Box Turtle Bulletin

Obama Asks For Study Of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”

Hoping to avoid the missteps of the Clinton administration, when the Democratically-controlled congress forced Bill Clinton to back down from an order allowing gays to serve openly in the military, President Barack Obama has asked the military for a comprehensive assessment of the impact of rescinding “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” According to the Boston Globe:

At the Pentagon, officials say they have been told not to expect the administration to seek to lift the ban quickly. One senior officer, speaking on the condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to speak to the press, said staff officers for Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have been told it will be several months at the earliest – possibly not even this year – until the top brass will be formally asked to weigh in on a change in policy.

And even then, he said, the military has been assured it will have wide latitude to undertake a detailed study of how a change in the policy would affect the military.

Sources indicate that the study may be part of a strategy to win over military brass as well as congressional lawmakers for repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” During his presidential campaign, Obama committed to allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly, but he has not committed to a timetable.

Steele: Republican Party Needs to Reach Out to Gay Supporters

The new chairman of the Republican Party, Michael Steele, told Chris Wallace this morning that the party needs to reach out to supporters of abortion rights and gay rights:

WALLACE: You are one of the co-founders of something called the Republican Leadership Council…

STEELE: Yep.

WALLACE: … which supports candidates who favor abortion and gay rights.

STEELE: Yep.

WALLACE: Does the GOP need to do a better job of reaching out to people who hold those views?

STEELE: I think — I think that’s an important opportunity for us, absolutely, because within our party we do have those who have that view as well as outside.

And my partnership with Christy Todd Whitman was an effort to hopefully build a bridge between moderates and conservatives in the party. I’m a pro-life Roman Catholic conservative, always have been.

WALLACE: You also support a constitutional amendment against gay marriage.

STEELE: That’s right. And the reality of it is this, because I don’t think we should muck around with the Constitution. We can deal with that at the state level, OK? That’s my personal view.

[Ed: Steele may have misunderstood Wallace’s question. Steele supports anti-marriage amendments on the state level but has spoken against a federal marriage amendment – which seems to be what he is saying here.]

But the reality of it is the party has to recognize the diversity of opinion that’s out there. And we’re not going to get everyone to agree with the — Ronald Reagan said it best. If you agree with me 80 percent of the time, I think that’s good enough. I mean, I think we can move forward on that 80 percent.

So there are some 80-percent issues out there that we can work with those within our party and outside our party and create a new bridge and a new opportunity. That was my involvement with the RLC, and I’m very happy about that.

WALLACE: But just to press on this…

STEELE: Yep.

WALLACE: … if you believe — if someone believes in a woman’s right to choose, if someone believes in gay civil rights, where’s the 80 percent agreement with the Republican Party?

STEELE: It could be — it could be on our — on economics.

WALLACE: No, but I’m talking about on those issues.

STEELE: Well, you know, see — now, Chris, you’ve just defined — you’ve just defined the world in which there are issues. You’ve just narrowed — you’ve just narrowed my scope to two issues.

WALLACE: No, I’m just saying on those issues, is there 80 percent agreement?

STEELE: Well, if there — if that’s the 20 percent they disagree with us on, let’s work on the 80 percent where they agree with us. That’s my point.

I’m not going to allow anyone to define the issues for us and say, “Well, these are the only two issues that really matter.” There’s a whole range of issues out there in which we can address the American people and the American people can come to our table.

Michael Steele is not a supporter equality for gay citizens. But he is a supporter of those who are. And this is a very positive step for the party. Not because of what Steele believes, but because his election was a symbol of a desire to change and a willingness to place inclusion ahead of dogmatism.

Matt Barber Supports Jailing Married Same-Sex Couples

Nigeria has one of the most draconian anti-gay laws on the books. Right now, consenting gay sex is punishable by up to 14 year in prison with hard labor. Now, Nigerian lawmakers are upping the ante with a new anti-gay bill which would make same-sex marriage punishable by up to three years in prison. The bill also would imprison anyone who attends a gay wedding with up to five years behind bars.

The anti-same-sex marriage bill goes beyond mere same-sex marriage. It also gives police the right to raid any public or private gatherings of any group of people suspected of being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender.

And it goes beyond Nigerian citizens, posing a threat to non-Nigerians as well. Anyone who married anywhere and returned to Nigeria, as well as anyone who is married to a same-sex partner who travels to Nigeria — including foreign business people — can be jailed.

In other words, there are some 36,000 Californians who face up to three years imprisonment with hard labor if they should step foot in Nigeria.

Matt Barber, of the Liberty Counsel, is completely on board with that:

Barber believes Nigeria and any other country ought to be free to express its own culture without outside interference.

“We have the Defense of Marriage Act on the books [in the United States]; why aren’t they coming after the U.S.? Well, because what bullies do is they pick on someone that is weaker than they are,” he notes. “So the European Union is trying to make an example out of Nigeria because they are in a position of influence and power, yet they will not pick the same fight with the United States because they know it would be to no avail.”

Matt surely knows there is a huge difference in how American laws and Nigerian laws treat LGBT people. One merely provides governmental non-recognition of same-sex marriage while the other imposes harsh prison terms in a Central African prison for anyone, including non-citizens and visitors, who are married.

Why would Barber overlook this massive difference? Maybe he wishes that difference wasn’t really there. His vigorous defense of the Nigerian bill, one that could even jeopardize American visitors, suggests that he sees imprisoning LGBT Americans and others around the world as nothing short of progress. Or at the very least, entirely defensible.

Do Ex-Gays Hook Up In Ex-Gay Programs?

Peterson Toscano spills:

Virginia To Recognize Box Turtles

This just in:

J. Chapman Petersen, Delegate from Virginia’s 37th District, has introduced State Senate Bill 1504 to designate the Eastern Box Turtle as the official state reptile of Virginia.

It’s about time Box Turtles got a little respect in Virginia. Now if only they’d see fit to recognize gay people.

[Hat tip: David]

Today In History: Another Conference For Creating Change

Today, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force is wrapping up it’s annual Creating Change conference in Denver, Colorado. Unfortunately, I was unable to attend. But I did spend some time at our local library, paging through some old LGBT magazines from fifty years ago. That’s where I learned that, by coincidence, another important national conference hosted by leading LGB (not T) leaders was also taking place exactly fifty years ago today.

The following report appeared in the March 1959 issue of The Ladder, which was the official publication of the Daughters of Bilitis, the nation’s first organization for Lesbians. The report was of the ONE, Inc. Midwinter Institute held in Los Angeles on January 31 and February 1.

ONE, Inc, you may remember, published ONE magazine, which was the first national magazine for gays and lesbians. ONE had just come off of a stunning Supreme Court victory one year earlier in which the Court ruled that just because ONE dealt with homosexuality, it was not automatically pornographic because of the unpopular subject matter.

Unlike today’s LGBT conferences which are organized with the goal of changing laws and societal attitudes, this conference was focused on much more pressing needs for the individuals who attended: Are gays mentally ill? (The audience broke into sustained applause on the suggestion that it isn’t) Is it natural? Why is there so much hostility from religion? How do we improve the lives, mental well-being, and relationships of gay men and women? There was even a revealing roundtable discussion on social separatism between lesbians and gay men, a discussion which would foreshadow subsequent debates on political separatism between lesbians and gay men with the rise of the women’s movement in the 1960’s.

One thing that I found interesting is that the esteem held for psychology was never higher than it was then. Psychiatrists, psychologists and psychoanalysts were regarded with the same awe and deference as rocket scientists and astrophysicists. Since this conference was focused on homosexuality and mental health, they naturally took center stage, where their opinions were avidly sought but rarely questioned — except occasionally by each other. A particularly interesting discussion broke out among professional leaders and Dr. Evelyn Hooker, who was in the audience. Dr. Hooker had by then published three groundbreaking studies which suggested that homosexuality was not a mental illness (although because her studies were ongoing, she was coy about making a declarative statement to that effect at the conference). It would be another fifteen years before her work would become the basis for the APA’s removal of homosexuality from its list of mental disorders.

This unabridged report from The Ladder provides a fascinating look at the state of the gay community fifty years ago, and it gives us a great perspective on how far we’ve come since then. The author of The Ladder’s report was listed as Sten Russell, which, in fact, was a pseudonym for Stella Rush; “Helen Sanders” was actually Helen Sandoz. Homosexuality was listed as a mental illness and gay bars were banned or shut down under state liquor laws. Much has changed, but there’s still much more to do. People do still get fired from their jobs and shunned by their families.

They say we can’t know where we’re going unless we know where we’re coming from. We’re still on a long journey, but we have traveled many miles in the past fifty years. This is a good opportunity to pause and reflect on that journey.

Original report of the ONE Institute on Mental Health and Homosexuality is after the jump

LDS Prophets’ Latest “Revelation”: Church Gave $190,000 To Pass Prop 8

When supporters of Prop 8 went to Federal Court to try to block the public release of the names of late donors, they said that their move was to protect individual donors from harassment. Now we know the real reason Yes on 8 had to try to circumvent California’s open campaign finance laws. In fact, Yet On 8’s chief benefactor had 190,000 reasons to fight the release:

Mormon church officials, facing an ongoing investigation by the state Fair Political Practices Commission, Friday reported nearly $190,000 in previously unlisted assistance to the successful campaign for Prop. 8, which banned same-sex marriage in California.

The report, filed with the secretary of state’s office, listed a variety of California travel expenses for high-ranking members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and included $20,575 for use of facilities and equipment at the church’s Salt Lake City headquarters and a $96,849 charge for “compensated staff time” for church employees who worked on matters pertaining to Prop. 8.

The Mormon church had been under investigation by the Fair Political Practices Commission for failure to report its contributions as required by law. The investigation was prompted by a complaint filed by Fred Karger, of Californians Against Hate.

IRS regulations barred from endorsing political candidates, but they allow churches and religious groups to campaign and contribute on behalf of issues. When doing so, churches are required to report their contributions just like every other donor. They are also required to report and attach fair market dollar values to “in-kind” donations, which consist of services and activities provided directly without charge by a donor that a campaign would otherwise have been required to pay for.

Until yesterday, Mormon church had denied any direct financial support for the campaign. I guess some of the Mormon prophets in Salt Lake City had one of their famous “revelations” last night.

Republican Party Resists Moving Further Anti-Gay

Most political pundits can take a glance at polling trends and predict that basing a party on conservative social policies is not a long-term winning strategy. But political parties, and those that direct them, don’t alway place logic, social change, or even the future viability of the party as a higher priority than entrenched ideology. And the Republican Party has been especially eager to hold firm to homophobic positions in the face of a decreasingly homophobic nation.

And today the Republican Party will make a decision about its future. It will choose a new leader and the choices represent either a sharp turn right, a stay the course, or a more moderate future social agenda.

None of the candidates can be considered advocates for gay equality. But one, Michael Steele, has illustrated an openness towards gay members and a common cause with some of those in the Party who are advocates for gay rights.

The voting isn’t over and the decision has not been made. However, reports are that the field has been narrowed to either the current chairman, Mike Duncan, or the more moderate selection, Steele (who appears to be in the lead). In either case, those who have build their identity on blatant and unabashed homophobia – including raging gay-hater Ken Blackwell – have now been eliminated. And that is a good thing for the gay community.

UPDATE:

Duncan has withdrawn his name. Steele is currently in the lead but does not have a majority.

UPDATE TWO: Michael Steele has won the chairmanship of the Republican Party. The former lieutenant governor of Maryland is also the Party’s first African-American to hold the position.

Steele has a difficult road ahead of him. He will be at the helm of a party that is shrinking in number, has control of no branch of government, and is fighting the perception of being old, white, and Southern. Steele will also oversee an inevitable fight between those who seek to keep the party the standard bearer for social conservatism and a permanent voice of dissent and those who seek to moderate social issues, reestablish fiscal principles and bring the Party into the 21st Century.

I wish Steele well and hope that he finds the wisdom to lead the party into an age of inclusion and away from sectarian dogma and social obstructionism. I hope he lives up to his opening comments:

“We’re going to say to friend and foe alike: We want you to be a part of us, we want you to with be with us, and for those who wish to obstruct, get ready to get knocked over”

Judge Says Prop 8 Donors Must Be Made Public

U.S District Judge Morrison C. England, Hr. denied an attempt by the Yes on 8 to overturn California’s Political Reform Act. The act, which was approved by California voters in 1974, requires political campaigns to disclose the name, occupation and employer of anyone contributing $100 or more to the campaign. Yes on 8 campaigns sought to withhold disclosing the names of late campaign donors.

Common-Law Marriage for Same-Sex Couples in Colombia

The South American country of Colombia recognizes a legal vehicle called “common-law marriage”. It is a means by which two people who are living as married are considered married even though they may not have gone through a ceremony or registered with the state.

In Colombia, common law marriages are between those who have lived together for two years or more in a permanant union and neither of whom are married either to each other or anyone else. Until yesterday, they also needed to have been between a man and a woman.

But on Wednesday, the courts of Colombia determined that same-sex couples living together could also have all of the rights of common-law marriage.

The court’s ruling means that civil and political rights such as nationality, residency, housing protection and state benefits will now be granted to same-sex partners.

This was an extension of an earlier decision. In February 2007 the Courts granted property and inheritance rights and in April 2008 added pension and health benefits.

In June 2007, the Colombian legislature attempted to enact civil unions but were thwarted by intense pressure from the Catholic Church and by an unusual political ploy.

Ironically, had civil unions been put in place in 2007, the courts may not have decided as they did. Now to the extent that heterosexual common-law couples are said to be married, so too are same-sex couples.

If You’re Attending The Creating Change Conference This Weekend

The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force “Creating Change” conference is being held in Denver this weekend. Fellow ex-gay survivor Christine Bakke and I will be giving a 90 minute seminar on the ex-gay survivor movement this Saturday at 3pm. Most seminars are on Friday or Saturday and discounted registration for a single day is available. Download a PDF of the full schedule of events here.

Anti-gay Arguments We Don’t Bother With (And Should): Part 2

This is the second post in a five-part a series about anti-gay arguments that get the short shrift in public debate; we examine them here. Readers are encouraged to contribute to the discussion below.

#2: If you let gays marry, then you will have to allow polygamous, incestuous or inter-species marriage.

This is, essentially, the “box turtle argument.”

Interpreting the statement literally: it is clear that legally recognizing gay marriage does not entail doing so for polygamy, incestuous marriage, or marrying animals; these are all separate propositions. The legal determination of what a marriage is can be specified so as to allow gay marriage but not extend to marrying a box turtle. In the same way that certain states have provisions in their constitutions defining marriage as “between a man and a woman,” it could also be specified that marriage rights extend to same-sex couples but — if one is really so worried about people marrying box turtles and the rest — not to (1) more than two people; those who are (2) blood related; and (3) animals.

The “box turtle” statement above is really making the case against gay marriage by not making the case: It is not telling you what is wrong with gay marriage, but rather saying that if you allow gay marriage then you will have to allow something else you might not like.

But the literal meaning is different from the underlying argument. The question being asked is: how does the argument for gay marriage — loosely construed as “you should be able to marry the person you love” — fail to extend to polygamy, incest, or inter-species marriage? The problem in encountering the argument is that it asks you to argue — on a case-by-case basis — against polygamy, incest, or marrying animals, or show how the argument for gay marriage is different from an argument that could be made for these things. Further underlying this statement is the belief that relaxing the restrictions (viz. procreation) on marriage will lead to future deterioration in the definition of marriage and, as an inevitable result, social anomie.

1) Well, if you can just marry whomever you love, what stops you from allowing X type of marriage?

This is a twisted overgeneralization of the criterion “whom/what you love.” Gay rights advocates off-handedly state this — as opposed to simply biology — as the criterion for being able to marry someone. Maybe we should be more specific from the get-go to pre-empt this, specifying that you should be able to marry the person you love as long as they meet X requirements and this is why X requirements are important, but this is a bit unwieldy.

The assumption is that you disagree with X type of marriage, which isn’t a trivial point (for instance, I happen to think Mormons who practice polygamy should be able to structure their families as they please so long as the marriages are not coerced and the participants are of age). This question asks you to get off-track; you end up arguing against polygamy or incest. Nevertheless, here are some general thoughts that I hope BTB readers with different opinions will be able to add to.

Polygamy: My strategy here would be to shift the burden of proof and make a devil’s advocate argument.

For those who cite procreation as the basis of marriage, polygamy should be fine given that it is an efficient way to increase the population. Also, polygamy might even be more “natural” than two-personal marriages given the assumption that men are sexually voracious; this version of marriage accommodates what people think is a biological predisposition to promiscuity among men. It is really the philosophical basis of straight marriage that supports polygamy; those arguing against gay marriage on the basis of procreation have the burden of showing why polygamy is wrong.

Incest: Here, you can’t use the biology argument against anti-gay-marriage people given that children of incest are more likely to have genetic deformities. But you can say that children of gay couples are not prone to this same problem either because they are adopted or naturally conceived by non-genetically-related couples (barring blood-related gay couples). The argument against incest — preventing genetic abnormalities — is sufficient enough in itself to distinguish this case from gay marriage.

For those who are religious, the Bible is packed with divinely sanctioned instances of incest. But I try to steer clear of Biblical arguments, which are tedious and rarely fruitful.

Inter-species: This is the most ridiculous. Marriages are partnerships and animals are not capable of rational decision making to enter into one. Also, marriage involves questions of inheritance, taxation, making medical decisions, etc. that animals cannot make. Anti-gay activists make this argument in response to the statement that one should be allowed to marry whom one loves. But of course it is implicit that we mean humans.

2) Relaxing the restrictions (viz. procreation) on marriage will lead to future deterioration in the definition of marriage and, as an inevitable result, social anomie

I think it is important to frame this as an “opening up” of marriage. As conservative columnist David Brooks of the New York Times has argued, respecting the sanctity of marriage should include allowing gay marriage. It is actually strengthening relationships and families. Outlawing gay marriage actually leads to a “breakdown of society” by discouraging healthy relationships.

The best argument against the “breakdown of society” charge is not hypothetical, though: it’s the state of Massachusetts, which has one of the lowest divorce rates, highest levels of education and income in the country; since gay marriage was legalized, the divorce rate has only dropped. The sky hasn’t fallen there and there is little evidence to suggest that the state is about to allow polygamy, incest, or inter-species marriage.

Saddleback’s New Definition, Courtesy Of Dan Savage

Gay sex advice columnist and author Dan Savage isn’t known for holding back against people he views as enemies of the LGBT community. Angered by anti-gay comments made by former Senator Rick Santorum, Savage named a rather disgusting and previously un-named phenomenon relating to anal-sex after him. Performing a Google search on “Santorum” turns up Savage’s definition as the top item.

And now we get to Savage’s recent anger with Rick Warren of Saddleback Church. What is a “Saddleback” exactly? Savage wasn’t sure it had any definition so he took it upon himself to create one. After polling his readers Savage has announced his new definition of Saddleback / Saddlebacking:

From the new website Saddlebacking.com

Savage finds this new definition apropos because of Warren’s ideological promotion of abstinence-only programs which not only don’t work, but result in teens substituting anal-sex and oral-sex believing they aren’t “real” sex.

Upgrading Washington’s Domestic Partnerships

In 2007, the state of Washington introduced Domestic Partnerships. Last year they included additional coverage. This year they are taking the final steps (Seattle Times)

The 110-page bill makes changes to all remaining areas of state law where currently only married couples are addressed. The bill would add same-sex domestic partners to state statutes ranging from labor and employment to pensions and other public employee benefits.

Both of the sponsors, Sen. Ed Murray, D-Seattle and Rep. Jamie Pedersen, D-Seattle, seem confident. Last year’s upgrade passed the House 62-32 and the Senate 29-20. HB 3104 enjoyed bipartisan support in both houses (all of the Democrats plus five Republicans) and no supportive Republicans lost re-election due to their vote.

Mel White, Reality TV Star?

Click to view Mel and Mike’s “cast interview”

Soulforce founder Mel White and his son Mike have been cast in the soon-to-start next season of CBS’s Amazing Race. The show premiers on Sunday, February 15th, 8:00pm ET/PT and the usual suspects from the religious right haven’t thrown a tantrum yet so there isn’t much else to put in my post just yet.

You can also view their bio on the CBS website here.

Hat tip to my mom.