Box Turtle Bulletin

My Prayer

This weekend Focus on the Family will host their final Love Won Out ex-gay dog and pony show before washing their hands of the movement and turning it over to Exodus International. And, knowing that there will be the usual protest, Exodus Youth Director Randy Thomas is calling for prayer.

I (Randy) won\’t personally be at this particular event but having been to about 20 of them, every single one had some sort of protest and every single time the LWO team responds lovingly. Would you add praying for Wayne and his friends to your prayers for the conference? We\’d greatly appreciate it.

I’ve been around long enough to know exactly what sort of prayers that will elicit. They will either be of the “smite the heathen” variety, or, more likely, of the sanctimonious “convict the heathen” stripe:

Jesus, show Wayne your love. Convict him of his sin. Deliver him from the bonds of darkness and the confusion of homosexuality that Satan has wrapped him in. He’s so devoted to his sinful cause; oh how he could be a warrior for You. Jesus, tug at his heart. Bring him into a relationship with You and show him that he’s wrong and we’re right!!

Well, that last part is never really prayed out loud, but it is the unsaid message behind the rest of the prayer. Praying for someone else’s conviction just makes you feel so good. Not only does it confirm your own certainties, but you get to be all “loving” while you are being self-affirming.

And as an extra-special bonus, you get to tell others, “Oh, that poor young man. It’s so sad. I prayed for him today.”

Which got me thinking.

At times I find myself telling anti-gay activists that I will pray for them. And I’m sure that they assume that if I really do pray for them that my prayers are a mirror image of those above.

But I don’t pray for God to smite them or for God to change their minds. In fact, some time ago I worked out a very different prayer, one that works for me.

It goes something like this:

God, please bless Anti-gay Activist Joe.

Give Joe happiness. Bring him peace and prosperity. Take away any hurt or unhappiness or dissatisfaction with his life. In fact, fill Joe with so much joy that he has no room left over for hatred and anger and bitterness towards my community.

Fill his days with interesting things. Bring delight into his family and merriment into his friends. Make his day meaningful and fulfilling. Fill his life with so much interest and purpose that he has no time left over to spend trying to make the lives of those in my community unpleasant.

And finally, God, bring Joe close to you. Give him a complete understanding of who you are. Startle and shock him with the degree to which you love him. Fill him completely with your love, so full that he only can spill love over to all who come in contact with him. And let him know that whether I’m right, or he’s right, or neither of us is right, it just doesn’t matter. Because it all comes down to love.

Now I know that many of our readers don’t believe in any deities or value any prayers. Many, many, many times that has been made abundantly clear. And some of you are always on the lookout for an opportunity to mock the faith of others. I’m really hoping that you’ll give this one a pass and decide that this thread really isn’t for you, so much.

But for those readers who do believe in God and prayer, I offer you my prayer for consideration. It may not work for you. But if it does, please consider praying for the organizers and participants at this weekend’s Love Won Out Conference. I think they could use some joy, love, peace, and satisfaction.

Linda Harvey Fears Tolerance

When it comes time for the annual Day of Silence, anti-gay activist Linda Harvey will be once again be calling for children to stay home from school. And Christian media will present her as a mild smiling pro-family advocate.

But don’t be deceived. Linda Harvey is one of the most strident opponents to equality, decency, and civil rights that our community faces.

Some of those who oppose equality do so out of a sense of religious obligation, yet also feel some remorse and can be persuaded to find some measure of accommodation for the difficulties that the put us through. Polls show that many conservative Christians who do not favor marriage equality will still find hospital visitation or inheritance issues to be matters of compassion and mercy. They oppose employment discrimination and favor open military service.

But not Linda.

In an article for WorldNetDaily, Harvey rages about a tactic employed by the organizers of the anti-gay marriage campaign in Maine. She is furious that an ad was run which expressed a message of tolerance.

Abandoning traditional marriage entails real consequences, yet we want to be tolerant of gays. Maine’s Domestic Partnership laws provide substantial legal protection for gay couples. Any problems remaining can be addressed without dismantling traditional marriage. It’s possible to support the civil rights of all citizens and protect traditional marriage at the same time.

Tolerant? Is Linda among those who wish to be tolerant? No, she most certainly is not! And as for “civil rights”, she thinks you should have none.

Are there indeed “rights” that need to be accorded to the behavior of homosexuality? No self-respecting Christian would take this position.

Linda goes on to delight in the lies that the campaign told about schoolchildren and the threat that gay people are to them. And she lists the sad tired (distorted and false) tales of the woe in Massachusetts and California. And then her venom spews:

But the student endangerment message made no sense paired with the last-minute, “We’re really tolerant” positioning of the campaign as cited above. Opponents would easily be able to see through the apparent hypocrisy: Why should parents
worry about their children being indoctrinated into homosexual acceptance, if “gays” ought to be tolerated? If we ought to respect their “rights”? This sudden shift had a desperation tinge to it and leaves pro-family forces vulnerable in the future to accusations of lying through our teeth. Christians do not do well with hypocrisy. We need to tell the truth.

The Catholic Church in Maine made similar foolish accommodations. In reacting to the victory, Bishop Richard Malone said that the church upholds marriage yet “respects and accepts gays.” Really? The Catholic Church accepts homosexual behavior? Two men having sex with one another? Women excluding men from their lives and shacking up as lesbians? This is respectable and acceptable in Catholic teachings? This seems to say there might be truth to the claim of “gay” identity, something homosexualists would love for Christians to embrace.

But amidst Linda’s hateful rantings (and yes, they are hateful), she sees something that we have long noted. The position of much of our opposition in inherently contradictory.

One cannot both tolerate and accept gay people and simultaneously exclude and segregate them. One cannot value the worth of the gay person and also relegate him to second class citizenship. If you “respect and accept” gay people as children of God worthy of His love, then you can’t call for sanctions, penalties, and punishments for the existence of those children.

And I believe that in time, perhaps a very short time, this delusion of “I love you but I want to treat you badly” will fall under its own weight. Ultimately, those who seek our civil exclusion will have to choose to either truly accept us as an equal member of the family of man, or stop pretending that they feel for us anything but contempt.

And I suspect that Linda sees the writing on the wall. I think she fears that she will in time be among but a small minority who selects the latter choice.

Uganda Women’s Group: “Kill the Gays”

The Uganda Women Parliamentary Association is angry that anyone would think that they might show sympathy or mercy to gay people.

From UGPulse:

The chairperson of UWOPA, Jane Alisemera says that the association has received calls from civil society organizations asking UWOPA to denounce Anti Homosexual bill which they describe as anti human rights.

Alisemera says that UWOPA backs Anti Homosexual bill. She says the bill seeks to protect the unit of the family and marriage, something the association protects and advocates for.

MP Alisemera says that UWOPA supports the government to punish people, institutions of learning and organizations which promote homosexuality.

And yes, they are fully aware that the punishment for “repeat offenders” is death.

Click here to see BTB\’s complete coverage of recent anti-gay developments in Uganda.

Referendum 71 Update – 11/5

As of today at 6:30 pm,

Approved: 697,032 – 52.05 %
Rejected: 642,176 – 47.95 %

There are presently about 220,000 unprocessed ballots and a more postmarked by Tuesday may come in over the next few days.

Several news sources are calling it a win.

Carrie Prejean’s Behavior is Disgusting

Yesterday I was chided for calling opposite-marriage loving, NOM representing, values voter speaking, good ol’ Christian girl Carrie Prejean a skanky slut. Well, actually looking back, I said that the God she imagined had anointed her as his spokesman would call her a skanky slut, but nevertheless point well taken.

So today I’ll just say that I have it from a very good source that Carrie Prejean’s behavior is disgusting.

Who is the source, you ask? Why, it’s none other than Carrie herself. (TMZ)

When the video started playing, Carrie’s first reaction was “that’s disgusting” … and Carrie denied it was her.

Then, the camera angle changed … and panned up to her face. She was caught red-handed … so to speak.

Carrie was rendered speechless and immediately began talking with her lawyer. We’re told it took about 15 seconds for Carrie to drop her $1 million dollar demand.

Now I certainly can’t speak for all of our readers, but if this video showed what I think it showed, then I am sure that there are a number of the fellas that would agree with Carrie that, “Ewwww, that’s disgusting.”

Gay Councilman in the Heart of Mormonland

From the Salt Lake Tribune

Stan Penfold, a gay man and the director of Utah Aids Foundation, has won the race to fill Salt Lake City\’s District 3 council seat.

Penfold outpaced Phil Carroll to represent the Avenues and Capitol Hill, replacing outgoing Councilman Eric Jergensen.

Somehow I don’t think that the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles are celebrating.

Ft. Worth Officers’ Punishment Slap on Wrist

The Ft. Worth police department has now announced the punishment that will given to officers who stormed a gay bar on the 40th anniversary of Stonewall, harassed the patrons, and left Chad Gibson in the hospital with bleeding on the brain. They also announced the reasons for the punishment. (cbs11tv)

Thursday morning FWPD Chief Jeff Halstead held a press conference in front of the Rainbow Lounge to announce the disciplinary action. There the chief confirmed that two police officers, Officer K.Q. Gober and Sgt. R.M. Morris, will be suspended for one day and Officer J.M. Back received a three-day suspension.

The officers were suspended for a violation of police procedures during the inspection of the bar.

The officer that was suspended for three days, J.M. Back, was cited for handcuffing a person without probable cause, for releasing that person without issuing a citation, bringing unfavorable criticism to the police department and for failing to complete offense reports the night of the arrest.

Sgt. Morris was suspended for using “poor judgment in his tactics” to conduct the bar check.

Officer Gober was suspended for making a conscious decision not to complete the required offense report before the end of his shift and did not complete the offense report until his return to work the following night. Gober was also reprimanded for the negative media attention that “could have been adverted had Officer Gober completed the required offense report with the true and accurate details of events that occurred during the Rainbow Lounge bar check.”

Yes, you read that correctly. They are being punished for “negative media attention” and, get this, for letting Chad Gibson go to the hospital without being issued a citation.

So far, the version of “true and accurate details of events” that the police seem to be believing is far from the version of “true and accurate details of events” that the eyewitnesses reported. These who witnessed didn’t see any groping, but they did see Gibson slammed against the floor.

I wasn’t there, so I don’t know for certain who is telling the truth. But I know that I find a random person in a bar to be a far more credible source of truth today than a sworn officer of the law.

And I do know that these officers who stormed into a gay bar with a show of force and left people hurt and afraid will collectively spend less time on “suspension” than Chad Gibson spent in the hospital.

Washington Ref 71 Update

Returns continue to trickle in for Washington’s vote-by-mail election, in which voters are asked to uphold that state’s Domestic Partnership registry. The Washington office of Secretary of State reports as of 5:47 pm PST:

Approve: 573,698 — 51.82%
Reject: 533,488 — 48.18 %

According to the Seattle Times, about 600,000 ballots remain uncounted, with about half of them from King County (Seattle), where Referendum 71 is winning by a 2-1 margin.

Some Folks Are Never Satisfied

You know, just when I think anti-gay nutcases can’t surprise me anymore, Peter LaBarbera and Matt Barber proves that there just isn’t enough hatred — yes, Peter and Matt! I’m calling you out on hatred now — for some of these people. Anti-gay activists won their contest in Maine, denying marriage to LGBT citizens of that state. You’d think that LaBarbera and Barber would be thrilled at that victory.

Guess again. They’re mad that even though Stand for Marriage Maine won, they weren’t hateful enough:

Christians PROMOTING homosexual relationships and “gay civil rights”? Above is a frame from the Stand for Marriage Maine TV ad “It\’s Possible,” effectively endorsing the state\’s “domestic partnership” law and “civil rights” based on homosexuality. See controversial text of ad below, and view the full ad HERE.

I agree with my good friend Matt Barber, who is also a Board Member of Americans For Truth in addition to his important work at Liberty Counsel. It is not ethical nor good strategy for the “pro-family” movement to promote one evil and public-policy disaster (changeable and sinful behavior as a government-backed “civil right”) to fight another (homosexual “marriage”). Yet that is precisely what the Yes on 1 campaign\’s pro-domestic partnership ad called “It\’s Possible” did. …We who claim to follow God are lacking in integrity if we promote the normalization of homosexuality as part of some (perhaps well-intentioned) utilitarian plan to ostensibly “save” traditional marriage. [Garish colors and boldface in the original]

Don’t you get the idea that nothing could possibly make these two happy? I don’t know about you, but I would love for these two to run a p0liical campaign. It would seriously make my day.

AFER: Rights Should Not Be Determined By Political Campaigns

The American Foundation for Equal Rights has released a statement in response to the outcome of Maine’s Question 1. AFER, you may recall, is behind the Federal court challenge to California’s Proposition 8 by attorneys Theodore Olson and David Boies. AFER President Chad Griffen’s statement states what ought to be the obvious (no link):

“Our founding fathers did not intend for people’s Constitutional rights to be determined by political campaigns. The results in Maine underscore exactly why we are challenging California’s same sex marriage ban in federal court. When the Supreme Court ruled in Loving v. Virginia, more than 70 percent of Americans disapproved of interracial marriage. The U.S. Constitution guarantees equal rights to every American, and when those rights are violated, it is the role of our courts to protect us, regardless of what the polls say.”

Carrie Prejean, Even Sluttier Than You Thought

It seems Carrie Prejean’s pretenses of superior moral character are as fake as her boobs or the National Organization for Marriage’s advertising.

From TMZ

Carrie Prejean demanded more than a million dollars during her settlement negotiations with Miss California USA Pageant officials — that is, until the lawyer for the Pageant showed Carrie an XXX home video of her handiwork.

The video the lawyer showed Carrie is extremely graphic and has never been released publicly. We know that, because TMZ obtained the video months ago but decided not to post it because it was so racy. Let’s just say, Carrie has a promising solo career.

Why, oh why, does this not surprise me?

Now for those of you who may have, in some moment of passion, pulled out the video camera to document your eternal love, I’m not criticizing your personal cinematic endeavors.

Unless, of course, you want to preach at me about “opposite marriage” or pretend that you have a hotline to God. Because if the creator of the universe has some special message for mankind that he wants to reveal through you, he’s probably first going to suggest that it might be more “biblically correct” if you weren’t a skanky slut.

The only down side to all of this is that Charles LiMondri, the San Diego Attorney / Anti-gay Activist is getting his legal fees paid.

Equality New Jersey Goes Proactive

Equality New Jersey is being proactive in their efforts to get the legislature and governor to legalize same-sex marriage before Governor-Elect Christie is inaugurated. Christie has vowed to veto any measures that provide marriage equality.

Rather than wait and respond to a campaign of lies about schools and children, they set out first and defined the message. On election night they ran ads seeking to build a groundswell of support.

The first, Marsha and Louise, features a couple for whom civil unions were inadequate.

The second features a straight woman who compares her hospital treatment to that of another couple in a civil union.

I am not certain as to what type of advertising is most effecting in influencing legislative support or building groundswell. But I do have some observations.

As far as emotional appeals, it doesn’t get much better than Marsha and Louise. This is not some discussion of theoretical inadequacies of civil unions.

This ad featured real people, good people, burdened with the confusion that comes with civil unions and finding themselves unable to provide for physically and mentally handicapped children. Who is going to oppose healthcare for handicapped children?

Although I knew it was a political ad, I still felt myself pulled in and experienced empathy for this couple and disgust for their plight.

The second, Emelia, though weaker in specific evidence of harm, comes across as less practiced and more genuine. It has an ability, I think, to speak to New Jerseyans where they are and in a language that is more organic.

I especially liked “…they were in that civil union, which I don’t know, that, that limbo…” I think it reminds the viewer that they, too, have no idea exactly what comes with a civil union.

And they are all very, very New Jersey.

Wisconsin to Keep Domestic Partnerships

On this day that we mourn the loss of equality in one state, we can rejoice that another has had a victory in its efforts to provide some measure of protection to its gay citizens.

In 2006, Wisconsin voters passed a constitutional amendment by 59%-41% which banned both same-sex marriage and “legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage”. And anti-gay activists rejoiced, believing that this ensured that lifelong committed gay couples would be denied any and all rights that were given willy-nilly to any six times divorced, drunken Vegas chapel, heterosexual couple.

But in June, the governor signed a budget which included the authorization of a registry for domestic partners and which granted a very limited number of specific rights.

Determined that gay couples should not be allowed to enjoy hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights, joint tenancy rights, and the ability to take Family Medical Leave (FMLA) to care for a sick/injured partner or non-biological/non-adopted child, anti-gay activists sued claiming that such a registry violated the “no rights for gay people” clause of the state constitution.

And they appealed directly to the state supreme court, hoping that such protections could be denied promptly. The Wisconsin Supreme Court did not grant their wish. (KSTP)

The state Supreme Court has rejected a lawsuit challenging Wisconsin’s domestic partner registry.

The court offered no explanation in an order issued Tuesday.

But while this is a victory for decency and equality, it is not settled. They can still go through the process of trial court and appeals.

Ft. Worth Police: We Did No Wrong in Rainbow Lounge Raid

I have become convinced that the sole function of police internal investigations is to provide legal defense against civil suit for excessive force or civil rights violations. I’ve ceased to be outraged and am now often amused by review boards that find the most obvious of bullies and abusers to be “within procedure” and vindicated.

So it is not surprising that the Ft. Worth Police have conducted an internal review into the raid on the Rainbow Lounge and found no wrongdoing at all. (NBC)

Fort Worth police planned to announce on Thursday that an internal investigation has cleared officers of excessive force in the controversial raid of a gay bar this summer, and no officers will be fired, said two city leaders briefed on the matter.

The long-awaited 1,000-page report is expected to fault officers for not writing a timely report on the June 28 raid of the Rainbow Lounge, but conclude officers did not use excessive force or violate other operational policies.

Nope. No excessive force.

Because that guy with bleeding on the brain who everyone present testified was slammed into a wall and floor, oh he just pirouetted and fell and hit his little fairy princess head outside in the parking lot, ya know.

I know that police think that they win when they are true blue and defend the bullies and abusers in their midst. They think that they are protecting “their own” from the perps and the faggots and the scum.

But this decision by the Ft. Worth police only serves to further bolster the mistrust and hostility with which minority communities view those who they increasingly see as the oppressor rather than the champion of justice and civility. And the respect and cooperation that police rely on as a staple in their arsenal in the fight on crime is being replaced by recalcitrance and sympathy for those who are under investigation.

Last night while driving home I heard an interview with a police officer in Richmond, CA about the gang rape of a young girl on a school campus. He just couldn’t comprehend why none of the dozens of people who knew it was going on pulled out their cell phone and called the police. The police could have stopped it sooner; they could have apprehended more perpetrators.

I find it much less difficult to understand why no one in this mostly black and Hispanic community wanted to come to the attention of police. Who would be so foolish?

Comparing Gay Couples to Straight Couples

Comparing gay couples to straight couples can be complex. Often it is difficult to define terms such that comparable things are being compared. What is a “couple”, what is a “relationship”?

Those anti-gays who are dishonest (or, let’s charitably say, confused) will compare the gold standard of heterosexual relationships, marriage, to the least committed of casual dating arrangements for gay people and declare that gay relationships are inferior. But little effort is made to define the terms or what qualifies as entry into the category being compared.

In society, we see a distinction between dating and being married. We don’t hold a new boyfriend to the standard we expect from a husband. And even if a man and a woman have been together for three or four years, until they marry we continue to look at such relationships as potential or temporary.

Until vows are said, commitments are not assumed. Once that step – and a significant step it is – has been taken, then family, faith, the community, society, and the law step in to collectively define this relationship as a couple, as two becoming one.

But for our community, we have in most states been denied the opportunity to take the step of marriage. We could not “tie the knot” that binds two into one. We had no couples to present for comparison because we were denied the ability to create such couples.

But change is coming. There are now a handful of states (four, soon to be five) in which the family, faith, the community, society and the law can agree that two men or two women have become a single entity, married.

And although this may be denied by majorities of voters in most of the nation, there are also those same-sex couples that are finding ways to get some of these to come to agreement. Perhaps they will get family and community to recognize their union. Or perhaps their faith and a portion of society – even in our losses, such as Maine, we see that there is a significant portion of society that will recognize such unions. And in some places where the law will not see a union of souls, it will at least acknowledge an administrative equivalency.

And analysis of census data shows that there is now a growing collection of same-sex couples that have found ways of becoming in their hearts, and in the hearts of those most important to them, married. (A/P)

The data from the annual American Community Survey showed that nearly 150,000 same-sex couples in the U.S., or more than one in four, referred to one another as “husband” or “wife,” although UCLA researchers estimate that no more than 32,000 of the couples were legally married.

So we now have a pool of married gays (and “married” gays) to offer up in comparison to married straights. We no longer have to weigh the value of church endorsed, white gowned, pomp and circumstanced heterosexual married bliss against a two month old “open” relationship between two boys who met at a bar.

And how do we compare?

Analysis of commonalities and differences is only in its infancy. We’ve only had for but a few years a measure for comparison. And until very recently, the census taking apparatus which might provided some answers has been banned from even discussing the matter.

But some researchers, such as Gary Gates at UCLA, have been finding ways to tweak the data to yield limited findings. And with the Obama Administration’s willingness to allow access to the data, some information is now coming to light.

And, perhaps not surprisingly, married gays aren’t so very different from married straights.

The [same-sex] couples had an average age of 52 and household incomes of $91,558, while 31 percent were raising children. That compares with an average age of 50, household income of $95,075 and 43 percent raising children for married heterosexual couples.

“It’s intrinsically interesting that same-sex couples who use the term spouses look like opposite-sex married couples even with a characteristic like children,” said Gary Gates, the UCLA demographer who conducted the analysis. “Most proponents of traditional marriage will say that when you allow these couples to marry, you are going to change the fundamental nature of marriage by decoupling it from procreation. Clearly, in the minds of same-sex couples who are marrying or think of themselves as married, you are not decoupling child-rearing from marriage.”

These are but early and surface findings.

And as time goes on, the distinction between “dating” and “partners” and “married” will become less hazy as employers and family court judges and Aunt Matilda will find greater need to know just who is committed and who is not. Ultimately the social need for distinction will outweigh the religion-based objection to recognition and our families, employers, churches, communities, and society will not only allow but demand to know which same-sex couples are in it for the long haul.

And time may reveal that there are strong distinctions between heterosexual and homosexual couples. Indeed, how could there not be; each subculture in our society adds its unique perspective to the marital dynamic.

And yet, I suspect that when terms are more firmly defined and a better comparison is made, we will continue to find that we are amazingly similar to our brothers and sisters, our friends and neighbors, and even to those who are convinced that we are peculiar and perverse.