Box Turtle Bulletin

ADF Hands “Day Of Truth” Over To Exodus

Those familiar with the ex-gay movement have long known Alliance Defense Fund’s (ADF) “Day Of Truth” is not only a reaction to the “Day Of Silence” but also a thinly veiled effort to push ex-gay programs in public schools. Well ADF has gone and made it official, handing over the Day Of Truth to Exodus via an email and press release dated Jan 20, 2009.

The Alliance Defense is transitioning its leadership of the Day of Truth initiative to Exodus International.

[snip]

the Day of Truth has grown from a handful of students to over 13,000 participants in all 50 states standing for the Truth. As the movement has grown, the focus has continued to broaden…providing students not only with legal assistance when their free speech rights are challenged, but also providing them with information on how to minister and witness to individuals struggling with homosexual behavior.

It’s because of growth in this latter area that this transition is occurring. For more than thirty years, Exodus International has provided thoughtful care to individuals wishing to leave homosexuality and offered support for related families, friends and churches. With 230 member organizations, the Exodus network is mobilizing the body of Christ to minister grace and truth to a world impacted by homosexuality…perfectly positioning them to lead the Day of Truth into the future.

ADF will continue to serve as the legal support arm for this project and represent any student who is silenced or punished for speaking the Truth.

For a little background on the Day Of Truth, how it was founded and it’s troubling ex-gay rhetoric have a look at this video.

(Please note I created this video before Love In Action closed their teen ex-gay bootcamp. Other than that everything in the video is accurate.)

Review: “The Trials Of Ted Haggard”

What’s this, a new author? If you take a look at the left side of this page you’ll see there are three authors listed here at BTB. As a former patient of ex-gay therapist and NARTH founder Joe Nicolosi my specialty is ex-gay issues and video projects documenting ex-gay harm.

I admit I’d grown sick of following Haggard’s most recent media circus when a screener of Alexandra Pelosi’s upcoming documentary fell into my lap so I didn’t have a clue what to expect from it. First let me tell you what the film is not about — it’s not about the initial breaking of scandal in Colorado Springs nor is it about Ted’s ex-gay therapy sessions. Rather it’s about Ted trying to put his his life and the life of his family back together after being banished from Colorado and the effects of his cripplingly harsh severance agreement. This agreement dictated he may never work in any form of ministry or reside in the state of Colorado ever again (the Colorado restriction is dropped after a year). Additionally Ted’s presumably vast Christian social network had largely abandoned him leading Pelosi to ask (while holding the camera at Ted) “Where have all your friends gone?” I found that question so shockingly harsh I let out an audible gasp in sympathy.

That’s very much what this film is about, feeling sympathetic for Ted because of the way his former friends and church have abandoned him. Viewers see the Haggard family move repeatedly between Phoenix area motels and “safe houses,” trying unsuccessfully to put their lives back together. We see Ted try and secure steady employment, and failing at that, take out a loan against their home back in The Springs.

I’m listing all the ways the film makes you sympathize with Ted, but don’t worry about Pelosi presenting it in an overly sentimental way. The film’s very raison d’être is to look at Ted’s unglamorous new life in Arizona and give him a fair chance to tell his side of the story. Of note is Ted’s explanation that he never claimed to be “completely heterosexual” after three weeks of therapy, a claim which he says originated with a member of his “restoration team.” Also of note are a couple of very brief interviews with his wife, which are some of the most profound and telling scenes in the entire film. With those two exceptions the film focuses far more on Ted’s alienation from his old social networks than what’s going on in ex-gay therapy or his marriage.

Pelosi does an excelent job shooting compelling footage to illustrate how far the Haggard family has fallen and how much of a trial their lives have become. She pulls no punches with her questions for Ted, who answers them with the most genuine thought and emotion of any of his public statements since the scandal broke.

I still have a great deal of criticism for Ted and personally would liked to have seen Pelosi focus on other aspects of his life and behavior, but as I’ve made it pretty clear this film is about the trials which Ted Haggard’s family endured after being banished to Arizona. For succeeding in that I absolutely recommend spending 41 minutes of your life watching this film and possibly feeling human emotion for someone you’d previously felt nothing but loathing and disdain for.

“The Trials Of Ted Haggard” premiers on HBO January 29th at 8pm “HBO East” and 11pm “HBO West” with multiple re-broadcasts (all times Eastern). View a full schedule here.

No More Dog Whistles: Introducing the Obama LGBT Scorecoard:

We’ve had eight years of listening for dog whistles. We learned quickly that whenever President Bush or members of Congress spoke, we had to dissect every utterance, split every infinitive, and scoop every dangling participle to try to discern the secret message that was being sent to the base. For all of his assaults on English, President Bush was particularly adept at speaking that unique language which only his base could understand without raising the ire of moderates.

Along the way, we learned that the Dred Scott decision somehow related to abortion and that God prefers commas over periods. We analyzed every message, the way the CIA dissects audio tapes from Osama bin Ladin in case there might be a secret message for a far-flung branch of Al Qaida — which, coincidentally, just happens to be Arabic for “the base.”

And I think that affected to how we approached statements from erstwhile allies as well. Was that a flinch we saw when “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” came up? Why won’t she come straight out against “DOMA”? Why can’t he come out more forcefully against Prop 8? Every statement became a possible clue, and every omission appeared to boom louder than words.

This continued after the election. I was certainly part of it. Why Rick Warren? Why not Gene Robinson? And why was Gene Robinson’s invocation omitted from the broadcast? Why didn’t Obama give us a shout-out in his Inaugural address?

Well, we can stop listening for dog whistles. We can stop jumping up and down in excitement whenever he mentions gays, and we can stop pouting when he doesn’t. Because when the WhiteHouse.gov web site switched hands at 12:01 Tuesday afternoon, a very important document appeared: an LGBT civil rights agenda.

I said then that it looks like a very good scorecard on which we can judge the Obama administration. In fact, the more I look at it, the more I’ve concluded that no gay rights organization could have created a better scorecard in their wildest dreams.

That’s why I decided to condense it into a simple checklist form. And here it is: Barack Obama’s LGBT Civil Rights Scorecard. It’s the one he himself signed up to. And it’s one that I intend to refer to often over the next four years.

I doubt there will be immediate action on any of these items. After all, I can see how a crashing economy and a war in Iraq might be something of a distraction, to say the least. With people losing their jobs, homes, and health care, there’s a lot that needs to be done.

But I have to admit that I labor under the possibly mistaken impression that our elected representatives can walk and chew gum. They should be able to squeeze in a few of these promises in due course amongst the other things that need to be done. But even I know that we can’t sit back and assume that all of those wonderful politicians who made so many swell promises will actually get right on all those promises they made. I mean, c’mon — they’re politicians.

Besides when we’re talking about civil rights, the door has never opened because someone pulled the door open from the inside. It’s always been opened by a strong push from that outside.

That’s where we come in. They signed up for an impressive checklist. But it’s up to us to hold them to it.

Swedish Marriage Legislation Presented

In November we reported that Sweden is on track to have legal same-sex marriages by May of this year. Now legislation has been entered to make the change.

Sam Adams and the Double Standard

In 2005, Sam Adams, then a Portland, Oregon, city councilman, met 17-year-old Beau Breedlove. Adams was 42 at the time. Adams admits now that after Breedlove turned 18, they had a brief romantic liaison. When news of the liaison hit the wires, prominent voices began calling for Adams’ resignation.

In 1992, Jerry Seinfeld, a comedian with a hit television series, met and began dating 17-year-old high school student Shoshanna Lonstein. Seinfeld was 38 at the time. The following year, Seinfeld hit number three in the Neilson ratings, and went to number one in 1994. Seinfeld and Lonstein broke up in 1997. He later met Jessica Sklar and began dating her — even though she had just returned from a three-week honeymoon in Italy when they met. Through it all, Americans voted with their remotes and Seinfeld continued to top the Neilson ratings.

The Portland Tribune thinks Adams should resign because:

We don’t believe the public makes much of a distinction when it comes to a man over 40 having sex with either a 17-year-old or an 18-year-old. And it makes no difference if the teenager is male or female – it’s sexual opportunism, pure and simple.

While we may question the wisdom of Adams taking up with someone so much younger than himself, it should not be the cause of scandal itself. But we know that in the double-standards which apply to gays and lesbians, this is scandalous. In fact, merely being gay is scandalous in many quarters — even in relatively liberal city of Los Angeles. But what Adams did is no more scandalous than the behavior of America’s most beloved comedian of the last decade.

The Portland Oregonian thinks Adams should resign because he lied about the affair:

Adams said this week that he lied because he did not think voters would believe him if he said that his relationship with Breedlove was not illegal. Perhaps he was right, but it was not renewed faith in the judgment of Portlanders that prompted the mayor to come clean with them. It was simply that he was being pressed by the Willamette Week newspaper, and the lie was not sustainable on any of several levels.

So now, Portlanders are left with a mayor whose election was built on a lie.

I hadn’t followed the election, so I don’t know to what extent the mayor’s election was “built on a lie.” Nevertheless, I’m very disappointed in his deplorable lie.

It was about as deplorable as the one President Bill Clinton told about his sexual affair — under oath! Should Adams resign? I seem to recall that Clinton didn’t resign. Not only that, but Clinton left office with a 73% approval rating — the highest of any departing president since polling began seventy years earlier.

But as we all know, a gay man’s affair with an 18-year-old is much, much worse than a straight man’s affair with a 17-year-old. And a lie told by a gay man about his affair is way worse than a lie told by a straight man — under oath! Straight men are forgivable — maybe even adorable in their failings. Gay men aren’t.

That is, if you accept the premise that double standards are acceptable.

Hang in there Mayor. Yes, I’m very disappointed in you. You screwed up (no pun intended) and that screw-up reflects badly on all of us (another double standard, yes, but there it is). But if you’re going to resign, save it for something really important.

Saying “I Do” Amidst Warm Breezes and Tropical Flowers?

Hawaii is unique in its approach to marriage rights for its gay residents.

In 1993, Hawaii’s Supreme Court was the first to determine that it was discriminatory to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples. However, the court did not rule immediately for marriage. The case returned to trial court to allow the State to argue whether its reasons for discrimination were justifiable within the framework of the State Constitution. This allowed anti-gay forces time to push through an amendment to the Constitution which then rendered the decision moot.

In 1998, Hawaii was the first state to adopt a “defense of marriage” constitutional amendment, which passed with 69% approval. But unlike the amendments that followed, this constitutional change did not ban same-sex marriage; rather, it stated “The legislature shall have the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples.”

And so they did.

But Hawaii did not leave its gay people without some small measure of recognition. They created a unique system of recognition with also has not been repeated elsewhere: reciprocal benefits.

Any two adults – whether a romantic couple, siblings, friends, or any other configuration – can register for a reciprocal beneficiary relationship and receive such benefits as hospital visitation, and healthcare decisionmaking. However, unlike marriage, civil unions, or domestic partnerships, these are not viewed as a single legal entity and there seem to be no obligations of mutual support or protection.

But the amendment also allows the legislature to change its mind and no longer reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples. And the AP is reporting that the legislature is likely to consider just such a move this spring.

Hawaii lawmakers convene a new session Wednesday in which they expect to consider legalizing gambling, recognizing gay marriage and preserving Hawaiian lands. The session runs through May 7.

Hawaii, whose economy relies to a large extent on tourism, is feeling the economic crunch. Let’s hope that the legislature, which is almost unanimously Democratic, will decide that becoming a gay wedding destination spot could be a way to simultaneously advance personal liberties and help the financial condition of the state.

Mormons Don’t Like You Much, Either

One of the common claims coming from the Mormon Church is that they love gay people and favor justice, they just have to protect the sanctity of eternal marriage. But three new polls taken in Utah suggest that this may be more rhetoric than reality.

First, the good news. Utah residents – only 2/3 of which are Mormons – do favor some changes in a pro-gay direction. For example, 56% of Utahns favor some additional legal protections such as hospital visitation and inheritance. And a poll by Equality Utah is claiming that majorities of Utah residents favor job and housing protection.

But that’s about where the good news ends. Of the polled Utah Mormons,

• 67% think you should not be allowed to adopt,
• 85% oppose civil unions,
• 85% think it was appropriate to urge members to donate time and money to Proposition 8,
• 58% think it was inappropriate for gays to protest outside the LDS temple grounds, and
• less than half think you should be allowed hospital visitation, inheritance rights, and job protections.

Not all positions that one might hold contrary to the interests of gay equality are an indication of bigotry.

But, seriously, hospital visitation? Inheritance?

An LGBT Scorecard From The Obama Administration

At 12:01 p.m. EST, several things happened simultaneously. The Secret Service agent standing behind President Bush shifted places and took his place behind President Obama. And President Obama, even though he hadn’t yet taken the oath of office, became the official, constitutional President of the United States.

And something else happened. The Switch was flipped on the official White House website. And what a switch it is. There’s a lot there for LGBT Americans to look forward to under the heading of “Civil Rights.” Highlights include:

• Expand Hate Crime Statutes to cover sexual orientation and gender identity.
• Enact a fully inclusive Employment Non-Descrimination Act (ENDA), to include sexual orientation and gender identity.
• Support Full Civil Unions and Federal Rights for LGBT Couples, and repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
• Repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”
• Expand adoption rights, regardless of sexual orientation. (I’m not entirely sure that the federal government has much of a role to play here.)
• Promote AIDS Pevention: Incluiding age-approrpriate sex education which includes talk about condoms, and distributing contraceptives through the public health system.

You might want to bookmark this post. This represents a good scorecard on which to grade the Obama administration in the months and years to come.

Click here to see the entire Civil Rights agenda for LGBT people

I’m disappointed, Sam Adams

Sam Adams is the newly elected mayor of Portland, Oregon. He is the first openly gay mayor of a major US city. He is also coming under public criticism for a lack of judgment.

In 2005, Sam met a young man with the unlikely name of Beau Breedlove. Beau was 17. The two became friendly and, after Beau turned 18 they had a brief romantic liaison. Sam was 42 and a city councilman.

Now I’m not faulting Sam for finding Beau alluring. Many a relationship has successfully weathered age disparity. And the attentions of a handsome young man can do wonders to the ego when you’ve crossed the 40 divide. And while 18 is awfully young, Beau was also an adult.

But Sam lied. He told the media, the voters, and anyone who would listen that their friendship was simply that of a mentor. And Adams won the election in November May by a landslide.

But surely the Monica Lewinsky scandal has shown us that we can forgive our politicians for their lustful peccadilloes… just don’t lie to us. You can offer “no comment”, you can demand the privacy of your personal life, you can imply that the media is simply prurient, you can “defend the honor of this aide and all aides against besmirchment and insinuation”, but don’t lie.

I’m disappointed in you, Sam Adams.

Some Thoughts on the Inauguration

What follows is not a structured commentary but rather some random thoughts on the inauguration.

Rick Warren: Warren’s performance continued to highlight what an unfortunate choice it was to select him for the inaugural invocation. His inflection and style lacked gravitas and humility and at times he seemed false and fawning. I watched the ceremonies in a local coffee shop and the crowd laughed when he verbally caressed the names of the President’s daughters.

The Presidential Inauguration Committee should have closely observed his praying style before announcing Warren. Had they done so, they might have made another selection. Or perhaps they did and wanted what they got.

Vice-Presidential Oath: I wonder why the Veep has an oath that is so much longer than the President’s. It seems that this oath is not stipulated by the Constitution and so they use the same one used by Senators.

Swearing In: Did Roberts not make clear to the President that he would be offering whole sentences rather than small word coupling? And then Roberts screwed up where “faithfully” was placed in the oath.

I would never accuse the man of intentional sabotage, but it does remind us that when President Obama was a Senator he voted against confirmation of Chief Justice Roberts.

Presidential Address: This was a good speech. It began with the usual platitudes and was full of generic rhetoric, but it also gave indications where this administration will view the world with different eyes than the last. Specific references to restoring “science to its rightful place”, and “we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals” suggest direct policy changes while more general references hint at priorities that will change.

What saddened me was the continuation of excluding gay persons from any reference in the grand fabric of the nation. Of course some will dismiss this as an overreaching demand for such a small community, but Jews and Muslims – both much smaller populations in America – received specific reference. As much as I hope and wish for meaningful change for our community, I now fear that gay Americans are seen as a less insignificant part of Barack Obama’s America.

Benediction: Bless Rev. Lowery, but if anyone less prestigious had given that prayer they could not have carried it off. “The Red Man can get ahead, man”? Yikes!!

But I am particularly pleased that the reverend said:

And now, O Lord, in the complex arena of human relations, help us to make choices on the side of love, not hate; on the side of inclusion, not exclusion; tolerance, not intolerance. And as we leave this mountaintop, help us to hold on to the spirit of fellowship and the oneness of our family.

Considering the press surrounding Warren and his selection, it seemed to me that Lowery was speaking directly of the rights of gay Americans and the recognition of their relationships.

CNN: I found it of questionable taste that throughout the President’s speech they kept finding and focusing on an elderly black person. They stayed too long and the audience members’ shock of recognition of themselves on screen was distracting from the speech. And after a while it ceased seeming a confirmation of the fulfillment of a promise and began to take on a feeling of pandering and condescension. I hope that in the future media outlets can recall that this is the President of all Americans, not just old black Americans, and that we all should join together to provide our support for his leadership.

Finally, this was a joyous occasion. We should, as a nation, together hope and support and celebrate this new chapter in the history of our country. Because be we Democrats or Republicans, young or old, gay or straight, black or white or brown or chartreuse, we are Americans and Barack Obama is our President.

Rev. Joseph Lowery’s Benediction

(NBC’s feed, via Good As You)

“And now, O Lord, in the complex arena of human relations, help us to make choices on the side of love, not hate; on the side of inclusion, not exclusion; tolerance, not intolerance. And as we leave this mountaintop, help us to hold on to the spirit of fellowship and the oneness of our family.”

The full text of Rev. Joseph Lowery’s Benediction is after the jump.

“The Journey We Continue Today…”

“We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.”

The full text of President Obama’s Inaugural Address is after the jump.

Yes We Can

Today is the big day so many of us have been waiting for. I decided to stay home from work and watch the inauguraiton with my partner because we both know that today is History with a capital “H”. This is the transformation of Lincoln, the hope of FDR in hard times, and the promise of a new era of Kennedy — all wrapped into one.

Two million people, give or take, have filled the Mall from one end to the other. I don’t recall any other event — no celebration, no protest comes to mind — which propted the dense crowd I’m seeing on television this morning. The crowd stretches form the Capital to the Reflection Pool, all of them screaming and cheering.

Two million people, with many billions more around the world there in spirit. Television, radio and the internet have formed a virtual mall stretching from Washington to Chicago; from Selma to Sacramento; from Hawaii to Kenya; from the Gaza to Somalia to Afghanistan, Pakistan and India. Billions are here also.

And all because of one man who has changed our perception of what a president can be — and of what our nation can be. And not least, of what we can be as citizens.

On a day like today, it’s hard not to feel proud. Proud to be an American again. Proud to be a part of one of the greatest nations on earth. Proud enough to even indulge in the conceit of being the greatest nation on earth.

Where else but America? What a beautiful day.

Inauguration Committee May Try To Fix Robinson Snub

We reported earlier on a statement released to AmericaBlog from the Presidential Inauguration Committee communications director Josh Earnest. In it, Earnest described Bishop Robinson’s omission from the live broadcast of the Inaugural concert as an “error in executing this plan.” According to the statement, “We had always intended and planned for Rt. Rev. Robinson’s invocation to be included in the televised portion of yesterday’s program.”

Now AfterElton is reporting that insiders are saying that Rev. Robinson’s invocation might be broadcast tomorrow on the Jumbotron screens placed around the mall for the inauguration ceremony. Even if true, it is not certain that broadcast outlets would necessarily pick it up, as they almost certainly will Warren’s invocation.

Barack Obama’s presidential campaign was remarkable for its sterling attention to message. An “error in execution” like this would have been simply unthinkable. It’s astonishing to see such an impressive media savvy operation make such an colossal mess of things, and this dissonance will make just about any explanation of what happened difficult to swallow. After all, if Rev. Robinson’s late inclusion meant that people inside Obama’s clique heard and responded to the outrage over Rick Warren, then it’s difficult to understand how the ball could have been fumbled so badly in the simple act of adding Robinson to the bill.

But people really do screw up, sometimes royally. Barack Obama is only human — and a politician at that. I always knew he would disappoint us. I just didn’t think it would happen before he even took the oath of office.

Rep. John Lewis: “You Cannot Separate The Issue Of Civil Rights”

In observance of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s birthday today, Congressman John Lewis (D-GA) appeared on National Public Radio’s “Fresh Air” to talk about his experiences during the civil rights struggles of the 1960’s. From 1963 to 1966, he chaired the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, during which he became a close associate of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. As he talked about the struggles to achieve basic voting rights for African-Americans, he also reflected on the importance of fighting for civil rights for everyone, including LGBT people:

Terry Gross: (At the 22:00 mark) I want to quote something that you wrote in an op-ed piece in October of 003, and this was about gay rights and the right for gay people to marry. You wrote, “I have fought too hard and for too long against discrimination based on race and color not to stand up against discrimination based on sexual orientation. I’ve heard the reasons for opposing civil marriage for same-sex couples. Cut through the distractions, and they stink of the same fear, hatred and intolerance I have known in racism and in bigotry.” …I’ve heard some African-American leaders say that it’s wrong to make a connection between the civil rights movement and the gay rights movement because discrimination against African-Americans and discrimination against gays are completely different things. And being gay and being black are completely different things. What’s your take on that?

Rep. Lewis: Well, I do not buy that argument. I do not buy that argument. And today I think more than ever before, we have to speak up and speak out to end discrimination based on sexual orientation. Dr. King used to say when people talked about blacks and whites falling in love and getting married — you know one time in the state of Virginia, in my native state of Alabama, in Georgia and other parts of the South, blacks and whites could not fall in love and get married. And Dr. King took a simple argument and said races don’t fall in love and get married. Individuals fall in love and get married. It’s not the business of the federal government, it’s not the business of the state government to tell two individuals that they cannot fall in love and get married. And so I go back to what I said and wrote those lines a few years ago, that I fought too long and too hard against discrimination based on race and color not to stand up and fight and speak out against discrimination based on sexual orientation.

And you hear people “defending marriage.” Gay marriage is not a threat to heterosexual marriage. It is time for us to put that argument behind us.

You cannot separate the issue of civil rights. It is one of those absolute, immutable principles. You’ve got to have not just civil rights for some, but civil rights for all of us.

Terry Gross: And when you say not civil rights for some, you even mean civil rights for African-Americans and for gay people too?

Rep. Lewis: Not just civil rights for African-Americans or other minorities, but civil rights also for gay people.