Box Turtle Bulletin

Live Nation Announces Cancellation of Four Murder Music Concerts

Four down, twenty-nine more to go. Live Nation announced in an email message yesterday that they have cancelled Buju Banton’s four concerts at the House of Blues locations in Chicago, Las Vegas, Dallas and Houston. However, as of 9:30 am EST, the Live Nation web site only lists two cancellations: Las Vegas and Dallas. Tickets are still available for Chicago and Houston.

All seventeen concerts which Ticketmaster promoted are still listed on the Ticketmaster web site, including the House of Blues engagements. In addition to those four House of Blues concerts, Ticketmaster is still promoting concerts in Philadelphia (Sept 12); Bladensburg, MD (Sept 13); Revere, MA (Sept 18); Newark, NJ (Sept 20); Norfolk, VA (Sept 25); Richmond VA (Sept 26); Detroit (Sept 30); Cincinnati (Oct 2); Columbus, OH (Oct 3); Minneapolis (Oct 4); San Francisco (Oct 10); Los Angeles (Oct 14); and Atlanta (Oct 24).

According to VH1, additional cities on the tour include Providence, RI; New Haven, CT; Charlotte and Raleigh, NC; Richmond, VA; Denver; Aspen; Salt Lake City; Eureka, CA; Albuquerque; Charleston, SC; Jacksonville, Miami, Orlando, and Ybor City, FL.

What Would You Ask Steven Anderson?

The more we hear from LaBarbera Award winner Pastor Seven Anderson, the nuttier he sounds. Not only did he say that gays “should be taken out and killed,” but now he’s saying that every homosexual in the world is a deviant and a predator. That’s right: every single homosexual in the whole wide world. That’s what he told Phoenix radio talk show host Alan Colmes:

“Do you believe that every gay person in the world is a predator?” asked Colmes.

“That’s what I believe,” replied Anderson. “And every gay person that I’ve ever known personally has been a predator.”

“Define `predator,'” insisted Colmes. “What do you mean by `predator’?”

“A predator as in someone who tries to molest other people,” answered Anderson, “to force people into things that they don’t want to do.”

Anderson also seemed to agree that Leviticus allows you to kill your children if they curse you, and that adulterers should be stoned.

His nuttiness doesn’t end there. He also says that President Barack Obama deserves to die.No wonder one of his parishioners showed up at Obama’s Phoenix appearance carrying an AR-15.

Dallas radio host Jack E. Jett is scheduled to have Anderson on his program on Sunday, August 30. The program airs from 1:00 to 3:00 CST, and you can listen online at Rational Radio’s web site. This should be a great program. If you’ve ever heard Jack E. Jett, you’ll know that he’s rarely at a loss for words, but I wonder if Anderson may have left him a little speechless. He wrote in and asked, “I want to have some really clever questions to ask this dude and would like to invite your readers to submit questions.”

I have one. My brother and sister-in-law just had a beautiful baby girl. If times get tough, can they sell her?

What about you? What do you want to ask the good Pastor? Comments are open…

Referendum 71 Hinges on Lawsuit

The Washington Secretary of State’s Election Division has now observed 125,631 (91.2%) of the signatures submitted for validation. Of these, 110,797 have been accepted and approximately another 500 will be accepted by the “third check” process.

This means that of the remaining 12,058 signatures to review, the opponents of domestic partnership enhancements need only get 9,260 signatures, or 76.7% deemed valid. This is, at this time, a foregone conclusion.

However, Washington Families has sued to stop the Secretary of State from certifying the signatures. They raise a number of issues encompassing several irregularities.

Procedural: The SoS is accepting petitions that are not signed by the circulater or which are known to be fraudulently signature-stamped by the campaign manager. While this may seem a matter of technicality, the fraudulent signature-stamps is a criminal act and in addition to those petitions being rejected, Larry Stickney should be prosecuted.

Fraudulent: Signatures are being accepted as valid even when it is known that the signer was not registered to vote at the time they signed.

Dismissive: The Elections Division is refusing to reinspect over 1,000 specific instances where observers believe they have detected error. I’m confused as to the purpose of observers if the Secretary refuses to listen to their observations.

Should Washington Families prevail in having the 36,154 signatures on unsigned or stamped petitions be removed then the referendum is invalid. If the unregistered signers or the specific errors be considered, then the referendum again becomes to close to call.

Addendum: For those following the peculiar “third check”, had this step not been incorporated, today the fail-rate would have for the first time exceeded 12.4% and the failure of this referendum would have been predictable.

Gay Group Sues Washington Secretary of State

Per the WA Secretary of State’s blogsite:

A lawsuit has been filed in King County Superior Court by Washington Families Standing Together requesting a Temporary Restraining Order to prevent the Secretary of State from certifying Referendum 71 to the ballot.

The complaint:

5. The Secretary of State (“the Secretary”) is responsible for overseeing the determination of whether a referendum qualifies for the ballot. Striving toward the laudable goal of voter enfranchisement, the Secretary has made it a priority to accept signatures whenever possible. Unfortunately, in so doing, the Secretary did not comply with certain statutory requirements. In the course of the signature verification process for Referendum 71, it became apparent that the Secretary , relying on advice from the Attorney General, was ignoring the requirement directed by the Legislature that the anti-fraud declaration be signed by each signature-gatherer. Plaintiffs have received confirmation from the SOS that the Secretary has accepted thousands of petitions on which the signature-gatherer who circulated the petition did not sign the declaration.

6. Likewise the Plaintiffs received confirmation from the SOS that the Secretary was ignoring the requirement that only individuals who were duly registered voters could legally sign petitions. On August 17, the Secretary instructed his staff to disregard the date reflected in the voter files as the voter registration date and accept signatures from individuals who were not registered as o f the date they signed the petition or even by the date that the Referendum 71 petitions were filed. As a result, signatures by individuals not registered to vote at the time they signed a petition were counted toward the total number of signatures required to place Referendum71 on the ballot, in contravention of State law and in violation of the sworn oath every person signing a petition must make.

Specifically,

21. Protect Marriage Washington sorted and organized its petitions at the bottom of the Capitol stairs in Olympia before delivering the petitions to SOS staff. In the course of this final sort, PMW realized that many signature-gatherers had not filled out the required declaration on the back of the petition. SOS staff observed as PMW personel obtained a signature stamp from Larry Stickney, the campaign manager to PMW, and affixed Mr. Stickney\’s stamp to many petitions whose signature-gatherer had not completed the declaration.
…
23. Persuant to a public disclosure request, Plaintiffs have learned that the Secretary accepted 33,966 signatures on 2,508 petitions (“Unverified Petitions”) where Mr. Stickney\’s name had been stamped in the signature-gatherer declaration. It is a violation of State law to sign a petition circulated by another or to sign someone else\’s name on the declaration.
…
37. As a result, Washington Families observers have witnessed SOS staff accepting signatures from voters who registered after the Referendum 71 petitions were files (and thus, who could not possibly have been registered at the time they signed the petition or even by the time the petitions were submitted to the Secretary).
…
42. On August 18, Washington Families asked the SOS to review more that 1,000 possible errors spotted by observers with regard to signatures and addresses that did not appear to match an petitions where a single individual appeared to have signed on behalf of several other people. The SOS had previously reviewed 222 similarly noted errors from observers and had discovered that 13% had been accepted in error that should have been rejected. The SOS nonetheless rejected the request to review the next sample noted by the teams of observers and submitted by the lead observers.

Adoption Legalized in Germany and Uruguay

Gay marriage – or some version of partner recognition – are at the front burner of gay rights in the US. And while a few states disallow adoptions by gay couples or individuals, most states – even socially conservative states – allow at least one half of a gay couple to adopt children.

Interestingly, in the rest of the world marriage rights are less of an issue than adoption rights. Many nations that offer some measure of couple recognition to not allow adoption by those gay couples.

But now Germany, which has recognized “Life Partnerships” since 2001, will allow adoption (Lifesite – an anti-gay news source)

Germany’s Federal Constitutional Court has declared it legal for homosexual partners to adopt children. The court decided in favour of a woman in the southern city of Schweinfurt who wanted to adopt the now three-year-old child of her female partner, with the consent of the father and social services.

Homosexuals were allowed by a 2001 law to register their liaisons as “life partnerships”. Under the law, persons in such legal arrangements are allowed to adopt the biological children of their partners, but the law still prohibits adoption where there is no legal or biological relationship.

And it appears that Uruguay, which has recognized civil unions since 2007, will join them (Herald Sun)

LAWMAKERS in Uruguay have voted to allow adoptions by gays and lesbians in a first for Latin America, an opposition deputy says.

“They just approved it by 40 votes out of 53,” said Jaime Trobo of the opposition National Party today.

There are still formalities, but it is assumed that this will become law.

We Condemn Maurice Schwenkler / Ariel Attack

Early Tuesday morning Maurice Schwenkler and another accomplice took hammers and broke eleven windows in the Denver Democratic Party headquarters.

What followed was the usual round of speculation and political nonsense in which first Democratic Party representatives accused the right of stirring up hate and then a Republican legislator accused the left of manufacturing a victim status for sympathy. It seems neither explanation fits. (Denver Post)

Schwenkler, who also goes by Ariel Attack, is a anarchist activist and is affiliated with Bash Back! (the group behind the disruption of morning services at a church in Lansing, Michigan, in May) and other anarchy groups.

Bash Back! is calling Schwenkler “transgendered”, though I do not know if Schwenkler has specifically identified as female and is seeking to live accordingly. It appears to me that perhaps Schwenkler has adopted a gender-queer identity which denies the binary nature of gender recognition. Such identity may have less to do with internal association with a female gender and have more to do with a political ideology that seeks the destruction of conventional norms.

But whether Schwenkler is gay or transgender or both or neither is not relevant. The action s/he took is indefensible. It is reprehensible. And we strongly condemn it.

Ultimately, taking action of this sort is not “revolutionary”. It is not based in a real sense of seeking justice for indignity. It is not the brave work of those seeking a better world. Rather it is the immature acting out of an individual that sees the world through the prism of their own self-assigned martyr status and who selfishly tries to destroy anything they cannot own or control.

Ex-Gay Group Threatens Legal Action To Keep Secrets Hidden

Perennially straight writer Ted Cox has taken up an interest in ex-gay groups, and decided to go undercover for a weekend “Journey Into Manhood” seminar by the group People Can Change. Journey Into Manhood is one of those weekend manhood warrier-in-the-woods exercise that is supposed to put participants in touch with their masculine side and, thus, reduce their same-sex attractions. People Can Change claim an astounding 79% success rate, in which they define success as a decrease in same-sex attractions. People Can Change’s claims, like those of other snake-oil sale pitches, have not been subjected to peer review or outside scrutiny.

But when Cox was ready to submit his story for publication in the (Salt Lake) City Weekly, JiM founder and life coach Rich Wyler quickly intervened, urging City Weekly not to run Cox\’s story because Cox signed a confidentiality agreement barring him from speaking about the weekend,” according to the paper. Instead, the City Weekly published a two-question almost non-informative interview with Cox in which the reader learns almost nothing and must wonder why the paper chose to publish the interview in the first place — except that People Can Change has things they want to hide, and the only way to discover what their doing with their clients is to go undercover:

And the reason you have to go undercover is because there is no other way to find out what\’s going on. These organizations cloud themselves with secrecy; everything is hidden—it\’s blocked; it\’s behind confidentiality agreements. How do we know if what Wyler is doing is ethical unless someone can take a look at it and critique it?

Cox discovered Journey Into Manhood when he learned that Richard Cohen endorsed it. Journey Into Manhood is based on similar to the New Warriors Training Adventure put on by the gay-affirming Mankind Project. According to reports, the Mankind Project has decided this year to move toward transparency following the suicide of a NWTA participant in 2007.

A Texas Lutheran Bishop’s Perspective on the ELCA Vote

Rev. Michael Rinehart, Bishop of the Texas-Louisiana Gulf Coast Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) is in the process of burying his father-in-law. And it is from that perspective that he discusses his thoughts on the recent vote to allow partnered gay clergy.

Rinehart’s words are thoughtful and wise and truly compassionate. His entire letter is worth reading; here is a sample:

Susan goes through her Father’s clothing. His shirts and pants, are so him. They smell like him. They look like him. She decides what to keep and what to give away. She decides to give away his furniture except for a small oval end table that has personal meaning. It’s an odd piece, but it has emotional significance. It’s so hard to let go of things.

I think people feel this way about change in general. The world has changed. The quaint hyper-patriotic euphoric post-WWII baby-boom world no longer exists. People are grieving the loss. I may struggle with the strange hermeneutics of the Bible being employed, but I understand that there are people who see the world a certain way, and it’s changing fast. I wonder what it felt like when we started ordaining women, for those who were strongly opposed. What exactly were they afraid of? Sometimes it’s hard to get at. It just may be a loss of what was. I think of America after the Emancipation Proclamation, when European Americans had to accept African Americans into mainstream society. Why was this so hard? What were they afraid of? The slave-enhanced economy might falter? The gene-pool might be weakened? The fragile fabric of society might be somehow irreparably damaged? I’m not sure.

Lack of Clarity in Reporting on HIV and Circumcision of Gay Males

Several studies have shown that in African and Asian nations heavily impacted by HIV, circumcision can reduce infection rates in males by 50 – 60%. Now a CDC doctor has announced that while circumcision is effective in reducing female to male transmission during vaginal sex, it does not assist in resisting infection between gay males during anal sex. (U.S. News & World Report)

Circumcision “is not considered beneficial” for gay men concerned about lowering their risk of becoming infected with HIV, Dr. Peter Kilmarx of the CDC told the Associated Press. He released the study findings at a conference on Tuesday.

The finding are at odds with some studies conducted in Africa, which have suggested that circumcised males may be less prone to HIV infection during heterosexual sex. But circumcision may not offer the same protection when it comes to anal sex, Kilmarx said.

In the study, the CDC team tracked the HIV infection rate of nearly 4,900 men who had anal sex with an HIV-infected partner. The researchers found an HIV infection rate of 3.5 percent — whether the men were circumcised or not.

While this may appear informative to a heterosexual, this reporting leaves more questions than it answers.

• Were these 4,900 tops who engage in insertive sex only? Because if not, how could the circumcision of a bottom (passive partner) possibly impact HIV transmission?
• Does the 3.5% infection rate reflect a bottom to top transmission? Was this 3.5% in a year, a decade, when?
• Were these “partners” in relationships or just sex-partners?
• Or did they just say, “Here are some cut men and here are some uncut men. Let’s see to what extent they seroconvert”?

This story is but another illustration of why it is important that gay men and women are included in reporting stories that effect our lives. It would be interesting to know the extent to which bottom to top HIV transmissions occur and whether circumcision of the top could impact this transmission. But reporting like this tells us nothing of much use at all.

Goodbye, Fierce Advocate

365gay.com has compiled a comprehensive list of accomplishments by the late Sen. Edward Kennedy on behalf of the LGBT Community. Scanning the list, it becomes clear that the gay community had no better friend in either house of Congress than in Sen. Kennedy. From championing efforts to provide basic HIV/AIDS care in the 1980s when Sen. Jesse Helms and others were proposing quarantines and concentration camps, to insuring the American with Disabilities Act covered individuals with HIV, to standing firm against efforts to write discrimination into the federal constitution, Sen. Kennedy was out in front — often way out ahead of everyone else in leading the way for equality. That’s what a fierce advocate really looks like. The Lion leaves behind an empty den. He will be sorely missed.

Sen. Edward Kennedy (1932-2009)

“For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die.”

Sen. Edward “Ted” Kennedy, the last surviving brother of the Kennedy dynasty, died last night in his home at Hyannis Port, Massachusetts, after more than a year-long battle with brain cancer. He was 77. His family released a statement announcing his death:

Edward M. Kennedy — the husband, father, grandfather, brother and uncle we loved so deeply — died late Tuesday night at home in Hyannis Port.

We’ve lost the irreplaceable center of our family and joyous light in our lives, but the inspiration of his faith, optimism, and perseverance will live on in our hearts forever.

We thank everyone who gave him care and support over this last year, and everyone who stood with him for so many years in his tireless march for progress toward justice, fairness and opportunity for all.

He loved this country and devoted his life to serving it.

He always believed that our best days were still ahead, but it’s hard to imagine any of them without him.

Like many great men, Ted Kennedy was himself a bundle of contradictions. His personal life was touched by tragedies and failures, but he achieved greatness by transcending those setbacks in the service of his country. A man of privilege, he was a staunch supporter of the downtrodden, including the LGBT community when there were precious few allies in Congress. He was an early proponent of funding for HIV/AIDS research and care in the 1980s, battling conservative religious hostility and White House indifference to the emerging epidemic. In the early 1990’s he became an early supporter of gay rights legislation and voted to strip “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” from the National Defense Authorization Act in 1993. He stood up as one of only fourteen Senators to vote against the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. During the 2004 debate on a proposed federal constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, Kennedy said:

“We all know what this issue is about. It’s not about how to protect the sanctity of marriage, or how to deal with activist judges. It’s about politics and an attempt to drive a wedge between one group of citizens and the rest of the country, solely for partisan advantage …  The Constitution has never been used as a tool to entrench currently popular views at the expense of an unpopular minority – and it should not be used that way now.”

In 2007, Sen. Kennedy grilled President George Bush’s anti-gay nominee for Surgeon General, Dr. James Holsinger about a 1991 paper Holsinger wrote about the “Pathophysiology of Male Homosexuality.” During the confirmation hearing, Kennedy blasted the nominee for the paper’s “unscientific, biased, and incredibly poor scholarship.” Holsinger was never confirmed for the position.

More recently, Ted was the chief sponsor of the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act and the fully-inclusive Employment Non-Descrimination Act. Despite his illness, he was working on building support for repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

Kennedy received the nation’s highest honor in July when President Barack Obama awarded him the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Pres. Barack Obama today praised Kennedy as “the greatest United States Senator of our time.” Sen. Harry Ried, Senate Majority Leader, said that we have lost our nation’s patriarch. With Kennedy’s passing, the Senate has lost it’s great Liberal Lion, and the LGBT community has lost a valued friend.

Live Nation, Ticketmaster Promote Murder Music Concert Tour

Live Nation and Ticketmaster are promoting a new concert tour by Jamaican danchall artist Buju Banton who is renowned for lyrics calling for the murder of gay people. Announced concert venues include such cities as San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, Newark, Dallas, Houston, and Las Vegas.

Buju Banton has a long history of performing songs advocating violence against gay people, including one song, “Boom Bye Bye” which calls for gay people to be shot in the head with automatic weapons, have acid poured on them, and burned “like an old tire wheel.” UK LGBT Activist Peter Tatchel called the song “probably the most murderous incitement recorded by any singer anywhere in the world.” Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch confirmed that Buju Banton was among six men involved in a gay bashing in June 2004 in Constant Spring, Jamaica. UK

The portions of Buju Banton tour promoted by Live Nation will hit House of Blues franchises in four cities: Chicago (Oct 1), Las Vegas (Oct 15), Dallas (Oct 20) and Houston (Oct 22). House of Blues is owned by Live Nation.

Ticketmaster is promoting not only the four House of Blues dates, but also thirteen other concerts across the country. Concerts being promoted by Ticketmaster include: Philadelphia (Sept 12); Bladensburg, MD (Sept 13); Revere, MA (Sept 18); Newark, NJ (Sept 20); Norfolk, VA (Sept 25); Richmond VA (Sept 26); Detroit (Sept 30); Cincinnati (Oct 2); Columbus, OH (Oct 3); Minneapolis (Oct 4); San Francisco (Oct 10); Los Angeles (Oct 14); and Atlanta (Oct 24).

According to VH1, other cities on the tour include Providence, RI; New Haven, CT; Charlotte and Raleigh, NC; Richmond, VA; Denver; Aspen; Salt Lake City; Eureka, CA; Albuquerque; Charleston, SC; Jacksonville, Miami, Orlando, and Ybor City, FL.

August 25 Referendum 71 Update

With 110,288 signatures reviewed (80.1%), a total of 97,261 have been approved (80.7% of those needed). The cumulative fail-rate is 11.77%.

No new “third check” signatures moved from “not registered” to “accepted” today. I don’t yet know why. I estimate that about another 800 signatures that have been reviewed will be moved for an adjusted fail-rate of 11.05%.

However, the daily rejection rate for missing signatures was far below the trend so I really don’t know what they did today.

UPDATE:

For those wondering what\’s happening with the “third check,” the third checkers are still reviewing the outcome of, and compiling the stats for, the volumes past No. 220. By tomorrow night, we hope to have the final numbers for another 100 volumes.

Late Registrations Accepted by Washington Secretary of State

The Elections Division of the Washington Secretary of State has clarified that it will count as “accepted” the signatures of persons not registered to vote at the time they signed so long as their registration has been processed by the time that their name is triple-checked with the live database.

In other words, the deadline to sign Referendum 71 was July 25th. But because most names have not yet been triple checked, if you were not registered at that time (or you just made up a bunch of names) you could probably still register today and get your signature added back into the accepted pile.

There is no deadline for registering to vote for purposes of qualifying an initiative or referendum; as a practical matter, the deadline is the date that the signature on the petition is checked. Checkers are instructed that a signature on a petition is valid if they find a person with the same name in the voter registration file, and the signature on the petition matches the signature in the voter registration file. The registration date has never been a limiting factor.

I recognize that the purpose of the petition process is to reflect the will of a sizable segment of the electorate. I also understand that elections officials want to increase voter registration and see the petition process as a tool for increasing participation in democracy. I further get that they don’t want to deny a legitimate citizen the right to be heard due to a technicality about when those who took their registration filed the forms.

But this policy appears to be both susceptible to abuse and possibly inconsistent with state law.

… when the person or organization demanding any referendum of an act or part of an act of the legislature has obtained a number of signatures of legal voters equal to or exceeding four percent of the votes cast for the office of governor at the last regular gubernatorial election prior to the submission of the signatures for verification, the petition containing the signatures may be submitted to the secretary of state for filing.

I see no language allowing provisional voters or future voters or unregistered-but-intending-to-register-some-day voters.

PFOX Declares Victory in Court Defeat

In March 2002, Parents and Friends of Exgays and Gays – an anti-gay political activist group – requested an exhibit booth space at the NEA annual convention, EXPO 2002 in Dallas, TX. The NEA said, thanks but no thanks.

PFOX sued in the District of Columbia under the District’s very inclusive Human Rights Act claiming discrimination against ex-gays. On May 24, 2005, the Office of Human Rights issued stated that PFOX had no probable cause because ex-gays are not members of a protected class under the HRA based on the plain language of the statute and even if PFOX was part of a protected class, NEA rejected PFOX\’s application for non-discriminatory reasons.

PFOX appealed in federal court and on June 26, 2009, Federal Judge Maurice Ross issued his opinion.

The basis for OHR’s finding that ex-gays are not protected was that because PFOX denies that orientation is immutable, therefore they by definition were not discriminated against due to an immutable characteristic. In other words, those who believe orientation to be innate are protected by non-discrimination laws while those who believe it is transitory are not.

While that is an amusing and ironic position, it didn’t fly with the judge. Because the case was tried under D.C.’s HRA, there is no requirement for immutable characteristics.

Indeed, the HRA lists numerous protected categories such as religion, personal appearance, familial status, and source of income, which are subject to change. The HRA\’s purpose is “to secure an end in the District of Columbia to discrimination for any reason other than that of individual merit….”

And it is on this partial finding that PFOX is declaring a great victory. In their press release today they announce:

In a precedent setting case, the Superior Court of the District of Columbia has ruled that former homosexuals are a protected class that must be recognized under sexual orientation non-discrimination laws. The Court held that, under the D.C. Human Rights Act, sexual orientation does not require immutable characteristics.

Well, yes. In the District of Columbia, one cannot be discriminated against solely because of their ex-gay practices.

Nor should they be.

We have long stated and truly believe that non-discrimination policies that protect happily gay men and women also protect heterosexuals and those same-sex attracted persons who now call themselves heterosexuals. Ironically, it has been a standing practice of PFOX to oppose all non-discrimination policies under the claim that they discriminate against ex-gays.

However, as this ruling is based on D.C.’s HRA, it is limited to the District.

And, most importantly, the judge found that it is perfectly reasonable for the NEA to exclude PFOX. Because the NEA did not exclude them for being ex-gay, but rather because they have a disruptive political agenda that is contrary to that of the NEA.

The NEA did not reject its application because PFOX\’s members include exgays, homosexuals, heterosexuals, or members of any other sexual orientation. Rather, NEA rejected PFOX\’s application because PFOX\’s message and policies were, in NEA\’s opinion, contrary to NEA\’s policies regarding sexual orientation.

So PFOX lost.

And their only “victory” was one that most gay folk would be willing to concede: that ex-gays should not be subject to discrimination just for being ex-gay but ex-gay political groups can be excluded because of their message.