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 lobbyNovember 2nd, 2010
Yesterday was the due date for the filing of the response of the Proponents of Proposition 8 to Ted Olson’s rebuttal of their appeal. And, interestingly, for their premise they took a page out of NOM’s book and cried, “Don’t call us bigots!”
The response went something like this: Good and decent people differ over who should be allowed to marry; these people are not bigots; therefor they have a reasonable basis for their gendered definition of marriage other than just to harm gay people; and thus Proposition 8 meets constitutional review.
But the overwhelming majority of people on both sides of the same-sex marriage debate, in California and throughout the country, are good and decent Americans, coming from all walks of life, all political parties, all races and creeds. Their opinions on this issue are motivated by nothing more than “a sincere desire to do what’s best for their marriages, their children, their society,” ER517 (Rauch), and are entitled to consideration and respect. And their opinions on this issue are not static, but rather are constantly evolving and changing as the debate and experience matures.See Jonathan Capehart, Obama Begins Shift on Gay Marriage,THEWASHINGTONPOST, Oct. 28, 2010 (President Obama quoted as saying that attitudes on same-sex marriage evolve, “including mine.”).
People of good will can and do differ in good faith on the issue of same-sex marriage, and their differences should be resolved through the political process, not here.
All of which is fine and good and none of which addresses whether the intent and purpose of this particular proposition was to single out gay people and remove from them a fundamental right shared by all others. And that is why the trial of fact was so important; it found that regardless of after-the-fact purportedly lofty ideals, this proposition was prepared, packaged, and sold based on anti-gay animus.
The rest of the brief is a recitation of their argument (with lots of use of the phrase “procreative purpose”): gay people can’t be identified or defined, they are politically powerful, they can become heterosexual, and thus discrimination targeting them is not subject to heightened review; banning marriage between gay people does not deny their fundamental right to marriage; children are better in heterosexual families, deference should be given to bald bigotry (or “instinctive, deeply ingrained beliefs”), and the court should ignore the campaign materials and believe that Proposition 8 was all about channeling heterosexual procreation instead of protecting little girls from hearing in school that they could marry a princess too. In other words, a barrage of opinion, lies, misstatements, and misdirection, none of which had anything to do with Proposition 8 and all of which is contrary to the findings in Judge Walker’s court.
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:
DN
November 2nd, 2010
ugh – I am so sick of the claim that gay people can marry anyone they want, as long as they are of the opposite sex.
My American boyfriend cannot marry any foreigner and live in America. If he marries a woman, that’s immigration fraud (up to $250,000 fine and / or up to five years in jail). If he marries a man, that man gets none of the immigration rights that heterosexuals get.
lurker
November 2nd, 2010
We’ve heard this kind of argument in a lot of different forms before. E.g.,:
Good and decent people differ over who should be allowed to come to my Christian-only country club; the people who only want Christians there are not bigots; therefore they have a reasonable basis for their wish to associate only with other Christians than to harm Jewish people; and thus laws banning Jews from places of public accommodation meet constitutional review.
lurker
November 2nd, 2010
To extend the analogy for what these people are saying:
– You can’t really tell what a person’s religion is by looking at them so Jewish people shouldn’t get state protection from discrimination,
– Jewish people are politically powerful so they shouldn’t get state protection,
– Jewish people can convert to Christianity so they shouldn’t get state protection,
– Jewish people can have their own country clubs so the state can’t insist that we let them to ours,
– Jewish people can marry other Jewish people so it’s ok if there’re state-sanctioned prohibitions against inter-religious marriage,
– Christian families are vastly superior anyway so Jewish families shouldn’t get state protection comparable to what Christian families get,
– Christian kids should only associate with their own kind so they never learn that people of other religions exist except as vile, icky foreigners.
Therefore, state discrimination against Jews and other non-Christians is OK.
Regan DuCasse
November 2nd, 2010
They don’t want to ACTUALLY read any legal precedents where some minorities were distinctly discriminated against in similarly creative ways.
They don’t want any comparisons made against previous arguments that came from people who supported Jim Crow, and miscegenation and anti Semitic policies.
Oh no.
See, they don’t want to actually understand how those people thought themselves decent too. Preserving the best in society in the interest of future generations.
A mongrel child like our President, couldn’t POSSIBLY have had the intelligence or ability to be a Harvard Law school graduate.
Because as all those decent folk back in the day were certain, mixed people are deformed, and would cruelly have to straddle the line between two worlds and never be full welcome in either.
History, especially so RECENT a history as the Civil Rights Act and the Brown vs. Brd of Ed. decisions as well as Loving vs. VA can clearly show: decent people aren’t as decent as they think they are. Nor are their motives decent whenever they take for themselves, but deny another human being because of what he IS. Not necessarily what they DO.
So yes, NOM…your attacks on justices who do their jobs and read the Constitution precisely, your ads, your essays, articles and speeches ECHO the bigots.
Ring of the voices of the worst enemies of equality and freedom.
If they simply compared who was defending what and how, they could see it.
But no, they’ll play the victim song to the bitter end and count themselves SO oppressed by a system that defends what it must.
lurker
November 3rd, 2010
“decent people aren’t as decent as they think they are”
this.
Sal Ignab
November 3rd, 2010
Replace “gay” with “Catholic” and you get a fun argument: Catholic people can’t be identified or defined, they are politically powerful, they can become Jewish, and thus discrimination targeting them is not subject to heightened review; banning marriage between two Catholic people does not deny their fundamental right to marriage (they can still marry their dogs); children are better in mixed-religion families, etc.
Should we tolerate a proposition to ban Catholic marriages? (Maybe we should!)
T.J.
November 3rd, 2010
Lurker: great analogy and expansion. It goes to show that in another, less politicized context, it becomes abundantly clear how ridiculous the whole thing is. And I have to say that the argument that gay people can marry just as freely as hetersexuals as long as they marry someone of the opposite sex is so incredibly stupid that I cannot believe the justices don’t burst out laughing at them in the middle of the hearing! LOL!
Leave A Comment