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 lobbyOctober 15th, 2010
Anti-gay activists argue that the federal government has an obligation to appeal pro-gay rulings as far as they can. And this administration has – to date – chosen to appeal decisions that have been made in Federal Court which find anti-gay laws and policies to be in violation with the US Constitution.
But this argument is false. There is no legal obligation to defend laws, much less appeal the rulings of judges. And this administration’s Justice Department does not always challenge cases that they lose: (WaPo)
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled Aug. 6 that the Park Service’s regulation forcing individuals or small groups to obtain a permit for First Amendment activities was unconstitutional. But the court upheld the agency’s policy of setting aside designated park areas for larger demonstrations and the sale of printed material after applicants obtained a permit.
The Justice Department this week declined to appeal the ruling.
Servicemembers United, which is furious with the Obama Administration for their decision to appeal Judge Phillips’ finding on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, noted their choice. They also noted who had challenged the Park Service, the notoriously anti-gay Alliance Defense Fund.
“In the very same week, the administration says that it absolutely must appeal a federal court’s decision on ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ while it orders the Justice Department not to appeal a federal court’s ruling in favor of the conservative Alliance Defense Fund. This contradiction is simply incomprehensible and insulting,” said Alexander Nicholson, Executive Director of Servicemembers United and the sole named veteran plaintiff in the case along with the Log Cabin Republicans. “Servicemembers United renews its call for the administration to withdraw its appeal of both the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ ruling and the injunction pursuant to that ruling.”
I happen to think that the ruling reducing permit requirements for small casual gatherings is not unreasonable. But you have to admit that Nicholson has a point.
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:
Andrew
October 15th, 2010
I don’t see how anyone is surprised. I openly regret voting for Obama. I wanted Hillary. Still do actually. But he’s such an slap in the face for the gay community.
Priya Lynn
October 15th, 2010
No guarantee Hillary would have been any different. She doesn’t support marriage equality either.
johnathan
October 15th, 2010
This may only effect but a few people, but the refusal to appeal sends a strong message from the Obama admistration: “Gays are worthless, until we need campaign money.”
This, along with several other recent Obama administrative decisions, has finally confirmed what I have failed to realize all along: I am finally going to vote Green Party in the next Presidential Election. I am not a “gaily-forward” party ticket voter, but Obama has hereby lost my vote. I do not care that my vote may lead to a Republican winning the election. It won’t. (I live in Arizona, anyhow.)
I will, hereafter, vote from my heart, as opposed to being swayed from pandering to the gay community — only to be forgotten the day after voting day.
Rick Rosendall
October 15th, 2010
I think we deserve to be screwed and screwed and screwed again if we don’t stop this obnoxious and dishonest habit of turning disappointment with Obama into an excuse for reviving old resentments about Hillary Clinton not winning the nomination.
Every Hillary supporter who justified their hostility to Obama by citing his opposition to marriage equality and the fact that he was supported by homophobic Illinois state senator James Meeks was either stunningly uninformed or stunningly dishonest. Hillary opposes marriage equality too, and she was supported by the now-notorious Bishop Eddie Long of Georgia.
You are not entitled to your own facts. The causes for which we are fighting are too important to be exploited for cheap intraparty sniping.
John
October 16th, 2010
Seems to me that the real force behind this is Secretary Gates. If memory serves, he was not really behind repeal, to begin with. We all know, unfortunately, that a lot of the time Obama does not act like he’s in charge. How many times has he put his foot down and said, “this is the way it’s going to be”? His actions don’t back up his speeches.
andrew
October 16th, 2010
I’m of two minds here. I heard a former Solicitor General give a very cogent argument about why cases need to be defended by the Executive (DOJ) on the Maddow show. He gave the example of the Health Care legislation that passed this year.
Basically if you allow a single Federal-level judge to overturn a law without appealing, then it effectively allows an executive to take any law they don’t agree with, go shopping for a judge, and overturn acts of Congress.
For example, imagine Obama is replaced by a Republican who disagrees with the health care legislation. The case of the states could be steered into the court of a conservative judge, who then throws out the health care legislation. Then the White House refuses to appeal, effectively forming a conspiracy between a single judge and the Executive to overturn the will of Congress. It sets a terrible precedent.
In that vein, I’m VERY disappointed to see the DOJ picking and choosing which cases to appeal. That really pisses me off.
Thomas
October 16th, 2010
This is beyond disappointing. Obama’s argument regarding having to appeal is baloney. He has chosen to not appeal other cases; however, when it comes to gay issuus he choses to appeal. He has lied to our community and there is no denying it now. He can’t have it both ways: he says pretty words but acts in direct opposition to those words. This is about dignity and respect. I dont think I can support this man. To do so would be to accept that I have no dignity and will accept crumbs from our “fierce” advocate.
BobN
October 17th, 2010
Wow… this is pretty weak stuff.
Yes, the ADF won this, but the changed in rules allows gay people the same freedom of assembly.
Plus the rules were not a law passed by Congress.
Weak. Really, really weak.
Debrah
October 28th, 2010
Andrew is right on this one. The Obama administration doesn’t have as much latitude to decide which cases to overturn as people would like to think.
Another very important difference in the cases the administration has chosen to appeal versus those it hasn’t has to do with the strength of the case. The Park Service’s case was a very weak case, and was actually an appeal from the District Court level. The next level of appeal would have been to the Supreme Court, and that’s a different bag of beans. The DADT case however, is being appealed to Court of Appeals, the same level as the Park Service’s case ended.
Leave A Comment