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 lobbyThis commentary is the opinion of the author and may not reflect that of other authors at Box Turtle Bulletin.
September 24th, 2009
The campaign to overturn Proposition 8, California’s constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, has officially begun. (LA Times)
The group Love Honor Cherish filed ballot language with the state today for a measure to overturn the ban on gay marriage in the state. That is the first step in getting the question on the ballot.
According to the group, if the state approves the language, they will begin the process of collecting the estimated 1 million signatures needed to get on the November 2010 ballot.
And while the twelvers would very much like to wait another two years to strategize, plan, and prepare, if the coalition of groups wanting to take this issue to the polls next year show that they are achieving signature collection goals, you can be certain that they will seek to become a part of the effort and to ensure that it has the best possible chance of success.
I had the opportunity to have a discussion with an organizer involved with training grass-roots leaders at a “boot camp” a week ago and he reports that those in favor of moving forward are somewhat inexperienced in campaign strategy and methodology. They are also highly suspicious of the counsel given by the boys and girls in suits.
Frankly, I don’t know if the tenners have the organization to get a million signatures and to plan a winning campaign. But I am delighted that they are suspicious of the leaders who arrogantly led a campaign that neither sought nor utilized our community’s best resources: gay people themselves. And what the tenners have today that the leaders of the No on 8 Campaign sorely lacked is passion, commitment, and a belief that the results of this election will have an impact on their life personally.
Should the tenners succeed in getting their signatures, I hope that technical support can be utilized from the larger groups but that the strategic decisions are made by those who are fed up with gay politics as usual.
The language of the ballot measure is:
This amendment would amend an existing section of the California Constitution. Existing language proposed to be deleted is printed in
strikeout type. Language proposed to be added is printed in underlined type.Section 1. To protect religious freedom, no court shall interpret this measure to require any priest, minister, pastor, rabbi, or other person authorized to perform marriages by any religious denomination, church, or other non-profit religious institution to perform any marriage in violation of his or her religious beliefs. The refusal to perform a marriage under this provision shall not be the basis for lawsuit or liability, and shall not affect the tax-exempt status of any religious denomination, church or other religious institution.
Section 2. To provide for fairness in the government\’s issuance of marriage licenses, Section 7.5 of Article I of the California Constitution is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 7.5.
Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.Marriage is between only two persons and shall not be restricted on the basis of race, color, creed, ancestry, national origin, sex, gender, sexual orientation, or religion.
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:
Richard W. Fitch
September 24th, 2009
Why did they leave out reference to age of consent? With every thing else so explicitly stated, it would seem logical to include that as well. Also add consenting and able to consent.
Timothy Kincaid
September 24th, 2009
Are you being sarcastic, Richard?
Burr
September 24th, 2009
It would have been interesting to add something to eliminate those stupid education fears, too.
Richard W. Fitch
September 24th, 2009
@Timothy: This time, actually not. Section One is self-evident based on other legal instruments. The issues of consent for various legal contracts are different depending on the nature of the contract itself. This would also make clear that a 14 y/o girl cannot be compelled to marry a 54 y/o man against her will.
Dan
September 24th, 2009
This is a non-story, since there is no chance that these folks will get anywhere near 1 million signatures. They are trying to do this w/o paid signature gatherers and that does not work in CA. They will not even have come close by the time the deadline arrives.
The bigger story, which has been inadequately covered in the gay press and blogosphere, is who will run the 2012 repeal campaign. As we saw in Prop 8, the campaign will be a massive and complex undertaking, comparable to a Presidential campaign in a battleground state. Yes on 8 operated in every precinct in every county of CA. That is how the repeal will be run.
Since it is heartbreakingly apparent that people like Geoff Kors and Lorri Jean are out of their depth for that type of campaign, the question arises: who will lead this effort? As of right now, it seems to be EQCA – again- by default. This would be a terrible mistake IMO.
Pomo
September 24th, 2009
I spent the night entering data for one of the many field offices EQCA has opened up. I think they’ve learned their lesson. And if the 10ers get the prop on the ballot i’m sure EQCA will back it. I’m just glad they’re finally out there getting volunteers and phone banking.
Cole
September 24th, 2009
Marriage in Maine will be lost in November. There is no way haterosexuals will support marriage rights for gay couples in California next year. Gay people in California blew it in 2008. Gay people in California were COWARDS and absolute dumbasses. Even though I knew we would lose California, gay people didn’t even put up a fight. Which is what is happening in Maine right now. Are gay people in Maine hiding until after the election? Only about 10 gay couples married in California showed their faces on tv or the internet while the other 18,000 hid. In California they never showed a gay couple in advertisements (because their heterosexual research groups thought it was too controversial), gay people rarely left gay-friendly areas to talk to voters and the NO on Prop 8 campaign did NOT provide any talking points. The NO on Prop 8 campaign’s first big mistake was hiring a haterosexual to run the campain. He undermined it from the get go.
Hopefully this doesn’t get on the ballot in 2010 because it will be another million dollor fiasco. Gay people are too cowardly to fight, too naive to believe anti-gay bigotry is pervasive and is created and perpetrated by haterosexuals, and too dumb to overcome the indoctrination you received growing up in a haterosexual environment.
Brian
September 25th, 2009
It seems to be that this initiative is unconstitutional as violating the separation of powers doctrine. I don’t think legislation can mandate what a court can or cannot do. And although I understand the reasoning behind couching gender and sexual orientation in broader fairness terms, on its face this initiative expressly gives a minister or priest the right to refuse to marry an African-American couple, or an interracial couple. How do you think the other side would “spin” that?
I recently asked someone at LHC what their contingency plans were if, as many expect, the federal challenge to Prop 8 succeeds at the District Court and/or Ninth Circuit level. He stared at me blankly. They have given this no thought, and have no strategy for what will happen if, in fact, Prop 8 is no longer the law by next November. How are they going to motivate voters, much less donors and volunteers, if Prop 8 has already been tossed? By arguing that the Supreme Court may overturn it in a year or two? In that case, why not wait until 2012 to see if another ballot initiative is even necessary?
I know that marriage equality is important, and I know that LHC is sincere in wanting to achieve it. But its zeal to grab power, and its brushing off very legitimate concerns, is unsettling, and reminiscent of the EQCA approach that has rightly been condemned.
I, for one, can’t sign a petition to put this initiative on the ballot. If we are really going to try again in 2010, we need much better language, and a leadership that inspires — and deserves — confidence.
Penguinsaur
September 25th, 2009
“on its face this initiative expressly gives a minister or priest the right to refuse to marry an African-American couple, or an interracial couple. How do you think the other side would “spin†that?”
Um, priests have always been able to deny marriage to blacks, or jews, or short people, or anyone really. The Church of the Aryan Nations sure as hell didn’t let any blacks set foot inside but no one was able to sue them for anything until they shot some guy.
And the other side usually spins this by refusing to acknowledge it while they rant about how gays are gonna force your church to marry them.
Brian
September 25th, 2009
Penguin — my point is that there will be TV commercials pointing out how this initiative tells clergypeople they can refuse to marry African-Americans. It doesn’t matter that this Constitutional right already exists. That is how they will use this, and given the lack of attention EQCA gave to minority communities last year, this could make things even worse.
Burr
September 25th, 2009
Uhh the Supreme Court won’t get to Prop 8 before election day next year.
And if they struck it down, then we wouldn’t need this Proposition any more.
Also the text in section 1 of that excerpt is ALREADY IN THE CONSTITUTION.
Just a goofy post all around.
Brian
September 25th, 2009
Uhh it doesn’t matter when the Supreme Court takes the case. If the District Court and Ninth Circuit strike Prop 8, that will be the law unless and until the Supreme Court reverses it. So chances are good that Prop 8 will have been tossed out before the election. So the campaign will have to be “hey, folks, we know Prop 8 is already gone, but the Supreme Court may reenact it in a year or two so let’s go ahead and vote on it again just in case!” LHC has done nothing to prepare for that scenario.
And the text in Section 1 is NOT already in the Constitution.
What’s “goofy” is this ill-advised language.
palerobber
September 28th, 2009
first, Yes on Equality filed their language almost immediately after the election and has been collecting signatures since before the CA Supreme Court ruled on Prop8, though i don’t know what progress they’ve made (http://www.yesonequality.com/).
second, in response to Brian, if the District or Ninth strike Prop8 the ruling will almost certainly be stayed pending higher review, no?
TikiHead
October 1st, 2009
Should that be ‘between two unrelated persons?’
Leave A Comment