Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“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…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

Wal-Mart bans gay couple for NOT shoplifting

California Poll: I support marriage but I don't want to vote again

Because She Needed It

The "Biblical" Worldwide Anglican Communion

Namibia Political Parties Hesitantly Supportive

Purdue Professor Spews "An Economic Case Against Homosexuality"

Australian Senate Refuses to Oppose Uganda's "Kill Gays" Bill

My Prayer

Featured Reports

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

Daniel FettyThe 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.

Ex-Gay Question to be Central to Federal Lawsuit

Timothy Kincaid

July 1st, 2009

In Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the federal lawsuit by Ted Olson and David Boies to overturn Proposition 8, the judge has decided against placing a hold on Prop 8 and instead is opting for a swift consideration. This is the position that was requested by Gov. Schwarzenegger and Atty. Gen. Brown; they felt that placing a hold would lend to confusion for all parties.

An article in the San Francisco Chronicle reveals that Olson and Boies will be relying on the precident set by Romer v. Evans in which the US Supreme Court determined that states cannot deny rights to gay people as a class based solely on animus.

The attorneys behind the challenge to California’s Proposition 8 plan to argue during a pretrial hearing Thursday that by stripping gays of the right to wed, the voter-approved ban runs afoul of America’s founding framework in the same way — and for the same reason.

“Romer is a strikingly similar situation to what we have here. You had a ballot initiative, a majority vote of the people, taking away a right,” said Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., a member of the legal team led by former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson and veteran trial lawyer David Boies. “And there was no justification or rationale other than disapproval by that majority of that group.”

This case also will ask a question that is at the core of all civil rights legal issues: are gay people really a distinct group of people. Or, in other words, is sexuality immutable.

U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker on Tuesday issued a tentative order to fast-track the case in his San Francisco court.

Among the questions he said he wants covered at trial are whether sexual orientation is unchangeable, if permitting same-sex marriage “destabilizes” traditional unions and whether Proposition 8’s ballot history demonstrates the measure had “discriminatory intent.”

There is little doubt that ex-gays and ex-gay groups will testify before court. And there is little doubt that they will claim “change”.

However, will they be truthful? Will they admit that “change” is only in perspective, in behavior, in identity, but not in attractions?

Sadly, the history of ex-gay activists suggests that they will seek to confuse the court and to leave the impression that orientation can be “overcome through the power of Jesus Christ”. I hope I’m wrong.

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0 | TRACKBACK URL

Richard
July 1st, 2009 | LINK

This sounds like a better argument than I expected, considering that so many people opposed bringing any federal case at all.

Of the reasons stated, at least some of the groups which gathered signatures to put Proposition 8 on the ballot publicly opposed any measures making life easier for gays, and in fact wanted all sex outside of heterosexual marriage criminalized. So they opposed both Lawrence v. Texas and Romer v. Evans, usually as contrary to divine law.

Asking whether gay civil marriage will destabilize heterosexual marriages involves predicting the future, so good luck on that. And asking whether gays can change involves knowing with certainty that someone is gay in the first place, so good luck on that also. But the good news on the last is I think opponents may have to prove that all gays can change with no more than a reasonable amount of effort, which would be quite a burden of proof. But here my legal ignorance may be showing.

Alex
July 1st, 2009 | LINK

Richard,

Judge Walker’s question is not whether gay marriage WILL destabilize traditional unions, but whether it currently does. This would not involve predicting the future. A cursory glance at the countries and states where gay marriage is already legal is enough to prove the obvious, which is that it doesn’t destabilize heterosexual marriage one iota; in fact, heterosexuals have proven that they’re quite capable of destabilizing the institution of marriage without our help!

I look forward to following this story, although I can imagine it turning into a mockery of the separation of church and state…ex-gay activists standing before federal judges and explaining that gays can change “because Jesus says we can.” Do biased interpretations of an ancient religious text count as valid evidence in court??

Nelson G.
July 1st, 2009 | LINK

Then I guess, Tim, you have your work cut out for you.

EqualityMike
July 1st, 2009 | LINK

Hi Timothy,
I excerpted part of your article at Pam’s House Blend — this is really important stuff.

AJD
July 1st, 2009 | LINK

That’s such a ridiculous question because we already guarantee equal rights for people without regard to religion, which is totally a mutable characteristic.

Not only that, but whatever ex-gays and their organizations say, the consensus among social science and mental health experts and professionals is that, no, sexual orientation is not mutable.

Quo
July 2nd, 2009 | LINK

Whether sexual orientation is immutable or not should have nothing to do with same-sex marriage and it’s regrettable that Walker so much as raised the issue.

Incidentally AJD, there’s no consensus that sexual orientation never changes. Scientist Simon LeVay states in Queer Science that sexual orientation sometimes does change (it’s on page 55).

GreenEyedLilo
July 2nd, 2009 | LINK

@ AJD & Quo: Thank you. As a 50/50 bisexual woman, I am certainly “mutable,” but I am solidly in love with another woman. I loved the idea of the federal lawsuit, but this argument is terrible, and not just for bisexuals. The issue isn’t whether sexuality is mutable, it’s whether gender should be a qualification for two adults to care for each other through marriage.

On the other hand, merry Christmas to Exodus and their sympathizers!

Désirée
July 2nd, 2009 | LINK

The “mutability” argument should be tossed immediately since all that is required is counter with the religion angle. “religion” is a protected class and is in no way a fixed condition. Any person can choose any religion at any time. Claiming that sexuality is mutable therefore it’s OK to discriminate against gay folk is like saying it’s ok to discriminate against Jews because they could just become Christians to escape the persecution. Obviously an absurd argument and one hopefully the court will see the ridiculousness of.

Chris
July 2nd, 2009 | LINK

@GreenEyedLilo – I agree. The idea of immutable sexuality flies in the face of every bisexual person in the world.

@Désirée – I agree here also. Another example, the currently law of the land also protects people from discrimination based on military service which is another voluntary choice. “You should have chosen not to enlist if you wanted this job.”

Priya Lynn
July 2nd, 2009 | LINK

GreenEyedLilo said “As a 50/50 bisexual woman, I am certainly “mutable,””.

I disagree. I am bisexual as well and while we can choose which gender we want to be involved with we can’t stop being bisexual and become unisexual – you’re still going to have attractions to the sex you’re not with regardless. I’ve tried to become unisexual and it simply doesn’t work.

CPT_Doom
July 2nd, 2009 | LINK

I agree with GreenEyedLilo that gender, rather than sexual orientation, would be a stronger argument, not the least because gender is already legally a “suspect class” and therefore suitable for non-discrimination laws and rulings.

But I have to disagree on mutability being unimportant here. Although certainly religion is protected even though it is mutable, it is also specifically designated in the Constitution as being one of the most important rights, making it somewhat a special case.

On the other hand, if something is not changeable, like gender, then there is absolutely no rationale for discrimination. So “proving” to the court that sexual orientation is immutable makes it something of a slam dunk.

And though, like gender, sexual orientation does exist along a continuum from 100% het to 100% homo, with someone at every option in between, I think the evidence is clear that, for the individual, sexual orientation is set and immutable.

Timothy Kincaid
July 2nd, 2009 | LINK

Lilo,

Being bisexual is not the same thing as mutibility. Your personal attractions may vary by person, but that does not say anything as to whether you will become heterosexual or lesbian rather than bisexual.

CPT_Doom,

Under the California Constitution, sexual orientation is a suspect class. That is one item that makes CA a unique situation.

Whether you or I think mutability is an issue doesn’t matter in the slightest. The judge has asked the question and I don’t think that Olson and Boies will say, “Your honor, your question is irrelevant so we’re not going to answer.”

Penguinsaur
July 2nd, 2009 | LINK

“Asking whether gay civil marriage will destabilize heterosexual marriages involves predicting the future, so good luck on that”

Or visiting Canada.

And I bet they will have a handful of people with their anecdotes about how they prayed the gay away, they only have those because the people running these ’scientific’ groups conveniently forget to keep any records on any patients who aren’t paid employees.

FlexSF
September 21st, 2009 | LINK

Who would a judge take more seriously, an “ex-gay,” or a psychologist? The latter, I would expect!

Do ex-gay’s speak for gay people as a whole? NOT!

I hope they do use “Jesus Christ” as their reason for changing their behavior, or sexuality. That pathetic argument will be refuted so fast!

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.