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

That “Maine Teacher” Is No Stranger To Anti-Gay Lies

Jim Burroway

September 23rd, 2009

Charla BansleyAs Jeremy Hooper pointed out yesterday, that teacher in Stand for Marriage Maine’s latest TV ad is no ordinary run-of-the-mill concerned teacher.  She’s actually Charla Bansley, state director for Concerned Women for America for Maine. In 2005, she was a signatory of a letter to the Southern Baptist Convention demanding that they act on a proposed “Resolution on Homosexuality In Public Schools.” That resolution calls on Southern Baptists to remove their children from public schools and send them either to conservative Christian schools or home-school their children. This resolution, of course, would have the effect of drumming up more business for her own school, Calvary Chapel Christian School, which is near Bangor, Maine.

A look at fellow signatories give you an idea of what kind of crowd Bansley runs in. They include such ardent anti-gay extremists as Holocaust revisionist Scott Lively, Peter LaBarbera, Michael Heath (who resigned this weekas director of the Christian Civic League of Maine after 15 years at the helm), and Exodus International Board member Phil Burris. Many other signatories have also been heavily involved with their respective state’s bans on marriage quality, including Burris (Ohio), Gary Glenn (Michigan), Len Munsil (Arizona), John Stemberger (Florida) among many others.

Charla Bansley was also a guest speaker at last Sunday’s Stand for Marriage Maine closed-door rally at the Augusta Civic Center, where she described homosexuality as “a public display of psychosis.” In a partial transcript provided to BTB, she also repeated a popular distortion of scientific research by anti-gay activists when she told that crowd:

A study in the Netherlands found that the average duration of a homosexual marriage was just one and a half years certainly nothing to build a society upon. The same study found that committed homosexual couples were also intimate with an average of eight extra marital partners per year this is not anti-gay rhetoric this are statistics published in Journal of the International Aids Society.

 Three years ago we examined this “Netherlands Study” claim in our report, “What the ‘Dutch Study’ Really Says About Gay Couples,” and found anti-gay claims about it it to be a wholesale misrepresntation of what the study actually found. We also examined how that study has been distorted through the years by anti-gay extremists like Bansley. So her statement at the rally combined with their first television ad, which those associated with Stand for Marriage Maine have already admitted to be a lie and not to be taken seriously, tells us everything we need to know about Stand for Marriage Maine’s moral fiber and Bansley’s credibility. She calls herself a teacher. God help her students.

Update: Charla Bansley also spoke at a tea-party rally in Augusta on July 4, and repeated the same “Dutch Study” falsehood there.



Shannon Spencer Fox
September 23rd, 2009 | LINK

I personally hope that No on 1 moves quickly on sending out a response to this video (as in today or tomorrow), pointing out this woman’s history as well as you guy’s have, since calling this woman just a ‘teacher’ is a little like referring to Obama as just a ‘lawyer’. It’s technically true, but only by half.

And nice one about that resolution too; nothing beats the twin sucker-punch of both bigotry and personal greed.

September 23rd, 2009 | LINK

Kumbaya my lord, Kumbaya

September 23rd, 2009 | LINK

Similar to Shannon’s comment above, marriage equality advocates must tackle these lies head-on, and thoroughly.

An advert highlighting the crckpots (like Scott Lively) that CWA and others are allied to would also be a good idea. And put real gay people in the adverts too, give them a face people can relate to and let them tell their story.

September 23rd, 2009 | LINK

No don’t think she’s a teacher. She says homosexuality is a ‘public display of psychosis.’ Obviously Bansley is a renown psychologist who specializes in psychology behind human sexuality.

I watched the video on the Augusta Civic Center rally link. Kudos to Anne Underwood. The Catholic Bishop in Maine labeled Catholics like her dissidents because she supported marriage equality and she said “Good.”

September 24th, 2009 | LINK

If the Dutch study was done three years ago, that would put it in 2006. The Netherlands has enjoyed marriage equality since April Fool’s Day 2001, so there was roughly five years between the date of legalisation and the date of the study – hardly enough time to gather any meaningful data on gay marriage longevity. IMO for meaningful results they really need five decades.

Timothy Kincaid
September 24th, 2009 | LINK


The problem with the Dutch Study is not that it was performed three years ago; that’s just when we reviewed it.

Actually the study predates marriage in the Netherlands and says nothing about marriage at all.

This was a study of non-monogamous men (deliberately excluding monogamous couples) designed to observe HIV and STD transmission. It did not study the longevity of marriages but made observations about the average length of “relationships” among men under 30 (i.e. “yeah, I met this guy a few months ago and we’ve been dating”).

Charla Bansley isn’t lying because ‘the study is not quite entirely adequate’; she’s lying because the study simply doesn’t say what at all what she is claiming.

Priya Lynn
September 24th, 2009 | LINK

It makes me so angry that she would get on the radio and lie and say the average gay marriage lasts one and a half years based on this study. She acts like a sweet little old christian lady who’s merely relaying the facts when she knows this is an outrageous lie.

September 24th, 2009 | LINK

tavdy79 — that wasn’t a study of married gay couples. It was a study of young non-monogamous men, tracking HIV infection. Monogamous couples were specifically excluded from the study.

And the stunning conclusion was that young non-monogamous men are 1) young (hence, so far, they have short relationships) and 2) non-monogamous and 3) can remain at risk for HIV infection.

Even if it had been run for 5 decades the results would have been the same. And, equally, would have also continued to say nothing about married gay couples.

What Bansley did is the equivalent of, say, taking a study of female prostitutes and declaring that this is how all married women behave.

Ergh, no. God, at least I hope not!

September 24th, 2009 | LINK

Have the bigots ever cited a study about gays that wasn’t the equivalent of ‘studying’ straight people by interviewing guys coming out of a brothel in Reno?

September 24th, 2009 | LINK

I would like someone to give me one reason, just one that makes homosexuality normal or right. It is wrong. Charla Bansley is a great christian Woman, she stands tall for God and the values this country was founded on. Nothing in those values says anything about homosexuality. This certainly will have great consequences on the state if the law is passed. Children will be taught in school that being a homosexual is ok and acceptable. This country was founded on God and the Bible, but it has strayed so far. We need to get back to that, the way our ancestors lived.

September 24th, 2009 | LINK

“As the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian Religion…” – Treaty of Tripoli, 1796

And treaties are law according to the Constitution.

So yeah this country was founded on Christian values.. NOT.

September 24th, 2009 | LINK

Last time I checked, if you want to take away fundamental rights (of which marriage is one according to the Supreme Court), the burden of proof is on those saying homosexuality is a BAD thing thus making discrimination necessary. So where’s YOUR proof?

One reason why homosexuality is natural: You find it in nature.

One reason why homosexuality is right: It makes a significant portion of the population happier and healthier mentally than they would be if they were barred from expressing themselves that way.

Timothy Kincaid
September 24th, 2009 | LINK


I need not justify to you why homosexuality is “normal or right” any more than I need justify bowling or macrame. That our founders neither bowled nor made macrame plant hangers is of no consequence when it comes to your rights and mine.

The problem with you, Yeson1, and with Charla Bansley is that you believe that your own personal religious opinions about how I should live my life should outweigh my own.

You hate freedom, or at least my freedom. You hate equality. You hate personal responsibility. You hate individual choice.

And, most interesting of all, you hate the fact that God does not give you the right to make decisions about my faith or my soul. In fact, you hate the very core of Christianity – man’s own personal relationship with God.

I pity you.

September 25th, 2009 | LINK

Here’s how homosexuality is normal and right: pleasure and bonding between the same sex. That, ignorant hetero, is godly by me.

September 26th, 2009 | LINK

“Children will be taught in school that being a homosexual is ok and acceptable.” – YesOn1

No problem. NOT being taught that in school (or anywhere else) didn’t stop me or any of the other homosexual people of my generation from growing up homosexual, but it would have made our teenage years a lot less complicated if we had been taught it.

Christopher Waldrop
September 26th, 2009 | LINK

How exactly would homosexuality be “taught in schools”? I don’t recall heterosexuality being “taught” to me in school. Depending on the subject a heterosexual couple married couple may have been presented. While I don’t think this was necessarily “teaching” heterosexuality, I could see same-sex couples being included in the same way. And I’d have no problem with that.

September 30th, 2009 | LINK

First off, I do not hate gay people. I hate their sin of being gay. And what the heck do gay animals have to do with the way people act? I guess i’m not seeing the connection. Heterosexuality doesn’t have to be taught in schools because kids know that having a mom and dad is normal, it’s nothing new, nothing they have to comprehend. And what will a teenage girl that was adopted by a gay male couple do when she is facing girl problems? What are the “fathers” supposed to do?
They can’t really help her out. Same with a boy that has two mothers. Pleasure and bonding by the same sex is not Godly, it is the opposite of Godly, it is disgusting. Lastly, the definition of marriage is: the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law, so their i’m not trying to take away fundamental laws, I am trying to protect them.

Timothy Kincaid
September 30th, 2009 | LINK


Which is more important to you: loving people or hating their sin?

I see you here hating, well, pretty much everything about the life of the sinner, but have you done anything to get to know that sinner? Have you bothered to learn why they want to marry, what difficulties they might be experiencing from an administrative definition?

For example, are you aware of the tax differences? Or the access to family discounts? Or hospital visitation, school administration, or census reports? ANYTHING?

And have you done a single solitary thing in your life to improve the daily living of a gay person or couple? Have you lobbied to have tax equity? Have you reviewed insurance policies at work to make sure they are fair?

Because if not, NoOn1, then I don’t believe you when you say that you don’t hate gay people, just their sin. I think you are lying. And I think that you are using a bogus phrase to try and hide and justify the bigotry you are showing towards gay folk.

But go ahead and prove me wrong. Change your position on Referendum 1.

September 30th, 2009 | LINK

YesOn1 your silly worries about parenting are no different than when a single mother and her mother or sister are raising a boy alone, or two uncles with a daughter. Children have been in those situations for centuries and civilization did not collapse, and the kids turned out fine.

You really are a mental simpleton.

And sorry but there is no universal definition of marriage that applies for all time. Marriage is already defined to include same sex couples for many years now. That battle has been lost. Time to face facts and join the rest of us in reality.

Richard W. Fitch
September 30th, 2009 | LINK

I liked to have the bible thumpers show me just one text in ‘that book’ that discusses same-same activities other than in relation to ‘pagan worship’. Oh, of course there is the story of Sodom (and Gomorrah), which had to do with an attempted xenophobic gang rape by all the men and women of the town.

Emily K
September 30th, 2009 | LINK

I suggest that YesOn1 read the Book of Ruth and discover that 2500 years ago it took a village to raise a family, and today, it STILL takes a village to raise a family. And spoiler alert: at the end of the book Naomi is declared to be a second mother to Ruth’s child.

Priya Lynn
October 1st, 2009 | LINK

Yeson1 said “Lastly, the definition of marriage is: the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law, so their i’m not trying to take away fundamental laws, I am trying to protect them.”.

No one is trying to change the law to prevent men and women from marrying. Your sole act is to try to prevent gay couples from marrying. You lie when you say you are trying to protect marriage, you are attacking it.

Priya Lynn
October 1st, 2009 | LINK

Yeson1 said “Charla Bansley is a great christian Woman, she stands tall for God and the values this country was founded on.”.

So, great christian women lie to hurt others? Your country was founded on dishonesty?

Christopher Waldrop
October 1st, 2009 | LINK

Priya hits on the lack of logic in YesOn1’s argument by saying, “No one is trying to change the law to prevent men and women from marrying.”

Granting same-sex couples the same rights and responsibilities enjoyed by heterosexual couples isn’t taking rights away from anyone. It’s simply recognizing that same-sex couples are equal under the law. And yet over and over I hear this claim that allowing same-sex couples to marry is somehow an “attack” on the rights of heterosexual couples.

No church that doesn’t want to will be forced to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies. No person will be forced to marry someone they don’t want to. Right now the only people whose rights are being denied are the same-sex couples who can’t marry.

October 27th, 2009 | LINK

I just received an automated call from this group. The phone number was blocked, and there was no way to connect to a live person, so that I could tell them, emphatically, that their message of prejudice and intolerance was not appreciated in my home. I wish there were a way to contact them back…But, like the cowards that they are, they have no interest in an open dialogue; they prefer to preach hate from their soapbox while providing no opportunity for rebuttal.

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, never shared)

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