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 lobbyDecember 10th, 2011
Two hearings took place on Thursday before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. The first hearing considered whether the video tapes taken during the Prop 8 trial should be released:
The second hearing was probably the most entertaining, where judges considered the question of whether being gay and having a partner made Federal District Judge Vaughn Walker ineligible to serve as judge in the case. Because, you know, divorced judges can’t rule in divorce cases, or something.
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:
tim
December 10th, 2011
I love watching Judges being all … what’s the word … “judgmental”.
And Cooper going off the deep end during his rebuttal was priceless.
TwirlyGirly
December 10th, 2011
Watching Cooper in that second video was FAR more entertaining than anything offered on TV this afternoon – and I have cable!!!!
Timothy Kincaid
December 10th, 2011
Trials should not be televised! Unless, of course, they are trails about whether trials should be televised.
Amidst all the artificial concern about the witnesses (one of whose testimony was limited to testifying that gay people have political allies and the other of which said he is not afraid of reprisals) there is an obvious omission.
There have been, to my knowledge, no actual threats against the witnesses. Yes, they have been called names (mostly undeservedly) but no one has suggested that “something should be done” about them.
Judge Walker, on the other hand, would have a good case if he wanted the tapes squelched. He has been the target of more than a few veiled threats.
Regan DuCasse
December 10th, 2011
Cooper’s performance at the end made it hard NOT to laugh. He just goes around in circles and apparently isn’t being honest about Walker’s obligation.
1. As pointed out, Walker made no public statements or known conclusions about marriage equality and it’s outcomes where in pertains to himself.
2. No clerks or other people close to Walker have an interest in the outcome.
3. And he himself never applied for a marriage license, nor said he had a desire to marry.
Ms. Stewart was right: Cooper is demanding the court ASSUME Walker wanted to marry on the basis of being gay, and being in a long term relationship. Rheinhart reiterated that it’s reasonable to assume someone WOULD want to marry, who was in a particular situation like that.
But as Stewart pointed out, there is no EVIDENCE that is true.
And Cooper is ONLY making a big deal out of it based on Walker’s orientation and relationship and assuming things about it, and NOTHING else.
Well, the courts can’t support an ASSUMPTION.
They can’t support stereotypes, nor challenge the partiality of a justice based on no evidence, or facts or lack of CLOSE relationships to the plaintiffs or defendants.
Indeed, Cooper wanted complete disqualification based on something Walker had no obligation to disclose in truth, because he may not actually KNOW how he felt about marrying his partner. You can’t disclose what you don’t really know for sure.
However much he might benefit from his own decision.
Cooper really IS looking for an activist judge to legislate from the bench and not read or decide the law based on facts and evidence.
I wonder if Cooper and Co and NOM would agree to recusal of six of SCOTUS. By NOM’s logic, the majority of SCOTUS is disqualified because they belong to a religious order, that leads the charges against gay people and financially and politically supports continued discrimination.
To say nothing of benefitting from the outcome of a Prop. 8 decision at that level.
Double standards indeed.
iDavid
December 10th, 2011
Regan you are right about assumptions. The defendant’s case is all based on assumption i.e. “if gay marriage is passed into law, the future of the institution of marriage will be negatively affected.” Of course, as with all their “arguments” there is no rational basis in fact.
One thing that was not brought up was that Judge Vaughn would most likely (and I assume here) have weighed whether he was recusable or not, and in reflection found that he wasn’t. I’d think any judge in such a case would have felt accountable to himself and the public to observe such reflection. I see Judge Walker as doing nothing less.
I think Cooper’s emotional short circuit during his closing statement was his intense and unsettling realization he had just blown his case, and therefore went internally ballistic. The judges basically laughed him off with their questions regarding whether heterosexuals would have to recuse themselves since they were of a mind to uphold traditional marriage, or a married judge would have to recuse in a divorce case. Then Bois b-lined Cooper’s case like a hive of hornets. That venom had to puncture even the strongest veil of denial, as Cooper’s response attested.
The only thing missing was a Cooper/Stewart physical match. They both were emotionally lit enough for a full on throw-down. But then again, we have no idea what may have transpired in the parking lot.
I can honestly say this beat any humorous legal theater Boston Legal or Harry’s Law could have provided.
Thanks for the post Jim.
MJC
December 12th, 2011
Regan, I agree with your statement and the sentiments therein, but I have a small technical quibble. You refer to the Catholicism of six members of the Supreme Court. But being Catholic is NOT “belonging to a religious order.” In fact, there are only a few religious orders WITHIN the Catholic Church: the Benedectines, Dominicans, Franciscans, Augustinians. These are ancient monastic or mendicant orders which contain both ordained and unordained members. All others (e.g., Jesuits any group following them historically) are correctly members of religious Congregations.
The correct appellation for the members of the SCOTUS who are Catholic is “Catholic”.
The fervor of their religion should not be assumed. Justice Kennedy, for example, was decisive in overturning the Texas sodomy law. Scalia and Thomas are, granted, much more orthodox, based on their public statements.
None of what I write here should be taken to mitigate the Catholic Church’s horrendous record of bigotry against gay people, made only worse by their own record of the sexual abuse of minors.
Mark
Leave A Comment