Box Turtle Bulletin

More Bakersfield Bigotry

Yesterday we told you about Kern County Clerk Ann Barnett and her objection to providing the same services to gay couples as she joyfully provides to straight couples. Barnett was rumored to have told her staff that she would refuse to allow same-sex marriage in Kern County.

Now the Bakersfield Californian is reporting that while Barnett will issue licenses, she’s stopped the Clerk’s office from solemnizing weddings for anyone, gay or straight. She explains:

“Because of long-term administrative plans, budgetary reasons, and the need to increase security for elections, the Clerk’s office will cease solemnizing weddings, which is discretionary on the part of the County Clerk,” the release said. “As done in other counties, information necessary to solemnize marriages will be made available to those acquiring licenses.”

Ummmm, yeah right. Budgetary reasons.

Somehow this explanation seems a bit less than honest.

See also:
Kern Co. Supervisors Reject Anti-Gay Ordinance
Calaveras County Joins Kern and Butte
Barnett Breaks Her Media Silence – Stupidly, of Course
Chad Vegas – Kern Co. School Board Trustee’s Double Standard
Ann Barnett Annoys Local Bakersfield Media
Two More California Counties Stop Officiating at Weddings
CA Anti-Gays Either Completely Idiotic or Shameless Liars
No Non-Religious Marriages in Kern County
A Voice of Reason in Kern Co.
Kern Co. (Bakersfield) Clerk Ann K. Barnett Cancels Straight Weddings
More Bakersfield Bigotry
Bakersfield – Not a Place to Plan Your Wedding

TiVo and Focus On the Family Partner for a Father’s Day Contest

G-A-Y’s Jeremy Hooper has discovered that Focus On the Family has partnered with TiVo for an “I Know A Super Dad” contest, in which sons and daughters are asked to submit an essay explaining why their dad is a “super dad.” Winners will get a TiVo Series2 DT DVR with a full year of TiVo service.

But it raises a question: how many gay dads do you think would be Super Dads in Focus/TiVo’s eyes? Or how many dads who love and support their LGBT sons and daughters would Focus/TiVo be wiling to certify as a Super Dad?

We know there are lots of Super Dads out there who fit both discriptions, so so let’s find out. Between now and Father’s day (June 15), we encourage you to enter Focus/TiVo’s contest and explain why your Dad is a Super Dad. We also ask that you send a copy of your stories to us, maybe along with some photos, too! (Just make sure you have permission!) You can send them to: Superdad@boxturtlebulletin.com

We’ll post the best Super Dad stories between now and Father’s Day. You can immortalize your Super Dad on the World Wide Web! What better prize is there than that?

Okay, how about this: The best Super Dad story gets a free BTB T-shirt. It’s no TiVo, but hey, it’s something.

LaBarbera Award: Judge Bill Graves

We’ve got another winner. It has recently come to light that Oklahoma Judge Bill Graves objected to proposed changes to the state Code of Judicial Conduct regarding sexual orientation.

In an April 8 letter to the Oklahoma Bar Association, Graves objects that the new code would prohibit him from refusing to award custody and adoption cases if a parent were gay. Graves also objecsd to the gender and ethnicity clauses as well, leaving us to wonder exactly which century he’s living in.

But this is Judge Graves’ award-winning argument against the homosexuals:

“Sexual orientation” would protect pedophiles, polygamists and homosexuals who practice anal sodomy, defined in state law as “the detestable and abominable crime against nature,” the judge wrote.

That’s right. Judge Graves is spreading the same old tired, disproved canard that homosexuality is linked to pedophilia. That, coupled with his refusal to consider gay parents fit to raise their own children, leaves us wondering about his capacity to dispense justice.

The long-suffering citizens of Oklahoma have another embarrassing wingnut on their hands again, and we have another LaBarbera Award winner. Sadly, it’s beginning to appear as if the two go hand in hand. Congratulations Judge Graves.

Carl DeMaio Wins City Council Seat

Gay Republican Carl DeMaio won his election for San Diego District 5 outright and will not need to participate in a run-off election in November.

Ex-gay gadfly James Hartline did not place in the top three contenders for District 3. It seems that the good Christians of San Diego must have failed the test that Hartline thinks God set out for them.

San Diego’s Pro-Marriage Mayor Re-elected

In September, Republican San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders surprised residents when he changed his views and endorsed same-sex marriage. This decision did play a part in his campaign for re-election.

While his largest opponent, Steve Francis, supports domestic partnerships and did not make Sanders’ position on marriage a central issue, he did criticize Sanders for his decision and say that he would have vetoed the city’s amimus brief filed in support of the gay marriage case that was before the state Supreme Court.

Oddly, this election did not follow the predictable lines. The San Diego Union-Tribune reports

Francis welcomed a number of progressive groups to his cause this year as opposed to 2005, when he ran as a conservative with the backing of the county GOP. In another change this year, that party’s endorsement went to Sanders.

The county GOP flooded the homes of San Diego’s 185,000 registered Republicans with mail praising the mayor and protesting Francis. At the same time, the mayor targeted the city’s 205,000 absentee voters exclusively with his own campaign mail, most recently two weeks ago with a brochure that asked, “Who do you trust to get our city back on track?” The piece answered the question by comparing Sanders’ accomplishments with alleged examples of Francis’ hypocrisy.

Francis, on the other hand, shopped for votes on the political left. His final mailer touted endorsements from three labor unions, two Latino newspapers, the Sierra Club and leaders of the black, Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender, and Filipino/Asian-American communities.

Although Francis sought to portray himself as the more liberal Republican and hired a gay policy director, Democratic activists in the gay community, including Nicole Murray-Ramirez, rewarded Sanders for his support and worked for his reelection.

Sanders, who served as chief of police and as CEO of the San Diego United Way and board member for the city’s Red Cross, was “always reaching out to the gay and lesbian community,” said Murray-Ramirez, who rode in the city’s first Pride parade in 1974. “He marched in over a dozen Gay Pride parades and was the first police chief to march in uniform. He’s more of a public servant than a politician.”

When Sanders pledged his support for gay marriage, he also revealed that his daughter, Lisa, is a lesbian. Many have attributed Sanders’ marriage views to his daughter’s sexual orientation, but Corbin and Murray-Ramirez said that having gay appointees to advise him also contributed to his support.

In Tuesday’s election Sanders received 52% of the vote, enough to avoid a run-off in November.

Bakersfield – Not a Place to Plan Your Wedding

Bakersfield, CA, is an armpit.

With an economy based in agriculture, manufacturing, and oil refining, it’s no exaggeration to say that Bakersfield stinks. Literally. And with a high rate of poverty, one of the nation’s worst cities for ozone and particle pollution, and a reputation for red-necks and bigots, there’s little to encourage one to visit.

Okay, maybe I’m a little biased. I’m sure that Bakersfield has many lovely aspects and charming attributes. I don’t doubt that there are some wonderful people and pleasant neighborhoods. It has to be better than its neighbor Taft.

But now it has two more reasons for me to stay away.

Kern County (where Bakersfield sits as its county seat) isn’t named for Sally Kern, but it might as well be. In 2000, Kern County voted 80% in favor of banning gay marriage, and gay Southern Californian’s use the city as an example of where they would not feel safe in public.

And local officials like it that way. Now that the Supreme Court has overturned that statutory clause, let’s just say that the County Clerk isn’t happy. Lois Henry, columnist for The Bakersfield Californian, followed up and found her to be less than communicative.

I heard a rumor that Barnett held a staff meeting after the California State Supreme Court struck down the state’s ban on same-sex marriages on May 15 and said she would not allow them in Kern County because of her personal beliefs.

So I asked Barnett.

“My staff meetings are confidential so I will neither confirm nor deny that information,” she tersely told me.

I don’t doubt that Barnett will eventually comply with the law. But I also expect she’ll make it as miserable on gay couples as she legally can.

But Barnett is not the only bigot in Bakersfield.

Bakersfield carrot farmer William Bolthouse donated $100,000 to an initiative aiming to fight gay marriage — a measure that will appear on the Nov. 4 ballot along with the presidential race.

Jeremy at Good As You reports that this William Bolthouse appears to profit from the sales of Bolthouse Farms juices (carrot and other).

So when y’all come to marry here in the beautiful Golden State, don’t plan on walking the streets of Bakersfield. And don’t serve carrot juice at the reception.

See also:
Kern Co. Supervisors Reject Anti-Gay Ordinance
Calaveras County Joins Kern and Butte
Barnett Breaks Her Media Silence – Stupidly, of Course
Chad Vegas – Kern Co. School Board Trustee’s Double Standard
Ann Barnett Annoys Local Bakersfield Media
Two More California Counties Stop Officiating at Weddings
CA Anti-Gays Either Completely Idiotic or Shameless Liars
No Non-Religious Marriages in Kern County
A Voice of Reason in Kern Co.
Kern Co. (Bakersfield) Clerk Ann K. Barnett Cancels Straight Weddings
More Bakersfield Bigotry
Bakersfield – Not a Place to Plan Your Wedding

Fun With Polls

In the wake of the California Supreme Court’s decision on marriage equality, there have been several polls attempting to measure the reaction of the state’s citizens. They have had conflicting results.

An LA Times poll reported May 23 tells us that Californians oppose gay marriage by 52% to 41%. A Field poll released five days later reported just the opposite, that Californians favor gay marriage by 51% to 42%.

If we believe a survey by the anti-gay activist group Capital Resource Institute, Californians support banning gay marriage by 56%. If we were to accept a USA Today / Gallup poll as it is being reported, we would believe that two thirds of Americans favor gay marriage.

Why are there so many contradictory conclusions? Part of the answer can be found in the way that questions are presented.

Take, for example, the USA Today poll. In this, the respondent was asked to determine if the decision to marry was “strictly a private decision between the two people” or whether “the government has the right to pass laws to prohibit or allow such marriages” for a series of hypothetical couples. Respondents were asked about mixed religion and mixed race marriages along with same sex couples.

The dichotomy between “private” and “government prohibition” along with the grouping of same-sex with mixed-marriage and mixed-faith couples is almost certain to yield results that have little or no reflection on how most Americans view gay marriage.

There are undoubtedly those who think that a union between two persons of the same-sex should be private but who also believe that it should not be recognized by the state. And without the leading questions about currently illegal marriage prohibitions, the respondants would not be coached into rejecting same-sex prohibitions.

These types of polls where a desired result is falsely constructed are called “push polls” and are favorites of political campaigns that seek to present their candidate or issue as a winner.

The claims of the anti-gay Capital Resource Institute can also be dismissed completely. CRI didn’t even pretend to use a credible polling agency, relying instead on an advertising agency that “ensure[s] that [their] political, public policy and service organization clients have their messages reach the households they have targeted, usually based on location or anticipated household demographics.”

But neither the LA Times nor the Field poll were constructed to yield a desired result. The Times asked:

Do you approve or disapprove of the California Supreme Court’s decision last week to allow same-sex marriage in California?

and allowed “strongly approve”, “somewhat approve”, “somewhat disapprove”, “strongly disapprove”, and “don’t know” as answers. The Field Poll allowed only “approve”, “disapprove” or “no opinion” and asked:

Do you approve or disapprove of California allowing homosexuals to marry members of their own sex and have regular marriage laws apply to them?

The questions about voting on the constitutional amendment were also similarly worded:

Times: A proposed amendment to the state’s Constitution that may appear on the November ballot would reverse the court’s decision and state that marriage is only between a man and a woman. If the election were held today, would you vote for or against the amendment.

Field: There may be a vote on this issue in the November election. Would you favor or oppose having the state constitution prohibit same-sex marriage, by defining marriage as only between a man and a woman?

The Times found the amendment passing 51% to 36% and the Field Poll found it failing 51% to 43%.

So how do we decide which poll to believe? Are we to be encouraged or worried?

ABC New’s polling director, Gary Langer, provides some guidance:

Sample differences can matter (the Times poll was among all adult Californians, the Field Poll among registered voters only, and both noted big differences among areas of the state and demographic groups). Timing can matter, too (the Field Poll was done May 17-26, an unusually long 10-day field period; the Times poll, May 20-21, a short one). So can the order of questions, and these are worth a look.

Langer states that “Both polls are high-quality, with clear, balanced questions” and does not conclude as to which poll best reflects public sentiment.

So I guess the answer is that it’s just not possible to tell at this time.

For those who need extra encouragement, you can look to how well the Field Poll compared to California’s Proposition 22, an initiative that restricted marriage (on a stututory level) to opposite-sex couples. If we can guestimate from this graph, in 2000 about 40% of Californians supported gay marriage. About 39% of California voters opposed the proposition. This suggests that the Field Poll is not necessarily far off from the opinions of voters.

However, as the conflicting polls show, opinion on this issue is difficult to measure and may be subject to influence. It is of utmost importance that a carefully crafted campaign be designed and funded to appeal to the better nature of California voters.

CA Supremes: No Stay, No Reconsideration – Marriages Start June 17

The San Jose Mercury News is reporting

Moving swiftly to remove legal uncertainty, the court turned a way a request from gay marriage foes to stay the ruling until after the November election, when voters will consider a ballot measure that would change the state Constitution to again outlaw same-sex weddings.

The court also rejected a request to reconsider their decision by the same margin as the original decision.

Dallas Prosecutor Claims Spittle is Deadly Weapon

Willie Campbell is not a model citizen. He’s a homeless vagrant who has been in and out of prison and he regularly resists police efforts to enforce ordinances. But now Willie will not be bothering anyone but prison guards and inmates for a very long time. Willie was just given a 35 year sentence (Dallas Morning News).

For spitting.

You see, Willie has HIV and he spit at a police officer with some of his spittal landing in the officer’s mouth and eye.

Prosecutors convinced a Dallas County jury this week that HIV-positive saliva should be considered a deadly weapon.

Now you, I, and the Centers for Disease Control all know that there have been no known cases of HIV transmittal by means of spittle. And surely the Dallas County prosecutor knew that as well.

She just didn’t care.

But Dallas County prosecutor Jenni Morse, who handled Mr. Campbell’s case, said any risk level is sufficient for the deadly weapon finding used during the trial.

“No matter how minuscule, there is some risk,” said Ms. Morse. “That means there is the possibility of causing serious bodily injury or death,” the legal definition of a deadly weapon.

No matter how minuscule? By that standard, there is nothing that would not be a deadly weapon. What about cigarette smoke? Or sneezing?

But how fairly did the jury treat this “deadly weapon” of spittal? Interestingly, we have a comparison.

Mr. Campbell’s sentence was nearly double that given the same day to a man being tried in a courtroom next door. That man, De Leon Vanegas Jr., was sentenced to 18 years in prison for giving “cheese” heroin to a 15-year-old boy who died after using the drug. The jury in that case declared heroin a deadly weapon.

I believe that Jenni Morse is unethical. In her zeal to “put away a bad guy” she was willing to deceive a jury and play on fears and stereotypes. She doesn’t seem concerned in the slightest that she has heightened false fears and made the lives of all HIV positive citizens more difficult.

Who cares? She got her guy. He’s off the streets.

Now I agree that Campbell is a nuisance. And he most certainly should be charged with any crimes he committed. But criminalizing HIV status is, to me, a greater threat to the citizens than is sleeping on a sidewalk and spitting on an officer.

Transgender Non-Discrimination Bill Passes New York Assembly

Many people have argued that the state of Transgender advocacy is at about where LGB (without the T) advocacy was ten or twenty years ago. Which makes this development especially important. On June 3, the state assembly voted overwhelmingly (102-33!) to to amend the state’s human rights law to include anti-discrimination protections for gender identity and expression.

The bill’s prospects in the Senate are uncertain, where Republicans hold a slim majority. Gov. Paterson has indicated that he will sign the bill if it reaches his desk.

CA Anti-Marriage Amendment Certified for Ballot

What we reported yesterday is now official. California’s Secretary of State Debra Bowen has annouunced that the proposed anti-marriage constitutional amendment has enough valid signatures to appear on the November ballot.

Greece’s First Same-Sex Marriage

We reported last week that mayor Tassos Alfieris of the Greek island of Tilos announced that he would officiate the first same-sex wedding ceremony in Greece. Today, the BBC reports that two men and two women were married in civil ceremonies, despite threats from Greece’s top prosecutor to criminally charge the mayor if he went forward with the weddings.

APA Statements on DSM Workgroups

Last week, we posted a statement from four transgender advocacy organizations on the American Psychiatric Association’s ongoing efforts to update the Diagnostics and Statistical Manual for its fifth edition (DSM-V). This week, we have two statements from the APA. The first one is about the DSM revision process, and the second one is about Kenneth Zucker’s participation on the DSM workgroup.

APA STATEMENT ON GID AND THE DSM-V
May 23, 2008

The American Psychiatric Association has received inquiries about the DSM-V process, particularly concerns about the Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders Work Group. The APA recognizes that this work group and others will address difficult and sometimes controversial issues. The APA’s goal is to develop a diagnostic manual that is based on sound scientific data, but also sensitive to the needs of clinicians and their patients. To this end, the APA has created a process that involves opportunities for review and input from persons with varied backgrounds and opinions.

Thirteen DSM-V work groups have been established to review all existing diagnostic categories in the current DSM. Individual work groups may propose revisions to existing disorder criteria, inclusion of new disorders, removal of existing disorders, or no changes to a disorder or its criteria. They may also propose revisions to the text that accompanies the criteria for each disorder. The Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders Work Group, chaired by Kenneth J. Zucker, Ph.D., has three subworkgroups:

• Gender Identity Disorders, chaired by Peggy T. Cohen-Kettenis, Ph.D.
• Paraphilias, chaired by Ray Blanchard, Ph.D.
• Sexual Dysfunctions, chaired by R. Taylor Segraves, M.D., Ph.D.

Each subworkgroup meets regularly, in person or on conference calls. They begin by reviewing DSM-IV’s strengths and problems, from which research questions and hypotheses are developed and then investigated through literature reviews and analyses of existing data. They also may further test research questions in field trials involving direct data collection. Because the work groups are limited in size, they may request outside advisors to assist them in these tasks, and to provide reviews and comments from other perspectives. Finally, in order to invite comments from even wider communities of researchers, clinicians, and consumers, the APA launched a web site in 2004, on which these groups can submit questions, comments and research findings, which are then distributed to the relevant work groups.

Based on this comprehensive review of scientific advancements, targeted research analyses and clinical expertise, the subworkgroups will develop draft DSM-V diagnostic criteria. After a period of comment, the subworkgroups will review submitted questions, comments and concerns. The final draft of DSM-V will be submitted to APA’s Council on Research, Assembly, and Board of Trustees for their review and approval. The final, approved DSM-V is expected to be released in May, 2012.

In summary, the DSM-V development process was constructed to achieve a thorough, balanced review of scientific data, with multiple levels of approval required, and opportunities for input from stakeholders. It is important to recognize that the DSM is a diagnostic manual and does not provide treatment recommendations or guidelines. The APA is aware of a need for more scientific and clinical knowledge about the best medical and psychiatric care for individuals with Gender Identity Disorder. To address this need, the APA Board of Trustees voted to create a Task Force to review the scientific and clinical literature on GID treatment. The members of this Task Force will be appointed shortly.

Statement on Dr. Kenneth Zucker and Gender Identity Disorder (5/23/2008)

Kenneth J. Zucker, Ph.D., C.Psych., the Chair of the DSM-V Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders work group, is a widely respected and pre-eminent scholar in the world of academic sexology research. As Chair of the work group for Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders, Dr. Zucker’s role is to coordinate and facilitate the work of the three sub-work groups addressing Sexual Dysfunctions, Paraphilias, and Gender Identity Disorders. Further information on the DSM-V development process can be found at [this web site].

Dr. Zucker has published 97 peer-reviewed journal articles, 48 book chapters, and a landmark textbook. His published work addresses psychosexual differentiation and its disorders, based on a wide range of empirical research studies on children and adolescents with gender identity disorder, with a focus on diagnosis and assessment, and their associated behavioral and psychological distress. As the current Editor of Archives of Sexual Behavior, the premier human sexuality research journal, he also has a wide familiarity with the disparate areas of sexual dysfunctions and paraphilias. Since 2001, he has been the Psychologist-in-Chief at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), is a Professor in the Departments of Psychiatry and Psychology at the University of Toronto, and is on the Scientific Staff (Division of Child Psychiatry) at the Hospital for Sick Children. He was the President of the International Academy of Sex Research in 2005-2006.

Dr. Zucker and his service team at CAMH in Toronto have the longest standing research-clinical service for children and youth with gender identity problems in North America. Since the mid-1970s, Dr. Zucker and his team have evaluated over 900 children and youth with gender identity issues. Dr. Zucker is one of the few researchers who is doing long-term follow-up of the patients he has treated.

The philosophy of Dr. Zucker’s team is to provide client-centered care that maximizes benefit and minimizes harm to each child or youth. The goal of treatment is a well-adjusted youth, regardless of ultimate gender identity or sexual orientation, who feels she or he has been genuinely helped by her or his healthcare providers. Dr. Zucker has offered a variety of treatment options, understanding that options may vary greatly with the age of the client. For younger clients, therapy options include helping the child to overcome discomfort with his or her body, i.e., helping clients learn to live comfortably in their natal sex. Diagnosis and treatment of other problems that may be present, such as anxiety, depression, or substance abuse are also available, as are services for family members.

For adolescent patients (including those who first came to the clinic as young children), Dr. Zucker follows the Standards of Care Guidelines of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health. The treatment options include helping patients make a satisfactory transition to the opposite sex, including the institution of hormonal treatment to facilitate transition. In some cases, treatment may include helping an interested adolescent obtain sex-reassignment surgery.

For all patients, regardless of age, the focus of therapy is the patient’s gender identity, not the patient’s sexual orientation. Dr. Zucker’s therapeutic approach has no relationship to so-called reparative or sexual conversion therapies that attempt to change homosexual orientations to heterosexual ones. The goal of his therapy is the opposite of conversion therapy in that he considers well-adjusted transsexual, gay, lesbian or bisexual youth to be therapy successes, not failures.

LaBarbera Award: Pastor John Hagee

I don’t know how we managed to overlook John Hagee when handing out LaBarbera Awards. He’s uttered so many doozies in the past, so much so that presumptive GOP presidential nominee Sen. John McCain was finally forced to distance himself from the man whose support he once courted.

But this latest discovery looks like it’s about as good a reason as any to recognize some of the lunacy which runs rampant among anti-gay extremists:

On March 16, 2003, on the eve of the United States’ invasion of Iraq, Pastor John Hagee took to the pulpit to warn of the coming Antichrist. In his sermon, “The Final Dictator,”Hagee described the Antichrist as a seductive figure with “fierce features.” He will be “a blasphemer and a homosexual,” the pastor announced. Then, Hagee boomed, “There’s a phrase in Scripture used solely to identify the Jewish people. It suggests that this man [the Antichrist] is at least going to be partially Jewish, as was Adolph Hitler, as was Karl Marx.”

You see? Fred Phelp’s Westboro Baptists aren’t a complete aberration. You can get the full effect here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxQ-3LVofHs

Now you see, that’s how you win the LaBarbera Award.

By the way, Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) still says he’s going to deliver the keynote address at Hagee’s Christians United For Israel (CUFI) summit. Also scheduled to attend is Rep. Elliot Engel (D-NY). No word yet on whether Engel has reconsidered given this latest outburst.

Colorado Gets Non-Discrimination

The Denver Post reports

Gov. Bill Ritter today quietly signed a controversial bill expanding the prohibition of sexual-orientation-based discrimination, over the vocal opposition of conservative Christian groups like Focus on the Family.

The bill bans discrimination based on a person’s religious belief or sexual orientation – including transgender people – in places of public accommodation, housing practices, family planning services and 20 other public spheres. Such prohibitions are already in place with regard to race.

Ah, poor Dr. Dobson. He’s just not as influential as he once was. I guess if you are willing to sell out your integrity for some skirmish in a culture war you lose the reputation necessary to influence public policy.

Opponents said the bill would have serious consequences, such as opening up Colorado public restrooms and locker rooms to all genders and transgender people, exposing children and women to sexual predators.

I guess Coloradans saw that none of these things happened in any of the other states to ban discrimination and figured Dr. Dobson was just lying again.