Box Turtle Bulletin
News and commentary about the anti-gay lobby“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
News and commentary about the anti-gay lobbyJanuary 29th, 2009
U.S District Judge Morrison C. England, Hr. denied an attempt by the Yes on 8 to overturn California’s Political Reform Act. The act, which was approved by California voters in 1974, requires political campaigns to disclose the name, occupation and employer of anyone contributing $100 or more to the campaign. Yes on 8 campaigns sought to withhold disclosing the names of late campaign donors.
Latest Posts
Featured Reports
In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.
When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.
In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.
On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.
Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"
At last, the truth can now be told.
Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!
And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.
Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.
Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.
Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.
The FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.
“Google” is a trademark of Google Inc.
© Box Turtle Bulletin. All Rights Reserved.
Posts 
Posts via daily email:
Timothy Kincaid
January 29th, 2009
I think it is worth noting that Judge England is an African-American, Republican, Army Reservist. He was appointed to the court by George W. Bush.
None of which will stop anti-gay activists from calling him a “liberal activist judge”.
Rob Lll
January 29th, 2009
Marriage issues aside, this is an important victory for anyone who cares about transparency in public affairs. Bravo.
Emily K
January 29th, 2009
I agree. This is one of the ways you keep government small, people. Transparency and accountability. Keep things close to the public.
I wonder if the author of those stupid “twilight” books tithed over her earnings to prop 8. If that’s the case, they’ve even duped all the heterosexual teenage girls into fighting equality…
Richard W. Fitch
January 29th, 2009
The Sacramento Bee readers’ comments are very telling of the conflict between ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ on HP8. It appears some are even confused about which side is which. And, of course, is there already the cry of Liberal, Revisionist, Law-making Jurists.
http://www.sacbee.com/1095/story/1584048.html
Richard W. Fitch
January 29th, 2009
Emily — checked out the YouTube link… almost fell out of my chair laughing. You have a wondefully unique sense of humour!!
Emily K
January 29th, 2009
Richard, please distribute that link as you see fit.
Tommy
January 29th, 2009
It amazes me that a group of people could take what the US Supreme Court defines as “fundamental rights,” away from someone, and then turn around and claim persecution based on small scale methods their own organizations have been using for decades…
The painful arrogance, lies, and hypocrisy of the right can’t ever find the bottom of their own barrel.
Onslowe Sater
January 30th, 2009
It sickens me to watch both sides on this use the exact same terms over and over to describe the enemy. You both use identical arguements and justifications: i.e. hypocrites, lefties-righties, haters, liars, gay-bashers, mormon-haters, boycots, agendas, “our” rights, church and state… no state and church… i forget which site I’m on periodically. Both sides subscribing to the slippery-slope theory and fear mongering. It’s really sad. It really is! And from my vantage point… you almost deserve each other. Now there’s a marriage made in heaven!!! (hey, a chuckle amid all the madness) I posted the exact same comment on protectmarriage blog. I’ll forward both parties any ammo for the war I may get emailed as a result. Tks and sorry. My tummy has a hole from reading these two sides.
-On S
Pender
January 30th, 2009
Emily K: That was awesome.
cowboy
January 30th, 2009
On S,
But…but…THEIR fear mongering is more unsubstantiated than ours.
David C.
January 30th, 2009
The tone of “both sides” has become a little shrill and less than productive in too many cases. In the defense of LGBT people, I can only say that we were pretty much minding our own business when all the so-called “pro-family” groups and many evangelical leaders starting trashing us with every lie and distortion they could manufacture. Much of the war of words and its vocabulary can be traced back to the outright libel and slander that permeates the propaganda coming from these sources. This has to a large extent poisoned the dialogue and turned much of the debate into a shouting match.
To borrow the words of another writer:
~~
Returning to the subject of this thread, it does strike me as hypocritical that Prop-8 proponents want to hide their (often substantial) material support of the measure in the name of protecting themselves from the political and economic consequences of that support. As if LGBT people were not affected in any of these ways by passage of Prop 8, or that the Yes campaign didn’t try to blackmail the contributors to the No campaign which they were able to identify by means of the same kind of publicly available information about themselves that Yes contributors (or at least the Yes Campaign) now want to suppress.
At least the No contributors were unafraid of the implications of their support for defeat of Prop 8. One should ask themselves what the Yes supporters are really afraid of.
Ben in Oakland
January 30th, 2009
Sent to various newspapers today
Dear Editor:
Karl Marx wrote that history usually occurs twice: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.
Prop. 8’s passage was a tragedy. Here comes the farce. Supporters have gone to Federal Court to overturn the California Political Reform Act of 1974, which requires than the donors for political campaigns be made known to the general public. They claim that some alleged threats and harassment entitle them, at the least, to a special exemption for themselves. The Court refused, and they have appealed.
When we gay people seek equality before the law, our birthright as Americans, anti-gay propaganda accuses us of seeking “special rights”. Yet those who would deny this equality are requesting exactly that– special rights. One of the propaganda arguments in support of Prop. 8 was that “liberal, activist judges” should not overturn “the will of the people”. Like the previous law on marriage, Prop. 22, which was overturned by the Supreme Court, the Political Reform Act was a voter-approved initiative. I guess one’s commitment to the will of the people must depend on which people one is referring to. The final irony? Judge England, who ruled against them, was appointed by George Bush, which I suspect does not make him a liberal activist.
Groucho Marx might have written this: “What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the propaganda.”
PDQ
January 31st, 2009
The ‘Pro-Family’ side’s main argument was a smokescreen. If they had really been concerned about protecting families and marriage, they would have been wailing and gnashing their teeth about divorce and adultery which are actually threats to marriage and families. Instead, their focus was solely to deny rights to others who are not like them. They never figured we’d start digging and figure out who among our family, friends and neighbors and which businesses we support were actually in the opposing corner.
If we trotted out a proposition limiting straight people to ONE marriage, with all subsequent relationships being “Domestic Partnerships” that granted no special rights or federal benefits there would be a hue and cry from the “Pro Family” types the likes of which we’ve never seen.
Hypocrites!
Leave A Comment