Box Turtle Bulletin

Miss California Pageant Replaces Carrie Prejean

The Miss California Pageant can’t fire Carrie Prejean; that privelege lies only with the owner, Donald Trump, and he won’t announce his decision before tomorrow. But they’ve pretty much given up on her ever fulfilling her duties. (LA Times)

Carrie Prejean, the controversial Miss California, was neither fired nor embraced today by local pageant officials. Instead, frustrated officials said at a news conference in Beverly Hills that they would simply circumvent her and appoint first runner-up Tami Farrell as “our official Beauty of California ambassador.”

In effect, they created a shadow Miss California to fulfill the appearances they claim Prejean has been unavailable to do. The co-executive director of the pageant, Keith Lewis, described the local pageant as little more than helpless passengers “on this runaway train.”

With Carrie dedicating all her time to anti-gay evangelism, they have been unable to reach Prejean and she has proven unwilling to participate. She thinks she’s found a better gig.

God and Satan Battled Over Carrie

Carrie Prejean\’s pastor thought she was like Esther, who risked her life to save the Jewish people. Now Carrie thinks that she\’s the center of attention for both God and Satan.

“I felt as though Satan was trying to tempt me in asking me this question. And then God was in my head and in my heart saying, ‘Do not compromise this. You need to stand up for me and you need to share with all these people … you need to witness to them and you need to show that you\’re not willing to compromise that for this title of Miss USA.\’ And I knew right here that it wasn\’t about winning. It was about being true to my convictions.”

Oh good heavens.

Lying About The Hate Crime Bill, #1: “The Thirty Sexual Orientations”

You can always tell when our opponents are really scared. Their lies become more ridiculous. Such is the case with the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 (also known as the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act). The proposed legislation expands the already existing federal hate crime law to include violent crimes based on the victim\’s actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, and/or disability. The current law already covers actual or perceived race, ethnicity, color and religion.

One of the most egregious lies is this one, as told by the American Family Association:

The Hate Crime law, S.909 (and HR1913), will make 30 sexual orientations federally-protected. The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has published 30 such sexual orientations that, because of Congress’s refusal to define “sexual orientation,” will be protected under this legislation.

Focus On the Family’s James Dobson also jumped on the bandwagon as well:

As I’m recording this video greeting, there’s a so-called hate crimes bill that’s working its way through the congress that contains no adequate safeguards to protect the preaching of God’s word. Because the liberals in Congress would not define sexual orientation, we have to assume that protection under the law will be extended to the 30 sexual disorders identified as such by the American Psychiatric Association. Let me read just a few of them: bisexuality, exhibitionism, fetishism, incest, necrophilia, pedophilia, prostitution, sexual masochism, urophilia, voyeurism, and bestiality. Those are just a few. And I have to ask, have we gone completely mad?

Well, it appears that Dobson has. He, the AFA, the Traditional Values Coalition, Liberty Counsel, and many, many others, are pushing this obnoxious notion. Let’s break it all down, shall we?

“Congress would not define sexual orientation”
This line was brought up when the Hate Crimes Act was working its way though the House Judiciary Committee. During the hearing, Congressman Steve King (R-Iowa) sought to add an amendment to the bill indicating that the term sexual orientation does not include pedophilia.

This attempted amendment was, of course, a deliberate attempt to play on the slander that homosexuality is equivalent to child molestation — a slander that has no basis in the professional literature. But Rep. King pressed on in his attempt to write that slander into U.S. law, claiming that the law doesn’t define sexual orientation.

The problem, of course, is that the federal law which directs the FBI to collect hate crime statistics already includes a very specific definition of sexual orientation. The law’s definition goes like this:

As used in this section, the term “sexual orientation” means consensual homosexuality or heterosexuality.

It couldn’t be much clearer than that. Sexual orientation is exactly what everyone knows it to be: an orientation based on one’s own gender and the gender to which that individual is sexually attracted.

“The APA Defines Thirty Sexual Orientations”
But what if Federal law hadn’t already defined sexual orientation and we had to fall back on the American Psychiatric Association’s definition? Well, it turns out that the APA’s official definition is not much different from the federal government’s. The APA’s official handbook, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-IV-TR, 2000) offers a very precise definition of how clinicians should describe a client’s sexual orientation:

Specifiers
For sexually mature individuals, the following specifiers may be noted based on the individual’s sexual orientation: Sexually Attracted to Males, Sexually Attracted to Females, Sexually Attracted to Both, and Sexually Attracted to Neither. [Emphasis in the original]

In other words, the APA defines only four sexual orientations. And they do so in order to provide a consistent description of an individual’s sexual orientation. It is not a diagnosis itself, since homosexuality is not listed as a mental disorder.  And just so everyone’s clear on exactly what the APA means by their very short description of sexual orientation, they provided an expanded discussion on their web site:

Sexual orientation is an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual, or affectional attraction toward others. It is easily distinguished from other components of sexuality including biological sex, gender identity (the psychological sense of being male or female), and the social gender role (adherence to cultural norms for feminine and masculine behavior).

Sexual orientation exists along a continuum that ranges from exclusive heterosexuality to exclusive homosexuality and includes various forms of bisexuality. Bisexual persons can experience sexual, emotional, and affectional attraction to both their own sex and the opposite sex. Persons with a homosexual orientation are sometimes referred to as gay (both men and women) or as lesbian (women only).

So where did the list of thirty “sexual orientations” come from? Let’s turn again to the APA’s DSM-IV-TR under the heading of “Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders,” namely the APA’s examples of sexual paraphilias:

The Paraphilias are characterized by recurrent, intense sexual urges, fantasies, or behaviors that involve unusual objects, activities, or situations and cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning. The Paraphilias include Exhibitionism, Fetishism, Frotteurism, Pedophilia, Sexual Masochism, Sexual Sadism, Transvestic Fetishism, Voyeurism, and Paraphilia Not Otherwise Specified.

The DSM goes further, identifying specific criteria for diagnosing these various paraphilias, something that the DSM does not do for sexual orientation. And the reason is simple: sexual paraphilias are mental disorders according to the DSM, while homosexuality is not. Which is why the DSM devotes several pages to sexual paraphilias — and describes them as an impairment to normal functioning — but just a few words to consensual adult homosexuality, heterosexuality or bisexuality, which the APA reminds us “is not an illness, a mental disorder, or an emotional problem.”

So just to be clear:

• Sexual orientation is strictly limited to the realms of homosexuality, heterosexuality, bisexuality and asexuality.
• All the other stuff — pedophilia, exhibitionism, masochism, and the other twenty-seven paraphilias are not sexual orientations. Homosexuality, heterosexuality, bisexuality and asexuality are not paraphilias.
• The proposed hate crime laws covers only sexual orientation, and not paraphilias.

In other words, you can still punch a pedophile and not risk running afoul of the proposed hate crime law. I wouldn’t recommend it — you’d still be liable for assault charges, but there would be no federal hate crime enhancements involved.

If you won’t believe me, then how about Dr. Jack Drescher? He’s a member of the APA’s DSM-V Workgroup on Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders, one of the groups working on the next revision of the APA’s manual. He confirmed everything I said, and went further:

Pedophilia is not a sexual orientation, nor would pedophiles be covered by a law protecting people for their sexual orientation. Religious social conservatives who oppose gay rights are using terms that sound like science, as opposed to actual science, to make unwarranted and malicious comparisons between homosexuality and pedophilia. Not only is this scare tactic untruthful, it reveals how little respect some religious conservative leaders have for the intelligence of the people they are trying to persuade.

It is indeed a scare tactic, and anti-gay activists know full well that it is a blatant distortion of the APA’s position on sexual orientation and paraphilias. Remember, Dobson holds a Ph.D. in psychology. He clearly knows that he’s lying, and he has chosen to do so as a deliberate tactic. There’s simply no other plausable explanation. And as the bill comes closer to passing and being signed into law, their rhetoric is likely to get worse, not better. Stay tuned.

See also:
– Lying About The Hate Crime Bill, #2: “A Danger To Religious Freedom”
– Lying About The Hate Crime Bill, #1: “The Thirty Sexual Orientations”

Anti-Gay School Board President wants “Carrie Prejean Day”

This is a week old, but I just noticed it.

Jim Gibson is a trustee of the Vista Unified School Board in Vista, the city in northern San Diego County that Carrie Prejean calls home. His wife, Cathy, is the San Diego area director for Concerned Women for America.

Gibson is delighted that one of his alumni has taken such a prominent anti-marriage position. So much so that he wants the school district to honor her.

Trustee Jim Gibson said this week he wants to make June 1 “Carrie Prejean Day” in the district. He called Prejean, a 2005 Vista High School graduate, a “good, strong role-model.”

“We’re setting her up as an example,” he said. “As far as I’m concerned, she’s a great role-model, and she’s a person who needs to be emulated.”

Gibson’s proposed proclamation calls Prejean an “exemplary student leader” who “showed integrity, leadership, dedication and high moral standards” in the Miss California and Miss USA pageants.

This is not the first time that Gibson has gotten excited about opposing same-sex marriage. He unsuccessfully tried to get the school board to endore Proposition 8.

Gibson is planning on presenting the proclamation to the board on May 14th. If it passes, perhaps the students can emulate Carrie’s high moral standards by coming to school topless.

New Hampshire Would be the Sixth What, Exactly?

New Hampshire could be the sixth gay marriage something-or-other, but finding the language to fit is not a straight-forward task. Considering the methods by which states have reached (and retreated from) marriage rights, putting them in order depends on what one is measuring.

The order in which states have granted recognition to same sex couples

1. District of Columbia 1992 (blocked by Congress until 2002)
2. Hawaii 1997
3. California 1999
4. Vermont 1999
5. Connecticut 2005
6. New Jersey 2004
7. Maine 2004
8. New Hampshire 2007
9. Washington 2007
10. Oregon 2007
11. Maryland 2008
12. Iowa 2009
13. Colorado 2009

The order in which courts have found that states must provide marriage and/or all its rights and benefits to same-sex couples:

1. Hawaii 1993/1997 (reversed by Constitutional amendment)
2. Vermont 1999
3. Massachusetts 2003
4. New Jersey 2006
5. California 2008 (perhaps reversed by Constitutional amendment)
6. Connecticut 2008
7. Iowa 2009

The order in which states provided virtually all of the same benefits as marriage

1. Vermont 1999
2. California 2003 (with subsequent minor adjustments to fix differences)
3. Massachusetts 2003
4. Connecticut 2005
5. District of Columbia 2006 (with adjustment in 2008)
6. New Jersey 2006
7. New Hampshire 2007
8. Oregon 2007
9. Washington 2009
10. Maine 2009

The order in which legal marriages were first performed

1. Massachusetts – 5/17/2004
2. Iowa – 8/31/2007 (only one)
3. California – 6/16/2008
4. Connecticut – 11/4/2008
5. Vermont – 9/1/2009 (Scheduled)
6. Maine – around 9/14/2009 (Scheduled)

The order in which continuous legal marriages began to be offered

1. Massachusetts – 5/17/2004
2. Connecticut – 11/4/2008
3. Iowa – 4/27/09
4. Vermont – 9/1/2009 (Scheduled)
5. Maine – around 9/14/2009 (Scheduled)

And should New Hampshire\’s bill be signed, it will be sixth.

Outrage Over “Outrage”

The documentary Outrage is certainly living up to its name. Filmmaker Kirby Dick delves into the secret lives of Washington politicians (all of them men) who publicly denounce LGBT people by day, but who secretly seek the comfort of other men by night — the very men they worked against during the day. Many of these figures are very powerful and well-known. Blogger Mike Rogers, who features prominently in this film, has been dubbed “the most feared man in Washington” for his dogged efforts to unmask Sen. Larry Craig, Rep. Ed Schrock, and many others.

On May 7, Mike Rogers appeared on a local Washington, DC talk show with host Doug McKelway about the film. McKelway, despite not having seen the movie yet, obviously had quite an axe to grind. At about the 2:45 mark McKelway said he wanted to take Rogers outside and punch him across the face:

I think Mike did a remarkable job of holding his ground, and even tripping McKelway up in admitting that he agreed with the principle behind Mike’s outing of hypocritical politicians.

After receiving numerous complaints, McKelway addressed calls for an apology for his behavior. McKelway’s response? “Mike Rogers, you’re not getting one!”

Outrage opens tonight in select cities.

Amid More Discharges, Obama Promises DADT Repeal

Lt. Daniel Choi is a West Point graduate and Iraq vet and an Arabic language specialist. Three qualities that are badly needed in today’s military. He’s also gay. And for that, he was thrown out of the military for “moral and professional dereliction.” His only moral or professional dereliction was to refuse to lie about his sexual orientation. Lt. Choi appeared on Rachael Maddow’s program last night:

In related news, Second Lieutenant Sandy Tsao decided to come out last January, when she wrote a letter to Barack Obama:

I am a Second Lieutenant currently serving in the United States Army. In addition to being an officer, I am a Christian, a woman and a Chinese-American. I am proud of all these identities. Lastly, I am also a homosexual. On December 21, 2007, I was appointed as an army officer. In the oath of office I swore that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Unfortunately, I will not be able to fulfill this oath because the current policy regarding sexual orientation contradicts my values as a moral human being.

Today is Chinese New Year day. I hope it will bring good fortune to you and your newly elected office. Today is also the day I inform my chain of command of who I am. One of the 7 army values is integrity. It means choosing to do the right thing no matter what the consequences may be. As a Christian, this also means living an honest life. I cannot live up to this value unless my workplace ‘provides an environment free of unlawful discrimination and offensive behavior’. [ Excerpt from the U.S. Army’s Equal Opportunity Branch ( EO ) Mission Statement. ]

We have the best military in the world and I would like to continue to be part of it. My mother can tell you it is my dream to serve our country. I have fought and overcome many barriers to arrive at the point I am at today. This is the only battle I fear I may lose. Even if it is too late for me, I do hope, Mr. President, that you will help us to win the war against prejudice so that future generations will continue to work together and fight for our freedoms regardless of race, color, gender, religion, national origin or sexual orientation.

Respectfully, Sandy Tsao, 2LT, MP.

Pres. Obama responded with a personal handwritten note addressed to Tsao:

Sandy —

Thanks for the wonderful and thoughtful letter. It is because of outstanding Americans like you that I committed to changing our current policy. Although it will take some time to complete (partly because it needs Congressional action) I intend to fulfill my commitment!

Barack Obama

Tsao’s last day in the service will be May 19, 2009.

Boycotted Hotelier Looking For Resolution

Last summer, San Diego hotel owner Doug Manchester donated $125,000 to the effort to pass California’s Proposition 8. Gay activists responded with a call to boycott the hotels he owns and operates. Those hotels include the the San Diego Marriott Hotel and Marina, the Grand Del Mar, Whitetail Club and Resort, and the big daddy of them all, the Manchester Grand Hyatt San Diego. Now it looks like Manchester is trying to get out from under the boycott:

His plan – which his people warned this newspaper against publishing, even after a Hyatt representative discussed it – is to give $25,000 to a national organization that promotes civil unions and domestic partnerships. Manchester also is considering offering $100,000 in hotel credit to local gay and lesbian organizations so they can use the Grand Hyatt for events such as fundraisers. The $125,000 total matches what he gave to Proposition 8. So it would be even-steven.

Is Manchester now among those who say they oppose same-sex marriage but have no objection to civil unions or domestic partnerships? If so, we’ve heard those words before. If that’s the point he’s trying to make, I don’t know of any national organization that promotes civil unions and domestic partnerships exclusively, or at the expense of marriage.

Besides, donating $125,000 now to ostensibly pro-gay causes, after his large donation previously helped to strip LGBT Californians of their rights last summer isn’t exactly “even-steven.” It might have been a legitimate “even-steven” offset during last fall’s campaign, but it’s not now after the damage has been done.

Fred Karger, whose Californians Against Hate is spearheading the boycott, says he has not been contacted by anyone associated with Manchester, and local San Diego LGBT groups haven’t heard anything about the proposed credits. I don’t see how any resolution can be achieved without dialog with representatives of the local gay community.

I Predict a New Hampshire Decision Today

Governor Lynch received the New Hampshire marriage bill on Wednesday, the 6th. He has 5 days to respond.

Politicians seeking to minimize a news story love to go to the press on Friday afternoon. Folks tend to be socially engaged on the weekend, and less likely to watch the news. Additionally, the talk shows and news commentaters are off and by the time that Monday rolls around there’s a good chance that their story will have been eclipsed.

Governor Lynch is going to suffer outrage regardless of whether he signs or vetoes this legislation, or even if he just lets it go into effect without his signature. So, if I were him, I’d announce my decision late today.

UPDATE:

It looks like my predition did not come true.

I’m not certain as to the actual deadline for Governor Lynch’s signature. If he does not sign or veto within five days, the bill becomes law. By my count, that will be Tuesday, May 12. However, I’m not completely clear as to whether that includes weekend days and some are suggesting (thanks Bruno) that there may be delay based on procedural requirements.

But in any case, we will know by next week at this time whether New Hampshire will be the sixth state which legally recognizes the right for same-sex couples to marry.

Episcopalians Win Tentative Ruling about Fresno

St. James Cathedral

In December 2007, John-David Schofield, the Espiscopal Bishop officiating out of Fresno, declared that his precint was seceding from the Episcopal Church and putting itself under the authority of a South American Anglican Archbishop. The Episcopal Church replaced Schofield with Bishop Jerry Lamb in March of 2008 and the two parties have been in conflict ever since over who owns the extensive properties of the San Juaquin Diocese.

The court has now tentatively sided with the Episcopal Church.

Bishop Jerry Lamb said he is very pleased with a nine page tentative ruling. Lamb said a judge recognized him as the legal authority which means if the ruling becomes final Lamb controls all Central Valley Episcopal Churches including Saint James Cathedral. Lamb said, “A lot of people have been hurt on all sides of this question. It’s not a time of celebration. It’s a time of being pleased that we can go forward.”

This follows a similar ruling in January that returned St James Parish in Newport Beach back to the national body.

A Beautiful Ad Supporting Marriage

The ad Equality California should have ran a year ago.

Obama’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” On Marriage

When Pres. Barack Obama tried to quell the outrage over selecting Saddleback pastor Rick Warren to give the invocation at the Inauguration, Obama promised to be a “fierce advocate of equality for gay and Lesbian Americans.” But lately he hasn’t been so fierce. Obama has backtracked on his promise to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and a recent re-vamping of the White House web site on Civil Rights has dropped all mention of repealing the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

The silence on DOMA is particularly strange because during the Democratic primaries he used his stance on DOMA’s full repeal to distinguish himself from then-Sen. Hillary Clinton. She wanted to retain the provisions permitting states to refuse recognition of same-sex marriages performed in other states. He campaigned on its full repeal.

But since then, Obama has clammed up altogether as a number of states have taken action to recognize same-sex marriage. Iowa, Vermont, Connecticut, Maine, and possible New Hampshire — that’s quite a remarkable procession in just a few short weeks. It’s hard to imagine such a remarkable series of developments go unnoticed. But the phrase “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is quickly becoming an apt description for the White House’s approach to marriage:

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs was asked during the press briefing Wednesday if President Obama had any reaction to same-sex marriage becoming legal in Maine.

… Jake Tapper (The Advocate): Does the President or the White House have a reaction to the Governor of Maine signing a same-sex marriage bill?

Robert Gibbs: No, I think the President’s position on same-sex marriages has been talked about and discussed.

Tapper: He opposes same-sex marriage.

Gibbs: He supports civil unions.

Tapper: Does that mean that he’s going to say or do anything against what the citizens of Maine —

Gibbs: Not that I’m aware of. I think the President believes this is an issue that’s best addressed by the states.

This silence over marriage is just one example of Obama’s timidity where LGBT civil rights are concerned. Richard Socarides, who served as a Clinton White House staffer from 1991 to 1993 and was openly gay at the time, wrote in an op-ed in the Washington Post over the weekend asking what happened to our “fierce defender”?

I understand that the president has his hands full saving the economy. But across a broad spectrum of issues — including women’s rights, stem cell research and relations with Cuba — the Obama administration has shown a willingness to exploit this change moment to bring about dramatic reform.

So why not on gay rights? Where is our New Deal?

It is the memory of 1993’s gays-in-the-military debacle (and a desire never to repeat it) that has both the president’s advisers and policy advocates holding back, waiting for some magical “right time” to move boldly.

This is a bad strategy. President Obama will never have more political capital than he has now, and there will never be a better political environment to capitalize on. People are distracted by the economy and war, and they are unlikely to get stirred up by the right-wing rhetoric that has doomed efforts in the past.

The White House did release a statement urging passage of the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act, and that is not something that should go unnoticed. But Obama’s timidity on the more substantive gay issues is now getting noticed outside the gay press and blogosphere. The New York Times has noticed his absence today — and brought out a key inconsistency on his stance toward marriage:

Anything substantive he might say on same-sex marriage — after the Iowa ruling, the White House put out a statement saying the president “respects the decision” — would be endlessly parsed. If Mr. Obama were to embrace same-sex marriage, he would be seen as reversing a campaign position and alienating some moderate and religious voters he has courted.

…Mr. Obama supports a legislative repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, the 1996 law that said states need not recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. Opponents of same-sex marriage say that is an inconsistency.

Opponents aren’t the only ones who see this as an inconsistency. Your humble scribe does so as well. And with DOMA being deep-sixed from the White House Civil Rights web stite, my willingness to give Obama the benefit of the doubt shrinks proportionately.

In the past several weeks, there has been a remarkable sea-change on marriage equality. Four (possibly five) states are being added to the marriage equality column. This was unimaginable just a few months ago in the wake of California’s passage of Prop 8. But these remarkable development has been utterly invisible to the White House.

Obama promised bold leadership on these issues but we haven’t seen it. How can he be bold when he’s not even bothering to catch up?

Want an Exotic Island Vacation? Try Tahiti

Suffering from record low tourism, some organizers in Tahiti want to tap into a new market, gay travelers. From the Age:

Tahiti is promoting itself as a gay-friendly tourist destination for the first time, to help boost the tropical island’s ailing visitor numbers.

The Pacific nation has organised its first openly gay “rainbow party” for wealthy gay tourists from around the world in a bid to bolster tourism, Tahiti Presse reports.

Perhaps those who read French will know more from the source article, but it appears that while Tahiti does not have a pro-gay history, they’d certainly love to have your tourist dollars and will treat you much better than Jamaica.

RNC Responds to Maine Marriage Bill

At first it looked as though the Republican Party was going to walk away from the Maine marriage decision whistling and looking away as if they didn’t notice. But finally Chairman Michael Steele released the following statement:

Our party platform articulates our opposition to gay marriage and civil unions, positions shared by many Americans. I believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman and strongly disagree with Maine\’s decision to legalize gay marriage.

Steele spoke of what “the platform” articulates about “our opposition” rather than trying to suggest that opposition to both marriage and civil unions is the position of a majority of Republicans. Further he said that “many” rather than “most” Americans share the platform’s positions. As for his opinion, he limited it to marriage and didn’t discuss his personal beliefs on civil unions.

There is no suggestion that this is thwarting the will of the people or accusations of undue activism or calls for initiatives. There is no appeal to tradition, God, founding fathers, the fabric of society, or 5000 years of definition.

This two sentence statement appears not to have been broadly released nor was there a press conference. This suggests to me that the Republican leadership wants a low profile about same-sex marriages – especially those passed by a legislature – at this time. I would find it hard to craft a more tepid response.

Whether this is because of a change in perspective, polling data, some new found respect for states rights, or just plain political calculus, I welcome it. And I’m awfully glad that Michael Steele is the current head of the RNC rather than, say, Ken Blackwell.

Maine’s Senators, both of whom are Republican women who have been supportive of gay rights, both stated that they support the rights of the state to determine its own marriage laws. While neither fully came out and endorsed the bill, neither had anything negative to say about it either. This was also the reaction of the White House.

In fact, other than the usual ranting voices endorsing religious oppression, the objection to the actions taken in Maine, New Hampshire, and the District of Columbia have been muted to the extent they have been raised at all.

Effort To Repeal Washington DP May Lack Support

Danny Westneat, a Seattle Times columnist, discussed with Joe Fuiten, a family values activist, about whether conservatives would expend effort to reverse Washington’s latest Domestic Partnership upgrade.

“It’s dumb to try to repeal it,” he said. “We’d lose. We’d set our whole cause back.”

On his website, Fuiten illustrates that the thinking in conservative circles is to leave it alone and save political capital for fighting against full marriage inclusion.

I have had conversations with heads of denominations, pastors, members of the House and Senate, political consultants, attorneys who have represented us on these issues in the past, lobbyists, Republican party leaders and staff, leaders of political organizations, leaders of pro-life organizations, educators, current and former candidates for various offices, Catholics and Protestants, funders, a conservative talk show host, activists, and citizens.

I have tried to cast a wide net to get a sense for the attitude of the people who would need to make the Referendum happen. From that a pretty consistent message has emerged.

Out of that group, six people have said, yes, we should definitely run a Referendum, three people offered conditional support, and over 25 people said, “DO NOT RUN a REFERENDUM”.

Fuiten noted that the support for the referendum was found primarily in Russians and Russian language speakers.