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 lobbyAugust 12th, 2009
Rex Wockner live-blogged it, and Equality California confirmed it. They hope to spend the time between now and 2012 “changing the hearts and minds of Californians” — specifically engaging LGBT communities of color and faith. Good plan. Both of those critical components were missing in 2008, and we all know where that got us.
Meanwhile, there’s a must-win campaign in Maine that really could use your help right now.
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:
Pomo
August 12th, 2009
last time I checked it wasnt EQCA that had the approval to start collecting signatures or got permission to submit the wording to the State. I hope and wish that this will be the final word but somehow I doubt those who are passionate about going at it again in 2010 are just going to sit quietly.
Beyond Maine there may also be a battle in Washington that needs our help and attention too.
----
August 12th, 2009
Meanwhile, we’re going to live the next 3 years as second-class citizens, while the far-right will once again be making noise the next election with attempts to restrict abortion or some other thing.
Are we just going to CROSS OUR ARMS AND WAIT?
Timothy Kincaid
August 12th, 2009
EQCA thinks that the demographics in an off-president election will skew against us. Old folk vote more.
And they think that the testimony of ethnic groups that “It’s just too hard” should prevail.
I found this EQCA call posted on site of the Bayard Rustin SJC (a black gay group) interesting:
If, indeed, 15% of the 53% that voted against us are more favorable, then that is a swing of 8% of the voters, far more than is needed.
I hope that someone collects signatures for 2010. I think we can win. Even without a 40 million dollar campaign.
Timothy Kincaid
August 12th, 2009
The head of the Jordan/Rustin Coalition, however, is discouraged because:
Which is, by my math, 4%. Which is almost what we need to win. If Fresno whites are shifting 8% and LA blacks are shifting 4%, then we win.
Mark F.
August 12th, 2009
Well, if another group gets the signatures for 2010 it won’t matter what EQCA thinks. I assume they will join the battle in that case.
I favor 2010 despite slightly more favorable demographics in 2010. Not another 3 years, please. In any case, there will be ballot battles in Maine and Washington. Let’s do a big nationwide push.
2010 is winnable.
Timothy Kincaid
August 12th, 2009
Mark F.
Yes. They said they would support other efforts if it the signatures were gathered.
Burr
August 12th, 2009
Well.. again as EQCA alludes to, we may have changed minds, but if they’re changed, how motivated will they be to get out there and VOTE for that change of heart?
It’s a tough call. I can see both sides. But I’d still like to see it get a shot before 2012. If Obama manages to turn off enough liberals from re-electing him by then it could be bad that way too..
Dan
August 12th, 2009
This was definitely the right call. There is an enormous amount of work to do in advance of the election. This is not about sitting back for three years. This is about systematically preparing the battlefield and equipping our forces for when the battle culminates in the Sept-Nov 2012. If these people do it right, they will be busy every week between now and 2012.
My only question is why EQCA is even involved this time around since they are responsible for a completely unnecessary loss in 2008. Why doesn’t anyone ask Geoff Kors why he went on a long vacation to Spain weeks before the election?
----
August 12th, 2009
By waiting until 2012 it only shows that EQCA isn’t very motivated in getting back marriage equality. We need to make everybody know that we’re NOT GIVING UP! Forget about Harvey Milk day; would he care more about having a day dedicated to him than LGB folks having the SAME RIGHTS as everyone else?
Eddie89
August 12th, 2009
Seems like Courage Campaign is going in 2010!
http://www.couragecampaign.org/action/358/we-hit-our-goal-help-raise-money-for-main-no-on-1
Also, we now have marriage equality in Massachusetts, Iowa, Connecticut and soon Vermont and New Hampshire!
So, more people in California may have shifted their views based on these States moving towards marriage equality.
And lets not forget about all the folks that thought Yes meant in favor of “marriage equality”.
I’m sure all of them would like to redo their vote.
Also, the ballot for 2008 was several pages, so I hear. And the Prop. 8 question was somewhere on the 2nd page and so a lot of people just voted for the TOP votes like Pres, Congress, Senate, etc. and skipped page 2, the initiatives.
If we go in 2010, the ballot should be less crowded.
Also, if we wait until 2012, the anti-equality folks will get more money saved up as the economy gets better.
They are basically drained from pouring so much money into Prop. 8
I doubt they’ll be able to pour $40 million into Maine and attempt to do so in California as well.
tristram
August 12th, 2009
Thanks, Jim, for plugging Maine – where the vote is happening this year – 2009. This is one we can win, but a major, nationwide effort will be needed to counter the organized (Catholic and evangelical) church-based anti-lgbt campaign.
Matt
August 12th, 2009
I disagree with this move. They should be endorsing a ballot measure in 2010 as PART of their outreach efforts, even if they think they’ll lose. What do we have to lose at this point if a measure is defeated?
David C.
August 12th, 2009
Good question and the answer depends on the periodic behavior of electorates, the economic and social climate of the times, and the nature of those campaigning on both sides of the question.
We have fairly reliable data about the disposition of the California electorate on this question. At least, we know how the vote went, and we have information on the demography of the voting. That information is time-valued to be sure, in more ways than one, and having information that is 2 years old is better than 4 year old information about something that is as dynamic as an electorate. Nevertheless, each election is different, and assuming a two year period, a lot of things can change, especially the general voting climate, such as presidential versus mid-term.
The resource most highly correlated with the outcome of an election is money: the side with the most money generally prevails when the electorate is roughly evenly divided on a particular candidate or question.
I don’t think it is reasonable to expect that the battle in 2010 will be any less expensive than the one in 2008. None of the players will have disappeared, certainly not the Mormon church and their allied evangelicals whom oppose marriage equality for same-sex couples. Their activism, as we have seen, is more than capable of raising tens of millions of dollars.
There is reason to believe that a measure of fatigue will set in. Frankly, we have more to gain than our opponents and I would expect that some who supported them will not continue to financially back something that does not materially effect their lives, especially given the time to reflect on the general trends in acceptance of same-sex marriage by mainstream society while in a recession. Granted, our opponents do have a hard core base and will do as they are told by their leaders even if it is against their personal best interests.
The fatigue sword cuts both ways though. We too are feeling the pinch of the current economic hard times, and some of us have little in the way of spare funds to devote to yet another battle for something it seems we just contributed to.
Time can work for and against us, too. It can work for us through attrition as some have pointed out: younger people are generally more in favor of marriage equality than older people, and in 3 years, more young voters will have registered than in 15 months. It’s hard to say how genuinely significant this will be.
It is also clearly advantageous to our cause when field marriage equality activists have the time, organization, and resources to contact and positively influence voters to take the marriage equality side. We are speaking of small percentages of a large number making the difference between victory and defeat.
It is often said that time is on our side, and it appears to be. That suggests a carefully selected interval between our last defeat and our next battle might be critical to bringing in victory sooner rather than later and at manageable expense, be it 15 or 39 months hence.
Penguinsaur
August 13th, 2009
So the plan for winning in 2012 is:
1. Have exact same people who royally screwed up in 2008 run it.
2. Have them wait until another year when a black man is running for president and every idiot redneck is mobilized by FOX news.
3. Vacation
4. Lose
5. solicit donations for the 2016 campaign/vacation.
GreenEyedLilo
August 13th, 2009
I’m not so sure about this, and of course I want equality to happen NOW, but these are troubled times for every American and California is particularly troubled. I feel more inclined to turn my eyes toward Maine for the moment, too.
Whenever it happens again, I hope California gets it right next time.
Timothy Kincaid
August 13th, 2009
Is the debate over the date breaking along Californian v. non-Californian lines?
EQCA’s Marc Solomon – a Massachusetts import – says wait. As do Evan Wolfson and other non-Californians.
But I’ve yet to speak to a single gay Californian (the type who has actually lived here a while) that thinks it is smartest to delay the process until 2012.
That may be a reflection of my associates. Or perhaps it’s an in-state-talking-to-the-people-we-know v. out-of-state-relying-on-specialists kind of thing.
Ken in Riverside
August 13th, 2009
@Timothy: I’m a CA native and I don’t think it’s a good idea to attempt 2010.
Jerry Sloan
August 14th, 2009
As a person who has lived in California for 30 years, a co-founder of the Lambda Community Center, an avaid observer of the RRR in California and the co-author in 1994 of the very first report on the activities of the RRR in California, and one of four individual signers of Preparing to Prevail, I am more than in favor of 2012. The R. C. Church, The Knights of Columbus, and the Mormons will provide the money no matter which year we do a ballot measure.
2012 give us the time to do the one on one ground work that must be done to reach minority communities and old white folk to get them to change their minds.
I agree that Jeff Kors needs to take a back seat in this campaign. But Eqca seems to be doing a very good job of getting people out to canvass. I observed a group in Sacramento last Saturday that talked to over 300 residents in Citrus Heights. I think they told me they only had 5 that said they would change their vote so much wowrk needs to be done in that area.
Matt
August 15th, 2009
Penguinsaur
August 13th, 2009 | LINK
So the plan for winning in 2012 is:
1. Have exact same people who royally screwed up in 2008 run it.
2. Have them wait until another year when a black man is running for president and every idiot redneck is mobilized by FOX news.
3. Vacation
4. Lose
5. solicit donations for the 2016 campaign/vacation.
Ding ding ding, we have a winner!
Yeek
August 18th, 2009
I don’t get it. I thought the evidence was pretty ironclad that the African-American vote was NOT decisive in passing prop 8. Since the AA vote didn’t pass prop 8, is it really likely to reverse it? I just don’t get the idea of targeting a block of voters that couldn’t make a difference in either direction.
Leave A Comment