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 lobbyJune 3rd, 2009
That’s the question put to President Barack Obama:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEv564FkpsALatest 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:
Leonard Drake
June 3rd, 2009
It is interesting he states “consistently…commited myself” to allow them a “whole host of legal rights that they currently do not have” When is he going to actually give us these rights? (i.e.: repeal of DOMA, and the other seven promises made to the LGBT community to “creatively” pander to us during election time?)
I still prefer Obama than McCain, but goddamnit, my patience is wearing thin.
Devon
June 3rd, 2009
“Do gays and lesbians have a friend in the White House?”
*Blah *blah *Not openly *Blah *blah
David C.
June 3rd, 2009
I’m going to do something I don’t often do: repost something I wrote in a comment on another blog:
Commenters here (including me) and just about everywhere else in the gay blogsphere haven’t the faintest notion of an idea of what it takes to deal with the current series of crises being presented to Obama. It does however seem obvious that there are a few other things besides ourselves vying for attention in the halls of power.
It’s unlikely that the charged issue of gay rights would pass under the noses of the still polarized congress without disrupting the handling of issues that might be just a tad more important to the economic survival of the US, the quality of life we enjoy here, and the success of future efforts to advance the cause of civil rights.
Leadership at the level of President means managing complex problems and getting a lot of people marching in the same direction, many of whom are interested solely in the advancement of their own political agenda. The problems themselves are difficult enough without having to deal with the political noise engendered by highly polarizing issues that while important to us, don’t amount to a hill of beans next to the unemployment of 13-plus million and potential economic disaster. That may be difficult to hear but it is the truth, and just about anybody with two neurons left to rub together knows it whether they want to admit it or not.
I’m not saying that our rights are not important, or that we should not persist, or that we should fall silent. I do ask that we keep things in perspective, starting by realizing that we have plenty to do at the grass-roots level in our respective states, as well as advancing the infrastructure to influence members of congress when our issues do come up for action.
We need to take more responsibility for our own “fierce advocacy”.
Bearchewtoy75
June 4th, 2009
David C.
THANK YOU!!!!
HappyCat
June 4th, 2009
I find it quite insulting that President Obama supported Marriage Equality in the past and has decided to go the Civil Union route when it entered the National Stage.
President Obama also ran on the issues of repealing DADT and DOMA. He has decided not to act on those promises he made. David C. I get that he is dealing with many issues, but he is also the same person that said he could multi-task. With the GOP in such a dismantled condition, his approval numbers still high, I believe this would be the best time to take on these issues. The GOP is already divided on them as I type this, so our issues will not be a uniting force for the GOP.
With the momentum we currently have, I believe this would the best time to address our issues as well as the other issues this country faces. I am not saying that he needs to fly around the country for LGBT issues only, but he could offer more than silence.
Ben
June 4th, 2009
@David C. The problem with this idea, is that we, as a rather small minority, will always be playing second, or third, or fourth fiddle to some bigger, more complex, and less (or more) polarizing issues. I intend to fiercely advocate for myself, both at the state and federal level, and that includes calling on the President on his many unfulfilled campaign promises.
As a side note, sometimes I get the feeling that when the President says we have a friend in the White House, he means his wife, who seems more supportive of us.
Mike
June 4th, 2009
@ David C.: “Charged issue”…you mean like stem cell and abortion and talking with Islam…all of which he has addressed in one way or another during this economic crisis.
Plus…the inclusion of gays and lesbians in marriage is a economic plus for the nation…it adds to the economy…also freeing up millions of dollars to go to other organizations.
And…the removal of DADT helps strengthen our nation.
These issues are all intertwined with his current dealings.
steve
June 4th, 2009
Stop accepting the minority view that a crumb here and there is ok. IT IS NOT OK. Obama must do something soon for us before the GLBT community loses complete faith in him.
John
June 4th, 2009
I was struck by how uncomfortable he seemed with the question. Perhaps the increasing pressure on the White House and the prospect for a gay revolt are starting to be felt by this administration. Unlike David C., I think that now is the time to turn up the heat and increase the pressure. And that sentiment is coming from someone who voted for and contributed to Obama’s primary and general election campaigns.
Priya Lynn
June 4th, 2009
That was incredibly weak and weasily.
Bruno
June 4th, 2009
I’ve rescinded my support for Obama based on his stance on marriage issues, but at this juncture these words shouldn’t come as much of a surprise to anyone. Obviously the marriage issue is just too hot-button for him and it’ll remain that way for awhile.
What I want to know is what he’s doing to influence change in regards to DADT and other issues. And don’t anyone tell me it’s up to Congress…he’s the leader of not only the Democratic Party, but the entire free world. He could be doing more.
Chris
June 4th, 2009
Freedom is not taken away, it is given away.
@David C – These are all excuses for inaction. We as a community need to stand up and say, “We are tired of the same excuses over and over again. No more excuses. We want our rights and we want them now. Anything less is unacceptable.”
Priya Lynn
June 4th, 2009
Bruno said “he’s the leader of not only the Democratic Party, but the entire free world.”.
No, he’s not. The free world has its own leaders and we don’t kowtow to any American president.
Scott Spiegel
June 4th, 2009
I wish gay marriage opponents would stop saying, “But I want them to be able to see each other in the hospital.” What—after our gay bashings?
http://www.scottspiegel.com/?p=256 (“The Real Pro-Gay Party”)
Scott Spiegel
June 4th, 2009
@David C.: It would take Obama five minutes to sign an executive order, as legal experts have advised him to do, instructing the DOD not to investigate service members’ sexual orientation until legislation repealing DADT is passed. It would take him five seconds to say, ‘Should Congress happen to pass a bill legalizing same-sex marriage throughout the country, I would sign it.” The problem is not time—it is motivation.
http://www.scottspiegel.com/?p=256 (â€The Real Pro-Gay Partyâ€)
Burr
June 4th, 2009
“With the GOP in such a dismantled condition, his approval numbers still high, I believe this would be the best time to take on these issues.”
This.
No sense in waiting. Given enough time his approval rating will fall back down to earth, perhaps even worse as everyone realizes what damage the spending orgy he’s pushing will do.
I have a sick feeling this will just be another wasted opportunity for equal rights.
Stop trying to be the next FDR, Obama. Your legacy would be much stronger as a civil rights crusader.
Zeke
June 4th, 2009
DavidC: Your arguments have been made before, in another crisis time and against pushing “too hard too quickly” against other injustices against another minority. EVERYTHING you mentioned was used as an excuse to ask Martin Luther King Jr. to back off and be more patient in his fight for social and civil justice.
He wrote a letter about it. You’ve probably heard of it. I suggest you read it, or read it again if you’ve read it before. It speaks to us today just as it spoke to the people of the 60’s.
Here’s a link. Just replace “black” and “negro” with “gay” and “n*gger” with “f*ggot”.
http://historicaltextarchive.com/sections.php?op=viewarticle&artid=40
David C.
June 5th, 2009
I recognize that the GOP appears to be in disarray, however recent congressional votes clearly indicate that the GOP still essentially votes as a block and has not gotten over its obstructionist mentality. A not insignificant number of Republicans must vote with us to get our legislative agenda moving forward in our favor.
I do agree that Obama could be saying more but that also carries risks. Chief among those is that elevated visibility for gay issues may at this moment have the effect of galvanizing anti-gay activism and thus reinvigorate the left-versus-right divisive politics of the last decade or so. Certainly there might be some things that could be said that ought to be said by the Obama administration. Exactly what those are, when they are most appropriate and helpful, and to whom they should be addressed is another question.
~~
The LGBT community may be small, but our supporters considerably enlarge our effective numbers and contribute to our ultimate success. This argues for careful timing and a strategy that maximizes the impact of our influence, and is consistent with my view that we must take responsibility for our own advocacy. Continuing our advances at the state level demonstrates our commitment and helps us to gain support at the national level, thus accelerating advancement of gay civil rights.
~~
Stem cell research didn’t require congressional action; the president was invited to give a commencement speech at a predominantly Catholic university in which he addressed the issue in response to direct objections by some students at the university; the speech in Cairo was part of his effort to reach out to the Muslim world and it certainly did not require congressional approval. DADT is a completely different matter from the foregoing and requires on-boarding the DOD and congress must act to repeal the legislation. Even key leadership of advocacy groups supporting repeal of DADT, such as SLDN, are on record saying that trying to circumvent DADT by issuing an executive order would be a big mistake.
So yes, these issues are all being addressed at the same time, but their respective handling differs, and so might the timing for bringing them up.
~~
By all means. Write to and call your representatives, the President, gay leaders, whomever you feel that you can influence. Send a note to your neighbors, coworkers, your mom, whomever you can get to support gay civil rights.
~~
I did not say we should be inactive. See my response to John.
~~
On DADT, see my response to Mike. Don’t expect Obama to say that he would support same-sex marriage as you have proposed. You might reasonably expect him to say that DOMA will need to be revisited in consideration of the Full Faith and Credit clause of the constitution. And the time dimension I’m speaking of is when: when is the correct moment to call for repeal of DOMA, or to rephrase your suggestion for SSM, “‘Should Congress happen to repeal DOMA, I would support that.”
~~
You let Martin Luther King, Jr. speak very eloquently for you, though he was writing of “nonviolent direct action” in the form of protests and civil disobedience, not the timing of a president to push for legislation. The parallels are compelling, and I agree with Dr. King that direct action is often needed to force the oppressor to reconsider his position.
I am not however the “white moderate” he identifies in his brilliant letter to his fellow clergymen. I am examining the motivations and strategies of the President as he navigates the troubled seas upon which the ship of state presently sails. Many of us here believe that there is a narrow window of opportunity in which to achieve full civil protection of LBGT people. That may or may not be the case. The president has been in office a little over four months and is only now completing the assembly of his administration. There is much work to do, and a lot of it is vitally important to the economic well being of many millions of Americans, including ourselves.
I have not called for us to be silent, nor do I suggest that we discontinue the push, by direct action when necessary, for the full rights the constitution guarantees us. We should continue to be visible and make ourselves heard by our representatives. The drumbeat that is the call for full civil rights for LGBT people grows louder every day. We are on the right side of history and will prevail. Let us support our allies and keep them engaged in the battle for justice and freedom.
toujoursdan
June 5th, 2009
Thank you David. I think it goes beyond that.
Like it or not, the U.S. government system is built to make policy changes difficult. It is a very, very cautious system by nature. The founding fathers wanted to avoid radical swings in one direction or another and created a system that is as “gummy” as possible.
WE liked this system when George W. Bush, even with a majority Republican Congress, weren’t able to ban abortion and flag burning, put prayer in schools and pass a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage at the federal level, as Bush promised to his base (which is much larger, better organized and has more money than ours).
But now we have to live with it, and realize that Obama’s power to implement his, and our agenda, is limited as well. He doesn’t have a filibuster-proof majority. A large percentage of mostly Southern and Midwestern Democrats in Congress are social conservatives, and have to run on that ticket to be reelected. And the U.S. doesn’t have party discipline like we do in Canada and other Westminister democracies whereby you must vote with your party else risk being kicked out of it and have that party run someone against you in the next election [except on designated “conscience votes”.] Every vote is a conscience vote in the U.S. and that makes implementing policy difficult.
It’s the fault of the system as much as Obama’s. That is what the Founding Fathers wanted. My expectations on Obama’s ability to make major changes was always low. Some of it may be his fault but most of it is the way the system is designed.
David C.
June 5th, 2009
I like to say that we have a system that is “deliberative” in nature, and think the President is being shrewd and calculating about every action and public remark he makes. To some, that characterization of Obama carries negative connotations because of their experience with most politicians letting them down: they apply such labels disparagingly.
Another possible interpretation is that he is just smart and cautious. He knows that he is a beginner in a certain sense, and is being cautious so as to not make serious errors while dealing with titanic challenges and learning his job.
In a way, you could say the President Obama is being deliberative in the handling of social policy.
Leave A Comment