The Daily Agenda for Monday, May 20
Gay Man Shot To Death In NYC Hate Crime
The Daily Agenda for Sunday, May 19
French President Hollande Signs Marriage Bill
The Daily Agenda for Saturday, May 18
Fox News Ignores Marriage Equality Wins
The Era of Civil Unions Is Coming To An End
Orthodox Priests Lead Violent Attack On LGBT Rights Rally in Tbilisi, Georgia
Featured Reports
What Are Little Boys Made Of?
In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.
Slouching Towards Kampala: Uganda’s Deadly Embrace of Hate
When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.
David Benkof: Behind the Mask
At first glance, David Benkof appears to be a young gay man who believes that same-sex marriage will damage the institution of marriage, that there are better options for gay couples than marriage, that the community should join him in prioritizing other more pressing issues, and that the marriage discussion is harming the efforts of gay couples in red states to get recognition for their unions. He also claims that he’s a gay columnist, that he speaks for an influential collection of gay thinkers, and that he is part of the gay and lesbian community and that he shares our goals and dreams. But none of that is true.
“Repeat After Me”: The Reparative Therapy Echo Chamber
The April 2008 edition of the pay-to-publish vanity journal Psychological Reports featured a new report from NARTH. Written by NARTH president A. Dean Byrd, past president Joseph Nicolosi, and Richard W. Potts, the report carries the unwieldy but self-descriptive title, “Clients perceptions of how reorientation therapy and self-help can promote changes in sexual orientation.” While the title describes what the authors meant to show — how clients describe the benefits of reparative therapy — the report itself actually illustrates something very different: the ex-gay movement’s remarkable ability to instill an almost robot-like parroting of ex-gay rhetoric among their clients.
Testing the Premise: Is MRSA The New Gay Plague?
The Toronto Star said that a new study “discover[ed] a new strain” of a super-bug “hitting gay men.” Headlines in Britain screamed, “Flesh-eating bug strikes San Francisco’s gay community,” and anti-gay extremists across America spread the alarm that gays were introducing another plague into “the general population.” But there was a small problem with all of this: None of it is true!
Paul Cameron’s World
In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.
From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”
On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.
Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"
The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing The Myths
At last, the truth can now be told.
Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!
And don't miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.
Testing The Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?
Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.
Straight From The Source: What the “Dutch Study” Really Says About Gay Couples
Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.
The FRC’s Briefs Are Showing
Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.
Review: The Gay Report
When Karla Jay and Allan Young published The Gay Report in 1979, it quickly a favorite source of statistics for many anti-gay extremists. But before you accepts these statistic at face value, you should examine the inner workings of this survey very carefully. What you learn might surprise you.
Daniel Fetty Doesn’t Count
The FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.
News, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
Posts 
Posts via daily email:
John
November 5th, 2008 | LINK
If there is a special legal fund to contribute to, please post a link. I’m 100% behind the fight.
CrankyOtter
November 6th, 2008 | LINK
Yeah. Me too.
Most of the “yes” people I spoke with were concerned mostly about losing tax-exempt status for denying gays the right to marry there. Yet I’ve heard of churches that were passing out Yes signs during or immediately after sermons. Any chance we can get all their tax-exempt certs revoked? At least for a full year? I was checking the IRS rules and it could be possible. But I am not a lawyer or tax expert, just a wishful thinker.
Al W.
November 6th, 2008 | LINK
I hope this works, although I’m wondering if this coalition would do better to use the equal treatment that the Cali Supreme Court laid out in its opinion. Remember, they basically said that whatever the straights get, the gays can have too. Well, if the straights want “Marriage” to be only for straights, then NO ONE should have it and EVERYONE should have Domestic Partnerships.
Ephilei
November 6th, 2008 | LINK
BTW, while this is an awful blow to couples in the short term, I am not worried at all in the long term. Support for marriage is growing 1 or 2% or year and in 2012 I’m confident California and at least one other state will pass a pro-marriage proposition.
Todd
November 6th, 2008 | LINK
I am of the same opinion as Al, I rwad the court’s decision and felt that Prop 8 would not overule the will of the court, just change the outcome from Marriage for all to Domestic Partnerships for all. My understanding was always that the court said you can not treat people differently because of sexual orientation and that marriage was the easier route as the more defined institution. I would be fine of the court would say that if mariage is defined by thr California Constitution as only between a man and a woman, than California will not recognize marriage for any couple and the only legally recognized union would be the DP with all the same rights for all couples.
AJC
November 6th, 2008 | LINK
Proposition 4, which would have required doctors to inform the parents of a minor before performing an abortion, was rejected by California voters Tuesday, by a vote of 52% to 48%.
So some of the same people who voted *against* equal marriage voted *for* abortion. It seems as if the morals of some conservatives are just as “relativist” and selective as those of liberals. Since cultural conservatives generally believe that abortion is murder, what this means is that, for many cultural conservatives, murder of the unborn is acceptable, but equal marriage for gays and lesbians is not.
In other words, it’s about power, not principle; and it’s about fear rather than the “evangelical virtue” of charity. People need to be called on their blatant hypocrisy, especially when they flaunt it at the ballot box.
Timothy Kincaid
November 6th, 2008 | LINK
I’m not an attorney, but as I understand the argument of the court, they determined that determined that gay persons are uniquely and distinctly such. In other words, unlike the claims of ex-gay ministries, the court agreed that gay people exist and that which distinguishes them (their sexual orientation) is an attribute rather than a behavior.
The SCOTUS found that efforts to restrict “behaviors” that were specific to this population were not in actuality based on behavior but were in reality an effort to segregate and discriminate against a people. (For those unable to see this distinction, consider a law that banned the “behavior” of wearing a yarmulke. Such a law would be discriminatory because it targeted a specific people and the intent was to criminalize them. Arguments about “everyone is banned from wearing a yarmulke” are specious.)
The California Court went further in determining that due to a history of discrimination, laws which distinguish same-sex attracted persons from opposite-sex attracted persons were subject to strict scrutiny.
As best I know, none of that has been changed. Gay people are still protected from discrimination and laws cannot be written that treat them different from heterosexuals.
Now, however, there is language within the Constitution that specifically and directly distinguishes between gays and straights.
So, in essence, as of Tuesday our constitution says:
1. All citizens have the same rights.
2. Not all citizens have the same rights.
It will be fascinating to see how the Courts interpret this conundrum.
Mark F.
November 6th, 2008 | LINK
I think abolishing civil marriage altogether is a great idea. Domestic partnerships for all, and leave marriage to the churches.
Jason D
November 6th, 2008 | LINK
Mark I’ve been saying that for years.
I would tell religious people.
1 – Since you believe marriage is sacred
2 – The government seems to be ill equiped at keeping marriage scared
3 – Take marriage away from them, then! We don’t let the government preside over baptisms, why marriage?
Simply eject the word “marriage” from our laws, and replace it with “civil unions” You won’t have the government sanctioning gay marriage, because it won’t be sanctioning marriage at all.
Effects:
All legal “marriages” would retain the same rights and responsibilities under a new name.
The word marriage would not apply to gays, straights, or anyone else….at least in a legal sense.
Religious institutions would be free to perform whatever marriages they like. Civil Union paperwork would be required to have the committment legally recognized.
Socially, anyone could claim they are a married couple — but that is already the case anyway.
cowboy
November 6th, 2008 | LINK
Timothy,
Couldn’t that conundrum have been pointed out BEFORE the election? It might have saved a lot of time and money.
Timothy Kincaid
November 6th, 2008 | LINK
cowboy,
I believe it was pointed out. But the Courts let the proposition go forward. I’m not sure what the reasoning was.
werdna
November 6th, 2008 | LINK
Yes, Prop 8 was challenged before the election on the same basic theory but the CA Supreme Court denied the petition without comment (leaving open the filing of this new petition).
The court gave no specific reason, but people who know more than I about these things have written that courts don’t usually like to rule on hypothetical questions. Until the proposition passes, it’s hypothetical. So there’s nothing really odd about their decision not to make a ruling until after the election when they have an actual concrete issue to address.
suburban dyke
November 6th, 2008 | LINK
Let’s fight back. Let’s boycott California wines, produce and travel. Let’s publicize it. Let’s embarrass them. It worked a few years ago in Colorado. What do say?
kevin
November 6th, 2008 | LINK
Suburban Dyke,
Do you really want to boycott the state of California when our real enemies are the Christian fundamentalists who swooped in from Utah and other states to push this vote on the California people? Millions of Californians voted No on Prop 8 and now you want to punish the victims of homophobia? That doesn’t make sense.
California needs your help, not a boycott – which is ill-conceived.
You can start by donating money to the Lambda Legal Defense, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, and the ACLU and earmark it for “marriage equality in CA”.
That needs to be your response to our persecutors. A boycott of California, where 1 out of every 8 people in the US lives and which has an economy in the billions, would not only be ineffective and silly but would serve the interests of our “friends” in the Christian Coaltion and the Catholic and Mormon churches.
Benjamin
November 6th, 2008 | LINK
I think that when the California rules on this that part of the language of their decision should also include the fact that Evangelical Churches and the Mormon Church which has its headquarters about 1,000 miles from California were meddling with California’s civil rights laws and through lies, religious rhetoric and a lot of money they were able to persuade a slight majority of the electorate to pass prop 8. This should definitely be taken into serious consideration and should be included as part of the research and the evidence that is discussed in the court’s findings. This should be a serious indictment of the Mormon Church and of the various Evangelical Churches involved and Catholic Church as well. This needs to be brought into the open and bring a great deal of shame on these organizations for what they have done.
Benjamin
November 6th, 2008 | LINK
I cannot see the court who ruled on this last Spring just letting this go down without doing something to stand up for the civil rights of a minority group. Now that we have a majority of Democrats in Congress along with an absolutely incredible leader and ally in Barack Obama it is just a matter of time before we see a major pleasant surprise for us. The Democrats will make sure there is a SOLID, STRONG and IMPENETRABLE WALL between religion and the government.
Timothy Kincaid
November 6th, 2008 | LINK
Benjamin,
It might surprise you that the Court who ruled last spring isn’t comprised of Democrats. Of the seven justices, six are Republican.
Attmay
November 6th, 2008 | LINK
It’s Utah that should be boycotted, not California. Even if I wanted to, I can’t totally boycott California because I have family there.
But I put up a sign on my door saying “Mormons Not Welcome.”
Leave A Comment