Box Turtle Bulletin

House gives gay Congressmen special rights

One of the ironies of anti-gay antagonism is that it sometimes results in gay people being removed from provisions that are designed to eliminate abuse. Sometimes anti-gays are so determined to deny that gay people have real lives and real relationships that they are willing to allow gay couples (which don’t really exist, you see) to get away with behavior that would otherwise be banned.

From Roll Call

The House Ethics Committee has overhauled its instruction manual for completing annual Congressional financial disclosure forms, sidestepping a proposed provision that would have for the first time requested the spousal information of same-sex couples.
…
Under the heading “Same-Sex Marriages,” the draft version stated that “In 2009, there were a total of four states which issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples: Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa and Vermont. (New Hampshire and the District of Columbia began issuing such licenses effective in 2010). If you and your spouse were issued a marriage license by any of these states and were subsequently legally married in that state, you must disclose all required spousal information on your Financial Disclosure Statement.” The new instruction manual deleted this section entirely.

Members of Congress and certain staffers are required by federal law to report income, investments and liabilities. The source of spousal earned income — though not the amount — is requested on the annual disclosure form, and assets owned by the spouse must also be disclosed.

So legally married same-sex couples have special rights in Congress, the right to ignore disclosure laws.

Ironically, back in 2008 conservative Republicans were screaming their heads off about how Barney Frank’s relationship with a Fannie May executive was a conflict of interest. And they were right.

But now that it comes to applying the rules that Frank must comply with, they’re back to saying that his relationships are inconsequential and should not be treated like real heterosexual relationships.

Make up your mind, boys, you can’t have it both ways.

Exodus President opposes “It Gets Better” campaign

What kind of person would oppose a campaign to combat suicide among gay kids? At what point does one become to opposed to “the homosexual agenda” that they object to telling a kid that the despair they are feeling at that moment will pass, that the oppression they are experiencing will end, that it gets better?

Sadly, there are those with whom we share the planet who are so invested in Culture War and in “us v. them” mentality that they lose sight altogether of the humanity of those with whom they disagree.

This occurs on both sides.

When gay people cannot see religious people in any terms other than “haters” or “Nazis” or when conservatives see gay people only as hedonistic and “enemies of the family”, it justifies any mistreatment that they wish to dole out. Those who differ are no longer people to be persuaded but are instead dehumanized creatures which are deserving of misery, pain, and death. One need no longer keep the instinct to do evil at bay, but can unleash all of one’s inner demons of insecurity and anger and contempt and hatred and care nothing about the consequences. They deserve it.

But usually kids are off limits. Even when throwing intolerance and hate at the “intolerant haters” on the other side, few would go so far as to seek to harm children.

So it shocked me that Alan Chambers, the president of the ex-gay umbrella group Exodus International, would condemn the It Gets Better ad aired by Google Chrome on Tuesday’s episode of GLEE. This program’s goal is clear: discourage suicide, give a message of hope, tell kids to stay alive until it gets better.

But Chambers opposes this campaign, and especially Disney’s lending of Woody to give a message of support (Christian Post):

“Children all over the world, including my two children are fans of ‘Toy Story’ and to see a character like that endorsing something that at this point children have no need to know about, it’s disappointing,” he told The Christian Post.

Chambers, who overcame homosexuality and is now a father of two, suspects that if the commercial airs while he and his children are watching a show and “if they happen to see that and ask questions and if they get the full understanding of what the commercial is actually about, we will have to have the conversation. It’s not something I plan to talk to my kids, 5 and 6, about.”

But it isn’t just Woody’s image that has upset Alan. He disagrees with Woody’s message.

Alan Chambers doesn’t want gay kids to know that it gets better. He doesn’t want them to be aware that Anne Hathaway and President Obama and, yes, Woody all think that they are fine just as they are. He wants them to believe that if they accept themselves and love themselves as gay people then it doesn’t get better; it gets worse.

For organizations like Exodus International, which has thousands of men and women like me who have lived a gay life, it obviously didn’t get better living a gay life for them.

Alan’s message to bullied teens is this: the bullies are right. You are broken and unless you follow the dictates of my beliefs then you will be miserable “living a gay life”. The only way for it to get better is to join Exodus and live a life of struggle and celibacy and eternal hoping for the miraculous.

I was hopeful when Exodus dropped the “Day of Truth”, their school based program for condemning gay students. Alan recognized that this program encouraged and endorsed bullying and – at that time – resolved not to contribute to the problem.

I’m saddened that his resolve seems to have disappeared.

Alan Chambers Prefers “It Gets Worse” Campaign

Sometimes you have to wonder what they’re thinking.

On Tuesday, Google premiered their “It Gets Better” ad, with its message of encouragement for teens who endure endless taunting and bullying over their perceived sexuality. Spurred on by a wave of suicides last autumn, Dan Savage launched the “It Gets Better” campaign in which people all over the world have uploaded videos encouraging young people to just hang in there for just a short while longer. If they can somehow find the strength to do that, then things will almost certainly get better.

Google’s ad shows small snippets of celebrities who have contributed to the project. One of them was the character Woody from “Toy Story,” who says simply “You’ll be fine, partner.” His cameo made up all of two and a half seconds of a ninety second commercial. That was enough to send Exodus International President Alan Chambers into a tizzy:

“Children all over the world, including my two children are fans of ‘Toy Story’ and to see a character like that endorsing something that at this point children have no need to know about, it’s disappointing,” he told The Christian Post.

Chambers, who overcame homosexuality and is now a father of two, suspects that if the commercial airs while he and his children are watching a show and “if they happen to see that and ask questions and if they get the full understanding of what the commercial is actually about, we will have to have the conversation. It’s not something I plan to talk to my kids, 5 and 6, about.”

The conversation Chambers could be having with his children is how to handle themselves if they find themselves being taunted and bullying in school. That’s what the commercial was about. If Chambers really isn’t prepared to have that conversation, then he is really falling down as a father.

But of course, that’s not what Chambers is worried about. It’s the message that, even for gay teens who feel very much alone, it will, at some point, get better. Chambers protests, “”For organizations like Exodus International, which has thousands of men and women like me who have lived a gay life, it obviously didn’t get better living a gay life for them.” Perhaps he’d be happier with an “It Gets Worse” campaign instead. After all, that is at the core of their message:

The Daily Agenda

Today is Cinco de Mayo, which commemorates the Mexican Army’s surprise victory over French forces at the Battle of Puebla in 1862. Outside of the state of Puebla, it is not an official Mexican holiday. In fact, it is more widely celebrated in the United States than it is in Mexico. Mexican-Americans look to the holiday as a celebration of their cultural heritage. For everyone else though, it’s an excuse for faux-Mexican restaurants to break out their cheap tchotchkes, recycle bad 1950’s stereotypes, and promote happy hour specials on Coronas, margaritas and appetizers. Olé!

THE AGENDA:
GOP Presidential Debate: Candidates will gather this evening in Greenville, South Carolina for the first debate of the 2012 primary season. Rep. Ron Paul, Sen. Rick Santorum, former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson and Godfather Pizza magnate Herman Cain will. Missing from the debate will be former Gov. Mit Romney, Mike Huckabee, and New Gingrich. Fred Karger, the first openly gay presidential candidate for a major-party nomination, met the qualifications for the debate, but it looks like he won’t be on the dais either. The debate will be televised by Fox News, the debate’s sponsor, beginning at 9:00 p.m. EST.

National Day of Prayer. The observance is ostensibly open to people of all Judeo-Christian faiths. President Barack Obama issued a proclamation for this year, and it has been an annual official observance since it was first enacted by Congress in 1952 during the height of the red scare. Its constitutionality is currently being challenged. The main web site behind the observance subscribes to Seven Mountains Theology. According to the site, the day is meant to “emphasize prayer for America and its leadership in the seven centers of power: Government, Military, Media, Business, Education, Church and Family.” I don’t know of any pro-LGBT-related events planned in association with the National Day of Prayer, but at least one gay family is determined to make the day theirs.

AIDS Walks this weekend: Charlotte, NC, Cheyenne, WY, Ft. Wayne, IN, Ogunquit, ME, and Poughkeepsie, NY.

Pride celebrations this weekend: Edinburgh, Scotland and Northhampton, MA.

Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin

BIRTHDAYS:
Del Martin,1921. Co-founder of the Daughters of Bilitis and the Council on Religion and the Homosexual, and pioneering Lesbian advocate. Martin and Phyllis Lyon, her partner of 58 years, became the first same-sex couple to be married after the California’s Supreme Court ruling legalizing marriage equality. Del passed away two months later.

If you know of something that belongs on the agenda, please send it here.

A very important, very timely endorsement

A New York newspaper has endorsed the push for marriage equality in New York State:

Homosexuality is a human reality. Most New Yorkers have a friend, colleague or relative gay. It’s time to give these people the opportunity to develop family and community building. Our government should not be in the business of telling people who fall in love or marry.

We expect our senators to act boldly this time, to put their religious beliefs and political interests aside, and really work for all New Yorkers. Our children and grandchildren will remember this legacy and will be grateful.

A bit old hat, really. And is it all that surprising that a NY newspaper endorses same-sex marriage?

But this endorsement is different. Because it actually reads:

La homosexualidad es una realidad humana. La mayoría de los neoyorquinos tienen un amigo, colega o pariente gay. Es hora de darles a estas personas la oportunidad de desarrollar familia y construir comunidades. Nuestro gobierno no debe estar en el negocio de decirle a la gente de quien enamorarse o con quien casarse.

Esperamos que nuestros senadores actúen valientemente esta vez, que pongan sus creencias religiosas e intereses políticos a un lado, y que realmente trabajen para todos los neoyorquinos. Nuestros niños y nietos recordarán este legado y se lo agradecerán.

and comes from El Diario La Prensa, the largest and oldest Spanish-language daily newspaper in New York City. And it comes a week before State Senator Rubin Diaz holds his rally of Hispanic evangelicals to demand that gay couples remain disadvantaged.

Diaz has tried to appeal to identity politics in his fight for inequality, seeking to equate Hispanic ethnicity with anti-gay animus and give it a sheen of defensibleness based on culture. El Diario’s editorial destroys that illusion.

Holder: Decision to Hold DOMA to Heightened Scrutiny Not Political

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) grilled Attorney General Eric Holder earlier this week on the Justice Department’s decision to hold the Defense of Marriage Act to heightened scrutiny in Federal Courts. From that questioning, blogs led with screaming headlines that Gowdy compared same-sex marriage to child molestation and polygamy. He does go there, but doesn’t go very far. More interesting to me is Holder’s discussion of how they came to the decision to hold DOMA to heightened scrutiny. In the process, he cited another case, relating to Miranda rights, in which the Justice Department chose to argue against the constitutionality of a bill passed by Congress. The fact that Gowdy raised that example himself opened the way to Holder’s knocking down the assertion that the Justice Department’s decision was a dramatic departure because of its refusal to defend a bill passed by Congress.

Transcript is available after the jump.

There Are Many Ways To Come Out To Your Father

If you grew up Mormon, one way is to sing “Hey, Soul Sister” on The Voice.

Two Dads, Twelve Kids in Arizona

The Ham family, clockwise from bottom center: "Papa" Roger, Cooper, "Daddy" Steven holding Olivia, Jackson, Michael, Madison, Vanessa, Marcus, Isabel, Logan, Elizabeth, Andrew and Ambrose. (Michael Chow/Arizona Republic)

The Arizona Republic on Monday profiled the family of Steven and Roger Ham, the two gay dads who are the fathers of twelve children who were adopted from foster care in Arizona, where two men can’t marry or adopt children together. Last month, Gov. Jan Brewer signed into law a bill that gives preferential treatment to married couples in state and private adoptions. Even before that law went into effect, Steven and Roger’s quest to bring these children into their home wasn’t an easy one.

“We had to fight to get them,” Roger says. “We had to fight to get them all,” Steven says.

They started out only wanting one child, but when they saw that there were so many kids in the foster care system needing a home — there are 10,514 children in the state’s care presently — they couldn’t stop at one. And besides, their first adopted child, Michael, had four younger brothers and sisters in foster care that he endlessly worried about. Through much legal wrangling, they finally reunited the children in 2004.

“I immediately fell in love with them,” says Heather Shew-Plummer, the caseworker at Aid to the Adoption of Special Kids in Phoenix who handled the Hams’ first nine adoptions. Up to that point, she had worked with 10 or so same-sex couples.

Shew-Plummer felt Steven and Roger were ideal prospective parents – patient, loving, fun and ceaseless advocates for the kids who would come into their care. But she worried they might face extra obstacles in adopting because they were gay.

“They never tried to hide it, but they never made a big deal out of it, either,” Shew-Plummer says. “They didn’t want to change the world. They just wanted to raise their kids.”

The Hams also served as foster parents for 42 children over ten years. Some stayed for just a few days, while others stayed for months.

Two of the Ham’s children were adopted in Washington state, which allows both parents’ names to appear on the birth certificates. The ten adopted in Arizona are legally Steven’s, because Arizona does not allow same-sex couples to adopt, nor does it allow second-parent adoptions. To cover the legal gaps, the couple have drawn up medical powers of attorney and guardianship papers. But even with that, the ten children adopted in Arizona are not entitled to health and Social Security benefits, inheritance rights or, if the parents were to split up, child support from Roger.

And yet the obstacles seem minor compared to the Ham’s determination to care for the children who had such great needs. But it’s not all about the needs. It’s also about the love and support, which is abundant in the Ham household. Sen. Rick Santorum this week denounced adoption and foster parenting by gay couples, saying adoption was a privilege and not a right. The thing is though, I suspect the Hams would agree: it is an enormous privilege, a blessing even. And one that all children deserve, regardless of how their parents are configured.

The Daily Agenda

Keith Haring's "Flowers IV", 1990.

Today is Greenery Day, a Japanese holiday which originally stems from the celebration of Emperor Hirohito’s birthday. Following his death, the national holiday was changed to its present name and, like our Memorial Day, represents an important early summer vacation opportunity.

Otherwise, it’s shaping up to be a slow day today.

AIDS Walks this weekend: Charlotte, NC, Cheyenne, WY, Ft. Wayne, IN, Ogunquit, ME, and Poughkeepsie, NY.

Pride celebrations this weekend: Edinburgh, Scotland and Northhampton, MA.

BIRTHDAYS:
Keith Haring, 1958. Artist and social activist. Inspired by graffiti art in New York, Keith Haring’s bold lines, vivid colors, and simple, active figures became an iconic presence throughout the 1980’s. From his diagnosis of AIDS in 1988 until his death in 1990, his artwork also became the de facto art of AIDS through the work of the Keith Haring Foundation.

If you know of something that belongs on the agenda, please send it here.

Grab a tissue

Google is running the following ad tonight during GLEE. You might want to take a moment to grab a tissue before you watch it.

“Love In Action” Ex-Gay Documentary Premieres Next Month

In June 2005, sixteen-year-old Zach Stark announced on his MySpace blog that his parents were sending him away to an ex-gay youth program after he came out to them. He also posted the program’s rules that he would be forced to live under while locked away in the “therapy” program. The rules were shocking: no contact with the outside world, no diaries or journals, shirts must be worn at all times (including while sleeping), no computer access, no television or radio, no reading materials except those provided by the staff. Thanks to Zach’s blog posts before entering Memphis-based Love In Action, the Exodus-afiliated program became the focus of worldwide controversy and daily protests. “Love In Action” was investigated by the state of Tennessee for child abuse and for operating a separate unliscenced drug and alcohol treatment program. Love In Action eventually settled with the state and shut down their youth program.

Memphis-based documentary filmmaker Morgan Fox began working on a documentary about Love In Action, beginning with Zach’s forced commitment into the program. In 2008, a trailer was released in which Fox caught up with Zach who described his ordeal. But deadlines came and went, and the long-awaited documentary was never released.

Until now. The premiere of This Is What Love in Action Looks Like will take place next month at Frameline 35, the San Francisco International LGBT Film Festival which will be held from June 16 to 26. The documentary features interviews with Zach, then-LIA director John Smid, other former ex-gay leaders and former LIA clients. Some of those former clients spoke out at a 2008 ex-gay survivors meet-up held in Memphis that was hosted by former LIA client Peterson Toscano. (I spoke with one LIA survivor here.)

The documentary’s showtime is not yet available. Here is the film’s trailer:

Rights v. Privileges

A lesbian woman came up to me and said, ‘why are you denying me my right?’ I said, ‘well, because it’s not a right.’ It’s a privilege that society recognizes because society sees intrinsic value to that relationship over any other relationship.

– Former US Senator Rick Santorum speaking about adoption

Those who seek to institutionalize inequality based on their own biases like to say, “that’s not a right, that’s a privilege.” And implied in this statement (often accompanied by a smirk) is the notion that some people deserve preferential treatment and others deserve lesser treatment and that privileges can be doled out or restricted by whim.

You just aren’t good enough, you see. These are privileges for other people, those deemed worthy.

But besides being juvenile, this response displays a fundamental ignorance of the US Constitution. The clause under which discrimination is addressed is not worded in the way that they assume:

Fourteenth Amendment, Section One

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the PRIVILEGES or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. [emphasis added]

You see, Senator Frothy Mix, whether adoption is a right of citizens or a privilege of citizenship, it still is protected from arbitrary applicaion. Oh, and by the way, you really are a pompous ass.

(hat tip JMG)

The Daily Agenda

Beginning today, we will institute a new feature here at BTB called Today’s Agenda, in which we highlight different things going on in the world which impact the LGBT community, as well as an overview of what happened on this date in history. If you have anything that needs to be added to the calendar, please let me know.

TODAY’S AGENDA:
Anti-Discrimination in Adoption and Foster Parenting: Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA), Ranking Member of the Ways and Means Health Subcommittee, will host a press conference and expert panel discussion today to reintroduce the Every Child Deserves a Family Act. This act would ensure that states do not impose discriminatory restrictions on prospective foster and adoptive parents, blocking them from caring for kids who need a stable home. Virginia, Illinois and Arizona have moved prevent people from becoming foster or adoptive parents based on sexual orientation or marital status. Discriminatory restrictions in other states, including Florida and Arkansas, have been the subject of ongoing legal action.

The press conference will begin at 2:30 pm (EST) and the panel begins at 3:00 pm at the U.S. Capitol’s Cannon House Office Building, room 234. 

Community Forum on LGBT Youth Homelessness: Some estimates have it that as many as a quarter of all LGBT teens who come out to their parents were told they had to leave home. Reliable data is hard to come by, but surveys suggest that LGBT youth make up a disproportionate share of the homeless. To address those concerns, there will be a Community Forum on LGBT Youth Homelessnessthis evening in New York at the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender Community Center, Room 101; 208 W. 13th St. from 7:00-9:00. Cathy Renna will moderate a panel featuring:

• Nico Sifra Quintana, co-author of the report On the Streets; The Federal Response to Gay and Transgender Homeless Youth by the Center for American Progress
• Tobias Barrington Wolff, law professor at the University of Pennsylvania
• Kai Wright, editorial director of Colorlines.com and author of Drifting Toward Love: Black, Brown, Gay, and Coming of Age on the Streets of New York.
• Lewis Fidler, New York City Councilmember for the 46th district
• Carl Ciciliano, founder and Executive director of the Ali Forney Center, the largest organization dedicated to homeless LGBT youth in the U.S.

BIRTHDAYS:
William Inge, Pulitzer prize-winning playwright, 1913.

Sir Francis Bacon, looking fabulous as always

TODAY IN HISTORY:
1621: Sir Simonds D’Ewes publishes his political biography of Sir Francis Bacon, in which he accuses the great lawyer, scholar and “father of empiricism” of “his most abominable and darling sin.” D’Ewes continued, “I should rather bury in silence than mention it, were it not a most admirable instance of how men are enslaved by wickedness and held captive by the devil.” D’Ewes accused Bacon of “keeping still one Godrick, a very effeminate-faced youth, to be his catamite and bedfellow… deserting the bed of his Lady.” That same year, Bacon resigned as Lord Chancellor over accusations that he accepted payment from litigants, which, while against the law, was a widespread and accepted practice at the time. He quickly confessed to accepting payments, a confession that may have been prompted by threats to charge him with the capital offense of sodomy.

1921: Dr. Clarence P. Oberndorf, a New York City psychoanalyst, spoke at the Annual Meeting of the Medical Society of the State of New York in Brooklyn about one of his patients, a 74-year-old Civil War veteran who suffered from depression, saying “For sixty years I have been leading a double life.” He became aware of his feelings for other men at a very early age. “He preferred rough, coarse men, like longshoremen, husky and full of vitality. These he sought at intervals, while his acquaintances knew him as a refined gentleman interested in art and literature.” He never married. “In my younger days,” he remarked, “I used to grieve because of my affliction, but in later years I have become indifferent.”

Oberndorf’s goal was not to cure homosexuality per se. “Where treatment is undertaken for passive homoerotism in the male,” — active homosexuals, or “tops,” were not considered truly homosexual in the early 20th century — “psychoanalysis may powerfully influence the attitude of the patient toward his malady by removing some of the urgent neurotic fears which accompany the inversion. After analysis such an invert at least feels himself more reconciled to his passive homoeroticism than previously. I have had male passive homoerotics seek treatment with just such stipulations — not to be cured but to be made more content with their lives.”

Why We Won’t Link To Denver Post, Las Vegas Review-Journal, Salt Lake Tribune, and Several Others

The basic mode of internet debate and information sharing is pretty simple. People read things they find interesting, and they post what they find onto blogs and other web outlets for others to read and comment on. Quoting is an integral part of that process — that and linking; hyperlinks are the defining feature of the world wide web. Quoting and linking, as the Electronic Freedom Foundation observes, allows online discussions to thrive by “showing others the original text before adding a commentary or response. Accurate quoting is a virtue of Internet discussion that can minimize mischarcterization and support progress in a debate.”

This business of quoting and linking, which is a far more accurate way of sharing information than what might pass for social media in previous decades — picture your grandfather swapping stories at the barbershop or your mother at the hairdressers — has dramatically changed the way we access information in the 21st century.

Newspaper chains, in particular, have struggled mightily with this changing environment, and not altogether successfully. Some journalists have come to view bloggers as parasites. They say bloggers wouldn’t exist without the reporting done at newspapers. I think that is an exaggeration. At BTB, we do try to provide our own analysis and, in some cases stories, which are independent from what we find in the news media. But to be certain, probably about 90% of what we post has as its origin a story we find published in a newspaper, television, radio, or other online news organizations. And when we find those stories, we provide direct quotes (often in the form of blockquotes) with links back to the where we found it.

We believe that this practice is important. By providing blockquotes, we let the source material speak for itself without any inadvertent inaccuracies or biases which may creep in if we were to paraphrase it. And by providing links, we allow you, the reader, to click through for more information. Of course, we cannot copy the source material in its entirety, nor can we copy major portions of it. That would violate copyright laws, which is a very serious issue. But copyright laws do allow us to copy small portions of source material for commentary and discussion purposes.

As I said, copyright laws — or more specifically, copyright lawsuits — are serious business. And now, three newspaper chains have discovered that filing copyright lawsuits can become yet another profit center. The problem is, their definition of copyright infringement not only contradicts copyright law, but also poses a serious threat to bloggers and other online outlets everywhere.

Righthaven LLC is a copyright holding company which acquires “rights” to newspaper content after finding the content published on other web sites without permission, and files lawsuits against those web site. Righhaven was created as a partnership with Stephens Media, publisher of the Las Vegas Review-Journal, and their business model rests entirely on suing web site owners and operators for extravagant “damages” as a shakedown exercise. (“Rights” are in quotes, because, contrary to what is required under copyright law, Righthaven doesn’t actually acquire any legitimate copyright “rights,” which is yet another problem with their business model.)  Two other newspaper chains, WEHCO Media and Media News Group have entered into agreements with Righthaven to split the profits from lawsuits stemming from their respective newspapers’ contents.

The three newspaper chains partnering with Righthaven represent some very important voices in the newspaper industry, including the Las Vegas Review-Journal, Denver Post, Salt Lake Tribune, San Jose Mercury News, Oakland Tribune, St. Paul Pioneer Press, Detroit News, El Paso Times, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, and Charleston Daily Mail.

What distinguishes Righthaven’s practices from more reasonable measures against copyright infringement is that Righthaven has never issued a takedown notice to any of their targeted web sites. Instead, the first inkling a web site owner has that there is something wrong is when he or she receives a summons announcing that a lawsuit has been filed in federal court. There is no warning whatsoever. And Righthaven’s demands are excessive: $150,000 for a single infringement and the surrendering of the domain name to Righthaven. That last demand, which has no basis in copyright law whatsoever, is the hammer Righthaven uses to extort money from some of the more significant web sites. Major victims include the Drudge Report, Democratic Underground, Free Republic, and Raw Story Media. Imagine if they had been forced to surrender their domain names. They would immediately cease to exist.

Righthaven’s tactics seem to be working. With the exception of Democratic Underground, the majors have found it cheaper and safer to safeguard their most precious property — their domain names — by paying thousands of dollars in undisclosed settlements — even when copyright law is on their side under what’s known as “Fair Use.” Those settlements are in addition to lawyer fees they’ve paid to defend themselves in the process. In other words, it doesn’t matter whether Righthaven has the law on their side. What matters is that merely by filing a claim in Federal court, Righthaven’s target is already out several thousands of dollars right out of the gate.

But Righthaven doesn’t go after just big name web sites. They’ve targeted hundreds of much smaller bloggers and web site operators in their shakedown operation. Most of these victims are not professionals, but run their web sites either out of personal passion or as a hobby. They, too, have been tapped for undisclosed thousands of dollars, all because they copied more than a couple of paragraphs or a photo. One blogger was an autistic teen. He’s on disability due to brittle diabetes requiring around-the-clock care. Another was a Gulf War veteran nurse who wrote about Gulf War illnesses and veterans issues. Most recently, Pam’s House Blend was hit with a drive-by lawsuit which, according to Pam Spaulding, has effectively bankrupted the web site.

While Righthaven hasn’t directly threatened BTB, the existential threat to this web site remains. Like everyone else, we scour the web for news and content that we believe will be of interest to our readers. As part of that effort, we never copy entire articles, but we do follow the common practice of excerpting blockquotes from the articles we find. This practice is in full compliance with U.S. copyright laws. But as I said, the fact that copyright laws are on our side is irrelevant. If Righthaven were to lodge a bogus complaint in Federal court against us, that act alone would be financially catastrophic.

Let me be clear: we do take copyrights seriously. We have issued informal takedown notices to other web sites that have posted our content illegally, and we’ve had satisfactory results with that approach — an approach that Righthaven obviously finds unprofitable. We fully accept the principles of copyright ownership, and we strive always to comply with the law. But sometimes mistakes happen. We may use a photo from another web site without knowing that the photo originally came from somewhere else. (In fact, that’s exactly what happened to Pam Spaulding.) Whenever we are made aware of a copyright issue, we will always make every effort to address the problem while maintaining our rights within the Fair Use parameters of copyright law. But what we cannot accept is Righthaven’s approach of going straight for litigation and threatening the very existence of its targeted websites through the forcible transfer of victims’ domain names.

And so to protect ourselves and this web site, we will no longer cite any content from Denver Post, Las Vegas Review-Journal, Salt Lake Tribune, or any of the other news sources listed here. There will be no links, no blockquotes, nothing. For the most part, it will be as if these sources simply don’t exist.

But if it happens that, for example, the Denver Post has an exclusive story that no one else has, we will do what the Associated Press does whenever the New York Times breaks a story. We will write about the story by paraphrasing the Post’s article, but we will not quote from it or provide a link to it — just like the Associated Press does. There will be however one tweak from standard AP practice: we will provide a link, but it will be to an explanation as to why there is no link. It will look something like this:

“The Denver Post (no link) reports blah, blah, blah…”

I’m not laboring under the delusion that these vast media empires will suddenly collapse due to a lack of links from BTB. This is not an economic boycott to bring these behemoths to their knees. Nor are we doing this in anticipation of starting a movement of other web operators to avoid these media outlets. Whether others follow in our footsteps will be their decision. We’re taking this step solely as an attempt at ensuring BTB’s continued existence.

We put in many hours for this web site, hours that we scrounge together whenever we can because we all have full-time jobs elsewhere. We don’t get paid for the work we do on BTB, but the work has nevertheless been rewarding in other ways. One reader introduced himself to me at an ex-gay survivor’s conference a few years ago by saying, “You’re the reason I finally found the courage to come out.” And just three weeks ago, I received an email from a reader in Africa who was responding to this post about George Oundo, who had been paid by Ugandan pastors to pose as “ex-gay.” This reader describes himself as an isolated gay man who is too afraid to connect with others in the local gay community. He wrote:

On an internal level, for many years I thought the ex-gay movement had tons of appeal and merit, especially during periods of heartbreak and during periods of rejection from anti-gay society, which includes almost all Ugandans and religious people I know. I first found BTB years ago when I was Googling “ex-gay” because, (like I still do sometimes) I was so tired of all the hate, the pressure and the loneliness which are often erroneously attributed to being gay. When I found BTB on Google, Dan Gonzales’ articles and videos helped me understand the ex-gay movement a lot better. But even with that progress, it’s a daily uphill battle just trying not to regress in hostile environments.

These readers are why we put in the many hours that we do for this web site. This work is too critical for too many people to allow it to fall victim to greed from the Denver Post and Las Vegas Review-Journal and others. With these policy changes, it is our aim to remain a clear and reliable voice for the LGBT community worldwide, to the best of our meager ability and for a long time to come.

Bob Barr on conservatism

During his eight years (1995 – 2003) in the House of Representatives, Bob Barr (R-GA) was best know for his partisanship and conservative advocacy. Long an advocate of Second Amendment rights and suspicious of governmental spending – which he saw in terms of governmental encroachment on a free people – Barr seemingly found no inconsistency in toeing Republican Party positions which supported governmental encroachment on a number of social issues.

In addition to being a strong advocate for the Federal Government’s “war on drugs”, Barr took a leading role in opposing rights for gay people. In 1996, he was the author and chief supporter of the Defense of Marriage Act.

But the bombing of the World Trade center in 2001, coupled with the federal government’s crack down on civil freedoms, woke Barr up. His libertarianism ceased to be (as it is for many Republicans) a platitude around which exceptions are the norm and he began to question whether many of the positions he had one time championed were not actually in direct violation to the principles which he espoused.

Barr’s turn around has been dramatic. In 2006 he left the Republican Party and registered as Libertarian, serving as that party’s presidential candidate two years later. And he has also advocated for the legalization of marijuana.

But perhaps the most unexpected of Barr’s reversals has been his public repudiation of his most notable action in Congress, DOMA. Interestingly, this is not, I suspect, based out of some newfound appreciation for gay people; rather, it seems to flow from a newfound respect for freedom, individual autonomy, and constitutional equality.

Consequently, Barr speaks very differently from other advocates for the reversal of anti-gay governmental discrimination. His is not an advocacy that rails as “the bigots” but rather speaks to the ideals that permeate the writing, if not the thinking, of the Republican Party and it’s leaders.

Speaking over the weekend at the Log Cabin Republicans National Convention, Barr spoke specifically of marriage and the government’s role.

A federal law that burdens a fundamental right is – should – be deemed in violation of the principle of equal protection. When viewed as a fundamental personal decision on the right to associate, it clearly falls within the ambit of the XIV Amendment’s notion of “privileges or immunities.” Prohibitions against same-sex marriage violate the equal protection clause by placing more than a burden on this right – an outright prohibition for one group of individuals to exercise that right legally and to have their contracts enforced by the courts.

This is interesting language in that it brings up a point that our community can sometimes overlook. We tend to talk in terms of what marriage means to us: rights, responsibilities, community, recognition, and equality. Yes, marriage restriction does infringe on hospital visitation and inheritance tax. But those are not particularly strong arguments to those who may see changing visitation rules and tax codes as a solution.

Barr focuses instead on what we, as a people, have the right to expect and demand from our government.

As Linda Harvey flippantly says (and entirely misunderstands) we already can marry, and – contrary to Harvey’s assumptions – we can marry the person we love. And we may marry in every state, in every nation, anywhere we may find ourselves.

Marriage is a contract, a social, emotional, and financial agreement based on terms, conditions, and promises. These vows we may pledge, be it in front of an alter with family, friends and God as witness, or privately and quietly.

We can marry; that isn’t really our issue. Our issue is whether the state will recognize and enforce this contract.

And we have the right to demand that it do so. And opponents who argue that we can have wills, and powers of attorney, and ‘designated funeral-planning agent’ forms to provide “many of the same benefits” should be made to explain why it is that the state may enforce those contracts, but not the one we have already made.

But it is not specific issues, such as gay marriage or gay military service, that should be the focus for conservatives. Such thinking puts the emphasis on the who, not the what.

Barr believes, as do I, that in our approach to policy, we ought not start with the impact some law may have on gay people, but rather on whether any people should be subjected to some arbitrary control over their lives, regardless of their demographic. And it is that argument that can appeal to the principles of some who may never come to see us as morally equal but who can, nevertheless, see us as civilly and legally equal.

What many so-called conservatives fail to realize also is that defending traditional notions of morality (if consistency is to be a component also of our political philosophy) ought to include keeping the government as much out of our personal lives as possible and limiting its power as much as possible. And, speaking of morality, using the collective power of the state to do what individuals cannot do – impose the will of one group of people on another set of people – is truly immoral. We each were endowed by our Creator with one life and we should be free to live it as we see fit, so long as we do not harm another.

Click here to read the red of Barr’s eloquent and thought provoking speech