again, Bravo

David:
Ummmm. . .No, and No. I think they’re just as disgusted with your bile as everyone else. You’re the google master, you can figure it out and contact them yourself. . .oh wait . .you already have their address because you contacted them with your intimidation tactics before your drivel ran in the chron.

On that note:
I’m a proud Father, Grandfather, Uncle and Son . .GAY GAY GAY. . .Nothing this nutbag can say will diminish that fact. I’ve got kids in Iraq. . .and yep, they all turned out straight. . . go figure.

My Partner and I have been together in a monogomous (yes, sexually exclusive) relationship for over 2 decades. . . .and yes, we’re going to be Married in California. . .our kids say “it’s about time”.

Oh, and my biological Transexual Father and adopted Mother will be walking down the aisle and witnessing for me.

That’s a true family.

Gary
June 27th, 2008 | LINK

BTW . . .Davey should apologize to the Partners Task Force rather than confront them further. The site is a great resource.

Popsiclestand
June 27th, 2008 | LINK

David,

While I do think it is quite difficult to top people like Peter LaBarbera and organizations like the AFA in their screeds against gay marriage (and gay people in general), you manage to beat them out for that top honor.

Because, while their whacked out positions tend to (though not always) hold within the confines of freedom and equality that is the core founding principal of our country, you just blatantly pretend that such does not exist and that if it does exist, it doesn’t matter cause you’re Jewish and your interpretation of your religion doesn’t like gay marriage and that the law should reflect your religious belief.

While initially, your writings may seem like they follow some sort of new logic on the surface, one need only engage you in a little question and answer to find that your very core reasons about what should/should not be allowed or recognized as law in our country is your religious belief and nothing else.

That’s kind of up there in Fred Phelps territory. Haha. Now, that’s good company to keep.

Timothy Kincaid
June 27th, 2008 | LINK

In his quest to use “mass marriage” as an indication that gays don’t know what marriage means, Benkof might have done better to use the example of Stevenswood Spa Resort:

Anointed by Out Traveler as America’s #1 gay-owned spa, Mendocino’s Stevenswood Spa Resort will make history when it hosts dozens of couples—both gay and straight—in a special wedding ceremony on October 29, 2008.

Oh… darn… it’s also straight couples.

Well, in any case, I hope that those guests at Stevenswood will take their vows seriously and with the greatest respect. After all, marriage is not by any to be entered into unadvisedly or lightly; but reverently, discreetly, advisedly, soberly, and in the fear of God.

Regan DuCasse
June 27th, 2008 | LINK

Hi David,
I knew you say that. And my answer to your own statement is that gays and lesbians HAVE done EXACTLY what you say is the proof required.

By going to court, by already raising children even without the legal entanglements and entitlements of legal, state sanctioned marriage-they ALREADY have supported and endured with each other regardless.
Proving by their very arrangements that they indeed care to do exactly what the legal standards are, even without those standards.

Your own criteria was staring you right in the face.
So, gays and lesbians HAVE proven their case, and like I also knew what would happen, regardless that they have, you and those who agree with you just don’t want to see it, or will dismiss it outright as not existing or not enough.

And the roles, chores and other duties of gender also do not exist and certainly not in the law. They are NOT part of the requirement to legally marry.
And a Constitutional amendment based on that assumption is irresponsible and stupid.
Constitutions and THEIR intents and purposes cannot and traditionally do not discriminate, they expand on reasonable rights or include for already established ones.

It’s not a generally legislated law and prenuptial agreement WHO is going to be the bread winner or nurturer and it’s certainly this very assumption that gets couples in serious marital trouble with each other.

Being a nurturer, being the breadwinner is according to what individual character and circumstances will make you, not your gender.

I know enough about Constitutional protections and it’s traditional creed to know that discriminating against gay couples won’t save marriage.
Using the Constitution in any way to discriminate is harmful and abusive to it’s agenda.
I live next door to an Orthodox rabbi and his wife. They keep kosher, of course. They were surprised and delighted that I knew the customs of their religion and speak a bit of Hebrew. I practically grew up in temple as well as church.

And THEY disagree with you. We’ve talked at length about the role of homosexuals in society and what being homosexual means. And marriage for gay couples and the inclusion of gay rabbis in temple.

You want to experiment with civil unions, as if that hasn’t been tried already and know to be a serious failure. It is a separate and unequal, unworkable and complicated system that’s not worth the effort. And it’s fair to believe it has been made too complicated to make gay couples reject it in the face of no other options, so that people like YOU can say they don’t really want to get married or cu’d.

The only course now is THE SAME standard, and no less, no lite, no moving the goal posts, the SAME standards.
Tim advised me not to answer you. But you are excruciatingly predictable Mr. DB.
I’ve lived in this America as several things and come out as a gay supporter in terribly hostile environments to do it in.
Being outspoken the way I am, hostility happens whether for being black or a woman…there’s a saying that one of the most formidable people are educated black women.
I am no kind of your woman, then.
By the way, my sister is at DuPaul University doing her law thing, Constitutional law.
But, in your view, since the nurturing gender isn’t supposed to intellectually get in the face of you breadwinners…

What, too unladylike for ya?
Or are you just going to say I’m not qualified enough in Con law to deal with the subject in this forum with YOU?
You’ve revealed a lot about yourself Mr. DB, and you’ve mentioned the requisites for the kind of wife you want.
And I know why you would…

Yes…I have a slow, evil grin spreading across my face as I write this.

Regan DuCasse
June 27th, 2008 | LINK

Oh..and BTW
David, WHAT rational reason could you bring up to justify the ban that has not only been beaten to death…but isn’t also conjecture and theory?

You. Have. No. Rational. Reason.

Fear isn’t rational. Neither is loathing. Current marriage bans are status based. Period.

I was at West Hollywood City Hall and watched the entire court proceeding for every hour.
The state’s attorney, having been prepared for over five years had no case.
And no, marriage isn’t for the sake of maybe, might be, theoretical children.
But for ADULTS FIRST. For the purpose of primary custody of the OTHER adult.

And gender has nothing WHATSOEVER with who is the breadwinner, the nurturer or any of those things.
The STATE of one’s gender can change, rearrange and no longer have the same qualities over time.

So you can try and bring what YOU think is a rational reason for discrimination based on gender and orientation.
You’re not married. I am. The feminist movement was inspired because men like you had for too long tried to train women to be something they never were in nature or life….

NOT DEFINED BY THEIR GENDER.
So therefore, defining marriage according to gender, given that history….isn’t too smart.

Regan DuCasse
June 27th, 2008 | LINK

Oh and…David, in a very specific way, your criticism of what gay people do or feel about marriage, if applied to heterosexuals behaving the same way…wouldn’t qualify for marriage either.

You are using what you consider the failure of gay couples and their relationships as an example, and they haven’t had the THOUSANDS of years of tradition, support and social inclusion for even more than half to fail, so many children to be abandoned or affected by divorce.

There are FAR more heterosexuals around and they DO get many tries at bat, so odds are, according to YOUR own idea….heterosexuals should be banned until a majority of heterosexuals can prove they can have ONE marriage for at least a certain minimum of years. That they haven’t abandoned ANY children to welfare or foster care, had abortions or used marriage for purposes OTHER than having children.

No wonder people keep bringing up slippery slope theories with gay couples.

They’ve already drop kicked their own heterosexual couples down that slope and tried to call it a walk down the aisle.

Bob RRR
June 28th, 2008 | LINK

David B.,

I cannot respect any decisions or support to strip a legal, marriage protections away from any families. It is a deal-breaker. The recent Michigan state court ruling allows anti-gay activists to strip away domestic partner benefits for university faculty/staffs due to the passage of 2004 gay marriage ban. I have every reason to believe the true motivation behind gay marriage ban is to keep their (anti-gay bigots’) power to sue and strip away a gay family’s legal protection. Can you tell us how we can respect anyone who meddle in our adult, mature, personal decisions to marry while I have not heard any evidences that gay marriage harms anyone? Can you give me one victim that is harmed by gay marriages?

As you whined about the gay mass marriages, it is not gays who broke the largest mass marriage’s world record.

Kevin Kaatz
June 28th, 2008 | LINK

I hope that David Benkof sees my little Letter to the Editor published in the San Francisco Chronicle about his ‘research’ (June 28). One thing I won’t do is now claim I write for the S.F. Chronicle or the San Diego Union Tribune…

Bill Ware
June 29th, 2008 | LINK

Bob RRR,
“Can you give me one victim that is harmed by gay marriages?”

This fellow makes such a case in this YouTude presentation (3:45)

David Benkof
June 29th, 2008 | LINK

Timothy Kincaid-

I’ve googled the Lambda Rainbow Network and its founders and seen lots of information about their mass wedding as if it was on schedule, and nothing about it being re-named or canceled.

Gary-

Please call me David or Mr. Benkof. Thank you.

Posiclestand-

I have never said that the law should reflect my religious belief because I say so. I have said that I am using my one vote and my freedom of speech and freedom of the press to encourage the laws to reflect my values about marriage. Do you have a problem with that?

Mr. Kincaid-

I wonder what percentage of the participants in the mass wedding you point to believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. Zero? Your “evidence” just reinforces my assertion that supporters of “marriage equality” – gay and straight – have no idea what marriage is.

Regan-

You say gays and lesbians have proven their case. I say they haven’t. Why don’t we let a neutral party – like the voters of California, Arizona, and Florida – decide?

You claim that Constitutions cannot discriminate. Just watch me. When the CMPA passes in November, the California constitution will prefer man-woman marriage. And it cannot be unconstitutional on the state level – because it will be in the constitution. And it cannot be found unconstitutional on the federal level – because groups like Lambda Legal won’t let it, because they are afraid they’d lose at the Supreme Court.

You claim that you live next door to an Orthodox rabbi who supports gay marriage. That doesn’t make sense. Either you are mistaken and he’s not Orthodox (it’s not always easy to tell), or he doesn’t support gay marriage but didn’t quite say so out of politeness, or he’s ignorant of what the Torah and the Talmud say on the subject and if you let me speak to him (you can E-mail me his E-mail address) I can get him to switch sides within 10 minutes.

What is “unworkable and complicated” about domestic partnerships in California? Same-sex couples already had every single right the state gives to marriages. What’s so unworkable or complicated about that?

I support your right to choose whatever gender role you want. I’m just not going to marry you, as is my right.

I also see no evidence that opposite-sex couples think sexual non-exclusivity is completely consistent with marriage. When straight people cheat, they know they are harming their marriage. When gay people cheat, it’s usually consistent with the arrangement they have with their spouse.

Bob RRR-

If you want to have a wedding, fine. But don’t ask the rest of society to pretend it’s equal to a marriage, because it’s not. I’ve written extensively on who is harmed by same-sex marriage at GaysDefendMarriage.com.

Kevin-

I think it’s terrific that you had a letter published in the San Francisco Chronicle. I know a conservative Web site that plans to reprint it. Because it underscores my point that most gay people have no idea what marriage is. You wrote, “What does the right of marriage have to do with fidelity in the gay community?” Please, write letters to the editor in every publication in America. I might even help pay for an ad campaign where you indicate you don’t see the connection between marriage and fidelity. I can think of no better way to change the minds of undecided voters. So thank you.

Popsiclestand
June 29th, 2008 | LINK

I have never said you didn’t have the right to vote the way you see fit, based on whatever beliefs you hold. This is the second time you have misconstrued my statements to say so. In fact, particularly over at Pam’s House Blend, I specifically said that I do not care how you vote one way or the other.

My entire argument is against the ignorance of your comments here and elsewhere and the printed statements you have in your “columns”.

The bottomline is, David, while I too have many deeply held religious beliefs that govern my own behavior in this country, I also acknowledge that others feel/believe differently than I do. And that the law (particularly citing the constitutional freedom of expression and religion) should be open for others to behave as their religious (or distinctly non-religious) beliefs allow. Particularly when such beliefs do not affect my ability to continue to operate my own life in a way that is suitable for me.

You don’t seem to understand this. And that, is my problem with you. Not your vote, not your religious beliefs.

In addition to my contempt for your ignorance, the glaringly obvious falsehoods in the way you represent yourself to the public aren’t really my cup of tea either, but since others have already pointed this out, I don’t feel a need to address it.

Now, I predict, that should you choose to reply, you will completely ignore the very valid points laid out here, accuse me of “suppressing your religion/religious belief”, say that I am trying impose gay marriage on your precious mindset, and then possibly round it all out by pointing out the world column in quotes. Is that a fair rundown of your response strategy?

Paul Benedict
June 29th, 2008 | LINK

I think it is important to note that Californians have been summarily denied the ‘right to marry’ in the name of including everyone in ‘marriage’. Since, gay couples can never be married, that is, become “husband” and “wife,” the court unilaterally stripped all California of the ‘right to marry.’ Californa now refuses to recognize marriage, that is when a man and a woman become “husband” and “wife.”

See for yourself: http://www.cdph.ca.gov/HealthInfo/news/Pages/Update05-08.aspx

Jason D
June 29th, 2008 | LINK

One thing keeps getting lost in the marriage issue in CA.

The court did not force this upon the people, against their will.

See, the people voted for their legislature to represent them, and a governor to represent them.

Yes, they did approve Prop 22…almost a decade ago, and in the time since that:

TWICE the legislature approved marriage equality. Both times it was vetoed by the governor….why? His rational has been, and continues to be, that he wanted the court to weigh in on the issue. The court did, and the governor has no problem with that ruling.

Thus, it was not the court, by itself that “”"”forced”"”" marriage on the people. Their elected representatives, and the court “forced” this upon them. Their will of almost a decade ago was undermined, but their most recent will via the election of the legislature and the governor, was not undermined. They voted for these people, and these people approved gay marriage. All. Three. Branches. The governing bodies of CA agreed.

So at this point, the people want to undermine the courts, the constitution, the governor, and their own legislature.

Evan
June 29th, 2008 | LINK

Jason, conservatives don’t really care about the way our government is supposed to work. In California, the “will of the people” is being “undermined.” In Arizona, the people spoke two years ago and told the anti-gay bigots to take their toys and go home. So, of course, they assume the people must be regretting their choice of just two years ago, and thus they force the voters to send them packing yet again.

They have absolutely no respect for anything this country stands for.

David Benkof
June 29th, 2008 | LINK

Popsiclestand-

I don’t believe I miscontrued your position. You have, however, misconstrued mine. Of course you can operate based on your own religious beliefs. I never advocated that the government shut down MCC “weddings” between members of the same sex. But Judaism doesn’t just oppose me having a same-sex marriage. It opposes the government I am a citizen of recognizing any same-sex marriage. So when I use my one vote and my freedom of speech and the press, I will be advocating that all same-sex marriages be non-recognized. I’m not just talking about my own private religious decisions that are between me and my synagogue. I want my values, that marriage is between a man and a woman, to be reflected in the government of the place I live in. And since I have as many votes and as much freedom of speech and the press as you have, it’s completely fair.

I don’t know what “glaringly obvious falsehoods you’re referring to. Timothy made two good points, one of which I apologized for (it’s too late to fix) and one of which I immediately corrected. The rest of his “exposes” are smoke and mirrors, or outright lies. I have already explained each of his allegations here and there on the Web, but if you want to tell me what you mean by “glaringly obvious falsehoods,” I will be happy to reply.

Jason D-

Yes, you think the executive, legislative, and judicial branch have made legitimate decisions, but the vote of the people will be “undermining the constitution.” Of course, because the first three are on your side and the last may not be. However, if the vote of the people was on your side and the three branches of government were not, you’d be complaining about that.

Whereas I have been very clear at GaysDefendMarriage.com that I support the entire constitutional system. That includes the possibility that the initiative will be thrown out and we will have to either pass a constitutional “revision” or the Federal Marriage Amendment. I think since everybody knew about the rules in advance, we’re all stuck with them. The system isn’t perfect, but it’s the best system I’ve ever seen.

Evan-

In Arizona the intiative was poorly written. This one is better. What’s wrong with voting again on a new, less confusing initiative? If the people of Arizona love gay marriage, you guys will win.

Popsiclestand
June 29th, 2008 | LINK

“…But Judaism doesn’t just oppose me having a same-sex marriage. It opposes the government I am a citizen of recognizing any same-sex marriage.”

And thus you have backed up the point I made. I think I summed up your point quite accurately when I said:

“The bottomline is, David, while I too have many deeply held religious beliefs that govern my own behavior in this country, I also acknowledge that others feel/believe differently than I do. And that the law (particularly citing the constitutional freedom of expression and religion) should be open for others to behave as their religious (or distinctly non-religious) beliefs allow. Particularly when such beliefs do not affect my ability to continue to operate my own life in a way that is suitable for me.

You don’t seem to understand this. And that, is my problem with you. Not your vote, not your religious beliefs.”

So you see, I haven’t misconstrued your position in the least. I was just a little more wordy than you were with it. The one mistake I might have made was not realizing that your particular interpretation of Judaism calls for a theocratic government. Sorry about that, but I’m afraid you’re in the wrong country for that crap.

And again, I’m not saying that you can’t vote on that very religious platform. I’m just pointing out that it is anti-Constitutional and pro-Theocratic. If you’re okay with that stance, then more power to you. Unfortunately for you, we have a government model that doesn’t care what your interpretation of Judaic law is. What it does care about is your beliefs stomping on MY personal life and the equality of the citizens of this country. Just as I’m sure you would care if the shoe was on the other foot.

Further, governmentally recognized same-sex marriage isn’t even an issue to be voted on, something that will become more and more undeniable as more and more states pass “marriage protection” amendments to their constitutions. Like Regan pointed out, it’s interracial marriage all over again. Same process preparing for the same outcome.

My biggest question for you, David, concerning the comments that is, is why are you so defensive? When someone points out that your position of “my religious beliefs should be reflected in the form of bans and laws despite the fact that there are others who don’t believe as I do and whose real, physical lives will be negatively affected” goes against the constitution, you automatically take that as some secret sign that they don’t want you to vote, don’t want you to write, don’t want you to speak. A little extreme, don’t you think? Even your own words (as pointed out above) back that anti-constitutional stance. If you feel that your religion is so freaking awesome and correct, then just say that it should be the governing law of the land and leave it at that. It won’t gain you any brownie poinnts with the folks who like freedom of/from religion, but it would be honest if you said that outright. Then no one would even waist time arguing with you.

Also, I’m genuinely curious as to what part of your religious texts specifically says that the government shouldn’t let gays get married.

David Benkof
June 29th, 2008 | LINK

Popsicle stand-

I never said I wanted a theocratic government. I have never heard a rabbi say we want America to be run according to the Torah. All I want is to use my one vote and my freedom of speech and the press to support laws that are consistent with my beliefs. I want you to do the same. Whoever gets the most votes wins.

I see nothing anti-Constitutional or pro-Theocratic about my stance. I completely respect your right to base your vote and your free speech and free press exercise based on your horoscope, your devil-worship text, your flipping of a coin, or what Jon Stewart said on TV last night. If all of those are legitimate, which they are, why can’t my basing my one vote, my free speech and free press exercise on what I believe G-d thinks?

You claim “we have a government model that doesn’t care what your interpretation of Judaic law is.” False. It cares to the extent that I can base my one vote on that, or on anything else. I get one vote, you get one vote.

You write “What it does care about is your beliefs stomping on MY personal life and the equality of the citizens of this country.” Yet you have already said I can use my one vote however I want. What am I doing beyond my one vote and my free speech and free press rights to impose my beliefs on you?

You ask why I’m so defensive. Because you’re attacking me for doing nothing more than exercising my constitutional rights, I automatically assume you’re attacking my constitutional rights. Honestly, I still don’t understand what you think I’m doing wrong if as you say you don’t mind my exercising my constitutional rights.

Finally, you write “Also, I’m genuinely curious as to what part of your religious texts specifically says that the government shouldn’t let gays get married.” Gays can get married, I know several who have. I plan to marry some day. Two gay men cannot marry each other, though. You can find four texts showing why Jews must oppose same-sex marriage in my “Open Letter to Conservative Rabbis” at my blog (url below). Assuming you don’t know Aramaic or Yiddish, there isn’t a simple source I can point you to to get the originals. But that should give you a head start.

http://www.gaysdefendmarriage.com/2008/05/31/an-open-letter-to-conservative-rabbis/

Popsiclestand
June 30th, 2008 | LINK

Didn’t attack you David. Just clarifying and pointing out what you really stand for.

Once again (for what the third time?) I didn’t say you should/couldn’t vote how you want based on what you want. Just pointing out that such thought is, by definition anti-constitutional — which you are free to be cause it’s America. I would feel the same way and write the same thing about a gay atheist who wanted to pass laws limiting Jewish folks from entering into equal opportunity civil contracts based on the atheist’s anti-religious beliefs.

The judgement isn’t on you or your one vote or even your column, it’s on the fundamental basis of your POINT OF VIEW. Which, whether you like it or not, tramples all over the freedom of religion of others as well as delves into discrimination with the selective issuing of marriage licenses (a civil contract) to only those adult citizens agreeing to make a commitment to a specific subset of other adult citizens. Which, by the way, was the exact argument against interracial marriage — that both black and white people were equally restricted from marrying each other and therefore it was “fair”. What a joke.

Anyway, that’s all a critique of your position, not you or your rights so stop taking things so personally and automatically assuming that I’m trying to limit your free speech or voting rights (which is just ridiculous). You don’t like people critiquing your point of view? Then stop saying it in a public forum.

And because I see you like playing word games, I’ll rephrase my inquiry to say “Also, I’m genuinely curious as to what part of your religious texts specifically says that the GOVERNMENT shouldn’t recognize same sex marriages.”

Thanks a bunch for the link, however, since it’s a piece written by you, it kind of negates the objective POV I was looking for. But it did give me a look into your beliefs which, to say the least, is a bit scary for those who like freedom.

Also you say you don’t want a theocracy, but you want the government to limit civil contracts for a group of individuals based on your religious beliefs. And, based on your open letter, you believe it rather strongly. I find it hard to believe that homosexuality is the one and only issue in which Jews are “commanded” to ask government to bow to religion. Or am I wrong there? If not, where are your other issues?

And once again…let’s say it altogether…there’s a difference between critiquing you and critiquing your point of view. If I were “attacking” you as a person, I’d probably start with asking why you present yourself as a gay man (or was that bisexual? there’s been so much changing and relabeling I get confused) representing the gay community knowing full well that the typical person reading your pieces would come to the table thinking that you are a homosexual comfortable and accepting of his homosexuality. And before you veer off on that tangent, it’s already been covered by others fairly sufficiently I think, and I really have no comment on it that hasn’t already been said.

PS — I also see that you missed my little pointing out that certain issues should not be put up for a vote because equality of citizens and freedom of choice is automatic in our governmental model. Slavery was one of those issues. Interracial marriage was one of those issues. Gay marriage will be another. Simply put. So, again, I’m not even addressing your right to vote — because voting on the freedoms enjoyed by minority to be equal that enjoyed by the majority isn’t Constitutional. It never has been.

Jason D
June 30th, 2008 | LINK

“Yes, you think the executive, legislative, and judicial branch have made legitimate decisions, but the vote of the people will be “undermining the constitution.” Of course, because the first three are on your side and the last may not be. However, if the vote of the people was on your side and the three branches of government were not, you’d be complaining about that.”

How bad do I have you cornered that THIS is your best defense: presumed psychic powers.

MirrorMan
June 30th, 2008 | LINK

Get ready, Folks! The Best of Benkof!

He states: “But Judaism doesn’t just oppose me having a same-sex marriage. It opposes the government I am a citizen of recognizing any same-sex marriage.”

And then he says: “I never said I wanted a theocratic government. I have never heard a rabbi say we want America to be run according to the Torah.”

So which is it? You wrote this, so which do you truly believe? Hurry up, David! The clock is ticking!

Kevin Kaatz
June 30th, 2008 | LINK

David–I suggest you read my letter to the Editor again and this time try to understand what I was saying. I was pointing out that you didn’t do your research, and that you make your claims using stereotypes. You are supposedly getting your Ph.D., right? You should know how important it is to do your research. If you don’t, you’ll find out soon how important it really is.

Kevin Kaatz
June 30th, 2008 | LINK

Oh, and David, since you are so good at leaving out information, here are the rest of my sentences:
“What does the right of marriage have to do with fidelity in the gay community? Mr. Benkof, I would argue, does not really know the gay community. He gives no statistics on how many gays and lesbians either believe or not believe in monogamy after marriage. He just extrapolates from a few blogs and websites and makes his judgement based on that. This sounds like shoddy research to me. He wrote his article based on stereotypes.”

You see, I did not write anything about the connection between marriage and fidelity. All I did was point out that although you wrote this letter to the San Francisco Chronicle, clearly you did not do your research on this connection yourself.

MirrorMan
June 30th, 2008 | LINK

Kevin, you should see how David spins his Op-Ed piece on his website. He once again cherry-picks a few peoples comments to make it look like all these people agreed with him, when in fact the vast majority of comments were calling him on what you mention: his stereotypes, lack of research, etc., etc. It would be amusing if it wasn’t so pathetic.

David Benkof
June 30th, 2008 | LINK

My thought is not anti-constitutional. The constitution gives me the right to vote and use my free speech and free press rights to advocate what I believe in for any reason at all, including my religious beliefs. It does not allow me to take over the government and impose my beliefs while denying you your vote and your First Amendment rights.

My point of view does not limit anyone’s right to enter a civil contract with anyone else. It just wants the government to recognize as marriages only those things I believe to be marriages. You do the same thing. Surely you don’t want literally anyone who can legally enter a contract to legally marry anyone else!

Feel free to critique my point of view. People do it at GaysDefendMarriage.com and I don’t get offended. But you seem to say that there are a certain subset of ideas (which happen to be the majority ideas in America) that are somehow illegitimate, not just wrong. That offends me.

Text #4 (the Lubavitcher Rebbe) and many more like it indicate that Jews should try to get the government to enforce the Noahide laws, which include the prohibition on same-sex civil marriage.

If you don’t trust my interpretation of those texts, show them to any Orthodox rabbi and ask if I have interpeted them correctly. Or ask him to re-translate them from the Aramaic and the Yiddish.

You think my beliefs about marriage are scary; I think your beliefs about marriage are scary. Where does that get us?

You repeatedly claim or imply that I “want the government to limit civil contracts for a group of individuals based on your religious beliefs.” That is simply false. I think any two individuals can have whatever civil contract they want – heck, two twin brothers should be able to sign a civil contract giving each other “marriage” benefits. But I don’t want to extend the status of marriage to anything other than marriages, the union of a man and a woman.

Jews are bound to enforce all the Noahide laws by any means necessary. They include murder, sexual sins such as incest, and cruelty to animals. Jews have never been involved in opposing same-sex marriage because nobody ever tried to legalize it before.

You imply I’m somehow deceptive for not always describing my sexuality the same way. I have been up front that none of the labels fit me well. If I could use “queer” without people hearing an epithet, I would. But neither “gay” nor “bisexual” perfectly fits my internal, personal, unique-as-a-fingerprint sexuality, so I go back and forth.

When did I say I represent the gay community? Anyone who isn’t a complete idiot knows my point of view is a small minority in the gay community.

And I am comfortable and accepting of my homosexuality. Just because I think gay sex and same-sex marriage are immoral doesn’t mean I don’t accept my same-sex attractions.

Your idea that certain issues cannot be changed by a vote of the people directly (as in California) or a constitutional amendment nationally (for the federal Constitution) is truly disturbing. The fact is, if the amendment process were followed, we could repeal the Thirteenth Amendment and have slavery again. If not, who exactly gets to decide which issues are permanently decided one way and which can be changed by our process? Currently, anything can be changed by our process, which is as it should be. The system you’re proposing is not a democracy, and I would not like to live under it. Given that your constitutional philosophy puts you in a tiny minority – I don’t believe any law professor or judge has ever agreed with you, I’m not worried, but it’s still seriously f’ed up.

MirrorMan-

Jews want the government to be run according to the Noahide laws, and for years, they have been. Now, the gay community is trying to change one of those laws that is consistent with the Noahide laws, and we are fighting back. But do we want laws to prohibit making garments with both linen and wool, and to shut down pig farms? Absolutely not.

MirrorMan
June 30th, 2008 | LINK

“It just wants the government to recognize as marriages only those things I believe to be marriages.”

I can accept that. What I can’t accept is when you use faulty research, stereotypes, and deception to attempt to make your point.

“Jews want the government to be run according to the Noahide laws, and for years, they have been. Now, the gay community is trying to change one of those laws that is consistent with the Noahide laws, and we are fighting back. But do we want laws to prohibit making garments with both linen and wool, and to shut down pig farms? Absolutely not.”

Now that comment is pure bullshit. If it were true, you would be trying to prohibit making garments with both linen and wool, and to shut down pig farms. You are not consistent. You are picking the laws you want changed, not just the ones that are inconsistent. That speaks of prejudice and planning, not religious orthodoxy. You are using your religion as a mask for your own agenda, and I said before, bullshit!

Ben in Oakland
June 30th, 2008 | LINK

Guys– you’re just feeding the troll. He does not answer questions. He does not do research–he stumbles across a website. He is just another sad guy who uses gay people as a way to work out his own issues. As I said previously–moral and intellectual ineptitude.

Timothy Kincaid
June 30th, 2008 | LINK

On June 26th, I posted the information that Benkof is no longer carried by the Dallas Voice, his last gay paper (that we know of).

It is now June 30th. Benkof continues to call himself “a columnist for the Dallas Voice and several other LGBT newspapers”.

If Benkof is not willing to speak honestly and forthrightly, there’s very little point in engaging him in debate. He doesn’t play by the same rules that you do. The best response is to simply document his dishonesty and let reasonable people know that his words are not based on fact, truth, evidence or reality.

werdna
June 30th, 2008 | LINK

MirrorMan-
Check this, this and this out and you’ll see that Benkof isn’t totally making this stuff up. He is, of course, not giving the whole story when he says “Jews want the government to be run according to the Noahide laws”. It would be more accurate to say “some Orthodox Jews want the government to be run according to the Noahide laws”. It’s not so much that he’s “using [his] religion as a mask for [his] own agenda,” religion is his agenda.

Emily K
June 30th, 2008 | LINK

There are a lot of Jews outside the Orthodox – and possibly some WITHIN the Orthodoxy – that oppose certain things Chabad does. Chabad takes a very conservative hard-line approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which many Jews see as an opposition to Middle East peace.

Emily K
June 30th, 2008 | LINK

Also, the Philadelphia Gay News doesn’t think Benkof’s work is “ready for a professional gay publication.”

MirrorMan
June 30th, 2008 | LINK

Thanks, werdna, that is basically what I was getting at. I understand the laws he is talking about, but to say he doesn’t want them to be the law of the land is ludicrous at best and an outright lie at worst! It doesn’t surprise me in the least that he is not giving the whole truth. Prevarication seems to be his favorite game.

rusty
June 30th, 2008 | LINK

I posted News of Gov Arnold’s Meet the Press tidbit on Gay Marriage :

MR. BROKAW: You have a lot of propositions on the ballot again this fall. One of them would mean a constitutional ban on gay marriages. Do you support that?

GOV. SCHWARZENEGGER: No, not at all. As a matter of fact, I think the Supreme Court made a decision there. It was apparently unconstitutional to stop anyone from getting married. It’s like 1948, the interracial marriage, when the Supreme Court of California has, you know, decided it was unconstitutional and then later on the Supreme Court of the United States followed, I think 10 or 12 years later. So I think it is, it’s good that California lead–is leading in this way. I personally believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. But at the same time I think that my, you know, belief, I don’t want to force on anyone else, so I think we should stay with the decision of the Supreme Court and move forward. There are so many other more important issues that we have to address in California. So I think to spend any time on this initiative I think is a waste of time.

And BENKOF sent me this message to my email:

DavidBenkof@aol.com to me
show details 1:14 PM (9 minutes ago) Reply

OK now you’ve gone too far. The comments section is for comments, not random snippets of quotes from the media about gay marriage.

If you’d like to comment, great. But I’m deleting this and future posts that are just quotes from somewhere else with no interpretation or commentary.

-David Benkof

MirrorMan
June 30th, 2008 | LINK

That is too damn funny!!!!

David Benkof
June 30th, 2008 | LINK

MirrorMan-

What faulty research, stereotypes, and deception are you talking about? I’m against those things.

I am not picking and choosing the laws. Hashem (G-d) is. I do not have the right to decide which laws are Noahide and which ones aren’t. Those decisions have already been made by Hashem a long time ago.

And that’s the last time I’m going to converse with someone who uses a foul word to describe my beliefs. If I used the same word to describe your sexual practices you wouldn’t tolerate it.

I have explained at GaysDefendMarriage that as soon as the Dallas Voice and I came to an agreement as to how to handle the final four columns I wrote for them, I removed reference to them from my Web site. The editor at that paper, like most editors, does not have the final say. Once the publisher and I came to a mutually agreeable solution to our situation, one that could have included their running more of my columns but in fact involved their paying me some money and giving me permission to run my pieces in mainstrea papers, my Web site’s mention of the Dallas Voice was removed.

Over and over and over, Timothy Kincaid has accused me of deception for not being able to predict the future. It’s pretty pathetic, actually.

werdna and Emily K-

Would you have me not say “Jews don’t mix milk and meat” just because some Jews who do not practice Judaism eat cheeseburgers? Is it wrong to say “Jews don’t believe in Jesus” just because some terribly confused Jews do, in fact, believe in Jesus? I stand by my statement.

Emily K-

[Ed. - The commenter made unsubstantiated accusations about a third party. These are neither relevant to the discussion nor appropriate at this site. Private contract disputes can be settled elsewhere and we do not wish to absorb any liability for such claims made.]

Yes, Rusty, the comments section at my blog are for comments, not for quotes from other places on the Web. When you run a blog, you can set your rules. My rules are one quote like that is fine, several and you’re no longer allowed to comment. It’s up to you.

MirrorMan
June 30th, 2008 | LINK

Once again, David, you are choosing words out of context. Learn to read sometime. At no time did I insult your religion. What I insulted was your comment because it is exactly what werdna pointed out as well, that you are talking out of both sides of your mouth and trying to have it both ways. But, for you, rather than admit you are wrong, you once again take your ball and go home. You are funny, in a way, of pretending to take the high road due to an imagined (and if you re-read the post, I specify that your comment was bullshit) slight rather than to face up to what is pointed out to you. Then you turn around and accuse someone of doing the exact same thing you do! You are priceless! And still incorrect! Or rather than run away, can you respond reasonably to what we have just noticed? That you hide your personal issues beneath a veneer of feigned religious outrage? That this is all rather personal to you and really has nothing to do with Jewish law at all? Because if it IS about Jewish religious law, then why aren’t you trying to make laws to prohibit making garments with both linen and wool, and to shut down pig farms? Hmm?

rusty
June 30th, 2008 | LINK

David has removed my submitted comments, and threatened to ban me. . .oh wait a minute, he has banned me.

David Benkof
June 30th, 2008 | LINK

MirrorMan-

I get to decide when I am offended by what I perceive as an insult to my religion, not you. And I have explained why we don’t shut down pig farms twice, and you keep asking. I’m not going to keep repeating myself. It’s my impression that’s just a line you think is clever (it’s not) so you keep repeating it for effect. Boring.

MirrorMan
June 30th, 2008 | LINK

You never explained it once! You just said “we don’t”. That is not an explanation, that’s an evasion. Just like you “get to decide” what an insult is. It is just an attempt to evade justified criticism of your stance and actions. Rather than answer challenges directly, you claim insult, or unfairness, or some other noxious, imaginary excuse to avoid being responsible for your actions. I would expect that behavior from a five-year old, but you are an adult, so pardon us if we hold you to a standard the rest of us can seem to bear with no ill effects. Even your comment about PGN is more “he said, he said”. You give none of the facts and it’s always “it’s not my fault, they are all against me”. You wrote earlier: “Jews have never been involved in opposing same-sex marriage because nobody ever tried to legalize it before.”
I am sorry, but if you were so concerned about marriage equality, your site would have been up and operating in 2003, before Massachusetts ruled for marriage equality in 2004. Your act does not bear close inspection, because under observation, your errors become plain and your excuses unravel. Your claims of religion fade under review.

What else you got?

Alex
June 30th, 2008 | LINK

David, if you have an obligation to try to enact all Noahide laws at the government level, then what are you doing to make blasphemy and idolatry illegal? How can you tolerate living in a nation that has freedom of religion and freedom of speech?

werdna
June 30th, 2008 | LINK

MirrorMan-
You seem to be missing the point that there’s a distinction between the laws that apply to Jews and to Gentiles. Jews who follow the mitzvot might not wear felt, eat pig, or use a razor to shave, but they don’t care if the goyim do. It’s only the Noahide Laws that are supposed to apply to all of mankind.

Regardless, Benkof is making a loaded claim when he writes things like “Jews are bound to enforce all the Noahide laws by any means necessary.” It would be more accurate for him to write that this is his belief, or that this is a belief of religious Jews who subscribe to particular branches of Judaism, but Benkof is not writing as an impartial observer. He is writing as an advocate for a particular kind of Judaism–which is totally legitimate, but which should also be made explicit. When Benkof says “Jews are” or “Jews do,” it’s often a proscriptive claim about what Jews should do if they are observant Orthodox Jews rather than a descriptive claim about what Jews generally are actually doing.

David Benkof
June 30th, 2008 | LINK

I’ve been edited again. I’m outta here. Anybody who wants to talk to me may do so at GaysDefendMarriage.com.

Jim Burroway
June 30th, 2008 | LINK

For the record.

The reason Benkof has been edited was stated in the body of his comment. He has alleged wrongdoing against another party. It is an allegation that he has not substantiated.

We do not post allegations that we cannot substantiate in some form. David Benkof is free to post all the allegations he wants to on his own web site and accept the liability for it there. OR he can offer substantiation for his allegation in accordance to our comments policy.

We have two choices in dealing with cases like this. We can insist that everyone substantiate their positions per our comments policy, or we can spend our own time chasing down every single “Fact” to see if it pans out. While we reserve the right to do the latter, the onus is on the commenter to substantiate his or her allegations from the start. We simply cannot chase down everything everyone says.

I do find it ironic that the very comment that we “censored” him one too many times on, also contains an acknowledgment that he has done the same thing on his blog to enforce his rules. I took a quick look at his blog and could not find where his rules are posted. We however have ours posted, and the links to those rules are displayed prominently above and below the comments form.

Please be aware, that we are an equal-opportunity enforcer on this rule. People who don’t like it can get their own blogs.

MirrorMan
June 30th, 2008 | LINK

werdna, if that were the case, then why his marriage gig? If he only cares that Jews follow that law, why make such as issue out of it? You are basically making my argument for me (not that there is anything wrong with that) that he is using his religion as a mask for his own issues, which actually have nothing to do with his religion and are more about his politics or personal damage than anything else. Again, if he would be honest about such things, I wouldn’t have as much of a gripe as I do, but his deceptions are damaging, and as such, he will get called on it. Sorry if it hurts, but he is the one who said it, published it, and defends it. If it bites him in the ass, well, where did it dtart? And it wasn’t on my blog.

Emily K
June 30th, 2008 | LINK

Benkof does not represent the Judaism I follow. Nor does he represent the Orthodox Judaism that I respect. I do not care if he thinks I am not Jewish or that the Jews I love and respect are not Jewish. His opinion is not important to me. I just want to make that clear.

He also may make blanket claims about “who is Jewish” and who “isn’t Jewish enough” and “what (all [true]) Jews believe” but ultimately I believe Ad-nai and ONLY Ad-nai knows what’s in our hearts. In addition, this attitude only builds barriers between those who should be brethren and certainly does not hasten the coming of the Messiah.

werdna
June 30th, 2008 | LINK

MirrorMan-
Gay marriage falls under the Noahide law which prohibits engaging in sexually immoral acts (adultery, homosex, bestiality, etc.) so it’s his duty as an observant Orthodox Jew and follower of the Lubavitcher Rebbe to stop the gays from getting married. That’s the point you keep missing: some Jews (like Benkof) think it’s their duty to try to get the Gentiles to follow the Noahide laws. The don’t want the Gentiles to follow the laws that apply only to Jews, but they consider it important to promote the laws that they think do apply to Gentiles.

Benkof quoted Menachem Mendel Schneerson (the Lubavitcher Rebbe) in his open letter to Conservative Rabbis and I’ll repeat the quote here because it gives a good sense of the urgency Benkof seems to feel about his mission:

“We must do everything possible to ensure that the seven Noahide laws are observed. If this can be accomplished through force or through other kinder and more peaceful means through explaining to non-Jews that they should accept God’s wishes [we should do so]… Anyone who is able to influence a non-Jew in any way to keep the seven commandments is obligated to do so, since that is what God commanded Moses our teacher.”

Plus, as Alex suggests, it’s a whole lot easier to rail against the gays than to try to make laws against people who blaspheme or worship idols, what with the Bill of Rights and all. Oh, and, murder and theft are already illegal and there’s a pretty decent justice system in the US. So the marriage thing is like low-hanging fruit I guess. It’d be neat if Benkof would devote more of his time to preventing cruelty to animals, but that’s not where his priorities are I guess.

MirrorMan
June 30th, 2008 | LINK

werdna, you wrote: “Gay marriage falls under the Noahide law which prohibits engaging in sexually immoral acts (adultery, homosex, bestiality, etc.) so it’s his duty as an observant Orthodox Jew and follower of the Lubavitcher Rebbe to stop the gays from getting married. That’s the point you keep missing: some Jews (like Benkof) think it’s their duty to try to get the Gentiles to follow the Noahide laws. The don’t want the Gentiles to follow the laws that apply only to Jews, but they consider it important to promote the laws that they think do apply to Gentiles.”

I get that, really. But what David fails to understand is that the first amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”, not only guarantees freedom OF religion, but freedom FROM religion. If my belief is not shared by you, you don’t have to follow it. But he wants to put his religion as superior to mine by enshrining it in writing in the legal constitution. That is unethical, illegal, discriminatory and prejudicial.

And he has no right to do that no matter what his beliefs are or whatever cosmic muffin he prays to. It’s all well and good that is what God commanded Moses, their teacher, but he wasn’t MY teacher! So pardon me if I take offense to his bleatings. In the words of Soft Cell, “Sorry, I don’t pray that way!”

John
June 30th, 2008 | LINK

I am Catholic. I believe that the Catholic Church is still the single largest Christian denomination in the country. However, the Catholic Church is still outnumbered by Protestants and Evangelicals. I would wager that most American Catholics are well aware of these basic religious demographics in this country.

Jews represent a much smaller religious group, which becomes even more tiny when you restrict yourself to the Orthodox. I can’t imagine anything more self defeating than for Benkof, a member of a minority religious group, to go around advocating the imposition of religious law on those who don’t share it. The more logical path towards self-preservation is to advocate for freedom of (and from) religious tyranny.

Gary
July 1st, 2008 | LINK

I’m very pleased to see that Benks has removed his “bio”.

Only to get angered again with his out of context quote of Legal Marriage Alliance of Washington/Michael Taylor-Judd.

The “I must have deleted that email” or “It may have gone in the spam filter” excuse has gotten pretty lame.

Timothy Kincaid
July 1st, 2008 | LINK

Gary,

At this point I think it is clear that if anyone wishes to have any measure of control over their own voice, it is in their best interest to only communicate with Benkof in a public forum where the context and content can be verified.

In addition to the many members of the community that have stated publicly that David Benkof has not accurately characterized their position or their conversation, I have received a number of communications from individuals who have expressed that Benkof has either misstated their views or has berated them when they did not answer his inquiries the way he wished. This has not been restricted to gay people, by the way.

Because they’ve requested that I not publish their statements, I’ll not name them. Y’all just have to decide whether or not to believe me.

:)

MirrorMan
July 1st, 2008 | LINK

On a similar point, I do not advise taking Benkof up on his invitation to discuss things by either email or on his website. I posted a contradiction to his comment: “In case you haven’t noticed, I have a pretty good track record of placing opinion pieces in major mainstream publications – the Los Angeles Times, the New York Post, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Philadelphia Inquirer, and so on.”
Well, the facts are again being played with fast and loose. He has been printed once in the LA Times, on June 5th, 2008, once in the New York post, on Jun. 9, 2008, and twice in the Chronicle, once in 2004 and again in 2008. I can’t get access to the Philadelphia Inquirer without paying a fee, and I am sure not going to waste money on him. My point being, 2 appearances in The Chronicle, spaced four years apart, is not what anyone could conceivably call a “good track record”. The fact that he never posted my comment speaks volumes about his regard for the truth. Since he can’t win an argument in a fair and open discussion, he takes it into an area where he can stack the deck. So much for a fair and level playing field.

Emily K
July 1st, 2008 | LINK

he has had one column appear in the Philly Inquirer (my hometown rag.) But seriously, the Inkie is like one step above USA Today, America’s McPaper.

Still, considering people like Leonard Pitts, Jr. and Dan Savage have the prestige of syndication, yes Mr. Benkof’s resume seems a bit sparse to be able to say he has a “good track record.”

Gary
July 1st, 2008 | LINK

Timothy,

I agree, and I have my own voice. . .I certainly don’t want it to be misinterpreted. At the same time, I feel it’s important to let others know when their words are being corrupted.

This is why I brought the question “Did you really say this, or is it out of context . . .” to the source. Not only because I suspected foul editing, but a sincere concern about comments from a leader of marriage equality in my home state.

My voice is small.

I know better than to engage conversation on his website, but many don’t. . .and fall into the trap.

MirrorMan said, “The fact that he never posted my comment speaks volumes . . .”. Similar to any AFA or FOF site. . . typical. However, what we can do is call them on the carpet for their lies and misrepesentations when we see them, and do our best to expose lies for what they are. . .Perhaps that’s a blog, a phone call or an email to the party being quoted asking for clarification.

Timothy Kincaid
July 1st, 2008 | LINK

Gary,

We agree entirely. And that is what we try to do here at BTB. Thanks for being a part of that effort.

Gary
July 1st, 2008 | LINK

you’re welcome, and thanks again for the forum.

Noli Irritare Leones » Blog Archive » Blogwatch
July 5th, 2008 | LINK

[...] Box Turtle Bulletin, Timothy Kincaid takes issue with David Benkof’s representation of the rate of monogamy in the gay community. And the [...]

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.