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 lobbyMay 13th, 2009
Carrie Prejean’s 15 minutes have come and gone. And then some. And I am sick of writing about this self-obsessed, holier-than-thou, hypocritical bimbo (no offense to anyone).
However, Keith Olbermann does a very good job of expressing exactly my opinion as to her latest weepy press conference in which she tries to pass herself off as a righteous victim who has a constitutional right to express her opinion without any recourse or disagreement. So if you can stand but a few more moments of the face (and boobs) of the “traditional marriage” movement, here he is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwkTAzcToicLatest 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:
RU486
May 13th, 2009
Once again, Olbermann says it all. Little Miss Sunshine’s press conference is golden. Love the fake tears and blaming it all on the wind.
Jason D
May 13th, 2009
“…and it was windy, which I was not aware of!”
I Heart KO.
A "Keith"
May 13th, 2009
For the love of all, please spell “Keith” correctly. It’s even in the video title.
Ter
May 13th, 2009
“Kieth”?
If it’s windy, and you fear your nipples showing, wear something on your breasts that won’t flap up in the wind, like, say, any standard bikini top.
Even if “the wind” (bah!) had never exposed a nipple, those pictures were EXTREMELY sexually suggestive. They were soft-core porn. And she certainly can’t blame the wind for the other, panties-only shots. Ridiculous.
Shanna Moakler did the right thing to resign.
Trump has been “successful” by being an imperious jerk. He’s been never any kind of model of personal integrity. And I wouldn’t put sexual favors for Trump’s help past Ms. Prejean.
Trump and Prejean do raise an important point re Obama and Hillary Clinton sharing Prejean’s views on non-opposite marriage. Obama and Clinton have a lot to answer for. And I really didn’t appreciate Obama’s joke about going with David Alexrod and making it official. That’s not funny coming from Mr. “God is in the mix.”
Ter
May 13th, 2009
My turn to misspell – sorry: Axelrod, not Alexrod.
David C.
May 13th, 2009
Indeed, WTF?
As always, Keith gets it.
In the last analysis, it all boiled down to business and the Almighty Buck.
I can just imagine the scene in the conference room with missy, the lawyers, Trump, and that inconvenient contract poor little Carrie had to sign when she became an entrant in the Miss CA Pageant, selling her “soul” to the “devil” Trump for a whole year. I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall for that meeting. I wonder who wrote the little speech she read?
Oh, and my heart pumps p**s for Maggie Gallagher, NOM, and the “opposite marriage only” crowd that got to use little Miss. P for a few days before she was repossessed by The Donald.
Rick Brentlinger
May 13th, 2009
Good night nurse! Can’t you people focus on something that matters?
1. CP is a 21 year old beauty pageant runner up.
2. She has no political power.
3. She has no viable political constituency.
4. She believes THE SAME THING about gay marriage that President Obama and the Clintons and most Democrats in Congress and most of our own parents believe about gay marriage.
The Democrats many of you voted for are backing off from almost every promise they made concerning gay rights.
Get real.
Get a clue.
Carrie Prejean’s opinion DOESN’T MATTER.
Barrack Obama’s opinion and the opinion of Congress DOES matter.
You ought to be expressing your disdain and outrage against Obama and the Democratic Congress for their refusal to support our right to marry.
Carrie Prejean can’t do anything about it one way or the other.
President Obama and Congress can do something about it but they have neither the guts nor the character to keep their promises.
Unfocused anger is wasteful and foolish. Focus on the right targets if you’re going to be angry.
Rick BrentlingerGayChristian101.com
Bruno
May 13th, 2009
@Rick Brentlinger: Frankly I’m just as annoyed with the large amount of people who want to deflect our concern over Prejean’s VICIOUS and DANGEROUS actions by bringing up that Obama has the same views. Obama does NOT have the same views. He was against proposition 8 and DOMA, and he’s never once done anything like a robocall for a group like NOM. The 2 are miles apart.
That said, yes, we need to focus on Obama et al for his/their lack of movement on LGBT issues, but that doesn’t exclude also focusing on what Prejean does. She’s more than a beauty contestant now, she’s a spokeswoman for our enemies, and thus our enemy.
Get real, please. The “just ignore Miss California” train left 3 weeks ago after she signed on with Maggie.
Rick Brentlinger
May 13th, 2009
So Bruno, are you mad at President Obama?
Are you mad at the Democrat controlled Congress?
Are you mad at the Clintons?
Are you mad at all the parents of gay or lesbian children who ALSO don’t support our right to marry?
How much time and energy are you going to waste on a 21 year old blond bimbo?
Do you honestly believe it is right to obsess over a beauty pageant runner up while ignoring the Obama administration’s “VICIOUS and DANGEROUS” backing off from their promises to us and deleting most of their “support” for us from the official Obama website?
Rick Brentlinger – GayChristian101.com
Christopher Waldrop
May 14th, 2009
Rick, are you suggesting either that those of us who support same-sex marriage should be angry at everyone who opposes it, or are you suggesting we should back off and not waste any time and energy trying to change their minds? It’s true that Obama has backed off in his support, and I think you’ll find that quite a few people have been critical of him for doing so.
Their criticism of Obama, however, doesn’t prevent them from criticizing Ms. Prejean, or vice versa.
I agree there are more important–and hopefully more productive–battles to be fought, but for the moment Prejean is the face of the anti-marriage crowd. She has made serious, and blatantly dishonest, accusations that need to be rebutted. If her comments were simply allowed to slide, there are many who would assume that meant she was right.
Duncan
May 14th, 2009
I am also glad to see the last of her on this website, because, as a straight man (perhaps a tad bisexual) I find her appearance as obnoxious as her speeches. She looks both bland and unnaturally manicured, like some manufactured product. Had the anti-gay movement taken Jennifer Aniston or Winona Ryder or, heaven forbid, Audrey Hepburn as a champion I might have felt better-disposed towards them.
Johnson
May 14th, 2009
She violated her contract, plain and simple. I do agree with what Trump did, however, I think he knows what he’s doing and in the end, she’ll end up digging a hole deep enough to do herself in.
Bruno
May 14th, 2009
@Rick Brentlinger: You’re blaming LGBT people for what Carrie Prejean and Donald Trump have done. We’re to blame because we’re “obsessing” over a bigot who has the MSM’s undivided attention, and who’s done multiple things to hurt our causes, because we should be concentrating on other people like Obama, who are actually more sympathetic (if inactive) when it comes to our causes than Ms. Prejean. That’s what I’m getting out of what you’ve been saying.
Rick Brentlinger
May 14th, 2009
Bruno – I never blamed GLBT “people for what Carrie Prejean and Donald Trump have done.”
I’ve questioned the efficacy of obsessing over a media-created diversion while refusing to hold accountable the powerful faux friends of GLBTs who COULD do something IF they were so inclined.
Carrie Prejean is inconsequential. Her 15 minutes of fame are passed.
I’m saying we should focus our desire for change on those who can actually effect change rather than wasting time and energy on being angry at someone like Carrie, who cannot effect any change detrimental to us.
I hope I’m not the only GLBT who is fed up with politicians like Obama who pander to us during the election and then pander to those who oppose equal rights for us after they’re in office.
Viewing the Obamas of this world as our friends and allies when they refuse to do anything substantive to help our cause, is aiding and abetting our oppressors.
Rick Brentlinger – GayChristian101.com
Priya Lynn
May 14th, 2009
I think you’re wrong Rick. By ignoring Prejean we would allow the message to be sent that its cool, hip, young, and sexy to be against marriage equality. That’s a message that needs to be countered. Prejean is far from inconsequential or over – we’ll be hearing from her as an anti-gay icon for a long time to come.
Timothy Kincaid
May 14th, 2009
Rick,
With all due respect, I think you’re barking up the wrong tree. At Box Turtle Bulletin we most definitely do criticize the President for his failure to come through on his campaign promises.
And we are not alone. This week alone Queerty, Andrew Sullivan, Towleroad, SLDN, and many many others have been harsh in their criticism of Obama.
Frankly, we are all sick of Carrie Prejean. And, if you look to see, you’ve spent a lot more time writing on this thread about her than I have. :)
David C.
May 14th, 2009
Unfortunately, this is quite likely the case. And remember, Trump only owns her for a year. At the end of that time, be prepared for her to reappear on the anti-gay stage, though by then, she may have better offers on the table. Hard to say for certain, but I think we may not have seen the last of Miss P.
Bruno
May 14th, 2009
Rick: I’ve understood all along where you’re coming from, but what I’m trying to get across here is twofold:
1)Your statement that Carrie “cannot effect any change detrimental to us” is not only false, it’s already happened. She’s lent her image and voice to NOM. It’s no longer merely about her nude photos or pageant answers. Thus, she is not only not inconsequential, she’s already surpassed the concept of “15 minutes of fame,” and will likely continue to do so to our detriment.
2)By diverting attention away from the likes of Carrie towards politicians who are more inactive on our issues than against us, we’re allowing a sick societal wound to fester unchecked. Imagine if Harvey Milk ignored Anita Bryant? Similar arguments could be made about her 15 minutes of fame.
Jason D
May 14th, 2009
Rick, I’d like to point some things out to you.
I, like a lot of other LGBT people (and people in general) can walk and chew gum at the same time. The 2-minutes I might’ve spent on a given day thinking about Carrie Prejean doesn’t stop me from having any other thoughts throughout the day. The human mind is capable of so much, you simply don’t give us credit for that. In fact, if you stop reading this thread you’ll notice that BTB has oodles of articles, amazingly many of them having nothing to do with Miss CA. As of this writing, the articles are in this order from top to bottom…
“Lynch Will Sign Marriage…IF”
“Wisconson Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to Const. Amendment”
“Rhode Island Debates Marriage” “Uganda’s Anti-Gay Campaign Snares LGBT People and Rival Pastors, Tabloid Promises More “Outings—
“Uruguay To Remove Ban On Gays In Military, U.S. Still Dithering”
…and then now this Keith Olbermann video. Seems like the problem isn’t focus on Carrie. You seem to not grasp that a battle is fought on many fronts, this is merely one of them. When someone’s focus is too narrow, they are vulnerable to attacks from the sides and behind. It’s called tunnel vision.
This whole issue with Jugs4Jesus didn’t start until she decided it cost her the crown. There was a minor gasp at the pageant and a mini-tantrum from Hilton — but J4J just couldn’t leave well enough alone, aided and abetted by NOM she made the interview circuit giving us so many speeches about how she lost her freedom of speech. For someone who’s been silenced, she seems to never shut up. She threw her hat in the ring, repeatedly. Fair. Game.
It’s important to criticize her because she’s a potpurri of attitudes that are far too prevelent in the Anti-Gay set:
-The belief that freedom of speech does not include the freedom to criticize others.
-The belief that you can say and do whatever you want so long as you smile and say “no offense”.
-The belief that you can cherry-pick your Christian morals and not be called on your hypocrisy.
-The belief that anyone’s religious beliefs are above critique and discussion.
-That you can lie publicly and still call yourself a Christian, or a moral person of any kind.
To bring up Obama is laughable. We’ve criticized him. Clinton? We’ve criticized her, too. We’re still criticizing both of them, witness the recent BTB Article ““The Fierce Urgency Of Whenever— posted just yesterday, in fact.
Let’s get down to brass tacks. You don’t like Carrie Prejean, you probably don’t give two squirts about the Miss USA pagent or Perez Hilton, and yes, I’m sure you’re sick of seeing her as much as the rest of us. BTB has a mission statement, now if you discovered that J4J coverage somehow violates that mision, please let Jim and the gang know. If not, then don’t read the articles you don’t want to read, or at least stop commenting on them.
Cate B
May 14th, 2009
the face (and boobs) of the “traditional marriage†movement
Come on, now. Let’s criticize her politics and ignorance and self-promotion without cheap shots attacking her appearance and sexuality. That’s just another kind of hate.
Priya Lynn
May 14th, 2009
I’ve got to agree with Jason D. Those whining about the coverage of Prejean aren’t being forced to read it or comment on it. Its rather ironic that you choose to do so and then complain about it. If you don’t want to read about Prejean then by all means change the channel.
Bruno
May 14th, 2009
Finally, Keith had a regular commentator on today and they discussed the fact that in no way was Carrie Prejean’s free speech ever violated. It seems like most of the MSM has been overlooking that teensy weensy little fact.
Jason D
May 14th, 2009
“Come on, now. Let’s criticize her politics and ignorance and self-promotion without cheap shots attacking her appearance and sexuality. That’s just another kind of hate.”
Wait, Cate, are you seriously suggesting that someone who makes a living off their body can’t be criticized for it? Are you seriously suggesting a model can’t be judged on their appearance?
If this were, say, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, I could see your point… but the woman is a model, she willingly took part in a event that emphasizes appearance and body to the degree that it has a swimsuit competition. I missed the pageant, but I’m 99% sure that there was no math or science competition. Her body is on the table for critique because she put it there.
Gabriel Arana
May 14th, 2009
Tim,
Olbermann is making exactly my point about how “freedom of speech” and expression restricts the governments ability to regulate speech (government with a capital G, not student government or a pageant). I wrote more about this in the comment section on Patrick’s piece. We had all gone back and forth about it, but don’t know if you saw it — I posted quite a while after the discussion died down.
On another note…why don’t someone take this woman away? I can’t stand listening to her speak.
Timothy Kincaid
May 15th, 2009
Gabriel,
I think you will agree that “Government with a capital G” is not restricted to the federal government. Included in capital G Government are states and municipalities, which also are not entitled to restrict the freedoms itemized in the First Amendment.
You may not think that it includes student governments – and frankly I don’t know the case law on that – but I believe on an ideological level that it should. They are compulsory representative governments, independent of institutions, and comprised of elected officials who serve as the official voice of the people.
Leave A Comment