The reason Benkof has been edited was stated in the body of his edited comment. He has made an allegation of wrongdoing against another third 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.

My days of commenting at BoxTurtleBulletin are over. I’ve been censored one too many times. If you want to converse with me, come on by GaysDefendMarriage.com.

It all smacks of completely amateur research and reporting, far more amateur even than you’re accusing me of.

By “the editor” of the Ozarks Star I meant the Publisher/Editor of the Ozarks Star: Chaz Ward

There you go, lying again. When in “Behind the Mask” you wrote “The Dallas Voice responded” that is an unnamed source. A newspaper is not a named source. Was that the editor? The publisher? The dude who answers the phones? The cartoonist? How are we to know?

Same thing with “according to Q-Notes.” Also, “So I asked the editor” of the Ozarks Star. Those are unnamed sources.

I have been a professional journalist off and on, mostly on, since 1989. There isn’t a professional publication in the country that would allow you to write “According to Q-Notes” unless those precise words were printed in the newspaper.

Of course, you’re not trying to be a professional journalist. You’re just trying to make me look bad – and inexplicably to get me to spend more of my time writing for the mainstream press (where I’ve been quite successful so far) instead of the gay press, as if that will help shore up gay marriage. Um, OK.

All of the claims about what Benkof has said are linked to the places in which he said them.

I have responded to each of your accusations, and only two of them have had merit – one of which I have apologized for, and one of which I have corrected. The rest of your exposes are filled with unnamed sources, vague claims that “many” other people disagree with me, and accusations that I said things that I never said. A favorite tactic of yours (you’ve done it at least four times) is to blame me for saying something on Monday that is no longer true on Wednesday – as if I could have predicted the future – and to claim that you’ve found proof of hypocrisy or deceit on my part. Whatever. I am completely comfortable with people reading your “exposes” because there is no there there.

But one blatant falsehood is almost as bad as the ones Timothy Kincaid has been making, and I just have to respond.

All of my comments about David Benkof have been documented by links to the sources or by email information I’ve personally received from the individuals and organizations I quote.

Very very little that Benkof claims stands up to even a casual glance at the source docs and I’ve yet to contact ANYONE who believes that Benkof characterized their views correctly.

I think you are 100 percent right. Which is another, significant, sad piece of evidence supporting my thesis that the American gay and lesbian community is the most selfish American subculture since the Hippies.

I cannot disagree more, and I am frankly, deeply disturbed you completely ignore our collective charitable work — which is very significant and fills the gap that religious charities SHOULD have filled

We’ve been forced to establish out of our own resources an entire patchwork network of AIDS service organizations and charities in communities around the country. Go to any city with a notable LGBT charity, and you will see them there, giving of time, money and talent, doing what Christian charities can do, can afford to do, and ought to do, but don’t. And these LGBT charities make their services open to all, regardless of sexual orientation.

Canned food drives, money drives, fundraising, AIDS walks, all of that goes towards helping people who are genuinely in need.

Now you may accuse me of sitting comforatbly behind my keyboard and doing nothing in the trenches, and I could understand that.

But the next time the Rainbow coalition builds anothe Habitat house here in Tucson, I’ll be sure to send you pictures.

Outside of the so-called “religious” community, I believe the LGBT community has been the MOST generous of all. Not necessarily because we want to be, but because we’ve had to be. The people who otherwise prided themselves on their own caritas have shown themselves to be charlatans. We didn’t get help; we got condemnation. But we do notice that they are very eager to spend millions to deny marriage to gays and lesbians in California, Arizona, Florida and elsewhere.