Box Turtle Bulletin
News and commentary about the anti-gay lobby“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
News and commentary about the anti-gay lobbyThis commentary is the opinion of the author and may not necessarily reflect that of other authors at Box Turtle Bulletin
May 21st, 2010
California Senator Barbara Boxer has long been a friend of our community. But she has also long been considered a relatively weak candidate, and as the Democrat is 168 years old (ok, really only 69) and this is a “mid-term election”, there is a good chance that she could be defeated in November. Our community should be very concerned about who her Republican opponent will be.
There are three candidates for the Republican nomination:
Chuck Devore – Devore is the choice of the hard-core right. He’s is the old-school family values candidate who is running for office so as to protect the family from horrible people like you, me, and sinners of various flavors. He’s endorsed by the usual collection of knuckle-draggers.
Carly Fiorina – Fiorina is the “business candidate”. She was a successful executive at Hewlett Packard and is probably somewhat moderate on social issues. However, she is trying to sell herself as a “conservative” and thus distinguish herself from Campbell (including the now infamous Demon Sheep ad which seriously backfired). Fiorina created domestic partnership programs at HP, but also voted for Proposition 8. She has the endorsement of Sarah Palin.
Tom Campbell – Campbell is a fiscal conservative and social moderate, and a long-time friend of our community. In October 2008, Campbell wrote a piece for Reason Magazine in which he argued that Republicans should support gay marriage and oppose Proposition 8.
Depending on what poll you read, Campbell is either slightly ahead or about tied with Fiorina. And there are only three weeks left before the primary election. He needs our support.
That Campbell is an ally is a good reason to support him in the California Republican Primary. That he’s much needed in Washington is another.
Campbell is uniquely equipped to address the problems we are currently facing. Tom has a PhD in economics and has taught law at Stanford, with a particular emphasis on the application of economics to legal problems. It’s known in political circles that Tom is usually “the smartest person in the room.”
If there is one thing that the Senate is lacking, it’s people who understand economics. Or perhaps those who can do remedial math.
Campbell is a fiscal conservative, but not in a crazy way. Although he’s been twice rated as the most “fiscally responsible” member of Congress, he refuses to sign the wacky “no taxes” pledges or make promises that sound good to ideologues but are irresponsible in practice.
But perhaps the most convincing argument as to why you should support Tom Campbell is that the National Organization for Marriage has been running a campaign against him. Their biggest fear is that California might send a Republican to the Senate who supports marriage equality and harm their divisive game of playing one party off the other. If Campbell were to be elected, it would send a message that Republicans too can support basic fairness and equality.
So NOM has been running ads in the state trying to claim that Campbell is no different from “liberal Barbara Boxer”, in the hopes of hurting him in the primary. Tom, to his credit, has been classy in his response, refusing to throw us under the bus for a few votes. They have now started a campaign of robo-calls.
“The explicit message of this campaign is: don’t vote for Tom Campbell, because he supports gay marriage as well as raising taxes,” said Brian Brown, President of NOM, in a statement.
This is a blatant appeal to bigotry.
I desperately do not want this election to give NOM more perceived power or greater influence over the positions of future candidates. If Tom loses, there is no question but that they will threaten any other Republican who considers abandoning homophobia or anti-gay policies.
Please take a moment to consider whether and how you can help Tom Campbell and give him a chance to present his case against Barbara Boxer. I would very much like to know that whoever wins in November, California’s Senator will remain supportive of my rights.
(Please note that decline-to-state or independent voters may request the primary ballot of any party and can vote for Campbell in June)
Latest Posts
Featured Reports
In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.
When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.
In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.
On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.
Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"
At last, the truth can now be told.
Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!
And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.
Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.
Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.
Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.
The FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.
“Google” is a trademark of Google Inc.
© Box Turtle Bulletin. All Rights Reserved.
Posts 
Posts via daily email:
gar
May 21st, 2010
Actually, I think Tom Campbell is the only Republican in the race who has a chance of beating Boxer. Fiorina probably less so, particularly after her ludicrous sheep ad; and Devore even less so. So this sounds more like an endorsement for Campbell rather than an argument to have a “good” Republican run against her.
Gay rights are personally important to me, but I’m not a one-issue voter. I could never vote for Campbell because of his stance on a myriad of issues, including the environment and economic policy.
Folks have been writing Boxer’s political obituary since time immemorial — and she has repeatedly been reelected. The race is close, but I think she will likely win another term. In any case, that is where my vote is going.
Grant
May 21st, 2010
Both my partner and I (CA residents) are decline-to-state voters, and have request ballots to vote in the Republican primary. While we intend to vote for Brown for Governor, we plan to vote for Campbell in the R primary. We haven’t decided if we’ll vote for him in the general, should he win the R primary – but we’d certainly take him.
I think your message is a good one – and should help to deflect the right-wing (and gay right-wing) meme that the LGBT community always reflexively votes for Democrats.
Mark F.
May 21st, 2010
Campbell is a mixed bag. He’s very good on gay issues, but his “fiscal conservatism” is dubious. A real fiscal conservative would favor deep spending cuts and no tax increases. (I don’t believe jacking up tax rates would increase government revenue much anyway.)
I can’t support him because he supported the illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq which needlessly killed thousands and he is now promoting a dangerously hawkish foreign policy and is dismissive of granting suspected terrorists full legal rights.
Note: I don’t support Boxer either.
JT
May 21st, 2010
Grant, are you sure that if Campbell went to the Senate that he would vote for ENDA or DADT repeal (if those haven’t been voted on in that time)?
Are you sure that he wouldn’t just vote No along with most of the other Republicans on everything that Obama tries to accomplish?
Jonathan Oz
May 21st, 2010
I’m not a big fan of “moderate” Republicans. I put up with eight years of “moderate” Pete Wilson as Governor. I am still putting up with “moderate” Arnold Schwartzenneger.
Given a choice between Campbell and De Vore, of course I’d vote for Campbell. Given a choice between Barbara Boxer and Campbell, Boxer wins by a knock out. I don’t toss out a steadfast ally simply because a supposedly “moderate” and “gay friendly” Republican shows up. Boxer has been a good Senator and deserves to be re-elected with our suppport
Emily K
May 21st, 2010
I’m eager for someone who understands just HOW to be “fiscally conservative.” Lately that seems like just a buzz-phrase for someone who wants to appear to be the “right kind of conservative” – as in, “see? i’m not a social bigot, i just vote republican cuz i like being economically responsible!” ..but really their true beliefs couldn’t be further from that premise.
Taxes are necessary. We don’t like them, and we’ll argue to the death which ones are the “fair” ones and which ones are the “crooked” ones, but they are necessary. And if spending the public’s money is increased, then taxing the public also needs to be increased. That’s why cutting spending is necessary. But it doesn’t come from places people think it needs to come from – for example, the largest amount by far spent on “welfare” goes not to impoverished, sexually irresponsible unmarried brown people who “have their bad luck coming to them” but to senior citizens (of all colors), who happen to account for a huge voting bloc. Good luck getting rid of THEIR government-fed benefits. One bottom line fact is this: If you go to war, you need to raise taxes; at the very least you cannot cut them. Otherwise you end up owing a lot of money to China. Hmm..
For years Bush’s republican administration tried to perform economic alchemy, but it didn’t work. We have a shit-load of economic problems now. Both parties are really two sides of the same coin, let’s face it. But at least Democrats don’t generally try to fly the flag of “fiscal conservatism.” In a crooked way it seems just a tad more honest.
John in the Bay Area
May 21st, 2010
The last balanced budget was under a Democratic president, Bill Clinton.
I came of age in the Carter/Reagan period. When I hear Republicans talk about fiscal conservatism, I think cutting social spending, cutting taxes with most benefits going to upper income folks, increased Defense Budgets and increased deficits. How that program is going to prevent an eventual debt crisis is unclear to me.
Ever since I was a kid, I always thought that “tax and spend” was so much more responsible than “borrow and spend.”
Tom Cambell isn’t exactly the typical Republican, but ultimately it doesn’t matter. Budget and tax bills don’t require 60 votes, just 50 plus 1. So, it is unlikely he would have much, if any, effect on our fiscal situation, unless his Republican colleagues went along with him. Based on the last 30 to 40 years, I doubt they will do anything other than pay lip service to moving back towards the balanced budgets of the end of the Clinton Administration.
Ryan
May 22nd, 2010
Sorry, I’d much rather Devore win the primary, which will lead to an easy win for Boxer. I see no reason to support a Republican, any Republican. Romney used to be for gay rights too, remember.
Gary Burton
May 22nd, 2010
GARY: The article describes Fiorina as a successful business leader at HP. In fact, her term as CEO was brief, she made several disastrous decisions that threatened to sink the company and she was forced out by the board. The possibility of her finding a comparable position at another company was minimal after her history at HP, so she turned to politics. Naturally, her campaign has re-written the history of her “business success,” but it’s clear she would be a disaster in office just as she was at HP. I always prefer voting for the best person in the race, which is obviously Campbell in the primary, and Boxer in November.
Ben in Oakland
May 22nd, 2010
I haven’t voted for any Republican since john anderson in 1980, and milton marks (San Fran) since his last election before he died.
The party of fiscal repsonsibility? Never happened.
The party of individual rights? Not if you’re gay.
The party of limited govenrment? Only not when they want to tell you what you can put in your body, whether substance or body part.
The party of freedom? Only if you’re christian.
Our greatest tragedy as a countrY? The only party worse for the ountry than the democrats is the republicans.
TomTallis
May 22nd, 2010
Campbell has moved far to the right (I call it the Matt Fong syndrome) in order to get the nominiation. I congratulate him on sticking to his guns on gay rights, but because he has been so “flexible” on other issues, I don’t trust him.
Barbara Boxer has her priorities straight, she has always been an eloquent defender and promoter of our rights and she’s been one of the most effective senators for California in history.
I see no reason to change now, especially when deep spending cuts on a federal level will make the curret depression worse, not better. Boxer understands this. Fiscal conservatives do not and, at the moment are a positive danger to our future economic well-being.
K in VA
May 22nd, 2010
A vote for Tom Campbell (reasonable though he may appear to be, for a Republican) is a vote to help the Republicans retake control of the Senate.
What fool would want that to happen? Weak and timid as Obama and most of the Democrats are, they’re still light years ahead of most Republicans when it comes to equal rights.
We may not have accomplished much in Congress in the last year and a half. But we haven’t had votes on writing us out of the U.S. Constitution, either.
Vote for Barbara Boxer! Vote for Democrats! They’re timid little mice, yes, but they’re not evil vipers like damned near every Republican in the U.S. Congress.
Luke
May 22nd, 2010
Agree with K in VA.
Look at the big picture – if a Republican wins in California this fall, it is likely that they will be be the 50th Republican, just one party defector or other unpredictable situation away from a Republican majority. It doesn’t matter how moderate individual Republicans are, because they will still vote to make Mitch McConnell majority leader! That means that the mainstream Republican party gets to set the agenda, and all gay rights legislation is set back for at least two years.
RWG
May 22nd, 2010
I’d rather cut off my right arm than ever vote for a Republican, not even for dog-catcher. Never, never, never…and I’m starting to feel the same about the Dems.
Burr
May 22nd, 2010
It’s not about voting for him in November.
It’s about helping him win the primary at least so that the GOP stops lurching towards bigotry.
TomTallis
May 23rd, 2010
To say that the GOP is “lurching” toward bigotry is to ignore the incontrovertable fact that since Nixon’s Southern Strategy and Reagan’s inviting the religious right into the party, the very foundation of Republican thought and philosophy rests on bigotry. Without bigotry there would be NO Republican Party.
Leave A Comment